| From: | SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Vehicle Acceleration (was: Fat Bottomed Girls) |
| Date: | Wed, 28 May 2003 10:26:04 +0200 |
> > From:
> > Steve Garrard <SteveG@***********.co.za>
>
> >
> > Not really. The purpose of those numbers is to represent the car's
> > maximum acceleration from a standing start. That's really
> the only way
> > to test acceleration, since you can't test "most common
> acceleration".
> > What, do we push the gas pedal only 60% of the way down,
> since that's
> > what "most" people do? No, testing maximum acceleration is ideal.
> > Otherwise, the numbers WOULD be garbage.
>
> Except if you do it as you described, you're going to get "maximum
> stalling" and "maximum spinout", not "maximum acceleration".
Obviously I should've chosen my words more carefully. I was exaggerating to
make a point.
> > Yes, that DOES defeat the point, hence the reason I stated that the
> > acceleration rules in SR are broken. It makes someone with
> a Car skill
> > of 3 about as effective as a tricked-out rigger when accelerating a
> > car. Then there's the REALLY meaningless "oops I rolled no
> successes
> > so I'm unable to accelerate the car any further right now" issue. I
> > don't know about you, but no matter how bad the driver, I've never
> > seen anyone who can't accelerate behind the wheel. :)
> >
>
> Do you drive? I know for a fact that around here (the east coast of
> Australia), I regularly see trucks (fully loaded 18-wheelers) beating
> regular cars out of the lights. In fact it's typically better to pull
> into lights behind a truck than behind several cars if you
> want to get
> moving quickly. That says to me that there's an awful lot of
> drivers who
> don't have a clue on how to accelerate. And when you get all the way
> down to it, there's plenty of drivers who stall, roll
> backwards, bunny
> hop or spin out when they try to take off, and periodically I make a
> mistake and do the same.
In all my 9 years of driving I have never experienced a car that doesn't go
forward faster when you push on the little pedal on the right. Granted, with
a stick shift you can potentially stall the car from a start, or wheelspin
when exiting a slow corner in a powerful car, but otherwise once you're out
of 1st gear, you have to be some special kind of stupid to be unable to
accelerate the car at all.
> > Yes, in a car with a manual gearbox clutch control is vital to
> > achieving optimum acceleration, but how many cars in 2060
> (aside from
> > thoroughbred sports cars) do you think will have manual
> shifters? In
> > an automatic, the process is simplified: depress brake
> pedal with left
> > foot, depress gas pedal with right foot until revs hover
> near redline,
> > release brake and floor it. The only skill involved here is in
> > "rolling" the gas pedal forward after releasing the brake to reduce
> > wheelspin. If you plant the gas pedal, you'll add about
> 10-15% to the
> > acceleration time due to wheelspin.
> >
>
> And why do you think the thoroughbred sports cars have a
> manual shift?
> It's because it's generally recognised that, for a good
> driver, a manual
> shift will enable him to get more out of the car.
> Furthermore, I would
> expect that in the near future, the only difference between a manual
> shift and an automatic shift is going to be which electronics are
> between the driver and the gearbox.
>
> I can almost guarantee you that a rigger is going to decide
> he want's to
> be as close to the gears as possible, and that that decision will add
> significantly to the performance of the car.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that a rigger would opt for a
manual gearbox? Okay, I can agree with that, but your statement that
"...that decision will add significantly to the performance of the car..."
is incorrect. In general, a manual gearbox adds MAYBE 5% to the total
acceleration of the car. For example, a 2003 BMW 325i hits 60 mph in 8
seconds (according to one review); the automatic version of the same car
does this in 8.3 seconds.
> > But back to SR: that's the problem I have with these rules,
> they make
> > rigging meaningless from an acceleration point of view.
> >
>
> Wait - which rule are you arguing here? I'm arguing AGAINST the rule
> which you proposed - the one where a single success
> accelerates you at
> the maximum for the car and no further successes matter.
The SR3 acceleration rules. And my argument wasn't a proposal per se; I was
simply pointing out that I see that as the only option using the same method
and given the existing rules.
Slayer
"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
