Leaf spring modeling

I’ve noticed the Bluebuck and Moonhawk handle a bit more like I’d expect in that class of car (you can easily get some rotation with throttle, instead of mostly just understeering into the guard rail that much harder) vs the Barstow. When I replace the rear leafs on the Barstow with the 4 link and coil overs it behaves the same way.

Are there any special difficulties/ complications to modeling rear leaf handling traits vs other?

 

I know nothing about game design but I know a thing or two about classic cars
If the leaf springs are modeled how they would perform in real life, the extra weight of the Bluebuck would have a need for practically truck leaf springs, which lower weight transfer on acceleration, letting the front and rear wheels have about the same amount weight on all wheels at the same time. This behavior could also be traced back to the frame and front/rear weight distribution, which I have no idea how to explain. That is my best guess for the Bluebuck.

The same case could be made for the Moonhawk, but would mostly be irrelevant. The reason it would be irrelevant is that the Moonhawk has such an old model, JBeam, and physics calculations that it is held back by 2014 physics in a game that is advancing so quickly, that the car was just left behind. So my simple explanation for this is that it has a physics model from 2014, and was optimized for the less powerful equipment from almost 10 years ago.

As for the Barstow handling the "right" way, the Barstow was "designed" for straight-line speed rather than corners, because early 70s. With the coil spring rear-end, it limits all the weight traveling to the back at the slightest sight of throttle.

Again, I know nothing about game design but know a good bit about classic cars.
If anyone finds this, feel free to correct me if I'm severely wrong.

 

I’m not talking about cornering in general, the Barstow does that okay for the most part. It’s more you can easily get the Bluebuck and Hawk to rotate some more midcorner with a good squeeze of power, whereas on leaf springs the Barstow it just doesn’t work is good, tends to push more. Would you say that’s accurate for cars similar to our Barstow on leafs?

 

You call the Moonhawk the Hawk?

 

You call it “The Moon”?!?

 

Nice one lol
Maybe if the center of gravity is closer to the direct middle, it helps rotate the car? I never really like playing with center of gravity and that sort of stuff with a car because I know I'll fuck it up

 

No. I call it by its full name— the Bruckell Moonhawk.

 

Do you also call your kids something like “Jonathan William Smith-Jones the Third” every time it’s time for dinner?

 

I don’t have kids?!

lol

 

No, I don't call my vintage powersports equipment by their model names, in fact, I gave them personalities (for some damn reason)
1985 Suzuki LT250EF - that's a mouthful, just call him Duki (short for Duki the -Suzuki)
1979 Arctic Cat Jag 3000 - that's another mouthful, just call him Arnold (kinda sounds like Arctic, idk anymore) and so on

But yes, the center of gravity on the Bluebuck seems quite centered, while the center of gravity on the Barstow seems quite rearward, so that may be why the Bluebuck handles like nothing from it's generation

 

I don't know for sure, but it makes sense intuitively that a leaf-sprung axle would have more longitudinal damping, since the only longitudinal constraint is the spring itself, resulting in a smoother application of force on the tires, helping them to hang on for longer.
Just like how having a softer sway bar smooths out the spike in lateral load on the tires, prolonging the initiation of understeer/oversteer.

Unless they've been changed since, this is how leaf springs are modelled in jbeam: the dark green beams are rigid, with the light green ones doing most of the spring work, so the spring & damping is done in effect by "bending" the lower beams, so it is fairly accurate.