Pescarolo - Worth Buying?

[Automobile]

buy eather an audi r8 or a bentley speed 8

I don't even know if you can buy those, I don't think you can. They are prizes of 24h races in the Endurance hall. Incidentally, the only 2 Endurance races I have yet to do.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

The Speed 8 cannot be bought, but the R8 can for $4.5mil

 

[BobK]

I noticed the Playstation Pescarolo cars doing quite well under AI control in some of the major races. I am thinking of buying one. Out of all the non-prize cars, is this the best one to spend all that money on? I have a Polyphony Digital Formula Gran Turismo '04, the Nissan R92CP Race Car '92, the Minolta Toyota 88V-C '89 and the Jaguar XJR-9 Race Car '88 as well as all the black cars. Do I need to bother with a Pescarolo, or is it well worth having? Which one should I get, because there are two? Or what else should I buy with the 4.5 million credits?

Do you need it? No, you already have better cars. Is there a better non-prize car to spend the money on? Arguably, a new Mazda 787B (which is also a million cheaper).

But go ahead and buy the Pesco anyway, it's still fun to drive. It's not like money is hard to come by in this game; an hour and a half running DTM's will pay for it.

 

[Metar]

Now, after a couple of days, and lots of GT4 progress, I haven't really changed my mind. Actually, it only made my belief in the Pescarolos stronger. I've started the Gran Turismo World Championship (the last professional hall race).
On the grid: Toyota Minolta (mine), Jaguar XJR, Gillet Vertigo, Toyota GT-One, PlayStation Pescarolo C60 (Judd one), Pescarolo Courage (darker-painted one). Here's the outcome of the first two races: 1st: Me. 2nd: Pescarolo Courage (it started third). 3rd: Pescarolo C60 (started 5th). 4th: Jaguar XJR (started first). You know why? Two reasons. The C60, starting behind, worked up to third really fast. Then, the Courage got 1st. Then I got first, and then the Jaguar (until then behind the Courage) pitted, along with the Gillet and the GT-One.
Explanation? Both my Minolta (due to somewhat slow and safe driving) finished the races with yellow-turning-red rear tires, therefore escaping a pit. The Pescarolos didn't need to pit, too. However, they were quick enough to get first and third without that boost from the pitting. But not quick enough to escape my highly-trained F-spec Fod driving his 1200 HP Minolta... They quietly moved up the ladder in the Tokyo race, but simply crushed everyone in the SuperSpeedway (except for me and the Jag).
I'd use the Pescarolo next time, and A-spec the races, too. Currently, I'm two tests short of getting the IA licence (Hate that 'ring).

 

[BobK]

Now, after a couple of days, and lots of GT4 progress, I haven't really changed my mind. Actually, it only made my belief in the Pescarolos stronger. I've started the Gran Turismo World Championship (the last professional hall race).
On the grid: Toyota Minolta (mine), Jaguar XJR, Gillet Vertigo, Toyota GT-One, PlayStation Pescarolo C60 (Judd one), Pescarolo Courage (darker-painted one). Here's the outcome of the first two races: 1st: Me. 2nd: Pescarolo Courage (it started third). 3rd: Pescarolo C60 (started 5th). 4th: Jaguar XJR (started first). You know why? Two reasons. The C60, starting behind, worked up to third really fast. Then, the Courage got 1st. Then I got first, and then the Jaguar (until then behind the Courage) pitted, along with the Gillet and the GT-One.
Explanation? Both my Minolta (due to somewhat slow and safe driving) finished the races with yellow-turning-red rear tires, therefore escaping a pit. The Pescarolos didn't need to pit, too. However, they were quick enough to get first and third without that boost from the pitting. But not quick enough to escape my highly-trained F-spec Fod driving his 1200 HP Minolta... They quietly moved up the ladder in the Tokyo race, but simply crushed everyone in the SuperSpeedway (except for me and the Jag).
I'd use the Pescarolo next time, and A-spec the races, too. Currently, I'm two tests short of getting the IA licence (Hate that 'ring).

I'd point out that was a rather weak field for the GTWC. No R92CP, no Sauber Mercedes, no Toyota 88C-V other than yours, no 787B. But if you can draw that field again for your A-spec attempt, hey, go for it.

 

[GT Pro]

True, Pescarolos are no where near the best of the LM's, but perhaps one of the best LM's that you can actually purchase.

