RIDOX Replica Garage-In Memory of TurnLeft-GT40,300ZX,F430,TVR,AEM S2000,Cizeta,TransAm Doug Nash

[TurnLeft]

@Ridox2JZGTE , I used the Honda Civic Type R '97, I did 29 full laps then ran out on the 30th near the end, that's what the segment part is, 2/3 of the track + 1/4 of the last 1/3 , used the IRL 45 liter tank for calculations. Since I was running at fast tire/fuel wear I added the consumption of " what if it was at 1x the speed and then 2x , etc. The car was averaging revs of between 7600 and 8000 rpm , with a few exceptions when I tagged the wall from being totally bored out , average top speed was at highest 228 kmh.

 

[TurnLeft]

Maybe we can try to use one car with known fuel tank capacity, calculate the full fuel tank weight, and drive the car offline, then compare to online with tire wear on full tank. Try to match the lap time using offline car + added ballast ( amount to the full tank weight ) If the ballast needed to make the car as slow as online is very close to the real car full tank fuel weight, then 100% is indeed correct. Maybe @TurnLeft can do this ?

So how much does a 45 liter tank weigh?

 

[ALB123]

So how much does a 45 liter tank weigh?

0.737 kg; or 1.62 Lbs. <--- from the Google answer machine. Not from the head of ALB.

 

[TurnLeft]

0.737 kg; or 1.62 Lbs. <--- from the Google answer machine. Not from the head of ALB.

thats per liter right? So 33.165 kg?

 

[ALB123]

thats per liter right? So 33.165 kg?

Oh, crap...I thought you asked "How much does a liter weigh?" I completely misread that... Yes, my answer was the weight of a single liter of fuel. So, 45 * 0.737 = 33.165 indeed... Sorry about that!

 

[TurnLeft]

Oh, crap...I thought you asked "How much does a liter weigh?" I completely misread that... Yes, my answer was the weight of a single liter of fuel. So, 45 * 0.737 = 33.165 indeed... Sorry about that!

No problem ALB, , I'll wait for an answer from @Ridox2JZGTE before going ahead with this test, just don't know if it will be relevant if I do the test, not sure I can be that consistent as a driver and if 33 kg will show a difference. Now back to my cave to work on some new formulas .

 

[TurnLeft]

@Ridox2JZGTE , just saw that we (everyone except me ) usually calculate L/100km, so I updated my sheet, I also found a source that says this car would do 7.4L/100km - urban, this would be close to 4x the speed for the fast tire/fuel wear, could also be 3x since I was basically running the car full out.

 

[ALB123]

I wish the United States switched to the metric system when I was a child. I am terrible with metric system units. Like, the L/100KM... I will occasionally see it on a European website or whatever and I just scratch my head and think "I have no f:censored:g clue how many MPG that is!!" Oh, it's frustrating...

 

[TurnLeft]

I wish the United States switched to the metric system when I was a child. I am terrible with metric system units. Like, the L/100KM... I will occasionally see it on a European website or whatever and I just scratch my head and think "I have no f:censored:g clue how many MPG that is!!" Oh, it's frustrating...

We switched to metric about 35 years ago, but when it comes to saying how tall or how much I weigh I still use feet/inches & pounds , when I have to measure string height for tuning up guitars I use mm, when it come to putting gas in my car I'm totally lost if it's gallons and miles, I'm sort of like a bilingual person that has half the words of one language and the other half of the other. My son on the other hand has no idea what a foot or a pound is.

I don't understand why the US government has not made the switch, all the science and research facilities use metric (even in the USA), so much easier to do calculations.

 

[ALB123]

Metric is much, much easier. When I was in school, a million years ago, using the metric system for physics classes and advanced mathematics was an eye opener...it's just a shame they refuse to make the switch.

@f1357924680 - I just tried making a Ferrari F40 LM (Using the most recent F40 GT/LM tune that Ridox posted as my base). I believe the Ferrari F40 LM actually had 710-720HP based on the sources I was using. The F40 LM made 710HP and 521 ft/lb's of torque. If you click that link you'll see a lot more data on the car. I didn't want to ruin the Ferrari F40 GT/LM build because it doesn't use an oil change and you might need to apply an oil change to get the HP and Torque set properly. Without the oil change, I've applied every single power upgrade and it leaves me with 716HP and 542 ft/lb's of torque. I lowered the Power % to 99.1% to make it 710HP, but the torque remains too high. So, maybe with an oil change we could eliminate some of the other power upgrades and hit the magic numbers of 710/521... You may try, if you wish.

