GT Sport Optimal Shift Points

[DNA_Stag]

Hi guys, could someone who really knows how to read the power curve graphs post a list of the optimal shift points for all gr.3 and gr.4 cars under BOP and no tuning? It would be greatly appreciated because I can't seem to find this info anywhere.

 

[ARTAsean]

The interesting thing about GT Sport is the shift bar is dynamic; it will flash at peak power instead of engine redline. So for most cars, shifting at the ‘flashing blue’ or slightly thereafter will be the ideal shift point. Because of this, compiling a list of all 62 cars, with almost the same shift points, is kind of pointless.

Here above is the Gr.3 Supra power band. As you can see, peak torque occurs at ~5,600 and then drops off a cliff — and power only plateaus from there, and increases by a very negligible amount until redline. Because of this, you’re going to want to shift the Supra at 2/3rds instead of the ‘flashing blue.’ This is pretty rare though, especially for a new race car. I’m showing you this because it’s what you want to look out for.

Here’s another example, the McLaren F1 GTR. As you can see, similar to the Supra, power plateaus, and there’s really no point to wringing it out that extra ~1000rpm since torque is gone. So you’d want to shift the McLaren F1 when the bar fills up, but before the ‘flashing blue’ occurs.

This is the McLaren 650s Gr.3 — with a nice healthy powerband all the way to fuel cutoff. This car, you’ll want to ring out as long as possible.

Hopefully this helps you understand what you’re dealing with. As I said before there’s only a handful of cars that need a special shifting regiment.

 

[DynamicGT]

The interesting thing about GT Sport is the shift bar is dynamic; it will flash at peak power instead of engine redline. So for most cars, shifting at the ‘flashing blue’ or slightly thereafter will be the ideal shift point. Because of this, compiling a list of all 62 cars, with almost the same shift points, is kind of pointless.

View attachment 826992

Here above is the Gr.3 Supra power band. As you can see, peak torque occurs at ~5,600 and then drops off a cliff — and power only plateaus from there, and increases by a very negligible amount until redline. Because of this, you’re going to want to shift the Supra at 2/3rds instead of the ‘flashing blue.’ This is pretty rare though, especially for a new race car. I’m showing you this because it’s what you want to look out for.


View attachment 826993

Here’s another example, the McLaren F1 GTR. As you can see, similar to the Supra, power plateaus, and there’s really no point to wringing it out that extra ~1000rpm since torque is gone. So you’d want to shift the McLaren F1 when the bar fills up, but before the ‘flashing blue’ occurs.

View attachment 826994


This is the McLaren 650s Gr.3 — with a nice healthy powerband all the way to fuel cutoff. This car, you’ll want to ring out as long as possible.

Hopefully this helps you understand what you’re dealing with. As I said before there’s only a handful of cars that need a special shifting regiment.

So where would you shift the M6 for example?

 

[NJ72]

Umm... It's not that simple (in real life - whether this applies in GT Sport or not I can't comment)

You don't want to shift "Just as the power drops" but when it will be at an equal point in the curve at the new RPM. As such every shift point is dependent on the gear you're going from, the gear you're going to and the rev drop for all of gears themselves.

For example:

Gear 1 -> Gear 2

Hypothetical situation: Car has a symmetrical and triangular power curve and a 1000 rpm rev drop between the two gears. Peak power is at 6,000rpm. The optimal shift point is actually then 6,500rpm, not 6,000rpm. As such it is not an exact science at all and varies on lots of different factors.

All of this information is practically impossible to deduce from the miniscule power curves that GT Sport provides, especially with no grid and no correlative details of each gear including a rev drop.

At the very least, combining the power curve graph with the gear ratio graph would be helpful, but still not much use without finer details.

Best option is to drive the car yourself and work out whether it is quicker (using something like braking point speed) or slower when you shift earlier or later in the rev range.

