- 862
- Cincinnati, Ohi
- DA6righthand
Vagabond
Vid didn't work for me. Probably my phone having a problem...
PURE | GATE - Suzuka
- Thread starter Wardez
- 2,170 comments
- 81,094 views
Vid didn't work for me. Probably my phone having a problem...
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
- 4,455
- Teesdale
- GTP_Vagabond
Come on Dom...I'm confused, because they appear identical most of the time, but there's 3 turns where the speed shows the M3 going significantly faster mid corner, yet the cars appear to run the same lap time.
The M3 can hold more speed on entry as the IS350 is more inclined to understeer in but has better traction on exit than the M3. The point is, the performance is eminently comparable - lap time difference on that session was 0.04.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Honestly I can't see it.Come on Dom...
I can tell the cars are running perfectly, so it's clearly a great match, it's just weird looking because I never spotted the Lexus more than 1-2mph faster than the M3, but the M3 as much as 4-5 mph faster than the Lexus at times.
I've done a lot of testing, but I don't think anything is as good as these videos you're making, and these cars appear to be a dead heat, the only thing I can see not covered is flat out top speed, which may not matter depending on tracks or in the very likely event they have close top speeds as they sit.
In other words, 👍 Awesome stuff.
- 9,741
- Las Vegas UTC-8
- Wardez
- Wardez
Very awesome stuff, we should try and get some people together for some pre-pre-season racing this Saturday at 20:00 GMT if anyone wants to jump in.
Ah, just realized we're doing the FMSC finals at that time. And we're doing some CALM testing after that race, but if anyone that's not doing either of those is free, I suggest you lot get together
Ah, just realized we're doing the FMSC finals at that time. And we're doing some CALM testing after that race, but if anyone that's not doing either of those is free, I suggest you lot get together
Last edited:
- 4,881
- Stockholm
- chorda / GTP_chorda
Awesome list of drivers, and awesome discussions going on! 👍
I so wish I had the opportunity to join in, but for now, I have to lay GT5 aside for a bit.
I'll be monitoring the thread closely, and hopefully, I can join in for a race or two during the season. Perhaps be "the 4th" driver in a team.. 💡
Rock on!! 👍
I so wish I had the opportunity to join in, but for now, I have to lay GT5 aside for a bit.
I'll be monitoring the thread closely, and hopefully, I can join in for a race or two during the season. Perhaps be "the 4th" driver in a team.. 💡
Rock on!! 👍
- 862
- Cincinnati, Ohi
- DA6righthand
Wardez
This is my last week of school so I'll more than likely be free...unless I find a highly unproductive way to unwind.
- 5,676
- Ontario
CSLACRI'm confused, because they appear identical most of the time, but there's 3 turns where the speed shows the M3 going significantly faster mid corner, yet the cars appear to run the same lap time.
The Silvia RM only has 20/50 down force.
GT4 had the Aston Martin with no aero, so I'm sure we can get it to work. It lighter, too I think.
- 5,095
- France
Hey, I can see the 3 french guys from the WSGTC S3 Biggy, Jash and Mania 👍 . Maybe they don't know yet that the thread is open. I don't know them very well but i guess french guys usually don't stay tuned on gtp series etc. (Am I the only french guy who is aware here?)
So, maybe I should PM'ing them to make them aware. Or maybe Ed has done.
Ed?
So, maybe I should PM'ing them to make them aware. Or maybe Ed has done.
Ed?
- 4,455
- Teesdale
- GTP_Vagabond
Thanks Dom - this testing malarky is good fun.
I'll do some top speed runs at that Route X later on and see what's what. Real world GT cars can have quite a speed differential anyway and different tracks can play to different car characteristics.Yeah I should be up for a bit of that. 👍
- 1,019
- johnkiller2
Did a little bit of testing yesterday. The listed GT300 cars are pretty even in the different performance categories (top speed, acceleration, cornering speed, breaking), and if adding cars I think its a must that they fall withing the performance envelope in each category of the GT300 cars. This is essential for close and fair racing.
