Observations on PP Maximization by Harvey Wallbanger & Friends

[Johnnypenso]

Something I've noticed about power output: Torque is bad, revs are good.

What I mean by this is that you should lean towards the modifications that raise the rev limiter (ECU, engine tuning, exhaust, cat) instead of those that do not (intake and exhaust manifolds, air filter, engine maintenance). This also means that low and mid RPM turbos, as well as superchargers should be avoided when possible.

I never knew that different upgrades produced different gains in the rev limiter...lol. In fact, I didn't even know they changed anything except hp and torque and I never tested it and always assumed it was a linear relationship. I've always added and deleted anything I felt like to get the PP down to whatever level I wanted.

Once again I learn something new and once again I have to go through every car I use on a regular basis and make sure I maxed everything out...lol. Thanks for the insight!!

 

[CyKosis1973]

but the point is this - WHEN is it beneficial to start using PP points

This point was made a mere 2 posts before yours. Make a meaningful contribution to the converstation, or kindly GTFO...

{Cy}

This isn't just about HP vs Weight, but about figuring out the various nuances that make up the PP formula so that you can maximize the build for any given power point.

Part of that is breaking down how the PP is figured.
Another part is figuring out how best to utilize the individual elements for maximum benefit.

 

[Jump_Ace]

Alright guys,

What is the title of this thread? It's not a member bashing thread. Highlandor was only getting into the details of his opinions on the tuning formula and opinions of what he does/doesn't do is not the basis of making a post.

Stay on topic and off each others backs, thank you.

Jerome

 

[HaylRayzor]

You forgot ballast positioning, this will affect weight distribution % too..


Good luck 👍

I think you're gonna need it with your maths:

A car weighing 1200kgs has....720kgs and 600kgs (that's 1320kgs, not 1200kgs????)...

Then reduce the weight by 200kgs = 1000kgs (er...no...that's 1120kgs)...

I originally did the math with a different weight and in a hurry changed it to 1200kg. Obviously I forgot to change one of the numbers. Thank you for helpfully pointing that out.

I didn't forget the positioning of the ballast. That's adjustable, and my point is that when you reduce weight and add it back in there is a reason the weight distribution changes even though the ballast is centered (as mentioned previously).

I also didn't say you need to use ballast to sort out a car with bad weight distribution, but it's silly to argue that changing the weight distribution isn't the best way to fix bad weight distribution.

I'm not looking for a mathematical formula here.
We're trying to determine what all makes up the PP formula in the game.

The PP formula is mathematical. If you want to sort it out, there is no getting around using math.

 

[XDesperado67]

Thank you Jump_Ace

Okay folks as was just pointed out this thread is about the Performance Points, how they are figured and how best to make use of them.

There are plenty of other threads about the other aspects of tuning so can we please confine ourselves to a friendly discussion of Performance Points.

 

[savage388]

The PP formula is mathematical. If you want to sort it out, there is no getting around using math.

it is based on math but some of the parameters that pd used we can only speculate on. Two cars can have the same power,weight,and downforce with different pp. All we can do is figure out what is the most efficient way to use the variables we can see and change.

 

[Sohvakettu]

I think that some of the hidden pp might come form non-adjustable downforce like the fan of Red Bull X2010 and the diffusers of some of the higher end race cars.

 

[nomis3613]

I think that some of the hidden pp might come form non-adjustable downforce like the fan of Red Bull X2010 and the diffusers of some of the higher end race cars.

True, it's possible that the downforce numbers we see aren't the full story. Some other possibilities are traction, lateral grip, braking and aerodynamic efficiency (lift to drag ratio). I have an idea how we can get some insight into these:
- find some cars that have the same power*, weight and downforce, yet different PP
(* hopefully similar power curves too, because of the torque/revs stuff mentioned earlier)
- measure acceleration and top speed, to see if the PP advantage is due to straight line speed
- then look at braking distances
- finally cornering speeds: low speed and high speed

I will try to do this when I get a chance.

 

[Kinetyc]

Here is my view on how to best utilize the pp-system.