 

[ARTAsean]

Umm... It's not that simple (in real life - whether this applies in GT Sport or not I can't comment)

Considering this is a GT Sport forum asking about GT Sport shift points, if you can’t comment on the subject, why did you even bother doing so?

The most ironic part is, your only good piece of advice is “just drive the car and test it yourself” ... well, if you had just done that with the 3 cars I outlined, you’d have saved the both of us quite a lot of time.

And seriously, do you even play this game? How could you not know the Supra needs to be shifted at 2/3rds? Everyone does by now. Do you honestly believe it’s a coincidence that the Supra is fastest when shifted at the point on the ‘miniscule’ graph where power and torque peak? Like lol.

So where would you shift the M6 for example?

Shift at full bar, before flashing blue.

 

[Cerebral303]

Interesting, going to follow this thread as I know little about this aspect of the game
At Goodwood some of the cars seemed too thirsty to finish on FM1, but I know some cars can be short shifted without loss of progress and some of the extra revs were just wasting petrol. I experimented a bit on the fly but without knowing what I was doing.

 

[superwally]

Considering this is a GT Sport forum asking about GT Sport shift points, if you can’t comment on the subject, why did you even bother doing so?

The most ironic part is, your only good piece of advice is “just drive the car and test it yourself” ... well, if you had just done that with the 3 cars I outlined, you’d have saved the both of us quite a lot of time.

And seriously, do you even play this game? How could you not know the Supra needs to be shifted at 2/3rds? Everyone does by now. Do you honestly believe it’s a coincidence that the Supra is fastest when shifted at the point on the ‘miniscule’ graph where power and torque peak? Like lol.

I understood perfectly what he said. He's trying to tell the OP that it varies, and can be situational. He didn't say you were incorrect. No need to go full assault. A little touchy today?

 

[breeminator]

You don't want to shift "Just as the power drops" but when it will be at an equal point in the curve at the new RPM. As such every shift point is dependent on the gear you're going from, the gear you're going to and the rev drop for all of gears

Always nice to read posts on this subject from someone who actually has a proper understanding of it!

I despair when people talk about torque. Even Ross Bentley gets it completely wrong.

 

[DynamicGT]

Considering this is a GT Sport forum asking about GT Sport shift points, if you can’t comment on the subject, why did you even bother doing so?

The most ironic part is, your only good piece of advice is “just drive the car and test it yourself” ... well, if you had just done that with the 3 cars I outlined, you’d have saved the both of us quite a lot of time.

And seriously, do you even play this game? How could you not know the Supra needs to be shifted at 2/3rds? Everyone does by now. Do you honestly believe it’s a coincidence that the Supra is fastest when shifted at the point on the ‘miniscule’ graph where power and torque peak? Like lol.




View attachment 827121

Shift at full bar, before flashing blue.

Cheers

 

[Groundfish]

I’ve had good luck trying to keep engines as much as possible between the torque peak and hp peak,
But basically hp is how fast you are going when you hit the wall, and torque is how far through it you end up on I,pact.
Hp is a calculated number.
Torque is your friend.

 

[breeminator]

I’ve had good luck trying to keep engines as much as possible between the torque peak and hp peak,
But basically hp is how fast you are going when you hit the wall, and torque is how far through it you end up on I,pact.
Hp is a calculated number.
Torque is your friend.

See, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me despair. It's not your fault, you're just reciting what you've read elsewhere, and the incorrect information gets perpetuated. You have no reason to believe that what you've read elsewhere is wrong, so you state it here as fact, and that is understandable.

I'm not sure what the simplest way is to dispel these ideas. Consider that a car has an amount of kinetic energy at a given speed, given by
KE = 0.5 * mass * speed * speed

To get from speed1 to speed2, its KE must therefore increase by

0.5 * mass * (speed2 * speed2 - speed1 * speed1)

The equation doesn't really matter, the point is it's an exactly quantifiable amount of energy that the car must gain.

