NASCAR Daytona set up

[TheBull]

Thank you, Soupcan. I am certainly not the one to ask about the 2013's, not only have I not used them much I have not even raced Nascars in over a month. I will tell you what I do know about them, the 2013 #18,#99 and #43 have 1 more PP than the others. Although updated versions of GT6 don't show this, it is shown in the original version and it is IMO comes from a small amount of added downforce.

I have the 2013 #48 and #8, they just seem to have less rear grip the the 2011's and 10's. I have a 2013 #18 and it is more stable but much slower than the others, which I believe is the added downforce.

615pp and 616pp 2013's
View attachment 130408

Your certainly correct about the different PP it was the same for GT5 ,i dont beleive its added downforce as adding it to those cars should in theory give them the same traction set up albeit slower in the turns I remember somebody gave me their theory on this in GT5 ,i remember they told me the rear spoilers are different ,i beleive they have a slightly different angle ,which may or may not give greater downforce but certainly less drag ,also it shows poor and lazy programming on behalf of PD if the same cars from GT5 have just been re-skinned for GT6

Also in GT5 the 2010 Kyle Bush #18 car had a slightly longer transmission ,i dont know if its changed for GT6

 

[dwight42]

I have been messing with the NASCAR like crazy. Here's my suspension tune.. It kept me of the walls, I was able to pass on the high side.
Ride height.. 90-85
Spring 13.90-14.88
Compression 2-2
Extension 3-1
Anti roll 4-5
Cam 0.7-1.0
Toe -0.16 .06

I just double up camber and toe for montegi & Indianapolis raceways

hence Cam 1.4-2.00
toe-0.32 1.2

and min DF F & R

 

[Pete05]

I just double up camber and toe for montegi & Indianapolis raceways

hence Cam 1.4-2.00
toe-0.32 1.2

and min DF F & R

Hey Guys,
Are you talking about your settings for Daytona?
Are you at 70% or 100%
Have you got any tips for the gearing for each track?
I struggle when it comes to left turns only 🤬🤬

 

[WhoosierGirl]

Your certainly correct about the different PP it was the same for GT5 ,i dont beleive its added downforce as adding it to those cars should in theory give them the same traction set up albeit slower in the turns I remember somebody gave me their theory on this in GT5 ,i remember they told me the rear spoilers are different ,i beleive they have a slightly different angle ,which may or may not give greater downforce but certainly less drag ,also it shows poor and lazy programming on behalf of PD if the same cars from GT5 have just been re-skinned for GT6

Also in GT5 the 2010 Kyle Bush #18 car had a slightly longer transmission ,i dont know if its changed for GT6

The 2013 #99,#53 & #18, 2011 #42,#11 & #14, 2010 #11 & #42 are the 1pp high cars in GT6, 2011's and 10's carried over from GT5. I'm sure you would agree that the these are the slowest solo lap Nascar's at Daytona.

The pp system on GT5 was related to Horsepower, Weight and Downforce. The reason I believe the extra 1pp is DF is on GT5 I used the test track to do acceleration tests and all these cars were close enough in a mile test to rule out that they had more HP. For a weight test I coasted them off the hill on stage X to see if the extra pp cars would go further, they didn't. I adding a little weight to some of the cars just to see if they would coast further and they did, so I think the test was somewhat valid.

That left Downforce as the last place for the extra pp.

I had a Nascar top speed setup for stage X and the extra pp cars were the slowest, by a 3 to 5mph if I remember correctly. In a long tire wear race most people would add a little down downforce to the rear to help with tire wear on the right rear tire. I used a 2010 #43 and a 2010 #42 with stock setups and my own setup and ran them until the right rear tire was worn down. The #42 tires would always go further than the #43 before they would be worn out. I would have to add some downforce to the #43 to match the distance I could go on the #42.

I completely agree with you 50, that PD is lazy. Some of the cars also have slightly different spring settings and transmission settings but they don't seem to have any pp relation.

