AC FAT-ALFIE championship multiclass round 4@Feldbergring, Wed 29th November 2023

[stigs2cousin]

A good question Carsten, i would say if the attacker was unreasonable in trying to force an undrivable line for the defender it would be wrong.
If however the attacker was pushing the defender hard from behind and the defender enters the turn faster than the car can handle and maybe the defender catches the outside fence to cause a spin as an example. I would say driver error. If however the attacker was close enough to get caught up in the crash then i would say he deserved it and should of taken more caution. Hope that helps with your team members question

Our legal team has reviewed the footage and came to the conclusion that the attacking driver did not violate the letter of the rule.

He created pressure by coming completely alongside on the inside at the beginning of the braking zone and so forced the attacked driver to give him space.
When the attacked driver could not see him anymore he hang back and slotted behind the attacked driver to get a better exit.
The attacked misjudged the altered line and went wide, the attacker was rather lucky to not get collected.

So Kudos for an A Hole move perfectly executed, I learned a lot

 

[Allan Ramsbottom]

@Shed 17
Can you bodge it with some chemical metal or similar??

 

[HF2000]

This is from the R-D link:View attachment 710959

That doesn't look correct. It looks like you copied the zip file path.


This is mine:

 

[Shed 17]

@Shed 17
Can you bodge it with some chemical metal or similar??

Hi Al, @Alan Ramsbottom

I drilled out the rivet this afternoon and made quite a good job with a secure nut and bolt fix.
Unfortunately, the electronics are not playing ball and all I am getting is full on 100% in the software.
I'll give it another go tomorrow, (too bleeding cold in the workshop at the moment) but I will be back as soon as possible one way or another!

 

[Kek700]

I feel you promote a minority experience here, dear Sir

Should I ever go hydraulic I´d use automotive components for sure.
These are much more resistent to obsolessence (because volume , Baby ) and use Dot x in all cases known to me (and please don´t mention ancient Harleys to me )

Ha Ha that is what I thought, I used Dot4 , leaked, luckily, i put some plastic under it, saved the wrath of the wife. When I used mobile one 0:30, everything improved.

Stiction was gone.
Smell was gone.
Bleeding was easier.
And i fuss not one jot about stripping them and cleaning them.
Far less bore degradation.
Actually gave a bit more feel to the pedal.
Mobile one was a massive success.

ironically a 100% opposite of what i thought in the beginning.

Massive PS,
remember you are not concerned about temperature, so it is actually much better than brake fluid. That is designed exclusively for brake temp.

 

[stigs2cousin]

Han,

check the dates on first files.
The file you linked to on R-D is month older than the one you quoted here

(and you actually made me believe you were better at computerism than me )

 

[stigs2cousin]

Hi Al, @Alan Ramsbottom

I drilled out the rivet this afternoon and made quite a good job with a secure nut and bolt fix.
Unfortunately, the electronics are not playing ball and all I am getting is full on 100% in the software.
I'll give it another go tomorrow, (too bleeding cold in the workshop at the moment) but I will be back as soon as possible one way or another!

I´d say

(Warning, cristal ball advice on the Internet )

that you bent, maybe even disrupted the sensor strips on the loadcell.

As this is not unheard of with the pedals and spareparts are problematic is there a way to mechanically limit the travel of the brake pedal?

 

[Shed 17]

I think you are probably right there Carsten, I have another look at it tomorrow. Thanks for the advice.

 

[Mikke73]

Han,

check the dates on first files.
The file you linked to on R-D is month older than the one you quoted here

(and you actually made me believe you were better at computerism than me )

I think I'm missing something, but I don't see the difference.

The dates of the subfolders are different because they change to the date the track is installed on.

 

[gearwhine]

Our legal team has reviewed the footage and came to the conclusion that the attacking driver did not violate the letter of the rule.

He created pressure by coming completely alongside on the inside at the beginning of the braking zone and so forced the attacked driver to give him space.
When the attacked driver could not see him anymore he hang back and slotted behind the attacked driver to get a better exit.
The attacked misjudged the altered line and went wide, the attacker was rather lucky to not get collected.

So Kudos for an A Hole move perfectly executed, I learned a lot

So, i guess the attacking driver gave up the corner to the attacked which would then explain why the legal team came to that conclusion. Probably the two drivers were being stubborn from what you have learned from the replay. With of course the one driver backing off before the other then.

 

[HF2000]

Han,

check the dates on first files.
The file you linked to on R-D is month older than the one you quoted here

(and you actually made me believe you were better at computerism than me )

Carsten,

The first ones aren't files but maps.
The maps get the date of when you copy them to your computer. The actual files (.kn5 and so) have the correct dates.

I still think you should make sure that you don't have the

in the path.

That explains why AC doesn't see the track because there are no track files in it. Only a map (rmi_troytonraceway) which does contain the track files. That map should go into the AC tracks map.

 

[stigs2cousin]

Ok,

I´ll check that later.

(You seem to know more....)

 

[stigs2cousin]

Well, ok,

you did know more.

After going down the path for one folder more AC recognized the track as it did after I let CM install it.

And then another time, same

CM crashed, PC stuck, task manager, restart.

Any (more) ideas?

Edith:

As Jason seems to be on the server I tried the online version, still crashing

Edith 2:

got it running with CSP 0.1.79

 

[HF2000]

Well, ok,

you did know more.

After going down the path for one folder more AC recognized the track as it did after I let CM install it.

And then another time, same

View attachment 711026

CM crashed, PC stuck, task manager, restart.

edith. runs now, needs CSP 0.1.79 to not crash.

CSP 0.1.79 is the latest recommended version. I'm using it for months now without any problem.

 

[stigs2cousin]

Yeah, there was a problem some time back that made me roll back??

 

[gearwhine]

CSP 1.79 has been great. Unfortunately, it does not work with latest version of pure so a lot of us will be on CSP 2.02. Ok, just checked, it works fine. From other post i see that Carsten rolled back FROM 1.79 to something lower. All good

 

[stigs2cousin]

Yes, 0.1.79 works fine.