Power is the rate of doing work, i.e. the rate at which energy is being provided to the car. Thus the time taken to get from speed1 to speed2 depends entirely on power and nothing else, as that is the sole determinant of the rate at which the required energy is provided. There are other things that will consume the power being applied in that time, it can't all go into increasing kinetic energy, e.g. the power is also consumed in overcoming rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, and increasing potential energy when going uphill. But at a given point in time, when considering engine characteristics, we can regard all these other consumers of power as constant, and the remaining power available to increase KE is purely determined by the engine's power output.

 

[Dimitri]

I’ve had good luck trying to keep engines as much as possible between the torque peak and hp peak,
But basically hp is how fast you are going when you hit the wall, and torque is how far through it you end up on I,pact.
Hp is a calculated number.
Torque is your friend.

Engine Torque is not that important for acceleration. After all, the amount of torque going to the wheels can be multiplied by the gearbox. Power can’t be multiplied in a car.

This is why relatively torqueless vehicles with vtec can still accelerate as fast as cars with the same power/weight ratio and much more torque.

Power and weight are the most important factors in how fast a car accelerated. And, at high speed, wind resistance, but you couldn’t change that by shifting anyway so it is kind of irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[talhaONE]

Cars that required to shift early:

Toyota Gr supra racing concept Gr.3
Mazda Atenza Sedan XD L package
Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
Alfa Romeo 4c
Alfa Romeo MiTo
Chevrolet Corvette C3
Chevrolet Corvette C7
Chevrolet Corvette C7 Gr.3
Chevrolet Camaro SS
Subara Impreza STI Isle of Man Time Attack Car
Subaru Impreza 22B-STI
Ferrari GTO
Ford Mach Forty
Nissan Skyline R34
Nissan GT-R LM NISMO
Dodge Viper GTS
Bugatti Veyron 16.4
Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Gr.4
Peugeot 208 GTi
Pagani Huayra
Mercedes Benz F1 W08 Power+
Mercedes Benz AMG VGT
Mitsubishi Evo.Final
Toyota MR2 GT-S

Sorry if i had mistake while making the list.

 

[NJ72]

Considering this is a GT Sport forum asking about GT Sport shift points, if you can’t comment on the subject, why did you even bother doing so?

The most ironic part is, your only good piece of advice is “just drive the car and test it yourself” ... well, if you had just done that with the 3 cars I outlined, you’d have saved the both of us quite a lot of time.

And seriously, do you even play this game? How could you not know the Supra needs to be shifted at 2/3rds? Everyone does by now. Do you honestly believe it’s a coincidence that the Supra is fastest when shifted at the point on the ‘miniscule’ graph where power and torque peak? Like lol.

Someone needs a Snickers... Better?

I have a fair number of hours in the game, yes. But what you failed to glean from my post is that I was applying real-world knowledge to the situation.

Likewise just because one car is fastest in GT Sport at the time that proves your hypothesis, it doesn't make it fact. Correlative data requires many points of reference.

At what point did I say that I can't comment on the subject? I merely said that I do not know how torque and power curves in GT are coded. Ultimately that will impact whether the real world information I have provided applies.

The last thing this forum needs is another troll, so please go back under your bridge - or have a Snickers and join in the fun, your choice.

EDIT: For those who are interested in a more hands-on real world example, please see below the power graph for my car.

As you can see, peak power is up at ~8,300 RPM. If I shift at this point (with a rough 1,000rpm drop) I'd drop right down to ~175whp. If I delay my shift to ~9,000rpm then I will still (just before shifting) be making about 180whp. When the next gear is engaged I will then be making about the same 180whp with it building back to peak by 8,300rpm and the cycle repeats.

If I was to shift as ARTAsean suggests (again, real world, unknown if in GT Sport) then the 'average power' my car produces through the gear will actually be lower.

Now, moving on from peak power and such, the other thing to consider is the corner that you may be approaching etc. Gear changes take time, and the torque available at each point in the rev range might make the optimal shift point change.