 

[TheBull]

Yeah the extra downforce does make sense ,but i just like the notion that the aero angle is different and i did get this told to me at great length by a guy name Risah about 4 years ago ,either way i know one is giving more traction than the other

 

[meek]

The 2013 #99,#53 & #18, 2011 #42,#11 & #14, 2010 #11 & #42 are the 1pp high cars in GT6, 2011's and 10's carried over from GT5. I'm sure you would agree that the these are the slowest solo lap Nascar's at Daytona.

The pp system on GT5 was related to Horsepower, Weight and Downforce. The reason I believe the extra 1pp is DF is on GT5 I used the test track to do acceleration tests and all these cars were close enough in a mile test to rule out that they had more HP. For a weight test I coasted them off the hill on stage X to see if the extra pp cars would go further, they didn't. I adding a little weight to some of the cars just to see if they would coast further and they did, so I think the test was somewhat valid.

That left Downforce as the last place for the extra pp.

I had a Nascar top speed setup for stage X and the extra pp cars were the slowest, by a 3 to 5mph if I remember correctly. In a long tire wear race most people would add a little down downforce to the rear to help with tire wear on the right rear tire. I used a 2010 #43 and a 2010 #42 with stock setups and my own setup and ran them until the right rear tire was worn down. The #42 tires would always go further than the #43 before they would be worn out. I would have to add some downforce to the #43 to match the distance I could go on the #42.

I completely agree with you 50, that PD is lazy. Some of the cars also have slightly different spring settings and transmission settings but they don't seem to have any pp relation.

I didn't play GT5, didn't know adding downforce changed PP, did it raise or lower PP? do you remember how many were needed to move up/down 1 PP (for NASCARs, to stay on topic)?

I confirm they were lazy:

PDI used Gen 5 specs for 2013 cars btw... Gen 6's are lighter, shorter, wider, and faster.

PDI, 2013 cars are Gen 6...

 

[Pete05]

I didn't play GT5, didn't know adding downforce changed PP, did it raise or lower PP? do you remember how many were needed to move up/down 1 PP (for NASCARs, to stay on topic)?

I confirm they were lazy:
PDI, 2013 cars are Gen 6...

With reference to the Gen 6 cars
This 🤬 sucks
Then again, I'm not surprised
Thanks PD. Shortchanged again
🤬🤬🤬

 

[TheBull]

I didn't play GT5, didn't know adding downforce changed PP, did it raise or lower PP? do you remember how many were needed to move up/down 1 PP (for NASCARs, to stay on topic)?

If you added 2 points to the rear to make it 42 aero on GT5 it raised its pp to 633 the same as the rest of the cars ,on GT6 that would equate to 420 rear aero ,which slowed the cars down but gave better tyre wear

Which would suggest that WhosierGirls theory is correct with them having slightly more aero ,but considering pp isnt affected by raising or lowering aero and all of the Nascars start on the same pp on GT6 albeit after a patch there is no sensible reasoning why this is ,except lazy programing

The question is why did they do it ? personally i like the idea of a different aero angle because it shows they were prepared to make things different but i think more of they made the cars different on purpose like they did with the LMP but couldnt to the same extremes as the LMP have different weight power ratios as compared to a Nascar which has the same weight power ratios right the way across the field ,so for me they programed some to be shootout cars and some to be endurance cars ,you just got to know which ones are which and at what track they work best at

 

[WhoosierGirl]

if your trying with a gen 6 or 2013 car forget it lol ,you need either of the 2010 fords or the 2011 brian Vickers Toyota the rest seem to bog down at 202mph then labour to 206 mph
The 2010 AJ Almendinger car seems to be the fastest i beleive its what Whosier is using in the video

All three of those cars can run 43.4's and are within .004 of each other but interestingly the #83 feels different and I use less spring rate to get the same times as the fords.

Worked on setups for the 2013's today after running the corvettes, got one of the Chevrolets into the 43.5's just hitting 210 into turn 3. I went a completely different direction with the setup that I had tried last year with them, I'm starting to like the 2013's again.

At least some of them, I worked on the 2013 #18 until I got a 43.973 out of it but it is never going to overcome the extra pp PD stuck on it.

