Makeshift Shuffle Club - Time Trials & Testing for club car lists - all welcomeOpen

[watermelon punch]

There's something wrong with those times. I don't think it's very likely that the BMW is 1.7s faster than the Legacy at Suzuka and 1.3 slower at Laguna. I'll make a test session with GT-Four, Lancer Evo II, and the new candidates that should fit in between.

Sounds to me like a driver-car-preference issue.
I say this because I have a love/hate with Laguna Seca.
Some cars I love it! Some cars I hate that track!
In particular, I really HATE 4wd cars at Laguna Seca, and rarely do well there with a 4wd.
But some people LOVE 4wd cars!!

 

[watermelon punch]

Here is more about the "revamp" of the vintage/legends scheme.
IE: I'm looking to dial in more cars, make the lists a little more "theme-y" and have more variety.
Because lots involved in this are really into the vintage cars, but the selections are rather rigid, and also have been heavily used already. So I was hoping to strike up the excitement.

Just preliminary testing has been started. (obviously no order yet, and maybe some of these need to be cut)

If you're interested in doing testing, you may do it on your own and report your times, or let me know, and do it in the club Time Trials events. 👍 (I'm currently doing testing in the Rome Reverse & Deep Forest.)
Anyone who tests a set of cars on one track will get a prize pick. 👍

You can also, if you don't run a club already, make your own club and make your own time trial there, and do it through there. (This is an easy way to record times.) And then you can tell me about it, and let me collect your times from there.


Vintage
Nissan Skyline 2000GT-B (S54B) '67
Marcos Mini Marcos GT '70
Alfa Romeo Spider 1600 Duetto '66
Honda Civic 1500 3door CX '79
Isuzu Bellett 1600 GT-R '69
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint Speciale '63
Isuzu 117 Coupé '68
Honda 1300 Coupe 9 S '70
Toyota Celica 1600GT (TA22) '70
Mitsubishi Lancer 1600 GSR '74
Lotus Europa S.2 '68
BMW 507 '57
Mazda Cosmo Sport (L10A) '67
Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT-Apex (AE86) '83
Nissan Fairlady 2000 (SR311) '68



Retro
Honda Accord Coupe '88
Honda Civic 1500 3door 25i '83
Isuzu Piazza XE '81
Nissan Exa Canopy L.A. Version Type S '88
Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
Honda Ballade Sports CR-X 1.5i '83
Honda City Turbo II '83
Volkswagen Golf I GTI '76
Alpine A310 1600VE '73
Nissan Silvia Q's (S13) '88
Nissan Skyline Hard Top 2000 GT-R (KPGC10) '70
Nissan Fairlady Z 280Z-L 2seater (S130) '78
Toyota Corolla Levin GT-Apex (AE86) '83
Mitsubishi Lancer EX 1800GSR IC Turbo '83
Toyota Celica 2000GT-Four (ST165) '86
Honda Prelude Type S '98
Ford Taurus SHO '98


Historic
Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC110) '73
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
Nissan Fairlady 240ZG (HS30) '71
Toyota 2000GT '67
Toyota MR2 1600 G-Limited Super Charger '86
Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
Audi quattro '82
Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
Buick GNX '87
Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88
Chevrolet Camaro SS '69


Legends
Mercedes-Benz 300 SL Coupé '54
BMW 2002 Turbo '73
Renault R5 Turbo '80
Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
Nissan Skyline Hard Top 2000 Turbo RS (R30) '83
Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX (Z31) '83
Lotus Europa Special '72
Pontiac Firebird Trans Am '78
Jaguar E-Type Coupe '61
DMC DeLorean S2 '04
Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z Concept '88
Lancia Stratos '73
Peugeot 205 Turbo 16 '85
Dome Zero '78
Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX TT 2seater (Z32) '89
Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT-Apex (AE86 Shuichi Shigeno Version) '00


Classics
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
Shelby Cobra 427 '66
Lamborghini Countach LP400 '74
Lamborghini Miura P400 Bertone Prototype CN.0706 '67
Mazda RX500 '70
Ferrari 365 GTB4 '71
AC Cars 427 S/C '66
Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88

Not sure what else can be considered for "classics" list... in the same speed range.
But even if we don't have enough cars... we can make the list doubled up.
For example, same car at 2 numbers.



Anyway, I thought I'd post my preliminary idea here, because I've gotten quite a few inquiries about ideas for vintage lists.