For example, if 80mph is at 8,000rpm (random hypothetical example) and the optimal shift point is 9,000rpm - but the corner requires 75mph then 'digital logic' dictates you should shift down a gear. However on the attached power graph you can see that the power differential between 8,000rpm and ~7,700rpm aren't that big, so the time lost in shifting gear would impact the overall lap time negatively.

Hence, once more, that it isn't as simple as 'shift gear at x-point for this car at all times' but very situational and very dependent on being able to see the full power graph in detail to eek every little bit of performance out of a vehicle.

Do I have this graph memorised? No, of course not. When driving I adapt to the situation through feel. Never under-estimate the butt-dyno, even in a game. Hence why I said "Go and try it" rather than saying "shift at 9,000rpm".

 

[Nismonath5]

Do I have this graph memorised? No, of course not. When driving I adapt to the situation through feel. Never under-estimate the butt-dyno, even in a game. Hence why I said "Go and try it" rather than saying "shift at 9,000rpm".

Exactly. Strange as some may find it, your bum can be quite the asset in real life motorsports! Lots of vehicular feedback to be found, if you know how to feel it.

Heh heh, ass-et.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Engine Torque is not that important for acceleration.

Not true at all, how an engine is built and designed determines the engines characteristics.

Even one engine design can be radically altered as to what the engine is going to be used for by the components used to assemble the engine.
I can take a big block Chevy engine and design such motor to make its power from idle to falling on its face after 4500 rpm for say towing or take that same engine using different components to assemble it and have the power start coming on at 3000 rpm to 7000 rpm but be a slug off idle for drag racing.

Below is text I found which explains it better than my own words but yes torque has a very big influence on acceleration.

"
Torque/bhp balance
Every engine designer has to bear in mind the balance between power and torque. He might even move the balance a little away from power and towards torque if enough drivers understood the importance of torque and the generalization that power versus aerodynamic drag determines maximum speed, but torque versus weight determines acceleration.

As the car speeds up, forces other than weight, such as aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance of the tyres, and the friction within the engine and transmission, act on it to try to resist this acceleration. At a certain speed, these drag forces equal the car's driving force, or torque, and there is no excess power left for further acceleration."

 

[breeminator]

if enough drivers understood the importance of torque and the generalization that power versus aerodynamic drag determines maximum speed, but torque versus weight determines acceleration.

I'm sorry, but this is simply 100% false. Torque vs weight does not determine acceleration, as already explained earlier in this thread.

Torque only does work when combined with movement, which is why power is proportional to torque multiplied by angular velocity. If you have a stationary car with the brakes applied, you can apply torque and the car will not accelerate. Torque does not accelerate a car, only power does. There is no power in the scenario with the brakes applied because there is no angular velocity, so no work is being done, and no energy is being provided to the car. It is a physical impossibility for a change in kinetic energy of the car to arise from anything other than energy being input, which requires not only force, but for that force to move its point of application through a distance to do work.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I'm sorry, but this is simply 100% false. Torque vs weight does not determine acceleration, as already explained earlier in this thread.

Torque only does work when combined with movement, which is why power is proportional to torque multiplied by angular velocity. If you have a stationary car with the brakes applied, you can apply torque and the car will not accelerate. Torque does not accelerate a car, only power does. There is no power in the scenario with the brakes applied because there is no angular velocity, so no work is being done, and no energy is being provided to the car. It is a physical impossibility for a change in kinetic energy of the car to arise from anything other than energy being input, which requires not only force, but for that force to move its point of application through a distance to do work.

I disagree and if you think that torque vs weight does not have an effect on acceleration that is your prerogative.

Here are two different dyno graphs from a well known worldwide engine builder (mostly drag) from similar cubic inch inch engines but one designed for truck pulls and one for drag racing.

Notice how the truck pull engine is designed with a higher torque number starting at a lower rpm and maintains that upper torque curve over a greater percentage of the rpm range.
Hp numbers on that motor start out at a lower level and reaches peak hp at a lower rpm range as well.

