ORCA Silvia Spec Cup - SEASON COMPLETE, CARRACERPTP SUPREME ORCA CHAMP

[Johnnypenso]

Another thing to consider is the draft effect. I race cars just about every week in the 390-450PP range and I can tell you from experience, there isn't much draft effect in that range, and then it usually only makes a significant difference towards the end of the longest straight. It's more pronounced with racecars as it seems PD may have changed the modelling to reflect more significantly the added pace of running in the draft when you have the drag of downforce removed.

I can say with a certainty, even a half second at lower PP levels is a big difference and short of running perfect laps over and over you won't keep up to a faster car, and if you do, won't likely have the gonads to get by with the limited draft. To say you can keep up with the draft presumes you are directly behind a faster car and that's not always the case in field of any size. A 1 second difference at that level is near impossible to overcome, given equal drivers.

Of course putting the slower drivers in the faster cars will solve part of that issue, but if it's a free for all, you're going to have some really unequal racing, or, a lot of people in very few cars.

 

[BrandonW77]

Yes, I realise that a lot of what I said is stating the obvious.....

Obvious to you but I don't think many people think about things that much, we just show up to race. While I understood most of what you said I really didn't consider any of it when we were doing our testing so it was all quite valuable to me. Those are the elements I need to be aware of with a project like this, not all PP's are created equal (just ask NCemtB ) My default line of thinking is that a video game would not take those finite details into account, or be able to model them accurately, but obviously these details do have an effect and make all the difference in the world.

 

[Marcus Garvey]

Of course it is. But if you do the math you'll find that by shortshifting into rpms with less HP you get less tq at the wheels at you shift mph.


If you're at the same speed at 7.5k rpm in gear X and at 4k in gear Y>X in that hypothetical car (161 and 230 of torque at the flywheel) and the redline is 8k, you will absolutely accelerate faster at 7.5k. 30% faster. Because transmission.

Sure, if the gearing is spaced very poorly, such as the SSR, GNX, etc. Here's the math using the 330's ratios with those hypothetical figures of 230ft-lbs/175hp@4k and 161ft-lbs/230hp@7500 at 75mph.

1st -4.35:1
2nd - 2.5:1
3rd - 1.67:1
4th - 1.23:1
5th - 1:1
6th - .85:1
Final - 3.15:1

Using these figures, at 75mph; in 3rd gear the car is at ~5k rpm. Assuming we lost a few ft-lbs between 4 and 5k(all of this is unknown without my PS3 to pull data from, but I'll use the rough numbers we've been working with) I'll assume 220ft-lbs instead.

220ft-lbs*1.67*3.15= 1157.31lbs at the wheels

At 75mph in 2nd gear, the car is at 7500rpm, so I'll use the 161ft-lb figure assuming 230hp at that rpm.

161*2.5*3.15= 1267.875lbs at the wheels.

In this instance, at 75mph; this hypothetical car puts 8.8% more torque to wheels in 2nd gear. As you'll notice the higher gears being even closer together(as they should in a performance car) this power advantage will be diminished at higher speeds. With such a narrow loss in 3rd, this can allow the car to take corners a gear higher, and it will gain another tenth or two in the following straight by not having to upshift again. Fewer gear changes is less time wasted per lap. That is where the AP1 outshined the AP2 as well. Despite less torque, longer gears(less tq at the wheels), smaller wheels/tyres, softer springs, etc; the AP1 was faster simply because it shifted at least 3 fewer times per lap at Autumn Ring.

 

[Naptown25rs]

Ask me what?

 

[BrandonW77]

Ask me what?

About PP's not being created equal.

Sorry, it was low-hanging fruit and I usually would have slandered Owens but I think he's mad at us.

 

[dsgerbc]

220ft-lbs*1.67*3.15= 1285.90lbs at the wheels

Your error is hiding somewhere here.
I can even tell that you used 3.5 for a final gear

 

[Naptown25rs]

About PP's not being created equal.

Sorry, it was low-hanging fruit and I usually would have slandered Owens but I think he's mad at us.