The other problem is the weight of the car. The link provided above and the following link both list the car's weight as 1050kgs. GT6 will not allow us to go that low. 1,112kg was as low as I could get my F40. That might not be bad, however, as I'm certain the 1050kg figure it the dry weight.

 

[Pete05]

Metric is much, much easier. When I was in school, a million years ago, using the metric system for physics classes and advanced mathematics was an eye opener...it's just a shame they refuse to make the switch.

@f1357924680 - I just tried making a Ferrari F40 LM (Using the most recent F40 GT/LM tune that Ridox posted as my base). I believe the Ferrari F40 LM actually had 710-720HP based on the sources I was using. The F40 LM made 710HP and 521 ft/lb's of torque. If you click that link you'll see a lot more data on the car. I didn't want to ruin the Ferrari F40 GT/LM build because it doesn't use an oil change and you might need to apply an oil change to get the HP and Torque set properly. Without the oil change, I've applied every single power upgrade and it leaves me with 716HP and 542 ft/lb's of torque. I lowered the Power % to 99.1% to make it 710HP, but the torque remains too high. So, maybe with an oil change we could eliminate some of the other power upgrades and hit the magic numbers of 710/521... You may try, if you wish.

The other problem is the weight of the car. The link provided above and the following link both list the car's weight as 1050kgs. GT6 will not allow us to go that low. 1,112kg was as low as I could get my F40. That might not be bad, however, as I'm certain the 1050kg figure it the dry weight.

I really want an F40 LM but PD make it too hard by not allowing the bodywork mods
You can put the silliest body kits on the most obscure cars but do we get a legitimate option for the F40? No, that's too much fun
As for your question about converting L/100km > MPG (US), if the curiosity is too much, go online & use one of the many converters available. I found that 1 litre per 100km travelled equates to 235.xxx mpg.

 

[ALB123]

@Pete05 I have this fantastic app on my phone called "Unit Converter". In the Miscellaneous section of the app it can do km/l, mi/l, km/gal (US), mi/gal (US), mi/gal (UK) and l/100km conversions...quite handy. Overall, I think it's a great app. I use it all the time.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

@Ridox2JZGTE , I used the Honda Civic Type R '97, I did 29 full laps then ran out on the 30th near the end, that's what the segment part is, 2/3 of the track + 1/4 of the last 1/3 , used the IRL 45 liter tank for calculations. Since I was running at fast tire/fuel wear I added the consumption of " what if it was at 1x the speed and then 2x , etc. The car was averaging revs of between 7600 and 8000 rpm , with a few exceptions when I tagged the wall from being totally bored out , average top speed was at highest 228 kmh.

View attachment 385482

So how much does a 45 liter tank weigh?

Great test I couldn't do such detailed calculation Does the result seems to show the Civic is very frugal in fuel consumption ?

For weight, 1 litre of fuel can be from 0.71 to 0.78 kg range. There's no definite weight I usually use 0.74kg per litre ( average ) which seems what Google used from what @ALB123 said.

For the added weight test, sure, try add 33kg and the 0.78 as well = 35kg, for reference, Best Motoring tested the EK Civic Type R at Tsukuba, listed the weight as 1072g.

 

[lilcat89]

I finally got around to running the McLaren F1 at Laguna, and my god is it quick. The quickest car I've tested there...and by a lot! A 1:34.295 compared to the next best time of 1:36.3 in the Viper T/A. Other than the speed, the F1 is very tail happy on CSs. It's also quite the driftmobile. I love everything about this car! Another quality product from Ridox!👍

 

[danbojte]

@TurnLeft @ALB123 Nice avatars. 👍

 

[OdeFinn]

@TurnLeft @Ridox2JZGTE would positioning around +25 to +35 good for that 33kg ballast ?

