Is it bad to use the power limiter?

[Johnnypenso]

I get what your saying, I see what your saying. And thanks for the quick response, lol. But it's not really what I wanted to know. I think I just don't know how to word the question correctly.
I know and see the comparisons to limiter vs. part reduction. That has nothing to do with what I'm trying to find out though.
It's simply, what actual 'things' (lack of a better word) does the limiter do when used, besides lowering bhp and pp?
Does it change the effect of, say, any tuning abilities? (Dampers, ect)
Grip? Over/under steer strength?
Or is it simply just juicing the engine down?
I apologize if I'm not understood, or explaining correctly. This just happens to be something I'm really working on.
Not using the limiter for 90% - 100%, but using it for radical amounts like 55%, ect.

It only affects the power curve, which affects HP by both reducing the amount of HP while flattening the curve, and moving the torque peak to the left but retaining the full torque. This flattening of the curve also increases the area under the curve and that's part of the PP calculations. The flatter the curve, the more PP you will get for the same HP. So when you use the power limiter and excessively flatten the curve, you end up with lower power for a given PP, compared to keeping the power peaky by removing parts. Clear as mud I know..

 

[MrGrado]

Engine limiter will flatten hp not torque. Engine limiter will cut torque in the rpm range that it flattens HP, so it's more of a scooping effect on high rpm torque than a flattening effect. It makes perfect sense, horsepower is torque multiplied by RPM after all.

 

[Bakemono36]

Ive used the power limiter and really, I think Id rathar have a fully modded car with a PP that is too high and use the power limiter to bring the PP to the ceiling than take parts off of a car to get it under the PP ceiling.

 

[MrGrado]

It's a balancing act to maximise PP. Fit/remove some parts and use some engine limiter.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Engine limiter will flatten hp not torque. Engine limiter will cut torque in the rpm range that it flattens HP, so it's more of a scooping effect on high rpm torque than a flattening effect. It makes perfect sense, horsepower is torque multiplied by RPM after all.

Correct..I fixed my mistake...👍

 

[esoxhntr]

Correct..I fixed my mistake...👍

you should check it again. like mrgrado said, flatting the HP curve in an RPM range cuts the torque in that range.

in other words, you are cutting torque at peak HP/part of the power curve where we spend most of our racing.

the statement "moving the torque peak to the left but retaining the full torque" is a little misleading. you may (depending on how much you power limit) retain full peak torque. but you do not retain torque in the part of the power curve we race at.

i'm nitpicking i know but, this is the reason excessive power limiter is 'bad' in PP racing.

 

[MindsMirror]

Here's another example for the same tune I posted earlier that I've optimized even more.

You can't see it all in this picture, but on the right the intake tuning is removed and replaced by the Stage 1 engine tuning with the limiter reduced accordingly. RPM is again increased by 100. Max power is the same as before, but the power curve is a little falter still (the edges around the flat part don't drop off as quickly).

you should check it again. like mrgrado said, flatting the HP curve in an RPM range cuts the torque in that range.

in other words, you are cutting torque at peak HP/part of the power curve where we spend most of our racing.

the statement "moving the torque peak to the left but retaining the full torque" is a little misleading. you may (depending on how much you power limit) retain full peak torque. but you do not retain torque in the power curve we race at.

i'm nitpicking i know.

Peak torque is increased in this case, but that is because it doesn't happen to fall under the range that is being affected by the limiter. Like I said before, I don't think it is important to think about the torque curve when the limiter is most directly affecting the power curve. Whether the peak torque increases, decreases, or moves to the left all depends on the shape of the torque curve and where it's peak lies in relation to the limited range. The effect on torque will be different in different situations, but the effect on power will always be the same.

One odd thing I noticed is that in the above picture if you switch the catalytic converter to standard and replace it with the exhaust manifold upgrade (reducing RPM by 200), it is still at 450PP but power is reduced by 2. You can only increase the limiter by 0.1% before going over 450PP, and you will still be 2HP lower than before.

