GTRA | RSeat WSGTC S3 | Main Thread

[Denilson]

Again I agree, on all of it.


That's exactly what I asked SailIC, and the answer is nothing.
But to that same extent, if the GTR benefits on a track from lowering aero, so will the NSX, so I don't think it actually changes the car strengths/weaknesses at all.

Technically speaking, it's 6 and half a dozen, in my opinion.
Open PP just offers people some room to do as they please, and is easier to check, those are the reasons I'm in favor of it. (along with being 100% impossible to cheat)

At this point, I'm basically thinking along the lines of exactly the specs I put forth a page or two back, possibly slightly modified depending on test results (a PP or 2 lower each car) and just using those PP ratings based of where I've found the performance equal for the cars.
This way most of the time, the specs I listed will be the fastest you can have, but just gives everyone the leeway, and we'll never have to worry about whether that guy lowered his rear aero 3 points and added some power to sneak by with a slight advantage.

I hope you know your input is highly valued Dennis, so I'm all ears to whatever you have to say.

It's not that easy imo.
Sure, the NSX will keep it's speed advantage, but if it's aero is lowered to the same degree as the GT-R, the cornering will be affected very much.

Let's say the GT-R reduce it's aero from 40-65 to 35-50, and increase it's power from there.
Let's say the NSX does the same.
Both cars will be faster down the straights, but the GT-R will still corner better at the same Aero settings as the NSX.
imo, the NSX is at an disadvantage no matter how, cause the GT-R will always have the upper hand in the corners.

The big issue is the difference in cornering no matter which method you decide to use.
Get them equal in cornering, or let the cars have different stong/weak spots. That's pretty much it imo.


Then there's also the fact that some cars will gain more with reduced aero compared to other cars.
The turbo cars will not have the same affect as the NA cars. As previosly stated, the PP's are calculated with the entire powercurve in concideration.

Let's say the XANAVI Z reduce it's aero with 15 pp, and want to make up those pp with power. The actual gain will be less for a car with a flater curve compared to a car with a more pointy curve.
A car with the pointier curve will gain more hp = will gain more speed from the same pp increase.

That's also something to concider going the pp route.

 

[CSLACR]

Solid points, I have some testing to do, and specs to view.

This is why I like input.

 

[Sail IC]

I have quite a lot of racing data with a PP regulation, and what is better than the results from real racing

Most of the racing done in the Euro GT500 league has been done at a fairly high PP, 610-615PP. Members have prefered the feel of racing at that power level. But we have also done some other racing, also with GT500 cars at a lower PP level.

Below is a smaller championship we did running all cars at the same PP. Racing was done at either 595PP or 600PP. The objective was to find a PP level where the GTR, Lexus, and NSX would all be competitive and at the same PP. The result was very good and it delivered on that promiss.

Most of the drivers in this championship are fairly fast. Most of them you don't know, but I think that "C-Falcon" and "Immortalpilot" have done races in some GTplanet leagues so it gives you an indication for the rest of the drivers. You can also see that the races was fairly long (about one hour), so the result is fairly solid. I also view many of the drivers to be at the same speed level.

I actually used the GTR for the first three races and the NSX for the last three, but to what I can recall, most of the other drivers used the same car.

My takeaway was that the GTR and NSX was very equal at different tracks, but the Lexus needed some more PP to be competitive. "Lennox" is a very fast Lexus driver and should have finished higher, even if he should have won the last race but he put is car in the gravel leading the race with two laps to go. "Apollo" used the Yellowhat Supra at Indy road and he had a good close fight for third.

The prerace was actually done at 590PP. The NSX won, followed by a Woodone GTR and an Enos Lexus. Quite a refreshing podium.

We also did some additional test races, one at Monaco, 48 laps 600PP for all cars. 9 drivers on the grid. The result was; Yellowhat Supra, NSX, GTR, Lexus, NSX, WoodSupra, GTR, Lexus, GTR.

It was very interesting to see the two top cars being cars that have relatively low grip but strong engines.

Last note. All above are racing using RS tires. Changing to RM or RH tires changes this a bit which has to be tested.

 

[Denilson]

I think it's important to be open minded in this. I understand that you had a great championship with the fast set of drivers you had. And withb the pp method. I don't doubt it.
But how many actually drove the Z, CASTROL TOM'S and YMS SUPRA in the championship?

