optimum gear ratios found

[Dark Elite]

Perhaps you should talk to one of the 300mph Club Record Holders, rather than pretend you could be one.

If you have a 6th gear that is capable of doing 372mph in the powerband, and your other five are very close, how do you plan to get the sixth gear into the powerband to start accelerating?
Record-breaking cars have first gears wide enough that some of them do well over 100mph before getting into 2nd. The reason for this is that acceleration at the lower end of the speed range is utterly unimportant, and everything is geared to acceleration at the higher end of the speed range. It is not uncommon to see a car on a record-breaking run not get into 6th gear until it has started accelerating down the final straight, with the nitrous already flowing. We have been doing this for two years, we like to think we know what we're talking about. And we know by now that the closest gearing gap you should have is 5th to 6th.

DE

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Missed mine point, DE.

And you are dead on. Wide ratio sets are geared for a low first (4:1 vs 2.5:1 as an example) and then spread the difference out. Close boxes run a steeper first (the 2.5:1 in this example) and spread as evenly as possible. So 1st-4/5 are closer together than they would be normally, whilst being longer.

Am I making any sort of sense now?

 

[Scaff]

I once did a set-up on an M3CSL around Grand Valley and with a close ratio set-up was just running into 6th gear at the end of the main straight, by going slightly longer on 5th gear (and therefore a wider ratio between 4th and 5th) I hit the braking zone at the end of the main straight just before the red-line in 5th. I eliminated the need for an un-needed extra gear change (before I had to change up and then within a second start braking). The result was a much more stable car going into the braking zone and a much easier car to deal with.

Rather discredits this...

510: Closer ratios are better.

On that set-up I looked at the gearing for every major corner around the track to ensure it was set-up as well as could be, some needed a tweak closer between ratios, others a bit wider. The end result was a car around 1 to 1.5 seconds faster, all from good gearbox tuning.

You see if people were to follow your piece of advice...

510: Closer ratios are better.

..they may never bother trying my (and most peoples) approach. One size fits all tuning may work for a good number of cars, but it certainly doesn't in all cases.

Lets be honest even you were immediatly applying caveats to your blanket statement....

For a real test, grab a Jag XK or S-type from the dealer, toss R5's on it (To prevent wheelspin for the purpose of this test) and grab an FC tranny. Try it close ratio and wide ratio. see which is quicker. I'll bet on close ratio. (Use the 400m test. That way the close ratio car will not top out.)

...so in your real test you asked for R5s to be used and a 400m run to be used to ensure that wheel spin doesn't cause a problem from ratios stacked too close and a limited distance run to ensure v-max doesn't top out.

All that does is prove that over 400m on R5s close ratios are better. Big deal, no one here will dispute that. What I would dispute however is that is a real test of all circumstances.

The principal factor here is that you are tuning to the lowest common denominator, the easiest set-up to get a reasonable result in a wide range of circumstances. No basic problem with that, however some of us are tuning for that last 1/10th of a second around a lap or the last mph of v-max. Those situations need a more specialist and detailed approach.

Missed mine point, DE.

And you are dead on. Wide ratio sets are geared for a low first (4:1 vs 2.5:1 as an example) and then spread the difference out. Close boxes run a steeper first (the 2.5:1 in this example) and spread as evenly as possible. So 1st-4/5 are closer together than they would be normally, whilst being longer.

Am I making any sort of sense now?

No what you are doing now is arguing out of a corner you put yourself in, the daft thing is no argument is needed.

Simple acknowledgement that this statement...

510: Closer ratios are better.

...was both badly worded and inaccurate, and that a one size fits all approach does not work best in all circumstances.

Keep in mind while arguing about changing individual ratios that you have also said...

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.

...which kind of boxes you out of changing anything but the final drive ratio.




Regards

Scaff

 

[Dark Elite]

Missed mine point, DE.

Really? What was your point, then? I thought you made your point pretty clear, until I disproved it...

Not really, no, in fact as Scaff says, you are backpedalling rather rapidly...

I'll say it again, I think you should stop there.

In fact, does this thread have any more life in it, after that?

DE

 

[shangoob]

they may never bother trying my (and most peoples) approach. One size fits all tuning may work for a good number of cars, but it certainly doesn't in all cases.

Lets be honest even you were immediatly applying caveats to your blanket statement....

The principal factor here is that you are tuning to the lowest common denominator, the easiest set-up to get a reasonable result in a wide range of circumstances. No basic problem with that, however some of us are tuning for that last 1/10th of a second around a lap or the last mph of v-max. Those situations need a more specialist and detailed approach.

Regards

Scaff

no comment

👎

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I have an idea for this thread, why don't we spend another page going over this?

