optimum gear ratios found

[Duke]

510: Closer ratios are better.

Not in something with a big, wide torque curve, they're not. If you have enough powerband that you can get away with fewer shifts, you'll be faster.

 

[shangoob]

At what? Fishing?

 

[BobK]

Not in something with a big, wide torque curve, they're not. If you have enough powerband that you can get away with fewer shifts, you'll be faster.

I sometimes equip a car with a supercharger for just that reason.

 

[sucahyo]

(Use the 400m test. That way the close ratio car will not top out.)

There are ways to make shorter gear have the same top speed as longer gear (tranny trick), so we can use 1000m test or even better, track laptime.

 

[jinxtigr]

Since GT4 lets you get special lighter driveshafts for some cars, surely it's modeling the weight of that as part of the car's ability to reach high revs quickly?

I _think_... though I could be wrong as I'm not sure of this... that this will change the behavior depending on final drive ratio. The idea is that spinning the driveshaft up to a high speed will produce more inertia than if you're turning it slower for the same rear wheel spin...

The thing is though, even if I'm totally out to lunch and the inertia of the system is always the same, it STILL affects the car because it's placing the load in a different powerband?

I'm reminded that the purpose of these things in real life is to avoid placing impossible loads on physical parts- every step of the way you're trading RPM for torque, not feeding the final torque right through the whole powertrain. Of course digital cars can't break from overstressing the gears.

Sorry, hoped I'd make more sense

At any rate, there's no optimum gear ratios because you might want the car shifting earlier or later in the powerband under different conditions. I've been doing that 300mph challenge, and under some conditions I had the Minolta shifting back and forth between 5th and 6th in the first turn of Test Course. Clearly nonoptimal! And assume 6th was set perfectly for top speed. Means you have to change the other gears, no way around it.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Closer ratios (less difference between gears) will almost ALWAYS come out on top.

Closer, lower (numerically higher) gears will accelerate (in-gear) quicker given wheelspin is not present.

 

[Dark Elite]

Closer ratios (less difference between gears) will almost ALWAYS come out on top.

At what? Fishing?

Without qualification that statement is totally invalid, if you are simply after top speed runs then no, closer ratios are not better at all. If all you are interested in is acceleration then maybe its valid, but again without taking the engine characteristics into account you can't use it as a truism.

Sorry, but I have a huge dislike for this simplistic, formula driving approach to tuning. It rarely works and never gets you to think about things, its almost as bad as when people say 'car x always understeers', what even when going straight or not moving!

Context please or you are adding nothing at all to this.

DE

 

[shangoob]

Closer ratios (less difference between gears) will almost ALWAYS come out on top.

Closer, lower (numerically higher) gears will accelerate (in-gear) quicker given wheelspin is not present.

Wiki link

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Ahem. DE: Give me a reason for close ratios would HURT a car anywhere other than takeoff. (Why would a 2.78 first, wide ratio Toploader be quicker than the close-ratio 2.32 box? Mind you, both have a 1:1 4th gear.)

And the wiki link only helps my case.

If wide ratios are soooooo effective (like front drive is in a racing application), why IS there a "tranny trick" to make the ratios closer? Shouldn't it be the opposite? Or do we prefer our cars to have less hassle to drive, despite being slower? Of course, I wouldn't know, I keep ALL my cars on boil. Flicking the gears comes as second nature for me in GT. If you CAN keep the car on boil at all times, why the heck not? Of COURSE there are exceptions to the rule, but in cars that don't wait a full second before pulling the next gear (a nice Bruno setup would fix that. Stick with a torque converter FTW!) I find closer ratios better in almost all cases. Then again, I usually stick to a slightly unoptimized ratio set, but it works for me. Mostly because I can run big gear with it. (5.00 gears in a Miata nabbing 150mph before topping out is always nice. Great pull in the early gears)

Mayhaps I will bring out an S2k and a FPV F6 Typhoon to illustrate my point (S2k is incredibly peaky, the F6 has a broad, fat torque curve, albeit falling off after 5600. I shift at 5750.) Who knows, I may be proven wrong. I will do my laps, and let the b-spec bastard of 7200+ skill make a few laps. The F6 has a few mods on it right now, 530hp. Gotta invest in a 'box for it and the S2k. (Budgeted challenges...)