One major difference is that WSGTC is run on racing Hards, and your league on Racing Softs, right?
So to just compare what these cars are like at 595 pp with racing softs, does not reflect exactly what will be the case here imo.

As much as your system was good in your league, as much is the system we're using in PURE good. It's 2 different approaches, and both methods have it's weaknesses.

I'm not against any method, but what I'm against is the irrationality in the testing. There's no way you can come up with a good and solid pp fighure without extensive testing. Same goes for the "fixed specs" method.

Stay with one concept in mind, and go all out! 👍
Which method you use is up to you.

All I wanted to discuss was som weak spots in the pp system that I think that you've missed. Cause when reading your posts, it seems like the pp system is flawless, which it imo is not.
And I don't say that the "fixed specs" system is perfect either. Make sure to stay to one method, and go all out. That's what you have to do to get the specs perfect.. Even tho I know that it's impossible to get them perfect.

 

[Sail IC]

Regarding the cars, I'm not that worried about the YMS Supra. Its fairly similar to the NSX in strengths/weakness, but I do agree with you on the Z and Castrol especially getting into the lower power levels using a PP regulation. The problem (and I'm sure you know this as well as I) is that high torque cars are being penalized too much in the PP calculation. But might not be unsolvable with giving these cars a higher PP, but it has to be tested at different kind of tracks. Btw, a Nissan Z finished 3rd in the first championship we did, and a Castrol 3rd in the second championship. But it was at the higher 610-615PP level where most of our racing is done.

I also do agree with you that its not given that the individual car rating will be the same going from RS to RH tires. We have the benefit of a lot of data from RS tires, and its a good start, but it has to be validated on the different tire.

A discussion of what regulation approach can easily get overheated, and we tend to like what the different individuals have been using. Figuring out individual car regulations (PP, HP, weight, etc) is equally hard whatever approach being used. Having said that, what is attractive with a PP based system is in summary:
- Downforce tuning comes into play hence its closer what they do in real racing.
- When done, simple regulation. Easy to manage, impossible to cheat.

Having said all this and I posted this earier. Nomatter what regulations will be used, I'm really looking forward to the racing. I also think people on this forum is very open minded and conduct these discussions in a very mature way.

👍

 

[madcapr]

I don't know about others, but this is my first organized race in GT5 or any other game/simulation. So, please keep in mind that this series probably isn't stacked full of super fast drivers. Since I have very little experience and I know nothing about tuning, a PP system would probably put me at an even bigger disadvantage. That being said, make whatever choice is best for the series, because I plan on having fun no matter what. Hopefully, I'll be a faster driver at the end of the season.

 

[Denilson]

I don't know about others, but this is my first organized race in GT5 or any other game/simulation. So, please keep in mind that this series probably isn't stacked full of super fast drivers. Since I have very little experience and I know nothing about tuning, a PP system would probably put me at an even bigger disadvantage. That being said, make whatever choice is best for the series, because I plan on having fun no matter what. Hopefully, I'll be a faster driver at the end of the season.

I'm sure you'll become a faster driver in the end of WSGTC. Infact, I can promise you that! 👍

But you're wrong, WSGTC 3 is stacked with fast drivers. Once race 1 is on, you'll notice..

 

[Otsdarva]

I don't know about others, but this is my first organized race in GT5 or any other game/simulation. So, please keep in mind that this series probably isn't stacked full of super fast drivers. Since I have very little experience and I know nothing about tuning, a PP system would probably put me at an even bigger disadvantage. That being said, make whatever choice is best for the series, because I plan on having fun no matter what. Hopefully, I'll be a faster driver at the end of the season.

Don't worry, just enjoy it week to week and let it happen. You don't have to be "A #1" Everytime you step on the track. You'll find yourself quite surprised with how things run. My first season in the WSGTC was hardly competitive. I was always seconds off the GT300 pace. (when I was running in the GT500 class! )

I stuck with it, though. I dropped down into the GT300 because I enjoyed the lower hp and I had tagged along with most of the members at that time that I was starting to get better. I'm still a rather mediocre tuner, but I make it up in enjoying myself and trying to run a more fluid line. I may not know how to squeeze every last drop of power out of my car, but I know how to hit a turn in just the right fashion that I don't always need to be the best tuner.