If you want some serious performance, you can't go past the Audi R8.
Considering it's performance $4,500,000 is well worth it.
Trust me, you will NOT be disappointed.

 

[HONDATYPER]

Truthfully i think u cant be disapointed with any LMP1 car, but if u really are looking for the best overall performance, go with the R8 or Pescarolo

 

[Law93]

well, i still say the pesky is the best choice of car to go with. from experience, i've done a lot with my pesky, and its been really good. as long as u could drive it, its the really good choice

 

[Automobile]

Do you need it? No, you already have better cars. Is there a better non-prize car to spend the money on? Arguably, a new Mazda 787B (which is also a million cheaper).

I have a black Mazda 787B, why get another one? If I do a body refresh, won't it be the same as a new one?

Seeing as I can't win the Audi R8, I think I'm going to buy it before the Pescarolo's. I'm doing lots of races at the moment to raise money to buy everything I want. I spent about 1.5M in the past 2 days just doing up prizes. I raised about 2M also, now I have about 6.5M in the bank. Seeing as I already have good race cars, I might buy a heap of cheaper cars in the Shelby Cobra price bracket. I'll just keep raising money through the rally races and German Touring Car Championship and see how I feel in a few days. So many options.

 

[Metar]

Yep, the Mazda will be the same. A great car...

I had to re-start the GTWC today, after three successive losses (guess who won?). New field: the two Pescarolos, one Toyota 7, one Mercedes Sauber, the Jaguar XJR, and my R92CP. New places (in the races i've done so far): R92CP (no pit), Pescarolo Courage (no pit), Toyota 7 (no pit), Pescarolo C60 (no pit), Sauber C9 (1 pit), XJR (1 pit). Done Tokyo and SuperSpeedway.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Gingiba, your enthusiasm for the Pecarolos has been well documented, and is certainly understandable. As has been mentioned several times already, they are great LM cars. However, despite your suggestions, they are not the best LM cars, and are beaten regularly by other top LM cars.

I have personally done exhaustive testing on the LM cars, as I am sure others like Famine have as well, and the results clearly show this to be true.

In fact, I started a 24hrs Circuit de la Sarthe I session yesterday with the following AI cars:

1. Nissan R92CP
2. Nissan R89C
3. Audi R8
4. Pescarolo PlayStation C60/Judd
5. Chevrolet Corvette C5R (C5)

There are still two hours left in the race, but currently the Pesky (lap 363 - 45 PS) is 7 laps behind the R92 (lap 370 - 52 PS), 6 laps behind the R89 (lap 369 - 50 PS), and two laps behind the R8 (lap 365 - 45 PS).

(The C5R is predictably trailing at 325 laps after 36 pit stops.)

Looking at my past test results, previous race and lap times, this race looks like it is currently right in line with those past results.

Make no mistake about it, I completely understand why you are so enamored over the Pesky's, as they do perform well, and in A-spec, are more forgiving than many other LM cars who do not have the same handling characteristics. Nevertheless, the fact still remains that in GT4, they are not the best performing LM cars... despite one of them being sponsored by Sony in real life. The fact that PD did not boost that Peskys performance capabilities in GT4 so as to give the Sony sponsored car more "attention", is a testament to the credibility and authenticity of the GT programmers.

Not that there aren't plenty of examples where the game drifts off the track of reality, but at least in this case they have not given the Peskys any unnatural boost in performance as it relates to the other LM cars.

 

[Metar]

I could have given the wrong impression of my thoughts about the Pescarolos... While they are good LMPs, they're not the best - but they are among the better ones. In the GTWC I finished today, the Courage (but, suprisingly, not the Sony-sponsored one) finished second, with the same points as the XJR, after me. However, my thoughts about them have changed a little. While they do have very good tyre-usage, they were still among the pitting cars in 3/4th of the GTWC races - although mostly on the last lap. However, my Minolta had better tyre usage, with no stops at all.
Gee, I need to shape up my driving skills in Hong Kong. Long time since I won there anything.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Well I finished that Le Mans session and took a shot of the standings at the 24hr mark:

The final race results/data:

[ R. YEAR MAKE_____ MODEL_______________ LAP Extr Time _Best Lap PS PS-T LpS MPG _LpL]

