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

[tarnheld]

One observation about the testing times though: the used tracks for this list show a tendency for slow, twisty tracks (except for Suzuka)

Yes, that was very unfortunate as on the tested tracks the TT times came out very close. But that wasn't planned but came as an coincidence. Normally test drivers choose their tracks, and i think everyone should choose a well known track for testing, but here a little more coordination would have been beneficial. We should keep an eye for that next time.

 

[snowgt]

Yes, that was very unfortunate as on the tested tracks the TT times came out very close. But that wasn't planned but came as an coincidence. Normally test drivers choose their tracks, and i think everyone should choose a well known track for testing, but here a little more coordination would have been beneficial. We should keep an eye for that next time.

It's very hard to plan something like that, and I think we've already come a long way with an excellent underlying system of consolidating the results. It will be hard to ask people to test on specific tracks, if we want to coordinate that.

For myself, I'm currently testing on Motegi East for slower cars/CS tyres and Suzuka on faster ones/SM tyres, but I'd be willing to start testing a second track of different type for each, if that benefits results for future lists. As to which tracks that could be, I have no real answer yet. I always find some reason why a track is no good for testing ... too slow, too fast, too long, too much elevation, not enough elevation ... it's terrible. We need a course creator.

On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the slowest (e.g. Tsukuba) and 5 the fastest (e.g. Monza), I would rate Suzuka a "4" and Motegi East a "2". It might even make sense to combine the two. I'm not sure one can derive much from the extreme tracks, but any data is good.

 

[Mires]

It's very hard to plan something like that, and I think we've already come a long way with an excellent underlying system of consolidating the results. It will be hard to ask people to test on specific tracks, if we want to coordinate that.

For myself, I'm currently testing on Motegi East for slower cars/CS tyres and Suzuka on faster ones/SM tyres, but I'd be willing to start testing a second track of different type for each, if that benefits results for future lists. As to which tracks that could be, I have no real answer yet. I always find some reason why a track is no good for testing ... too slow, too fast, too long, too much elevation, not enough elevation ... it's terrible. We need a course creator.

On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the slowest (e.g. Tsukuba) and 5 the fastest (e.g. Monza), I would rate Suzuka a "4" and Motegi East a "2". It might even make sense to combine the two. I'm not sure one can derive much from the extreme tracks, but any data is good.

Cape ring north, Autumn ring should be good test tracks as there is good variety of turns and they arent that long or that short. Well, good test track should have all kinds ofturns.

 

[tarnheld]

The problem with tight TT times is that the TT times are a combination of car ability and driver skill. When testing we want to extract the car ability regardless of driver skill. The driver skill averages out as more drivers are included. But with tight TT times it takes longer/needs more testers to filter the noise. The car ability can be separated into cornering and straight line, these two factors show differently on tracks, but overall car ability is basically the sum of both. When racing it's important to know if a car corners better than another, or has better straight line ability, but for a car list, we cannot separate cornering from straight line, as the cars will be raced on many different tracks. So we should have several track types covered in testing.

Motegi is tight, but covers straight line pretty good too IMHO, as there are lots of straights after the corners. But driver skill adds more noise here, as you have to be spot on in every corner, or you will have a big hit in TT time (read: i suck at Motegi ) Straight line is pretty complex by the way, being a combination of acceleration and top speed, all influenced by aerodynamics, engine powerband, gearing, etc.

So i think each tester can use a track of his liking, but we should pay attention when the TT times indicate clustering.

 

[Mires]

What tires to what PP level to use in my test?

I thought
Cars up to 400PP comfort soft
Cars up to 550PP sports medium
All other cars and race cars race medium

Or? Any idea?

 

[snowgt]

What tires to what PP level to use in my test?

I thought
Cars up to 400PP comfort soft
Cars up to 550PP sports medium
All other cars and race cars race medium

Or? Any idea?

It will take you about 1.5 years, if you test all cars on 20 tracks (if you don't spend more time than 10 minutes per car per track), and if you put in 8 hours a day. Every day.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend using race tyres on anything else but race cars. SM are good enough for pretty much all road cars & CS is good for lower powered cars. I also wouldn't use anything stickier than RH on race cars, but ultimately you should use what you're comfortable with, if you plan to spend lots of time with that.