The ( adjustable ) parameters that affect your pp I know off are:

- Max Hp
- Max Torque
- Downforce
- Weight
- Weight distribution

Pp is a system to evaluate a car's performance in a more mathematical way,
and like with every system there will be better ways to use it and worse.
Here is my break-down on how to best use the abovementioned parameters:

Max Hp and max Torque:

The most effective way to use the pp system here is to increase torque in the rev ranges that matter the most.
If you shift up from one gear to another your revs will drop and you will accelerate all the way up again until it's time to shift again.
This 'rev range'is the only range that matters. All the torque that is available on lower revs is totally wasted.
Now this rev range is dependant on the gears your in. At lower gears this range is bigger ( more drop ) than in higher gears ( less drop ).
If you take a look at most cars'engines you can see that max torque will be at a low rpm, most of the time lower than your rev ranges for most of your gears.
Now we know that pp will increase when your max torque increases, so the best way to use pp is to increase the high rev torque ( which will result in more Hp )
WITHOUT increasing max. torque ( which is on an rpm that is too low like I said in the above ).
Now I know it's not always possible to do this depending on the tuning options you've got, but if you can you gotta go for it.

Downforce:

My observation is that front downforce costs slightly less pp than rear downforce on the cars I tested. However I don't rule out the opposite on some cars.
I find downforce something very personal so providing a 'best way'to use it would be a little arrogant imo.
What I do recommend is to keep it as low as possible without sacrificing too much traction. Higher cornering speeds can usually be obtained by perfecting your driving line,
but traction is another story.

Weight and weight distribution:

On the cars I tested removing weight and adding ballast grants you a net advantage in pp. This sounds not too logical to me, since adding ballast lets you choose the position,
so I wouldn't be surprised if there are cars where this is the other way around.
Adding weight in the rear costs you more pp than adding in the front, however the closer your car is to a 50/50 distribution in its standard form the less the difference is
( on some cars there is even none ).
The increased pp cost for adding in the rear is imo because almost all cars are potentially faster with a light front ( nose-light ), which provides more directivity ( faster weight shifts )
and less lateral force ( less pushing ) when cornering on the front axle. Although this will create a more oversteering car so beware.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here is my view on how to best utilize the pp-system.

The ( adjustable ) parameters that affect your pp I know off are:

- Max Hp
- Max Torque
- Downforce
- Weight
- Weight distribution

etc....

Didn't want to quote the whole post, but just to say that I pretty much agreed with everything you said, but I've never tested it, just going on intuition and the affects of small changes I've made.

I know it's not my thread but I have a suggestion. We're talking a lot about theory but what would be really helpful for me, and for others I assume, is some hard numbers.

Take a car and set it up a number of different ways and lets see the PP changes. I'd test both aero and ballast independently because they can be adjusted independently from adding or taking away parts etc. but that's just me.

What I want to see mostly is changes to HP/Torque/PP by adding various parts and taking away various parts, using the engine limiter etc. Once you've done that, then you'd switch to both ballast and aero and modify them independently to suit your driving style or the needs of the car is my thinking. In addition, posting pp unoptimized set ups would be helpful too, if we can figure out what raises PP the most, with the least hp/torque/ benefit.

I'm willing to do my part. I'll start the ball rolling by taking one of my cars and making changes while keep it at a certain PP level and post the effects. I'd suggest others do the same, to prove their own theories, or disprove others so we can have a range of cars to look at, as I suspect the effects are not all the same across the garage.

Not absolutely necessary but it is the final element, is taking your final set up and doing some lap time and/or top speed comparisons to earlier, less pp optimized set ups. I'd be willing to test drive some of the set ups and post my results if anyone is interested. I can use my own suspension tuning so I don't have to get used to anyone's set up.

Just off the top of my head, these changes should have their most dramatic effect in the lower PP levels because the cars are often not close to the cornering limit or easier to drive. A corner that can be taken flat out with one "pp" set up, should be taken faster with an optimized "pp" set up, whereas at higher pp levels, most cars are beyond the limits of most corners and thus gains in PP will be less apparent because they'll only take effect in a straight line, if that makes sense.

In fact, for the guys at FITT, an interesting idea for a shootout, would be to take a car with a fixed suspension, transmission and perhaps LSD set up (or within a very tight range to minimize it's effect), fix the PP and allow tuners to use various parts to get to that PP level, and aero and unlimited ballast/weight reduction and test the results in terms of lap times and perhaps top speed.

