Observations on PP Maximization by Harvey Wallbanger & Friends

[White & Nerdy]

Myth.

How? Something like a VEETAK HONDUH is a perfect example - same with the Elise you mention. It'll do fine on a tight course if you shift constantly and keep it within 2K of the redline, but when you get to someplace like Daytona it just won't be able to cut the air at that speed. Speaking of which, shifting wastes time (as I said before).

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.

Exactly. With a car like the Elise you need short, close gears to get the best out of it, which means you'll be hitting the limiter at 160 while the frieght train pulls on to 200+.

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

Combine Justin Bieber with a smack-talking 8 year old, then add a metallic tone to it. That's the adjustable gearbox. That's not annoying to you?

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...

Maybe the GT4 theory doesn't apply, but I recall someone, who was tuning an M3 GTR road car, managed to drop his laptimes at GVS by about two seconds by lengthening the first five gears and avoiding the sixth. Reason being, he didn't waste as much time shifting in the tighter middle section of the course. Doesn't seem like it would be possible in a VEETAK-reliant rev machine that goes lag, lag, lag, lag, BOOM POWER AND ACCELERATION!, shift, lag, repeat. Speaking of which, in a car like that, if you just barely miss something and cause the revs to drop, you're done.

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.

See above. A more versatile car can waste less time shifting and will lose less time to slight mistakes. Which I suspect is why torque is so heavily penalized in the PP formula - the only time it's really useless is if you're a perfect driver and the car shifts instantly.

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.

So basically the same effect as a broader powerband, for fewer PP, with less margin for error and more time spent shifting. Which is exactly what I was thinking. Really, what about shift lag (see the GT4/M3 example above)?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

How? Something like a VEETAK HONDUH is a perfect example - same with the Elise you mention. It'll do fine on a tight course if you shift constantly and keep it within 2K of the redline, but when you get to someplace like Daytona it just won't be able to cut the air at that speed. Speaking of which, shifting wastes time (as I said before).

Weak high speed acceleration has nothing to do with torque and everything to do with horsepower.

These torqueless wonders you speak of don't do badly when compared to anything in the same class. A light car is a light car, and that cuts the amount of power you can actually run at a given PP value... Which in turn cuts the car's ability to cut the air. A 1000kg car won't hit the same power output as a 1200kg car at the same PP level and so on, which gives the top-end advantage to the heavier car at higher speeds.

Exactly. With a car like the Elise you need short, close gears to get the best out of it, which means you'll be hitting the limiter at 160 while the frieght train pulls on to 200+.

You need close gears to keep it cooking. You do not necessarily need short gears, and I've already detailed this.

However... The Elise will flat out run out of power sooner. You can have it wound right to power peak with proper gearing at top speed (the best situation) and that's all there is. More power is the only solution.

Combine Justin Bieber with a smack-talking 8 year old, then add a metallic tone to it. That's the adjustable gearbox. That's not annoying to you?

The sound you describe is far more annoying than the adjustable gearbox. I'll deal with the whine while I blow past you. Why? Because racecar.

Maybe the GT4 theory doesn't apply, but I recall someone, who was tuning an M3 GTR road car, managed to drop his laptimes at GVS by about two seconds by lengthening the first five gears and avoiding the sixth. Reason being, he didn't waste as much time shifting in the tighter middle section of the course. Doesn't seem like it would be possible in a VEETAK-reliant rev machine that goes lag, lag, lag, lag, BOOM POWER AND ACCELERATION!, shift, lag, repeat. Speaking of which, in a car like that, if you just barely miss something and cause the revs to drop, you're done.

Proper gearing avoids pretty much all shift lag... And it also keeps the car within the powerband at all times.

See above. A more versatile car can waste less time shifting and will lose less time to slight mistakes. Which I suspect is why torque is so heavily penalized in the PP formula - the only time it's really useless is if you're a perfect driver and the car shifts instantly.