I did screw up with the blanket statement. I MUST say this, though. When you were tuning the M3, why didn't you toss more gear at it so 6th was used to its fullest extent? Sure, it's another shift, but it's also one more gear that you can tweak for a corner or two.

And as to the wheelspin problem: Not wheelspin from ratios stacked too close. That doesn't happen (to me at least). From too much launch gear, maybe.

And that was flawed from the outset as well. Why? I wasn't thinking ("wise man engage brain before mouth opens." Too true) straight, and kept thinking "more gear, more gear" without thinking of what I did in my later test.

By the way, all that test was out to prove was what was already known as fact: a closer ratio spread will work out better in most cases, even when top gear and final drive remain identical.

I can usually find a happy medium by toying with the final, but YES more exact tuning will be more effective. However, I tune for a wide range of tracks, with maybe a final drive change for the really tight or really wide open tracks, just because I run as many races as I can with a single car and I don't NEED to spend hours tweaking ratios when I've got a ballpark ratio set that works. The AI is simply too slow. I did a quick tune with my TT-R and ran the DTCM with stock everything other than the setup and proceeded to whomp the competition by at least 7 seconds at every track, even when my car's twin qualified right behind me. Shouldn't it have been closer? Sure, the AI runs the stock, very poor tune, but I KNOW I suck as a driver. If I can spend 5 minutes tweaking the suspension, toss my ratio set in and proceed to kill like that, I truly have no need to fine-tune except for time attacks.

And, I must say, this thread IS past it's expiration date. The initial issue was resolved on the first page.

 

[Dark Elite]

However, I tune for a wide range of tracks, with maybe a final drive change for the really tight or really wide open tracks, just because I run as many races as I can with a single car and I don't NEED to spend hours tweaking ratios when I've got a ballpark ratio set that works. The AI is simply too slow. I did a quick tune with my TT-R and ran the DTCM with stock everything other than the setup and proceeded to whomp the competition by at least 7 seconds at every track, even when my car's twin qualified right behind me. Shouldn't it have been closer? Sure, the AI runs the stock, very poor tune, but I KNOW I suck as a driver. If I can spend 5 minutes tweaking the suspension, toss my ratio set in and proceed to kill like that, I truly have no need to fine-tune except for time attacks.

So you're saying that if you can beat the AI, there's no need for anything more precise than that?

DE

 

[Mt. Lynx]

^My thought exactly. I beat the DTM in a stock AMG Merc 190E TC with a large margin in each race (even with the stock settings), and I´m not a top of line driver myself. All it proves is that the AI suck.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

DE: No, but why spend an hour when 5 minutes does the job? If the car is fun/easy to drive, why give yourself a headache trying to make it go faster when you aren't doing a time attack/top speed run?

 

[Dark Elite]

Why even bother playing GT4 at all if you're not trying to go as quickly as you possibly can? If you're just in it for the progress, for beating the AI to complete the game, you probably shouldn't be posting in tuning threads... Tuning advice is for people who do want to be as quick as possible, in a hotlapping or high-speed context, so telling them settings that you use 'when you aren't doing a time attack/top speed run' is rather wide of the mark, don't you think?

DE

 

[Scaff]

I have an idea for this thread, why don't we spend another page going over this?

I did screw up with the blanket statement. I MUST say this, though. When you were tuning the M3, why didn't you toss more gear at it so 6th was used to its fullest extent? Sure, it's another shift, but it's also one more gear that you can tweak for a corner or two.

Did you actually read my post?

Maybe I wasn't clear, when I tuned to utilise all six gears the result was a car a full second slower around Grand Valley. Why do you think I used this specific example.

And as to the wheelspin problem: Not wheelspin from ratios stacked too close. That doesn't happen (to me at least). From too much launch gear, maybe.

Let me guess you tune and race with the stickiest rubber you can. Give a TVR Speed 12 a go on N2's and tell me it isn't a factor.

DE: No, but why spend an hour when 5 minutes does the job? If the car is fun/easy to drive, why give yourself a headache trying to make it go faster when you aren't doing a time attack/top speed run?

And what if you are doing a time attack or high speed run or tuning for a 200pt race? You have been prescribing a limited approach as all that is needed, now you are at last acknowledging what we have all said already, blanket statements don't work in all situations.

I've already said it, but you are tuning to the lowest common denominator, the AI, and it doesn't get much lower than that. You may be happy with that degree of challenge, many of us prefer a tougher standard.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Bah.

I'm SITTING at 44%. I've wasted 17 million on cars for a few challenges on another site, and only bought one race car in the process. (Pescy Playstation)

What if I'm in it to have a good time? Huh? Once I get a car to where I LIKE how it drives, I am perfectly happy.

And I don't post settings that aren't either more fun or quicker than stock. Ever.

Whoops. Scaff's post hadn't loaded when I started typing (I had left the window sitting)

 

[Dark Elite]

That would be, Scaff's post which reinforces what I said above, which you'd ignored anyway.