 

[CSLACR]

I've been doing some regulating lately, with similar cars.
Firstly, some cars have been butchered by PD, plain and simple. These cars will never pair up properly with others, they must be identified and avoided for any PP tests done. The Eneos SC430 and Woodone Advan Clarion GTR both have what seem to be "tire penalties". What it means is through no amount of regulation to faster cars can these cars reasonably compete with the rest.

PD given natural tendencies are the best thing any car can get for good performance at any given PP. Prime example is the GTR SuperGT cars, which are now the slowest in the regulation, not in top speed, but acceleration. But they're still on par over the course of most tracks, the fastest on some tracks even, all with one of the lowest PP ratings.

Powerband's will destroy a PP rating, for example, the Xanavi Nismo Z is running on par with the GTR's, 616PP for the Z, 607PP for the GTR.

NSX's have good power and speed, along with handling...sort of. They can't corner nearly as fast as the GTR's and SC430's, but at the same power, they are faster in a straight line. We ended up having to add 30kg's to the good handling cars, and still had to use extra speed to make the poor handling cars keep up over the course of the season.
Cars with better cornering still corner better, and are a bit quicker around tight tracks, and the less cornering endowed cars are a bit faster on high-speed tracks.
The YMS Supra stands out at only 604PP, likely due to it 53/47 weight balance. PD does not recognize 50/50 weight distribution as optimal, but rather the more you throw on the back, the better they believe your car will drive.

So IMO, the natural programming by PD is the greatest PP marker any car can have.

Over 600, Aero starts playing a much more significant role, and very quickly tops the list, it's also dependent on tires.
It's also tough to decipher which hurts more, between powerband and weight.

 

[Sohvakettu]

PD does not recognize 50/50 weight distribution as optimal, but rather the more you throw on the back, the better they believe your car will drive.

To be fair real race cars rarely drive with strict 50/50 distribution.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Okay, so I took it upon myself to follow through and do some testing on PP maximization and lap times.

I used the NSX Type R 02' a car I'm familiar with. No aero, a good neutral tune, no chassis reinforcement, , all engine parts upgraded, engine tuning 3, and no weight reductions.

I am not familiar with GoogleDocs so I'm going to type this out manally and it should give you a fair idea of what I did.

As it sat the car had 446 hp/529pp/322 ft/lbs torque/9900 rpm rev limit.

I removed each part individually and noted reductions in PP, HP, Torque and Rev Limit. Focusing on maximizing PP I tabulated the results in the order of Least HP/PP lost when removing that particular part alone.

Here are the results

Std Filter 2.83 hp/pp lost in removal
Std ECU 3.0
Std Intake 3.25
Std Ex. Man.3.25
Std Exhaust 3.3
Std Cnvrtr 3.5

In other words, for the sake of discussion, if removing the Filter or the Converter cost you 10pp the filter would lose you only 28.3 hp whereas the Converter would cost you 35 hp. So in theory you would remove parts in the order above to lower your PP while maximizing HP to make a particular race or when setting up a car to begin with you'd begin choosing from the bottom of the list and work your way up.

So for the moment I ignored the effects of lower torque and rpm and focused on HP. I found that removing the first three parts got me to 511 pp and the last three 510 so I picked 510 as my test pp and used .6% engine limiting to get to 510 pp with the first three parts.

I picked Monza with no chicanes as a test driving track and the straight at LeMans for top speed testing where I set the transmission to 380 km/h for both setups. Monza is easy to drive, long straights to mazimize the effects of hp and relatively easy corners. I didn't try to drive hot laps, but rather chose consistent braking points of shadows or candy striping to eliminate as much as possible cornering speeds and braking points from the equation, although i was pretty close to the limit, I was enough below it that I could be consistent. Tire wear was also off to eliminate that variable

First Set Up - Theoretically the best set up

Remove Filter, ECU, Intake Manifold and engine limiter to 99.4% for 510pp/392hp/292ft lbs torque/9700rpm

Ran several warm up laps and ended up with several consistent laps in the 1:39.4 - 1:39.6 range and consistently hit 276 km/h at the white stripe crossing the track at the first chicane.

Top speed at Lemans Forward - 313 km/h Reverse - 314 km/h

Second Set Up - Theoretically the worst set up

Remove Exhaust, Converter upgrade and Exhaust Manifold, engine limiter to 100% for 510pp/388hp/295ft lbs/9500 rpm

4 less hp, 3 more ft lbs of torque and 200 less rpm.