I'm still confused... So I'll just go be mad with Owens!

 

[carracerptp]

In my opinion .3 seconds slower would not result in any difference after 10 laps unless you are by yourself on the track without a draft. .3 seconds is literally a blink of an eye and it's easily close enough to keep you in the draft. In all the seasons I have run a series I am always 1-2 full seconds off the fast guys in terms of raw lap times but as long as I can stay with the lead pack's draft I can be right there until the end (barring any mistakes or incidents). In fact on Monday night I was able to stay right with Carr around Nurb GP/D, passed him and won a race even though during practice I was nearly 1.5 seconds off his pace.

I can say with a certainty, even a half second at lower PP levels is a big difference and short of running perfect laps over and over you won't keep up to a faster car, and if you do, won't likely have the gonads to get by with the limited draft.

This ^^

*Checks math in the above posts*

What? I think some numbers need checking.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm still confused... So I'll just go be mad with Owens!

Brandon is implying that the two of you have compared "PP's" and one of you didn't measure up...

 

[Naptown25rs]

Brandon is implying that you and him have compared "PP's" and one of you didn't measure up...

Ah... I guess it only makes sense that he's that way. No wonder Owens is mad, he's probably jealous!

 

[Marcus Garvey]

Your error is hiding somewhere here.
I can even tell that you used 3.5 for a final gear

Yep. Fixed that. That is why NASA always had calculations verified. I would've ended up out of orbit. The perils of using a phone to calculate and post while taking calls this afternoon. I even recalculated it 3 times a moment ago and got the same result......but that's because the keypad is broken.....I should stick with my sliderule. It never lied to me hahaha.

All of that said, the whole scenario is a bit of a strawman given that there are no two cars with identical weight, suspension, gear ratios, with those two hypothetical powerplants. It would also not be the case that a car with peak torque of 230 and another of 161 would be given the same PP rating, given the same gearing, weight, etc. However, it is fun to look at.

 

[BrandonW77]

Ah... I guess it only makes sense that he's that way. No wonder Owens is mad, he's probably jealous!

Quite a contrast between your/my posts and the other posts happening this afternoon.

 

[dsgerbc]

Yep. Fixed that.

So now it's the way I said. You can calculate what flywheel torque would it take at 5k to get the same at the wheels (as in 2nd gear), and the implied HP. It will be exactly 230hp @5k rpm.
Generally, there's a rule of shifting: shift when HP at new rpm is higher (at it all comes out of calculating torque at the wheels).
IRL that has to be adjusted some to account for slightly higher drivetrain losses at higher RPMs.

I doubt this mattered for lap times if your case. I think 330i had to be severely limited to hit the PP, so chances are that your early shifts still yielded the same HP in the next gear.

 

[Naptown25rs]

Quite a contrast between your/my posts and the other posts happening this afternoon.

You brought it up...

I'm just scratching my head over all the technical stuff!

 

[BrandonW77]

You brought it up...

I'm just scratching my head over all the technical stuff!

At least I managed to conjure up some lively discussion!

 

[Marcus Garvey]

I doubt this mattered for lap times if your case. I think 330i had to be severely limited to hit the PP, so chances are that your early shifts still yielded the same HP in the next gear.

Yeah, the moral of the story is as Car pointed out; when limiting cars the represented PP is no longer indicative of the car's true potential.

 

[BrandonW77]

I really don't think a "road cars" at any 4**PP level will work.

You're likely right. Without restricting to certain cars it probably wouldn't work, and I'm wanting to see if we can avoid restrictions. But I'm mostly interested in race cars and a lot of those tend to be closer in specs, so focusing on those could work better. Lower powered/vintage cars might be less susceptible to these failings as well.