Above is fairly complicated to measure. Top speed is easy though. I like to go to Le Mans no chicanes. Far down the straight there is a big white post. Of the GT 300 cars, the Lexus is the slowest at 360kmh and the RX7 is the fastest at 368kmh. The Power-to-weight gives a good indication of acceleration. All the GT300 cars have similar value within 3%.
To quickly determin if a car will fall within the GT300 performance I first tried at SPA. I used the Subaru as the reference car. The Subaru is not best on anything but good on everything. Top speed is 364kmh (smack in the middle) and power-to-weight is also in the middle.
First step was to get a general power level giving roughly the same time to the first time split. This is all about power and top speed. There is a sign at the beginning of the long straight. By looking at the speed passing this sign and the speed at the end of the corner, you get a good feeling of the cars acceleration and top speed. The second section is much more about handling. Only if a car can mantain a similar pace as the Subaru it will potentially make sense to test further.
Didn't test that many cars, but here are my conclusions so far.
BMW M3 Race car:
I think this car will work. I found 345hp/1140kg to work the best. Similar top speed and power-to-weight, lap times as the Subaru. It be good to know at what HP/Weight the other have tested it at.
DTM cars:
These cars are very similar to the BMW so they also work well. The two most similar are the Vauxall at 345hp/1160Kg (or 335hp/1120kg, not sure yet) or the Audi A4 at the same HP/KG as the BMW.
GT500
Too slow top speed and too much grip. The Bandai doesn't work. Too high drag forces HP to go up, and its much faster in the twisty bits. Same for most of the other GT500s. The Woodone GTR looks promising, the Eneos might also work, and perhaps the Yellowhat Supra. Basically look for a GT500 that doesn't corner that well. The old JGTC might also work. I think a good HP/Weight to test at is 345hp/1140KG, same as the BMW.
Other cars.
The Audi doesn't work for the same reason as most of the GT500 doesn't
The Mazda RX8 and FTO seems to be the opposite. Too high top speed but slow cornering. But it might be worth to test it a bit more.
I also tried the GT300 MR2. With a turbo/315hp its top speed is 373kmh, ie mich faster than the other GT300. With a bad power-to-weight the accel probably sucks. Mot sure about the cornering. I say it will be too different to try to include.
That's all for now.
Above is fairly complicated to measure. Top speed is easy though. I like to go to Le Mans no chicanes. Far down the straight there is a big white post. Of the GT 300 cars, the Lexus is the slowest at 360kmh and the RX7 is the fastest at 368kmh. The Power-to-weight gives a good indication of acceleration. All the GT300 cars have similar value within 3%.
To quickly determin if a car will fall within the GT300 performance I first tried at SPA. I used the Subaru as the reference car. The Subaru is not best on anything but good on everything. Top speed is 364kmh (smack in the middle) and power-to-weight is also in the middle.
First step was to get a general power level giving roughly the same time to the first time split. This is all about power and top speed. There is a sign at the beginning of the long straight. By looking at the speed passing this sign and the speed at the end of the corner, you get a good feeling of the cars acceleration and top speed. The second section is much more about handling. Only if a car can mantain a similar pace as the Subaru it will potentially make sense to test further.
Didn't test that many cars, but here are my conclusions so far.
BMW M3 Race car:
I think this car will work. I found 345hp/1140kg to work the best. Similar top speed and power-to-weight, lap times as the Subaru. It be good to know at what HP/Weight the other have tested it at.
DTM cars:
These cars are very similar to the BMW so they also work well. The two most similar are the Vauxall at 345hp/1160Kg (or 335hp/1120kg, not sure yet) or the Audi A4 at the same HP/KG as the BMW.
GT500
Too slow top speed and too much grip. The Bandai doesn't work. Too high drag forces HP to go up, and its much faster in the twisty bits. Same for most of the other GT500s. The Woodone GTR looks promising, the Eneos might also work, and perhaps the Yellowhat Supra. Basically look for a GT500 that doesn't corner that well. The old JGTC might also work. I think a good HP/Weight to test at is 345hp/1140KG, same as the BMW.
Other cars.
The Audi doesn't work for the same reason as most of the GT500 doesn't
The Mazda RX8 and FTO seems to be the opposite. Too high top speed but slow cornering. But it might be worth to test it a bit more.