Ran several laps and was consistently in the 1:40.0 - 1:40.2 range and consistently hit 274 km/h at the white stripe crossing the track at the first chicane.

Top speed at Lemans Forward - 310 km/h Reverse - 312 km/h

Conclusion

You can't draw much of a general conclusion from one data point but it would seem to indicate that at least with this car on this track which maximizes the effects of small gains in HP, you can gain an average of .6 seconds per lap, just by choosing one set of parts vs. another in setting up your car. .6 may not seem like much but it takes only a 1 second gap to break the draft, so .6 can come in handy. Larger gains may be possible with different cars and of course on some tracks it may be far less than .6 seconds of an advantage.

Could come in real handy in PP limited racing, and organized racing where tuning is allowed but PP is limited.

 

[Johnnypenso]

TEST #2
Second test was in a 458 Italia. After removing various parts I found the exhaust manifold, intake manifold and converter were all just 1 pp and 7hp, too small a number to produce reliable ratios. So I put them together as a group and as a group they were still at one end of the list so I left them as a group for test purposes.

In this test, removing just the exhaust produced the same PP as removing the intake and exhaust manifold, air filter and catalytic converter.

With all parts added it came to 600pp/656 hp/435 ft lbs. torque and 9800 rpm.


First Set Up - Theoretically the best set up

Remove Filter,Intake and Exhaust Manifold and Catalytic Converter, no engine limiter to get to 595pp/631hp/423ft lbs torque/9700rpm

Ran several warm up laps and ended up with several consistent laps in the 1:31.4 - 1:31.8 range and consistently hit 316 km/h at the white stripe crossing the track at the first chicane.

Top speed at Lemans Forward and Reverse - 343 km/h

Second Set Up - Theoretically the worst set up for 595pp

Remove Exhaust Only engine limiter to 99.8% for 595pp/628hp/431ft lbs/9500 rpm

3 less hp, 8 more ft lbs of torque and 200 less rpm.

Ran several laps and was consistently in the 1:32.4 - 1:32.6 range and consistently hit 312 km/h at the white stripe crossing the track at the first chicane.

Top speed at Lemans Forward and Reverse 343 km/h

Conclusion
Once again a significant difference in lap times, 4km/h difference in speed at a fixed mark at Monza, but interestingly no difference in top speed at LeMans. Obviously whatever differences there are between the two setups affects how quickly you get to the top speed but not the ultimate speed itself.

This time the difference for me was 1 full second which is pretty significant as again, that's the difference between draft and no draft. Being a second faster, and 1.5 seconds ahead of second place at any point and it's pretty much game over, even though you are driving the same car with the same PP.

 

[XDesperado67]

@Johnnypenso I like your tests as they show exactly the kind of thing I was suggesting.

Of course once issues of weight vs power vs downforce come into play along with track and the drivers style it becomes a much more complex issue, which is why we want to understand as much about what goes into the PP formula as possible.👍👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

I tried the same test with the FT86 at Monza with three versions, the optimum, the least preferred set up as above, and all parts added and engine limiter to get back to I believe 452 pp. All three versions produced near identical lap times in spite of differences of up to 15 hp.

Also, there's no way that a few hp can make a one second difference, not a 4 km/h difference at a given point in the track as in the 458 and yet it seemed to happen. It's possible I screwed up my testing but I ran at least 10 laps with each set up. Maybe it has something to do with the rev limit as mentioned above as the optimum setups had 200 more revs than the alternatives...not sure.

 

[esoxhntr]

Maybe it has something to do with the rev limit as mentioned above as the optimum setups had 200 more revs than the alternatives...not sure.

I would bet it does. You have 200 more RPM in each gear to take advantage of gear multiplication.

Your test are good and show exactly what I thought they would.. on MONZA/La Sarthe a car with higher peak HP will generally be faster around that track.

Now, repeat the test on Tsukuba where torque would play a bigger role, although the 200 less revs may still hinder the higher torque cars, I would expect the results be reversed or at least closer in terms of lap times. ...and if not, I change my opinion from it's usually best to use mods that bump the RPMs to its always best to use mods that bump RPMs. ie. torque multiplication through gears (more revs more multiplication) > a bump in torque alone.

