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

[tarnheld]

Let's not forget the 90's:

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.

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'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.

Please, all that have tested the 90's cars before, give the

Nissan Silvia K's Aero (S14) '96

a spin!

@amarynceos at Laguna Seca and/or Nordschleife and/or Matterhon Riffelsee
@LongbowX at GVER and/or Tsukuba
@watermelon punch at Matterhorn Riffelsee
@temuster at Matterhorn Riffelsee

Please post your times here. If you can add the Audi S4 '98 too, please do so.

Thanks!

 

[watermelon punch]

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.

Longbowx would agree with you but he seems to prefer reverse for some reason.

Anyway, I'll put it on the list.


There's a Matterhorn Riffelsee time trial in the club events.

Also, the additional time trials club has time trials at Laguna Seca and Nurb Nord.

 

[snowgt]

@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.)

Actually, there were fewer cars from the 80s than I thought. I really pretty much tested all that were possible. If a couple of those are being put into other lists, there won't even be enough for an 80s list anymore. (which is fine with me, I'm just saying - I have no preference where they'll end up)

Also, the ones I tested are aligned pretty well in the sense that usually a faster car on the whole lap is also faster in a straight line. I actually thought it's a very homogenous group of cars in that respect.

It's pretty hard to find list definitions that don't necessarily overlap though.

 

[Patrick8308]

Longbowx would agree with you but he seems to prefer reverse for some reason.

Anyway, I'll put it on the list.


There's a Matterhorn Riffelsee time trial in the club events.

Also, the additional time trials club has time trials at Laguna Seca and Nurb Nord.

GVER might really be the better choice because you start in the long straight coming of a slow corner.💡
That means end straight speed would not be much depending on how fast u do the pre-straight turn.
So could i change my request to the reverse version please?

 

[LongbowX]

I prefer GVE/Rev because it's the better track, obviously. (for the reasons mentioned above)

I will get to testing the S4 and Silvia today. 👍

 

[tarnheld]

About the Classic List Credits:

Ford RS200 '84 - 160000 Cr
Isuzu 4200R '89 - 300000 Cr
Ferrari Dino 246 GT '71 - 90000 Cr
Chevrolet Camaro Z28 '69 - 65000 Cr
Ferrari 250 GTO CN.3729GT '62 - 20000000 Cr
Ferrari 512BB '76 - 102500 Cr
Ferrari GTO '84 - 1250000 Cr
Ford GT40 Mark I '66 - 2800000 Cr
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87 - 236630 Cr
Shelby Cobra 427 '66 - 530550 Cr
Lamborghini Countach LP400 '74 - 216600 Cr
Lamborghini Miura P400 Bertone Prototype CN.0706 '67 - 15000000 Cr
Mazda RX500 '70 - 500000 Cr
Ferrari 365 GTB4 '71 - 550000 Cr
AC Cars 427 S/C '66 - 423200 Cr
Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88 - 182000 Cr

Credits for whole list: 42,406,480 Cr
Credits without 2 most exp. cars: 7,406,480 Cr
Credits without 4 most exp. cars: 3,356,480 Cr

So @snowgt's idea to allow stripping the 2-4 most expensive cars and use the next slower one seems a good idea.
But the one who does so loses two GTOs, the Miura, and the GT40. So start that grinding today! 👍

I will try to test some of them, as i own most of them.

 

[watermelon punch]

So only these 4 are expensive, and only 2 are very expensive...

Ferrari 250 GTO CN.3729GT '62 - 20000000 Cr
Ferrari GTO '84 - 1250000 Cr
Ford GT40 Mark I '66 - 2800000 Cr
Lamborghini Miura P400 Bertone Prototype CN.0706 '67 - 15000000 Cr


I wonder if many of us already have these cars.

I'm not 100% sure I have the 20mil one. But I think I do.
I know I have the other 3.

💡 poll time!