My cars shift close enough to instantly for it to not matter... And have a gear for everything. I'm no driving god but I don't need to be to see that low-end torque is completely useless as long as you've got close to peak power between your shift point and your shift recovery point.

So basically the same effect as a broader powerband, for fewer PP, with less margin for error and more time spent shifting. Which is exactly what I was thinking. Really, what about shift lag (see the GT4/M3 example above)?

In a way, yes.

Except the time spent shifting bit is pretty much void (we're talking 1-3/60ths of a second of "shift lag" if gearing is done right), as is the less margin for error bit.

The entire purpose of this thread is maximizing performance. Which means you want every little bit you can squeeze out.

If I can have 5-20hp extra at ALL times I'm on the gas, I'm going to take it. What is the purpose of adding power in an area of the rev range that you simply do not use at the cost of power in the area you DO use?

 

[Highlandor]

I'm no driving god

Not far off it at Trial Mountain RJ.....especially first and last sectors.... (grrrr )


Hmmm, 💡 though, next time you're up for a battle at Cape Ring - give me shout!!!!!!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Not far off it at Trial Mountain RJ.....especially first and last sectors.... (grrrr )

Not really, no. I've just turned enough laps there to be something resembling quick. A certain alien who's now moved on to Forza gave me quite a lot of trouble there.

Hmmm, 💡 though, next time you're up for a battle at Cape Ring - give me shout!!!!!!

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Onboy123]

Not really, no. I've just turned enough laps there to be something resembling quick. A certain alien who's now moved on to Forza gave me quite a lot of trouble there.

Well, you're still quick as hell regardless. Compared to me, that is. And you're still a hell of a good tutor when it comes to teaching people the basics of TM, at least you've got my laptimes resembling something a human could do, rather than something you'd expect from a 5 year old.

 

[Highlandor]

Don't hold your breath.

Only if you start singing RJ....

 

[CSLACR]

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.

I don't think that has anything to do with weight distribution tbh. As I said before, the in-game coding for grip that PD hands out is the biggest factor (by far) in what cars are the fastest.

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.

I wouldn't be so brash as to assume nobody in it can drive, that's not my style. Plus I'm just not fast enough to assume everyone I meet is slower then me.
But I will take you up on the offer, I'll need a link to this series though.

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.

Well, you tell me.
2 tires on a car have 1400 lbs on them, the other 2 tires have only 1100lbs on them. You set the car perfectly neutral, so all 4 tires slide exactly the same amount.
Which tires will wear out quicker, the ones with 1400 lbs pushing them into the asphalt, or the ones with only 1100lbs pushing them into the asphalt?

Pretty basic stuff, tbh.

 

[nomis3613]

Folks, here's some more testing I've done to add to the pot. Firstly an NSX Type R:

In the top left cells is a simple comparison of weight vs PP for the 3 stages of weight reduction. As seen above, the stage 1 reduction "costs" gives a 17 kg reduction per 1 PP "cost". Further stages give you less kg reduction for each PP cost.

In blue is a test of weight reduction vs ballast. I added ballast to get the weights back to where they were pre-reduction, to compare examine the PP effect of ballast (looks like it has changed since XDes did his testing).

Then, for the green text, I looked at the effect of weight distribution on PP. Basically negligible (IIRC weight distribution had a much greater effect on PP this time last year).

Finally, on the right, I drag tested a few combinations of power and ballast (maintaining the same PP) to see what was fastest in a straight line. Negligible difference for the NSX, the lighter versions were a touch quicker to 100 km/h, and the heavier version had a touch higher trap speed at 1000m.


Next up was a lightweight underpowered Daihatsu Copen:

(I didn't bother with window or carbon reductions since they had such minor effect for the NSX)
The drag results clearly show that the extra hp is well worth the weight penalty in this case.

Finally, an overweight and overpowered Merc SL65:

Even 200 kg ballast is a drop in the ocean for this heavy beast! Since there is no straight line improvement from running heavier, I would be inclined to avoid ballast for this car.