Fanatec CSW/CSR Elite Modders Thread *UPDATE February 2014*

  • Thread starter eKretz
  • 3,600 comments
  • 585,571 views
Yes RacerXX, i think i know what you mean. To get some objective data there is more needed than some measurement. A reproducible test procedure (independent of PC/console, game/sim, as much as possible) is needed too. I have to think about that ...
 
I don't much care for those water jackets, we have already had a short mention somewhere about the stagnant flow possibilities. With nothing to direct the water it's liable to just go in the inlet and head straight back to the outlet, whereas with a tubing coil or something like my sleeve, it's forced to circulate uniformly and pick up all the heat before exiting. I'm sure it would help, but not to the degree that one of the latter would.
 
I think you need to tweak your settings a bit. Growing pains; I had the same issue when I started using it. Check that your PC driver setting (on the profile screen) is set to 900 degrees rotation and then set SENS on the wheel to off. Anything else can make the results look a lot better than they really are. That's why I deleted my very first graph, I did the same thing you did.
 
Last edited:
Yeah lotta adjustments and no documentation. What exists is spread out in many forum posts. I think I do have those settings, but will check, drift is also off too as that would affect matters I'd expect. Are you using Atlas at all? I'm using Excel for Mac mostly.
Click to expand...

Yeah I got some help from the guys in the wheelcheck thread on iRacing. I run all my settings at base, except for damper off. I forgot to mention I have this turned off in the PC profile also. That was recommended by the wheelcheck guys. I'm pretty positive you have a setting off somewhere, since a stock 2-motor CSW/Elite, even with lower drag, shouldn't be able to get anywhere the stops in the test. I am using Atlas in iRacing for data and fine-tuning on the wheel. There's a guy named Clayton over there at iRacing, he has a nice thread dedicated to using it for setup. Very nice.

I question whether you can feel them or not, and if so if the issues are significant or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah lately I haven't been so worried about it, since when actually racing it feels outstanding. I'm thinking it's not such a big deal.
 
The minimum force test seems to be dependent on whether your wheel has been resting and developed a belt flat spot/kink and also on where the motors are in their rotations when the test is started (i.e. in a cogging position or not) since that affects motor torque at such small force levels. Yup, the coast-down should be a good way to compare changes. It would be nice to use Atlas for graphing the test results but I haven't quite figured out how to do so yet. It would be less work than Excel I think.
 
I got some wheelcheck info from David T. at iRacing and made a graph so we can compare, this is with the wheel set to 100% Force. I graphed it at 60% and it was just a little less rotation, so I'm using the larger one here:

T500wheelcheckampRPMb.jpg


Stock CSW:

StockampRPM.jpg


Buhler CSW @40VDC:

Buhler40VampRPM.jpg


It's interesting that everyone always says that the T500 is faster in RPM than the CSW, when this graph shows the CSW has a slight edge. I wonder if anyone can get some more up to date data for the T500, since the stuff from Dave is pretty old.
 
Last edited:
Slippage ruins the speed of the CSRE and CSW of course. So it really depends from wheel to wheel I suppose with one of those.
The T500 is more consistent and has a more decent motor than what Fanatec prefers to use.in other words, Buhler motors probably have a better quality consistency and higher life expectancy than any Fana-Buchi. So speed and torque degradation due to wear should be minimal too as far as this happens and could be a concern.
 
I agree with you there on pretty much every point. However, if a Fanatec wheel is properly adjusted it shouldn't really have enough slippage to matter.

However, now that I look at the graph again, it would appear that the T500 is still accelerating when it hits the reversal call, (the slope of the graph is still very high, where the CSW looks to have mostly leveled out) so it probably never gets near its top speed. On top of that, it looks, upon closer examination, as though the T500 does achieve a slightly higher peak speed. It almost looks to me as though the T500 could benefit from a slightly higher gear ratio, to allow it to accelerate a little faster.
 
Yeah that is true, but it looks like they are probably right if one would only consider top achievable speed, like I mentioned above, the graph is pretty clearly showing the T500 is still accelerating since the slope is still high when it reverses. No way to tell how high it might level out at unless we could change wheelcheck's delay period.
 
