Jaguar E-Type, V1.0

Time to get back working on this, so here's beta 5:

Download



I've been doing some research, and based on other comparable vehicles, I've added a significant amount of frontal lift. It's now understeers more at speed, I guess that's accurate. I took the liberty of shortening the final drive a tad, as well as modifying the skins. I've made a couple of other handling changes as well, perhaps you guys can give me some feedback to see whether they were worth it?

Enjoy!

Oh, I'm thinking of adding a race version when it gets to V1.0, do you guys have any suggestions as to any legendary E-Type racers? Thanks.

Thx for the update, but mainly cause you fixed what I found wrong. Unfortunately, I didn't see your answer about which E-Type model is. No problems actually.

I checked your .car file and let's start what could be improved.

I placed all your data inside the Tomte's physics calculator. In first I got different inertia, but this values is so accurate, that almost all modifications could change it.

We start from wheels: you are using the 185/70R15 Dunlop RS5 wheels. Good, but your radius is wrong:

Code:

wheels.radius 0.32

should be 0.34

wheels.friction is wrong as well. My calculations say at least 24,94/100,80 F/R. But to be more accurate, you should add all data to the physics calculation. In last, the Z position in wheels.pos. 1,13+1,29 is 2,42 wheelbase vs 2,438 of the real car.

About Lights: all is working better now. But brake lights are in the same position of standing lights.
Horn lights: You turning up indicators. But the front indicators are not in front direction. aka, it's impossible to see them. What about turning up full beam instead indicators?
Indicator lights: is not possible to see front indicators. Add a second dot in the same position where the front indicators are, rotate them to front.
Front light: you forgot to turn on standing lights near the indicators. =)

I know I'm annoying, but this car is incredible!

PS: I love the engine sound...

check the image. The base of your 3d body model is not Y=0

This can have issues on car behavior...

Glad you like it. And you're not annoying at all! I enjoy the constructive criticism.

DonaemouS wrote:Thx for the update, but mainly cause you fixed what I found wrong. Unfortunately, I didn't see your answer about which E-Type model is. No problems actually.

That's because I'm still not sure. I intended for it to be an early S1.

DonaemouS wrote:
I placed all your data inside the Tomte's physics calculator. In first I got different inertia, but this values is so accurate, that almost all modifications could change it.

We start from wheels: you are using the 185/70R15 Dunlop RS5 wheels. Good, but your radius is wrong:

Code:

wheels.radius 0.32

should be 0.34

wheels.friction is wrong as well. My calculations say at least 24,94/100,80 F/R. But to be more accurate, you should add all data to the physics calculation. In last, the Z position in wheels.pos. 1,13+1,29 is 2,42 wheelbase vs 2,438 of the real car.

I understand about the inertia, and I did have a typo that changed that, it will be corrected. As for the tires, am I correct in that you're saying that the calculated tire size will be different from the actual one? As for friction, I've never paid much attention to it, guess I'll have to now.

The lights will be corrected (again ), only question I have is about this:

DonaemouS wrote:
But brake lights are in the same position of standing lights.

Do you mean that the brake lights are where the running lights are supposed to be out back and vice versa, or what?

thanks for the comments, Don.


So how does it affect handling with not having the model set on 0. is that just a Redline thing?

Your model has no headlight covers from what I can see + you use the 4.2 liter straight-six.
That makes it a Series 1.5 if I'm not wrong.

A-rod wrote:That's because I'm still not sure. I intended for it to be an early S1.

Valentin K wrote:Your model has no headlight covers from what I can see + you use the 4.2 liter straight-six.
That makes it a Series 1.5 if I'm not wrong.

Yes I agree, u can find some specs here. About brake lights. Both lights share the same bulb or lamp. One is stronger (brake) and the other is softer.

What u are using now for brake lights, are the reflectors.

About that Tomte-physics nonsense.... I'm wondering if it would be worth it to make that spreadsheet a bit more logical. Trying I fit all on one page, so that one does not have to switch back and forth between dimensions and engine calculations.

Btw, the inertia calculations have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm normally not using te dimensions of the collision box. I use real car dimensions to give me an idea. Real car dimensions and collision box dimensions do not have to be the same (cars aren't square boxes anymore...).
I use the inertia values from the spreadsheet to give me an idea. I then use inertia to tweak the weight transfer, i.e. I usually raise the inertia for the x and z axis and lower it for the yaw (y axis).

Tomte wrote:Trying I fit all on one page, so that one does not have to switch back and forth between dimensions and engine calculations.

Would be good, although is not a big issue. When I tweaking and working on physics, I have at least 5 applications and windows open on the screen, while starting and quitting Redline for each test.

Maybe, would be good a deeper explanation of what people should put in there. Maybe I'm not the best one to explain how it works, so an "inline" help would be appreciate!

Hey, thread-jack!

Let me know what you think of this:

Redline .car spec calculation

As usual, sign in with your google account and make a copy of the file before starting to change values (inside Google spreadsheet, go File/Make a copy...).

I put all onto one side and added some more comments, aligned the colour scheme...

Tomte wrote:Hey, thread-jack!

No problem. I like the new layout. It's a lot simpler for me to have it all on one page, learning a lot that i didn't formerly know about car configurations. Thx!

Here's another beta:

Download

I went back through everything and recalculated it using Tomte's spreadsheet. Right now, I'm not too sure about the handling. I think it's gotten worse as I'm working on it, but I can't put my finger on what the issues are. For lack of a better word, it feels brittle to drive. Hopefully you guys can give me some insight on what I can change.

Oh, and Don, tell me what you think about the lights.

This time you put both the tail light and the brake light in the reflector from what I can see.
By the way, could you please make the indicators not switch on while honking, but the full beam instead?

