Observations on PP Maximization by Harvey Wallbanger & Friends

Lately I've been doing a lot of tunes for specific Performance Point restricted events. Some are for the more recent seasonals, some are for our tuning forum F.I.T.T. sponsored events and some are for drivers involved in online racing series.

The key here is that all these have a set PP limit.

There are a variety of threads full of very good information about ways to tune cars, so this is not going to be another forum for discussion of tuning techniques.

What this thread is intended for is to work on the breakdown of the Performance Point system that PD has in the game and record observations on ways to maximize your build for any given PP.

This can be a resource for everyone to use when looking to get the maximum performance out of their tunes when dealing with PP restrictions.

Anyways hope you all will find this of interest and will join me in building a better understanding of the PP system and how to use it to our advantage.

Remember as Harvey Wallbanger always says...
Drive hard and have fun!

Reserved for agreed upon facts regarding Performance Points, the way they are calculated, effects of various tuning parts and options like ballast and power limiter.

As I'm sure your aware there are basically three things the game factors into the PP equation. 1st is HP/Torque. (I put them together for this discussion but you could easily separate them as both have an observable effect.)
2nd is your weight which I'll come back to in a moment.
3rd is aerodynamic downforce.

Now then back to weight. After observing the changes in PP based on weight changes I've discovered that its not a fixed scale. Thus removal of a certain percentage of weight won't always add the same amount of PP. What happens is that lighter cars removing or adding weight will see a much larger increase or decrease in PP than heavier cars. Since this is a sliding scale the next step was to check the amount of gain or loss of PP from weight vs HP. My observation is that right around the 900-950kg range they have about an equal value in the PP formula. Under that weight you will get a larger PP change with weight vs HP/Torque. Above that you'll see a larger change based on HP/Torque. Another point is that adding weight from ballast is not the same as a cars original weight even if the final result is equal weight. Generally you'll gain fewer PP by adding ballast than you lost to weight reduction.

Just as an example: I might remove 100kg from a car and raise my PP by 20 points. Then I add 100kg of ballast returning it to stock weight but it only reduces my total PP by 15 points. Because weight is only one third of the PP equation not removing the weight in the first place will allow me to have more HP/Torque and or downforce for a given weight. The benefit of using ballast and sacrificing those PP is that you can adjust the weight distribution of course, possibly leading to improved handling.

Now let's move on to HP/Torque.
We want as much HP as possible obviously so then the question becomes do I add all the power adding parts and then use the power limiter to bring it back to the desired PP, or do I just add enough parts to get it to or slightly above the desired PP. As I mentioned earlier the PP formula calculates based on the combination of HP and torque, so unless your running a fairly tight course where acceleration is at a premium the HP becomes more important as it has more effect on top speed where as Torque plays a more significant role in acceleration.
Because of the way the power limiter works you'll lose more HP with it than torque. Also you don't gain as many PP vs HP from the use of the power limiter.

Quick example: I build an car with say 500HP and 500ft-lbs of torque at 550PP only using some of the parts available.
Now I build the same car with all available power adders then use the power limiter to get back to 550PP. With the second car I may end up with 485HP and 511ft-lb torque.
Because of this I generally try and only add power adding parts to take me to one or two points above a given PP limit. Reason I'll go those one or two points over is because often but not always there is a small range of power that will achieve that PP. By going very slightly over and then using the power limiter to get back to the desired PP I'll maximize my HP and torque for that PP, while just adding parts to exactly reach it might just barely place me into that PP for the car.
So using the above example say that adding the sports air filter got me to 550PP but gave me 499HP and 497 Torque, but using the racing air filter got me 501PP but after using a very tiny percentage say 99.8% on the power limiter I end up with the 500HP and 500ft-lb torque at 550PP thus maximizing my power.

Hopefully the above will be of help to you.