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Got the S2K, with a wide-ratio box (close by wiki's standards) I pulled in a 1:42.478 at Infineon Sports Car. Ratios were [5.101/3.218/2.260/1.672/1.280/1.000] with a 4.100 final.

New ratios are [3.285/2.367/1.799/1.427/1.180/1.000] with the same rear gear.

Final A-spec times:

Wide ratio: 1:142.248
Close ratio: 1:41.130

B-spec:

Wide ratio: 1:43.772
Close ratio: 1:43.451

B-spec's difference was smaller, but still exists.

All runs were done with a 2004 S2K with R2 tires, chip, stage 2 intercooler, FC trans and lsd, weight reduc level 1, and race suspension.

Now then: This was with a car that MUST be kept revving to move. Next is my FPV F6 Typhoon with R3's, stage 2 turbo and race intercooler, race brakes, race suspension, FC lsd/trans, level 2 weight reduc.

Alright, "wide" ratios are: [3.910/2.467/..732/1.282/1.000/.800] with a 3.450 final.
Close ratio is [2.518/1.814/1.379/1.094/.920/.800] again with the 3.450 final.

Final A-spec times:

Wide ratio: 1:34.626
Close ratio: 1:33.661

B-spec:

Wide ratio: 1:37.583
Close ratio: 1:37.478

This time only a small difference in b-spec's hands, but STILL the close ratio came out on top, despite B-spec shifting the poor car at 6500 rpm: 1000rpm past where falloff begins (power peak. 5500. After that, falloff is extreme), so by all rights the close ratio would've been slower down the straights. And it was. However, the better selection of ratios for corner exit helped it win out. I have no doubt that in my hands, shifting at 5750, the close ratio will trump at the strip. I will put R5s on to eliminate wheelspin and test the FPV, the culprit on the S2k is guilty of liking closer ratios. The wide ratio car will be more likely to spin the tires, so a second-gear launch technique may have to be used.

2nd gear is in effect.

Wide ratio: 11.660
Close Ratio: 11.634

Not horridly much difference, but some. So more shifts DON'T hurt as much as was thought. Not when in-gear is better.

 

[niky]

The "tranny trick", as you so put it, is to ensure that you have ratios optimized to the track.

"Close Ratios" per se is not the be-all and end-all of track-tuning.

Generally, you want a set of ratios that will allow you to hit highest theoretical speed on the longest straight of the track in redline of whatever gear you're at the time.

For an econobox with little torque and a zingy engine, this may be 5th or 6th gear. For a powerful race car, this might still be 5th or 6th... but for a powerful street car with lower cornering grip, and consequently, lower exit speeds and a lower V-Max down the longest straight, this might be 4th gear.

The "tranny trick" allows you to ensure that you're hitting redline right before your braking point for the corner off of this straight... in general, it's good enough for 99% of races (simply because the AI is so darn dumb... ).

But it's not the optimum at all times. Sometimes, you want second or third a little longer or shorter for a particular corner or series of corners... so that ... Sometimes, you want first gear longer for better off-the-line traction.

Sometimes, there's so little traction that you want to hit top speed on the track in fourth gear instead of fifth, as aforementioned.

But never mind traction... what about the loss of time from excessive shifting? In real life, and even in GT4, there's some delay with each shift (which is why some dragsters rock with automatics), and excessive shifting sometimes hurts your progress through a corner.

 

[Dark Elite]

Ahem. DE: Give me a reason for close ratios would HURT a car anywhere other than takeoff.