Some race car groups I can think of:

FF Lupo/Beetle/MM-R Cup cars
AWD Rally cars
AWD TC Cars
FR TC cars
FR GT300/500 cars
FR LM/GT cars
Vintage/Modern LMP cars
NASCARs

 

[carracerptp]

Some race car groups I can think of:

FF Lupo/Beetle/MM-R Cup cars
AWD Rally cars
AWD TC Cars
FR TC cars
FR GT300/500 cars
FR LM/GT cars
Vintage/Modern LMP cars
NASCARs

I'm not sure but I think GT300/GT500 cars aren't level stock. The LMP cars are all over the place in pace at last check (2.08).
The rest look good and fun 👍

 

[BrandonW77]

I'm not sure but I think GT300/GT500 cars aren't level stock. The LMP cars are all over the place in pace at last check (2.08).
The rest look good and fun 👍

Have the GT300/500 cars been tested with just one drivetrain? I'm not very familiar with them, is there a group of 4 or 5 in FR, MR or AWD?

I know less about the LMP cars but really want to race them. There were four cars in that old Le Mans race I was watching that are in the game, got me itching to race them.

 

[dsgerbc]

Most GTX00 series thread I looked at were doing pre-season testing to level the cars, so I presume they aren't too close stock. I could be wrong, since I usually only read the first post until I see that the race day is Sat/Sun, after which I lose interest.

P.S. stock broken-in GT86/BRZ is 413PP

 

[Johnnypenso]

Have the GT300/500 cars been tested with just one drivetrain? I'm not very familiar with them, is there a group of 4 or 5 in FR, MR or AWD?

I know less about the LMP cars but really want to race them. There were four cars in that old Le Mans race I was watching that are in the game, got me itching to race them.

GT300 cars are all over the map in spec form. Any series I've seen that ran them all, they had to be spec'd individually. Same goes for the LMP's as far as I know.

GT500's have a big selection of cars, most of them are FR's. The NSX's are the MR's and there are plenty of those to choose from as well, but among the FR's and MR's performance can vary quite a bit. It would require extensive testing of many cars to narrow it down to a few that are close.

TDZDave has been running a [post=7779419]GT500 Tuning Prohibited[/post] series of 200-300 km endurance events. I'm sure he'll be glad to give you his insights he's quite helpful.

 

[dsgerbc]

Here's what I think:
1) It's pretty pointless for this group to spend time/effort trying to find cars that are very-very close. I think we should just focus in a group of cars that are within 1-1.5-2 seconds of each other on a benchmark track that combines fast&slow corners and long straights (say, GVR-R). It's a lot, but hear me out.
2) Many leagues use success ballast, we could use 'success car assignment' rules. That is - via official testing (to be determined) we produce an 'official' ordering of cars. Then we add a car assignment rule (to be discussed). For example: "Anyone finishing the race in the upper half gets to downgrade their cars, and anyone in the bottom half gets to upgrade".
3) If we were to run on the same track every week - we would eventually end-up in cars mostly running the same lap times, something a-la Johnny's DeadNuts starting point. Different tracks would introduce some fudging factor into this, but if we design our car list so that there aren't any significantly engine-limited cars on it, the discrepancy on different tracks shouldn't be too big.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here's what I think:
1) It's pretty pointless for this group to spend time/effort trying to find cars that are very-very close. I think we should just focus in a group of cars that are within 1-1.5-2 seconds of each other on a benchmark track that combines fast&slow corners and long straights (say, GVR-R). It's a lot, but hear me out.
2) Many leagues use success ballast, we could use 'success car assignment' rules. That is - via official testing (to be determined) we produce an 'official' ordering of cars. Then we add a car assignment rule (to be discussed). For example: "Anyone finishing the race in the upper half gets to downgrade their cars, and anyone in the bottom half gets to upgrade".
3) If we were to run on the same track every week - we would eventually end-up in cars mostly running the same lap times, something a-la Johnny's DeadNuts starting point. Different tracks would introduce some fudging factor into this, but if we design our car list so that there aren't any significantly engine-limited cars on it, the discrepancy on different tracks shouldn't be too big.