Also, IMO it may be easier to test with lower powered cars for consistency (easier to run consistent lap times).

 

[Nismo34]

On the ballast shifted back resulting in more PP, So far in this thread I have only seen it trialed on RWD. Could it be that shifting the weight to the back will result in more drive grip? Any one tried the same on a FF or AWD?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

On the ballast shifted back resulting in more PP, So far in this thread I have only seen it trialed on RWD. Could it be that shifting the weight to the back will result in more drive grip? Any one tried the same on a FF or AWD?

Any car gets "faster" according to the PP system when you shift ballast rearward.

 

[CSLACR]

It looks like a solid test Johnny, but I have to agree a full second from 3 less hp but a better powerband is unlikely at best.
BUT - that's assuming PD didn't give different mods hidden gains. I do know when aiming for max HP at a given PP I typically try all the removable options, and find the combo that gives the most total power, but 6hp from a manifold vs 6hp from an air filter I never pitted against each other.

To be fair real race cars rarely drive with strict 50/50 distribution.

I'm not sure what fair has to do with it. My point is simply that 50/50 is typically considered optimal, because it puts equal stress on all four wheels.
I've yet to see a 40/60 car out corner an equal car at 50/50. Aliens have been known to do it, so I can't say for certain some rearward bias doesn't help. But over the course of a long race, with tire wear, I'd never intentionally throw my ballast any further then 48/52 or so. The rears just burn up to fast if you do imo.

 

[Highlandor]

I'm not sure what fair has to do with it. My point is simply that 50/50 is typically considered optimal, because it puts equal stress on all four wheels.
I've yet to see a 40/60 car out corner an equal car at 50/50. Aliens have been known to do it, so I can't say for certain some rearward bias doesn't help. But over the course of a long race, with tire wear, I'd never intentionally throw my ballast any further then 48/52 or so. The rears just burn up to fast if you do imo.

Lotus Evora is 40 / 60 - not many cars (full stop) can live with that. Try making an RX8 or BMW M5 '08 go round Cape Ring or Deep Forest as quick as an Evora, it won't happen.

Evora holds the "record" in our 530pp series at Deep Forest and Cape Ring, alot of guys have tried to beat it, in alot of different cars - including 50 / 50 cars like M3 gtr / csl or RX7 / 8 - Evora still king. Thats with ballast at 0.0kgs and power limiter at 100%.

Before you say we're a bunch of muppets who can't drive or tune, come join us and try to beat the Evora with a 50 / 50 car of your own.

Weight distribution isn't a huge factor in tyre wear, in fact from 10 months of tuning hundreds of cars for online racing, weight distribution isn't a problem at all for tyre wear.

Setup, brakes, aero and throttle / steering control have far greater affect on determining how long your tyres last than where the weight is. Also, try tuning a very high power front engined 4WD car on low grip tyres, then putting all the drive to the rear 10 / 90 and be aggressive with the throttle. The weight will still be at the front but it's likely the rears will go first.

You can start with a 50 / 50 car and still "screw up" the setup and end up with an unbalanced car with poor tyre wear.

Technically, though you are right, a 50 / 50 is best on paper, but the Red Bull F1 cars are considered "best" - where did Webber finish in the last Grand Prix..??

With so many other factors to consider when tuning a car online on GT5, whether a car is 50 / 50, 40 / 60, 60 / 40 or whatever, it doesn't matter, you either know how to dial it in for an all round balanced performance (incuding tyre wear) or you don't, if you don't it doesn't make a difference what the weight distribution is.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Whether the Evora or any other car excels at any given PP level or 40/60 is better than 50/50 is not relevant to this discussion in my opinion. The point is to maximize speed at a given pp in a given car. The Evora, NSX etc. are just better cars period, but even they can be made better if we find a way to maximize the effects of certain choices under the PP limitations.

The only way to do that is isolate one variable at a time, figure out how to maximize it's effect for that particular car, then move on to the next variable etc. Do this for enough cars at enough PP levels and a pattern may emerge or it may vary from car to car, or even track to track. Only extensive testing will sort it out.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I'm just reading through this and thought I'd contribute a few more variables.