 

[tarnheld]

Some observations from today's Historic Races: Savannah and quattro speed up very quick from the start, quattro quicker than 2002 on Spa, gained 3 places on GV on start straight. Would have kept that speed on Spa, but had to lift after offroading at Eau Rouge. Messy driving from me in both cars, but i think i would have kept the pace in both with better driving, Savannah handles well, but has that special fear factor for me, bites back vigorously if pushed too hard. All in all close driving, nice parity result.

 

[watermelon punch]

Results of Historic Test Races

GVER

Included a Yellow Flag & pit stop after a mishap on T1 and realizing that damage was still on heavy & pit stop was still enforced.
(For anyone wondering why the timing seems odd. )

Spa

Involved me totally failing to brake on Lap 2 Turn 1.
I was distracted. Don't remember why, but I only realized I'd reached the turn when I found my car careening off into the wild.

 

[terrordog1490]

I missed a brake point a few turns after taking first. It was after the S-turn that's after that downhill left that can be taken in 3rd or 4th gear, depending on what car you're driving and how many gears it has. Sorry, I don't remember the turn number or name.

Btw, I just finished buying all of the cars in the Classics list. Do you still need more time trials for them? Normally, I do all of my testing and tuning on Nurburgring 24h or just the Nordshliefe, but they're probably a bit much just for trying to find out what the cars are capable of without any tuning. I think the next best track for me might be Suzuka. Then again, if we have to use very fast tire wear for the time trials, then I'd think that only the first lap could be the fastest lap, as all following laps would be driven on worn-down tires. However, the tires seem to wear much more slowly in our events than when I race with my other friends... but they also like to add weight restrictions to help the tire wear along. Hmmm.

 

[watermelon punch]

Oh you can test with tire wear on a lower setting for the Classics. You aren't the first person to beat me up about that.
For best track, I leave the suggestions to @tarnheld

If you're not using your club allotment you can make your own time trial to do, and let us know.

I was actually going to ask @tarnheld about what kind of time trial I ought to set up in the club time trials for classics. and ask for some suggestions for it. (timing wise)

I've just been really intense about having gotten the performance coupes and now the historic list debuted, and then we'll move on.

So ... about that historic list...

 

[terrordog1490]

Cool. Also, I was under the impression that the Historic list was completed. I was wondering why we were comparing car performance in that bonus race yesterday. I guess there are still a few kinks to work out. If it helps, I could run some time trials on different tracks in them. Looking at the posts on the last page, it looks like cars numbered 9 - 13 might have issues, and maybe 6 and 7 as well. Or, were some of them resolved? I'll see what I can manage.

I have also started to work on a classification system for tracks. Maybe we can derive some weighting or so out of that, if it should prove to work.

That would probably be a big help. I hadn't seen your post until just now. It had me thinking how some tracks could be decided on which category they would belong in. Some tracks can have a pretty good mix of high, mid, and low-speed sections. My guess would be that the best way to start would be to find a car that doesn't have any limiter issues and agrees with your driving preference. Then, do some hot laps on each track, and record your average speed for each track. Even if we use cars with different levels of performance, different tires, or different weather conditions, it should still balance out. Then, there's no issue with different lap times and different distances. Furthermore, we have tons of reported lap times right here, so all you really have to do is find a car in one of the lists that you like, and take an average lap time for it for each track everyone has driven it on for a time trial. Then, you just need to look up the length of the track in GT6, and your classification system is already nearly complete, assuming that you're mainly focused on finding which tracks are definitively fast tracks, and which are truly the slowest, most technical tracks.

 

[tarnheld]

Here is the preliminary Classics list as of now:

0.00 Lotus Esprit Turbo HC '87
1.00 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 (C4) '90
2.00 Isuzu 4200R '89
3.00 Ferrari 512BB '76
4.25 AC Cars 427 S/C '66
4.75 Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88
6.58 Ferrari 365 GTB4 '71
7.08 Lamborghini Countach LP400 '74
7.33 RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
9.00 Lamborghini Miura P400 Bertone Prototype CN.0706 '67
10.00 Ferrari GTO '84

Bold cars need more tests, the FT values for each cars show the close pairs: 365, Countach, Yellow Bird.