1. 1992 Nissan___ R92CP_______________ 403 03'21.507 03'26.489 57 36.5 7.0 3.2 10.0
2. 1989 Nissan___ R89C________________ 401 03'27.340 03'27.795 54 37.1 7.3 3.2 10.0
3. 2001 Audi_____ R8__________________ 398 06'36.485 03'30.259 49 37.1 8.0 3.5 _9.1
4. 2004 Pescarolo PlayStation C60/Judd 395 04'02.446 03'31.532 49 37.7 8.0 3.4 _9.5
5. 2000 Chevrolet Corvette C5R (C5)___ 355 05'35.218 03'56.778 39 37.3 9.0 3.9 _8.2

I also found a Le Mans Race Report from Smallhorses

In that race he reports that the PS Pesky came in last losing to the following:

• Mazda 787B
• Nissan R89C
• Audi R8
• BMW V12 LMR

 

[Automobile]

I still haven't bought any of the 4.5M credit cars. I've been doing a lot of races to win credits and win back all the prize cars I previously sold to pay for the 4 black cars.

I have 10.5M left now, but I'm feeling pretty stingy with it, because I have yet to win all the pre-80's European and Japanese classics, which will require a fair amount of credits to fully trick out. I'll just keep winning prizes and credits for now and see what I have left over.

What I think I might do first is buy all the 500K-1M good cars that I have my eye on, then worry about the few really expensive one's later, if at all. I would really like to have at least one type of car from each manufacturer in my garage though, so getting a Pescarolo is an inevitable, but long term goal. But the Audi R8 will come first.

I feel sorry for people who collect every single car in every available colour and do them all up. That's just insane, but I bet some people have done it.

 

[Metar]

I'm on my way to do it, though not in every color. I want to drive and know every car - or at least each type (I don't think there are major differences between a Civic Type R '00 model and a '01 model...)

Note to Digital-Nitrate: I'm running Le Mans (old Sarthe) right now, with a pretty good team: Stock Pescarolo (mine, took it for tyre-wear), one Minolta, one Sauber, one R89C, one Jaguar XJR, and one Mazda 787B. Right now, that Nissan is last, with a big gap... Sauber was thrown into 4th place, due to that nasty Sarthe error (it saw something particularily interesting on the left side of the Mulsanne straight), Mazda is second, leading the Minolta in a close battle, my Pesky is first (nothing beats A-spec'ing the first few pits - the average A-spec lap is 10-15 seconds shorter), and that Jaguar occasionally overtakes and becomes 2nd (due to the best fuel-economy). My point is, I don't know how the R89C could beat a R8 on your run.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

You may also find this thread interesting. Read through it and then decide!

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

My point is, I don't know how the R89C could beat a R8 on your run.

And yet it did (pic & info shown above)...has beaten the R8 every time... by a few laps.. and not just in the 24hr Sarthe I sessions I have run, but in Smallhorses race reports as well.

After several sessions, the R89C averages 399.6 laps at the 24hr mark compared to the R8 which averages only 395.5 laps. This is despite the fact that the R89C must pit five more times in the race than the R8, which costs the R89C just over three extra minutes in the pits, giving the R8 nearly a full lap advantage.

You may also find this thread interesting. Read through it and then decide!

Of course those tests were done in A-spec with modified cars on a limited number of tracks... this allows far too many variables including driver skill and preference to do any kind of accurate comparison on how the cars compare to each other.

I'm not dismissing them, as they are certainly excellent observations, and for those planning on using the same set-up and modifications and share similar driving skills and personal preferences they offer invaluable information. However because they reflect more on the driver's skill and preference and less on the differences between the actual cars as they relate to their individual performance capabilities they are not the best indicators on evaluating each cars capabilities.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Of course those tests were done in A-spec with modified cars on a limited number of tracks... this allows far too many variables including driver skill and preference to do any kind of accurate comparison on how the cars compare to each other.

I'm not dismissing them, as they are certainly excellent observations, and for those planning on using the same set-up and modifications and share similar driving skills and personal preferences they offer invaluable information. However because they reflect more on the driver's skill and preference and less on the differences between the actual cars as they relate to their individual performance capabilities they are not the best indicators on evaluating each cars capabilities.

Yes, they were done in A-spec, since I am a much more reliable driver than B-spec Bob, and no, they were not modified by increasing power. The cars were only set up to my liking, as a real driver would do with a car. No one drives a car without adjusting it to their own preferances.