 

[snowgt]

Here is more about the "revamp" of the vintage/legends scheme.
IE: I'm looking to dial in more cars, make the lists a little more "theme-y" and have more variety.
Because lots involved in this are really into the vintage cars, but the selections are rather rigid, and also have been heavily used already. So I was hoping to strike up the excitement.

Just preliminary testing has been started. (obviously no order yet, and maybe some of these need to be cut)

(...)

Anyway, I thought I'd post my preliminary idea here, because I've gotten quite a few inquiries about ideas for vintage lists.

You really like working at everything at once, huh?

 

[watermelon punch]

a) Trying to get it in while I have time.

b) I think we were limited before, in trying to just roll out lists... and so many cars & ideas were just tossed aside in the effort to just get something together & going.
Now that I have many test times, and we have lists so there's not a pressure to roll it out... I think we can better make more lists.
👍

 

[snowgt]

Classics
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
Shelby Cobra 427 '66
Lamborghini Countach LP400 '74
Lamborghini Miura P400 Bertone Prototype CN.0706 '67
Mazda RX500 '70
Ferrari 365 GTB4 '71
AC Cars 427 S/C '66
Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88

Not sure what else can be considered for "classics" list... in the same speed range.
But even if we don't have enough cars... we can make the list doubled up.
For example, same car at 2 numbers.

From what I've seen so far there is a spread of up to 10 or 12 seconds in some lists from fastest to slowest car, so let me assure you, there are enough cars that fit that list. I volunteer for testing!

Here's some more, that fit the profile ("real" sports cars, 1989 or earlier):

Ferrari Dino 246 GT '71
Chevrolet Camaro Z28 '69
Ford RS200 '84
Isuzu 4200R '89
Ferrari 250 GTO CN.3729GT '62
Ferrari 512BB '76
Ferrari GTO '84
Ford GT40 Mark I '66

One hell of an expensive list though. People will have to invest up to 40 million here.

 

[LongbowX]

I am so behind on this thread. Nevertheless, I'm fine with replacing the MR2. I suggested it originally, but it's better than it was before. It's probably quicker as a result so I'm fine with switching it up.

I remember the M Coupe '98 being just horrible to drive, even though I love the car. Which is why I eliminated it. The Silvia Spec R '99 is too fast, and so is the S2000. They just handle too good. I am however open to the S4. I think it's possible that it could be a good fit.


I was also going to flush out the "Classics" list, but I was tree'd. Still, I think there's a few others to consider, perhaps. Even though they're from the 90s.

Corvette ZR-1 '90 (too slow probably)
Lotus Carlton '90
V8 Vantage '99

 

[watermelon punch]

Okay so 90s list...
Maybe we can take a look at the 90s times we already have and have some people add in the S4, and either adjust or eliminate the MR2.
I have misgivings about relocating the MR2, just because people are not necessarily too easily competing with faster cars in the list. (Racing is a lot different than hot-lapping, as we all know. )

So I don't know.


Take a look, bearing in mind that LB often often does almost inexplicably well in clearly slower cars. ^^

 

[watermelon punch]

RE: Spreads in different car lists.

The more dodgy the handling the cars in a list, and especially the faster the cars are in a list, the more spread we can stand between slowest to fastest.
So I think with the Classics, it will be possible to stand a marked spread.

 

[watermelon punch]

List Revamp

Fill in my testing holes?

So these are some that I have some, but not all, at one track by one driver.

If any of you have the time & desire, you can fill in these missing test drives for me please?

Thanks!

----------------------------------------

@LongbowX

Grand Valley East Reverse

Isuzu 117 Coupé '68
Lotus Europa S.2 '68
Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT-Apex (AE86) '83

----------------------------------------
@amarynceos

Tskuba

Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX (Z31) '83
Pontiac Firebird Trans Am '78
Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z Concept '88
Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX TT 2seater (Z32) '89
Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT-Apex (AE86 Shuichi Shigeno Version) '00

and

Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
Toyota MR2 1600 G-Limited Super Charger '86
Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
Buick GNX '87
Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88
Chevrolet Camaro SS '69

----------------------------------------

 

[snowgt]

RE: Spreads in different car lists.

The more dodgy the handling the cars in a list, and especially the faster the cars are in a list, the more spread we can stand between slowest to fastest.
So I think with the Classics, it will be possible to stand a marked spread.

Understood. Would you want to go SS with the tyres for that list or SM…?

