[RACE] International Touring Car Championship - #5 - Close this vthreadOpen

[cnd01]

So you have no idea if the car is too fast or not, or how much weight it actually needs to be balanced? I don't really like this random guessing game and "that'll do" specing. Also if you can't drive the car at all, maybe that suggests it needs a speed advantage to compensate for it's unpredictable handling?

He's using the IMSA BoP method. 5 people complain about who's winning, so that car gets nerfed

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

So you have no idea if the car is too fast or not, or how much weight it actually needs to be balanced? I don't really like this random guessing game and "that'll do" specing. Also if you can't drive the car at all, maybe that suggests it needs a speed advantage to compensate for it's unpredictable handling?

Again, though, I was able to drive it (quite easily, actually) after adding the weight. If you're so worried about how difficult it is, add the weight and be happy.

 

[Furinkazen]

Again, though, I was able to drive it (quite easily, actually) after adding the weight. If you're so worried about how difficult it is, add the weight and be happy.

so its random numbers without testing now? Why handicap a car for one race?

 

[V8-Johnboy]

BoP a car for the one track it does well at. Very fair. Should have been balanced better in first place before releasing specs. Also in total ignorance of how the BMW is a very hard car to drive.

 

[Ninners]

And if the BMW actually wins the race it gets 40KG of ballast which means it'll be...guess what?


1285KG. A bit overkill in my opinion, 1220 would have been my sort of choice. Even with the original 1200KG the car would still be 1240 if it won the race.

 

[TNR_KING_FILO]

is there a possibility i could sign up before clubman?

 

[V8-Johnboy]

And if the BMW actually wins the race it gets 40KG of ballast which means it'll be...guess what?


1285KG. A bit overkill in my opinion, 1220 would have been my sort of choice. Even with the original 1200KG the car would still be 1240 if it won the race.

1285 for Spurgy:idea:💡

 

[Furinkazen]

And if the BMW actually wins the race it gets 40KG of ballast which means it'll be...guess what?


1285KG. A bit overkill in my opinion, 1220 would have been my sort of choice. Even with the original 1200KG the car would still be 1240 if it won the race.

It's merely being specced around Spurgy. Which isn't right. I'd like to see the test data for the BMW at all these different weights and how they compare if that is ok...

 

[Bo]

2285 for Spurgy:idea:💡

Also, hello everyone.

 

[V8-Johnboy]

Also, hello everyone.

I was miles out Hello pal.

 

[Roflwaffle]

What's going on?

 

[Bo]

What's going on?

IMSA's stewards have rocked up.

 

[Furinkazen]

What's going on?

BMW got a 70kg weight raise for no apparent reason, which then got slashed by 25kg but it's still stupid that it is being done in first place.

 

[GTracer98]

I will test the BMW, tell the results... You're testing online, yes?

 

[Roflwaffle]

Right...

 

[Furinkazen]

As Ben points out... it is the fact it is rather shoddy in handling. So extra weight makes it worse...

 

[Ninners]

Well of course a car will be faster than another round a track, some cars have their great tracks and bad tracks. In the meantime I think you should focus on getting the Volvo up to speed as it seems it's 1-1.5 seconds slower than the other cars.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

As Ben points out... it is the fact it is rather shoddy in handling. So extra weight makes it worse...

I disagree. I find it pleasant with ballast... Less reactive to curbs.

Well of course a car will be faster than another round a track, some cars have their great tracks and bad tracks. In the meantime I think you should focus on getting the Volvo up to speed as it seems it's 1-1.5 seconds slower than the other cars.

Yeah, I'm also working on a new spec for it, but I think a lot of it comes down to setup. I'm only .7 off of my Citroën at Suzuka East, despite its "brick" handling.

 

[Furinkazen]

I disagree. I find it pleasant with ballast... Less reactive to curbs.

And SLOWER.

Yeah, I'm also working on a new spec for it, but I think a lot of it comes down to setup. I'm only .7 off of my Citroën at Suzuka East, despite its "brick" handling.

If you made the Volvo a brick, something seriously went wrong - that thing should be strongest engine of the lot

Also:

It's merely being specced around Spurgy. Which isn't right. I'd like to see the test data for the BMW at all these different weights and how they compare if that is ok...

 

[Ninners]

Yeah, I'm also working on a new spec for it, but I think a lot of it comes down to setup. I'm only .7 off of my Citroën at Suzuka East, despite its "brick" handling.