The drag engine runs less torque total but but has less of a % drop off from the torque numbers across the board and maintains higher levels as to its initial starting point across a higher rpm level.
Same with the hp as it builds on a more linear power curve to a higher rpm.

Difference is one engine is built for a light built race car and the other is built for pulling a heavy load.
But you are saying torque has no affect on acceleration only power.

If that were the case the truck pull motor with its higher hp should be a faster accelerating engine than the lower hp generating drag engine. Seems the dyno graphs show both the engines turning above 7700 rpm's.

Also just to give some reference this is not a fly by night operation the drag engine sells for about 69,000 usd. and the truck pull engine sells for about 82,000 usd.
Their top drag racing engine cost 109,000 usd.

I am sure if torque made no difference then they would just build one engine in that size with the highest horsepower rating because according to you torque does not affect acceleration only hp and the truck pull engine with its higher hp would accelerate faster or better.

Perhaps I should call this shop which has specialized in hand built custom race engines for 50 years and tell them they are doing it wrong because torque does not matter.

 

[golfer07840]

Just read this thread....

 

[breeminator]

Perhaps I should call this shop which has specialized in hand built custom race engines for 50 years and tell them they are doing it wrong because torque does not matter.

Torque, in itself, doesn't matter. As I said, power is proportional to torque x angular velocity, so torque matters in so far as it is related to power. If one engine has twice the torque of another engine at the same rpm, it will have twice the power, so in that sense torque matters, as you cannot have power without torque, but it's the combination of torque and angular velocity that provides the power, and the power that determines the acceleration.

Suppose, for example, you have engine A which produces torque x at 2000rpm, and engine B also produces torque x at 8000rpm. Engine B has 4x the power of engine A (same torque, 4x the angular velocity = 4x the power). You can probably find an example of a pair of cars along those lines in the game to see how their acceleration compares if you don't believe me.

The shape of the power vs rpm curve does matter, of course, because no engine with a conventional transmission can stay at a single rpm to maintain peak power. So a car with a broader spread of power, allowing the integral of power over time to be higher than that of a car with a peakier power curve, will accelerate faster, because it's averaging a higher power in between shifts.

 

[talhaONE]

Can I ask a simple question? What exactly engine torque does?

 

[breeminator]

A simple example of two cars:

Honda Civic 1.6 diesel
peak torque 300Nm
peak power 120PS
0-62mph 10.0 seconds

Honda Civic 1.5 petrol
peak torque 240Nm
peak power 182PS
0-62mph 8.2 seconds

The car with more power, but less torque, accelerates faster.

 

[Exotime]

Hello everyone,
I've been working on a tool (in excel) to try and determine what could be the optimal shifting point of a certain car... For example, here are the results for the Supra Gr3: (BOP and no setup)

I'm not an engineer and I don't claim to be one.. but, basically, I've spread the graph of the car over the speed (RPM) with the value of the transmission etc..
The HP graphs are simply spreading the value of the HP based on the speed of the car (x) while the torque is multiplied by the gear ratio of the respective gear and then based on the speed as well. So Torq value x Gear ratio.
That is why the graph of the first is much higher than the other.
Now, an interesting fact that I've found is that the HP grahs crosses at the same point (speed) than the Torq grahs.

Optimal shifting point:
1st : ~7500rpm
2nd : ~7200rpm
3rd : ~ 7100rpm
4th : ~7050rpm
5th: ~7050rpm

Does this make sens?
What do you think?

 

[dabz343]

Considering this is a GT Sport forum asking about GT Sport shift points, if you can’t comment on the subject, why did you even bother doing so?

Someone needs a Snickers... Better?

The last thing this forum needs is another troll, so please go back under your bridge - or have a Snickers and join in the fun, your choice.

Touché


This is the simplest explanation I could find





Bit more here





As far as shifting points





If you prefer reading material...

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/torque-vs-horsepower.153996/

 

[breeminator]

If you prefer reading material...
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/torque-vs-horsepower.153996/

The problem is there is so much incorrect information in threads like that, and the majority of people who need to read the thread to know the answer don't know enough to know who is right and who is wrong.