What I have concluded with my three example tunes is that, at least on the Toyota 86 at 450PP, it is best to use as many of the RPM increasing power parts as you can, so long as you don't have to flatten the curve beyond a usable range. If I try tuning to 8900 RPM by using stage 2, power drops to 244 and the flat range is wider than necessary. I'll have to see if the same rule could be applied to different cars or PP levels.

 

[BlueShift]

I get what your saying, I see what your saying. And thanks for the quick response, lol. But it's not really what I wanted to know. I think I just don't know how to word the question correctly.
I know and see the comparisons to limiter vs. part reduction. That has nothing to do with what I'm trying to find out though.
It's simply, what actual 'things' (lack of a better word) does the limiter do when used, besides lowering bhp and pp?
Does it change the effect of, say, any tuning abilities? (Dampers, ect)
Grip? Over/under steer strength?
Or is it simply just juicing the engine down?
I apologize if I'm not understood, or explaining correctly. This just happens to be something I'm really working on.
Not using the limiter for 90% - 100%, but using it for radical amounts like 55%, ect.

Say you've got this car:
600 torque, peak @ 4000
400 hp @4500

Power limiting this you'll have
550 torque
380 hp

=> power limiting is bad for both scenarios (downsizing the engine or limiting) because peaks are closes.

Now you have this car
600 torque, peak @ 4000
400 hp @8000

Power limiting you'll have
600 torque, peak @4000
375HP @8000 for x PP

For the same amount of PP with no limiter, you could have
550 torque
Say 380HP for the same x PP
HP/Torque ratio is higher there

So it depends. If you run on low grip tires, you want that last car.

Max HP rpm is also decresed via power limiting. It's a way to move your HP peak but I really don't know if that's better to have lower and lower accel against the wind before the normal power peak.
I would think lower rpm at full HP via power limiting is not good because of the motor inertia, and the car, that will be less "thrown" at high rpm (because the wind slowed the accel) when upshifting, power limiting changes the car to be more "violent" in the accel departement via upshifting.
Higher torque mean more motor brake too, but more "power oversteer" at corner exit.

So I would say to not use this or use this depending on what are your goals with your tune.
For a fixed PP : better braking = power limiting, smoother accel / better corner exit grip = no power limiting but ballast/downtuning instead.
Depends on what you want to improve, corner entry or corner exit.

I don't really know/not really sure about the answer though.

Why do you think the game wants you to use the power limiter in the Nascar events. It's all about to find a balance to wind effects vs accel vs aero grip/topspeed I think.

 

[demonchilde]

Say you've got this car:
600 torque, peak @ 4000
400 hp @4500

Power limiting this you'll have
550 torque
380 hp

=> power limiting is bad for both scenarios (downsizing the engine or limiting) because peaks are closes.

Now you have this car
600 torque, peak @ 4000
400 hp @8000

Power limiting you'll have
600 torque, peak @4000
375HP @8000 for x PP

For the same amount of PP with no limiter, you could have
550 torque
Say 380HP for the same x PP
HP/Torque ratio is higher there

So it depends. If you run on low grip tires, you want that last car.

Max HP rpm is also decresed via power limiting. It's a way to move your HP peak but I really don't know if that's better to have lower and lower accel against the wind before the normal power peak.
I would think lower rpm at full HP via power limiting is not good because of the motor inertia, and the car, that will be less "thrown" at high rpm (because the wind slowed the accel) when upshifting, power limiting changes the car to be more "violent" in the accel departement via upshifting.
Higher torque mean more motor brake too, but more "power oversteer" at corner exit.

So I would say to not use this or use this depending on what are your goals with your tune.
For a fixed PP : better braking = power limiting, smoother accel / better corner exit grip = no power limiting but ballast/downtuning instead.
Depends on what you want to improve, corner entry or corner exit.

I don't really know/not really sure about the answer though.

Why do you think the game wants you to use the power limiter in the Nascar events. It's all about to find a balance to wind effects vs accel vs aero grip/topspeed I think.