 

[watermelon punch]

We use SM on the Luxury List.
So... I don't know.
Maybe stick with SM (more as a compromise between those who would prefer SS & those who likely would want them on SH - that's the reason I went with SM on the Luxury List probably! lol).

 

[snowgt]

We use SM on the Luxury List.
So... I don't know.
Maybe stick with SM (more as a compromise between those who would prefer SS & those who likely would want them on SH - that's the reason I went with SM on the Luxury List probably! lol).

SS can be tricky. Oversteering cars tend to get more oversteer by putting stickier tyres in front, so it might be for the best even for slower drivers, because with SM the cars are a little more forgiving, I think. (especially with these cars)

 

[amarynceos]

@watermelon punch :

1:09.582 -- Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX (Z31) '83
1:09.215 -- Pontiac Firebird Trans Am '78
1:08.546 -- Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z Concept '88
1:08.189 -- Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX TwinTurbo 2seater (Z32) '89
1:07.499 -- Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT-Apex (AE86 Shuichi Shigeno Version) '00

 

[watermelon punch]

Is the Soarer really that slow?
I mean it's 276 HP and 377 Nm (way more then the MR2), sure a bit heavy on the other hand.
And the 190 so fast with only 410PP? Didn't expect that. I mean i knew it might be a bit better than the numbers saying, thats why I thouhgt it could fit, but too fast?
The Silvia is quick for sure, also better then the Celica but better than the Lancer too? Wouldn't it fit right in between those 2 cars on #2?
And the S2000's performance is better than the stats may seem, that's clear. But is it really TOO fast with only 218Nm?

In my opinion SL 500, 190 E, Silvia, S2000 and Soarer would be worth a test.
Sadly I don't have the chance for playing this week.

Maybe I should elaborate. What I said about the Silvia was referring to your suggestion of the spec-R. That one is way faster, more like in the RX-7 territory (as is the S2000). There are actually some Silvia models that could fit at #2, that being...

Silvia K's Aero (S14) '93
SilEighty '98
Silvia K's (S13) '91
Silvia K's Aero (S14) '96

Also the Mitsubishi FTO GP Version R '97 or '99 could fit. As I said, I would personally prefer some variety in the list though, as it's not specifically a 90's Japanese list and non-Japanese cars are quite under-represented at the moment.


The PP-values in the game are a calculated figure. Nobody knows exactly how they are calculated, but we do know that the integral of power and torque do factor in. So, the absolute peak figures of power and torque might be high, but the PP-figure might not reflect that. Also, the other way round, if you have decent power and torque across a wide rpm-range, it might inflate the PP-figure, but performance can still be mediocre. So, looking at PP-figures is unfortunately only a rough approximation of a car's speed.

Playing catch up here...

1) Can't trust the pp system
I think it's some internal system they happened to share with us.
It really probably only makes huge sense on big tracks. And maybe not even then.

I just constantly think of the shuffle races in GT5, and the WiLL.


2) I trust snowgt's estimation of ballpark speeds. I refer to snowgt's car testing all this time, as the basis of all my list ideas, to match cars which are similar. And it's worked out really well.

3) Car lists... themes... kind of like classes (but not exactly)
It's nice to have car lists with themes though for various reasons.


Anyway, it's really Longbow's area here, so I would defer to him, as this 90s list is his brainchild list.

My only VERY STRONGLY ADVISED rule is that we do NOT have 2 of the same model in any one list.

This is mainly just to save having mass confusion of questions & car checking in the lobby while racing.

Been there, done that.
And it WAS like a cocktail party with the elderly! With people repeating themselves, and then asking what year it was!
Fairlady? Skyline? Skyline? Fairlady? 1967 or 1973?

 

[snowgt]

90's bottom end testing. I tested the ones currently on the list minus the MR2 GT-S to find a car to fit in the #2 hole. Times are from Motegi East.

1:40,074 Toyota CELICA GT-FOUR (ST205) '98 (#1)
1:39,291 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution II GSR '94 (#3)
1:38,396 Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX Version S TwinTurbo 2seater (Z32) '98 (#4)

1:41,352 Mercedes-Benz SLK 230 Kompressor '98
1:40,202 Mercedes-Benz SL 500 (R129) '98
1:39,521 Nissan Silvia K's Aero (S14) '96
1:38,858 Mercedes-Benz SL 600 (R129) '98
1:38,537 Audi S4 '98
1:37,817 BMW M Coupe '98

SLK too slow.
SL 500 a little too slow.
Silvia fits perfectly. (but another Japanese car)
SL 600 is very powerful, but incredibly heavy. This would probably produce a number of mismatches as, although nominally slow, it would crush some higher ranked cars on fast tracks.
The S4 is too fast to fit at #2.
The M Coupe is even faster.