Append: Poll made, at the top of this thread. 👍

 

[snowgt]

About the Classic List Credits:

Ford RS200 '84 - 160000 Cr
Isuzu 4200R '89 - 300000 Cr
Ferrari Dino 246 GT '71 - 90000 Cr
Chevrolet Camaro Z28 '69 - 65000 Cr
Ferrari 250 GTO CN.3729GT '62 - 20000000 Cr
Ferrari 512BB '76 - 102500 Cr
Ferrari GTO '84 - 1250000 Cr
Ford GT40 Mark I '66 - 2800000 Cr
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87 - 236630 Cr
Shelby Cobra 427 '66 - 530550 Cr
Lamborghini Countach LP400 '74 - 216600 Cr
Lamborghini Miura P400 Bertone Prototype CN.0706 '67 - 15000000 Cr
Mazda RX500 '70 - 500000 Cr
Ferrari 365 GTB4 '71 - 550000 Cr
AC Cars 427 S/C '66 - 423200 Cr
Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88 - 182000 Cr

Credits for whole list: 42,406,480 Cr
Credits without 2 most exp. cars: 7,406,480 Cr
Credits without 4 most exp. cars: 3,356,480 Cr

So @snowgt's idea to allow stripping the 2-4 most expensive cars and use the next slower one seems a good idea.
But the one who does so loses two GTOs, the Miura, and the GT40. So start that grinding today! 👍

I will try to test some of them, as i own most of them.

I will definitely test those babies next! I was thinking about using either Suzuka as a test track or maybe a combination of Suzuka/Spa and a twistier track like Brands Hatch or Laguna Seca.

 

[LongbowX]

That'll be some fun testing.

I have most of those cars, the only one I don't have is the Miura, but I have at least 35 million so I'll be fine. I don't buy a lot.

 

[tarnheld]

I tried the Spa TT in the time trials club and i think the tire wear/fuel consumption set to Very Fast is less than ideal for the classic cars and an average driver like me. After a lap the tank was 2/3 empty and the tires where down to 9, hence all brake points were different. I think the settings are ok for CS and low power cars, but with the classics i cannot concentrate on a decent lap.

So i jumped into the club owner business and created my own private little time trial club. I like the permanent posting of the TT times, the fixed TT duration (to not overdo a car), and the possibility to change cars right in the lobby without leaving the event. It's easy to set up, so if anyone has some special TT gustos, just try that. One strange thing was that you cannot make an event that begins in the past, so you have to set up the start at least 10min in the future and wait.

 

[watermelon punch]

RE: tire wear

The reason the TTs are set to tire wear fast is because we're testing the cars for their performance under racing conditions.
The idea isn't for a driver to get a decent lap. It's to see what kind of times the cars will do under racing conditions.
💡

Believe me, if we had everyone test the cars and give us their VERY best lap under perfect tire conditions... that wouldnt' tell us how these cars will perform racing against each other. We'd just know how well people can do in hot-lapping, given enough tries.

Tire wear is part of a car's performance.

 

[LongbowX]

GVE/Rev

1:15.251 Audi S4 '98
1:16.170 Nissan Silvia K's Aero (S14) '96

Tsukuba

1:05.976 Audi S4 '98
1:06.496 Nissan Silvia K's Aero (S14) '96

Also, usually I would say RWD cars are automatically more fun. Except in this case. The S4 is actually quite a spirited drive. It rotates really well (sometimes too well) and it's gearing is quite close so it feels rather sporting. As opposed to the Silvia which understeers and fair bit and never feels very fast...or fun. If we decide to use the Silvia that's fine. But I'll probably be using the cars around this area and I'd like them to be fun.

 

[watermelon punch]

Hmm.. well I didn't find the Silvia particularly understeery. .. But I was test driving it on Matterhorn... so that could be something to do with it.
I don't think it's very responsive, that's for sure. (But I don't dislike it, I think it's rather nice really.)
I don't know if it's fair to test the S4 at Matterhorn for me. As it's the ONLY track where I seem to do okay with a 4wd. (Other than chamonix! )

As opposed to the Silvia which understeers and fair bit and never feels very fast...or fun. If we decide to use the Silvia that's fine. But I'll probably be using the cars around this area and I'd like them to be fun.

I think you're forgetting something though....
The S4 will not be in the same position the Silvia would be. I mean they're not interchangeable... clearly the S4 is faster.

 

[LongbowX]

The S4 can be tricky so testing it at Matterhorn could still present some challenges!

I do know that they aren't going to be for the same spot. That the S4 would be #3 and the Evo bumped to #2 I think is what was said.

 

[watermelon punch]

Sorry about that underline I wasn't trying to emphasize - I didn't even notice that when I was typing.

I've entered your times into the magic mathcrobatics spreadsheet and here's the order that it spits out:

1. Toyota CELICA GT-FOUR (ST205) '98
2. Nissan Silvia K's Aero (S14) '96
3. Toyota MR2 GT-S '97
4. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution II GSR '94
5. Audi S4 '98
6. Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX Version S TwinTurbo 2seater (Z32) '98
7. Mitsubishi GTO Twin Turbo MR '98

Actually I thought the S4 was going to wind up between the fairlady & GTO... but apparently it's not as better as I thought.

