Cars Porsche 911 Singer 1.2 (csp)

[Sanio Alfa]

Well, I tested and v-max is closer to 335km/h. Aero and power limited.

Road and track's data says "redline limited", and they claim it in 6th gear @ 7300RPM. 283km/h. For the 2015 car I believe.

I hit 283km/h @ 6500 RPM or so in 6th. It's possible my final gear is longer than theirs: haven't found info for what final they use. We could pretty easily get the car to hit around that speed in 6th gear at that RPM if we just put in one of the common higher final gears and maybe tweak the tires' radius/expansion with RPM a little bit.

It's not vmax, it's just indicated top speed at a certain RPM in a certain gear. I'm sure even with 390bhp the car will go 300+.

Sanio, you really talk a lot of **** for someone who can't read a tech sheet carefully.

EDIT: Btw, I've worked on cars which have *bigger* rear rotors than the fronts. Of course, they were a little bit slimmer and had less pistons on the calipers. Again, please get educated and learn some stuff before you start talking smack.

it is enough for me to see when they said top speed is 176mph. that all.

and if you are such an engineering expert then you find yourself playing in the wrong yard. AC is not for you.

 

[jonelsorel]

Sanio, are you just here to beat the dumb drum?

Why would someone put same size front/rear rotors?

The brake disc diameter is 380 mm front and rear.
https://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911-turbo-models/911-turbo/safety/brakes/

For the 993RS and TT it's 322. If you can leave with it. The reason being, maybe, the car having a lot of weight at the back?

 

[Sanio Alfa]

if you are trying to make the car to be realistic specifications, then stick to the default values.

all the big moders here.
and just they are asking for donation. LOOL

 

[Kyuubeey]

If you would read the sheet, you would know where the speed is referenced from.

I too need to learn to read a little it seems, because final is specified, in fact. 4.000 vs our current 3.444, which is stock ratio. Perhaps I forgot, perhaps I changed it back at some point. Oh well, at least it is starting to make some sense. It will speed up the 0-100 too: and I'm not surprised if we start getting really close on that too.

And like jonel linked, a lot of cars have same, or LARGER diameter brakes in the rear.

Hell, because you're such a nice guy, here:

R32 GTST
Master Cylinder diam (mm) - 25.4 area 506.71mm^2
Front Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 40.4 ×4 = 5127.58mm^2
Front rotors (diam x thk) - 280×30
Rear Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 38.18×2 = 2289.78mm^2 ratio FR = 2.239
Mounting Hole Diameter: Approx 4.5 inches (confirmation to come soon)
Rear Rotors (diam x thk) - 297×18
total 7417.36 brake to master ratio 14.63


R33 GTST
Master Cylinder diam (mm) - 23.8 444.88mm^2
Front Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 40.4 ×4 = 5127.58mm^2
Front rotors (diam x thk) - 296×30
Rear Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 38.18×2 = 2289.78mm^2 ratio FR = 2.239
Rear Rotors (diam x thk) - 297×18
Total area 7417.36mm^2 brake to master ratio 16.67

R32 GTR (Non V-Spec,)
Master Cylinder diam (mm) - 25.4
Front Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 40.4 ×4
Front rotors (diam x thk) - 296×32
Rear Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 38.18×2
Rear Rotors (diam x thk) - 297×18

 

[Sanio Alfa]

Sanio, are you just here to beat the dumb drum?

Why would someone put same size front/rear rotors?

The brake disc diameter is 380 mm front and rear.
https://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911-turbo-models/911-turbo/safety/brakes/

For the 993RS and TT it's 322. If you can leave with it. The reason being, maybe, the car having a lot of weight at the back?

 

[Sanio Alfa]

https://images.caricos.com/s/singer...080/2011_singer_porsche_911_212_1920x1080.jpg

 

[Sanio Alfa]

https://images.caricos.com/s/singer...080/2011_singer_porsche_911_320_1920x1080.jpg

 

[Sanio Alfa]

If you would read the sheet, you would know where the speed is referenced from.

I too need to learn to read a little it seems, because final is specified, in fact. 4.000 vs our current 3.444, which is stock ratio. Perhaps I forgot, perhaps I changed it back at some point. Oh well, at least it is starting to make some sense. It will speed up the 0-100 too: and I'm not surprised if we start getting really close on that too.

And like jonel linked, a lot of cars have same, or LARGER diameter brakes in the rear.

