Cars Peugeot 106 Rallye S2 1.4

[Alanapone]

AMAZING!!! I'm just downloading this now and cant wait to test it out. I race a 106 GTi, Is there any chance of an updated version with the 16 valve engine? 125bhp is way more fun than the 90ish these have. I'd LOVE to see a right hand drive GTi mod put out, I could FINALLY get some real world practice done. Also, let me know if you need any information on these cars, I have tons of parts and resources to find out all kinds of information that may help develop the GTi version... You could also simply re-skin for the Saxo as the chassis are exactly the same as you probably already know.

 

[Leonardo Ratafiá]

rear tire lifting is a little exaggerated, here I'm not even pushing hard, just driving as slow as I can and still does it but in the end you'll be driving hard and as fast as you can. It could be improved? of course. I like it anyways

 

[Leonardo Ratafiá]

P.S.
I've seen the value you put for the rear anti roll...
It's off by at least one order of magnitude.
As a quick fix I divided it by 10 and it's much better.

it has to be sth related to that or sth else but it's not that the car goes 3 wheels on every single corner all the time. It just does it under certain circumstances. It's a street stock car after all.
but if testers certify this then it's just ok I guess

 

[Mascot]

...
Shaders for the paint could probably be improved, reflection from sun seems to blow out the whole surface:
View attachment 363617

On a similar subject the exterior glass tends to disappear depending on sun/viewing angle. Often looks like there is no glass in the windows at all. Maybe reflection-related?

 

[Avo77]

it has to be sth related to that or sth else but it's not that the car goes 3 wheels on every single corner all the time. It just does it under certain circumstances. It's a street stock car after all.
but if testers certify this then it's just ok I guess

Frankly speaking I'm quite surprised that someone may think it's even close to realistic in the current status. Come on, guys... If any tester has different opinion probably it's better to change the tester.

 

[Kyuubeey]

The Joung’s modulus is almost constant for any kind of steel, so it should be something else. Do you have the diameter of the bar?

Yep, you probably misunderstood how the suspension works and used the outer diameter of the tube that supports the trailing arms instead of the one of the inner bar actually connecting them (around 20mm if I remember correctly).

Actually, I used both.

With further inspection, the tube does not twist in roll. It's more of a lateral support and dust cover than an active roll-rate piece like I thought it was. Had I only tested with the stabilizer and looking at it closer, I would have realized it ages ago. I even knew the tube is segmented yet I assumed it is still an active piece.

Calculating only the stabilizer inside the tube (24mm in the Rallye S2) gives me a more reasonable result.

Remember that the change from 20mm to 24mm is DOUBLE (!) the rate, so it's no wonder that roughly 0.1x provides a result which you believe is more correct for a 20mm stabilizer. It is quite close, but I'll stick to the calculation for the 24mm bar used in this specific car.

Due to the way these things work, I don't think the handling will change as much as the numbers would make you think. If anything, the front might have *less* roll resistance and it should bite a tad more on entry. Then going softer from there would provide more understeer as usual. We see.

Thanks for pointing it out however, because no one else did!

 

[Kyuubeey]

As i owned a rallye i must say that this is close to reality!

Nice interior/exterior work and nice physics too! After fiddling some values (dascam, steer ratio etc) to adjust it to my needs my only complain is that it locks the brakes too easily

Other than that very nice work!

PS I would love to see a group n rallye too, with racing suspensions and roll cage !

Hey, please don't adjust steer ratio or steering degrees. Adjust the controller settings for Assetto Corsa. If you want to scale it 1:1 to your wheel, scale your degrees up to for example 1200, then scale it down to your degrees, let's say 900, so 0.75.

Half the testers think the brakes lock too easily, half think it should lock easier.
Personally, the brakes were achieved via a calculation method and with a constant longitudinal G as the performance goal, which is standard for the cars I make, so I think if there is such an opinion divide and it fills the criteria on-paper, it is roughly correct.

 

[Avo77]

I did no calculation at all, just put one reasonable number to see how it would feel...
The tube is supporting the trailing arms with needle bearing as interface and is connected to the frame through bushings. You can actually consider it as rigid unless you want to model some additional compliance due to the bushing themselves (the contribution in roll is negligible anyway).

 

[Kyuubeey]

I did no calculation at all, just put one reasonable number to see how it would feel...
The tube is supporting the trailing arms with needle bearing as interface and is connected to the frame through bushings. You can actually consider it as rigid unless you want to model some additional compliance due to the bushing themselves (the contribution in roll is negligible anyway).

I mean that the calculational value for a 20mm bar is very close to the old rate x0.1, so it makes sense. A little bit larger diameters produce a much stiffer rate, so I imagine the Rallye is more aggressive in the lift than base road models.

I had some camber and toe change baked into the deflection due to assumed beam twist, perhaps I'll need to take those out now. I know the arms should move laterally a little bit and toe will change as usual, but I'm not sure if there is any more stuff going on. I don't think so.

EDIT: Assuming the bar we're talking about is 22mm (Can't find evidence for a 20mm on a French spec), then it'd already be -25% roughly from the 24mm. Which at this magnitude of rate is quite high. Most cars run 3 or 4 digits, these are in 5.