A-rod wrote:Oh, and Don, tell me what you think about the lights.

Valentin K wrote:This time you put both the tail light and the brake light in the reflector from what I can see.

Yes, as Val say, now u are using the reflectors.

Also, I tweaked the suspensions in:

Code:

supsensionFriction 1000
damperStrength 17000

Now they work a bit better, and the suspensions are able to handle the weight. You were using a suspension too much stronger (20000). Why is wrong, imho. Cause the car, while turning, move its weight on each side of the car. If the suspension does not allow the damper to be pushed for all the length, the centrifugal force will be unleashed on the body roll, leading the car to flip.

Otherwise, if you allow the suspensions to be pushed up to the end until the shock hit the maximum compression, the centrifugal force will have a way to unleashed, and the flip behavior will be reduced.

Also, this car should rise on front while you push full throttle, and otherwise while braking. Now you can see the body roll under the weight.

Also, set to 0 wheels.loadSensitivity

Done and done. Here's another beta:

Download


Softened the suspension some, fixed the lights (again ), and added a basic shadow model.

Enjoy!

A-rod wrote:Softened the suspension some, fixed the lights (again ), and added a basic shadow model.

City Track Flip test - PASSED SUCCESSFULLY
Nordschleife Lap test - 09:02 NOT PASSED

I flipped a couple of time, but the handling is very good...

Don, it's not a 2008 Audi RS 6. Old cars have narrower tires, making them easier to flip.


I recorded an 8:41'97 around the Nordschleife while touching a little bit of grass here and there and had the impression it was almost too fast with those old school wheels and of course suspension.
An S-Type 2.7 Diesel would get a lap time of 9:12 minutes, but while it weighs more and has less horsepower, it has way grippier tires and a more sophisticated suspension. Around 9 min for a lap sound closer to the target for the E-Type to me.

Regarding the lights: They seem fine now, but the headlight dots are too big. 'Full Beam', if added, should be triggered by the horn. Keep up the good work a-rod!

Valentin K wrote:I recorded an 8:41'97 around the Nordschleife while touching a little bit of grass here and there and had the impression it was almost too fast with those old school wheels and of course suspension.
An S-Type 2.7 Diesel would get a lap time of 9:12 minutes, but while it weighs more and has less horsepower, it has way grippier tires and a more sophisticated suspension. Around 9 min for a lap sound closer to the target for the E-Type to me.

Val, the car has no stickyness, and top speed @ 223kmh. Friction is added to reduce both acceleration and top speed. I suppose is harder to make it slow.

DonaemouS wrote:Nordschleife Lap test - 09:02 NOT PASSED

Well, it feels good to me at Nordschleife. This is the first one I've tried since the Beta 4 on the ASW forum. At first I thought the suspension felt very odd and highly-sprung, but after half a lap I decided I liked it. The car feels nimble at low speed but difficult to aim at high speed, which surely must be realistic for a car of this era with these aerodynamics.

As to the model, it definitely looks like a 4.2L series 1 (or series 1.5). I have a book here on the history of Jaguar, bought many years ago (remember the days before you could look anything up on the web in 5 minutes?) and it has some nice trivia about the various models. The series 2 had front sidelights repositioned under the fenders, higher headlights and an all-round fender at the rear. The series 1.5 / 4.2L models introduced in 1964 were virtually indistinguishable from the series 1 except for a "4.2" emblem on the trunk lid. Increased torque and a gearbox with synchromesh 1st gear were the big improvements. The E-Type had notoriously underpowered brakes until the arrival of the series 2.

djpimley wrote:The E-Type had notoriously underpowered brakes until the arrival of the series 2.

Sounds like a good chance to make it slower to me! It brakes surprisingly well right now.

From "the XK-engine" on Jaguar World:

Incidentally, the 4.2 EFI engine, aided by the largest of all production inlet valves at 1.875", and rated at just 200 b.h.p. DIN (that means certified) was almost certainly the most powerful production XK ever. One might say that there was a degree of optimistic exaggeration about the 265 b.h.p. claimed for the earlier triple SU engine which was never verified under similar conditions.

ok, so weaker brakes, for sure.

A weaker engine? The wiki says this:

The version of the engine fitted with Zenith-Stromberg carburettors produced 170 PS (125 kW; 168 hp), whereas the triple SU HD8 carburettor version was rated at 265 hp (198 kW) gross (the difference in the measurement systems being significant).
The 4.2 as fitted to the US-spec E-type was rated at 265 hp (198 kW) (SAE) in 1965 with the triple SU carbs[8] and at 246 hp (183 kW) (SAE) in 1969 with the twin Zenith-Stromberg carbs.[9]

If we're not fans of the 3 SU carbs, I'm sure the Zenith Stromberg setup would slow the car down significantly.

Horsepower is 168 with that setup, torque is probably in the 180-190 lb/ft range, let me know what the consensus is.

My book tells me that Strombergs were fitted to the series 2 in order to comply with increasingly strict U.S. emissions regulations. No mention of anything other than triple SU on the series 1 and 1.5. Also your model is right-hand drive, so I say to hell with those U.S. regulations.

djpimley wrote: so I say to hell with those U.S. regulations.

djpimley wrote: so I say to hell with those U.S. regulations.

10-4 on that. Power is unchanged.

Here's a new beta with weaker brakes. I don't know if I've gone too far, or haven't gone far enough with them?

Download

As I'm not seeing anything that needs drastically changed, I think it's time for V1.0.

Download


Along with the weaker brakes from beta 8, it is now builtIn 1 for Time Trial use.

As always, enjoy!

PS- I'm actively working on a hardtop lightweight version, so keep your eyes open!