I completely agree with the Nascar theory. And yes, I'm seeing what your saying, and thank you.
In my tuning, if I even touch the limiter, it still hits the high 90%'s, so my experience thus far doesn't hit this at all.
In the for mentioned examples I was talking about, using it in extremes, I've never had to before.
From what your saying, it appears that if extreme limiter was going to be useful, the base car would have to be pretty much a nuclear weapon to begin with, for it still to have anything useful after limiting.
Thanks again for the info. I like to get as much info from others as I can before going into a 'new' area, I appreciate it man.

 

[MrGrado]

Say you've got this car:
600 torque, peak @ 4000
400 hp @4500

Power limiting this you'll have
550 torque
380 hp

Your trying to make a point by making an example from figures plucked from thin air?

If you buy a F40, you still have the same max torque with 70% engine limiter. Your figures are totally bogus.

Like I said earlier, engine limiter only scoops out high RPM torque. Engine limiter limits horsepower. It will cut torque in the RPM range where horsepower is cut because horsepower is torque times RPM.

If you add horsepower parts, you add torque for the whole RPM range (which is essentially boosting horsepower over the whole RPM rang as well). Turbos and supercharger are a little different because they add a whole lot of torque to a particular RPM range.

I just tested a RX7 for 500PP with different horsepower parts (and different amount of limiter) at grand valley. I made a ghost with one set up and raced against it with the other set ups. I was only interested with the performance down the straight and to the first corner.

In the end there was effectively no difference at all in straight line speed from engine limiter at 100 down to 80.

With engine limiter at 96.2 the RX7 had 360 HP.
With engine limiter at 99.3 the RX7 had 363HP (up 0.8%)
With engine limiter at 80.2 the RX7 had 350HP (down 2.8%)
With engine limiter at 60.6 the RX7 had 325HP (down 10%)

Using Engine limiter at 60.6 was far too much loss of power and was immediately apparent that straight line performance was suffering. Performance was suffering for the whole lap actually. Fitting every part and using limiter will never be a good option if a large amount of limiter is needed to get the car to a PP level.

 

[BlueShift]

If you buy a F40, you still have the same max torque with 70% engine limiter. Your figures are totally bogus.

You totally don't understand what I'm saying... Does the F40 have two peaks separated by 500rpm to begin with ?
Nevermind, I found something

I'm talking about the difference of using the power limiter to get to X PP and downsizing the engine to get to the same X PP.
In one situation you're got a flat PP peak, at max with less rpm than the second situation, which is : a power peak at higher PP (and at higher HP).
In one situation you'll also have more torque in low rpm just because you fit more engine parts than in the second situation.

And if you had more engine part, thus more torque in low rpm, limiting the PP will give you less HP than in the second situation, because of PP calculation.

Or, if you want, ytou're allready showing this with your RX7 : limiting the PP only via ballasts, you'd have higher HP (and not flat, but more important imho, not max at lower rpm like with using the power limiter).

edit 1 -
Also about your speed exemple, if you change HP, you change topspeed. That's physics.
HP from your car are used to calculate your acceleration. If we don't care about rolling resistance, engine losses and transmission losses just watching what is the main force than limit your topspeed : the wind have a certain power fighting your car (0.5*rho*S.Cx*v^3 or 0.5*rho*A.Cd*v^3) and the first newton law say total of forces = m.a.
Lower HP from your car mean lower force from your car.
If you had same topspeeds, you'd have same windforce, thus a negative acceleration.

I was talking about pure topspeed aka on Road X.

So I'd say pics for your RX7 or it doesn't exist. I'll make the tests if you really want. Which RX7 ?

edit 2 -
F40 : peaks at 4000 and 7000rpm. You were picking the exemple of close peaks and reasoning with a non-close peak car...

edit 3 -
for information, HP/aerodynamics's effects on topspeed is basically what I've been studying almost last 2 weeks to make it rigth for SQAT v2, I'm quite certain about what I'm talking My doubts are about the lower rpm part.