We have tests for all cars on Big Willow, Suzuka, Laguna Seca. Some cars have been tested on Roma, Trial Mountain, Nurb GP/F.

I would suggest a twisty track like Ascari or Brands Hatch. But you can choose them as you like. On Ascari with an 8min TT event, you can do 3 laps.

I made a private club for my TT testing -- unfortunately i haven't haven't used it recently...
I like the no-tuning and tire enforcement for the event -- two things easily overlooked when doing offline TT. I don't like the tire wear, because on longer tracks, you only have the first lap to set a good TT time, and i do usually 2-3 laps to get to grips with a car, and then an 6-8min TT, so i can try several lines and get to the car's limit as much as i can.



About the Historics:

I think we should keep the order as is. To be honest, we have other lists with this clustering (Legends) and cars that shine on some tracks and stink on others. Maybe we were a little spoiled by the well ordered Performance Coupés -- but don't forget that list went through several chopping and rebuilding steps until it had that shape. Unfortunately we don't always have the car choices to do that -- Classics is a prime example, there are not many classic cars in that range.

A little luck and driver skill is needed in all lists, it's not like: oh, i just hop in car #8 and will beat car #1. And to beat car #X with car #X+1 with comparable drivers, you will need good racecraft and a little luck anyways. The races yesterday have shown that nobody will be left behind in a slower car in the list. And the tests as of now don't show blatant misordering like the Swift vs. Abarth in the old Lower List. So i think it is good to go. If we really find oddities, let's revamp it later.

 

[watermelon punch]

Yeah I think we have been spoiled by Performance Coupes!
@amarynceos really did so much of the initial work so well, with cars so similar & few that have peculiarities in comparison to their fellows, that we were left with a near perfect list... and wishing all lists were so straight-forward. And that's just not going to be the case with most lists. Just the nature of the beast!

Historic List:

1. Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
2. Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
3. Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
4. Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC110) '73
5. Toyota 2000GT '67
6. Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
7. Nissan Fairlady 240ZG (HS30) '71
8. BMW 2002 Turbo '73
9. Audi quattro '82
10. Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
11. Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
12. Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91
13. Buick GNX '87
14. Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88

Another point about the Corvette & Prelude, that I think I forgot about pointing out is the issue of the transmission.
I find that the Prelude is pretty easy to shift, and the Corvette is a tad more difficult.. Part of it is because the transmission powerband is a tad peculiar, and part of it is that the car is a little more wonky in handling, which adds to the complexity of shifting it at the same time.

I mention this because cars at 11 & 12 are going to be most often used by those who are not the top stellar in car control and deft shifting. They will be mainly assigned to those who have placed poorly in the previous race(s), either in shuffle or parity... And that means they'll be more often driven by non-aliens, AT users, inexperienced, inconsistent, those with equipment disadvantages, or those with otherwise impediments.

So I'm inclined to favour the order of those 2 cars with that in mind... unless someone really really feels that the majority of tracks will favour the Corvette no matter who is driving the Corvette & Prelude.

Last arguments now!

Speak your piece now, or forever hold your peace!

(Note: I include the above use of mixed English idioms for the amusement of @tarnheld )

 

[tarnheld]

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[Mires]

is it worth to make average of times? For example: i run 10 laps, but count in average only 5 best laps..

 

[snowgt]

Another point about the Corvette & Prelude, that I think I forgot about pointing out is the issue of the transmission.
I find that the Prelude is pretty easy to shift, and the Corvette is a tad more difficult.. Part of it is because the transmission powerband is a tad peculiar, and part of it is that the car is a little more wonky in handling, which adds to the complexity of shifting it at the same time.

Hmm, that's an interesting observation regarding the Corvette. It's a 3-speed transmission, and you rarely need to go down into 1st, so you're basically just changing 1 up or down. The complexity has its limits.

