Need. More. Videos! C'mon guys!

I still stand by my previous comment. I checked the Web and the fastest speed set by the b186 was at Monza at around 352kph. I just ran a test at Monza 91 with that car and got up to 389kph, would have been faster with slightly longer gears. So yes I believe it is unrealistically fast in a straight line.

 

I have no concrete facts here, but maybe the huge amounts of drag aren't fully being catered for? The mid 80s turbo cars had relatively huge rear wings even on the faster tracks(barn doors on tracks like Monaco and Jerez). They needed that downforce, I guess to keep the excess of power(especially in qualifying) in check. This must have resulted in huge amounts of drag as a consequence, until F1 car aerodynamics caught up to the horsepower, in 1990 - where most of the turbo lap records were finally broken.

 

Driving the Penske-skinned Lola T98 Ford CART (Formula USA Gen2) car at the Jacarepagua Emerson Fittipaldi Speedway 'oval' in Rio, for some typically American "Let's get it on" racin' action.

 

If you haven't had a chance yet to run Seca, go for it in the CART's:

 

Your last post literally proved my point.
You provided another F1 car, proven to exceed 400 KPH with very low downforce, but running on a surface much worse than tarmac.
source: Traction
"Over the years, I have heard the traction qualities of the salt variously described as: “about like pavement”, “like wet pavement”, “just like ice”, and pretty much everything in between those extremes. Yet it seems to me that none of those describe it well. I personally think it is much like a good well groomed, hard packed dirt track, or maybe a well packed smooth gravel road. Not like freshly graded loose gravel or dirt, but one that has been packed smooth and hard, maybe wetted and dried a few times. Like your local dirt racing oval, that hard packed surface that gets shiny, and streaked black with rubber in the racing groove. It is pretty good traction, but not like pavement."

I am aware of the speed record you are referring to and perhaps you are overlooking the obvious, but to point it out - it was made with wings set to provide enough downforce to take the corners are Monza at Race pace - i.e. definitely not zero downforce.
So the fact that car A, which is capable of doing 351 KPH with wings set for a course with mixed corners is capable of 410 KPH with zero wings (and some very long straights) is hard for you to accept as being realistic. OK then, but that conclusion seems flawed to me.

Q) How is a test at "Monza 91" relevant to the old banked circuit with much longer straights ?
A) That's rhetorical - as it should be obvious to anyone that it's not relevant at all. Shall we include tests around Brands Hatch in the comparison? You either test on the same circuit or don't bother.
That's Monza Historic 1971 10K.

I don't understand why the maths seems "unrealistic" to you, when I've already provided multiple examples of cars with considerably less power that are capable of 400 KPH. You even provided a real world example yourself of a car with less power on a comparatively poor surface.

So feel free to debate the subject all you like, but I won't be continuing the conversation - to me the subject is done and further conversation serves no point (and I'm not going around circles and have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything).

 

The Eagle has landed" at the Green Hell.
Leaving its natural habitat in the USA, the Eagle is very happy visiting
the German forests and fly over the Green Hell.

 

Each to their own, I just did a simple test. The real car maxxed out at 352 at the 1986 version of Monza. In game using as close a representation as I could with 1991 Monza I could do 389, if that is not overpowered in game then I don't know what is. Maybe the in game version needs more drag or some other adjustment done to reign in the top speed or acceleration a bit. Could the real car have done more than 400, no idea, none of us know, the cars components may not have had the ability to stay together at those speeds so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

"The Glen" is really awesome with the Group C cars !

 

The CART 1998 Series goes on tour, starting with Imola 2001. Those Reynard Hondas were a bit too swift for my Swift 009c...

 

I know we've just had some awsome content come out, but there's some that came out before V1.3.0.0 that has improved so massively after the last to major updates. The Corvette C3 for instance is a different car, have folks tried it, its just awsome!

 

Looking for an Oval to race with the new CART cars ? Try out the historic Interlagos !
It's great, especially vs. the F1 V12's

 

These cars continue to be more skittish than I imagine them to be, considering the huge amounts of downforce they had, along with the power. I needed a little bit of TC to keep these overly unstable cars in check.

 

AMS2 Has an excellent damage model, I love it, and the the 200% Damge scaling option is brilliant! The A.I. can also be very clever when avoiding an inccident, some of the best ive seen!
But there are some instances where cars react to crash'es in some odd ways. Also we still have the invisible wheel bug, where after a crash, you can return to garage, or even restart your session, but the wheels you lost in the crash are now physically back on the car, but not graphically representated.
In terms of their physical reaction to a crash. Iracing (which I don't own, but have seen plenty of) seems to handle that best, and has a great looking damage model! Rfactor 2 can be weird especially when a car flips over things can get pretty odd, a bit like AMS2, but unlike AMS2 it has'nt got such a good damage model. Of course the king of them all is BeamNG, but atm thats more of a driving sim than a racing sim. I noticed some of the behavior just today at Watkins Glenn and added it to this video, and for balance have also used some footage of when the damage model and physics work really well. What do you folks think?

 

Not My video but posted as an example of AI at 100/100 Race after a Q not perfect ai but