I think that the Mini is a little bouncy at the back but I had some real fun with them last night. Real fun. Brands was brilliant and so was Cadwell Park. I had no other issues with it and the original was quite bouncy anyway with the rubber cone suspension but I think its slightly too much in this version but I am being seriously picky and have not looked at setups yet at all. The liveries look wonderful as does the car model. A whole field of these sliding around is epic.
I'm still traveling and I haven't been able to try the new content, I had a mini 1100 I don't remember if it had a double carburetor, that was many years ago, but the mini hardly has any weight behind it and it is normal for it to bounce and it was always a lot of fun and very agile from behind
I know they bounce, I had one for years but I just think the back end is a bit too much so here, but it does not significantly detract from the experience, in fact I had an absolute blast last night. If you had one, I think you will be very pleased with how this car handles.
I'm traveling away from home, but I'm eager to get there to try the new content, after trying most of the simulators I only use rfactor, and I'm nervous about getting there and trying everything new
Power to weight ratio is great. sorry for not being able to do everything in a single post, I'm clumsy with the mobile phone and the translator,sorry
Man hitting curbs in this thing is a riot. I must have just spent the first hour trying to drive on two wheels. I think I got about 30 meters or so!
That's Crystal Palace circuit isn't it? That sort of crash could ruin your day! But yes that's a bit like how it is in sim, but with tiny wheels it gets pitched up quite nicely.
I do not remember if the Mini Cooper came to have hydroelastic suspension anchoring the front right wheel with the rear right
I've been trying to do a Russ Swift but unfortuately it seems once the tire gets to a certain angle the tyre physics of it fall apart and just turn the car over no matter what you do
Gio, I think that's not entirely true, the Mini adopted Hydrolastic suspension in 64 but dropped it in favour of the rubber cone later in about 74. The original cars from 59 to 64 had rubber cone and I thought but could be wrong that many of the cooper S cars continued to use rubber cone as a weight saving measure even after adoption of the hydrolastic system on the production cars. I might be a bit out on dates etc but pretty sure that I'm not far wrong. I have a mate with a 63 cooper and thats definately running on rubber cones.
As I said, I was not sure, there were vehicles that were, but probably only some specific ones, it was not the case with mine, but when I bought it they offered me an option, many years ago and I cannot remember, it is true that I put a fan on it to cool the radiator that barely got air, since it was close to the fender, but the suspension is not sure how many models and what eras
Academy ffb is a about 25% of the average car in rF2 with my setup. Increasing Caster in both the Academy and the Mini resulted in stronger ffb. Prior to that change, at 100% strength, the academy provides almost zero lateral force (SAT). The Mini has smaller tires so, no surprise that it has weaker ffb but, still twice that of the Academy. Some report the Academy as providing no ffb at all because it's so weak. So, it seems to be relative to the ffb system being used but, having to increase the strength by 3-4 times seems a bit much.
I haven't tested them yet but by the mixed reactions it seems many people here expect the FFB to feel the same as other cars even though they are vastly different. Isn't it a joy to feel, not only see, that you're driving a very different car? These are small cars, light, with small contact patches and no aero. Let them be that way and enjoy variety. Maybe it's just a matter of getting used to them.