The Silvia would be the best fit at #2, but I would favour a solution where the Lancer Evo II is moved to #2 and the S4 comes in at #3.

Just my opinion.

 

[watermelon punch]

I think the Silvia looks perfect!
But I think there should be another test driver to verify any inclusion's appropriateness. 👍
I will test drive it myself as soon as I can.

I kind of like Silvia models generally. I don't see a problem with another Japanese car.
I kind of figure it this way... we're playing a Japanese game, and hey, Japan has made lots of cars - some really great cars!
And we're further limited by the fact that some of the cars available to us are not well geared (or have some other problem) in the unmodified state. So that's often why some cars never make it into our lists.

But, so it's the nature of the beast here, that we will be driving loads of Japanese cars.
Luckily I happen to like them a lot!
Not to say that lots of European cars haven't captured my interest & imagination.

My argument against the S4 is that it's in the Luxury list already.
Not that I'm 100% opposed to car repeats, but there is that.

But in the end, @LongbowX would have to sanction the addition of any car to the 90s list.

As it stands, I'd avoided scheduling the 90s list (and the Hot Hatches) the next few days... Until we can roll out any changes.

 

[LongbowX]

I'm fine with either addition, the Silvia or the S4. I'm for anything that would improve a list's fairness! I don't really have a preference. I do like RWD cars though, so maybe I would give the edge to the Silvia.

@watermelon punch And the '98 S4 is different than the '03 S4 so I don't think of it much as a repeat.

Also that Dauphine is a beautiful piece of kit, unrestored or not.

 

[watermelon punch]

Hmm... yeah it's not the same S4.
I was probably just thinking about how much I don't like the S4 in the Luxury list.
The RWD might also be why I'm inclined toward the Silvia really.

I can barely drive the S4 in the luxury list, and I always get it at the worst possible track for me to get the S4.


That Dauphine might still be there, over a year later! Sad. Was always looking at it from the Dunkin Donuts drive through pretty often back in the summer. Though I seem to recall being past there maybe a month or two ago and still seeing it.
What makes it so unusual is not only that it's a French vintage road car, but that French cars of any time period are rare to see around here. Even though I regularly see vintage cars - but mostly American, Japanese, & German.

Anyway, yeah, if I was rolling in wealth, I would get that Renault & fix it up just for it's charm.

 

[amarynceos]

@watermelon punch , filled in the rest of those testing holes:

1:13.762 -- Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
1:10.582 -- Toyota MR2 1600 G-Limited Super Charger '86
1:10.950 -- Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
1:10.008 -- Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
1:10.292 -- Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
1:10.066 -- Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
1:09.289 -- Buick GNX '87
1:09.198 -- Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88
1:08.187 -- Chevrolet Camaro SS '69

 

[watermelon punch]

@amarynceos

👍

 

[watermelon punch]

Car List ordering procedures
a little info on the process for those interested. ^^

As most here already know I've been ordering the lists based on at least 3 different drivers test driving all the cars in a given list on at least 3 different tracks, for a total of no less than 6 full sets of test times.
I have then taken each order those drivers put them in, and average it out.
And that's how we've come up with the list order.

Sometimes we have a couple cars re-tested on some more tracks, if there is a tie and a problem deciding between 2.
And sometimes we re-adjust the list order if there's some big question about a particular car's position.

Now, with the help of @tarnheld and his spreadsheet mathcrobatics... 💡
There might be a way to better order the lists, with less pressure on single drivers to test all the cars.
By having some cars tested against others, the math can suss out what cars are on average, faster than other cars.

I am also trying a new way of calculating the average performance of the cars.
For the first try at this, I both me & tarnheld will be using the 3 different methods, to see how it turns out. 👍
In order to verify how this can work best.

So I propose that since we have much experience already with the Vintage List & Legends list, we focus first on trying these methods with the revamps of these lists.
(You can find the new car list proposals in post #2 of this thread.)

After both of my secret stigs and Longbowx gets a chance to fill in his GVER testing with the new Vintage list, we will have 5 sets of times in the new Vintage list. Plus a lot of extra times.
So then we will just call for testing of particular cars to iron out the order.


And we can see how this turns out.