 

[Turbulence]

All three of those cars can run 43.4's and are within .004 of each other but interestingly the #83 feels different and I use less spring rate to get the same times as the fords.

Worked on setups for the 2013's today after running the corvettes, got one of the Chevrolets into the 43.5's just hitting 210 into turn 3. I went a completely different direction with the setup that I had tried last year with them, I'm starting to like the 2013's again.

At least some of them, I worked on the 2013 #18 until I got a 43.973 out of it but it is never going to overcome the extra pp PD stuck on it.

I use the 2013 Busch car but can't get anywhere near a 43 second lap. I know that these are your hot lap times, would you share what your race setup times are? Mine is 44.3's in hot lap setup and 44.5's in race setup with the #18.
Would you tell also what 2013 Chevy you ran a 43.5 with? I like using the newer Nascars.

 

[TheBull]

All three of those cars can run 43.4's and are within .004 of each other but interestingly the #83 feels different and I use less spring rate to get the same times as the fords.

Worked on setups for the 2013's today after running the corvettes, got one of the Chevrolets into the 43.5's just hitting 210 into turn 3. I went a completely different direction with the setup that I had tried last year with them, I'm starting to like the 2013's again.

At least some of them, I worked on the 2013 #18 until I got a 43.973 out of it but it is never going to overcome the extra pp PD stuck on it.

I know exactly what you mean about the silver vickers#83 car ,its my favourite car but truth be told as soon as got my handling set-up dialled in ,i didnt bother trying to get it any faster as i quickly found out ,i couldnt run them in a race and i put the game down just over 3 weeks ago and i havent bothered picking it back up ,ive only been using GTplanet to check the news and update releases

 

[WhoosierGirl]

I use the 2013 Busch car but can't get anywhere near a 43 second lap. I know that these are your hot lap times, would you share what your race setup times are? Mine is 44.3's in hot lap setup and 44.5's in race setup with the #18.
Would you tell also what 2013 Chevy you ran a 43.5 with? I like using the newer Nascars.

I'm starting to get my race setup times closer to hot lap times, i'm right around a tenth off on most cars.
The #88 and #48 can both do 43.5's, as long as your #18 handles well and is free enough to be pushed fast the solo lap doesn't mean that much (most of the time).

I know exactly what you mean about the silver vickers#83 car ,its my favourite car but truth be told as soon as got my handling set-up dialled in ,i didnt bother trying to get it any faster as i quickly found out ,i couldnt run them in a race and i put the game down just over 3 weeks ago and i havent bothered picking it back up ,ive only been using GTplanet to check the news and update releases

Curious as to why you couldn't race with them?

You should come run the LM/RM Corvettes at Daytona with us, they are a lot more fun than Nascars.

 

[TheBull]

I'm starting to get my race setup times closer to hot lap times, i'm right around a tenth off on most cars.
The #88 and #48 can both do 43.5's, as long as your #18 handles well and is free enough to be pushed fast the solo lap doesn't mean that much (most of the time).



Curious as to why you couldn't race with them?

You should come run the LM/RM Corvettes at Daytona with us, they are a lot more fun than Nascars.

I did i raced with Anchor and Dolphin a few times ,Anchor is on my friends list ,only ever saw you in there once ,i also started doing the seasonals because online was so bad then i just gave up playing ,i`ll probably give it a go again next update

 

[WhoosierGirl]

I did i raced with Anchor and Dolphin a few times ,Anchor is on my friends list ,only ever saw you in there once ,i also started doing the seasonals because online was so bad then i just gave up playing ,i`ll probably give it a go again next update

I was doing a lot of the TT's myself and had to take a break from them and the game for almost a month to rest an old shoulder injury. I still need to stay away from the road course races but I'm good to race at Daytona again.

Online has improved, rolling starts are back and disconnects are down. More rooms have been opening for the corvette's a night now, not just the regular Sunday races.

 

[killerjimbag]

Wanting to open up a Camaro LM series. Kind of like the old IROC series.
The LM cars are really nice.