The best full grid race I ran was at Tsukuba. I truly busted my rump to get my ride setup for that track and it payed off with a fourth place finish with what may have been a chance at third had I played my tire strategy different. Up until that point I was sure that I would more or less spend the entire season at the back of the field, but that race showed that with a lucky break I can surprise even myself.

 

[Niss]

Hello Guys, who does have time around 1:30 PM GMT too test the GT300 specs with me i need some 2nd and 3rd testdrivers and some creativity everyone is welcome. aim is every car within +-0.1 0.2 within eachother.

 

[twistedfirework]

Hello Guys, who does have time around 1:30 PM GMT too test the GT300 specs with me i need some 2nd and 3rd testdrivers and some creativity everyone is welcome. aim is every car within +-0.1 0.2 within eachother.

I can't make it this afternoon. Do you have all of the cars yet? If not which ones are missing. Are you trying to use performance points or bhp and full downforce? I will do some testing tonight, once the kids are in bed. Will you either post in this thread or inbox me where you get to please? Cheers

 

[ManiacRS]

The big (or one of the big) flaw with the PP is that it's partly calculated of the average output over the entire register.
Let's say we have 2 cars that use the range of 5500-7500 rpm.
Car A has an average hp output of 450 hp over the entire register, same for car B = same PP.
Now, the problem is that the entire curve is not in use in any of the 2 cars since we're racing it between 5500-7500 rpm.

So car A have an average output of 450 hp, but in the range of 5500-7500 rpm, it has 500 hp in average.
Car B got a much flater curve, so the average is 450, same as for car A, but between 5500-7500 the engine produce an average of 475 bhp.

So the average HP is lower in the "working area" of the engine, so even if car B got a much higher average below 5500 rpm, it won't help it's performance. That's why the turbo cars need a higher PP value.
Ofc other factors come in to the equation as well. Downforce and Weight distribution are 2 factors.

BTW, I think from what I've seen in GT5 that it's not the average (maybe you mean "integral"?) power and torque that's calculated over the entire powerband, but the power-to-weight and torque-to-weight figures. And by the way, the two cars you are having as an example would have completely different torque values with the one with the flatter power band having a bigger advantage there... So they need to be used in different rpm ranges... That translates in driveability, reduced tyre wear, reduced fuel consumption and so on... In real life it also translates in more accurate throttle control but GT5 does not do that very well...

Now, as far as the regulations are concerned, what's the matter with the standard cars? Do we want to make them faster just for the sake of it? Just because we like adding turbos to things?

I think that the SuperGT (formerly JGTC) is the most well regulated and tightly run championship in the world. And nowhere else has the penalty ballast system worked so good to produce such close racing (Sugo 2010...) So why not use their rule system. These cars are glorious to drive... Why mess them up..?

I just think we're trying to work out details that are immensely less important than a 20kgr ballast!!! And from what I've read, the penalty ballasts are a lot more than that...

And I think we run the risk of over-correcting the performance of a car or allowing a loophole for cheating!!! You have to have every tester drive every car in every trim that is suggested, and then do a statistical correction of the time differences, if you are to get usable results... But that is nearly impossible...

In any case, practice is always important in any race or championship, if not more in an online race or championship... And we all have a lot of practice in these cars as stock, compared to the average GT5 buyer let's say... But as soon as you start changing the technical regulations you make seat time tremendously valuable and important to the outcome of the championship! That creates an imbalance by definition...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the difference in laptimes, for the same car and track, between 1000hours seat time (I know,bit ridiculous but for argument's sake...) and 100hours seat time is 0,25sec, then the difference between 100 and 10 hours is 2 sec... I think that we will have a more even plain if we leave the cars stock... I have read many times here that the NSX has a disadvantage here or there and so on... As far as the stock cars go I am faster in the NSX than with any other car. It suits me a lot better... It's just a car you have to drive a certain way... And it's rewarding to discover that way of driving, which you have to do to a degree for every car...

BTW, has anyone done a test race with completely stock cars..? Completely! Even the "Lexi"!!!! (To quote Steve Coogan...)

 

[Denilson]

We've been racing Super GT cars here at GTP for 14 mounths now. So the seat time hours are huge!

The cars are not equal as stock. The XANAVI Z is the fastest car in it's stock form.