 

[MrGrado]

efini RX-7 Type R (FD) '91

 

[BlueShift]

I said tests
Sorry for the wall of text. Made the unit conversions, sorry for readability.

efini RX-7 Type R (FD) '91

Brand new car, oil change, no chassis, no aero parts, custom tranny + various power parts (see below), SH/SH
SS-Road-X, tranny set at max speed (420km/h aka +/-260.98 mph).

a - With engine limiter at 96.2 the RX7 had 360 HP.
b - With engine limiter at 99.3 the RX7 had 363HP (up 0.8%)
c - With engine limiter at 80.2 the RX7 had 350HP (down 2.8%)
d- With engine limiter at 60.6 the RX7 had 325HP (down 10%)

For all your cases, if I don't remove some weigth, I've got much higher HP (case a - 407PS aka 401.43HP), so I did : weigth lvl 3 + car + hood.

All speeds are taken just before the second U, after the tunnel.

All 500PP, ordered by less and less HP (or more and more torque):
b - 99.3% - got 369 PS (363.95 HP) @7200 // 384.6 N.m (283.67 Lbf.ft - 39.22 kgf.m) @5700 // rev @8700 - engine lvl1, sport computer, semi-race exaust, sport catalytic - 338km/h (210.02 mph) @+/-7050rpm (6th)
a - changed from 96.2% to 92.8% (screwed up PS/HP, sorry) - got 363 PS (358.08 HP) @6400 // 417.3 N.m (358.03 Lbf.ft - 42.55 kgf.m) @5500 // rev @8500 - engine lvl2, sport computer, sport exaust - 337km/h (209.4mph) @+/-7000rpm (6th)
c - 80.2% - got 351 PS (346.2 HP) @5500 // 464.9 N.m (342.89 Lbf.ft - 47.41 kgf.m) @ 5200 // rev @8500 - engine lvl3, sport isometric, sport catalytic, tuned admission - 333km/h (206.92 mph) @+/-6950rpm (6th)
d - 60.6% - got 330 PS (325.49 HP) @4000 // 593.2 N.m (437.52 Lbf.ft - 60.49 kgf.m) @ 3900 // rev @8700 - engine lvl2, sport computer, racing exaust, sport isometric, tuned admission, turbo stage 2 - 326km/h (202.57 mph) @+/-6800rpm (6th)

Quick table :
b - 99.3% // 369 PS // 384.6 N.m - 338km/h
a - 92.8% // 363 PS // 417.3 N.m - 337km/h
c - 80.2% // 351 PS // 464.9 N.m - 333km/h
d - 60.6% // 330 PS // 593.2 N.m - 326km/h

You can see there it's ordered by less and less topspeed.

So, as I told, for the same PP:
- Less power limiter = more HP
- More HP = more topspeed
- Less HP = more torque (and more torque = more "motor braking" + more "power oversteer (if applicable to the car : not talking about 2CV there)")

==> More power limiter => (that's a guess) better corner entry ability due to braking, less corner exit ability due to more torque in low rpm.
==> Less power limiter => (that's a guess) less corner entry ability due to braking, better corner exit ability due to less torque in low rpm.

So, depending on the car, limiting PP via the power limiter could be a good idea or not.
I guess power limiting a plenty of torque car is a bad idea (Viper, some FITT muscle cars & co - damn it, I used -5%).
I guess power limiting a no torque car is a good idea (don't have an exemple in mind... Old cars ?).

To "measure" this effect of power going down vs torque going up with more power limiter, here's the Power/Torque ratio, at peak levels (in PS/N.m):
b - 1.030
a - 0.870
c - 0.755
d - 0.556

To be really complete, this study would need 65km/h -> 250km/h accel times + tranny setuping...
But I think best accel will be the opposite of topspeeds akak ordered in d, c, a, b. That's why you don't loose time on Grand Valley I think.

