STandard car physics model issues

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#1
JUst found a caterham a caterham seven fireblade in the used car lot, quite excited as its the car ive been looking forward to most. However it seems theyve loaded the physics model off a stock honda civic into it. Even with 500bhp per ton and a close ratio gearbox it feels horricily sluggish both in a straight line and on corners. It takes 7 seconds dead to get to 60, for comparison the caterham r500 does it in under 3.

Anybody found cars that in no way represent what they actually are so I can avoid wasting more money
 

mcav

Elite Guru
Jan 12, 2007
5,757
23
0
47
#3
No, and I doubt you could say you have either.

I'll take PD's interpretation of the cars' performance over most people.
 

LfCpS3

Master Poster
May 22, 2009
3,332
24
0
#4
Have you fixed it up?

Sometimes used cars are kinda messed up.

You need to fix the engine, get new oil, fix the body and so on to see what its really like.
Oh and you might need to get new tyres.
 

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#5
[QUOTE="keefy, post: 5291122]How much HP does it actually have i doubt any Caterham is 1 ton in weight.[/QUOTE]

185bhp at 369kg, that should easily see the 3 seconds to 60 barrier.

Mcav if you want to think even a stock caterham 7 takes 7 seconds to 60 thats fine, just know your wrong.

Lfc all engine bits have been done in the auto shop, as thats made no diff to straight line performance I very muvh doubt the chassis repair will turn the car into what it should be
 
Y

Yip-Man

Guest
#6
My 135bhp seven got to sixty in under 5.5 secs.

The only thing is this one has the fireblade engine which really only has
Any power over 7k being a bike engine, would put short ratio box, and go
Manual and keep the engine over 7k during geR changes.

I got mine in the game last night, handling is bout right,

The blade engine sevens were very very peaky tho in real life
 

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#11
[QUOTE="DreDayDetox, post: 5291465]that's why there's a transmission tuning option if you've upgraded to the customizable transmission set which is 20,000 in credits[/QUOTE]

which is set to be approximately what all caterhams run, even without an upgraded transmission and the extra 50bhp it has it should still do 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. with 185bhp and an uprated transmission it takes 7 seconds.
 
M

ManFurismoJive

Guest
#12
[QUOTE="MR_T, post: 5291477]which is set to be approximately what all caterhams run, even without an upgraded transmission and the extra 50bhp it has it should still do 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. with 185bhp and an uprated transmission it takes 7 seconds.[/QUOTE]

Your fighting a lost cause buddy, your are wrong PD are right!
 

keefy

Supreme Veteran
Nov 18, 2007
19,031
261
83
The Sock Gap
#13
185BHP isnt alot and no where near enough to do 3 second 0-60 unless maybe on a motorbike which is probably half the weight of a Caterham.
 
Last edited:

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#15
[QUOTE="ManFurismoJive, post: 5291500]Your fighting a lost cause buddy, your are wrong PD are right![/QUOTE]

PD are wrong, thats fairly simple to understand for anyone with a simple understanding of physics.

185BHP isnt alot and no where near enough to do 3 second 0-60 unless maybe on a motorbike which is probably half the weight of a Caterham.
for sub 4 seconds it clearly is, the caterham r500 can do it in under 3 with the same power to weight

Could do with some info and links and stuff. Comparisons, weights, power, gear ratios.

Then let someone intelligent work it out
i have a Beng first class honours in motorsport engineering does that qualify;)
 

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#17
[QUOTE="Bostonmess, post: 5291597]Certainly. Put the figures and links down.

Lol. Check this out:

http://www.carpages.co.uk/caterham/caterham_too_fast_to_race_again_21_04_03.asp

:D

Although you probably already knew T, but others might find it interesting.[/QUOTE]

simple really, any UK petrol head should have stacks of EVO magazines as its the definitive car mag for cars that like to go fast:

as your well aware the car i posted is 185bhp and 500bhp/ton weighing in at 389kg, for comparison:

Caterham 7 superlight R300
175bhp, 515kg, 345bhp/ton, 4.5 seconds

Caterham 7 superlight R400
210bhp, 525kg, 406bhp/ton, 3.8 seconds

Caterham 7 superlight R500
263bhp, 506kg, 528bhp/ton, 2.9 seconds

going over the above figures the car i posted should do 0-60 in approx 3 seconds, however as the 7 fireblade runs tyres with a lower grip coefficient that figure will be reduced slighty, and would seem to agree with internet specifications of a 0-60 in 3.8 seconds
 
Jun 22, 2007
4,533
26
0
53
#18
I wonder if they've just used the spec from a normal Caterham (whatever one of those is ) I watched a Youtube vid of one doing 0-60 in about 7 secs.