 

[WhoosierGirl]

Racing the LM Camaro on tracks that the USS gentleman created on GT5 is something I really miss.
I wish they would hurry up and release the track creator on GT6.

 

[killerjimbag]

Don't hold your breath.

 

[meek]

If you added 2 points to the rear to make it 42 aero on GT5 it raised its pp to 633 the same as the rest of the cars ,on GT6 that would equate to 420 rear aero ,which slowed the cars down but gave better tyre wear

thanks! Adding front aero had no effect on PP?

Which would suggest that WhosierGirls theory is correct with them having slightly more aero ,but considering pp isnt affected by raising or lowering aero and all of the Nascars start on the same pp on GT6 albeit after a patch there is no sensible reasoning why this is ,except lazy programing

The question is why did they do it ? personally i like the idea of a different aero angle because it shows they were prepared to make things different but i think more of they made the cars different on purpose like they did with the LMP but couldnt to the same extremes as the LMP have different weight power ratios as compared to a Nascar which has the same weight power ratios right the way across the field ,so for me they programed some to be shootout cars and some to be endurance cars ,you just got to know which ones are which and at what track they work best at

PP formula changed between GT5 (kg/HP, downforce and possibly tires) and GT6 (kg/HP and torque).

A 615 PP car had 824 HP stock, I didn't buy a 616 one but judging by WhoosierGirl's tests, they had the same torque, HP and weight, and therefore same kg/HP.

Now all 32 cars have 620 PP & 849 HP stock. Perhaps GT6 v1.00 formula still used downforce and it changed in later patches?
I tend to believe Whoosier's theory. Downforce does make you slower, in turns and for top speed...

What if the 8 slower cars have really 220/420 minimum possible downforce instead of the 200/400 it shows? will run a few tests with the faster cars with added downforce when I get a chance and report...

 

[killerjimbag]

Yes down force makes you slower.

 

[meek]

You should come run the LM/RM Corvettes at Daytona with us, they are a lot more fun than Nascars.

Shelby GT500's are a blast to drive there as well!

I wish they would hurry up and release the track creator on GT6.

so do we... T_T

I have Pocono on my "to do" list, great for NASCARs and Indycar (~Formula GT) alike.

Were the following possible in GT5:
Bank an existing turn?
Enlarge/narrow track?

if not I hope they'll be in GT6, could make a great Talladega (using Daytona as a base), Darlington (using Motegi), etc...

 

[Pete05]

Shelby GT500's are a blast to drive there as well!


so do we... T_T

I have Pocono on my "to do" list, great for NASCARs and Indycar (~Formula GT) alike.

Were the following possible in GT5:
Bank an existing turn?
Enlarge/narrow track?

if not I hope they'll be in GT6, could make a great Talladega (using Daytona as a base), Darlington (using Motegi), etc...

Both were possible on GT5 although the banking wasn't anything like Talladega. More like Indy if anything.

 

[TheBull]

thanks! Adding front aero had no effect on PP?


PP formula changed between GT5 (kg/HP, downforce and possibly tires) and GT6 (kg/HP and torque).

A 615 PP car had 824 HP stock, I didn't buy a 616 one but judging by WhoosierGirl's tests, they had the same torque, HP and weight, and therefore same kg/HP.

Now all 32 cars have 620 PP & 849 HP stock. Perhaps GT6 v1.00 formula still used downforce and it changed in later patches?
I tend to believe Whoosier's theory. Downforce does make you slower, in turns and for top speed...

What if the 8 slower cars have really 220/420 minimum possible downforce instead of the 200/400 it shows? will run a few tests with the faster cars with added downforce when I get a chance and report...

If You genuinely beleive these cars have more imaginary downforce go ahead and test ,You could also run the same car get the same results if you beleive these cars have a different centre of gravity or ballast posistion ,or if you beleive the cars have a different angle of spoiler/aero or maybe some other guy will tell you its the posistion of the gas tank or if you beleive they have a fat girl in the trunk ,all of the above make sense except maybe for the last one as i`m sure a fat chick would be worth more than 1pp .........but none of these can be proven as all of the cars tell you the same thing on the screen the same weight same power same downforce etc etc ,one runs faster than the other for no apperent reason,except each car has its own unique different idendity

 

[soupcan]

Your are saying the same thing as Whoosier, changing the spoilers angle is done to raise or lower the downforce.
No matter what it is called if this test still holds true than this is the closest way I can see to prove it.

