A suggestion for solving the fuel and tyre wear problem

[breeminator]

I've seen many people complain about the unrealistic multipliers for fuel and tyre use.

I agree that the current situation is not good. The problem with accelerated use of fuel and tyres is that the pit stops take too long relative to the benefit provided, shifting strategies towards minimising fuel use and tyre wear.

However, I believe the solution is actually quite simple. The time added by pit stops should be reduced by the same multiplier. This might seem unrealistic, but it would actually be more realistic than the current situation.

Suppose in real life you'd be doing a 60 lap race at 90 seconds a lap, and tyres will last 30 laps, and everyone is doing one stop. So the race is 90 minutes, and each stint is 45 minutes. Suppose a pit stop adds 30 seconds. Suppose tyres after 30 laps are running 1.5 seconds a lap slower than when fresh, and if they weren't changed, they'd be running 3 seconds a lap slower at the finish. If you did no stops, the 2nd stint would be around 45 secs slower than if you stopped, so 30 seconds extra for a stop is a no brainer, you're up 15 seconds.

Now suppose everything is 5x, but pit stops remain the same. Now you're doing a 12 lap race, so when you get to half way, you're running 1.5 seconds a lap slower, and if you don't change tyres, the next 6 laps will take a total of around 9 seconds longer. The 30 second pit stop is no longer worth it, you're now better off not stopping. As such, this is unrealistic, if the desire is for the game to create a simulation of a real race, but scaled down in duration. By having a multiplier for tyre use but keeping pit stop duration the same, the simulated race fails to create the same strategy as the real race.

But if the pit stops are also reduced 5x, so instead of taking 30 seconds, they take 6 seconds, the trade off for the 2nd half becomes 9 secs slower due to worn tyres vs 6 seconds to change them, and the pit stop becomes worth it, just like in the real race. The proportion of time saved becomes scaled by the multiplier. In the real race, the pit stop costs 30 seconds to save 45 seconds. In the game, the pit stop would cost 6 seconds to save 9 seconds, both 2/3rds.

So as far as I can see, if the objective is to make shorter races like scaled down (in duration) versions of full length races, having fuel and tyre multipliers is fine but you also need to scale down the pit stop overhead by the same multiplier.

I'm ignoring the issue of having different multipliers for tyre and fuel. If they always had the same multipliers, then the above argument works. If they're different, then a pit stop factor could be chosen to reflect whatever reasoning was behind the choice of the multipliers.

 

[GRAN007]

will if this was real life car when setup a car with real life the cars of year one car would not tack out i own one of the year one and talk to people with the car setup and the setup are all wrong so that make the the problem to . so all adjusting is right tire and not heavy foot on the gas / brake pedals and hope for best they can do. in trust we hope . the car test base fuel miles was about 250 miles on tank of fuel. that at 60 miles a hour . the math there . but in game it not there .

 

[Sven Jurgens]

Another problem with exaggerated tire wear is that any accident counts as having that accident 13x with a 13x tire wear multiplier. If you get punted into the gravel or into a spin in lap 1, your tires are now at a big disadvantage until you pit. Same with the extra fuel you spend to get back up to speed from a standstill. Faster pit won't help for that.

Short shifting also becomes more and more advantageous with higher fuel multiplier. At least that would be compensated by faster refueling. Why not start the race with low fuel to force a pit stop. That would also reduce the exaggerated fuel weight advantage between fuel savers and gas guzzlers.

It's fun to switch things up with a no stop but it's not realistic at all. Plus often it leads to problems with slower cars being in the way of cars that come out of the pit stop. Especially on tracks like Mount Panorama where it's very easy to block all through the mountain part. Same with N24. (Where it's rather ridiculous you have to pit after 1 lap or fuel and tire save a ton to make 2 laps while being in the way most of lap 2)

Even if you multiply the tire change speed by tire wear multiplier and refuelling by the fuel use multiplier, you're still left with the effect of pit lane length and entry speed. Some pit lanes you fly in at top speed (not realistic either) and have a short out lane, others like Sarthe have a long entry or long exit (Interlagos) and some like Mount Panorma you also have to slow down a lot to enter. All that exaggerated by having a pit stop in a short race. You can balance that out by reducing pit time even more, or warp the car ahead to the pit (instead of waiting for it to arrive)

It's a game after all, not a simulation. The strategies between one or no stop do make it interesting and ensure the second half of the race still has plenty action instead of everyone pitting right in the middle to watch the gaps grow for the rest of the race. It's the exaggerated tire damage that is most annoying. Get punted in T1 and you're at a disadvantage for half the race.