And yes, as you say, car B in my example above does have a flat power curve, but if the average hp output is 475 hp between 5500-7500 rpm, and 472 hp between 5000-7000 rpm, you'll not gain anything by using any other part of the powerband than the range I stated (5500-7500). The fact that you can race the cars at different "working areas" of the powerband is ofc something that depends on the car. But a car with a flater powerband will always suffer since PD do not take all facts in to concideration.

The higher rpm range will (almost) in any case be the better part of the acceleration.
For some cars, you have to short shift to get the most out of the engine. The MR-S is one of them. What's interesting is in what range your average output are maximized. A car with a flater powerband, given that the pp are equal will always suffer.

tourque * rpm = power
Power is what moves the car
Power = effect

 

[Osr20_L]

Like maniac mentioned, why complicate the car specs more than it is rigth now? cause after the 2nd race the ballast penalties will balance the equation!!!

 

[twistedfirework]

i have a room open for testing gt300's
4 lap races every 8 mins at spa
pp set to 540
pick a car and see what you can get out of it at these settings.
please use xars that you havent signed up to drive.
everyone welcome
room number 1472-6681-3415-7077-7709

ROOM CLOSED

 

[CSLACR]

BTW, has anyone done a test race with completely stock cars..? Completely! Even the "Lexi"!!!! (To quote Steve Coogan...)

Yeah, and it's ridiculous.
A 533HP Z would absolutely destroy the field. The 518HP GTR's would be the secondaries. Castrol Tom's Supra would be ok, everything else would get destroyed. 20KG's wouldn't make up the difference between a 533HP Z (with better handling) over a 498HP YMS Supra, 50KG's probably wouldn't even cut it.
How well can a ballast system work if it takes 2-3 races just for the cars to even become equal?

And no, cheating will not be possible. If someone tries they WILL get caught, and the punishment is not light.
More on this soon, but surely everyone can manage to remember specs for their one single car.
Come race PP/weight check time, "oh I forgot" will not be an excuse.

We've been racing Super GT cars here at GTP for 14 mounths now. So the seat time hours are huge!

The cars are not equal as stock. The XANAVI Z is the fastest car in it's stock form.

And yes, as you say, car B in my example above does have a flat power curve, but if the average hp output is 475 hp between 5500-7500 rpm, and 472 hp between 5000-7000 rpm, you'll not gain anything by using any other part of the powerband than the range I stated (5500-7500). The fact that you can race the cars at different "working areas" of the powerband is ofc something that depends on the car. But a car with a flater powerband will always suffer since PD do not take all facts in to concideration.

The higher rpm range will (almost) in any case be the better part of the acceleration.
For some cars, you have to short shift to get the most out of the engine. The MR-S is one of them. What's interesting is in what range your average output are maximized. A car with a flater powerband, given that the pp are equal will always suffer.

tourque * rpm = power
Power is what moves the car
Power = effect

This.
I'll provide a whole big thread link if anyone disagrees, but it's like beating your head against a wall to explain this to some people.

Like maniac mentioned, why complicate the car specs mor than it is rigth now? cause after the 2nd race the ballast penalties will balance the equation!!!

There won't be anything complicated about the specs at all.

All cars will be stock - except the Bandai and Eneos SC430's, and possibly the YMS Supra.
All cars will have a set PP limit, you'll be free to do what you like aside from adding parts to race at that PP level.

More on this soon, but surely if I can manage to remember and make 15 cars specs/rules, everyone can manage to remember specs for their one single car.

 

[madcapr]

I'm sure you'll become a faster driver in the end of WSGTC. Infact, I can promise you that! 👍

But you're wrong, WSGTC 3 is stacked with fast drivers. Once race 1 is on, you'll notice..

I know there are plenty of fast drivers here, my point was that the publicity this series has gotten also brought in some "new blood" that isn't so fast.

 

[madcapr]

BTW, are there any preseason races Saturday night?

 

[CSLACR]

I'd say probably not this week, since it's getting late for that, but definitely next week.
If Masi doesn't have a roll call up by Monday, I'll make one on Monday.
We will have final season specs by Monday as well. (maybe sooner, but definitely Monday)

 

[Denilson]

I'll provide a whole big thread link if anyone disagrees, but it's like beating your head against a wall to explain this to some people.