I've heard that before, but genius nonetheless...lol..💡

I have an :idea:idea:idea: for your new format Brandon that I think might help you along. Rather than you having to do all the testing and homologating of cars yourself, we could have a number of people, voluntarily of course, driving cars in their stock form to determine their acceptance or ranking within the group of acceptable cars. Within each class, all we need is the standard bearer car and a track to test drive on. Anyone can do this and homologate cars so long as they can run consistent laps, regardless of their skill level, because in homologating cars, you are measuring them against the standard bearer, not any absolute lap time. ...... If RD is still hanging around maybe he can put together a simple spreadsheet for this.💡

Under this type of set up, 3 guys in one hour of test driving each can homologate 18 cars and tell with precision whether they fit into the mix or not and where.

If you take it a step further, you could sort the cars into groups and have drivers choose cars by group, faster drivers choose out of one group, middle drivers out of another, slowest out of another.

 

[BrandonW77]

Here's what I think:
1) It's pretty pointless for this group to spend time/effort trying to find cars that are very-very close. I think we should just focus in a group of cars that are within 1-1.5-2 seconds of each other on a benchmark track that combines fast&slow corners and long straights (say, GVR-R). It's a lot, but hear me out.
2) Many leagues use success ballast, we could use 'success car assignment' rules. That is - via official testing (to be determined) we produce an 'official' ordering of cars. Then we add a car assignment rule (to be discussed). For example: "Anyone finishing the race in the upper half gets to downgrade their cars, and anyone in the bottom half gets to upgrade".
3) If we were to run on the same track every week - we would eventually end-up in cars mostly running the same lap times, something a-la Johnny's DeadNuts starting point. Different tracks would introduce some fudging factor into this, but if we design our car list so that there aren't any significantly engine-limited cars on it, the discrepancy on different tracks shouldn't be too big.

👍 This is pretty spot on to what my overall vision is. There are any number of ways to do this and just as many groups of cars we can do it with. Of course I also want to make it as simple as possible for myself and everyone else. If not done properly it could quickly turn into a complicated mess that nobody wants to deal with, but with proper planning and testing I think it can be quite successful, popular and fun. I really like the concept of the DeadNuts/Parity stuff, but the way it's done is far too complicated for me and it requires an awful lot of blind faith in the members to not cheat (frankly I don't trust people that much, myself included). Nothing at all against those who organize/run it, it seems to be quite popular and successful and the concept is good. But I like things simple and "police-able". With our little bit of testing so far we can see that there's something possible, I/we just need to figure out the end goal and the best way to achieve it. 👍

 

[MikaelK]

Would anyone be interest in coming out to play on Saturday? 3pm EDT = 8PM UK time.

I should be, let's plan on it! 👍

It is a little early in the week for me to be able to commit, but if I am available I can certainly pop round.

I am gonna be there..! Haven't done a proper online race, since the last season including euro-friendly time.!
Most certainly I am going to be rusty in my driving.

Any particular car that should be washed up and have oil changed, or do we just select some semi-random PP-cars to test against eachother (related to the latest chats here)?

 

[BrandonW77]

I am gonna be there..! Haven't done a proper online race, since the last season including euro-friendly time.!
Most certainly I am going to be rusty in my driving.

Any particular car that should be washed up and have oil changed, or do we just select some semi-random PP-cars to test against eachother (related to the latest chats here)?

I'm planning on it, and looking forward to racing with you guys again! Let's just plan on doing the 575pp/FR/SS race cars since we know those work well together, we can do some actual racing that way. 👍

 

[Torzilla]

Ill probably be around tomorrow around 3 from some racing

 

[BrandonW77]

MMMMMM, this would make some tasty DLC!!

Bentley Continental GT3 concept

 

[Dragonwhisky]

Yes. Yes it would. Bugattis and mercs and bentleys, oh my.

 

[BrandonW77]

^^^ Excellent!

I'll be snoring away if you do hit the track this evening, but would anyone be interest in coming out to play on Saturday? 3pm EDT = 8PM UK time.

Looking forward to racing with you guys today, bring your friends! I'll probably have the lounge open around 2:30pm EST/7:30pm RST (RDArdvark Standard Time).