Perhaps one of the biggest is the track. On a short, tight track, you'll want something light and fast that can maintain speed through the corners. On a longer track, however, the short gears required to extract motion from a torqueless, no-displacement tin can will cause major problems on the straights. The problem here is that the light, quick cars best suited to tight tracks tend to lack the torque that would be useful in such an environment, while the larger, faster cars used for high-speed courses are often biased away from the high-RPM power that would be useful there, wasting PP on something that won't do much good.

Speaking of torque, is it really so useless? If you're like me, you like to use the stock transmission, since the adjustable unit sounds like the voice of a cartoon pony. At 50 mph it's Rarity, at 150 it's Pinkie Pie, at 200+ it's more annoying than all of them combined. A car with more torque will pull from just about any RPM, reducing the need for such things. And even if you somehow don't mind the noise, having more torque allows you to use fewer gears for the above-stated reasons, thus reducing time wasted shifting - in GT4 this was proven to be effective at improving lap times.

So once again, it's a trade-off: how much weight/downforce can I give up for extra torque? How much do I need to?

Sorry if it's been brought up before, I only read the first two pages.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

On a short, tight track, you'll want something light and fast that can maintain speed through the corners. On a longer track, however, the short gears required to extract motion from a torqueless, no-displacement tin can will cause major problems on the straights.

Myth.

The problem here is that the light, quick cars best suited to tight tracks tend to lack the torque that would be useful in such an environment, while the larger, faster cars used for high-speed courses are often biased away from the high-RPM power that would be useful there, wasting PP on something that won't do much good.

Torque isn't the issue, nor is it a problem with revvy engines.

As speed climbs, power alone becomes a larger factor than power to weight ratio as aerodynamic drag becomes the limiting factor rather than how quickly the mass of the vehicle can be accelerated.

A 200hp, 800kg car will outrun a 400hp, 1800kg barge in a straight line at low speeds but that Elise is going to get passed as speed climbs.

Speaking of torque, is it really so useless? If you're like me, you like to use the stock transmission, since the adjustable unit sounds like the voice of a cartoon pony. At 50 mph it's Rarity, at 150 it's Pinkie Pie, at 200+ it's more annoying than all of them combined. A car with more torque will pull from just about any RPM, reducing the need for such things. And even if you somehow don't mind the noise, having more torque allows you to use fewer gears for the above-stated reasons, thus reducing time wasted shifting - in GT4 this was proven to be effective at improving lap times.

You're a closet Brony, I knew it. You can't even keep them out of your mouth in the tuning section.

Now then... A broader powerband (not flatter torque curve, broader powerband) is penalized in the PP system. This means that something like the Xanavi Nismo Z gets hit in terms of how much peak power it can hit at a given PP level... Meaning it gives up top end charge for erm... Erm... What exactly?

Oh, being able to run it as a 4-speed with a 5th/6th reserved for drafting at Sarthe. That totally makes up for the fact it gets blasted by properly geared peaky wonders on every straight ever. Wait...

So once again, it's a trade-off: how much weight/downforce can I give up for extra torque? How much do I need to?

Torque isn't what matters, it's horsepower. I say to seek revs instead of torque for a reason. It results in the faster car.


Now, allow me to mention something about gearing...

It's very possible for a car to have one ratio set work at all tracks... And shorter gearing is not "better" gearing. Closer gearing is. Before they reintroduced full gear ratio adjustability, there was no way to have close ratios without having short ratios, but now there is.

I can have 1st run to 60mph (and consistently do on my RWD cars, if not further) and still have an extremely close ratio gearbox. You can also have a very wide ratio gearbox that smacks the rev limiter at 120mph.

Top speed to minimum, final to minimum, 1st to max length, top gear to min length, spread other ratios evenly is my usual set up (though certain cars require me to raise or lower the final drive before setting top speed to achieve certain gear length needs)... This results in an adequately high top speed most of the time and a long 1st... And the closest ratios possible.

Closer ratios mean you don't need as wide of a powerband because you can keep the engine in a narrower rev range... This means you can have more peak power, which in turn means you're putting more power to the ground at all times. Which means you have a faster car.

 

[Highlandor]

The only way to do that is isolate one variable at a time, figure out how to maximize it's effect for that particular car, then move on to the next variable etc. Do this for enough cars at enough PP levels and a pattern may emerge or it may vary from car to car, or even track to track. Only extensive testing will sort it out.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you Johnny - check my posts on first page, I state ther it's all about the "variables", BUT there are SO MANY variables it means trying tio find a common denominator is going to be very difficult i.e.