All of this is the exact reflect of what I was telling
Now you own me 250.000 Cr

 

[MrGrado]

Who cares about route x? Obviously more power is more top speed there, I never disputed that, your tests were completely redundant.

==> More power limiter => (that's a guess) better corner entry ability due to braking, less corner exit ability due to more torque in low rpm.
==> Less power limiter => (that's a guess) less corner entry ability due to braking, better corner exit ability due to less torque in low rpm.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Power limiter will have virtually no effect on corner entry and even if it did it will have virtually no effect on lap times.

More power limiter and higher torque and power lower in RPM range will improve corner exit (if your actually using lower RPM during the corner and not wheelspin coming out) that's the whole idea of having more power limiter in the first place. Your trading off a tiny bit of top end power for a whole lot more mid range power.

So I wanted to see what negative effect the reduced top end would have in straight line speed on a regular circuit and it was virtually non existent.

 

[DaBomm4]

but who cares about route x?

The numbers are what are important. That is his point.

 

[MindsMirror]

I have some test results to share.

This is what I have done in my test. Using the Toyota 86 that I gave examples of earlier, I ran some acceleration tests on SSRX, from third gear through fifth, as in from the end of second/beginning of third to the end of fifth/beginning of sixth. Using my camera I recorded video to get as accurate timing as I could. All tests were using automatic transmission. All settings are the same for each test except the ones that I will show. Also, I didn't bother to record the final drive settings, but I adjusted the final drive according to the RPM of the rev limiter so that initial and final speed are the same for all tests (62 to 110 mph).


Test A

Power Limiter: 100%
Engine Tune: Standard
Computer: Sports Computer
Exhaust: Sports Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Standard
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Intake: Intake Tuning
Turbo Kit: Normal

Rev Limiter: 8500
Power: 247
Torque: 176

17.059 to 26.219 = 9.16 seconds


Test B

Power Limiter: 97.8%
Engine Tune: Standard
Computer: Sports Computer
Exhaust: Semi-Racing Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Standard
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Intake: Intake Tuning
Turbo Kit: Normal

Rev Limiter: 8600
Power: 248
Torque: 178

16.871 to 25.823 = 8.953 seconds


Test C

Power Limiter: 95.3%
Engine Tune: Standard
Computer: Sports Computer
Exhaust: Racing Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Standard
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Intake: Intake Tuning
Turbo Kit: Normal

Rev Limiter: 8700
Power: 247
Torque: 180

15.827 to 24.697 = 8.87 seconds


Test D

Power Limiter: 93.1%
Engine Tune: Stage 1
Computer: Sports Computer
Exhaust: Racing Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Standard
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Intake: Standard
Turbo Kit: Normal

Rev Limiter: 8800
Power: 247
Torque: 181

15.959 to 24.829 = 8.87 seconds


Test E

Power Limiter: 93.2%
Engine Tune: Standard
Computer: Sports Computer
Exhaust: Semi-Racing Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Isometric
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Intake: Intake Tuning
Turbo Kit: Normal

Rev Limiter: 8600
Power: 245
Torque: 185

16.205 to 25.073 = 8.868 seconds


Test F

Power Limiter: 90.9%
Engine Tune: Standard
Computer: Sports Computer
Exhaust: Racing Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Isometric
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Intake: Intake Tuning
Turbo Kit: Normal

Rev Limiter: 8700
Power: 245
Torque: 187

15.868 to 24.780 = 8.912 seconds


Test G

Power Limiter: 87%
Engine Tune: Stage 2
Computer: Sports Computer
Exhaust: Racing Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Standard
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Intake: Standard
Turbo Kit: Normal

Rev Limiter: 8900
Power: 244
Torque: 189

15.992 to 25.110 = 9.118 seconds


It seems a good range for this car at 450PP is around 93 to 95%. I will have to fiddle around with some different combinations of parts that still reach 450PP with this limiter range, there were come combinations with switching the catalytic converter and exhaust manifold upgrades (they each give about the same PP) which I didn't try. Somehow my transmission ratios got messed up after I tried a test with a turbo installed, and I didn't write down the settings. I might do tests C, D and E again with some other variations.