I think the optimal is to shift up at about 1,000 rpm below the red line, but if you're busy at that time, you can also rev a little higher, it's pretty forgiving that way. Acceleration gets a bit slow though close to the red line, so someone who doesn't shift early enough from 2nd to 3rd might lose a lot of time. Don't think that should go into the ranking though. It's like with e.g. the Autozam or the Copen.

 

[tarnheld]

is it worth to make average of times? For example: i run 10 laps, but count in average only 5 best laps..

For car list testing, you don't need that. But you should be consistent in your testing time, i.e. not do 15 laps in one car and 3 laps in another. I just do enough laps to be comfortable with the car and then do the TT of about 8min -- that's about 3 laps on a longer track and some more on short tracks. You don't have to get that perfect WRS alien lap, just make sure you didn't mess up and put down a decent lap.

 

[watermelon punch]

@snowgt
Believe it or not, when you're not so good with shifting... the 3 gear limit actually makes things more confusing.
Obviously it's hard for me to say how much time I'm losing, because it's not like I can drive like an alien with good shifting to compare.

 

[watermelon punch]

@Mires
@tarnheld is right - spot on.
The important thing is to not practice more in one car than another, and not take the best time from 10 laps in one car and 3 in another.
Consistency in testing parameters/conditions is more important than perfect lap time or average lap time.
The best time should be - the best of a few laps (3 is a good number)... with the best lap not having some major mistake.
The only reason I run a time trial "do over", is if I totally mess up on each lap... probably due to inattention or some distraction.

It's okay if the best lap isn't perfect... because that speaks to the car. Some cars will be such on some tracks that a very clean best lap will be unlikely... and you just use the best lap that didn't have any spectacular mistakes.

 

[watermelon punch]

There is now a poll for members to choose the cars that you'd like to see on a "1 make list"
this is for cars that don't fit in shuffle lists, that we can have in a list to use in spec races (tuning prohibited) - so everyone will have them ready.

In the poll you'll see about 30 or so cars.
You can choose up to 10 cars to vote for.

 

[watermelon punch]

I'm trying to get through a revamp and addition...

Basically, remaking/updating the Low Power & Traffic lists...

And they will add cars and become 4 separate different lists.

Right now I'm focused on just testing all those road cars of that range, to try and sort them out.

Limbo Stick list is shaping up this way:

1. Fiat Panda Super i.e. '90
2. Volkswagen Karmann Ghia Coupe (Type-1) '68
3. Nissan PAO '89
4. Toyota Sports 800 '65
5. Volvo 240 GLT Estate '88
6. Ford Ka '01
7. Nissan SKYLINE Sport Coupe (BLRA-3) '62
8. Nissan Be-1 '87
9. Mini Cooper 1.3i '98
10. Suzuki Kei Works '02
11. Honda S800 '66
12. Mitsubishi Minica Dangan ZZ '89
13. Triumph Spitfire 1500 '74
14. Autobianchi A112 Abarth '79
15. Mitsubishi Mirage 1400GLX '78

It will tend toward slower than the current Low Power list...
But also more GRADUAL... in that the range between the slowest & fastest will be about the same as the current Low Power list (maybe a little tighter actually)... BUT, there will be less clumping.

There may be cuts or additions. And might be re-ordering of course.

The cars from the current Low Power list that are missing from this list - most of the cool ones will wind up in the NEW Low Power list. But I haven't gotten that far yet.

We need more tests with these.
Preferably on a track with lots of stop-and-go.
Such as Eiger, Cote D'azur, Nurb GP/D.

 

[snowgt]

I'm trying to get through a revamp and addition...

Basically, remaking/updating the Low Power & Traffic lists...

And they will add cars and become 4 separate different lists.

Right now I'm focused on just testing all those road cars of that range, to try and sort them out.