From WhoosierGirls earlier post:

In a long tire wear race most people would add a little down downforce to the rear to help with tire wear on the right rear tire. I used a 2010 #43 and a 2010 #42 with stock setups and my own setup and ran them until the right rear tire was worn down. The #42 tires would always go further than the #43 before they would be worn out. I would have to add some downforce to the #43 to match the distance I could go on the #42.

I don't think that PD changed the model of any of the 2010 and 11 cars, as the three fastest cars are still the fastest and the slowest are still the slowest. I think they just changed the track model to slow the speeds and lessen the grip.
Pick a car you like and go with it, your going to be dependant on who is behind you pushing to win at Daytona anyway.

 

[killerjimbag]

True soupcan, but there is a little trick with ballast that seems to work online,because of tire wear related to fuel consumption and loss of rear weight.
I might let the cat out of the bag later. You might want to try it.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

True soupcan, but there is a little trick with ballast that seems to work online,because of tire wear related to fuel consumption and loss of rear weight.
I might let the cat out of the bag later. You might want to try it.

I already have the cat.

 

[killerjimbag]

I bet you do sneaky guy.

 

[Pete05]

I already have the cat.

Meow

 

[meek]

If You genuinely beleive these cars have more imaginary downforce go ahead and test

Your are saying the same thing as Whoosier, changing the spoilers angle is done to raise or lower the downforce.
No matter what it is called if this test still holds true than this is the closest way I can see to prove it.

Just ran that test, using Allmendinger 2011 with a 43.90s, consistent setup, to which I added downforce at regular intervals.
It is quite conclusive IMHO.

I had run days before the 8 slower cars (616 PP in GT6 1.00) with same setup:
44.12 Montoya 2010 & Hamlin 2010
44.13 Hamlin 2011
44.26 Stewart 2011
44.31 Montoya 2011
44.33 Busch 2013
44.36 Almirola 2013
44.37 Edwards 2013

By putting 230/430 downforce in the Allmendinger 2011, I ran 44.07 on a great lap, was more in the 44.15 range otherwise, close to Montoya 2010, Hamlin 2010 & 2011.

240/440 --> 44.25, close to Stewart 2011 !

250/450 --> 44.30, close to Busch 2013 & Montoya 2011 !!

260/460 --> 44.36, close to Almirola/Edwards 2013 !!!

I think there are groups of cars within a certain downforce range, the Fords pre-2013 being the ones with really 200/400. Vickers 2011/Hamlin/Jr/JJ 2013 could have 205/405, and so on... [despite the bar showing minimum 200/400 for all 32 NASCARs].

That "hidden" downforce theory could be further tested: if someone has GT6 disc version, he could delete the patches (not his savedata!), start the game, not connect online or apply patches, buy a 2010 Ford, add 60 downforce to front and rear, and see if PP raised to 616... (and at what point it rose).
And/or run the same type of test I did above, Whoosier if you're reading this, are your time differentials consistent with mine? (order of cars, gap)

 

[meek]

True soupcan, but there is a little trick with ballast that seems to work online, because of tire wear related to fuel consumption and loss of rear weight.
I might let the cat out of the bag later. You might want to try it.

I already have the cat.

does the cat have anything to do with 2,2046 (writing in code word, only the bright/deserving minds will have that figured out ) ?

Both were possible on GT5 although the banking wasn't anything like Talladega. More like Indy if anything.

I may have worded that wrong... say turn 2 at Indy -I think it's 9°- with GT5's track creator, could you use that corner and make it bank more, say 20°?

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I bet you do sneaky guy.

Ha, ha, good to see you still around killer keeping things civil and helping out the NASCAR community 👍 As for me, I've pretty much had my fill of NASCAR in GT5, although I still dabble every now and then.....you know, just in case the need arises.