The only things you need to know from the setups I´ve made, are what affects tyrewear and fuelconsumption in these cars, wich are, in order of appereance; Tyrewear (major issues): Downforce, tyretype, toe, TCS, rideheight, BBC. (Minor issues) Camber, dampersettings, springs, stabilisers, LSD.
Fuelconsumption is most affected by poweroutput, drag (downforce) and revs.

If you look through the setups, you´ll notice I´ve made them so that those things that affect tyrewear the most, are minimized, or atleast adjusted to an as small amount as possible without compromizing the handling too much., And if you look closer, you also see that the things listed as minor issues, are issues that have greater effect on adjusting a car to your own liking, than the major issues.

And they were made for endurance, and preferably at Le Mans, but can easily be transferred to any other track by just adjusting gears and downforce. Well, preferably some minor suspensiontweaks too.

What I´m saying here, is that you can pretty much rely on the info given. And if you don´t, try it out yourself! I was just providing information about the cars performances.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

We will have to agree to disagree then as my experience over the years with both GT3 & GT4, one of the primary problems with many "car comparisons" is that they do not account for driver preference in both set-ups, and driving technique. Then they use their results and apply them directly to each car as a determining factor on which car is better, not which car is better for them specifically and with various mods & set-ups.

As it were, unlike what some might suggest, the B-spec and AI drivers, while slower, have very accurate and predictable results.

I've logged and recorded well over a million miles of testing results from AI drivers in GT4 (over 200,000 miles on these CdlSI AI LM opponents), and with each race their results are always within half a percent of their previous times/laps. Not 10%, not 5%, not even 1%... just .5% off. Slow certainly, but they produce very accurate results that can be confirmed by everyone, not just the person doing the testing/driving using mods & set-ups that fit their particular driving style.

BTW: The link you posted actually takes you to joshm101's testing results of just some of the LM cars and besides the human element, they were not run in stock form with their stock settings. I see you did a more comprehensive testing later in the thread, but still not with stock set-ups, as you even said.. they were each set up to your liking.

For individual drivers, it is completely understandable and desirable to fine tune each car to optimize individual performance, but to suggest that one person's set-up is the best choice for all other drivers is completely misleading. Thus the results would not always apply, and usually do vary significiantly from on set-up and driver to another.

Thus judging a car's performance by an individual's driving style that can not be accurately reproduced other than by that specific driver is going to most often lead to inaccurate test results. It is going to be more of a reflection on the tester's driving style, tuning & driving capabilities, and how they were performing at that given time or day, then it is on the car's specific performance capabilities.

Once again I am not suggesting those types of tests are without merit, and for those that share the tester's style of driving and skill level, the results will be extremely useful.

However, to judge the cars on their own merits, and for the results to be able to be reproduced accurately, and confirmed, one must remove as much of the variables as possible. In fact, it is for this reason I am quite careful to never allow my car to have any impact on the AI cars, so I always leave it off the track, or in the pits for the entire race. Accurate testing is all about doing the best possible job of eliminating uncontrollable and accountable variables.

It is also for this reason why I monitor each race closely to see what effect the AI cars have on each other. In the event something unusual happens, like an AI car running out of gas for a lap, or an AI car getting knocked off the track into an area where it struggles to get back on course, or any kind of game glitch that might seriously effect the race results. If this occurs (which rarely does), I immediately restart the race and toss out all of the data from that race that was affected by the unexpected rare variable.

It's time intensive, and often boring, but has resulted in some very accurate and reproducible results.

 

[iLex]

I have a black Mazda 787B, why get another one? If I do a body refresh, won't it be the same as a new one?

Nope, it will not be the same. The mileage on a car has an effect on it's performance as stated here.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

We will have to agree to disagree then as my experience over the years with both GT3 & GT4, one of the primary problems with many "car comparisons" is that they do not account for driver preference in both set-ups, and driving technique. Then they use their results and apply them directly to each car as a determining factor on which car is better, not which car is better for them specifically and with various mods & set-ups.

As it were, unlike what some might suggest, the B-spec and AI drivers, while slower, have very accurate and predictable results.

I've logged and recorded well over a million miles of testing results from AI drivers in GT4 (over 200,000 miles on these CdlSI AI LM opponents), and with each race their results are always within half a percent of their previous times/laps. Not 10%, not 5%, not even 1%... just .5% off. Slow certainly, but they produce very accurate results that can be confirmed by everyone, not just the person doing the testing/driving using mods & set-ups that fit their particular driving style.

