Closed

[Adrenaline]

For March we will be using the JGTC cars. These are race cars, so the tires with be Racing Softs, and in order to qualify for the GT500 all cars will remain at the stock HP level. The cars above are the 5 main models used, consensus says all models are the same, the only real difference is paint between special editions. This means you should be able to apply the tune from the winning model and effectively apply it to whatever model you personally use. This is why I have not listed every different version of each car.

This poll will end February 28th at 11:59pm PST and the winning car will be updated with all specification on the original Tuner Challenge Championship thread here: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=166724

 

[brandon6i]

Raybrig NSX. Its the one I chose when looking for my first race car. The car looks amazing in the sunlight, and the paint really pops. It handles pretty well too.

 

[Adrenaline]

I don't know why so many people are obsessed with the NSX's, they're easily the slowest of the JGTC with the exception of the SC430 that I've yet to drive.

 

[brandon6i]

... Uhh, because not everybody is "obsessed" with "the fastest." I think they look the best over the other options. So if I have to push my car a little harder or spend a little more time tweaking the suspension then so be it.

The differences aren't exactly so far apart in performance that you're guaranteed a last place finish in an NSX. In a time trial, perhaps it is one of the slowest... but in a race, with drafting being as strong as it is, you're not really at a disadvantage.

 

[Adrenaline]

with drafting being as strong as it is, you're not really at a disadvantage.

Can't draft if you can't catch me
I use the NSX for specific purposes, flat tight corners such as cote de azure. I don't have anything against the car, I'm just curious why so many others are in love.

 

[BlueShift]

I don't know why so many people are obsessed with the NSX's

Best looking car, best accel, hardest to drive.
It's also been a while that they are in GT.

I don't agree when you say the cars are identical : Stormbringer's tests shows a difference.

---------Model---------------weight----Hp----Ratio---LapTime----Topspeed---Rating
1)--WoodoneToms Supra---1100-----703----1.54---1:29:991-------315--------8
2)--Xanavi Nismo GT-R-----1100-----702----1.54---1:30:794-------306---------9
3)--Calsonic GT-R-----------1100-----696----1.57---1:30:903-------307---------9
4)--Epson NSX---------------1150-----702----1.61---1:30:914-------312---------7
5)--Xanavi Nismo Z---------1100-----654----1.65---1:31:316-------302 ---------8
6)--Motul autech GT-R------1130-----703----1.58---1:31:332-------306---------8
7)--Yellowhat GT-R----------1100-----693----1.57---1:31:406-------306---------8
8)--Takata NSX--------------1100-----621----1.74---1:31:410-------302---------9
9)--Petronas toms SC430---1100-----676----1.60---1:31:475-------302---------8
10)-Woodone GT-R----------1100-----694----1.57---1:31:493-------306---------7
11)-Arta NSX-----------------1100-----640----1.69---1:31:556-------305---------8
12)-Yellow Hat Supra--------1090-----612----1.75---1:31:779-------302---------8
13)-Eunos SC430-------------1100-----639----1.69---1:31:897-------296---------9
14)-Bandai SC430------------1100-----638----1.69---1:32:003-------297---------7
15)-Denso SC430-------------1100-----641----1.69---1:32:185-------297---------7
16)-Raybrig NSX--------------1100-----598----1.81---1:32:535-------298---------8
17)-CastrolToms Supra'00---1100-----567-----1.90---1:32:683-------288--------9
18)-Au cerumo Supra---------1100----560-----1.94---1:32:923-------289--------8
19)-CastrolToms Supra'97----1150----534-----2.12---1:33:013-------283--------9

 

[Adrenaline]

I see a list of alternating HP and Top Speeds.
Give them all the same HP, weight and top speed, and let's see if you can find more than 2 tenths difference between them all. (In regards to each specific model on it's own)

Although I must admit... they may very well be different, I'm just skeptic.

 

[brandon6i]

The cars in that list have been modified, correct? If the list were to be at stock values, with torque written into the table, I'd say some things would be different. Notably the Xanavi Nismo Z having a torque advantage somewhere close to +150 over almost every other JGTC car.

Even though the Raybrig NSX doesn't fare too well in that time attack list, I'd still pick it, just because I like it.

 

[BlueShift]

hp/kg ratio change, and the best ratio is not always the best car (within NSX) : it means there is other varying things : I'd say either the powerband, or the mass adaptation to the default setup, or the gearbox.

That doesn't mean a lot of things change, but I remember in GT4, with the same setup, that the Raybrig and the Takata were sligthly different.

I still prefer the Raybrig's look but the performances aren't here.