XDesperado67

Just as an example: I might remove 100kg from a car and raise my PP by 20 points. Then I add 100kg of ballast returning it to stock weight but it only reduces my total PP by 15 points. Now let's move on to HP/Torque.

Quick example: I build an car with say 500HP and 500ft-lbs of torque at 550PP only using some of the parts available.
Now I build the same car with all available power adders then use the power limiter to get back to 550PP. With the second car I may end up with 485HP and 511ft-lb torque.
Because of this I generally try and only add power adding parts to take me to one or two points above a given PP limit. Reason I'll go those one or two points over is because often but not always there is a small range of power that will achieve that PP. By going very slightly over and then using the power limiter to get back to the desired PP I'll maximize my HP and torque for that PP, while just adding parts to exactly reach it might just barely place me into that PP for the car.
So using the above example say that adding the sports air filter got me to 550PP but gave me 499HP and 497 Torque, but using the racing air filter got me 501PP but after using a very tiny percentage say 99.8% on the power limiter I end up with the 500HP and 500ft-lb torque at 550PP thus maximizing my power.

Hopefully the above will be of help to you.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that ballast had that effect but it makes sense, seeing as how you have the advantage of being able to position the weight for better handling, thus sacrificing pp to do so. That is very useful. I'm going to go and repurchase a couple of my favourite cars and experiment with that as well. 5pp may not seem like much but it can easily be 2/10ths a lap.

I am of the same mind with the power limiter as well. Using more than a few % of the power limiter pushes the max torque more and more to the left, far below the usuable rev range of the vehicle in many cases. You may end up with 540 ft/lbs of torque using the engine limiter and 480 without it, but the 540 will be at a peak often less than half the redline when you are usually operating in a much higher rev range. The car with 480 peak will always have a flatter curve and as a result, often higher torque near the redline where we are usually operating.

Add to this that using the engine limiter also lowers peak hp and it's easy to see why I've always felt the gains from the engine limiter were a myth.

XDesperado67

Just as an example: I might remove 100kg from a car and raise my PP by 20 points. Then I add 100kg of ballast returning it to stock weight but it only reduces my total PP by 15 points. Because weight is only one third of the PP equation not removing the weight in the first place will allow me to have more HP/Torque and or downforce for a given weight. The benefit of using ballast and sacrificing those PP is that you can adjust the weight distribution of course, possibly leading to improved handling.

Click to expand...

Endeavouring to keep within the context of the thread, with the example, it is also possible to change you weight distribution by doing exactly the above. If you're up against weight or PP restrictions, strip out more than you need to and add it back as ballast. I didn't know about the PP gains detailed above (nice find Dee, ta).

So to follow on from the example, let us assume that the car in question has a 60/40 weight distribution, before adjustments to weight. If you strip out 100kg and add it back as ballast, you'll likely find your weight distribution has changed too, to something like 57/43. I'm not quite sure why this is and I've not tested it across cars, I just happen to observe it a few weeks back during the Rally Shootout.

I thought it was worth chucking my tuppence in, as PP is also affect by ballast position. I've no testing or results to quantify any of the above, as per, just an observation I made the other day...

{Cy}

PS - Even before I've finished typing this, I'm wondering if the gains in PP and the fact weight distribution changes with additional ballast aren't in fact one and the same thing..?? Pffft, over to the intelligent types...

CyKosis1973

Endeavouring to keep within the context of the thread, with the example, it is also possible to change you weight distribution by doing exactly the above. If you're up against weight or PP restrictions, strip out more than you need to and add it back as ballast. I didn't know about the PP gains detailed above (nice find Dee, ta).

So to follow on from the example, let us assume that the car in question has a 60/40 weight distribution, before adjustments to weight. If you strip out 100kg and add it back as ballast, you'll likely find your weight distribution has changed too, to something like 57/43. I'm not quite sure why this is and I've not tested it across cars, I just happen to observe it a few weeks back during the Rally Shootout.