Limbo Stick list is shaping up this way:

1. Fiat Panda Super i.e. '90
2. Volkswagen Karmann Ghia Coupe (Type-1) '68
3. Nissan PAO '89
4. Toyota Sports 800 '65
5. Volvo 240 GLT Estate '88
6. Ford Ka '01
7. Nissan SKYLINE Sport Coupe (BLRA-3) '62
8. Nissan Be-1 '87
9. Mini Cooper 1.3i '98
10. Suzuki Kei Works '02
11. Honda S800 '66
12. Mitsubishi Minica Dangan ZZ '89
13. Triumph Spitfire 1500 '74
14. Autobianchi A112 Abarth '79
15. Mitsubishi Mirage 1400GLX '78

It will tend toward slower than the current Low Power list...
But also more GRADUAL... in that the range between the slowest & fastest will be about the same as the current Low Power list (maybe a little tighter actually)... BUT, there will be less clumping.

There may be cuts or additions. And might be re-ordering of course.

The cars from the current Low Power list that are missing from this list - most of the cool ones will wind up in the NEW Low Power list. But I haven't gotten that far yet.

We need more tests with these.
Preferably on a track with lots of stop-and-go.
Such as Eiger, Cote D'azur, Nurb GP/D.

I'm currently working on another list-project, but I'll probably be finished by the weekend (watch this space! ), so I might be able to devote some time on massively testing the low power segment in the weeks to come.

I'd be using Motegi East again, so the times will be comparable to my existing data set on CS tyres. I think Motegi has quite similar characteristics as GP/D and should give some representative times for this segment.

Basically I'd like to go through all eligible cars apart from those already on lists Vintage, Retro & Historic as they already have a home.

 

[terrordog1490]

I have been doing time trials as well, but I seem to be having a hard time getting through a list. I do them online, so you can see the results there, if it's not too much trouble. My plan was to post my results here, once I was done, but I keep getting disconnected from my own lobby. It's rather annoying, and quite puzzling. It also means that I inadvertently spend a lot more time with some cars than others, b/c I have to redo the time trial to post a result. I like doing them online, b/c I get to see how the cars are affected by tire wear during the time trial. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right spot, but, when I try to set it up offline, I don't even get the option to enable fuel consumption and tire wear. I know I could in GT5. Maybe, with the new UI, I just can't find it, but I feel like I've tried everything.

So far, I haven't seen any serious discrepancies in any of the lists. I'm not sure if it's just b/c I'm expecting faster lap times as I work down the lists, or if it's b/c the lists are actually ordered pretty well, but I do feel like I'm driving each car as fast as I possibly can, given the amount of time I give myself to get used to them. I decided to do things a bit different, while still keeping everything standardized as much as possible. I give myself just one practice lap before the time trial. I do more practice laps if I make a major mistake, but I otherwise only use one. Then, I have a limited amount of time to get used to the car, just like if I suddenly had it assigned to me in an event without ever having driven it before. Actually, I tend to be a perfectionist, so this is the only way I'll complete more than one time trial in a day, and it better matches the situation for me, and perhaps other new members, in an event. We could try to practice all of the cars in each list to be used at the tracks we'll race on in the next event that we're signed up for, but, when it comes time to race, we'll still have to get used to the car again. Basically, you can only really effectively practice for the track, and get used to your assigned car right before the race starts.

Btw, does anyone know if the fuel's weight is actually simulated? From what I can tell, it doesn't seem to be, as I would think that, with gradual tire wear, the decrease in weight might be able to cancel out some of the time lost from decreased grip due to tire wear. In endurance races, I haven't really been able to tell if the reason I'm setting a faster lap is from not starting with a full tank after a pit, if it's b/c I'm driving a better line at that point, or if I've simply increased my pace to focus more on working my way up the pack, instead of just saving fuel and being gentle on the tires.

 

[watermelon punch]

So far, I haven't seen any serious discrepancies in any of the lists. I'm not sure if it's just b/c I'm expecting faster lap times as I work down the lists, or if it's b/c the lists are actually ordered pretty well, but I do feel like I'm driving each car as fast as I possibly can, given the amount of time I give myself to get used to them.

I sometimes worry about that too.
But then a couple of cars don't match my expectations when testing, and I stop worrying about it.