 

[BlueShift]

More power limiter and higher torque and power lower in RPM range will improve corner exit (if your actually using lower RPM during the corner and not wheelspin coming out)

Slipping is actually the point.
Slipping starts with sports tires at 400-500N.m in +/- x6 ratios eg most of third gears ie say 1200-1500N.m per tire on a 2 wheel traction/propulsion car. You'll also be putting more LSD on the non limited car because of lower torque.
Unless you drive with racing tires or with a 50-100-200 N.m pig, of course, which is the limit of validity of what I tell, there it's a good thing to use power limiter to acheive a certain amount of PP. That's a balance to feel and it's not automatic.

Let's play with a viper... You'll have a 500PP 900N.m car limited at 80% or something vs a viper 500PP 700N.m limited at 100% or something with CH/CH, guess who's the first at finish line... Guess which one made the better looking donuts...
Which one used the more tire will be the 80% and which one used the more fuel will be the 100%.

Let's play with a 2CV... You'll have a 300PP 50N.m car limited at 80% and a 300PP 45N.m limited at 100%, there it's the exact opposite, the limited car will be first at finish line.
Still the one who "used" more tire (if we can speak about tire wear on a 2CV) will be the limited one and the one who used the more fuel will be the non-limited one.

So I wanted to see what negative effect the reduced top end would have in straight line speed on a regular circuit and it was virtually non existent.

Do you have a scientific method for accuracy ? Best regular track you could test is Daytona imho.
This, or giving differents cars to the pgm #1 on seasonal / no srf. Otherwise there's no evidence I think unless I buy a wheel, take racing leassons, learn the track for weeks and become a racing machine.

 

[BlueShift]

I will have to fiddle around with some different combinations of parts that still reach 450PP with this limiter range, there were come combinations with switching the catalytic converter and exhaust manifold upgrades (they each give about the same PP) which I didn't try.

If you do this adjust the power limiter because in PS those parts doesn't give the same PS. If I remember well, the manifold will give you better rev aswell, so their effect on low/med/high rpm isn't that similar.

I actually liked a lot your method but not your car choice

Somehow my transmission ratios got messed up after I tried a test with a turbo installed, and I didn't write down the settings. I might do tests C, D and E again with some other variations.

The turbo should be left aside aswell I think. I put it in my tests because that was the only way to acheive 60.6% for 500PP.

Also, what were your tires ?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ultimate top speed testing is far less important than testing top speed at the end of the longest straight on a circuit. Top speed at Route X has little to do with top speed on the Tsukuba back straight where you accelerate from a slow second gear hairpin and power limiting may or may not give you an advantage. Likewise with just about any circuit in the game barring the layouts with really long straights like LeMans, Nurb etc.

 

[MrGrado]

Let's play with a viper... You'll have a 500PP 900N.m car limited at 80% or something vs a viper 500PP 700N.m limited at 100% or something with CH/CH, guess who's the first at finish line... Guess which one made the better looking donuts...
Which one used the more tire will be the 80% and which one used the more fuel will be the 100%.

Let's play with a 2CV... You'll have a 300PP 50N.m car limited at 80% and a 300PP 45N.m limited at 100%, there it's the exact opposite, the limited car will be first at finish line.
Still the one who "used" more tire (if we can speak about tire wear on a 2CV) will be the limited one and the one who used the more fuel will be the non-limited one.

Another example pulled from fantasy. I can't respond to this.

Do you have a scientific method for accuracy ? Best regular track you could test is Daytona imho.
This, or giving differents cars to the pgm #1 on seasonal / no srf. Otherwise there's no evidence I think unless I buy a wheel, take racing leassons, learn the track for weeks and become a racing machine.

I already went through this.

 

[BlueShift]

Another example pulled from fantasy. I can't respond to this.

