...does that sound about right? I made up my own little skidpad test track (that I may release for people to do testing/setup at some future point), and found that the rTrainer pulls 2.35 g's around a 50m radius using the default TDF values (1.00 Dry Grip). I was averaging about 76mph. I also did not use a RealRoad surface. So, I'm guessing that means this would be the equivalent to a completely green track?
Yep, back of the envelope calculation I get 2.35g as well ignoring wind resistance and friction. I would be very keen on having a test track like that (I started a thread in tracks asking if something like this was available) so I could test various physics parameters myself.
I know the rtrainer is based on the "school" formula 2000 cars, like the ones at jim russell, skip barber, and a couple others. I did a super super quick google search and seen 2 or 3 stating 1.5g's and a couple stating 1.2g's. Those might be the softer detuned cars with the high performance street tyres, softer rollbars (or no rollbars at all), etc, they may not be quoting the stiffer more "hardcore" versions with the full slicks, stiffer more serious setup. I got a quote from REAL F2000's, not the school versions, read below... CFGP Van Diemen F2000 Racing CFGP China Formula Grand Prix Formula 2000. CFGP, formerly known as AGF [Asia Geely Formula], is in its 5th year in China and features large competitive race grids at various international-grade circuits. The series features a low season cost of approximately $18200usd for the five weekend, ten race Championship, with individual weekends priced at $4900usd. CFGP utilizes a semi-monocoque British Van Diemen chassis mated to a Geely engine. Due to its favorable power to weight ratio, top speed on the straight at Shanghai International F1 Circuit is over 220kph with 0-100kph in less than 5 seconds. The car will exceed 2.5G's in cornering. Internationally, the Van Diemen is raced in several professional race series as Formula SCCA and Formula 2000. So over 2.5g's, i read quickly where someone else stated 2.5 g's, and someone said 2.0g's. So it seems the school ones are quoted at 1.2 to 1.5, the real ones at 2.0 - 2.5, now that just leaves the school cars but with a more proper less forgiving setup and full slicks, are they somewhere in between? Hard to say, plus im sure g's get higher the quciker you go due to downforce so the speed this is measured at can make a difference too. Hard to say..... But the detuned ones with street tyres 1.2 to 1.5 that doesnt sound too un-realistic to me.
2.35 g sounds too much to me! aren't they always super happy to pull about 1.6g with a sportscar with street tyres? i would guess the rTrainer should pull something around 1.4g
You can´t realy compare a small formula car with a weight around 500Kg with a Sportscar which weight 1500Kg, this alone makes a hugh difference, not to speak about downforce. The formula car is equipped with slicks, the Sportscar only with street tires or semi-slicks at best. Therefor the rTrainer must have a higher cornerspeed, and i dont think these 2.35g is very far from reality.
I thought these cars weren't actually officially released. They are there just as a placeholder for the developer mode.
Ok, this is totally my bad......I'd recently reset my .plr file in DevMode, and didn't realize it was still in kph. So, yeah, my calculations were WAAAYY off. Also, I was using a controller and various aids (traction control, stability control). So, I tried again using my wheel, and I was able to pull 1.14g around the 50m radius (53mph). I also tried at a 10m radius and got about 1.08g. It looks like the rTrainer is using street tires, so these numbers sound about 'right'. I didn't warm up the tires or anything, I just went straight at it.
the rtrainers use street tires! you can see that in the garage settings for them. furthermore i would say they hardly have more downforce than an high performance sportscar - do you see any fancy wings on the rtrainer? i only see the rear wing. and about those 500kg: centrifugal forces are proportional to mass, and also grip is proportional to mass. so a car with 500kg may be a little faster around corners for several other reasons, but i can't be because of that, that it can pull twice the cornering force...
So you're arguing that a vehicle that weighs 5 tonnes could corner just as well as a 500kg vehicle? Or are you just implying that the numbers are off slightly? The research seems to indicate otherwise, though as our initial estimate of 2.35g seems to be flawed anyway this is all rather moot I guess.
haha man, i hate beeing a non native speaker...i'm bad at making my points in english. i just wanted to say, that a car weighing 500kg can't pull about twice the cornering forces than a car weighing 1700kg, IF they both use similar tires, just because it is light. the lighter cars are mostly built to have a lower moment of inertia and a lower center of mass, that makes them pull more g's, but that alone can't make them pull twice the g's
Exactly. Typically a tire's cornering ability doesn't go up in a 1-to-1 ratio with load. Thus the whole point of downforce--increase the load on the tire, but keep its moment of inertia the same (or thereabouts). Plus, aerodynamics aside, static weight is not a direct indication of load on a given tire in a corner. If static weight was the only factor in how well a car could handle, then there wouldn't be any need for different setups of the car.
The 2.35g calculated was not flawed. It was based on the information given, 76mph around a 50m radius corner. Think about that physically, it's quite quick around a fairly tight corner so over 2g makes sense (plus physics equations doesn't lie!). Using the new numbers, quoted from blakboks. 50m radius @53mph. That equates to 1.145g. Again, ignoring friction and wind resistance.
yes the calculation was not flawed. i never doubted that, i calculated the same values. i just doubted that the rtrainer kann pull that.
oh come on! blakboks initially asked, if 2.35g's sounds just about right to us, and i wanted to point out, that it doesn't do that to me - which proofed right. i just wanted to make that point, and as long as i don't actually mod something that way and just want to point something out, the 2.35 he said are about twice the 1.4 i said. i didn't bother to write, that it's actually 1.678571425 as much, i am very sorry about that.
1. When the poster asked if 2.35 g's sounded flawed he meant is that too much for that sort of car, not is the math right. 2. It is flawed, try reading the post, he switched kilometers and miles by mistake and came up with a lower much more realistic number thereafter.
