Jump to content
Scheduled Updates and BETA Shutdown - 06/07/2020 Read more... ×

Anti-Rake?

Recommended Posts

On 10/15/2019 at 11:07 AM, Nikeros77 said:

Let's cut to the chase. You have a setup with a 4-5 or 4-6 rake that works just great at Spa, COTA, Suzuka. silverstone or Monza? give it to me, and I'll check it out.

Your silence is deafening, but it's exactly what I expected from you when I asked you to put your money where your mouth is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nikeros77 said:

Your silence is deafening, but it's exactly what I expected from you when I asked you to put your money where your mouth is.

😂sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys those are setting numbers not cm or mm from the ground. a 6 front setting is not the same 6 rear rideheight setting. The car already comes at a rake at 6 6 ride height. 

By lowering the rear, you have less rake, which turns into less drag but less rear downforce. In turn it does also affect the front and have less front downforce (not much tho).

It does help the car in slow corners as the centre of mass will be closer to the ground, so actually in slower corners you will feel better traction and more grip in general.

Setup is all about compromise as you all well know, and also the way we setup the cars in this game is different. If in iRacing, AC or rFactor you can actually set the distance of the front and rear of the car to the ground, in F1 you cannot see that value.

Out of the top of my mind, I think you have to set something like 10 1 to have a negative rake, but I can guarantee the car will be pretty bad to drive.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 8:52 AM, David Greco said:

Guys those are setting numbers not cm or mm from the ground. a 6 front setting is not the same 6 rear rideheight setting. The car already comes at a rake at 6 6 ride height. 

By lowering the rear, you have less rake, which turns into less drag but less rear downforce. In turn it does also affect the front and have less front downforce (not much tho).

It does help the car in slow corners as the centre of mass will be closer to the ground, so actually in slower corners you will feel better traction and more grip in general.

Setup is all about compromise as you all well know, and also the way we setup the cars in this game is different. If in iRacing, AC or rFactor you can actually set the distance of the front and rear of the car to the ground, in F1 you cannot see that value.

Out of the top of my mind, I think you have to set something like 10 1 to have a negative rake, but I can guarantee the car will be pretty bad to drive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the answer I was looking for.  So a setup of e.g  4 - 4 ride height has a rake built into it already and the numbers don't actually refer to 'height'. That makes sense, I suppose, if you want to keep it simple,  but why do they keep it a secret that the car has a built in rake ? Maybe I'm just over complicating a simple game setting. Oh well, thanks for the input, mate. Much appreciated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things like this needs to be better explained in game I've been playing f1 games since the early 90's codemasters have had the rights to the game since 2010 so since then I've always thought a e.g. 4-4 ride height were at an equal level there's no rake in my mind (when not knowing any different) because it's the same value in numbers. I've mentioned before maybe last year's game that when it comes to setting your car up there needs to be an actual diagram showing and explaining what each click of the slider button actually does to the car just like in dirt 2.0 which is a codemasters product so surely can be interigated. 

Thanks for your response though that snippet of infomation as helped me understand more that part of the setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 3:52 PM, David Greco said:

Guys those are setting numbers not cm or mm from the ground. a 6 front setting is not the same 6 rear rideheight setting. The car already comes at a rake at 6 6 ride height. 

By lowering the rear, you have less rake, which turns into less drag but less rear downforce. In turn it does also affect the front and have less front downforce (not much tho).

It does help the car in slow corners as the centre of mass will be closer to the ground, so actually in slower corners you will feel better traction and more grip in general.

Setup is all about compromise as you all well know, and also the way we setup the cars in this game is different. If in iRacing, AC or rFactor you can actually set the distance of the front and rear of the car to the ground, in F1 you cannot see that value.

Out of the top of my mind, I think you have to set something like 10 1 to have a negative rake, but I can guarantee the car will be pretty bad to drive.

Things like this needs to be better explained in game I've been playing f1 games since the early 90's codemasters have had the rights to the game since 2010 so since then I've always thought a e.g. 4-4 ride height were at an equal level there's no rake in my mind (when not knowing any different) because it's the same value in numbers. I've mentioned before maybe last year's game that when it comes to setting your car up there needs to be an actual diagram showing and explaining what each click of the slider button actually does to the car just like in dirt 2.0 which is a codemasters product so surely can be interigated. 

Thanks for your response though that snippet of infomation as helped me understand more that part of the setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 1:26 AM, Striker_703 said:

I'm good with debating @SIMRACER123 but I'm not dealing with punk or a troll, which you're out to be. Your comments are proving such. It would be good if you've done some research along with doing some testing on issues. I'm happy to bring my thirty plus years of sim-racing, arcade-racing to the community. But as I stated before I will not deal with a punk or a troll for that matter. So if you want to help! Take a step back rethink and move on. 

You can have a hundred years worth of experience, that doesn't do anything to discount the fact that you do not understand the basic principles of aerodynamics. I will never claim to be any sort of expert, but the basics are pretty obvious.

The less air underneath the car, the less the air pressure, inversely increasing the sucking power (ground effect). If you speed up air, what happens? Yes, less air pressure, thus more downforce. Thus, letting more air in under the car = aero disaster.

Another way of creating faster airflow under a car, is creating a bigger outlet for it at the rear, and how do you do that? Yes, a bigger diffuser. Higher rake creates a similar effect, but only up to a point as making it 50CM high at the rear would simply let too much air enter from the sides.