Btw, does anyone know if the fuel's weight is actually simulated? From what I can tell, it doesn't seem to be, as I would think that, with gradual tire wear, the decrease in weight might be able to cancel out some of the time lost from decreased grip due to tire wear. In endurance races, I haven't really been able to tell if the reason I'm setting a faster lap is from not starting with a full tank after a pit, if it's b/c I'm driving a better line at that point, or if I've simply increased my pace to focus more on working my way up the pack, instead of just saving fuel and being gentle on the tires.

I do believe fuel weight is a factor.
I've seen people argue about how much a factor it could be, but I think it does figure in.
I too have gotten my best times sometimes at the end of a race when I'm almost out of fuel.

Of course in a race, sometimes the slipstream plays a role (if you're fairly near to the car ahead)... even if it's just a little.

Also, sometimes toward the end of a race, if I'm not near other cars I will really start going for the gusto... whereas I wouldn't take such risks with other cars nearby (especially with damage on heavy).

And then sometimes also, just driving the same car for 10 laps on a track... if your track knowledge wasn't solid to begin with, you can find new seconds you hadn't found before just because of the "practice".

Another issue is the muscle memory aspect. Sometimes in a longer race, I find myself getting more "comfort zone" laps, where I'm not really concentrating on the race, and I wind up with a faster lap time, just because I'm not over-thinking it, and "racing the track" better.

So it's really hard to know for sure what's effecting what when.

In regards to connection issues ///
When you set up the lobby, do these things:
Put your phone/tablet/whatever on "airplane mode" and make sure the ps3 is not right next to any power cords, power strips, or any other electronic devices.
Then clear cache beforehand.
Limit the lounge to 2 people or at least some small number (ie: less than 10).
Set the stars for race quality at "standard" - even if it tells you something else.

Can tire wear be set to on in arcade mode? I have used arcade mode so little that I can't remember.
I do know you can set the grip to real, and other things by clicking on the "track" icon... looks like a little map of High Speed Ring on the bottom menu where you can go into aids settings and car settings, and where it says "start" on one end and "exit" on the other.

I know there's long been complaints that online lobbies make some cars exhibit behaviour that doesn't appear when driving in arcade mode. I think the physics are slightly different, and some cars' handling just makes it more noticeable.
I think the test times are valid in comparing cars against each other, as long as you test all the cars under the same conditions.
For example:
Don't do time trials online, and then go to the same track with other cars in arcade mode, and mix up the times.
Do something different, so you don't confuse things.

I'd be using Motegi East again, so the times will be comparable to my existing data set on CS tyres. I think Motegi has quite similar characteristics as GP/D and should give some representative times for this segment.

Motegi East seems like a good general track. I see no reason for you to switch tracks.
Those suggestions for tight tracks were suggestions for others actually.
I figured you'd be testing, as you are available, on whatever track makes sense for your own accumulation of data. 👍

 

[watermelon punch]

NEWS ON LOW POWER & TRAFFIC LISTS REVAMP

Okay... so I've been sorting.
Thanks to @tarnheld - this process is SO MUCH EASIER with his ever-improving spreadsheet organization.
👍👍

So here are the new list ideas.
Subject to cuts, additions, switches, and re-ordering based on testing currently in progress.

Limbo Stick (new list)

1. Fiat Panda Super i.e. '90
2. Volkswagen Karmann Ghia Coupe (Type-1) '68
3. Nissan PAO '89
4. Toyota Sports 800 '65
5. Volvo 240 GLT Estate '88
6. Ford Ka '01
7. Nissan SKYLINE Sport Coupe (BLRA-3) '62
8. Nissan Be-1 '87
9. Mini Cooper 1.3i '98
10. Suzuki Kei Works '02
11. Honda S800 '66
12. Mitsubishi Minica Dangan ZZ '89
13. Triumph Spitfire 1500 '74
14. Autobianchi A112 Abarth '79
15. Mitsubishi Mirage 1400GLX '78

You can see this is a semi vintage list.
It's tending toward slower than the current Low Power list... you will see some of the same cars though.
I think this is more "gradual" though than the current low power list.
So the drivers that are lucky enough to get slower cars (because they did well in a previous race ) will notice more competition... but still allow for an advantage of the faster cars.
ie: the slow cars will be beaten by the faster cars given no mistakes by either driver... but even with a field with drivers making no mistakes, no 1 car would be left out lonely.