I also tried the GT300 MR2. With a turbo/315hp its top speed is 373kmh, ie mich faster than the other GT300. With a bad power-to-weight the accel probably sucks. Mot sure about the cornering. I say it will be too different to try to include.
That's all for now.
Last edited:
- 4,455
- Teesdale
- GTP_Vagabond
Nice testing info and I agree with your conclusions for the most part.. I have found much the same in my tests. 👍 With regards to the RX-8 LM and FTO, the speed differential is not over-large I don't feel, and cornering is not so far off the GT300s as to make them moving road-blocks. GT cars are generally not identical in performance characteristics and there is always a trade-off between straight-line speed and cornering. My tests so far indicate, to me at least, that the RX-8 and FTO would fit in nicely and provide a nice variation to the racing.
I tested the M3 GTR at 333bhp 544pp (stock weight) - any more HP and I found it to be much too fast. In acceleration testing and top speed runs, it was almost identical to the IS350 at the required spec.
I also had a run in the C-West Razo... now I understand.
Last edited:
- 7,018
- United States
Keep in mind that the room settings are limited.Final car specs need to fall into this list.
All hp's and weights must be able to be checked. For example:
315hp
325hp
335hp
345hp
355hp
Adding cars with ballast also increases the time it will take to start race sessions with the added checks.Also a thing to note is what affect it has on tire wear.I'm guessing the FTO will eat the front tires off in 8 laps at Suzuka alot like the 08 Scooby.
All hp's and weights must be able to be checked. For example:
315hp
325hp
335hp
345hp
355hp
Adding cars with ballast also increases the time it will take to start race sessions with the added checks.Also a thing to note is what affect it has on tire wear.I'm guessing the FTO will eat the front tires off in 8 laps at Suzuka alot like the 08 Scooby.
- 1,019
- johnkiller2
In my opinion, the testing sheets as designed doesn't really work to compare the cars. The are designed to compare the same car/track showing the difference in time between drivers. We don't need to test that. As an example, everybody knows Tony 1311 is faster than me with the same car at the same track.
If you want to change the testing sheets, here is how I think they need to look like.
First, in my opinion, we don't need to test the GT300 cars. As we will use the WSGTC S3 specs, I don't think anyone suggests or want any changes. What we need to test is how a potential additional car compares to the GT300 cars and what spec been used.
So or each track, a test driver should first list lap time from a reference car, one of the existing GT300 cars to his preference. Then below should be listed any new car, what HP/Weight used, and lap time. This way we can compare if an additional car performs equal to the exisiting GT300 cars.
- 9,741
- Las Vegas UTC-8
- Wardez
- Wardez
The main idea behind the sheets as they are is to produce benchmark times, target gap times, and to archive progress through specification sets. It does everything at the same time, including cross-comparing specification sets.
What I mean when I say target "gap" is easy, and I'll use your example of the difference between Tony and yourself in ability to spell it out.
Say tony sets four times across the same track and, for the sake of example, his top time in car A is 1 second. Then his top time in car B is .990 seconds, C is .980 seconds, D is .970 seconds.
We can see in that test that there's a disparity of .01 seconds between the cars. Now say Johnkiller does the same test, using Tony's results we can assume that the disparity in times will be exactly the same and confirm the closeness in performance. And yes there are differences in styles and such, but we're looking at a bigger picture so it the more drivers submit times the better.
The GT300 cars are the benchmarks and you can already choose to do it the way you suggested at the end of your post in the current format of the sheet. All a person would need to do is just add the car they want to test into one of the spec. sets already in the testing sheet and record their time on the track.
And there was a suggestion that the MR cars need a boost in power.
What I mean when I say target "gap" is easy, and I'll use your example of the difference between Tony and yourself in ability to spell it out.
Say tony sets four times across the same track and, for the sake of example, his top time in car A is 1 second. Then his top time in car B is .990 seconds, C is .980 seconds, D is .970 seconds.
We can see in that test that there's a disparity of .01 seconds between the cars. Now say Johnkiller does the same test, using Tony's results we can assume that the disparity in times will be exactly the same and confirm the closeness in performance. And yes there are differences in styles and such, but we're looking at a bigger picture so it the more drivers submit times the better.