I thought it was worth chucking my tuppence in, as PP is also affect by ballast position. I've no testing or results to quantify any of the above, as per, just an observation I made the other day...

{Cy}

PS - Even before I've finished typing this, I'm wondering if the gains in PP and the fact weight distribution changes with additional ballast aren't in fact one and the same thing..?? Pffft, over to the intelligent types...

Click to expand...

These are the kinds of observations that will make this work for us as I hadn't noticed the shift in weight distribution due simply to use of weight reduction previously so now it will be something I look for.

As for the intelligent types I believe it was Thomas Edison who said genius was 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. He should know since he had a bunch of guys working for him in his workshop that did all the perspiring required for the inventions he got credited for. So if all us average guys pool our observations here maybe someone can have those moments of inspiration that turns the light on for us.:tup:👍

Hey, xDes, great thread.

+1 for weight distribution affecting PP. Set the weight to maximum, then you can see the PP change as you move the weight around. I dunno how it works, though, cos a 40/60 Ruf gains PP as you make it even more rear-heavy

Perhaps this is what is causing the PP to be different when you cancel out the weight reduction using ballast. Perhaps move it around and see if you can get the original PP value (sorry I'm not near the PS3 to test this myself). Anyways, I've found adding ballast to be really useful for PP tuning (also lets you run more hp).

Any thoughts on whether front and rear downforce have the same effect on PP?

nomis3613

I dunno how it works, though, cos a 40/60 Ruf gains PP as you make it even more rear-heavy

Click to expand...

I've never understood why PP increases the further to the rear you shift ballast. The only cars it seems like a good idea to do that with are FWD, possibly 4WD, in order to prompt a bit of oversteer.

I would have thought that shifting it to the front would increase PP ... maybe ... or at least I would expect PP to increase proportionally to the distance it was moved, be that back or front.

I've got a window of opportunity tomorrow to make some more observations, I'll be back once I've some results...

{Cy}

nomis3613

Hey, xDes, great thread.

+1 for weight distribution affecting PP. Set the weight to maximum, then you can see the PP change as you move the weight around. I dunno how it works, though, cos a 40/60 Ruf gains PP as you make it even more rear-heavy

Perhaps this is what is causing the PP to be different when you cancel out the weight reduction using ballast. Perhaps move it around and see if you can get the original PP value (sorry I'm not near the PS3 to test this myself). Anyways, I've found adding ballast to be really useful for PP tuning (also lets you run more hp).

Any thoughts on whether front and rear downforce have the same effect on PP?

Click to expand...

I noted while tuning my Cien for CSLACR's 600PP shootout, I discovered that rear downforce costs more PP than front downforce. Seems like it was approximately a 2-1 ratio for the caddy, so if I wanted to add 1 point of rear downforce without changing the weight or power limiter I needed to remove 2 points of front downforce.

XDesperado67

I noted while tuning my Cien for CSLACR's 600PP shootout, I discovered that rear downforce costs more PP than front downforce. Seems like it was approximately a 2-1 ratio for the caddy, so if I wanted to add 1 point of rear downforce without changing the weight or power limiter I needed to remove 2 points of front downforce.

Click to expand...

Tell you one car that has bizarre rear downforce response with its PP -TVR Cerbera Speed 12. Fully modified with mininum downforce values front and rear it is in the 630s but when maxed out it gets to 680s instead. The thing is, ith the rear downforce, on some change to values, the Cerbera Speed 12s PP value goes up by two points at once. Usually it will increase at least a point every time the rear downforce is increased...front downforce just seems to act normally for it though.

Now this is a useful thread! Good work.

If you strip out 100kg and add it back as ballast, you'll likely find your weight distribution has changed too, to something like 57/43. I'm not quite sure why this is

Click to expand...

because when you remove weight through reduction, you remove equal bits from all over and maintain the same distribution. when you return via ballast, you add the 100kg to the middle (assuming you left the position at 0) therefore the distribution changes. the lighter the vehicle, the more noticable the effect.

re: weight distribution

i haven't tested on all cars but from what i've observed, 46/54 or thereabouts seems like the "ideal" (according to PP values) distribution. ie. the PP will go up the closer you are to that value. again, i almost exclusively tune/drive rwd/mr and this is what i have seen for those drive trains.