Low Power (revamp of current list)

1. Fiat 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS '08
2. Suzuki Cervo SR '07
3. Toyota Yaris F (J) '99
4. Daihatsu Copen Active Top '02
5. Nissan CUBE EX (FF/CVT) '02
6. Mazda Autozam AZ-1 '92
7. Daihatsu Mira TR-XX Avanzato R '97
8. Audi A2 1.4 '02
9. Scion xB '03
10. Mini One '02
11. Nissan March G# '99
12. Mercedes-Benz A 160 Avantgarde '98
13. Suzuki Cappuccino (EA21R) '95
14. Toyota ist 1.5S '02

These are mostly newer kei cars, smaller vehicles, & superminis.
8+ are a little faster than the current Low Power list. The slower cars in this list are comparable to the faster cars in the current Low Power list.

Commuter (list resurrected & reconfigured)

1. Opel Corsa Comfort 1.4 '01
2. Honda Odyssey '03
3. Mazda Demio GL-X '99
4. Nissan Micra '03
5. Mitsubishi Colt 1.5 Sport X Version '02
6. Honda Element '03
7. Honda Fit RS '10
8. Citroën Xsara VTR '03
9. Mitsubishi i Concept '03
10. Volkswagen Lupo 1.4 '02
11. Volkswagen Polo GTI '01
12. Chrysler PT Cruiser '00
13. Alfa Romeo 147 TI 2.0 TWIN SPARK '06
14. Toyota Will VS '01

These are cars people would use to drive to work or the kids to school or sports practices.


Road Trip (new list)

1. Peugeot 307 CC Premium AVN '04
2. Vauxhall Tigra 1.6i '99
3. Toyota Sera '92
4. Eagle Talon Esi '97
5. Mazda Eunos Roadster J-Limited (NA) '91
6. Fiat Barchetta Giovane Due '00
7. Abarth Grande Punto '09
8. Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder GTS '03
9. Alfa Romeo Spider 3.0i V6 24V '01
10. Hyundai Tiburón Turbulence '99
11. Toyota CELICA SS-II (ST202) '97
12. Alfa Romeo Brera Sky Window 3.2 JTS Q4 '06
13. Mini COOPER S '07
14. Seat Ibiza Cupra '04

These are newer low power but sporty.
Cabriolets & convertibles, sportier ordinary cars, & luke-warm hatches.

Traffic (revamp of current list)

1. Renault Avantime '02
2. Infiniti G20 '90
3. Volkswagen Golf IV GTI '01
4. Peugeot 307 XSi '04
5. Volkswagen Bora V6 4motion '01
6. Toyota Starlet Glanza V '97
7. Mazda Protégé '02
8. Mazda Familia Sedan Sport 20 '02
9. Nissan Primera 2.0Te '90
10. Lexus IS 200 '98
11. Chevrolet SSR '03
12. BMW 120i '04
13. Nissan SILVIA Varietta (S15) '00
14. Ford Taurus SHO '98
15. Pontiac Vibe GT '03
16. Honda Prelude Type S '98
17. Mini Cooper S Countryman (R60) '11
18. Mitsubishi Eclipse GT '95
19. Toyota Tacoma X-Runner '04
20. Mercedes-Benz CL 600 '00
21. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque Coupe Dynamic '13
22. BMW 330i '05

This is the mixed bag list of road vehicles.

Obviously we're going to trim down this list.

Since TRAFFIC is @Chiochan 's favoured list...
Hoping to get some goat-input here. 👍👍

I've left a lot more up for grabs in this list, so that in keeping the most desired cars, we can make sure there are not any large performance gaps.

 

[snowgt]

@terrordog1490 @watermelon punch

Fuel weight is definitely simulated and has an effect that is something like what you would expect when the car is a lot lighter. The full tank is always represented as "100 litres", but I don't think anybody knows, if that is just "100% of a certain number of litres of fuel". It would be kind of ridiculous to have e.g. a Fiat 500 with a 100 litre tank simulated. But who knows...?