That doesn't make an awful lot of sense - if you meant to say, 'give me a situation where close ratios would hurt a car, other than starting off', here's my situation for that. Once again, generic statements get nowhere.

DE

 

[Scaff]

Ahem. DE: Give me a reason for close ratios would HURT a car anywhere other than takeoff. (Why would a 2.78 first, wide ratio Toploader be quicker than the close-ratio 2.32 box? Mind you, both have a 1:1 4th gear.)

Closely stacked ratios could cause a problem in regard to top speed on a track with a massively long straight (La Sarthe or the 'ring), or if closely stacked the wrong way actually hurt a standing start (you see without context closely stack could mean any set of ratios as long as the difference between each gear is small) and in a high torque car closely stacked low gears can have a huge effect on the cars ability to lay down traction out of slow corners and hairpins.

That enough reasons for you?

Got the S2K, with a wide-ratio box (close by wiki's standards) I pulled in a 1:42.478 at Infineon Sports Car. Ratios were [5.101/3.218/2.260/1.672/1.280/1.000] with a 4.100 final.

*SNIP*

Not horridly much difference, but some. So more shifts DON'T hurt as much as was thought. Not when in-gear is better.

Two examples (while they are an improvement on the blanket statements we have had before) simply prove it as an example for these cars, ratios and tracks. Nothing more.

As an extreme example I could take a set of gear ratios that are as close as possible and run the car at the 'ring and claim to prove the opposite. It would however be just that, a claim, in reality it would prove nothing. You're claim that the test would have been better had you used R5s is also suspect as they are more likely to mask an issue rather than make the testing more accurate.

You see no one here has said that close ratios are wrong (which you are starting to imply - do not), rather that a blanket statement that close ratios are always better is not true (not for all cars, tyres and all tracks).


Scaff

 

[Car-less]

Got the S2K, with a wide-ratio box (close by wiki's standards) I pulled in a 1:42.478 at Infineon Sports Car. Ratios were [5.101/3.218/2.260/1.672/1.280/1.000] with a 4.100 final.

New ratios are [3.285/2.367/1.799/1.427/1.180/1.000] with the same rear gear.

Final A-spec times:

Wide ratio: 1:142.248
Close ratio: 1:41.130

...

Now try the same cars with the same ratio's at High Speed Ring. Look at fuel economy and tyre wear as well as lap times. I bet your close ratio's don't come out on top every time now.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I'll bet they DO. 6th gear works out the same, and the closer ratio box actually runs LESS multiplication in 1st-5th.

DE: Sorry on the poor wording. I'm so tired lately that I don't know what exactly I'm typing sometimes.

And a 300mph car would STILL be aided by a better ratio set. Keep the 6th ratio the same overall, and make the rest closer. Once it's rolling, there'd be no stopping it. Take that final ratio, and work BACKWARDS. For me, I DO stick to my ratio set, and adjust my final drive accordingly. Why? It's got the same first four gears as a close-ratio toploader, with a double overdrive added.

Now then. I will not be swayed that closer ratios are not USUALLY quicker. The more gear you CAN run, the more you SHOULD run. But that's just me. And there are always exceptions.

Soo... How moot of a point is arguing over this? No single ratio set will EVER be perfect for everything.

 

[Dark Elite]

And a 300mph car would STILL be aided by a better ratio set. Keep the 6th ratio the same overall, and make the rest closer. Once it's rolling, there'd be no stopping it.

You did not say a 'better ratio set', you said 'closer ratios'. Please do not try and argue a different point with me, and don't assume to know about gear tuning for top speed runs - you might embarrass yourself.

DE

 

[Gil]

I have been using the tranny trick for two iterations of this game, and they never give the same ratios from car to car.
Neither is the trick optimum for ALL cars in the game.
For some cars, it just increases the amount of wheelspin you get on takeoff, and at WOT in the first 2-4 gears.
A LOT of getting good acceleration, especially in GT4, comes down to throttle control.
It is important in the other GT games, but CRITICAL in GT4. If you floor it out of the gate with most cars you will sit 'n spin. You will also get some "interesting" lessons in physics coming out of corners with WOT.