 

[GRAN007]

i like that i will take to bank

 

[breeminator]

Even if you multiply the tire change speed by tire wear multiplier and refuelling by the fuel use multiplier, you're still left with the effect of pit lane length and entry speed. Some pit lanes you fly in at top speed (not realistic either) and have a short out lane, others like Sarthe have a long entry or long exit (Interlagos) and some like Mount Panorma you also have to slow down a lot to enter. All that exaggerated by having a pit stop in a short race. You can balance that out by reducing pit time even more, or warp the car ahead to the pit (instead of waiting for it to arrive)

Yes, that's what I meant by it being the "pit stop overhead" that needs to be adjusted - the total time of the in and out laps minus the total time for 2 racing laps. The car would need to be moved along the entry and exit at high speed, but overall, I think it would allow the shorter races to more realistically mimic the strategy of full length races, which you'd think is probably what the multipliers are intended to achieve.

 

[Leggacy]

Am I the only one who likes strategy in racing? Who was it that said racing was about wining at the slowest pace possible? I think it was Fangio.
I agree that in a sub 10 lap race that a pit seems quite extreme but I like races with pitstops and or strategy. in most sport races the emphasis is on fuel rather than tyre conservation. The tyre wear seems a bit token at times.

 

[Sven Jurgens]

Am I the only one who likes strategy in racing? Who was it that said racing was about wining at the slowest pace possible? I think it was Fangio.
I agree that in a sub 10 lap race that a pit seems quite extreme but I like races with pitstops and or strategy. in most sport races the emphasis is on fuel rather than tyre conservation. The tyre wear seems a bit token at times.

I just did the FIA N24 race, 3x fuel, 19x tire wear! I should have paid more attention as I started the practice on mediums, then started qualifying on the same mediums of which the front tires were 66% gone by the end of my out lap. What's the point of the practice time if it in no way reflects anything in the race! I switch to hards and set the brake balance to rear (to unburden the fronts a bit) but there's not enough time to qualify now, timed out at the end of my second out lap. I did a no stop in the race (2 laps...) enough fuel left for a third lap, front left about 60% gone, rest about 40%. Excessive!

Strategy in race is fine but it often backfires and turns races into one-makes. Either the car with the least tire wear or lowest fuel consumption remain competitive. The Ferrari 458 is practically useless in a daily C with its tire wear. Kinda strange to have BOP that ignores the differences in tire wear and fuel consumption. BOP for a daily C should be different than for a daily B, that is, if the purpose of BOP is to balance the cars to all have an equal chance.

 

[azrilnazli]

For me, I like the current approach. GT racing is all about strategies. ( Fuel management, tire wear management and pace management )

IRL, they race for 3 hours / 6 hours / 12 hours and 24 hours.

To simulate them in GT Sport, excessive mutiplier is the only way.

 

[T_revisio]

It should be possible, with the FIA events, to have a mixture of high tyre / fuel wear events (endurance), like daily race C and also flat out sprints, like daily race B. Why PD don’t do this has never been explained.

Not everyone wants to be a tyre or fuel preservation engineer in a racing game that they bought only to enjoy the thrill of racing. They get more fun out of going as fast as they can and actually racing others using driving skill, rather than using a tyre or fuel preservation advantage or not racing others too hard, because it may increase fuel or tyre wear.

Then there is the issue that many cars are simply useless at tyre or fuel wear and therefore don’t get used, wasting game content and the hard work of the PD staff that built these cars.

The ridiculousness becomes apparent, when a driver who is not playing follow the leader in a slipstreaming, short shifting, fuel preservation event gets called “stupid” for having the audacity to want to overtake and actually have an enjoyable race!