Mad FinnTuners Co.™ - Finished 301010 with GT-Rdammerung - BIG THANKS everyone!

  • Thread starter Greycap
  • 3,787 comments
  • 563,109 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Greycap
Now I'm confused... after I had written this post there were 1499 replies in the thread... and there still are, despite the fact that there's one post made after this one. Do we have a mod on a double post hunt or what? :confused:

But what's our band playing? A solid beat, sounds a bit like military style to me, ah, now I know what it is...
Click to expand...


Your post was post # 1499. Leo's was REPLY # 1499, post 1500.
 
No. I checked the forum view before my post, it was showing 1498 replies which equals 1499 posts. After my post it was 1499 which equals 1500 posts. Even the post number was 1500 and I thought "excellent, we'll get the car on a new page". I'm not stupid enough not to be able to see the difference between "8" and "9", not to mention "1499" and "1500". There's something else going on but I don't know what.
 
:eek::eek::drool: That's the best photoshop/name combo yet of yours! Furthermore, that seems flippin' sweet as a car! Expect a review within the week, and I expect it to be even better than Grey's Clio since it weighs so much less. Don't disappoint!

Also, check out my coincidentally updated signature:dopey:

EDIT: I just looked at the banner, and I am confused. Why is the Clio 3 seconds faster around GVS? Their power is the same(ish), their skill markings are the same, but the slower car is way lighter. I'm still going to test the car, but now I'm thoroughly confused.
 
I believe that their torque numbers are different, and available on different manner. March, being a small displacement and now equipped with huge turbo, suffers from lag. in addition, it never was designed to be sporty, where as Clio was a hot hatch from the very beginning. Greycap said that there might be a second hidins somewhere on the track, though, but that would take more bravery and skills than he has.
 
Rotary Junkie
A tune that someone outside of the garage finally getting deleted, maybe?
Click to expand...
Probably, at least I hope so.

EA11R
:eek::eek::drool: That's the best photoshop/name combo yet of yours! Furthermore, that seems flippin' sweet as a car! Expect a review within the week, and I expect it to be even better than Grey's Clio since it weighs so much less. Don't disappoint!
Click to expand...
The graphics department did it again! :sly:

I have the skills to pull off that 2'14, calculating from the split times there's no doubt about it but the problem is keeping the car totally in check for the entire lap at that pace. One mistake costs easily half a second or more, and it doesn't have to be a big one. Missing one kerb and lifting off a bit can cause it and that's what happened on that "record run".

The car is light but the wheels are so ridiculously small that the useful contact patch is nowhere near the one boasted by the Clio and that hurts the March big time. It just doesn't grip as well and has more trouble putting the power down. It's also taller and narrower in relation to the length of the car which doesn't do much good for the dynamics. These two cars pretty much prove that a good base car can beat even a well tuned mediocre car. The March is a nicer handler but it can't match the pure speed of the Clio.
 
And next, we will introduce similarly performing counterpart. it's smal, it has plenty of temperament and comes from the land of Rising Sun..
 
TRD Starlet Glanza V '97

222 bhp, 242 Nm, 837 kg


Clickable for full size​



Parts to fit:
Racing Exhaust
Racing Brakes
Brake Balance Controller
Turbo Kit Stage 2
Racing Intercooler
Port Polishing
Engine Balancing
Racing Chip
FC Transmission
Triple-plate Clutch
Racing Flywheel
FC LSD
FC Suspension
S3 Tyres
Weight Reduction Stage 3
Rigidity Refresh
Oil Change
New Wheels (optional)

Suspension
Spring Rate: 4.0 / 3.0
Ride Height: 115 / 130
Bound: 3 / 6
Rebound: 6 / 8
Camber: 2.0 / 2.0
Toe: -1 / -2
Stabilizers: 3 / 4

Brake Controller
Brakes: 5 / 7

Transmission

Note: First, reset the gearbox to the default settings, then set the Auto setting, and only then set the gear ratios.

Gear Ratios
1st: 2.829
2nd: 2.022
3rd: 1.579
4th: 1.315
5th: 1.118
6th: 0.958
Final Gear: 3.600

Autoset 7

LSD
Initial: 10
Acceleration: 30
Deceleration: 5

Driving Aids
ASM Oversteer: 0
ASM Understeer: 0
TCS: 0

When there is a slow Toyota around, it means a job for TRD. And when they fail to make it fast enough it means a job for MFT. The project for the day was a less than stellar Starlet that was hauled to our front door with a note "We lost faith with this one. Do something guys." under the windscreen wiper so we got to work. The car went through quite a transformation during which it lost around a hundred useless kilograms and gained around a hundred useful horsepower. Making all those horses work towards a common goal was a bit difficult at times but finally the problems were solved. If it wants to spin the wheels in the second gear, just keep it floored. It's faster to let it do it than lift the throttle. The car is now capable of getting the croceries home in a time in which the ice cream definitely won't defrost on the way home.