Maybe because you think replying is a figthing game ?
I allready showed precise work and you say that's bs, now taking a "fantasy" exemple you say that's bs. I don't really know if we're having a discussion or you're talking alone tbh.
And tbh, I'd rather take my 3-4 hours testing your case yesterday back if you want to go that way.

 

[MrGrado]

Well then I'm done. I don't care how you tune.

 

[BlueShift]

Ultimate top speed testing is far less important than testing top speed at the end of the longest straight on a circuit. Top speed at Route X has little to do with top speed on the Tsukuba back straight where you accelerate from a slow second gear hairpin and power limiting may or may not give you an advantage. Likewise with just about any circuit in the game barring the layouts with really long straights like LeMans, Nurb etc.

Aerodynamics...
Top speed at Road X have A LOT to do with corner exit abilities. It's like saying no aero parts = more topspeed without taking into account corner abilities provided by aero.

Same here : fixed PP, more HP and topspeed OR more torque but in case of more torque, corner exit problems on some cars/tire combo but with better braking.

Less HP = less accel figthing against the wind. You're accel'ing vs the wind faster at torque peak because of... low speeds... The wind resistance's power increase in v cube, and the main thing that prevent going at faster speed is HP...

So whenever you take a speed at a certain tranny setting in the longest straigth on any track, you're still figthing vs the wind at high rpm, rigth ?
Would you prefer figthing vs the wind with low HP peak but with better brake aptitudes or high HP peak ?

I think the answer is in that last question. That's a question of car and driver.

 

[donpost]

Ultimate top speed testing is far less important than testing top speed at the end of the longest straight on a circuit. Top speed at Route X has little to do with top speed on the Tsukuba back straight where you accelerate from a slow second gear hairpin and power limiting may or may not give you an advantage. Likewise with just about any circuit in the game barring the layouts with really long straights like LeMans, Nurb etc.

That's given me an idea... When tuning to a PP limit you have to choose between adding power or removing weight (or a mix of both). I wonder if the best choice is the one that has just enough power to reach it's top speed at the end of the longest straight on the track for which you are tuning, with the rest of the PP spent on weight reduction...

RE: power limiter vs no power limiter. Because there is an unknown involved being PDs formula for calculating PP, the truth can only be found by testing power limited tunes against non-power limited tunes (of the same PP) and comparing laptimes.

 

[DaBomm4]

Well then I'm done. I don't care how you tune.

All @BlueShift has been doing here is providing massive research FACTS that you don't want to agree with.

 

[BlueShift]

All @BlueShift has been doing here is providing massive research FACTS that you don't want to agree with.

I told Torque in low rpm or HP in high rpm have both advantages (and I'm sorry if he discovers that now but it's a well known fact since PS1 times), just trying to underline them for people to know so they can choose.
I just couldn't understand why he said earlier "same PP = same laptime" without trying to understand why, and now having the answer to that still saying what I say is "fantasy" or something.

In definitive, it's just a matter of tuning creed as I said somewhere all the matter with tuners is their creed in a rob peter to pay paul game.
Like comp>ext or ext>comp steriles debates tbh. On some car comp>ext is better, on some others comp<ext is better that is all. "Best tune is what makes you fast."

What we can tell anyway is PP is marvelously computed since those differences within laptimes were not that easy to spot.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Aerodynamics...
Top speed at Road X have A LOT to do with corner exit abilities. It's like saying no aero parts = more topspeed without taking into account corner abilities provided by aero.

Same here : fixed PP, more HP and topspeed OR more torque but in case of more torque, corner exit problems on some cars/tire combo but with better braking.

Less HP = less accel figthing against the wind. You're accel'ing vs the wind faster at torque peak because of... low speeds... The wind resistance's power increase in v cube, and the main thing that prevent going at faster speed is HP...

So whenever you take a speed at a certain tranny setting in the longest straigth on any track, you're still figthing vs the wind at high rpm, rigth ?
Would you prefer figthing vs the wind with low HP peak but with better brake aptitudes or high HP peak ?