I think this car is from GT4 so they should have it right by now though.
 

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#19
[QUOTE="Bostonmess, post: 5291638]I wonder if they've just used the spec from a normal Caterham (whatever one of those is ) I watched a Youtube vid of one doing 0-60 in about 7 secs.

I think this car is from GT4 so they should have it right by now though.[/QUOTE]
possible but isnt the fireblade the only caterham PD have ever included in the GT series? either way i find it odd that theres no true bare bones sports cars in GT5 as premium models. The Caterham R500, Ariel Atom, KTM X-Bow and lotus R-340 would have been a fantastic addition
 
Jun 22, 2007
4,533
26
0
53
#20
Fireblade was the only one I found when I googled it. In GT4 and GT5. But maybe they did a noob error and didn't look up the Fireblade spec and instead used spec from an ordinary one.

Maybe that blunder was just for GT5, maybe they got it right in 4.

You should post feedback wherever feedback gets posted.

I wouldn't mind wanging it round a few corners if they got it right. After all, that's what they're trying to do, accurate representations.
 

keefy

Supreme Veteran
Nov 18, 2007
19,031
261
83
The Sock Gap
#21
[QUOTE="MR_T, post: 5291592]PD are wrong, thats fairly simple to understand for anyone with a simple understanding of physics.


for sub 4 seconds it clearly is, the caterham r500 can do it in under 3 with the same power to weight



i have a Beng first class honours in motorsport engineering does that qualify;)[/QUOTE]


But it has more power I think more power is more important than power to weight ratio dotn forget the fast you go the more drag there is and more power overcomes drag better than less weight.
~Email the developers see what they say it maybe a mistake but Im not so sure.
 

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#22
[QUOTE="keefy, post: 5292632]But it has more power I think more power is more important than power to weight ratio dotn forget the fast you go the more drag there is and more power overcomes drag better than less weight.
~Email the developers see what they say it maybe a mistake but Im not so sure.[/QUOTE]
at 60mph drag is negligable, yes the Cd on a caterham is close to 0.7 but the frontal area is less than 2m(2). Power to weight ratio is far more important for acceleration than power alone, its why a go-kart with 40bhp can accelerate faster than a ferrari.

i dont need to email them to confirm its a mistake that blatantly obvious, if not from the simple fact that the 0-60 for the vehicle is specified as 3.8 seconds. to even argue the fact is laughable!
 
Jun 22, 2007
4,533
26
0
53
#23
There's some going on about it being too slow on Gtplanet forums. Someone mentions a large first gear or something and the (is it) "customisable transmission" or whatever it's called.

I haven't fiddled with that yet myself as I haven't got a clue what I'm doing. I'd probably set off backwards and drop off the edge of the map.
 

MR_T

Forum Elder
Oct 20, 2007
2,964
14
0
38
#24
[QUOTE="Bostonmess, post: 5292901]There's some going on about it being too slow on Gtplanet forums. Someone mentions a large first gear or something and the (is it) "customisable transmission" or whatever it's called.

I haven't fiddled with that yet myself as I haven't got a clue what I'm doing. I'd probably set off backwards and drop off the edge of the map.[/QUOTE]
first gear is absolutely ridiculous which is why i put the uprated transmission on. Honestly everything about the car is 100% wrong
 

keefy

Supreme Veteran
Nov 18, 2007
19,031
261
83
The Sock Gap
#25
[QUOTE="MR_T, post: 5292884]at 60mph drag is negligable, yes the Cd on a caterham is close to 0.7 but the frontal area is less than 2m(2). Power to weight ratio is far more important for acceleration than power alone, its why a go-kart with 40bhp can accelerate faster than a ferrari.

i dont need to email them to confirm its a mistake that blatantly obvious, if not from the simple fact that the 0-60 for the vehicle is specified as 3.8 seconds. to even argue the fact is laughable![/QUOTE]

Email them to tell them the mistake is what I meant.
Not arguing just wasnt convinced.
 
Jun 18, 2008
496
1
0
38
#26
I have one and love it, have you done British lightweight category, and then see how messed up it is?!

I put all gears at longest ratio to keep them at highest rev if that makes sense