 

[TurnLeft]

Great test I couldn't do such detailed calculation Does the result seems to show the Civic is very frugal in fuel consumption ?

I'll know that when I try this test with other cars, I'm using the Civic as a guinea pig to work out testing procedures for all kinds off things that can help me in tuning a car. I've got some for tests worked out for MLSD, Brakes, Fuel consumption, Tires wear, + performance data, still a long way to go though. I've got everything in those tests linked up to a page where eventually I can compare the data from the cars I'll have worked on and make comparative graphs or whatever, it's a very long project that I've been working on for what it seems like forever, might just be ready for GT7.

To know how fast is the "Fast Tire/Fuel Wear" I'd have to test it at normal to compare, it took a little more than half an hour at Fast, at Normal it may take a couple of hours to do it (there's no pause in online ), I'm not feeling that brave right now . To know if the consumption is spot on I'd have to drive it at London, and drive it as we do with IRL car in the city, 60kmh limit + making full stops , that seems so long and tedious . I think this will just put a little more light on how PD programs the game and be helpful for my eventual race/lap/fuel/tire calculator for online races , when I get that thing done I'll post a copy here for you and others to toy around with it.

For the added weight test, sure, try add 33kg and the 0.78 as well = 35kg, for reference, Best Motoring tested the EK Civic Type R at Tsukuba, listed the weight as 1072g.

Do you have that link? I couldn't find any info on the weight distribution if someone has some please feel free to share.

@TurnLeft @Ridox2JZGTE would positioning around +25 to +35 good for that 33kg ballast ?

That does sound right 👍, the gas tank is usually placed somewhere in the rear of the car, changes a bit depending on the model, I also think that you would be more qualified to do this kind of test then me, we both know you are the better and more fluid driver (except with the Lancer ) to make such small differences show up as viable. I won't have time to do this for a while, if you've got the time and want to share your results with us you are more then welcomed . I would ask Mister Economy but he would be driving this for 3 days before running out of fuel .

 

[danbojte]

@TurnLeft
Yeah, yeah, sure, three days... 👍

... so, when I want a sure, easy win over @OdeFinn I'll make an Evo Race.

 

[TurnLeft]

@TurnLeft
Yeah, yeah, sure, three days... 👍

... so, when I want a sure, easy win over @OdeFinn I'll make an Evo Race.

and I'll come in second , what's this world coming too.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Keep the ballast in the center, and maintain original weight distribution

 

[OdeFinn]

Keep the ballast in the center, and maintain original weight distribution

Probably best to put there where car weight center is, like if 54/46 car then putting on -4 keeps same weight distro.
Give me link of tune to be use for testing and I try to test tonight.

 

[lilcat89]

Finally got a win for the 1M at the Big Willow seasonal. I kept getting spun by the rabbit on the last corner. It turns out, you can't run the natural line to the apex. Around willow, it's only about a second slower than the E92 M3. I love the 1M so much!

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Probably best to put there where car weight center is, like if 54/46 car then putting on -4 keeps same weight distro.
Give me link of tune to be use for testing and I try to test tonight.

Better ask @TurnLeft, he's the one doing the test ( he got the car ) Check the link below for 1M review by super_gt, one that got banned at NGU.

Finally got a win for the 1M at the Big Willow seasonal. I kept getting spun by the rabbit on the last corner. It turns out, you can't run the natural line to the apex. Around willow, it's only about a second slower than the E92 M3. I love the 1M so much!

Wow, must be tough battle to finish line with the Bob doing his dirty tricks Sadly, the 1M replica is a toy car reaching the limit as I only copy and paste

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/gran-turismo-physics-poll.312945/page-11#post-10761933

As you know, the real car spring rate is not possible and I used the ratio instead for the 1M GT6 is not perfect, and I understand it's limits. Not sure what the guy thinks is true about lift off oversteer, unless he's driven the 1M at Green Hell for real.

 

[TurnLeft]

Probably best to put there where car weight center is, like if 54/46 car then putting on -4 keeps same weight distro.
Give me link of tune to be use for testing and I try to test tonight.

I was using a stock civic type r '97, no add ons, thought it would be better to test stock cars first to have comparative data for when it's tuned, 👍.