 

[Adrenaline]

Well, even if slightly different, I assume a great tune for the Raybrig will easily transfer to the Takata and be just as fast. But I could be wrong. That was the thought process behind picking 1 of each model. A poll with 15 different versions of only 5 cars, seemed rather silly.

 

[BlueShift]

np

What are the parts we can buy anyway ?

 

[Adrenaline]

Racing Soft is probably it. To remain 'GT500' there won't be any power increasing.

 

[Basilea]

And in the end you can take what ever car you like as long as it's the same model? The livery of some is just horrible!

 

[docholiday720]

Racing Soft is probably it. To remain 'GT500' there won't be any power increasing.

What about chassis reinforcement and oil changes? Currently my NISMO Z has 527hp after a few oil changes and around 150 miles on the odometer.

doc

 

[Adrenaline]

Oil changes are used on every car, but chassis stiffening seems to have a negative effect from what I've experienced/heard/seen. What do you guys think?

 

[BlueShift]

Oil changes are used on every car, but chassis stiffening seems to have a negative effect from what I've experienced/heard/seen. What do you guys think?

I think it make the car's chassi... Stiffer.

Which means a chassi stay the same longer without noticeable effects between 10 tunes.


Chassis stiffening shouldn't be automatic on your own cars, but it help the measure so it should be okay to use it.

So we use every single setupable parts, but no HP/weight "boosters", rigth ?
Tranny parts ?

 

[Adrenaline]

I think it make the car's chassi... Stiffer.

Which means a chassi stay the same longer without noticeable effects between 10 tunes.


Chassis stiffening shouldn't be automatic on your own cars, but it help the measure so it should be okay to use it.

So we use every single setupable parts, but no HP/weight "boosters", rigth ?
Tranny parts ?

All of those are on the car stock. The only options you can purchase are:
Racing Soft
Chassis Stiffening
Engine Stage 3
And 1 or 2 stages of turbo usually.

Of which, we'll be using Racing Softs only, and Chassis stiffening is up for discussion, I'd like to hear some more opinions on the matter.

 

[budious]

If you tried the GT 500 time trial then you'll know why Chassis Reinforcement is important. Yes, the car is rougher if not properly balanced. Balance it out just right and that chassis reinforcement gets you an extra 1-2% lap time bonus. I ran a 1:30.5" with Takata Dome NSX '03 last night which was using DS3 and AT shifting, so pretty good considering leaders are only running 1:24" and they all pretty much exclusively go wheel and manual shift.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Chassis Reinforcement is irrellevant, in my opinion. I think it is a total waste of money in the game, especially for purpose built race cars. On a stock Honda Civic, maybe, but on a racing machine... not even a factor. Just let me know if I need to spend the extra $20k or not.

 

[budious]

Chassis Reinforcement is irrellevant, in my opinion. I think it is a total waste of money in the game, especially for purpose built race cars. On a stock Honda Civic, maybe, but on a racing machine... not even a factor. Just let me know if I need to spend the extra $20k or not.

I disagree, it saves you money in the long run, it can be used as a one time 20k Cr upgrade in substitution for ever needing to perform rigidity restoration. The drive qualities between a car with and without are noticeable, not always positive results for the one equipped with it, but such is the case that once tuned the car with it will always be slightly faster with it than without it from my experience. Imo, from my test results, if you want to tune a race car then it should be equipped with chassis reinforcement to reach top lap time potential and not for ease of tuning.

 

[Basilea]

Hmmm auto shiftin isn't considered as driving aids? I usually drive manual but I guess I'd be faster with auto...

 

[budious]

Hmmm auto shiftin isn't considered as driving aids? I usually drive manual but I guess I'd be faster with auto...

I'd leave it to driver preference, so long as they test all tunes with either manual or automatic and don't switch between the two. Some drivers will be proficient in manual, others will not be.

 

[Adrenaline]

As long as you drive all of them with the same transmission, you may use either as you please. Who am I to tell drivers how to drive their cars! Especially since I drive AT

 

[Motor City Hami]

I disagree, it saves you money in the long run, it can be used as a one time 20k Cr upgrade in substitution for ever needing to perform rigidity restoration. The drive qualities between a car with and without are noticeable, not always positive results for the one equipped with it, but such is the case that once tuned the car with it will always be slightly faster with it than without it from my experience. Imo, from my test results, if you want to tune a race car then it should be equipped with chassis reinforcement to reach top lap time potential and not for ease of tuning.

I really don't think that your thoery on never having to do chassis refresh has been proven out.

 

[budious]

I really don't think that your thoery on never having to do chassis refresh has been proven out.

Never asked anyone to discuss, nor think I recall a debate over it. I just put it forth as my theory but you can test it for yourself and provide some feedback. What I found was that rigidity restore had an effect on handling that was similar to an unrestored dupe car with chassis reinforcement installed, but that the rigidity restore benefits were short lived, whereas the chassis reinforcement was permanent.

I'd theorize that it works something along the lines of (not an exact formula):

Car Chassis Condition = 1.00 - [(mileage * 0.0001)/100]
(ie. Chassis 98% = 1.00 - [(20,000 miles * 0.0001)/100])

Car Chassis Condition = 1.00 - [(mileage * 0.0001/100] + [if chassis reinforced; then .10, else .00]
(ie. Chassis 108% = 1.00 - [(20,000 miles * 0.0001)/100] + .10)

Not sure it works exactly that way but I'm sure it's something similar in effect as I have measured it to be. Maximum value may enforced to 1.00, so until car's chassis degrades to 89% the drive quality may remain the same? Got to keep in mind to look at it as how a programmer and computer would simulate it; not how actual physics might not offer some counter explanation.

 

[budious]

Actually now that I thought about it a little more it's probably more along the lines of:

Chassis Condition = (1.00 - (mileage * loge)/100 + (if Chassis Reinforcement add .1, else add .0)

Chassis Condition of 90% at 20,000 miles:
= 1.00 - (20000 loge/100) + .0
= 1.00 - 0.0990348755254 + .0
= 0.900965124475
= ~ 90%

Chassis Condition of 89% at 40,000 miles:
= 1.00 - (40000 loge/100) + .0
= 1.00 - 0.105966347331 + .0
= 0.894033652669
= ~ 89%

Chassis Condition of 99% at 40,000 miles with Chassis Reinforcement:
= 1.00 - (40000 loge/100) + .1
= 1.00 - 0.105966347331 + .1
= 0.894033652669
= ~ 99%

Using natural log would make mileage variations much more realistic. Still theory... if such a formula exists it is probably very similar.

 

[Motor City Hami]

So what you're saying is that chassis' won't degrade much during the 10 lap testing in this competition and therefor will have little to no affect on the lap time outcomes from lap one through lap 100?

 

[budious]

So what you're saying is that chassis' won't degrade much during the 10 lap testing in this competition and therefor will have little to no affect on the lap time outcomes from lap one through lap 100?

That's why I modeled it using natural log, because the condition is going wear faster during the break-in period than later in the car's lifetime.

You can see that at only 50 miles the car is already down to 96% chassis condition under this theorized scenario:

Chassis Condition of 96% at 50 miles:
= 1.00 - (50 loge/100) + .0
= 1.00 - 0.0391202300543 + .0
= 0.960879769946
= ~ 96%

You can see that at only 100 miles the car is already down to 95% chassis condition under this theorized scenario:

Chassis Condition of 95% at 100 miles:
= 1.00 - (100 loge/100) + .0
= 1.00 - 0.04605170186 + .0
= 0.95394829814
= ~ 95%

You can see that at only 1,000 miles the car is already down to 93% chassis condition under this theorized scenario:

Chassis Condition of 93% at 1,000 miles:
= 1.00 - (1000 loge/100) + .0
= 1.00 - 0.06907755279+ .0
= 0.93092244721
= ~ 93%

It's possible the value can be greater than 1.00 because doing both a rigidity refresh and installing chassis reinforcement at the same time produces an incredibly stiff car for a short period of time until the rigidity begins to age again. Rigidity restore probably works like an odometer storage variable, resetting the condition starting from the last time the car had the chassis overhauled at GT Auto.

 

[BlueShift]

Hmmm auto shiftin isn't considered as driving aids? I usually drive manual but I guess I'd be faster with auto...

You wouldn't, especially on fast cars. You can't double shift, or upshift to get out of corners with more grip and stop spinning.

On a max hp NSX, this is made very clear (+/-1 second diff over a track like Tokyo I think, only when she's @ max hp because she starts to behaves like a little group C/F1 car).

@budious : I agree with the "scale". Usually making a chassis refresh with each engine refresh, you won't notice some great change, but when you make this each two engine refresh, you see real times differences, esp on online time attack with a car you know by heart.

I suspects this depends a lot of the amount of walls your car take in the head too (same for engine, if you hit too much the rev or not).
My grinding 0 vette made more than 1000km before hp drop because of the engine. My road vette made only 600km before that happens.

 

[Basilea]

Well sometimes I am faster with auto! But I know what you want to say and this is why I prefer manual shifting, it is a lot more fun to shift yourself and that's why I'm playing!

I can take corners a gear higher, than auto would force me to, but for last months challenge I guess auto was faster at least for some tunes, where I had to shift and almost couldn't find the right tab button on my DFGT...