I think the answer is in that last question. That's a question of car and driver.

I must be missing something. I am more concerned about how quickly I can accelerate to my top speed at a given circuit than I am about my top speed on a straight that's 5 miles long and I'll never race on. Part of that is aerodynamics, part is torque/weight/hp/tires etc.

 

[BlueShift]

I must be missing something. I am more concerned about how quickly I can accelerate to my top speed at a given circuit than I am about my top speed on a straight that's 5 miles long and I'll never race on. Part of that is aerodynamics, part is torque/weight/hp/tires etc.

You're missing the rpm you're at at the end of your straigth if you tuned your gearbox rigth. Plain HP peak. Not rev point (which is not what you should do), plain HP peak.

Just 10m before your braking point you'll be accelerating faster with a higher HP peak but braking is worse (since torque is worse in low rpm, low rpm is where you land in corner entry and corner entry landing is where the weigth transfer ask the brakes the more) so you'll brake a little earlier. And the opposite with the low HP peak. Accel'ing slower but with better brakes.
Notice since you got less torque you can mount more LSD though so you could still get braking back through this.

If your car allready is a good braker, you'll have no use of more torque. Now after your corner if your car have slipping problems in low rpm/low gear, this is just either a LSD problem or a Torque problem (or a rear comp prblem but let's say you solved dampers before or else I'd better write a guide). If you want more stab there, you shouldn't use the power limiter since it only give you more torque vs hp. And more torque = more slipping at corner exit (ie again, less LSD).

If you're okay in both departements, then, there the "other" problem I told that nobody spoke about which is inertia in high rpm, which is still a question I ask : what is better HP peak sooner or later in the rpm range within a gear ?
I'd say : later for the reason I told, ie still accel'ing at the end of a gear you want to be "thrown to the next one" and you'll get better results if the "throw" is later in rpm in my very questionable opinion.
Notice that it seems the results @MindsMirror got doesn't confirm this at all so this must be more complicated than I initially though there.

Just that. For me I'd avoid using the limiter but if some cars would need it. The problem is the cars that would need it have no PP problems usually since they are low on torque.

 

[donpost]

Blueshift can I just confirm I've translated what you are saying correctly?

Non-power limited = higher peak HP = higher top speed
Power limited = lower peak HP (so therefore lower top speed), but power is "spread about" a bit more = better acceleration

That makes sense to me, but I'm going to add:

Too much power limiting = spreads the HP out so far it goes outside the racing rev range = bad.

So therefore - a small amount of power limiting MIGHT be good in some circumstances. Too much is definitely a bad thing.

 

[BlueShift]

Blueshift can I just confirm I've translated what you are saying correctly?

Non-power limited = higher peak HP = higher top speed
Power limited = lower peak HP (so therefore lower top speed), but power is "spread about" a bit more = better acceleration

That makes sense to me, but I'm going to add:

Too much power limiting = spreads the HP out so far it goes outside the racing rev range = bad.

So therefore - a small amount of power limiting MIGHT be good in some circumstances. Too much is definitely a bad thing.

Fixed, but I think that what you meant, yeah I confirm this is what I wrote (until somebody say I'm wrong with good arguments and I change opinion ).
I agree with what you add too.

I see it really the same as Mr Grado : pl nerf the power peak thus nerf the high torque vs the low/medium torque. the PP calculation say you can add more engine parts so you add more low/medium/high torque parts. Low/medium boost are still not nerfed, that's why at a given PP level you got higher torque the more you use the pl.

It's not "spreading power", just with more pl at a given PP makes torque boosting lower and lower rpm. But you can see the way you want, torque/power are related

---
I wish somebody would explain rev vs power peak's rpm to me. Re-reading that Ed Lansinger article I can't find what I'm seeking.

*edit* just asked the question to my friend who's work is in Renault's gearbox, but he don't know since his job is testing gearboxes, not concepting them. :/