 

[f1357924680]

Metric is much, much easier. When I was in school, a million years ago, using the metric system for physics classes and advanced mathematics was an eye opener...it's just a shame they refuse to make the switch.

@f1357924680 - I just tried making a Ferrari F40 LM (Using the most recent F40 GT/LM tune that Ridox posted as my base). I believe the Ferrari F40 LM actually had 710-720HP based on the sources I was using. The F40 LM made 710HP and 521 ft/lb's of torque. If you click that link you'll see a lot more data on the car. I didn't want to ruin the Ferrari F40 GT/LM build because it doesn't use an oil change and you might need to apply an oil change to get the HP and Torque set properly. Without the oil change, I've applied every single power upgrade and it leaves me with 716HP and 542 ft/lb's of torque. I lowered the Power % to 99.1% to make it 710HP, but the torque remains too high. So, maybe with an oil change we could eliminate some of the other power upgrades and hit the magic numbers of 710/521... You may try, if you wish.

The other problem is the weight of the car. The link provided above and the following link both list the car's weight as 1050kgs. GT6 will not allow us to go that low. 1,112kg was as low as I could get my F40. That might not be bad, however, as I'm certain the 1050kg figure it the dry weight.

Can you please send it as a PN?

 

[ALB123]

Can you please send it as a PN?

I couldn't actually make it because I can't reach the exact numbers required of the Ferrari LM. Well, the Torque is too high when I added every upgrade - maybe with an oil change I could eliminate an upgrade and reach the proper number...I don't know for sure. Also, I can not get the weight of the car low enough (1,050kg) to match the specs of the Ferrari LM.

 

[Pete05]

I couldn't actually make it because I can't reach the exact numbers required of the Ferrari LM. Well, the Torque is too high when I added every upgrade - maybe with an oil change I could eliminate an upgrade and reach the proper number...I don't know for sure. Also, I can not get the weight of the car low enough (1,050kg) to match the specs of the Ferrari LM.

Maybe consider trading extra torque for having to carry the extra weight?

 

[ALB123]

Maybe consider trading extra torque for having to carry the extra weight?

Yeah...I was kind of thinking along the same lines -- or maybe just think of the extra weight as the Curb Weight of the car with a person inside of it... Something like that. I left everything else untouched from Ridox's Ferrari F40 GT/LM tune - the Suspension, LSD & Transmission are all his settings. I just put all the extra power parts on Tab B. It's ridiculously fast.

 

[ALB123]

I slapped Sport Soft tires on the McLaren F1 at matched the real life Nurburgring Nordschleife lap time of 7:11 exactly this evening, Ridox! I'm sure I could chop a handful of seconds off that time since I was having a conversation with my mother the entire lap...if I was 100% focused on the lap, I'm sure I would have been a couple of seconds quicker. And then once I get more used to how the car drives on that track, I will get quicker still.

I'll drop down to Sport Medium tires for my next runs around the Green Hell. It's so strange. I don't mind using CS tires on just about all of my Ridox builds (except for the most powerful & torquey cars) and even CM tires are just fine on a lot of the exotics...except for when I drive the Nordschleife. It's not completely about the lap time, although that does factor in, of course. It's just the way the car slides around every corner with CM or CS tires -- I know that the real life car isn't sliding the way it is in the game. It's frustrating because quite often the longitudinal grip will feel perfect when trying to decide on the proper compound to install on a vehicle. Then you experience the horrible lateral grip and if you're like me, you just want to cry...

PD really needs to invest a substantial amount of resources into developing a proper tire model. Between tire behavior, suspension behavior, acceleration & deceleration and aerodynamics - I might vote that tire behavior is the single most important "thing" in simulation driving/racing. It's how we "feel" our cars driving in the game...along with force feedback, of course. We can't experience G-Forces in our gaming seats (well, the obscenely rich can with a mega-expensive rig), but we can "feel" the difference between traction and slippage. Gran Turismo's tire model, if you can call it that, is awful. I used to think it was fine...but it's not. Not for 2015. Now, perhaps consoles just can't do the calculations fast enough to provide a truly great tire model, but I doubt that's the problem. The problem is the developer.

