Tracks Upside down track
- Thread starter ltcars
- Start date
I think there could be issues in the transition - IIRC, AC struggles with high gradient surfaces.
Not sure if it has changed but it used to reset to the pits after 3 seconds if the car was upside down
In the respect of aero, yes, there are loads of cars that produce more than their mass in downforce at certain speeds. But in terms of the driveable surfaces working in AC at 180°? Not sure, never tried it.
There is an option in the .ini files that lets you turn that off - that option used to be bugged but it works now.
There is an option in the .ini files that lets you turn that off - that option used to be bugged but it works now.
D
Deleted member 130869
-
Deleted member 130869
What if you make it as a Stunts-like tunnel, so you progress sideways and going straight ahead at all times instead of going on a loop?
There also is a problem with traction. Even if you have more (now inverse) downforce than weight, you would need to maintain a very high speed, overcoming the air drag. You might not have enough tire contact to do so. Tiny bumps will also have something of a "moon effect", have you floating over (now under) the surface much longer than normal. If during such time drag slows you down too much you drop. Underbody and rear diffuser downforce would drop severely on bumps.
I've tried doing it on a barrel roll style track in another sim and the problem (with an F2004, so rwd) is that you need enough grip to overcome drag easily. Otherwise the rear tires have high slip ratio and when your car goes up onto the vertical bank it starts to spin out. So just having more downforce than the car's weight isn't close to enough, you need downforce to exceed weight + drag by a decent margin.
Doing a vertical loop has the obvious problem that the smaller it is the heavier vertical G's you get (and front/rear of the car dig into the surface) but the larger it is the more you decelerate on the way up it.
So ideally you want a car that hits 'more downforce than its weight' at a speed where it's still accelerating easily. I don't think any real world cars get near that. Maybe boost turned up group C when they had full underbody tunnels allowed.
Probably the easiest way to do it IRL is to have the car riding upside down on a cart with its wheels against the ceiling and then have the cart drop away, it skips trying to get it up there, problems with the engine running upside down, etc.
Doing a vertical loop has the obvious problem that the smaller it is the heavier vertical G's you get (and front/rear of the car dig into the surface) but the larger it is the more you decelerate on the way up it.
So ideally you want a car that hits 'more downforce than its weight' at a speed where it's still accelerating easily. I don't think any real world cars get near that. Maybe boost turned up group C when they had full underbody tunnels allowed.
Probably the easiest way to do it IRL is to have the car riding upside down on a cart with its wheels against the ceiling and then have the cart drop away, it skips trying to get it up there, problems with the engine running upside down, etc.
Last edited:
Late Group-C could probably do it. 850 kg with a driver and fuel, 8+ coefficient of lift, and 5-6:1 L/D ratio...the speed at which mass equals downforce is quite low, so maintaining something a decent amount faster would be pretty manageable.
Is there an option to have the game reset your car back to the track at your *current* location on the map ala GPL?
We can't race upside down track ? I'm doing fine at barthurst 
I put a car upside down in a loop bro, it's possible, here's proof:
This thread's from 2018, CSP added a replacement tire raycast method that can run on walls/ceilings, so as long as you're using a car that enables that, it works. I believe @mclarenf1papa has done barrel rolls in my test track with it. The vanilla raycasts always go straight down and ignore stuff that's too steep (idk for certain why that is, but it's a racing simulator so maybe it just never came up)
Also clarifying a couple points on your video
- your first loop doesn't work well because you have two collidable ground objects stacked (loop over grass), within a fairly large margin, that's going to cause the tires to "see" the lower of the two. I haven't tested exact limits but have heard of issues with up to ~2m height difference. The ~50 degree angle seems pretty accurate once you avoid that.
- WALL objects collide with cars but not tyres, it's fine for doing a vertical loop but you can't drive upside down (goal of this thread)
Also clarifying a couple points on your video
- your first loop doesn't work well because you have two collidable ground objects stacked (loop over grass), within a fairly large margin, that's going to cause the tires to "see" the lower of the two. I haven't tested exact limits but have heard of issues with up to ~2m height difference. The ~50 degree angle seems pretty accurate once you avoid that.
- WALL objects collide with cars but not tyres, it's fine for doing a vertical loop but you can't drive upside down (goal of this thread)
Last edited:
