Oh dear this could cause me some online grief but here goes.
Don't think am alone in being unable to perceive difference between hard and soft race tyres in terms of longevity. So did a bit of testing with a Ford Test car (what else?).
Auto Gears, TC 5, SRF off, ASM on, ABS 1. Get to set up in a mo'.
First thing I tried were rain tyres round Indy. Seemed perfect track because the car can just go round and round without ever needing to lift, allowing you to see what happens to different tyres under the same stresses. Did the tests in 'one make' races in the Practice section.
Rain tyres?
Had to know. Get cynical sometimes might just have been some weird low grip hard tyre. Besides can't be many people tried blasting a turbo charged Ford II Test car round Indy on full wets.
All but unusable, gave up even trying to find out after about three laps. As it should be, rain tyres crap in the dry.
Soft sport tyres next and interest got peaked. By turn 4 of lap 22 car uncontrollable. Thing was, was having to pull Left Analog Stick to max to get round bends. The tyres couldn't cope with the car and even full lock it hit walls more than once.
Soft racers on other hand, far less lock needed and screwed out of turn three on lap 26, a whole four laps better, well almost.
Thing is on few occasions when subject of wear comes up some smug git (no offence to smug gits obviously) says well ofcourse therse's a difference between compounds if your'e good enough to find it. Sport v Racers indicated to me that indeed hardness alone might not cut it with 819 BHP to deal with.
Thought was that perhaps lowering power would be more even test. Idea being harder compound might shine thru if lateral forces reduced, find the sweet spot where the hard tyre could cope as well as the soft.
So reduced power to factory spec as described in the cars' write up, namely 598 BHP. At same time reduced Tran to the default 224 mph. (Had had it at 236). The rest was as follows, set up for the cars usual job of Indy cash grinding:
Wing 40/65, LSD 10/60/20, Sus -5/9.2/6/6/5, -5/10.3/6/6/5, Wheel 1.2/0
0.8/-0.50.
Hope that's clear. So anyway went with Soft Racers first and this time decided to get the car to the pits before it totally died to see if there was any fuel differences too. Car pitted on lap 36 having used 77 litres of fuel or 2.138 litres per lap. Did prove beyond doubt that reducing stresses on tyre improved wear.
Then the big one; Hard Racers. Erm... 33 laps and 70 litres or 2.121 litres per lap.
Can't pretend this is definative proof of anything, can see the game is factoring in hardness v grip via the sports/racers test but do genuinely suspect that the hard racer perhaps is not hard enough in relation to its' grip.
Don't think am alone in being unable to perceive difference between hard and soft race tyres in terms of longevity. So did a bit of testing with a Ford Test car (what else?).
Auto Gears, TC 5, SRF off, ASM on, ABS 1. Get to set up in a mo'.
First thing I tried were rain tyres round Indy. Seemed perfect track because the car can just go round and round without ever needing to lift, allowing you to see what happens to different tyres under the same stresses. Did the tests in 'one make' races in the Practice section.
Rain tyres?
Had to know. Get cynical sometimes might just have been some weird low grip hard tyre. Besides can't be many people tried blasting a turbo charged Ford II Test car round Indy on full wets.
All but unusable, gave up even trying to find out after about three laps. As it should be, rain tyres crap in the dry.
Soft sport tyres next and interest got peaked. By turn 4 of lap 22 car uncontrollable. Thing was, was having to pull Left Analog Stick to max to get round bends. The tyres couldn't cope with the car and even full lock it hit walls more than once.
Soft racers on other hand, far less lock needed and screwed out of turn three on lap 26, a whole four laps better, well almost.
Thing is on few occasions when subject of wear comes up some smug git (no offence to smug gits obviously) says well ofcourse therse's a difference between compounds if your'e good enough to find it. Sport v Racers indicated to me that indeed hardness alone might not cut it with 819 BHP to deal with.
Thought was that perhaps lowering power would be more even test. Idea being harder compound might shine thru if lateral forces reduced, find the sweet spot where the hard tyre could cope as well as the soft.
So reduced power to factory spec as described in the cars' write up, namely 598 BHP. At same time reduced Tran to the default 224 mph. (Had had it at 236). The rest was as follows, set up for the cars usual job of Indy cash grinding:
Wing 40/65, LSD 10/60/20, Sus -5/9.2/6/6/5, -5/10.3/6/6/5, Wheel 1.2/0
0.8/-0.50.
Hope that's clear. So anyway went with Soft Racers first and this time decided to get the car to the pits before it totally died to see if there was any fuel differences too. Car pitted on lap 36 having used 77 litres of fuel or 2.138 litres per lap. Did prove beyond doubt that reducing stresses on tyre improved wear.
Then the big one; Hard Racers. Erm... 33 laps and 70 litres or 2.121 litres per lap.
Can't pretend this is definative proof of anything, can see the game is factoring in hardness v grip via the sports/racers test but do genuinely suspect that the hard racer perhaps is not hard enough in relation to its' grip.