What cars have you found that offer the best performance for a given PP? Thanks!

Sorry X it's taking me awhile to get back(I'm sick as a dog right now). From what you've described this is one of the bases we have used at CKR since it's inception and is one thing I have taken away from zero when I was just learning how to do this(tuning) on my own..I continue to use this semi-formula in CKR v2 to keep out tunes in that 400-600PP range...

Indy

Playing with excel i've found this .

(((power hp + torque)/2)/ weight kg) / Perf.points) = 0.00 always.


TVR TUSCAN SPEED 6 '00 (((471hp+388 ft.lb)/2)/931kg)/550pp)= 0.0
RUF CTR "YELLOW BIRD" '87 (((560hp+495 ft.lb)/2)/1200kg)/550pp)= 0.0

Work for any cars with downforce or not.

I know about fish not math , anybody can check this please?

Something I've noticed about power output: Torque is bad, revs are good.

What I mean by this is that you should lean towards the modifications that raise the rev limiter (ECU, engine tuning, exhaust, cat) instead of those that do not (intake and exhaust manifolds, air filter, engine maintenance). This also means that low and mid RPM turbos, as well as superchargers should be avoided when possible.

You don't spend much time at low RPM on track and having strong low-end is bad for PP (in that it raises it) and relatively useless for performance. You want to have as much power as possible from your shift recovery point (where revs drop to after a shift) to the rev limiter or other designated shift point; power anywhere else is "wasted".

Torque isn't what accelerates a vehicle, power is. Torque can be compensated for via shorter gearing, there is no replacement for horsepower. I can move a semi (slowly) with a 5hp lawnmower engine with enough gearing. I cannot, however, go fast with a 5hp semi. 100 ft-lbs at 10504 rpm is the same as 200 ft-lbs at 5252 RPM. 200hp. An engine with half the torque but twice the rev capacity (the actual "curve" being identical) will perform the same as the one with full torque and half the revs provided the former has twice the gear ratio multiplication.

GT likes the latter. GT likes it even more when there's absolutely nothing until the last 2000rpm of the tach provided you can get the ratios close enough to stay within that 2000rpm window.

Edit: @Praiano: That equation doesn't work out as you've written it... Not sure what it was meant to be.

Rotary Junkie

Something I've noticed about power output: Torque is bad, revs are good.

What I mean by this is that you should lean towards the modifications that raise the rev limiter (ECU, engine tuning, exhaust, cat) instead of those that do not (intake and exhaust manifolds, air filter, engine maintenance). This also means that low and mid RPM turbos, as well as superchargers should be avoided when possible.

You don't spend much time at low RPM on track and having strong low-end is bad for PP (in that it raises it) and relatively useless for performance. You want to have as much power as possible from your shift recovery point (where revs drop to after a shift) to the rev limiter or other designated shift point; power anywhere else is "wasted".

Torque isn't what accelerates a vehicle, power is. Torque can be compensated for via shorter gearing, there is no replacement for horsepower. I can move a semi (slowly) with a 5hp lawnmower engine with enough gearing. I cannot, however, go fast with a 5hp semi. 100 ft-lbs at 10504 rpm is the same as 200 ft-lbs at 5252 RPM. 200hp. An engine with half the torque but twice the rev capacity (the actual "curve" being identical) will perform the same as the one with full torque and half the revs provided the former has twice the gear ratio multiplication.

GT likes the latter. GT likes it even more when there's absolutely nothing until the last 2000rpm of the tach provided you can get the ratios close enough to stay within that 2000rpm window.

Edit: @Praiano: That equation doesn't work out as you've written it... Not sure what it was meant to be.