As I said earlier in this thread, I really don't know how to go about convincing people what the truth is. Misinformation on this subject has been rampant for decades.

This guy understands it:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/torque-vs-horsepower.153996/page-4#post-2823175
"There you have it: for a given car velocity, acceleration is proportional to power. It doesn't matter if the power comes from an internal combustion engine (ICE), an electric motor or a set of pedal for that matter: No body cares about the torque, power is all you need to know."

But why would anyone believe me when I say that guy is correct? If someone lacks the knowledge to already know what the right answer is, how can they tell that I know what I'm talking about, and the guy above knows what he's talking about?

 

[dabz343]

You're welcome breeminator. I was suppling info that is out there for people to make their own judgement,...but you're not suggesting torque has nothing to do with acceleration? That would be reaching a bit too far now, don't you think?

As for misinformation on this and many other subjects that is out there, welcome to the real world.

Now go grab a snickers bar like someone above stated and come back to this thread when you understand some people are just tying to share info to help others.

 

[breeminator]

You're welcome breeminator. I was suppling info that is out there for people to make their own judgement,...but you're not suggesting torque has nothing to do with acceleration? That would be reaching a bit too far now, don't you think?

You can determine the acceleration from power alone, without reference to torque.

You can also determine the acceleration from torque, but you will need to incorporate additional information, i.e. the angular velocity, which is determined by the rpm of the engine. Once you've done that, you will get an identical result to determining it from power, because power is proportional to torque x angular velocity. So it's simpler to determine it purely from power.

 

[Groundfish]

See, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me despair. It's not your fault, you're just reciting what you've read elsewhere, and the incorrect information gets perpetuated. You have no reason to believe that what you've read elsewhere is wrong, so you state it here as fact, and that is understandable.

I'm not sure what the simplest way is to dispel these ideas. Consider that a car has an amount of kinetic energy at a given speed, given by
KE = 0.5 * mass * speed * speed

To get from speed1 to speed2, its KE must therefore increase by

0.5 * mass * (speed2 * speed2 - speed1 * speed1)

The equation doesn't really matter, the point is it's an exactly quantifiable amount of energy that the car must gain.

Power is the rate of doing work, i.e. the rate at which energy is being provided to the car. Thus the time taken to get from speed1 to speed2 depends entirely on power and nothing else, as that is the sole determinant of the rate at which the required energy is provided. There are other things that will consume the power being applied in that time, it can't all go into increasing kinetic energy, e.g. the power is also consumed in overcoming rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, and increasing potential energy when going uphill. But at a given point in time, when considering engine characteristics, we can regard all these other consumers of power as constant, and the remaining power available to increase KE is purely determined by the engine's power output.

Ok?
FACT relative to motors you don’t have any power without torque. Hp is a calculated value taking into account rpm.

FACT, I AM NO INTERNET WHIZBANG PHYSICIST OR ENGINEER OK?

So,,I am just going to talk real world to this topic. We have all used a torque wrench right? So you can measure a value you are putting on a faster. 1 lb of force exerted on a lever one foot long is 1 ft lb. ok, I’m not no whizbang physicist just a poor redneck.
So do not reply about what direction that force is applied ok? We are talking about loosening or tightening a bolt with a torque wrench.

That force is torque, twisting force.

So say you had a million bolts to remove. Would you be faster at it turning them wrenches at 1 rpm or at 500 rpm?

No brainer! But doing so requires more power! So conceptually in this country bumpkin example makes sense right?

Where curves come in is POWER DELIVERY.

So, anyone whose ridden an old two stroke dirt bike knows what a powerband is. Two strokes are really touchy about pipes. So in a two stroke when you wind that grip as far as it will go (wot) it takes a bit and then when the revs climb it wants to jump away from you when it comes onto the pipe.