100 litres of gasoline are about 70kg in weight, so you could have a car that's lighter by that amount by the time you've run it dry. I've taken part in enough endurance races and I think I'm consistent enough to tell that it makes a rather huge difference, if you're running with an almost empty tank with all other parameters equal in a test. I would say it's at least a couple of tenths, if not up to a whole second (depending on track and car, of course).

This effect does not come into play as much with accelerated fuel&tyre wear though, so I don't think we need to pay attention to it necessarily. In an endurance race, if you're doing something like 45-minute or hour-long stints that are limited by the tyres, not the fuel, you would definitely want to fill in just as much fuel as needed though, because you wouldn't want to go an hour with 20kg too much.

 

[tarnheld]

Wot -- gazillions of new lists!

Here is a round-up post of all other lists discussed:

• Pre-Millenium Sportscars, compiled by @snowgt
• Classics, car axing in progress...
• Schwarzwald League, list reshaping in progress, needs input by @Patrick8308 ...
• VGTs

Ideas cooking are:

• Rallye Classics, no tests yet
• 4-door Luxury revamp, super low priority

 

[terrordog1490]

Limit the lounge to 2 people or at least some small number (ie: less than 10).

I figured that that shouldn't be an issue until people start joining, but maybe leaving it at 16 is the reason why I keep getting DC'd.

It would be kind of ridiculous to have e.g. a Fiat 500 with a 100 litre tank simulated. But who knows...?

Well, GT5 didn't simulate tire contact patch size, so an AE86 had tires the same size as on an NSX as far as the physics was concerned. So, I wouldn't be surprised if 100 liters actually meant 100 liters, even in cars too small to have a tank large enough for 100 liters.

 

[watermelon punch]

I figured that that shouldn't be an issue until people start joining, but maybe leaving it at 16 is the reason why I keep getting DC'd.

Well, TBH... I really don't know how much this helps or matters.
Just that someone said it's been discussed in other clubs... that it's not about how many people actually join the lounge, but the capacity it's set to allow... might have some bearing on connection.
So I figure it's worth a try.
No harm in it certainly.
I'm willing to try anything short of oil of newt, you know what I mean?

I even posted a checklist of suggestions in the race thread OP... under "useful information" (at the bottom behind a button).
It includes things such as moving electronic equipment away from power cords & cleaning ps3 vent holes.
Things that people don't really think about sometimes, but actually might have an impact on your connection or the running of the game in general.
I figure it's worth it to try anything that might help to avoid pesky issues.

Well, GT5 didn't simulate tire contact patch size, so an AE86 had tires the same size as on an NSX as far as the physics was concerned. So, I wouldn't be surprised if 100 liters actually meant 100 liters, even in cars too small to have a tank large enough for 100 liters.

Is that actually true? I mean in practice in the handling of those cars?
Because I remember people discussing the nature of skinny-tire cars in GT5, in regards to some cars' handling capabilities compared to others... even with tuning.
But maybe that issue was built into the car's handling by default.

 

[terrordog1490]

Is that actually true? I mean in practice in the handling of those cars?

I can only speculate from what I've also read in discussions and from my own experience in GT5 and GT6. PD said that GT6 has a new tire and suspension model, as well as other new models for their physics engine. So, I can't be totally certain that that truly is the case. I do know that the NSX Type R with nearly the same settings actually handles better in GT6 than in GT5, and the AE86 just doesn't have quite as much grip as it used to. However, with the fully-customizable suspension, I can't get the settings as stiff on the AE86 as I could in GT5. The springs are limited to 8.XX kgmm, and I used to run them at 10.XX. I basically managed to get the regular AE86 to be able to take corners faster than the Shigeno AE86 could. So, it's hard to say if it really is true, but I kinda think it was. Doesn't seem weird that a car with what appears to be skinny tires, could easily take corners at the same speeds as a car with fat tires? If that wasn't bad enough, supposedly there's a glitch in GT6 with tire size such that, on cars that have different-sized front and rear tires, getting custom rims will cause the physics to make the two sets have the same size, which causes serious handling issues in MR cars that are supposed to have fat rear tires.