So assuming that the idea here is to vacate the MR2 from the production...

1. Toyota CELICA GT-FOUR (ST205) '98
2. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution II GSR '94
3. Audi S4 '98
4. Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX Version S TwinTurbo 2seater (Z32) '98
5. Mitsubishi GTO Twin Turbo MR '98

Without the Silvia... we're still leaving this gap between #1 & #2 that I thought was somebody's original concern about taking out the MR2.

But maybe I've lost the thread somewhere.


So to recap...

@amarynceos thought the MR2 was faster than, well, at least the Lancer, I guess, and thought it should be at a higher number (lower position in the list).
But I said, but wait... people don't do phenomenal in this car... in fact, they wind up in the sand & accidents quite a bit in the MR2.

Also, according to the test times in the spreadsheet, the numbers are saying it belonged at #2.
So my point was that the MR2 was a bit out of hte range of accessibility compared to its list cohorts.
Obviously, we have lists with cars with handfuls, but usually they're in lists where most of the cars are also handfuls, so they don't stand out as much as the MR2 in the 90s list.

So then it was decided we couldn't leave a gap... In the progression from slower to faster.

Even if we kept the MR2, we'd only have 16 cars, so why not keep the Silvia AND the S4, and we'll have 15 cars... ??


Btw: I was just reading about the most popular cars among men... and the S4 was among the top.

 

[amarynceos]

I think I was the one concerned about the gap between the Celica and the Lancer. Regarding the MR2, it was just about as quick as the Camaro and NSX -- around Laguna, that is.

If the Silvia slots in nicely between the Celica and Lancer, that'd be good.

 

[watermelon punch]

I think I was the one concerned about the gap between the Celica and the Lancer. Regarding the MR2, it was just about as quick as the Camaro and NSX -- around Laguna, that is.

Yeah, I see that in the spreadsheet...
But I dunno... the Lancer Evo is a 4wd... and Laguna Seca just has all those turns that are so much easier with RWD. (Provided you don't spin out or off-road. )

 

[amarynceos]

That's probably part of the gap between Lancer and Celica there... the FWD Celica is a total pig around Laguna (and elsewhere -- I know it was just plain awful around SSR5), the AWD Lancer is a lot easier to get around the corners. Sounds like the Silvia has an understeer issue as well, which would make it a good playmate for the Celica.

Looking at Longbow's GVE and Tsukuba timesheets, it's basically the same speed as the Celica, in fact.


On another note,
Why did we cut the Supra 2.5GT, anyway? Was it only because of the Supra RZ being on there and the desire to avoid lobby confusion?

Also, regarding recalculating the MR2 list position, did LB rerun it at GVE and Tsukuba? If you used the old test times (pre camber update), that would be flawed data, given how much easier to drive it is now.

 

[watermelon punch]

Oh, I think LB had not bothered to retest the MR2 because he was against it in the first place (I was the original push for even including it )... and I guess in light of that it might be cut because of other issues (not down to speed), I don't think anyone asked him to retest it. So you might be right.

I'm pretty sure the reason we didn't include Supra 2.5GT was because I'm shooting for only having ONE of any model in the list, yeah, because of lobby confusion.
And I THINK, the reason we kept the Supra we did was because Longbow had perceived a persistent gap at that part of the list if we didn't keep that one, so we ditched the other Supra.

And ironically, I would be more inclined for having a gap at the bottom of the list (faster) than the top... and mainly because by the time you get to #10 in the list, you've got at least 10 cars on the track, and having some gap between them isn't going to be that noticeable at all. (ie: whoever gets the next better car is going to have plenty of cars to get round with it, even if it is faster.)


NOT THAT I'M SUGGESTING SWITCHING OUT THE SUPRAS.
OMG... this could get out of hand.

 

[amarynceos]

Sorry, I have a knack for making things more complicated.

 

[watermelon punch]

Sorry, I have a knack for making things more complicated.

Well, then you're in the right club. 👍


Append (hours later):

You know, thinking about it, maybe we could just test the other Supra as well. 💡


Or maybe don't listen to me. I'll have us testing every car in the game.
And we will be testing forever & ever. (Especially if tarnheld keeps testing so long he runs out of fuel for each car. )


Actually, my spouse has mentioned that he thinks some of us might enjoy testing the cars and putting the lists together as much as racing the cars.
I worry this may be almost true.