For more particulars on the macrobatics method, I will defer to @tarnheld to explain more about this new process, and answer any questions about it.

 

[snowgt]

80s-palooza. I pretty much tested all 80s cars, minus the really slow ones that fall off in terms of performance and the ones that basically are in other lists, like 300ZX (Z32) '89, Skyline GT-R (R32) '89...

Tested at Motegi East with Comfort Soft tyres. Time / Speed at Start-Finish / Speed at end of straight

1:54,279 117 163 Toyota Carina ED 2.0 X 4WS '89
1:53,117 117 163 Honda Accord Coupe '88
1:52,565 117 160 Honda Civic 1500 3door 25i '83
1:51,869 118 163 Isuzu Piazza XE '81
1:51,734 118 163 Nissan Exa Canopy L.A. Version Type S '88
1:51,149 120 164 Honda City Turbo II '83
1:50,982 120 166 Honda Ballade Sports CR-X 1.5i '83
1:49,737 121 168 Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
1:49,629 121 168 Nissan Silvia Q's (S13) '88
1:49,397 122 168 Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT-Apex (AE86) '83
1:49,044 126 175 Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
1:48,879 124 170 Mitsubishi Lancer EX 1800GSR IC Turbo '83
1:48,268 126 176 Toyota Celica 2000GT-R (ST162) '86
1:47,112 128 177 Toyota Celica 2000GT-Four (ST165) '86
1:46,475 126 176 Toyota MR2 1600 G-Limited Super Charger '86
1:45,208 132 180 Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
1:44,832 132 183 Nissan Skyline GTS-R (R31) '87
1:44,676 131 180 Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
1:44,292 133 183 Nissan Skyline Hard Top 2000 RS-X Turbo C (R30) '84 -> there's already an R30 in Legends
1:43,913 137 190 Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX (Z31) '83
1:43,086 136 185 Nissan Skyline GTS-t Type M (R32) '89 -> R32 in 90s, but this one is FR, not 4WD.
1:43,017 137 188 Buick GNX '87
1:42,985 138 193 Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88
1:42,008 138 189 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z Concept '88

1:39,789 146 197 Nissan Silvia 240RS (S110) '83
1:39,614 143 197 Lotus Esprit Turbo HC '87

I actually would suggest making the 80s list all Japanese. There's a gap between Camaro and Silvia 240RS and Lotus Esprit, so these 2 are already too fast. That leaves exactly 2 possible non-Japanese cars, so we might as well make it an 80s-Japanese theme. There will probably be other lists for the Camaro & Buick. E.g. the Esprit can definitely go on the planned Classics-list.

 

[LongbowX]

Grand Valley East Reverse

1:25.925 Isuzu 117 Coupé '68
1:24.467 Lotus Europa S.2 '68
1:23.237 Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT-Apex (AE86) '83

 

[watermelon punch]

80s-palooza. I pretty much tested all 80s cars, minus the really slow ones that fall off in terms of performance

There are 80s cars that perform worse than the Accord 88?

 

[snowgt]

There are 80s cars that perform worse than the Accord 88?

Not many. Seriously, if you ignore the ones already on other lists, apart from the Carina there would only be the Mistubishi Minica Dangan ZZ '89 (already multiple seconds slower than even the Carina), and the Honda Today G '85, which is so slow, it would probably get lapped in a 2-lap race.

I think out of those 24 cars, in a final list these should be dropped:
- Camaro and Buick to make it all Japanese.
- One of the 2 MR2's.
- One of the 2 Silvia S13's.
- One of the 2 Celica ST162/ST165's.
- Probably the Skyline R30 (because other version on other list)
- Probably the RWD Skyline R32. (R32 on other list)

That would bring us down to 17 and an already pretty homogenous list with a 10-11 second spread. I guess maybe the Carina would get the axe to bring it down to 16, if it were up to me.

 

[tarnheld]

Car List Ordering Mathcrobatics®

As i was involved in the crunching of the TT times of the 90's list and the Hot Hatch reordering, i caught a glimpse on the difficulty making these lists. The experience i got from these exercises was:

• It's easy to order by one tester/track combo
• It's hard to get a meaningful order by multiple testers/tracks (think of possible contradicting car orders of two testers)
• It's hard to extract any info more than the order of the cars, for example time differences depend on tester,track,etc.

The ranking method of @watermelon punch takes all of this into account, but has the flaw that you need a full list of TT times for one driver/track combo, as the ranking for a subset of cars cannot be compared to another ranking of a different subset.