Click to expand...

Yes this "thing" work, i'll not call it with a mathematical name because i don't know exactly what it is..... but it work. Take any car you have in your garage
do this and you'll see.
(((power hp + torque):2) : weight kg) : Perf.points) = 0.00 always.

You're right that it'll be 0.00 when rounded to two decimals.
It is in fact 0.000799242424 for the Yellowbird. The problem with your formula is that you divide with significantly large numbers. Rewriting your formula, it becomes
(bhp + torque)/(2*weight*PP)
That means for the Yellowbird it's
(560+495)/(2*1200*550) or (1055/1320000)

So because you in effect multiply the divisor (chain-dividing is the same as multiplying the divisor), but only add the dividend (bhp + torque), you will always end up with very tiny numbers, which Excel will by default treat as 0.00.

So you can't use that.

So this thread is helpful to decide between weight and HP. Have you also done work to compare downforce vs. weight vs. hp?

schack

You're right that it'll be 0.00 when rounded to two decimals.
It is in fact 0.000799242424 for the Yellowbird. The problem with your formula is that you divide with significantly large numbers. Rewriting your formula, it becomes
(bhp + torque)/(2*weight*PP)
That means for the Yellowbird it's
(560+495)/(2*1200*550) or (1055/1320000)

So because you in effect multiply the divisor (chain-dividing is the same as multiplying the divisor), but only add the dividend (bhp + torque), you will always end up with very tiny numbers, which Excel will by default treat as 0.00.

So you can't use that.

Click to expand...

I'll continue with my fish. Thanks... 👍
><((((°> °°°°°

Motor City Hami

So this thread is helpful to decide between weight and HP. Have you also done work to compare downforce vs. weight vs. hp?

Click to expand...

This isn't just about HP vs Weight, but about figuring out the various nuances that make up the PP formula so that you can maximize the build for any given power point.

Part of that is breaking down how the PP is figured.
Another part is figuring out how best to utilize the individual elements for maximum benefit.

There's one thing missing. The pp system usually takes drivetrain into consideration. Awd cars have the most pp for the weight and hp, mr cars are next and FR cars seem to have the least weight and most hp for a given pp. Not sure on rr cars as there aren't many other than the rufs. I will give an example when I get on my ps3.

Good thread - but missing something quite important.

The way you've put the thread togethor is technically very good, but the point is this - WHEN is it beneficial to start using PP points on aero, instead say, not putting any aero parts on your car and using it for power or weight reduction instead.

For example - using aero in cars less than 500pp and tyres greater than say sports mediums / soft, is possibly over kill generally, but on fast flowing circuits (where front downforce can really help), some cars might benefit from having aero instead of 'extra' power or weight reduction being done.

Now, multiply this example by all the different amounts of variables (in terms of race rules - pp points, tyres and tracks) and it becomes a real minefield - just where do you draw the line and say aero is more important that power or weight reduction??

Just to be a real pain in the ass, throw in "setups" aswell, and well, to be honest, there is no line or rule that can be applied, as the amount of variables become so great it's mindblowing.

RJ is also correct, torque kills PP, but some cars will benefit from the torque more than others i.e. the high revving cars (Vtecs and rotary engines - RX8 more so than RX7), or 5 speed cars like the Lotus Esprit (that pulls like a trian out of corners with a low RPM kit on it).

However, I do recognise that some of your findings are relevant and very interesting i.e.

"I might remove 100kg from a car and raise my PP by 20 points. Then I add 100kg of ballast returning it to stock weight but it only reduces my total PP by 15 points"..

But again, in which situations is it best to lighten a car, some race series don't allow this or use of ballast.

This is why applying the best PP maximisation is in fact subjective and is down to the variables of the race, car, track and regulations that you are faced with and it's not something general where some formula or calculation will be best for all situations..

It's all about kowing what is best for what car in what situation.. Trying to calculate that mathmatically, good luck!!!