Now, a four stroke of the same vintage does not ride like that. The four cycles have more torque so the engines power delivery is different. It’s not so explosive like a two stroke coming on the pipe or say a modern vtec hitting that key rpm where it makes best power.
Interestingly in the early days of open class motocross the engines had a ton of power, but the laptimes were faster in 250cc class by the best pros. Power delivery was key here. The best riders in the world as the sport evolved were much faster on four cycle engines once technology made them light enough but why?

The two stroke open bike had more power! Easily should have been faster right? No. The nature of the power delivery was such that it negatively affected the riders ability.

Damn things were just too peaky at the limit. Peakiness is kind of a characteristic of two stroke engines. Tractability is more of a 4 stroke thing on bikes. So what’s this crap even mean?

When you twist throttle more open on a four cycle dirt bike the response is much closer to 1-1. Twist throttle-something happens.
With the leakier two stroke twist throttle, build rpm, WHAM massive acceleration.

I’m just tryin to ‘splain power delivery of n engine.

So here’s the thing. In cars with transmissions, you are not actually at peak power the entire time you are in a given gear. That’s where torque curve comes in. With more torque at lower rpm you can accelerate better than less torque at low rpm.
Those curves tie into fuel usage somewhat too I should think, but dunno specifics in game.

Just sayin. Getting into physics equations and crap online ain’t for me, just a country boy here.

Power is what it’s about, but looking at peak power in isolation is going to be very misleading when it comes to performance of a vehicle.

Take a beemer in-line six, push the pedal something happens, take an old 80 rx7 and you gotta wind it up to get it to pull.

So imo, power delivery is very very important for roadracing cars. Tbh in game it really takes me time with a car before understanding how to get the most out of it on shift point.

The funny thing about the Pd graph is there’s no scale, I considered measuring it up and creating one...

To me it’s not a complicated issue, what complicates it is how it’s explained. Like you can say man why did a person say that about shift points but you have to understand where they are coming from because engine volumetric efficiency also factors in in say a race where you need to form a pit strategy.

That’s it @breeminator, I’m not saying you are right or wrong, just that’s how I see it. Also please do not patronize me with condescension
Here’s a link to an engine dyno explanation. Engine dyno measures fricken torque!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer

I wish I could offer up best shift points for all gr3, but I’m a simple country boy, I’ve only really become effective with a couple of them...

Cheers

 

[breeminator]

So here’s the thing. In cars with transmissions, you are not actually at peak power the entire time you are in a given gear. That’s where torque curve comes in. With more torque at lower rpm you can accelerate better than less torque at low rpm.

You're pretty much right with everything you said, but I would replace the above with
"In cars with transmissions, you are not actually at peak power the entire time you are in a given gear. That’s where the shape of the power curve comes in. With more power at low rpm you can accelerate better than less power at low rpm."

Even then, I'm not completely happy with the last sentence. It's only the shape of the power curve in the region used between gear shifts that matters, with the exception that in the game, when doing a standing start, perhaps it doesn't automatically use the clutch in a way that keeps it near peak power, in which case the power at the rpms it uses would matter for that scenario. So I'd modify the statement further to:
"In cars with transmissions, you are not actually at peak power the entire time you are in a given gear. That’s where the shape of the power curve comes in. With more power over the range of rpms you're using while accelerating, you'll accelerate faster."

What you said isn't actually wrong, but it just confuses people because they overlook (or don't understand) the need to incorporate rpm into the equation, and before you know it, people are thinking that a car that has a peak torque of 300Nm at 2000rpm will accelerate faster than a car with a peak torque of 200Nm at 4000rpm, because 300 is bigger than 200. If we talk in terms of power alone, it eliminates that scope for confusion.

 

[splitwindow]

FACT relative to motors you don’t have any power without torque. Hp is a calculated value taking into account rpm.

I always liked the quirky saying "you can have torque without power, but you can't have power without torque"

Then again, I've also always liked a Snickers as well. Fun fact, they're awesome when you keep them in the freezer.