Saying that you don't post settings that aren't 'more fun or quicker than stock' does not entitle you to make statements such as 'close ratios are always better', or indeed any other one-size-fits-all solution, so I don't really see that as a very good counter-argument. In fact, there is no counter, you said a couple of things you shouldn't have done, and I really do think you should stop asking rhetorical questions about it now.

DE

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Scaff: What I read, the way you had tuned it, it just barely needed 6th at the end of the straight, so you extended 5th to fix the instability and gear shuffling caused by having to shift in, and directly back out of 6th. I see nothing about gearing it so that 6th runs right to redline at the end of the straight.

And I do not tune to the AI. Hell, half my cars don't get raced because I build them to have fun. If the AI had a way to keep up other than by outclassing me, I'd be doing a LOT more racing. But no, I have to run my 400 hp, R2 tired Camaro against an R5 Maxi with R3 tires and 350 hp (at approx. 1000lbs lighter than the 'Maro) to get a good race. And even then it must be on a very tight track where the 'Maro cannot show its near-decent cornering capability. (Too damn big of a car for George V Paris, and I still catch up on corners and braking zones rather than straights)

If I tuned to the AI, I'd have a lot of stockers with aids off sitting around.

I don't like to give myself a headache trying to get a car to be quicker than humanly possible, I prefer to spend an hour, maybe, (If it's either a challenge car or a pain to tune *stares at Proto Spirra* then more, less if it just clicks with my baseline tune) to get it to where it's fun to drive and has as few as possible bad tendencies. Maybe the car isn't perfect; Maybe it could be quicker. But once I'm comfortable, I settle in and drive the wheels off it, and then as I note what I dislike, I will then MAYBE come back to it.

And no, the fact that I tune for fun and/or better times IS NOT an excuse.

And here: Closer ratios are better, stiffer, lower suspension corners better, and there is no replacement for displacement.

Mayhaps I was being sarcastic there. (Ya think? I don't, I just do what works for me)

 

[Scaff]

Scaff: What I read, the way you had tuned it, it just barely needed 6th at the end of the straight, so you extended 5th to fix the instability and gear shuffling caused by having to shift in, and directly back out of 6th. I see nothing about gearing it so that 6th runs right to redline at the end of the straight.

Which is exactly why I said...

Maybe I wasn't clear

...acknowledging the fault may have lay in my description.

And no, the fact that I tune for fun and/or better times IS NOT an excuse.

And here: Closer ratios are better, stiffer, lower suspension corners better, and there is no replacement for displacement.

Mayhaps I was being sarcastic there. (Ya think? I don't, I just do what works for me)

I would strongly advise calming down, do I need to remind you that all people did was disagree with a blanket statement you made. When they did you stated that we were wrong, so we argued our point. A point that may I also mention that you now seem to acknowledge.

GT Planet is a great place to discuss a wide range of topics, but unless you are willing to admit when you are wrong then it can go downhill rather quickly. I know that can be a difficult thing to do at times, but let me assure you that a number of us here know our stuff very, very well; both in GT4 and in the real world. Use the experience that is on hand, rather than arguing just to save face (damn if you think this is heated go and take a look at the GT4 & Brakes thread or the GT4 Dampers thread - now that's detailed in depth technical arguments).

Regards

Scaff

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Ah, see, I misinterpreted the "Maybe I wasn't clear" as sarcasm, and without a smilie of some sort, the "mayhaps I was being sarcastic there" would be easy to mistake for being pissed.

And all three of the blanket statements that I sarcastically made have been proven wrong, or at least are easily proven wrong in at least one case.

 

[Orion]

Ah, see, I misinterpreted the "Maybe I wasn't clear" as sarcasm, and without a smilie of some sort, the "mayhaps I was being sarcastic there" would be easy to mistake for being pissed.

And all three of the blanket statements that I sarcastically made have been proven wrong, or at least are easily proven wrong in at least one case.

Now you tell us this whole "Close Ratio" thing was sarcasm?

We can't get maximum performance by lowering the cars all the way either, sometimes you have to raise it for courses like the Nurburgring or Seattle. Bumps + Lowered cars =

Please don't make any more one size fits all statement anymore about GT4, because there are people reading this information and try to pick up from it, then find out it didn't help at all.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Nope, sorry.

And here: Closer ratios are better, stiffer, lower suspension corners better, and there is no replacement for displacement.

That was sarcasm at its purest. All three CAN be proven wrong in at least one instance.

Replacement for displacement? Extra atmosphere.

Obviously, a lower suspension will not always corner better.

And of course, close ratios are USUALLY best, but in some instances they can be wrong for the track.

 

[Scaff]

And I think that about closes this discussion up.

Thread locked

Scaff