Hell, because you're such a nice guy, here:

R32 GTST
Master Cylinder diam (mm) - 25.4 area 506.71mm^2
Front Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 40.4 ×4 = 5127.58mm^2
Front rotors (diam x thk) - 280×30
Rear Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 38.18×2 = 2289.78mm^2 ratio FR = 2.239
Mounting Hole Diameter: Approx 4.5 inches (confirmation to come soon)
Rear Rotors (diam x thk) - 297×18
total 7417.36 brake to master ratio 14.63


R33 GTST
Master Cylinder diam (mm) - 23.8 444.88mm^2
Front Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 40.4 ×4 = 5127.58mm^2
Front rotors (diam x thk) - 296×30
Rear Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 38.18×2 = 2289.78mm^2 ratio FR = 2.239
Rear Rotors (diam x thk) - 297×18
Total area 7417.36mm^2 brake to master ratio 16.67

R32 GTR (Non V-Spec,)
Master Cylinder diam (mm) - 25.4
Front Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 40.4 ×4
Front rotors (diam x thk) - 296×32
Rear Caliper Piston(diam x qty) - 38.18×2
Rear Rotors (diam x thk) - 297×18

I guess you will harness everything you know now and finish this mod to be perfect. to keep all our users happy.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Yeah, I suppose I can thank you for bringing an issue to my attention which I would have noticed in the final checks anyway. Pretty sure I had that 4.000 in there at some point.

Not like it makes much of a difference, unless we post a hotfix for physics or something.

EDIT: It was the final gear. "V-max" is fine and I'm not surprised if the acceleration comes largely in-line as well.

Two pictures because it looks like drivetrain acceleration influences how the RPM needle moves with CSP (Like IRL) so it's very difficult to get an accurate RPM reading at any given speed. Close enough.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

nice. try see what is with 1st gear. beacuse. from 0-100 you need to have about 3,6sec. you have over 4sec now

 

[Kyuubeey]

That metric is completely worthless. Driver is the biggest factor, then tires and then environment. 20 - 180 or something is far more accurate, and that's what I'd look at.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

and when will be from 0-160kmh 8,2sec then that will be like real singer 4.0

 

[Kyuubeey]

No, it won't. Driver, tires, condition all amount to maybe half a second to a second, or more if the measurement method is different ie: they time it from a different time. You can never tell if they time it from when the driver seemingly sets off, or when the lights go green.

More accurate is to do a rolling start from a speed where the tires will only spin very minimally. Maybe then you get a decent indication if it's completely off or not.


Hey, I've only done more cars than I can remember off the top of my head at any given time, so I guess I should just listen to you though when it comes to how I conduct my physics development.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

np man.
I will remake engine power (on real 390bhp) and we will se what is a problem. engine power or gearbox, or both.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Considering all these Singers dyno in something like a 20 - 30 wheel hp range according to whoever has dynoed them and cross-referenced data, I think its unlikely we will get exact numbers.

 

[Mirta27]

Are you certain that this Singer model is supposed to have 390 horsepower at the wheels? What model is it specifically? According to Singer, their 4.0 engine has 390 brake horsepower, not wheel horsepower.
The driving experience also feels like this car has 60-70 horsepower more than its chassis/suspension is supposed to handle.

 

[Kyuubeey]

No, I'm not. But I am certain that every Singer dyno I was ever shown or told about dynoed somewhere around 400 wheel. I presume these are the higher power ones. Another basis for this is that the car's performance simply doesn't add up if we make it *slower*. It needs to be slightly faster, not a lot slower.

That's an awfully precise assessment.

EDIT: Road and track also cite it as 390horsepower for the SAE standard, or @ crankshaft. So yeah, there is some basis for bhp as well.

I would like to go lower myself, in fact, because I think it'd drive better with a bit less power. But the performance doesn't add up. I think I'll just need to run a bit more tests to figure out where the discrepancy lies.

 

[hal4000]

Nice...., a Singer...
My "oma" used to have one...

She would have been such a great source of "real driver input"...

 

[dud]

How flexible is the FFB setup for a AC car? I would like to see steering getting quite a bit lighter on acceleration (load redistribution) and at high speed (negative downforce). This applies to all 911s, but it would be very nifty to have it here.

 

[Kyuubeey]

How flexible is the FFB setup for a AC car? I would like to see steering getting quite a bit lighter on acceleration (load redistribution) and at high speed (negative downforce). This applies to all 911s, but it would be very nifty to have it here.

Force multiplier and gamma for load. Nothing more.

964 doesn't make net lift in the front, it won't change at all with speed.