I'm averaging .22

On the reversal there is a lot more at play than just belt slippage. I'm not sure it's fair to compare wheels from different manufacturers anyway since inertia plays such a big role. Any difference in the inertia of the rotating components will make a big difference. And you are correct the slippage won't affect free-wheeling speed really at all as long as it's not a ridiculous amount. That was pretty clear to me when I was getting slippage as my graphs on wheelcheck were almost identical even so, whether pre or post slippage.

It would be more accurate to say slippage ruins torque, and possibly affects acceleration, but really only as RXX said, on sharp reversals when free-wheeling (and not by much then) or when gripping the wheel.
 
Last edited:
RacerXX
Over the years I have done lots of controlled listening tests for audio equipment and found that when you don't know what you are listening to…suddenly that fancy wire for 200 dollars a foot sounds the same as the decent quality normal cable.
Click to expand...

Or the old "If the band doesn't like what they're hearing, pretend to twiddle some knobs, turn it up, play again, and bingo... happy band"
 
RacerXX
We don't seem to have a good enough idea of the thresholds we need to achieve in sim racing. For those that also race in real life…well we have a way to go to duplicate that.
Click to expand...

I had done a Google search to find out how much force a racecar driver has to deal with at the wheel, but never could seem to make any sense out of any of the findings when comparing data to the specs of sim wheels. I was intrigued to hear your previous comment about IndyCar wheels and wondered how you got that information of 20 pounds at the wheel. Indycars just from watching the cockpit cam seem to have some of the hardest wheels to keep steady. If you look at their hands they always look like they are fighting the wheel even on the straights, and I wondered how much torque it took to do the hairpin turn at Long Beach (slow tight turn). I would love to have a sim wheel that had the type of force IndyCars need to turn or the violent twitchiness the drivers get from bumps and curbing.
 
There's a guy on iRacing who says Indy cars can have 60Nm sustained torque in certain turns! :crazy:

For reference, that'd be over 98 pounds (almost 45 kilos) at the OD of the CSW's F1 rim!

I'm not sure where he got this info though; I have found a white paper by a guy from Newman-Haas (their chassis engineer, so I'm pretty sure the info is accurate) back in 2000 that says peak torque on an oval car (CART/Indy car) back then was no more than 13-15lb./ft. max depending on setup, which is 17-20Nm (29-33.5 lbs. at the Fanatec F1 wheel rim). That was with high caster though. Normally it said more like a peak torque of 8-11lb./ft. or 11-13Nm (18-24.5 lbs. at the Fanatec F1 wheel rim). Interestingly, the torque is higher in a straight line (it tries to pull left) than at peak cornering due to the way the car was set up for left turns only.

I have been unable to find a white paper for a road-course setup though. Here's the link for the CART oval white paper:

http://web.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/adams/na/2000/06_newmanhaas_steering_feel.pdf
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... but in recent times I remember hearing that F1 drivers say that they are able to drive effectively with only one hand on the wheel with the way the current cars drive. Of course if they go off track that would change to zero hands for fear of broken wrists.

The "old skool" commentator was bemoaning how physically easy it had become. Not that it stops them losing a ludicrous amount of weight during a race.
 
Yeah, I go by the least technical measurement tool, the eyes. F1 you can definately tell they have lots of power steering assist, just watch the hands. Oh, and Danika could probably grab my hips and turn me upside down!
 
In recent years sanctioning bodies such as Grand-Am - IndyCar and Formula One (optional) use a Variable Ratio Steering system.
some of these systems are powered but not in the conventional sense.
as of yet no one even bothers to measure the force required to turn the wheel at the rim.
although the force required is slightly higher on road course tracks as opposed to oval the total is much lower than it was twenty years ago.
you do not want a driver to put up with 40lbs at the rim for two hours of racing. he would end up in the pitts within twenty lapps suffering from fatigue.
as of 2008 IndyCar steering systems have changed and by good buddy (Les Mactaggart)
has mentioned to me that the force required is around 13lbs on road courses with as low as 9lbs on ovals. in my experience in racing it seems to vary from 10 to 16 lbs in recent years.
in racing you need to be able to respond quickly with steering input and having to fight the wheel would be of no help. we need a light steering with good feedback from the system.
 

Latest Posts

Back