Sure they do, but like I said earlier; I´m even more consistant in my laps than B-spec or AI, and I´m also much better at preserving both tyres and fuel, and still being faster than the AI. A setup however, is totally necessary, since the one provided is inaccurate, and can give you surprising or unexpected results. I eliminate the fact that a flawed setup may screw your results. The fact is that most cars get the same setup from PD, without concern about track, drivetrain, tyres, power, weight, aerodynamic efficiancy or anything alse that is necessary to know.

BTW: The link you posted actually takes you to joshm101's testing results of just some of the LM cars and besides the human element, they were not run in stock form with their stock settings. I see you did a more comprehensive testing later in the thread, but still not with stock set-ups, as you even said.. they were each set up to your liking.

And like I said, if you look through them, you´ll see that the things that has to do with drivingstyle, have less effect on the perfomance of the (endurance) car, than things that affect tyrelife or fuel. IE, it is easy to adapt the car to your own liking, without upsetting the endurance capabilities of the car.

For individual drivers, it is completely understandable and desirable to fine tune each car to optimize individual performance, but to suggest that one person's set-up is the best choice for all other drivers is completely misleading. Thus the results would not always apply, and usually do vary significiantly from on set-up and driver to another.

Thus judging a car's performance by an individual's driving style that can not be accurately reproduced other than by that specific driver is going to most often lead to inaccurate test results. It is going to be more of a reflection on the tester's driving style, tuning & driving capabilities, and how they were performing at that given time or day, then it is on the car's specific performance capabilities.

Once again I am not suggesting those types of tests are without merit, and for those that share the tester's style of driving and skill level, the results will be extremely useful.

However, to judge the cars on their own merits, and for the results to be able to be reproduced accurately, and confirmed, one must remove as much of the variables as possible. In fact, it is for this reason I am quite careful to never allow my car to have any impact on the AI cars, so I always leave it off the track, or in the pits for the entire race. Accurate testing is all about doing the best possible job of eliminating uncontrollable and accountable variables.

It is also for this reason why I monitor each race closely to see what effect the AI cars have on each other. In the event something unusual happens, like an AI car running out of gas for a lap, or an AI car getting knocked off the track into an area where it struggles to get back on course, or any kind of game glitch that might seriously effect the race results. If this occurs (which rarely does), I immediately restart the race and toss out all of the data from that race that was affected by the unexpected rare variable.

It's time intensive, and often boring, but has resulted in some very accurate and reproducible results. [/QUOTE]
Then I suggest you try this out yourself, preferably with your own method, and see if your results differ from mine! That would indeed be extremely useful for alot of people, especially for endurance racing. Wich car is the best/worst in Bobs hands, and wich car is to be recommended for A-spec?

But I must still argue that your method is somewhat flawed, since you cannot get the best performance out of for example a Toyota 88C-V, with the same setup as an Audi R8. Your results may be consistant, but your cars are not running at their full potentials.
I don´t think there is a perfect way of comparing cars like this, but knowing I´m a very consistant driver ( if tyrespreferences are correct, I lap the Ring within a tenth of a second from the previous lap), I feel my method is pretty well thought out.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I guess its true then that we will have to agree to disagree.


One important side note though:

The fact is that most cars get the same setup from PD, without concern about track, drivetrain, tyres, power, weight, aerodynamic efficiancy or anything alse that is necessary to know.

How is this a fact? My data shows this not at all to be true. The AI does use different set-ups for each car, and even adjusts them for not only each track, but even changes tires and/or adds mods and possibly additional tuning as well for different types of events on the same tracks. The evidence of this is in their individual performance, pit schedule, fuel consumption, tire wear, and how they compare to the same data from the same cars, but on different events.

Regardless, I believe we are at an impasse, and at this point nothing more can be said to change either of our minds on the validity of these tests, so I suggest we end this discussion before it gets us too far off topic and escalates into a meaningless argument with no possible resolution in sight.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I guess its true then that we will have to agree to disagree.


One important side note though:How is this a fact? My data shows this not at all to be true. The AI does use different set-ups for each car, and even adjusts them for not only each track, but even changes tires and/or adds mods and possibly additional tuning as well for different types of events on the same tracks. The evidence of this is in their individual performance, pit schedule, fuel consumption, tire wear, and how they compare to the same data from the same cars, but on different events.

