I recently had the pleasure to meet August Deutsch who drove/still drives a 1970 Porsche 908/02 Flunder and has a lot of experience with older race cars. We were discussing the difference between oldschool race cars and modern GT cars and he said there's an "astronomical" difference, especially when it comes to tyres. He explained how back then drivers constantly struggled with all sorts of oversteer, understeer and extremely low grip in general and how tyre development evoled drastically over the years, especially in the 90's. He also told me it blows his mind how much grip even his modern everyday-car developes compared to the older race cars on slicks, and he said it's basically all because of the drastically better tyres and huge leaps in tyre development. "There are a lot of corners where you can savely keep your foot down in a modern-day sportscar, while you wouldn't even think about not braking hard in an 70/80's race car with its terrible old tyres!" It was quite an enjoyable discussion we had
and back then the aero wasnt limited like now so they could get a lot of grip with the aero techniques that now arent alowed so yes older cars can be much faster than the modern ones like happens in F1
Makes me wonder how anybody ever managed to even complete a lap back then. When I watch vintage footage I don't see constant struggle... If there is this astronomical difference, how was Bellof even able to put down that 6:11? Or Rodriguez that 3:13 at Le Mans in 1971, especially compared to the fastest lap since then (3:16 in 2015). Yes the track layout was altered, regulations were changed, but still, with an astronomical difference in tyre behaviour those cars should have been undrivable, let alone be able to lay down such laptimes... I guess we can agree that the tyres certainly aren't the only factor, track surface, aerodynamics, all that stuff has a major influence as well for sure. So what it boils down to is how do we want those cars in RR? Undrivable, just to create a level of difficulty and challenge that might or might not have been there irl?
Ditto, to SKRO comments and I think we, the people, would like to see these details being published every time you release or update car physics. Thks!
This is really something to consider indeed. After all, every sim out there makes helluva lot simplifications or artificial implementations compared to RL race cars. For example, we simply don't feel anything through our butts, that is real g-forces or suspension. All we have are visual and audio clues from our monitor and speakers and then extremely artificial force feedback effects on our wheels, which tries desperately simulate all those forces we are lacking in our bodies. And it pushes that only to our palms. Yeah, doesn't sound like IRL stuff to me. A good example of this is couple of years back, when Dale Earnhardt Jr, one of the most popular and quite succesful Nascar drivers, quit playing iRacing if not totally, then almost. He said that he couldn't properly control the cars how he liked and felt they were more difficult to drive than RL Sprint Cup cars. It was not the problem with faults in the physics, quite the contrary, but as RL Nascar cars are really driven with the feeling through your body, not through the wheel, he felt that he lacked the vital information he was used to have in real race cars. In short, he couldn't use all his senses. Thinking about that example really sometimes makes me feel that all the talk and nitpicking of the most finest physics details is somewhat moot when we talk about simulation in our homes, especially when I'm quite certain that none of us sim racing hobbyists have ever driven these cars. Or ever will be, for that matter. Is it so that proper simulation models every aspect of real life car, and makes it extremely difficult to drive with our fake cockpits, or car that is perhaps simpler compared to true life vehicle and can be driven with perhaps equal effort and even more, deliver fun experience instead of frustrating one (I can't help to mention GPL every time I think some frustrating sim, although it is far from good simulation by modern standards ). Dunno, just my 2 cents.
This was quite an interesting seat... Different than the. Other stuff around http://www.xsimulator.net/community/threads/simxperience-gs-4-g-seat.6171/
Would it be a bad idea to convert the Procar to Group 5? One class less. Or do we want both? http://www.speedhunters.com/2009/09/retrospective_gt_gt_bmw_m1_at_le_mans/
I would prefer both more... The Procar is a total different car and was more closer to group 4-spec in which it competed some categories. It is unique in its style and sound. It was some kind of futuristic in that time. The Group 5 M1 hasn't much todo with the original M1 Procar - but was a cool Group 5 version of the M1.
The one you showed is ugly actually I was proposing moving M1 to Group 5 but i didn't realised how different it looks from the Turbo one. They would need to remodel it. The one which we have in game right now was running in BMW M1 Procar Championship, which was (mostly) support series of Formula 1 in 1979 and 1980 and was classified as Group 4.
There were two different versions of the Group 5 M1. One was initially Build buy March, which looks a bit more edgey and can be seen in the Video from @Johnny Turbo Guttman and a more elegant Version from Schnitzer (i guess it was based on the March-Version) which can be seen in the Pics from @Jukka Karppinen for example....
Btw Yes there were several different Gr5 M1's. Another one was Sauber non-turbo M1 like in this video: Just listen the sounds of it...would be totally perfect to have it in game, turbo or not...