Yes, I know. It's really hard to make some people understand. I've tryed in english, and let me tell you, it's close to impossible..
It's like: You mind explaining that for me in sweedish?? LOL

What's often the case to misunderstanding is that while you talk about the engines tourqe, the person you discuss with talks about the wheeltourqe.
The above is in best case scenario. There's ofc the ones who claim that engine tourqe is what matters when accelerating a car.
A famous american racecar producer (IIRC) said: "Horsepower sells cars, tourqe wins races" or similar.. He could not be more wrong.

Engine produce 100 Nm @ 2000 rpm.
The (don't know the correct word. What's this called: "1:3"?) gearing (Is that the correct word? :scared) is 1:3, which will multiply the 100 Nm to 300 Nm wheeltourqe. Does this make any sence at all to you Dom? lol

So the Nm (tourqe) produced by the engine is not that interesting since the actual tourqe can change depending on the gearing.

On the other hand, the enginge produce 100 bhp @ 2000 rpm.
No matter the gearing, the 200 bhp will stay concistant (In theory ofc. I know that effect will be reduced on it's way to the wheels thru clutch slip, heat, wheelspinn etc).
Power (effect) is a much better value to look at when judging a cars performance.

 

[CSLACR]

Yes, I know. It's really hard to make some people understand. I've tryed in english, and let me tell you, it's close to impossible..
It's like: You mind explaining that for me in sweedish?? LOL

What's often the case to misunderstanding is that while you talk about the engines tourqe, the person you discuss with talks about the wheeltourqe.
The above is in best case scenario. There's ofc the ones who claim that engine tourqe is what matters when accelerating a car.
A famous american racecar producer (IIRC) said: "Horsepower sells cars, tourqe wins races" or similar.. He could not be more wrong.

Engine produce 100 Nm @ 2000 rpm.
The (don't know the correct word. What's this called: "1:3"?) gearing (Is that the correct word? :scared) is 1:3, which will multiply the 100 Nm to 300 Nm wheeltourqe. Does this make any sence at all to you Dom? lol

So the Nm (tourqe) produced by the engine is not that interesting since the actual tourqe can change depending on the gearing.

On the other hand, the enginge produce 100 bhp @ 2000 rpm.
No matter the gearing, the 200 bhp will stay concistant (In theory ofc. I know that effect will be reduced on it's way to the wheels thru clutch slip, heat, wheelspinn etc).
Power (effect) is a much better value to look at when judging a cars performance.

I know what you mean.
It's mostly a matter of Carroll Shelby's quote you mentioned (which couldn't have been more wrong) and terminology.
People can say the same words and mean totally different things.

The problem is simply that many people don't know what horsepower is, which is torque of the stroke, multiplied by how many RPM's (the amount of times the torque of a stroke is applied every minute) and there you have it.
HP is torque per minute, people that don't know this get confused on the whole matter. (there was a time I was one of them )

 

[NEPALII]

DO you guys mind summarizing all of that?! Its too much to read.

I just hope the specs dont get too much stuff changed or we might end up ruining everything.

 

[OK8]

I have a question:

If we move to a PP based regulation, how will you take into consideration the success ballast as that lowers PP?

 

[CSLACR]

DO you guys mind summarizing all of that?! Its too much to read.

I just hope the specs dont get too much stuff changed or we might end up ruining everything.

Everything will be based off specs, adding parts won't be allowed. just open PP tuning with the specified mods.
Consider it a hybrid between fixed specs, and truly open PP.

Example: YMS Supra, Engine Stage 3, 596PP - You must put engine stage 3 on, just like fixed specs, but can make the 596PP however you wish from there.
Example 2: GTR, Stock, 596PP, cannot add any turbo or engine stage, but can make 596PP however you wish from there.

I have a question:

If we move to a PP based regulation, how will you take into consideration the success ballast as that lowers PP?

Same way we did with fixed specs, essentially.
I'm thinking to just give the benefit of rounding to the higher PP, since the ballast will rarely equal exact PP amounts of difference.

 

[NEPALII]

Everything will be based off specs, adding parts won't be allowed. just open PP tuning with the specified mods.
Consider it a hybrid between fixed specs, and truly open PP.

Example: YMS Supra, Engine Stage 3, 596PP - You must put engine stage 3 on, just like fixed specs, but can make the 596PP however you wish from there.
Example 2: GTR, Stock, 596PP, cannot add any turbo or engine stage, but can make 596PP however you wish from there.