Why would you need a new spec for it? Specs should have been at least 95% sorted when the season has started, taking into account the 3 months between season 4 & 5 imo

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

And SLOWER.


If you made the Volvo a brick, something seriously went wrong - that thing should be strongest engine of the lot

Also:

Fact is, I'm just not fast enough with FR/MR/RR to give them a proper spec. I told people that I needed data for the BMW before the series began; people overlooked that. So, now I've gotten sick of seeing the BMW winning most races regardless of driver. The fact that it's slower in qualifying (to stop the 1+ second gaps in qualifying,) and more consistent... Even @Spurgy 777 asked earlier if we were allowing him to run with the ballast to make it more consistent. I'll find the post later today (night time in UK)


Regarding the Volvo, I have a very understeer-biased setup... If I nail the setup, I think it is good for 51s. My Citroën is in the same boat... It's nothing new, you need to tune the car beyond your comfort zone (creating oversteer) to make it fast. I quote @Ettick's signature... "If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough."

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Why would you need a new spec for it? Specs should have been at least 95% sorted when the season has started, taking into account the 3 months between season 4 & 5 imo

Two out of 10 cars are not spec'd perfectly. Oops.

 

[Siggers]

I couldn't spec it. I couldn't drive the thing. I got tired of its handling and passed off the testing to others. I still hate that car... But, Spurgy doesn't. We will call it 50 kg., then.

Are you serious?

4 rounds in you decide to change the specs on a car you admit to never properly driving/testing yourself when the majority consistently said it would be OP during the whole 3 months of pre-season testing you had.

Then you start negotiating on your proposed changes - the series host being influenced by some people who have not even been seen on track in ITCC yet. Where is your backbone??

"If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough."

Not really true, that's just what people who make mistakes all the time say, blaming it on the setup.
A balanced setup that makes the car comfortable for you makes you more consistent

 

[Spurgy 777]

Fact is, I'm just not fast enough with FR/MR/RR to give them a proper spec. I told people that I needed data for the BMW before the series began; people overlooked that. So, now I've gotten sick of seeing the BMW winning most races regardless of driver. The fact that it's slower in qualifying (to stop the 1+ second gaps in qualifying,) and more consistent... Even @Spurgy 777 asked earlier if we were allowing him to run with the ballast to make it more consistent. I'll find the post later today (night time in UK)

Haven't I been the only person driving the BMW? So you're sick of seeing me win most races? And why would I ever ask for more ballast to make the car more stable? I would never sacrifice speed to make a car more driver friendly, anyone who's used my setups will know that.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I'm serious, yes. I asked others to see what they thought of it... No one did.



The problem is, I can't drive it very well, and I'm making no attempt to hide the fact. But, hey, I tried to drive it, and got it wrong. Fact is, though, I'm making the change now, with substantial proof that it's wrong. People have been murmuring about BMW specs... Well, you wanted a change, here it is.

 

[LancerEvo7]

Regarding the Volvo, I have a very understeer-biased setup... If I nail the setup, I think it is good for 51s. My Citroën is in the same boat... It's nothing new, you need to tune the car beyond your comfort zone (creating oversteer) to make it fast. I quote @Ettick's signature... "If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough."

I struggled to get into the mid 53s with it Mel, and no offense but based on previous experience I think I'm a bit faster than you.

 

[Furinkazen]

I struggled to get into the mid 53s with it Mel, and no offense but based on previous experience I think I'm a bit faster than you.

Volvo understeer? Thats not right... In an FF you want oversteer, as understeer is the cars natural trait...

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I struggled to get into the mid 53s with it Mel, and no offense but based on previous experience I think I'm a bit faster than you.

Yet I ran 52s...

Volvo understeer? Thats not right... In an FF you want oversteer, as understeer is the cars natural trait...

I know, that's why I want to change the setup and retest the Volvo.



If anyone wants to argue specs, take it to PM. But, not you @buck1, the MINI is fine.

 

[Furinkazen]

Yet I ran 52s...

I know, that's why I want to change the setup and retest the Volvo.



If anyone wants to argue specs, take it to PM. But, not you @buck1, the MINI is fine.

So why didn't you put an oversteery set up on the Volvo like any other FF.. oh I give up.

 

[cnd01]

Can I has spec?