1000+ cars
25+ "full tracks"
9 tyres

That's quite alot to start off with, but then throw in different setups for different driving styles, different drivetrains / aero options, online or offline, race distance, PP points, various grip levels of cars with same PP etc etc - that's a helluva lot of variables.

This is why I say deal with what is in font of you i.e. what your faced with and use "expereince" to determine what you feel is best. If you don't have the experience then "get out there" and start tuning and competing at different PP levels with different cars.

Use things like what RJ said - torque kills PP (so does aero) - so go for "power" instead of torque mainly.

Sometimes there are cases when people will chose (through personal preference - otherwise).

i.e. Some guys in my 530pp race series will use aero, others don't, but some guys who race a RX8 will use a supercharger instead of a better power to weight ratio as they prefer how the car "feels" with the better torque. But the power to weight is similiar to the guys with aero and high rpm powered RX8, because the aero costs alot of PP points so in affect they're "wasting" their PP on aero as most guys get enough grip and are fast enough through setups, as aero is not always needed.

I undersand the philosphy and theory of trying to work out which is best PP for each car - but the reality is that being generally right is going to be a much more efficient use of time than trying to be perfect for every car in every situation - try doing that, it'll take you years.

Working out generally (in most situaitons) what is right for you, will take alot less time and be just as beneficial - if not more so as the time you save, find yourself a decent online race series or two, with like minded people, and start having some serious fun.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

The RX-8 is actually a car I'd go for the blower on.

The NA and high-RPM turbo powerbands are a little too peaky to be useful.

 

[Kinetyc]

Why is everyone speaking of torque and power as if it were 2 completely different things?
To understand whether a car/engine will perform in a certain situation it's imo necessary to know these two things are related. Power is just torque in function of engine revolutions.
Optimizing a car for a certain pp limit will therefore depend how high the median torque is between x and y revolutions, where x en y can be adjusted by the transmission set-up ( in a way like you already posted Rotary Junkie ).

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Why is everyone speaking of torque and power as if it were 2 completely different things?
To understand whether a car/engine will perform in a certain situation it's imo necessary to know these two things are related. Power is just torque in function of engine revolutions.
Optimizing a car for a certain pp limit will therefore depend how high the median torque is between x and y revolutions, where x en y can be adjusted by the transmission set-up ( in a way like you already posted Rotary Junkie ).

They are not two separate things, but when people say something has "a lot of torque" they're generally referring to the low-end and vice versa.

But yes, you've nailed it there. The power/gearing side is down to that. Make as much power as you can in the rev range you actually use (aka the top end on most cars, though admittedly not all), and the rest can go die in a fire because it doesn't matter.

 

[Nismo34]

Use things like what RJ said - torque kills PP (so does aero) - so go for "power" instead of torque mainly.

Power over torque makes sense. Look at the LFA for example. Very little torque, reasonably high horsepower, lowish weight, and can obliterate anything between 500-590PP everytime*




*Well, given that the driver knows how to drive and whatnot, driver A in an LFA will do faster lap times than the same driver in anything else in the 500-590PP range, if you get what I mean.

 

[Highlandor]

Power over torque makes sense. Look at the LFA for example. Very little torque, reasonably high horsepower, lowish weight, and can obliterate anything between 500-590PP everytime*


*Well, given that the driver knows how to drive and whatnot, driver A in an LFA will do faster lap times than the same driver in anything else in the 500-590PP range, if you get what I mean.

Yeah, power over torque makes sense for 9/10 cars, or maybe even more, but some cars do "feel" better with a low / mid RPM turbo or a supercharger fitted.

Some of the 5 speed cars this works well on, try putting a low RPM turbo kit on a 350 Esprit, for tracks that it needs a high top speed for. That'll pull out of the corners, especially from low revs, like very few others.

I know a guy who races a 530pp Holden, he loves it with the supercharger on, so sometimes personal preference counts, but usually, I'd agree - power over torque.

The Lexus is quick, but if you're doing "non" power ilimiter / ballast racing (power limiter must be 100% and no ballast can be added) it isn't that fast, sure it's fast (especially in a straight line), but using the power limiter and then yeah - it's crazy fast.