Regardless, I believe we are at an impasse, and at this point nothing more can be said to change either of our minds on the validity of these tests, so I suggest we end this discussion before it gets us too far off topic and escalates into a meaningless argument with no possible resolution in sight.

Hahaha! You´re right! Here it ends!

 

[Metar]

And yet it did (pic & info shown above)...has beaten the R8 every time... by a few laps.. and not just in the 24hr Sarthe I sessions I have run, but in Smallhorses race reports as well.
After several sessions, the R89C averages 399.6 laps at the 24hr mark compared to the R8 which averages only 395.5 laps. This is despite the fact that the R89C must pit five more times in the race than the R8, which costs the R89C just over three extra minutes in the pits, giving the R8 nearly a full lap advantage.

I just did La Sarthe II on a strong Group C-only. I believe you can't get a stronger field here. Sauber C9, Minolta, R92CP, R89C, 787B, and my (stock) 787B. R89C is last - most pits (together with the Minolta). Minolta battled it out with the R92CP, and lost due to inferior pitting. Originally, the Sauber 1st, eventually overtaken by me (human driver vs. AI, plus suspension and gearbox tweaks, enabled both higher speeds, as well as better pitting). The other 787B fell way behind, but started to catch up. Actually, it overtook it in the morning (16 hours were B-spec'ed), on the 2nd last lap... the 787B proved superiority, and the R89C proved its crappiness, by being about 4 laps behind the slow Minolta.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I just did La Sarthe II on a strong Group C-only. I believe you can't get a stronger field here. Sauber C9, Minolta, R92CP, R89C, 787B, and my (stock) 787B. R89C is last - most pits (together with the Minolta). Minolta battled it out with the R92CP, and lost due to inferior pitting. Originally, the Sauber 1st, eventually overtaken by me (human driver vs. AI, plus suspension and gearbox tweaks, enabled both higher speeds, as well as better pitting). The other 787B fell way behind, but started to catch up. Actually, it overtook it in the morning (16 hours were B-spec'ed), on the 2nd last lap... the 787B proved superiority, and the R89C proved its crappiness, by being about 4 laps behind the slow Minolta.

Yes, that is in fact the top five performing AI LM cars for the old Le Mans course (CdlS II), but I'm not sure what happened in your game as the Minolta pits every 8 laps in that race, the same as the R92CP.

In fact, of the eight AI cars, every one pits every 8 laps with the exception of the 787B (9 laps), the 905 (9 laps), and the GT40 (12 laps).

Here is how those 8 AI cars rank in that event:

1. 1989 Mercedes_ Sauber Mercedes C 9_
2. 1989 Toyota___ Minolta 88C-V_______
3. 1992 Nissan___ R92CP_______________
4. 1991 Mazda____ 787B________________
5. 1989 Nissan___ R89C________________
6. 1988 Jaguar___ XJR-9_______________
7. 1992 Peugeot__ 905_________________
8. 1969 Ford_____ GT40________________

(the 88C-V does post the fastest lap, but not the fastest average lap)

Regardless, what does your observations of your race on CdlS II have anything to do with your questioning how the R89C beats the R8 on the new Le Mans course (CdlS I) - which is what you quoted me on? Alternatively, how does this have anything to do with the Peskys? Besides the fact that an R8 wasn’t even in that race you just mentioned, the AI does not even use any of the modern LM cars, including the R8 and Peskys, for that event.

However, if they did use them, they would still lose to the R89C.

Something to keep in mind, and easily seen in GT4, is that due to more restrictive regulations, modern day LMP cars are no match for most of the Group C cars used over a decade ago.


BTW: Putting this back on topic, I went ahead and posted my test results for the 24hr Le Mans event on Circuit de la Sarthe I:

• Ranking & Data on All the AI Cars for Endurance Event: Circuit de la Sarthe 24hr I

I hope this helps clear up some of the questions about these cars, and help decide what car might be best suited against the capabilities of the AI field.