 

[LongbowX]

I'd be happy to re-test the MR2. It is better than it was. Even I thought I was hard to handle before...now I think it's manageable. For me, anyway. I'm sure we'll find a good line-up eventually.

The 2.5GT Supra was a real pig also.

 

[watermelon punch]

I'd be happy to re-test the MR2. It is better than it was. Even I thought I was hard to handle before...now I think it's manageable. For me, anyway. I'm sure we'll find a good line-up eventually.

The 2.5GT Supra was a real pig also.

Is that the reason you decided on the Supra we kept?
(The Supra we kept is okay I think. I kind of like it really.)

Maybe it was another Skyline at the lower end that we dropped in favour of keeping the faster one to not create a gap at the faster bottom...
I refuse to go searching the thread for this, as we probably debated it for 3 pages.

Also...

I'm sure we'll find a good line-up eventually.

We had a good line up!
Or well, I think we do.
Maybe we just rushed it.

I mean that's the reason I wanted to revamp the Vintage & Legends lists ... because those were rushed too at the time.

Because we're excited to start racing the cars.

The idea was that we could always work on improving lists.
I mean not just willy nilly or we'll be overdoing it and exhausting ourselves. I just mean if something comes up or some new idea emerges.

And besides... now that we have mathcrobatics... it's easier!

 

[LongbowX]

The one we kept is also more fun to drive, and it's the iconic Supra from the 90s. I enjoy it as well.

I think the Skyline's were about the same. We decided to keep just one because of confusion and the similarity in performance.

 

[watermelon punch]

The one we kept is also more fun to drive, and it's the iconic Supra from the 90s. I enjoy it as well..

Yes, now my memory is refreshed.
And I jumped on the iconic part probably.

 

[amarynceos]

Actually, my spouse has mentioned that he thinks some of us might enjoy testing the cars and putting the lists together as much as racing the cars.
I worry this may be almost true.

There's a definite element of truth there. I've spent my fair share of time testing and working on potential lists. (Which reminds me, I had a 'premium sports' list somewhere back there that I was fairly keen on at the time.... we're working on enough that I'm a touch hesitant to bring it forth right now.)

Anyway, sounds like the Supra 2.5GT is a dog that's best left sleeping.

 

[watermelon punch]

Bring it!

The list I mean, not the dog!

And yeah, definitely something to that. I like thinking about the cars, and finding out more about the cars and grouping them. And then seeing how it all plays out of course, I like that part of the racing almost as much as the racing.

I've liked a lot of games involving accounting math (and trading games & such in the past).
And I have gotten asked, "how did you manage to turn Gran Turismo into a math game too?"

Well, I haven't turned Word Weasel into a math game yet. I don't even know how the scoring works.
Hmmm... I might have to go look into that. ...

 

[amarynceos]

Coincidentally, I happened to post the following a year ago today.

Looking at the time spread, there need to be a few more faster or slower cars to open it up... at both tracks I tested on back then, I had only a 4 second spread from fast to slow, and experience has shown me there needs to be a bit more than that.

LIST IDEA - Premium Sports Coupés
Sports Medium Tyres

Under consideration:

0:00.000 -- Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione '08
0:00.000 -- Amuse NISMO 380 RS Super Leggera
0:00.000 -- Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10
0:00.000 -- BMW Z4 M Coupé '08
0:00.000 -- Cadillac CTS-V Coupé '11
0:00.000 -- Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7) '14
0:00.000 -- Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '04
0:00.000 -- Ferrari California '08
0:00.000 -- Honda NSX Type R '02
0:00.000 -- Jaguar XKR Coupe '10
0:00.000 -- Lotus Esprit V8 '02
0:00.000 -- Lotus Evora '09
0:00.000 -- Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02
0:00.000 -- Nissan Fairlady Z (Z34) '08
0:00.000 -- Nissan SKYLINE GT-R V-Spec II Nur (R34) '02
0:00.000 -- SRT Viper GTS '02
0:00.000 -- Toyota FT-86 G SPORTS Concept '10
0:00.000 -- TVR Tamora ’02

(considered and tested but struck:
Ferrari F430 '06, Nissan GTR '07, - supercars, not sports cars
Art Morrison Corvette '60 - awesome but expensive and not stylistically consistent.)

