GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,444
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on May 22nd, 2020 in the Gran Turismo Sport category.
Thanks, I don't see the prior BoP values for all cars when I look thru the GTS site... do you know where to find the old Gr3 data for comparison or did you also prep one? Wondering if they clipped the 911 RSR a bit like the Cayman.I found it hard to see the effect of the BoP changes from PD's list, so have been producing a single number for each Gr.4 car, where each 1% of improved weight scores +2, and each 1% of improved power scores +1. I don't know how accurately this will reflect the actual performance impact, but the idea is that weight costs more because it reduces cornering speed, and increases tyre wear and fuel consumption for the same power to weight ratio.
So a positive number means the car has been improved, negative means it has been made worse. The more negative numbers have been moved left, the more positive moved right. In relative terms, even +1 is a nerf, really.
Biggest winners:
+5 Chevrolet Corvette
+4 AM Vantage
+4 Dodge Viper
+4 Hyundai Genesis
+4 Jaguar F Type
+4 Lexus RC F
Biggest losers:
-23 Alfa 4C
-11 Renault Megane Trophy
-11 Toyota 86
It seems a bit strange for the Jag and Lexus to be buffed when they were already strong. And the hits to the biggest losers seem quite large. Any ideas for a better way to compare the changes than 2 x weight + 1 x power? If I look at e.g. 4C vs Vantage, then it's 328bhp vs 387bhp = 15.2% less power and 1285kg vs 1404kg = 8.5% less weight, so that does roughly match the idea that weight has twice as much effect as power.
View attachment 922952
These are the changes:Thanks, I don't see the prior BoP values for all cars when I look thru the GTS site... do you know where to find the old Gr3 data for comparison or did you also prep one? Wondering if they clipped the 911 RSR a bit like the Cayman.
thanks, I didn't see that when I looked. The GTS news and sporting mode web pages tend to be a labyrinth of information. Appreciate the tip.These are the changes:
https://www.gran-turismo.com/gb/gtsport/news/00_5224155.html
If there's no change listed for a car, they haven't changed it.
These are how they were in February.
Alfa people complaining about changes that include a +7% in HP for Gr4 car, which was already pretty handy... sure!
Yes. The Ford GT40 is a road car. This event is for race cars.I Want inform problem:
(My game stay with portuguese*)
The section of NOSTALGIC 1979,aceept cars classics for race, here go one list permitied, only no appear of Shelby Cobra Daytona of image.
My problem is one: Ford GT40 1966 no is inclued for this type pf race. It's normal?
OOOOOOOOOOoooohhh finally another thread where people get to say 'nerf' and 'buff'! Been awhile! Buff nerf nerfbuff buff nerf buffnerf nerf nerf buff buff! Whee!
Those terms (plus 'hoon', for some reason) make me want to gouge my eyes out.
I know it's just me, I'm getting old. Carry on.
Buff nerf nerfbuff buff nerf buffnerf nerf nerf buff buff!
You see apeear of Ford GT40 this list? For me stay on fault.Yes. The Ford GT40 is a road car. This event is for race cars.
No, the Ford GT40 won't appear on the list because it is an N-class road car, not a race car. Only race cars are eligible for this race - and this is not relevant to this topic.You see apeear of Ford GT40 this list? For me stay on fault.
I believe of Kaz forget of include for game.
The up arrow in the weight column actually indicates a decrease... Whilst the up arrow in the power column indicates an increase. Strange.I found it hard to see the effect of the BoP changes from PD's list, so have been producing a single number for each Gr.4 car, where each 1% of improved weight scores +2, and each 1% of improved power scores +1. I don't know how accurately this will reflect the actual performance impact, but the idea is that weight costs more because it reduces cornering speed, and increases tyre wear and fuel consumption for the same power to weight ratio.
So a positive number means the car has been improved, negative means it has been made worse. The more negative numbers have been moved left, the more positive moved right. In relative terms, even +1 is a nerf, really.
Biggest winners:
+5 Chevrolet Corvette
+4 AM Vantage
+4 Dodge Viper
+4 Hyundai Genesis
+4 Jaguar F Type
+4 Lexus RC F
Biggest losers:
-23 Alfa 4C
-11 Renault Megane Trophy
-11 Toyota 86
It seems a bit strange for the Jag and Lexus to be buffed when they were already strong. And the hits to the biggest losers seem quite large. Any ideas for a better way to compare the changes than 2 x weight + 1 x power? If I look at e.g. 4C vs Vantage, then it's 328bhp vs 387bhp = 15.2% less power and 1285kg vs 1404kg = 8.5% less weight, so that does roughly match the idea that weight has twice as much effect as power.
View attachment 922952
The up arrow in the weight column actually indicates a decrease... Whilst the up arrow in the power column indicates an increase. Strange.
The GR4 Alfa is not competitive at all after the bop changes. In yesterday’s manufacturers race I qualified and finished last, there was nothing I could do to keep with the rest on the straights. It might have needed a slight nerf, but this is ridiculous.I'm honestly wondering if PD have made a mistake with the changes to the Megane Trophy, 4C and 86.
As I noted, in general, weight has twice the effect of power, very approximately. These are the changes:
4C weight 15% worse, power 7% better
Megane Trophy and 86 weight 7% worse, power 3% better
Note how the weight % is approximately double the power %, but this is the wrong way round to bring these cars more into line with the rest, while keeping performance roughly the same. They should have changed the power by double the weight, not the weight by double the power.
I just tested the 4C on Fuji against the Jag and Ford, and the Jag and Ford perform very similarly, but the 4C is insanely slow, it has no chance, it's something like a second a lap slower.
So I think it's a mistake and they intended the changes to be fairly performance neutral, while making them more similar to the other cars, but they've accidentally got the %s the wrong way round and totally nerfed them.
I heard about another forum member coming last yesterday with the Gr.4 Alfa as well. I also asked @pantherjag to try the same test on Fuji that I did, and he found a similar margin between the Jag and Alfa to me. I'm convinced it's a mistake and the power and weight % changes are the opposite way round to what was intended.The GR4 Alfa is not competitive at all after the bop changes. In yesterday’s manufacturers race I qualified and finished last
I heard about another forum member coming last yesterday with the Gr.4 Alfa as well. I also asked @pantherjag to try the same test on Fuji that I did, and he found a similar margin between the Jag and Alfa to me. I'm convinced it's a mistake and the power and weight % changes are the opposite way round to what was intended.
I'll do some more tests, but I've seen the Megane Trophy be competitive at Fuji in the past. Compare the Megane Trophy against the 4C before and after these changes:It's thought that reducing 1% power is more of a nerf than reducing 1% weight. I'm not sure how some people have come to the conclusion that reducing weight is twice as effective as reducing power.
For those testing at Fuji, a power track, yeah that's definitely not the best place to benchmark a handling car like the 4C.