SSRX vs SSR7: top speed difference?

[twitcher]

I've recently been doing some top speed testing on SSRX and SSR7, and have noticed that there's a difference in the way a car performs between the two tracks. Using the exact same tune (and making sure oil is changed), I'm finding everything goes slower on SSR7 than on SSRX. On SSR7, my cars will top out at speeds which, on SSRX, the car will continue to pull strongly (even going up the bridge hill).

I realize SSR7 is much shorter, bumpier, and has turns, but I figured that with the right tune, and a good enough run, I should be able to get close to SSRX speeds by the end of the tunnel going downhill...but I just can't do it . Is it the tune? Is it the bumps and turns?


I've sort if noticed this for a while, but I just did some actual testing using the 1984 Ferrari GTO. The car is fully tuned, racing soft tires, oil changed. For this test, I used the exact same tune on both tracks

On SSRX, from a standing start at the Start/Finish line, the car reaches 266mph in 4th gear at about the 2400m mark. It continues to pull to 270, where I shift to 5th. This is right at the bottom of the hill. The car then pulls through 280mph going UP the hill, and tops out at 293mph going down the other side (this is with no NO2).

On SSR7, the car seems to top out at 266mph in 4th gear, even with the cleanest runs through all the highest speed sections.

Starting at the "toll booth" turn around, the car reaches 266mph in 4th about 2/3 through the tunnel, then just sits there. I've tried using NO2 at the start of the run, and the car just reaches 266mph sooner, but still won't go past. I've also used NO2 to push the car past 266mph, shifting up to 5th at 270mph, and continuing to 280mph - but as soon as let go of the NO2, the speed starts to drop off, until it settles back at 266mph in 4th gear. 5th gear won't pull at any speed, unless it has NO2.


Anyone have thoughts or ideas on this? If this is in the wrong section, I'll get it moved

 

[Downhill Dino]

Yes, this has always been the case for some unknown reason. You will never be able to go as fast as SSRX speeds. I believe this was also the case in GT5, but I can't remember.

 

[twitcher]

Yes, this has always been the case for some unknown reason. You will never be able to go as fast as SSRX speeds. I believe this was also the case in GT5, but I can't remember.

Damn, that sucks . It must be the air...or the stars...or something

 

[Downhill Dino]

Who knows. It's definitely odd how they're utilizing what is basically different physics.

 

[oppositelock]

Yeah, it's been theorized that aerodynamic drag is actually lower at Route X versus other tracks. This wasn't the case with GT5. Used to be great for setting gear ratios, now I'm back to using SSR7, which is both less accurate and more time consuming. Thanks, PD.

 

[twitcher]

Yeah, it's been theorized that aerodynamic drag is actually lower at Route X versus other tracks. This wasn't the case with GT5. Used to be great for setting gear ratios, now I'm back to using SSR7, which is both less accurate and more time consuming. Thanks, PD.

Lol, so it's a test track that's good for....

 

[Thorin Cain]

I don't suppose the difference is to do with the track surface?

know most race tracks will have a different track surface to what is routinely used for roads, which is after all what SSR7 is. Route X may have a higher grip level than that on Route 7.

The way to check would be to record a fastest lap replay on each and compare the difference between the actual speed of the car and the wheel speeds for each of them on the Data Logger. the more grip the surface has,the closer the two figures should be.

 

[twitcher]

I don't suppose the difference is to do with the track surface?

know most race tracks will have a different track surface to what is routinely used for roads, which is after all what SSR7 is. Route X may have a higher grip level than that on Route 7.

The way to check would be to record a fastest lap replay on each and compare the difference between the actual speed of the car and the wheel speeds for each of them on the Data Logger. the more grip the surface has,the closer the two figures should be.

That would make more sense than an aerodynamic difference.

But the difference in speed between the two tracks is pretty drastic, would road surface cause that?

I'll try messing around with the data logger later.

 

[Thorin Cain]

That would make more sense than an aerodynamic difference.

But the difference in speed between the two tracks is pretty drastic, would road surface cause that?

I'll try messing around with the data logger later.

What sort of difference is there between the 2?

I'm not too sure how much of a difference it would make to be honest. But the grip levels, and more importantly friction between the tyres and the track surface will be key. Ever noticed how you can go faster along the straight on the ring with 2 wheels on the grass? This is the difference a low friction surface would make so perhaps it can be quite drastic.

You have me intrigued now. I'm going to do some testing on this tomorrow after work. Should be quite interesting.

 

[Thorin Cain]

Oh, and the Aerodynamic difference I would think would account for a bigger difference in speed than any friction related issue.

But unless PD have programmed in atmospheric conditions based on the the geographical locations of the track( Altitude, temperature, humidity etc.) I would think that the Aero theory would be wrong, you still find the same effects when slipstreaming in each of the tracks so this would suggest that the physics regarding the air friction are still the same on each and this is what would cause any difference to the Aerodynamics of the cars.

 

[twitcher]

Well like I said in my first post, I can get the '84 GTO to 290mph (no boost, no NO2) on SSRX, but it tops out at 266mph on SSR7.

As far as differences in air density and stuff...even though both tracks are made up, I like to think they're in the same city, at sea level (with SSR5).