Reviews:

by CraftyLandShark
by EA11R
by spauldj3800
by stidriver
 
Last edited:
I've been experimenting with several FWD's the past couple weeks, and one happens to be the Starlet, so since it's already sitting in my garage with all the parts on it that it needs, expect a review of the MFT TRD iteration in the next hour or two 👍
 
*melts*

Oh, two wonderful cars released! I haven't a clue which one to drive first, but I don't have access to GT4 or my DFP right now! I could cry!

('melts' is in no way a reference to ice cream. I just looked at the laptimes, and it is, indeed, a very rapid performer. Also, Grey, excellent explanation of why the March was slower. I won't hold Leo or you accountable for the not-quite-Renault paces of these two hot hatches.)
 
Well yes, "defrost" might be a bit better choice. :ouch: I'll correct it and add a bit of driving tips.
 
TRD Starlet Glanza V Review

Overall, this is a very good car. Cornering attitude is relatively neutral through slow speed bends, and the wheels are limited to just the right amount of squeal to acheive maximum grip, without turning into spin - it doesn't require a laser-precision thumb to modulate even on a DS2. Behavior under braking is good - none of the mid-corner push under braking, characteristic of many FWD's, is present. The gearing is pretty much spot-on, although a BIT more length in the lower gears might be advisable.

The only issue I have is the management of weight transfer. While it's unquestionably good as-is, there are areas where it could be improved. The softer front damping makes sense in most contexts, but I've found in the case of most FWD's (the Starlet included) that going a TAD stiffer in the front than in the back has big advantages. FWD understeer is not grip-loss understeer except in the case of excessive wheelspin - it's yaw-induced. The softer front settings allow a great deal more dive under lift and braking than is necessary, resulting in a suspension geometry that produces a BIT of removable understeer in slow speed corners. The behavior under acceleration is solid, since the rear bound setting matches the front rebound setting, but once the car is maintaining a steady speed and approaches a high-speed bend like the final righthander at GVS, it's not as responsive to steering as it could be, and where lift is needed, the responsiveness suffers a bit more. The Starlet settings I toyed with (which also used no added downforce and an identical list of parts and power) were stiffer in the front, and resulted in what appears to be the ability to maintain an extra 3-5 mph in high speed corners, which combined with whatever other intangibles might be in play, translated to 1.2 seconds shaved from the overall laptime at GVS compared to the TRD settings. I might revisit the camber and toe settings as well, in the front-end. FWD cars usually perform much better in my experience when those settings are as close to zero in the front as is realistically possible, since those wheels are responsible for both steering AND propulsion.

These are very small nitpicky issues though, just so you know, and as always, might be chalked up to driving style. The car is great, but I feel like I've cheated the tuner if I don't try to offer SOME constructive criticism. Great job with it! 👍
 
^You can shave 1.2s off of the MFT tune around GVS? That's exactly the Renault Clio's pace! I'll have to try yours at some point as well. Where do you post your settings; I get the feeling you have a specific tuning thread, but I can't remember where.

Greycap: I wasn't talking about your wording; I was talking about mine. But, if you felt you should've changed your word usage, no harm done.
 
EA11R
^You can shave 1.2s off of the MFT tune around GVS? That's exactly the Renault Clio's pace! I'll have to try yours at some point as well. Where do you post your settings; I get the feeling you have a specific tuning thread, but I can't remember where.

Greycap: I wasn't talking about your wording; I was talking about mine. But, if you felt you should've changed your word usage, no harm done.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear I didn't shave it off Greycap's time ... I can only wish! I shaved it off my own time using the MFT car (which was in the low 2'14's - I came out just a hair under 2'13 flat on the settings I had) And to be fair while mine (for ME) was faster, Greycap's has advantages over mine as well - it reacts a bit better to cutting curbing, and due to its softer springrates, its transition between different states of balance is more gradual.

To answer your question, I haven't posted many tunes yet outside of Tuner Challenges (an S2K, a 205 Turbo 16, an Elan, a 2000GT, and an Alpine), but Aussie Tuners "guest-features" my tunes on occasion - I have an M3 CSL there. Back deep in the bowels of the Tuner Garages thread somewhere, there's also a DeLorean. Some of those, while good, I really want to revisit and revise. Quite a few more tunes are in the works, though!
 