 

[Metar]

I noticed that the older cars mostly beat the newer ones... especially in fuel economy - probably due to the fact that they were restricted to a number of pits (25 pits for a 24hrs race) - a restriction which named them Group C (C for Consumption): the 787B+Turbo makes 8 laps with 20 "fuelies" left, and the Pesky+turbo does 6 ones, and is forced to pit with yellow-green tyres.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Here is how all the AI LM cars rank by fuel consumption (MPG, worst to best):

1. 1989 Mercedes_ Sauber Mercedes C 9_ 3.2
2. 1992 Nissan___ R92CP_______________ 3.2
3. 1989 Nissan___ R89C________________ 3.2
4. 1988 Jaguar___ XJR-9_______________ 3.3 (II)
5. 1989 Toyota___ Minolta 88C-V_______ 3.3 (II)
6. 2004 Pescarolo PlayStation C60/Judd 3.4
7. 2001 Audi_____ R8__________________ 3.5
8. 1998 Panoz____ Esperante GTR-1_____ 3.5
9. 2003 Pescarolo Courage C60/Peugeot_ 3.5
10. 1991 Mazda____ 787B________________ 3.6
11. 1999 BMW______ V12 LMR_____________ 3.6
12. 1998 Nissan___ R390 GT1____________ 3.6
13. 1999 Toyota___ GT-One (TS020)______ 3.7
14. 2003 Bentley__ Speed 8_____________ 3.7
15. 1992 Peugeot__ 905_________________ 3.7 (II)
16. 2000 Chevrolet Corvette C5R (C5)___ 3.9
17. 2000 Dodge____ Viper GTS-R TO______ 4.0
18. 1969 Ford_____ GT40________________ 4.9 (II)

Keep in mind these figures are based on the AI racing on CdlS I. Due to the lack of the additional chicanes on CdlS II, the gas mileage of the LM cars on that track improve by ~.12 For this reason, I not only labeled each of the four cars that do compete on CdlS II, but not on CdlS I, and adjusted their fuel consumption accordingly so that they could be properly ranked among the AI LM cars from CdlS I.

 

[Law93]

Here is how all the AI LM cars rank by fuel consumption (worst to best):

1. 1989 Mercedes_ Sauber Mercedes C 9_ 3.2
2. 1992 Nissan___ R92CP_______________ 3.2
3. 1989 Nissan___ R89C________________ 3.2
4. 1988 Jaguar___ XJR-9_______________ 3.3 (II)
5. 1989 Toyota___ Minolta 88C-V_______ 3.3 (II)
6. 2004 Pescarolo PlayStation C60/Judd 3.4
7. 2001 Audi_____ R8__________________ 3.5
8. 1998 Panoz____ Esperante GTR-1_____ 3.5
9. 2003 Pescarolo Courage C60/Peugeot_ 3.5
10. 1991 Mazda____ 787B________________ 3.6
11. 1999 BMW______ V12 LMR_____________ 3.6
12. 1998 Nissan___ R390 GT1____________ 3.6
13. 1999 Toyota___ GT-One (TS020)______ 3.7
14. 2003 Bentley__ Speed 8_____________ 3.7
15. 1992 Peugeot__ 905_________________ 3.7 (II)
16. 2000 Chevrolet Corvette C5R (C5)___ 3.9
17. 2000 Dodge____ Viper GTS-R TO______ 4.0
18. 1969 Ford_____ GT40________________ 4.9 (II)

Keep in mind these figures are based on the AI racing on CdlS I. Due to the lack of the additional chicanes on CdlS II, the gas mileage of the LM cars on that track improve by ~.12 For this reason, I not only labeled each of the four cars that only race on that track, and adjusted their fuel consumption accordingly so that they could be properly ranked among the AI LM cars from CdlS I.

are you sure the group C and LMP cars have the right stats? i'm pretty sure some of them have longer lasting fuel.........but again, i didn't do the testing.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

are you sure the group C and LMP cars have the right stats? i'm pretty sure some of them have longer lasting fuel.........but again, i didn't do the testing.

After an average of 16,450 miles of fuel mileage data for each car I feel confident that those figures are accurate.

It is important to understand that mileage for all cars changes depending on the type of track they are on... just like in real life. Furthermore, for short races, the AI is pitting not on fuel, but on tire wear because they often use softer compound tires for those races. For endurance races they use harder compounds, and thus their pit stops are usually predicated on fuel consumption and not tire wear.

 

[Law93]

and about the pesky here, i would just buy the pesky and get the bentley speed 8 in the old Le Mans race