They can invest as much time and money into fixing the ridiculous sounds that the cars make, but if they don't substantially improve how tires behave for Gran Turismo 7 I will be very disappointed.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Aston Martin DB9 with Sports Pack MT/AT and DB9 LM

Tuned to replicate Aston Martin DB9 SP + LM
Comfort Soft​

​

CAR : Aston Martin DB9 '06
Tire : Comfort Soft

Specs Auto Motor Und Sport 6 AT + DB9 LM
Horsepower: 444 HP at 6000 RPM
Torque : 420.2 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 99.1%
Weight: 1847 kg
Ballast : 147 kg
Ballast Position : 25
Weight Distribution : 50 / 50 - as close as possible to 50.4/49.6
Performance Points: 497

Specs 6MT ( 40kg lighter than 6AT )
Horsepower: 444 HP at 6000 RPM
Torque : 420.2 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 99.1%
Weight: 1807 kg
Ballast : 107 kg
Ballast Position : 34
Weight Distribution : 50 / 50 - as close as possible to 50.4/49.6
Performance Points: 499



GT AUTO
NO Oil change
Improve Body Rigidity ( NOT INSTALLED IN THIS BUILD )
Wheels : Standard Size VOLK RAYS Triniti V in Silver Metallic / Chrome
Car Paint : Aqua Green Metallic or White, Green, Blue, Yellow or Red.
DB9 LM only comes in Sarthe Silver, use Spark Silver Metallic in GT6.
Brake Caliper Paint : Red - ONLY For DB9 LM.


Tuning Parts Installed :
Fully Customizable Dog Clutch Transmission
Adjustable LSD
Carbon Drive Shaft
Twin Plate Clutch - ONLY FOR 6 MT
Fully Customizable Suspension
Window Weight Reduction
Racing Brakes Kit - Only for DB9 LM - required for red brake caliper.


Suspension - Aston Martin Sports Pack Spring/Damper Kit
6mm Lower than Stock GT6 130mm - Base/Visual
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 124 124
Spring Rate: 6.75 9.24
Dampers (Compression): 6 5
Dampers (Extension): 4 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 5 4
Camber Angle: 0.3 1.1
Toe Angle: 0.03 0.10

Suspension - Aston Martin Sports Pack Spring/Damper Kit
6mm Lower than Real Life Ground Clearance 119mm - Optional
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 113 113
Spring Rate: 6.75 9.24
Dampers (Compression): 6 5
Dampers (Extension): 4 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 5 4
Camber Angle: 0.3 1.1
Toe Angle: 0.03 0.10

​

DOG CLUTCH TRANSMISSION -Aston Martin DB9 6 Speed AT ( Base for DB9 LM )
ZF 6HP26 "Shift by Wire™ (SBW)"
Install all power parts
Set Default
Set Final to 2.900
Set Auto Max Speed at 420kmh / 261mph
Adjust each gear :
1st 4.170
2nd 2.340
3rd 1.520
4th 1.140
5th 0.870
6th 0.690
Set Final : 3.154

DOG CLUTCH TRANSMISSION -Aston Martin DB9 6 Speed MT
Graziano 6 MT with Integrated Shifter Bellcrank System (Cable Operated)
Install all power parts
Set Default
Set Auto Max Speed at 330kmh / 205mph
Adjust each gear :
1st 3.150
2nd 1.970
3rd 1.440
4th 1.150
5th 0.940
6th 0.760
Set Final : 3.540


LSD - Medium Lock LSD
Initial Torque : 12
Acceleration Sensitivity: 24
Braking Sensitivity: 8


Brake Balance:
5/6 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 4/5, for ABS 1 - feel free to use your preferred brake balance. I recommend to run 1 click higher at the rear. Recommend 3/4 for Racing Brakes Kit.

Recommended setting for DS3 user :

Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 5/6 brake balance as starting point.

Notes :


Notes coming soon

Aston Martin DB9 LM only comes in Sarthe Silver, 6AT and Sports Pack as standard fitment with clear rear lights and red brake caliper. Only 69 DB9 LM ever built.

The replay is with Aston Martin DB9 6AT Sports Pack on CS, 1:27s at Big Willow.