Finally, (there used to be some) "freak" cars - what I mean by this is:

A long time ago, I look at the Maclaren F1 '94 for a race series (585pp), I fiddled about with 2 F1's, one with aero and one without.

Check out how many pp points a 'stock' F1 '94 is without and aero package, then get another 'stock 'F1 '94 (or same one - just add aero) and see how much aero comes with it and look at the pp points.

(this was a long time ago, can't remember exact figures) I'm sure the amount of aero it gains from an aero package is quite considerable (seeing as most spoilers just give 20 aero points), yet the overall PP points of the car doesn't seem to change as much as other (or most cars) that have an aero package fitted.

This has all been done for memory, I remember because when I checked this I was very surprised as I expected the PP to jump hugely (after seeing how many aero points it could have), but it didn't.

There's been a few updates since I looked the F1 '94 months ago and compared aero / PP points - so it may be all irrelevant now or I've got this completely wrong through poor memory, but it was very strange how much aero it gained for such a small PP increase compared to other cars.

EDIT:

Forgot another variable - the "power limiter", exact same cars of the same PP will have different power to weight ratio's depending on whether you use the power limiter or not, you need to take that into account too...

I find while tuning for a certain PP race more HP over weight seems to work best. If over the PP level I add weight to the car, because you can put it were you want it and not lose the power. Don't know if that helps. Just me two cents.

As for "freak" cars, the Buick Special. Put all parts on and reduce the weight and the PP level is 554. Try adding weight to it, or reducing power (by removing parts or the limiter), and the PP goes UP! The one I have tuned is maxed out, but if I want to remove the supercharger the PP level goes up to...I think...570ish.

Don't know if any of this helped.

To clarify the point about weight distribution and ballast just a bit...

A car weighs 1200kg, with a 60/40 weight distribution, yielding:

Front axle: 720kg
Rear axle: 480kg (fixed)

Reduce the weight by 200kg, yielding:

Front axle: 600kg
Rear axle: 400kg

Still 60/40.

Then add that weight back in ballast (which by default sits exactly in the middle of the car)...

Front axle: 600 + 100 = 700kg
Rear axle: 400 + 100 = 500kg

Weight distribution is now 58/42

s2k2k3

To clarify the point about weight distribution and ballast just a bit...

A car weighs 1200kg, with a 60/40 weight distribution, yielding:

Front axle: 720kg
Rear axle: 600kg

Reduce the weight by 200kg, yielding:

Front axle: 600kg
Rear axle: 400kg

Still 60/40.

Then add that weight back in ballast (which by default sits exactly in the middle of the car)...

Front axle: 600 + 100 = 700kg
Rear axle: 400 + 100 = 500kg

Weight distribution is now 58/42

Click to expand...

You forgot ballast positioning, this will affect weight distribution % too..

Weight distribution won't just be affected by weight, but where you put it.

Also, you don't need ballast to sort out cars with terrible weight distribution, this can be done by simple tuning...

BUT - as the OP says, if you're loooking for the maximum PP potential of just one variable - race, car, track etc etc - then yes, doing this would have a slight PP advantage, I'd definately agree with you there.

Generally though, if you're racing alot of different cars every night, that'd be on helluva job to to that to all your cars.

Good luck 👍

I think you're gonna need it with your maths:

A car weighing 1200kgs has....720kgs and 600kgs (that's 1320kgs, not 1200kgs????)...

Then reduce the weight by 200kgs = 1000kgs (er...no...that's 1120kgs)...

I'm not looking for a mathematical formula here.
We're trying to determine what all makes up the PP formula in the game. If we can get that all figured out then you will be better able to optimize the various tuning options for whatever PP your tuning for.

If you have two cars with identical suspension tunes but one you've just tossed it together however to get to a certain PP, while the second one has made optimum use of the tuning options to reach that PP then the second car will have an advantage.