(most likely to be struck:
Amuse NISMO 380 RS Super Leggera, more of a tuner than a sports coupe... plus one more, but I can't decide.)

I've tested them all so far at two tracks, and have a similar time spread as the Luxury list (with the slowest cars here doing similar times to the fastest Luxury cars.)

(conditions for all tests: Arcade Time Trial, aids off/abs1/BB5/5, grip reduction real, 3 clean/tidy laps,)

Laguna Seca, SM Tyres

1:32.955 -- Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7) '14
1:33.540 -- Ferrari California '08
1:33.781 -- Amuse NISMO 380 RS Super Leggera
1:34.056 -- TVR Tamora ’02
1:34.111 -- SRT Viper GTS '02
1:34.138 -- Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione '08
1:34.188 -- Toyota FT-86 G SPORTS Concept '10
1:34.199 -- Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10
1:34.455 -- Honda NSX Type R '02
1:34.598 -- Lotus Esprit V8 '02
1:35.301 -- Jaguar XKR Coupe '10
1:35.343 -- Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02
1:35.663 -- Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '04
1:36.054 -- Nissan Fairlady Z (Z34) '08
1:36.579 -- Nissan SKYLINE GT-R V-Spec II Nur (R34) '02
1:36.672 -- Cadillac CTS-V Coupé '11
1:36.857 -- BMW Z4 M Coupe '08
1:36.846 -- Lotus Evora '09

Deep Forest, SM Tyres

1:21.268 -- Ferrari California '08
1:21.754 -- Toyota FT-86 G SPORTS Concept '10
1:21.867 -- Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7) '14
1:22.032 -- Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10
1:22.297 -- Honda NSX Type R '02
1:22.416 -- SRT Viper GTS '02
1:22.436 -- Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione '08
1:22.500 -- TVR Tamora ’02
1:22.801 -- Amuse NISMO 380 RS Super Leggera
1:23.091 -- Art Morrison Corvette '60
1:23.230 -- Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '04
1:23.664 -- Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02
1:23.895 -- Lotus Esprit V8 '02
1:23.951 -- Nissan SKYLINE GT-R V-Spec II Nur (R34) '02
1:24.058 -- Jaguar XKR Coupe '10
1:24.607 -- Nissan Fairlady Z (Z34) '08
1:25.308 -- Cadillac CTS-V Coupé '11
1:25.384 -- BMW Z4 M Coupé '08
1:25.821 -- Lotus Evora '09

Prices; top speeds (incomplete a.t.m.; tested at SSRX); HP/PP after oil change
(G) = gear limited, (A) = aero limited, (A/G) = aero limited but at or close to rev limiter

Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione '08 = 220,000 cr., 202 mph (G), 465HP/507PP
Amuse NISMO 380 RS Super Leggera = 100,000 cr., 167 mph (A), 399HP/510PP
Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10 = 217,350 cr., 191 mph (G), 535HP/529PP
BMW Z4 M Coupé '08 = 69,500 cr., 202 mph (A/G), 357HP/476PP
Cadillac CTS-V Coupé '11 = 90,000 cr., 220 mph (A), 582HP/528PP
Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7) '14 = 51,000 cr., 239 mph (A)*, 476HP/533PP
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '04 = 54,200 cr., 220 mph (A), 426HP/513PP
Ferrari California '08 = 236,000 cr., 208 mph (A/G), 476HP/530PP
Honda NSX Type R '02 = 119,570 cr., 195 mph (A), 305HP/475PP
Jaguar XKR Coupe '10 = 155,000 cr., ???mph, 528HP/519PP
Lotus Esprit V8 '02 = 116,520 cr., 190 (G), 370HP/489PP
Lotus Evora '09 = 100,000 cr., 192 (A)**, 290HP/468PP
Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02 = 40,000 cr., 176 (G), 307HP/473PP
Nissan Fairlady Z (Z34) '08 = 43,750 cr., ??? mph, 348HP/469PP
Nissan SKYLINE GT-R V-Spec II Nur (R34) '02 = 61,000 cr., ??? mph, 353HP/476PP
SRT Viper GTS '02 = 90,400 cr., 212 mph (A)**, 471HP/523PP
Toyota FT-86 G SPORTS Concept '10 = 500,000 cr., 183 mph (A/G), 313HP/483PP
TVR Tamora ’02 = 70,940 cr., 191 mph (G), 361HP/505PP

*Something's broken with the Stingray's top end, but it takes so long to get there it shouldn't matter on normal tracks.
**in 5th gear, doesn't get to/make use of 6th

I'd put the 430 and the GT-R back on the list, find a car or two slightly slower than the Evora and Z4 M, and then prune it all down.