The GT300 cars are the benchmarks and you can already choose to do it the way you suggested at the end of your post in the current format of the sheet. All a person would need to do is just add the car they want to test into one of the spec. sets already in the testing sheet and record their time on the track.
And there was a suggestion that the MR cars need a boost in power.
- 7,711
- Indiana-USA
- OwensRacing
Love this group. So much brain power in here it makes me smarter just reading the posts. 
GT Academy out and I'm not feeling to well today. Hopefully I get some energy together to do some GT5 later.
GT Academy out and I'm not feeling to well today. Hopefully I get some energy together to do some GT5 later.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
MÜLE_9242;7038468
I think you're welcome to try and find specs for the Silvia RM if you want, I just know you won't find them.
The critical element is front down force, in which it only has 20, which is simply not enough to compete with race cars without a huge straight line advantage, I've been trying to do that with lower aero cars in GT games since I can remember, and it hasn't worked since GT1-2 era.
- 4,455
- Teesdale
- GTP_Vagabond
Just run some laps at Spa:
M3 GTR 333bhp 1120kg - 2'24.232
IS350 355bhp 1150kg - 2'24.309
FTO 342bhp 1120kg - 2'24.360
All 3 cars had potential for better lap times but this was a good average of the session. All run with max downforce and identical gear ratios (stock ratios with max speed set at 184mph (top right)) and R1 tyres.
FTO had the best straight line speed but was slower on acceleration. Similar apex speeds though. I've put my current bhp, weight and pp stats for the M3 and the FTO on the spec sheet.
Did a bit of testing with tyre wear for the FTO and its not as bad as you might think, particularly with a rear-biased torque split.
Are we considering the RX-8 LM Concept as well or just the other DTM cars? Calibra yes or no..?
M3 GTR 333bhp 1120kg - 2'24.232
IS350 355bhp 1150kg - 2'24.309
FTO 342bhp 1120kg - 2'24.360
All 3 cars had potential for better lap times but this was a good average of the session. All run with max downforce and identical gear ratios (stock ratios with max speed set at 184mph (top right)) and R1 tyres.
FTO had the best straight line speed but was slower on acceleration. Similar apex speeds though. I've put my current bhp, weight and pp stats for the M3 and the FTO on the spec sheet.
Did a bit of testing with tyre wear for the FTO and its not as bad as you might think, particularly with a rear-biased torque split.
Are we considering the RX-8 LM Concept as well or just the other DTM cars? Calibra yes or no..?
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Just remember, we can only check the cars for 315,325,335,345,355 HP, so the regs for 333 and 342bhp would need to be 335 and 345, respectively.
Just my personal opinion, but any car that can't make pace between 1100-1200 KG's and 315-355HP should be discarded immediately.(obviously the M3 and FTO fit both nicely) There's too many cars working out in the range of all the cars already in my opinion to even try and stretch or squeeze any cars in.
Just my personal opinion, but any car that can't make pace between 1100-1200 KG's and 315-355HP should be discarded immediately.(obviously the M3 and FTO fit both nicely) There's too many cars working out in the range of all the cars already in my opinion to even try and stretch or squeeze any cars in.
- 358
- CA
- Z-Crazy
Wow... I would think the FTO would be a ringer at that spec... I have to test that one. More Hp than most, on the lighter side, and AWD seems like an advantage.
EDIT: After testing I still think its a little bit of a ringer, but it is within reason when measured against the others.
Last edited:
- 1,019
- johnkiller2
Great points and nicely put. I like to add two more items to set the boundaries for any new car added. The items would be, including what CSLACR propoposed.
Boundaries for any new car added:
- HP range. 315-355BHP (in increments of 10)
- Weight range. 1100-1200KG (in increments of 10)
- Not a higher topspeed than the Asparadrink RX7
- Not a better power-to-weight ratio than the Lexus Weds Sport (3.18 Kg/BHP)
The reason for the last two is to make overtaking possible. As an example, if a car has a higher straight line speed than the RX7, its going to be very difficult for the slowest car to make a pass. Same goes for the power-to-weight, ie acceleration.
Wardez,
If you agree to this, it would be great if you could state it so we all know what boundaries to play with.
Similar threads