I just wonder if I will ever be able to catch Grey's 1'32 phantom lap. Probably not. and while he has bit heavier car, it seems to utilize grip of the tyres better.. but then again, my car was originally a grocery getter for grandma, not a turbocharged nutcase..
 
CraftyLandShark
...although a BIT more length in the lower gears might be advisable.
Click to expand...
Too true, but there's no space to do it. The tranny trick would help but it incorporates too many variables for people to get it wrong so I don't use it. The only cure seems to be to make the final ratio a bit taller. I'll see if it helps.

CraftyLandShark
The behavior under acceleration is solid, since the rear bound setting matches the front rebound setting, but once the car is maintaining a steady speed and approaches a high-speed bend like the final righthander at GVS, it's not as responsive to steering as it could be, and where lift is needed, the responsiveness suffers a bit more.
Click to expand...
This is quite an odd one, I was already taking the said corner at full throttle so I doubt I could get through it that much faster. It might be a controller thing, the G25 allowing for a bit more finesse and a more accurate turn in with less understeer. Or then not.

CraftyLandShark
The Starlet settings I toyed with (which also used no added downforce and an identical list of parts and power) were stiffer in the front, and resulted in what appears to be the ability to maintain an extra 3-5 mph in high speed corners, which combined with whatever other intangibles might be in play, translated to 1.2 seconds shaved from the overall laptime at GVS compared to the TRD settings.
Click to expand...
I may know what causes this, and it's the fact that the car was tuned at Autumn Ring where the soft dampers were essential for combating the tendency to get airborne from the high curbs as well as maximising the suspension travel over the bumps. In other words, what works on a slow track doesn't work on a fast track.

CraftyLandShark
I might revisit the camber and toe settings as well, in the front-end. FWD cars usually perform much better in my experience when those settings are as close to zero in the front as is realistically possible, since those wheels are responsible for both steering AND propulsion.
Click to expand...
Another odd one that I haven't even thought about, my logic says that the front needs camber to withstand the lateral forces of the engine pushing it in the corners. It definitely needs checking out.

I seriously have a feeling that the feedback can't get much more constructive. 👍
 
If it was tuned for a shorter more severe track like Autumn Ring, I can definitely understand the need for a softer suspension. As such, it seems like you definitely have struck a good balance for most tracks.

As for camber, it definitely should still have SOME in the front. The art there from what I can determine is using just enough to strike the right balance between the contact patch when cornering, and the contact patch when in a straight line. On FWD's that USUALLY seems to be in the 1.0-1.8 region, but again that's based on my driving style, which is limited by the x-button of the DS2. Again, a reason that PD should have given us some sort of readings on that... a pyrometer would have been nice!
 
Well yes, I thought that it'll never do that well on the fast tracks due to the limitations of the engine and the downforce so it might be the best to optimize it for the twisty ones. And I totally agree about the pyrometer, even the simplish one in LFS is of huge help when trying to maximize the effectivity of the tyres. Now it's hit and miss, mostly miss.
 
Greycap
Another odd one that I haven't even thought about, my logic says that the front needs camber to withstand the lateral forces of the engine pushing it in the corners. It definitely needs checking out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's definitely a result of the more front-biased weight distribution. For 2 different suspensions to react in the same fashion, they must have an equal weight/spring stiffness ratio. Since FF cars have front-biased weight distributions, a balanced suspension involves a higher front spring rate than rear. I use a formula I found in the drifting forum to do my calculations:

[original spring rate][original ride height]=[new spring rate][new ride height]

I've no technical explanation as to why it works, but it provides logical results for when you want to change ride height and find the proper spring rate to match (or vice-versa). If you choose a 10% lower ride height, this formula indicates that you need a 10% stronger spring rate. If you're logical about it, you can also adopt this idea to weight reductions.

Slightly saddens me that, while I'm handy with tuning calculations, I still can't tune well at all.

EDIT: I just realized that this was a completely irrelevant post; I misread Greycap's original post. Note to self: get more sleep overnight.
 
Hey Grey, Leo,

Just wanted to stop by and say that my respect for you guys has grown alot since the ending of the whole issue with the former RRV, i hope to be trying out your guys tunes very soon, but instead of doing entire tunes in return i wondered if i could consult you guys on my own tunes and problems i'm having with them, i'm trying to break into the next level of tuning and it's obvious to me i need to go to the best in the business of total car adaptation.

I hope we can kiss our differences good bye and move on, good day.

Oh one quick question though, is there a way in GT to find the actual weight distribution of the car? i usually look at the stock spring rates as an indication as well as having a general knowledge of the cars layout and build, but obviously this isnt as intuitive as i would like.
 