With the new TTs in the club there was good data, but the old method didn't work cleanly with this, so we had to massage the data, and try to figure out how to fit this into the ordering. Various ways were tried, but all brought some form of bias into the ordering. So the task was to fight the bias and come up with a method that just works and can incorporate even just two extra TT times from two cars by one driver without blowing up.

So what is the most basic info we can extract from the TT times? It's which car is faster than another. For this you only need the two TT times of two cars. So if we go through all car pairings, and extract this info, we can give each car pair A,B a number of 1 if A is faster than B, and 0 if A is not faster than B. If we sum up this numbers for all driver/track combos, we get a table like this:

__A B C D ...
A 0 5 7 6
B 2 0 4 7
C 0 5 0 8
D 0 0 0 0
...

This is just a compact way to store the info "A beats B 5 times", "A beats C 7 times", "A was beaten by B 2 times" and so on.

Now we need the info how many times a comparison was possible for a car pair, because not every car pair has been tested by each driver on each track. So we need another table like this:

__A B C D ...
A 7 7 7 6
B 7 7 7 8
C 7 7 8 8
D 6 8 8 6
...

This table is a compact way to store the info "We have 7 TT times for car pair A,B, 6 TT times for car pair A,D, 8 TT times for car pair B,D" and so on.

Now we can divide each entry of table one by table two, to get a percentage value that says for each car pair "A beats B 5 times out of 7, that's 71%"

__A B C D ...
A 0/7 5/7 7/7 6/6
B 2/7 0/7 7/7 8/8
C 0/7 5/7 0/8 8/8
D 0/6 0/8 0/8 0/6
...

Now check out the rows: If you sum it up, the number tells you how many times a car was faster than all others.
For example car A: 2.71 times it was faster than all others.
And the columns: If you sum it up, the number tells you how many times a car was slower than all others.
For example car A: 0.29 times it was slower than all others.

______A B C D ...
______0.29 1.42 2.0 3.0
A 2.71 0/7 5/7 7/7 6/6
B 2.29 2/7 0/7 7/7 8/8
C 1.71 0/7 5/7 0/8 8/8
D 0.00 0/6 0/8 0/8 0/6
...

Subtract those two numbers of the car, and you get a measure for the fastness of the car against all others.

A: 2.71-0.29 = 2.42
B: 2.29-1.42 = 0.87
C: 1.71-2 =-0.29
D: 0-3 =-3

These numbers tell you the fastness of a car relative to the others, 0 means faster than half of the other cars, anything higher is faster than half of the other cars, negative is slower than half of the other cars.

So that is the new (world) order, i will stop here and let you digest that, hope somebody get down here!
Just some advantages:

• As there is only the counting of 'faster than' points, there is no bias of track length, number of cars done by driver, etc.
  
• It's easy to extract problematic cars, were more testing is needed.
• We can easily add other 'faster than' tests, for example top speed.

 

[Patrick8308]

Great work @tarnheld !👍

But definately a post one has to read twice (or even thrice).

 

[tarnheld]

To make this more transparent, i have shared the Car Testing template, filled with hilarious data for 33 cars gathered from all over the place.

The first page (you can switch between them with the tabs at the bottom) contains all the testing data, the second page contains two ordered car lists from the two methods, the third contains the Checks that are possible with the new method.

First we can check how many comparisons are possible, if there not enough, the cell is filled orange. Then we can check the direct comparison between two consecutive cars on the list. If there is a tie or if the overall faster car is actually slower than the consecutive car, the cell is filled red. This way you can easily find problematic cars that need more testing.

The last pages contain the steps i have discussed in the previous post.

 

[watermelon punch]

@snowgt
- yes, the 80s cars are tough because there are many of them, but lots are not really similar. :/
Take a look in post #2.
I have inserted a lot of 80s cars in these list proposals.
(We will have to see how these turn out after more test times because we wont' know if they're compatible until there's enough testing done.)


I've also made another club for extra time trials.
Club id : 1031500

This is mostly because I like testing cars in the time trials because I don't have to be recording times while I'm driving.
And there's only 10 events you can put at a time.
But so if anyone has a request of a particular track time trial, let me know.

 

[Patrick8308]

But so if anyone has a request of a particular track time trial, let me know.

Would it be possible to make a TT on Gran Valley East please?💡

I guess this track is good to have a first overview on tested cars, there are fast and slow turns plus a long straight.