 

[Leonardo Ratafiá]

most people leaving reviews and having the same car say the car behaves correctly, some miss this some miss that but in general terms the car is good. there's no car that will be same match as the real thing, regarless who will make the physics, suspension, tires.
we all hope it can be improved it there's room for it.

 

[Kyuubeey]

most people leaving reviews and having the same car say the car behaves correctly, some miss this some miss that but in general terms the car is good. there's no car that will be same match as the real thing, regarless who will make the physics, suspension, tires.
we all hope it can be improved it there's room for it.

Okay, let's clarify a bit.

On a car like this which will *definitely* lift the inside tire mid-corner with even a 20mm bar let alone the 24mm Rallye bar or 22mm standard bar, the influence of putting in a *much* higher rate isn't like you'd expect. You don't get 10x more oversteer for a 10x stiffer bar, you only get oversteer basically up to the point the rear wheel is jacked up fully.

With a softer rate, it should probably perhaps bite a little bit more on the very first initial loading of the fronts, then push a tad more mid-corner. This kind of stuff is easily down to tires so it's hard to really give accurate feedback on, so it passed through.

 

[Avo77]

I mean that the calculational value for a 20mm bar is very close to the old rate x0.1, so it makes sense. A little bit larger diameters produce a much stiffer rate, so I imagine the Rallye is more aggressive in the lift than base road models.

I had some camber and toe change baked into the deflection due to assumed beam twist, perhaps I'll need to take those out now. I know the arms should move laterally a little bit and toe will change as usual, but I'm not sure if there is any more stuff going on. I don't think so.

EDIT: Assuming the bar we're talking about is 22mm (Can't find evidence for a 20mm on a French spec), then it'd already be -25% roughly from the 24mm. Which at this magnitude of rate is quite high. Most cars run 3 or 4 digits, these are in 5.

Found an old document for my Saxo Vts and I confirm that the rear arb diameter is 22mm so yes, less rigid than the 106.

Of course with trailing arms you must use big anti roll... the center of rotation of the suspension is at ground level so it must be balanced in some way.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Found an old document for my Saxo Vts and I confirm that the rear arb diameter is 22mm so yes, less rigid than the 106.

Of course with trailing arms you must use big anti roll... the center of rotation of the suspension is at ground level so it must be balanced in some way.

Yep. I can only find 22mm for 106's as well, so that's probably it.

Good thing is the calculation for a torsion bar like this isn't *nearly* as complex/not doable without simulation as the calculation for the beam would be, so you can reasonably trust the rates that come out. Of course the input matters as much as the calculation, so I'll triple-check that my dimensions are making sense.

There could also be some bending going on, but I don't think it's super significant as the stabilizer is directly on top of the suspension pivot basically.

 

[Błażej Wianecki]

Hi. Nice work. I enjoy the car a lot. However I guess it is safe to assume the rear suspension droop is a bit exaggerated.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Hi. Nice work. I enjoy the car a lot. However I guess it is safe to assume the rear suspension droop is a bit exaggerated.
View attachment 363686
View attachment 363688

I have the damper stroke length for the rear @ the damper, but I don't know the ratio. I'll look to see if I find anything for the next update.

Besides those dampers are probably aftermarket and have shorter droop. Looks like the car in that pic has the rear drooping at what the stock ride height is with no load. Most stiff aftermarket short-stroke setups end up having negative droop from factory.

 

[Błażej Wianecki]

I have the damper stroke length for the rear @ the damper, but I don't know the ratio. I'll look to see if I find anything for the next update.

Besides those dampers are probably aftermarket and have shorter droop. Looks like the car in that pic has the rear drooping at what the stock ride height is with no load. Most stiff aftermarket short-stroke setups end up having negative droop from factory.

Could be the case. However front looks very similar and the droop doesn’t seem limited by the damper. Is it possible he wouldn’t fettle with front as well?
Also I have a problem with watching too many polish amateur rallies LOL. You can often notice those cars jumping around at the rear loosing contact with the ground. Not an argument really as they can be modified as well. Just an observation

 

[Błażej Wianecki]

I found pictures of flying peugeots of the era. I realize they are not a perfect match but most certainly they are stock. First one is 306 gti from autocar story. Second one is a pre-facelift 106. However their rear suspension droop isn't even half as big as on this mod.

 

[Leonardo Ratafiá]

don't know if possible to measure anything though but you can get an idea of droop maybe? maybe it's just a 3d displacement

 

[Kyuubeey]

Thanks, I'll take a look later.

@BAD Swify

I've added brake pressure adjustment into setup for next version. The setup file for the car must be extremely old to not have it! I'll check some other files too. Thanks.

 

[Avo77]

I have the damper stroke length for the rear @ the damper, but I don't know the ratio. I'll look to see if I find anything for the next update.

Besides those dampers are probably aftermarket and have shorter droop. Looks like the car in that pic has the rear drooping at what the stock ride height is with no load. Most stiff aftermarket short-stroke setups end up having negative droop from factory.

Motion ratio for the dampers should be around 2.5