 

[Car-less]

I'll bet they DO. 6th gear works out the same, and the closer ratio box actually runs LESS multiplication in 1st-5th.

Apologies. I mistook this thread for that other one with a one-size-fits-all solution to gearing. Re-reading your post I see that in this case you are absolutely right.... and re-reading the thread title, I see that it is actually the thread that I thought it was. I guess I just mistook your post for one by the original poster.

DE: Sorry on the poor wording. I'm so tired lately that I don't know what exactly I'm typing sometimes.

Can I use that excuse too?

Soo... How moot of a point is arguing over this? No single ratio set will EVER be perfect for everything.

Agreed. In some cases even a close ratio box will be inadequate. Perhaps a turbo 2CV or land speed record attempt would require such a tall top gear that without a wide ratio box it would be unable to start moving to begin with.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

DE: When I said to run a "better" ratio set, and went on as to how a 'box could be set up better than mayhaps the "normal" gearing by setting it so 6th (5th in some cases) stays the same, but 1st-4/5 run lower multiplication (steeper ratio) to help the next gear pull harder until the next shift.

Why wouldn't that help? 1st would be longer by a good bit, but then it'd theoretically start hauling. I might know nothing about gearing for top speed runs, but then again, the only thing preventing me from doing it is the having to get a picture of the record speed on-screen.

And I know what SHOULD work, and it involves gearing it so that ALL the power can be used.

Gil: While lighting up the tires hurts acceleration, it matters little in GT4 how fast the rears are spinning, the loss stays the same. You CANNOT keep a car straight with the rear tires doing 150mph! (And the car doing 30).

C-L: Yes you get to use that excuse if you want. (But only if you MUST)

 

[Gil]

DE: When I said to run a "better" ratio set, and went on as to how a 'box could be set up better than mayhaps the "normal" gearing by setting it so 6th (5th in some cases) stays the same, but 1st-4/5 run lower multiplication (steeper ratio) to help the next gear pull harder until the next shift.

Why wouldn't that help? 1st would be longer by a good bit, but then it'd theoretically start hauling. I might know nothing about gearing for top speed runs, but then again, the only thing preventing me from doing it is the having to get a picture of the record speed on-screen.

And I know what SHOULD work, and it involves gearing it so that ALL the power can be used.

Gil: While lighting up the tires hurts acceleration, it matters little in GT4 how fast the rears are spinning, the loss stays the same. You CANNOT keep a car straight with the rear tires doing 150mph! (And the car doing 30).

C-L: Yes you get to use that excuse if you want. (But only if you MUST)

Too true.
This is why I adovocate for a well set box, but throttle control is also quite important. Especially, when you get a very light car with ungodly HP.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Or just a very, very light car. Ginetta at full power, anyone?

Or the Speed 12? (Only weighs about 2200-2300lbs)

Or any FF such as the SIVIK ESS EYE TYPE ARR ARR M00G1N. (At least in the game.)

 

[Orion]

Rotary Junkie. Try giving Close Ratios a try on a Chapparal. I understand close ratios can sometimes benefit, but it's NOT always the way to go. Put close ratios on a Muscle car, and put them on a Lotus Elise, which one gets a benefit and which one gets it's performance crippled thanks to close ratios? Of course the muscle car. It is a good idea for 3 or 4 close gears, then the rest are deeper gears, sort of like the Dodge Viper's stock ratios, but not as deep. Do you want to constantly shift/tap R2 and L2 just for close ratios? Sure it reduces shifting times, but it adds to how many times you shift too.