Rockit
Oh one quick question though, is there a way in GT to find the actual weight distribution of the car? i usually look at the stock spring rates as an indication as well as having a general knowledge of the cars layout and build, but obviously this isnt as intuitive as i would like.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no.
Of course, there are very many tools that would be more than useful that aren't in GT4, so... But then again, if they made a perfect game, they wouldn't get anyone to buy the next one.💡

The closest you can come to is looking it up online... But it won't be accurate for a vehicle with weight reduction, as the weight will be removed from where it is easiest to remove it: The interior and trunk.

Of course, you can fiddle with the weight balance slider (without ballast) to tweak the balance of the car... So it's possible to make Ruf's less... 'Porsche-like'? and to attempt at fixing nose-heaviness.
 
Rockit
Hey Grey, Leo,

Just wanted to stop by and say that my respect for you guys has grown alot since the ending of the whole issue with the former RRV, i hope to be trying out your guys tunes very soon, but instead of doing entire tunes in return i wondered if i could consult you guys on my own tunes and problems i'm having with them, i'm trying to break into the next level of tuning and it's obvious to me i need to go to the best in the business of total car adaptation.

I hope we can kiss our differences good bye and move on, good day.
Click to expand...

Fine by me. Naturally, this doesn't mean that we would be dating or anything, right? ;) :lol:

Oh one quick question though, is there a way in GT to find the actual weight distribution of the car? i usually look at the stock spring rates as an indication as well as having a general knowledge of the cars layout and build, but obviously this isnt as intuitive as i would like.
Click to expand...

This far I've used my general knowledge and in some cases, actual knowledge about certain cars when determining the weight distributioning in GT4. But, as RJ said, easiest way to find out is look from online websites. GT4 might or might not have them modeled accurately ( seeing that they have managed to mess up the weights between SC and NA model of 1st gen MR2..), so whenever making such assumption, be aware that results may change.
 
hmm hmm whats this slider business, if there's no weight on the ballast how would it do much of anything? i'll try it but it's questionable.
 
Rockit
hmm hmm whats this slider business, if there's no weight on the ballast how would it do much of anything? i'll try it but it's questionable.
Click to expand...

Basically it moves weight around. So the fuel tank, driver position, battery, anything. Takes weight from one area and places it elsewhere.
 
And tonight I shall PM one customer work to happy owner. It's not the rev-happy banshee, but the road-munching corner monster.
 
The weight balance thing is a debatable one, some people think it's real and some think it's just placebo effect.

Personally I don't believe in it as some magic thing, the change is so small (if it even exists) that it's next to impossible to say if the balance really changed or if you just drove that corner 2 km/h slower and thus got more front tyre grip. Or braked a fraction of a second later and thus had more weight on the fronts when turning in. Most of the handling differences come down to the driver and their microscopic mistakes in cornering.
 
I do have to say that while there's no objective, demonstrable way to prove it, after experimenting with the slider both with ballast weight and without, I do notice rather dramatic effects. The best way to observe them is to take a car with either a severely stubborn tendency to either extreme over- or understeer, and try both extremes. I'm a pretty analytical person - I'm almost certain I'm not feeling a placebo effect. On my VTC Alpine, I used a pretty extensive menu of settings to create stability in its RR layout, but as such, created a bit of understeer. I moved all the balance to the back without any weight, and the understeer immediately dissapeared. I'd driven this car nearly 1100 miles by that point - the way I drove the track was practically muscle memory, and didn't change.
 
That's quite interesting, and it seems that the effect depends heavily on the car in question. In a certain old project I drove a 510 bhp R32 GT-R a lot (enough for three chassis refreshenings) and it's known to be quite an understeery car. The position of the ballast had no noticable effect with zero weight, with as little as 15 kg of weight it became apparent that the CoG had changed. The big and bulky GT-R may just be too heavy for the effect to be really visible.
 
That would be my theory as well - the Alpine is a featherweight. The GT-R? Not so much :sly:

Most of the cars I've used it on so far have been fairly light actually... 2000GT, Alpine, and a host of FWD's I've been playing with. That probably does explain it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

fleskebacon
Quick ad fix for Vålerbanen and Jyllandsringen
Replies
0
Views
169
fleskebacon
fleskebacon
D
GT7 experience better with PSVR2 or TV?
2
Replies
54
Views
21K
flair1111
flair1111
M
T78 Vw Gooooof BTCC skin
Replies
0
Views
306
maximeerkat
M
yassermshok
Expanding circuit experience
Replies
3
Views
599
yassermshok
yassermshok
M
Honda Accord STW skin rework (car link included)
Replies
0
Views
210
maximeerkat
M

Latest Posts

Back