Oh, and by looking at the RPM's and all that stuff, you will be able to tell if people are cheating or not right? That's has been worrying me about the whole PP system. I was thinking people would just buy all upgrades, get the most HP out of the car possible and then power limit it. On the other hand, the thing that makes me smile about the PP system is that we can be able to increase HP by decreasing downforce and vice versa. But I am afraid that could unbalance things.

Honestly, I rather have the 100% stock specs we used on Laguna. I prefer things much simpler and as close as possible. That's why I am a fan of spec series But if this turns out to be successful in bringing close racing, then I'm happy but right now I have my doubts.

 

[MONSTAR-1]

Hmm that might work but then the cars with lower PP might have better tyre wear. Adding weight would be better as then they will have greater tyre degradation.

 

[CSLACR]

Oh, and by looking at the RPM's and all that stuff, you will be able to tell if people are cheating or not right? That's has been worrying me about the whole PP system. I was thinking people would just buy all upgrades, get the most HP out of the car possible and then power limit it. On the other hand, the thing that makes me smile about the PP system is that we can be able to increase HP by decreasing downforce and vice versa. But I am afraid that could unbalance things.

Honestly, I rather have the 100% stock specs we used on Laguna. I prefer things much simpler and as close as possible. That's why I am a fan of spec series But if this turns out to be successful in bringing close racing, then I'm happy but right now I have my doubts.

I very much love the Denso/Petronas stock, believe me. They're actually a very solid base car.
BUT - Long story short, modification limits might have to be mandated, simply because the PP system has some very strange logic to it.

I'm trying to make the specs as simple as possible, and still be "cheat-proof".
Mandated modifications on a few will/would be for the benefit of the cars with the mandated mods, not the others.
I can go further into detail if people want, just trying to keep it simple.

Hmm that might work but then the cars with lower PP might have better tyre wear. Adding weight would be better as then they will have greater tyre degradation.

That's how we did it in Pure.
But for the ballast system, PP tuning, and simplicity, these are "better" in those regards.

Any specs set has drawbacks, but if SailIC's tests are any indication, these are looking very good.

 

[ManiacRS]

I know what you mean.
It's mostly a matter of Carroll Shelby's quote you mentioned (which couldn't have been more wrong) and terminology.

I like how you 2 guys agree on that... lol...

I had a discussion about this with Denilson over PMs...

Believe me, that is my field of expertise, and Caroll Shelby wasn't wrong... I am not talking about the sensation you get through a PC sim. But an Internal Combustion Engine creates torque on the crankshaft... That's all it does...

Power is just a unit showing how quickly it can do that...

Force(N)xDistance(m)=Torque(Nm)

Torque(Nm)/time(sec)=power(Nm/sec, also know as Watt| 1HP=0,736KWatt)
units in S.I.

That's it...

P.S. Sorry for being off topic...

 

[MaccGyver]

I disagree with that
You don't have a clue how fast a car will go just by it's torque figures but you can get a good indication of how quick it is judging by it's BHP.

 

[ManiacRS]

Lololololololol, hahahahahahahahahaha......

I like you say you disagree with physics...

Quick example then I stop posting on this subject:

Ford Fiesta WRC
Mitsubishi EVO X road car

They have about the same bhp (Fiesta a bit less due to turbo restrictor), let's say you ballast the Fiesta to get it to the same weight to the EVO and also give it the same gear ratio... On tarmac, on slicks... Drag race... What do you think..?

Quick reminder: on race spec the ECU of a WRC commands 0,7-0,9ltr of fuel to get into the engine for every kilometre the car covers... That's 70-90ltr/100km fuel consumption or 3,4-2,6mpg

What I'm trying to say is that both figures are important. And when the bhp is similar, the torquier car will go faster. That's also what Shelby meant, as I understand it. Because racecars are regulated in such a way that they produce similar bhp in a single class...

 

[CSLACR]

Right, so I'm about 30 seconds from bed.
There's a thread for digging up somewhere on the relation of torque and horsepower.

Horsepower is torque per minute.
A 3000lb car making 200 foot pounds of torque goes how fast? Not a clue without either an RPM reading to turn it into horsepower, or a horsepower reading.
Pretty sure we can agree there.

BTW - Sail, I see you reading, open mods is looking fantastic, just finished about 4 hours of testing at Monaco, and looking over specs, etc. I've yet to find an unfair car/mod at the PP ratings I PM'd you, hopefully we do some more today, of course feel free to go ahead without me if you want since it's mid day for you already.