 

[Gil]

Rotary Junkie. Try giving Close Ratios a try on a Chapparal. I understand close ratios can sometimes benefit, but it's NOT always the way to go. Put close ratios on a Muscle car, and put them on a Lotus Elise, which one gets a benefit and which one gets it's performance crippled thanks to close ratios? Of course the muscle car. It is a good idea for 3 or 4 close gears, then the rest are deeper gears, sort of like the Dodge Viper's stock ratios, but not as deep. Do you want to constantly shift/tap R2 and L2 just for close ratios? Sure it reduces shifting times, but it adds to how many times you shift too.

But the Chapparal only has a 3 spd trans.
You need the gears wide, unless you are running a very short distance sprint.

 

[Orion]

But the Chapparal only has a 3 spd trans.
You need the gears wide, unless you are running a very short distance sprint.

I know, but he was making a generalized statement about how close ratios are always better, and this is probably one of the best examples of proving that close ratios doesn't solve every problem.

 

[Gil]

My bad! I rebutted your rebuttal, and managed to agree with you.
It's late, I'm tired.
And dammit, I reserve the right to be a doof sometimes!

 

[Dark Elite]

DE: When I said to run a "better" ratio set, and went on as to how a 'box could be set up better than mayhaps the "normal" gearing by setting it so 6th (5th in some cases) stays the same, but 1st-4/5 run lower multiplication (steeper ratio) to help the next gear pull harder until the next shift.

Why wouldn't that help? 1st would be longer by a good bit, but then it'd theoretically start hauling. I might know nothing about gearing for top speed runs, but then again, the only thing preventing me from doing it is the having to get a picture of the record speed on-screen.

And I know what SHOULD work, and it involves gearing it so that ALL the power can be used.

You are missing the point of my post entirely. I did not question that the car needs a 'better' gearing setup for top speed runs, what I did say was very simple:
I took a quote from you, saying:

Ahem. DE: Give me a reason for close ratios would HURT a car anywhere other than takeoff.

And replied to it by giving an example where close ratios make a car worse, other than moving off:

'give me a situation where close ratios would hurt a car, other than starting off', here's my situation for that.

Pretty simple stuff, don't you think?

mayhaps

Erm...

DE

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Oh yes, but I don't see it that way. As top gear is traditionally used for the top speed run, I see no use in NOT making 1st-4/5th closer.

Pretty simple stuff, don't you think?

510: hehheh! Even the Chappy can benefit. It involves setting it up for closer ratios in 1st/2nd (they will be closer to third). Improves the ratio selection, but first will still be insanely long.

And the musclecar not benefiting? Pah, they do. Look at the test I did on the F6 Typhoon. Falloff is WORSE than most musclecars, and it weighs as much or more than most of them.

And I run the same 'box in all of my musclecars, in fact, all my cars. 2.32/1.69/1.29/1.00/.8/.622.

Oh, and I don't tap R2/L2. I flick paddles.

 

[Dark Elite]

Oh yes, but I don't see it that way. As top gear is traditionally used for the top speed run, I see no use in NOT making 1st-4/5th closer.

Pretty simple stuff, don't you think?

And you think the only thing stopping you from being a 300mph Club member is not being able to prove speeds?
I'm afraid I'll have to quote myself again...

don't assume to know about gear tuning for top speed runs - you might embarrass yourself.

Amended to, 'you have embarrassed yourself'.
I think you should probably stop there.

DE

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Do you have a reason for the more closely spaced 1st-4/5th would prevent a proper 300mph run? Because all I'm seeing is a bunch of talk. Meant to avoid my question.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I think this is in order here. Maybe it will cast some light on this discussion. I recommend you to read the whole thing.

Basically it shows how hard it is to find good gearratios for any particular car. Such a thing as "optimum gearing" does not exist, not in my universe at least.

And @ Rotary Junkie: A closely spaced 1-4 gearratio, means you cannot have the 5th and 6th gear as long as you need, or should have, to achieve the highest speed possible. Every gear has effect on the next. And also, if 5/6th gearratio is too low on the torquecurve, shifting up will make you slow down, since the engine can´t pull the car.