I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense - it's as obvious as one can put it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post was initially made because there were some leaderboard setups showing a reverse rake with the front higher than the back.  As mentioned before, it may have been a glitch in how it was saved and the original setup wasn't actually like that.  Formula/open wheel cars obviously would be a disaster if they ran with that configuration. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DaleRossi said:

This post was initially made because there were some leaderboard setups showing a reverse rake with the front higher than the back.  As mentioned before, it may have been a glitch in how it was saved and the original setup wasn't actually like that.  Formula/open wheel cars obviously would be a disaster if they ran with that configuration. 

Exactly. Just thought he needs an itroduction to the actual facts in case he's still roaming around.

Another misconception people have, is that the wings are absolute, when they're relative. I.e. 11 at Monza is a lot skinnier than at Monaco.

Edited by Ho3n3r
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 9:15 AM, Ho3n3r said:

You can have a hundred years worth of experience, that doesn't do anything to discount the fact that you do not understand the basic principles of aerodynamics. I will never claim to be any sort of expert, but the basics are pretty obvious.

The less air underneath the car, the less the air pressure, inversely increasing the sucking power (ground effect). If you speed up air, what happens? Yes, less air pressure, thus more downforce. Thus, letting more air in under the car = aero disaster.

Another way of creating faster airflow under a car, is creating a bigger outlet for it at the rear, and how do you do that? Yes, a bigger diffuser. Higher rake creates a similar effect, but only up to a point as making it 50CM high at the rear would simply let too much air enter from the sides.

I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense - it's as obvious as one can put it.

OK LOL! Another person who doesn't know who I am or what I know. I know more about aerodynamics and fluid-motions more than you understand. I'll just leave it at that. Have a nice day.     

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Striker_703 said:

OK LOL! Another person who doesn't know who I am or what I know. I know more about aerodynamics and fluid-motions more than you understand. I'll just leave it at that. Have a nice day.     

I for one am very glad I don't know you, and I hope to keep it that way.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 2:41 PM, Nikeros77 said:

I for one am very glad I don't know you, and I hope to keep it that way.

Sorry! I don't have an ego LOL!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From looking at my data recorded over and over to combat the lack of traction with using a wheel and compare it with pad user data, the math/code associated with Codies setup tool with car handling, physics and performance DOES NOT apply to real world logic. In other words, I have tried every which solution to reduce wheel slippage to increase traction with real world logic and it does not work. Sometimes, the Codies math equals solutions that DIFFIDENTLY NOT WORK in real world, hence, @DaleRossi question about a higher front rake. Honestly, the UI Setup screen doesn't translate, unless, there was a tool to understand the relation of the changes made to car and how that visually looks or understanding the visual posture of the car when making changes. Also, it would be amazing to see the performance calculations when making the changes like they do with other sim games. They don't do this because the setup code associated with the car performance is more based on manipulating the games poorly written physics engine vs. real world understanding. Again, and other words, its Codemaster's view of the world and not what translates to the world we live in. Its called, lazying coding. That is why we see all the same setups. @BarryBL

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShelbyUSA said:

From looking at my data recorded over and over to combat the lack of traction with using a wheel and compare it with pad user data, the math/code associated with Codies setup tool with car handling, physics and performance DOES NOT apply to real world logic. In other words, I have tried every which solution to reduce wheel slippage to increase traction with real world logic and it does not work. Sometimes, the Codies math equals solutions that DIFFIDENTLY NOT WORK in real world, hence, @DaleRossi question about a higher front rake. Honestly, the UI Setup screen doesn't translate, unless, there was a tool to understand the relation of the changes made to car and how that visually looks or understanding the visual posture of the car when making changes. Also, it would be amazing to see the performance calculations when making the changes like they do with other sim games. They don't do this because the setup code associated with the car performance is more based on manipulating the games poorly written physics engine vs. real world understanding. Again, and other words, its Codemaster's view of the world and not what translates to the world we live in. Its called, lazying coding. That is why we see all the same setups. @BarryBL

 

 

 

Very interesting, mate. I've never used a pad - only a wheel, but I've always found that the setups used by say the top 50 people in the time trial rankings are strange to say the least. Using a front wing of 1 and a rear wing of 10 and balancing out the aero imbalance with weight is a bit absurd, but that's obviously what works in this game to get a really good lap time. I try these setups and go faster, but it is an assault on my sense of logic, so I inevitably go back to a more realistic setup which is frustrating because it's simply not as fast. These codie nerds must be completely devoid of knowledge about actual race cars or they have their own little set of standards. The old EA Sports F1 2001 was set up so much better than this game although the graphics were stone age comparatively speaking. If Codemasters spent as much time on realistic settings as they do on the superfluous visual BS they'd have a much better game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to rebuild this game from the ground up. Laser scanned tracks, actual physics and tuning, etc. Then release a great title and sell DLC for new seasons/circuits.  

Until then, it will remain a shoddy money grab. The game came out this year and it is still light years behind other console wheel racers like PCars 2 and Assetto Corsa.

No option to force cockpit view while creating fake characters for career shows just how serious they take the "Official F1" title.  

This was my first F1 since 2013 or so and it will be my last until they put out a AAA title worth buying.

Edited by DaleRossi
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×