I'm sure there will be differing opinions on some things such as the best uses of HP vs weight vs downforce but the more we understand about how it all works in the PP formula the better our tunes should be.

XDesperado67

I'm not looking for a mathematical formula here.
We're trying to determine what all makes up the PP formula in the game. If we can get that all figured out then you will be better able to optimize the various tuning options for whatever PP your tuning for.
If you have two cars with identical suspension tunes but one you've just tossed it together however to get to a certain PP, while the second one has made optimum use of the tuning options to reach that PP then the second car will have an advantage.

I'm sure there will be differing opinions on some things such as the best uses of HP vs weight vs downforce but the more we understand about how it all works in the PP formula the better our tunes should be.

Click to expand...

Er....no and er....no...

As previously explained, this is a great "theory" that will work on ocassions but in practice, generally, you're wasting your time being so in depth - everything you need to know already has been posted already, as explained previously...

But - I'll try again.. The easiest example to understand (hopefully):

What's the point of saving a few pp points if someone is going to use those PP points "saved" on aero, when in fact, aero isn't really required..??

As mentioned previously, look at the amount of variables available for a tune, how many different tyres, cars, tracks and options i.e. power limiter @ 100% or not - are there in the game..??

The minor saving you're going to make on optimising the PP points for a certain situation is irrelevant when compared to understanding and knowing what's best to do generally for all cars in all situations i.e. do I use aero here - if so how much, or power - but is that torque or high rpm power or less weight etc etc etc...??

This is why it's a great theory, but will fail in practice as there are so many variables to consider, it'll almost be impossible to get agreement for what to do in every situation - because there are so many situations to consider..

By the time you've got anywhere remotely closing to working this out, GT8 will be out...

Yes, certian area's of the game or for specific tunes / setups this will be of benefit, the main and best area of the game i.e online racing - general knowledge and experience (of cars, tyre wear, tuning / setups, tracks etc etc) is going to be far more beneficial than saving a few PP here and there - especially, if those PPs you save is going to be "miss-used" by adding something to your car which is not needed, or something else would've be more beneficial..

You're not going to see that if you're trying to crack the code of how the PP points are calculated.

Finally, there's vital infomation NOT being published by so many tuners on here - this PP saving is of far less importance than some of this informaition that's missing, the time spent trying to work this out for minimal performance increase is crazy....

What's the point of making your car 0.5-1.5 seconds a lap faster by optimising the PP points, if you don't understand tyre wear and as such you're loosing 2-3-4 seconds a lap, every lap near the end of the race because of this..???

If you're tyres are wearing out, there's a far greater chance you'll crash or run wide, loosing yourself even more time.

Yet no-one is talking about this and you want to save 0.5-1 sec a lap by spending all this time working out how to save a few PP points on a few tunes??

Wait until 6-12-18 months when everyone has completed A-spec and is doing nothing offline and everything online, there's so many guys already there who will tell you exactly the same as what I am telling you...when you get there yourself, you'll see what I mean...

Highlandor - you used a lot of words there, but didn't really contribute much to this thread with your last post. Let's try not to cut people down who are actively trying to decode a part of the game.

X - I agree that all things being equal for a car that I will be racing online with one of my best tunes, PP can provide some additional advantage. It would be cool to have more data points to look at though. Can a google document be set up where people can add data to it? Maybe those interested can each look at a handful of cars and report their data for PP changes for aero, weight and HP?

Motor City Hami

Highlandor - you used a lot of words there, but didn't really contribute much to this thread with your last post. Let's try not to cut people down who are actively trying to decode a part of the game.

X - I agree that all things being equal for a car that I will be racing online with one of my best tunes, PP can provide some additional advantage. It would be cool to have more data points to look at though. Can a google document be set up where people can add data to it? Maybe those interested can each look at a handful of cars and report their data for PP changes for aero, weight and HP?

Click to expand...

"HP" why are we talking about sauces here? This is no place for food