 

[tarnheld]

The idea isn't for a driver to get a decent lap. It's to see what kind of times the cars will do under racing conditions.

I Agree, but ... Tire Wear Very Fast @ Spa ??? Can i use Sports Hards then... ?

And I have gotten asked, "how did you manage to turn Gran Turismo into a math game too?"

What are you playing?
The Real Driving Simulator...

 

[Patrick8308]

I tried the Spa TT in the time trials club and i think the tire wear/fuel consumption set to normal is less than ideal for the classic cars and an average driver like me. After a lap the tank was 2/3 empty and the tires where down to 9, hence all brake points were different. I think the settings are ok for CS and low power cars, but with the classics i cannot concentrate on a decent lap

The reason the TTs are set to tire wear fast is because we're testing the cars for their performance under racing conditions.
The idea isn't for a driver to get a decent lap. It's to see what kind of times the cars will do under racing conditions.

I do agree too, the goal of testing the cars is to determine their level of performance under event conditions.👍

I'm also aware that it's not necessary to focus on creating the fastest lap times possible.

But the whole car ordering is based on the (fastest) lap times from the tests.
As we want to find out which car is faster than another a tester sure tries to drive fast (and of course clean), not as close to the limit like e.g. in a Seasonal TT, not pushing too hard, not breaking the latest possible moment, but still kind of fast.

At the end the fastest lap time makes it to the calculation process.
Actually it's irrelevant what the average times in a test have been like. What is submitted by every tester after doing some laps in a car on a certain track is: the fastest lap time.

On CS or lower powered cars the tire wear and fuel consumption obviously is not that crucial.
In a 6 min TT it will be possible to drive lap 2,3,4 as fast as lap 1.

But when testing 500 PP cars on SM it's very likely that one drives the fastest lap (which then will be submitted) on lap 1 or 2, of course assumed that the tester knows car and track.
In further laps tires will be worn more, breaking points change and lap times will probably be worse. Unless the tester tries to compensate that by pushing harder or going closer to the limit, which should not be done though.

I hope I was able to explain my thoughts comprehensible.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this way of testing is wrong or should be changed. Not at all!

I just wanted to expose my impressions after first tests with more powerful cars on SM.
Maybe I'm thinking too much about it.
Actually I'm hoping for some input from the experienced testers how to handle with such issues.

Coincidentally, I happened to post the following a year ago today.

Looking at the time spread, there need to be a few more faster or slower cars to open it up... at both tracks I tested on back then, I had only a 4 second spread from fast to slow, and experience has shown me there needs to be a bit more than that.

I'd put the 430 and the GT-R back on the list, find a car or two slightly slower than the Evora and Z4 M, and then prune it all down.

That list looks really promising! There's a lot great sports cars on it.👍
When the current testing is finished this might be something worth focusing on.


I have some ideas in mind too:

As I'm from Germany it would be really cool to have a list with German cars only.
I'd call it the "Schwarzwald League".

So far I have selected those:

Audi R8 4.2 FSI R tronic '07
Audi RS 6 Avant '08 / RS 6 '02
Audi RS 4 '01
Audi TTS Coupe '09
BMW M5 '08 / M5 '05
BMW M4 Coupé
BMW Z4 M Coupe '08 (depending on the "Premium Sports Cars" list)
BMW M3 '04 / M3 GTR '03 / M3 CSL '03
BMW Concept 1 Series tii '07
Mercedes-Benz SL 600 (R230) '04 / SL 600 (R129) '98
Mercedes-Benz E 55 AMG '02
Mercedes-Benz CLK 55 AMG '00
Mercedes-Benz CL 600 '00
Mercedes-Benz SL 500 (R230) '02 / SL 500 (R129) '98
Opel Speedster Turbo '00
RUF CTR2 '96
RUF RGT '00
RUF BTR '86
RUF 3400S '00
Volkswagen Scirocco R '10

I have only chosen cars which are in no other list (at the moment).
As the cars are in the 450 - 500 PP range I decided that SM might be the best choice (like for Luxury list).

I'm not sure if the spread between the possible slowest (TTS, Scirocco or Speedster) and possible fastest (R8, M4 or a RUF) might be too huge.

But the tests will bring further information. I guess it could be possible to create a list of 14,15 cars out of those, at least I wish.

What do you others think of that list?