TCV5 HURRY THE HELL UP thread

[mafia_boy]

So if I'm reading this right, the 'theme' of sorts for TCV5 is going to be "build a car to the best and fastest it can be everywhere, forget fun and creative"....am I right ?

Practically the same 'theme' we had for TCV4

Not really. If you look at AWD, you and shoman were my Top 2. Neither were all out, and they were creative and fun to play with.

I liked TCV3 because the focus was on fun and creative handling, not speed, if it's going to continue being this 'fully-built' car comp, I'm not really looking forward to this

TCv3 was focused more on speed, because if you didn't pass the times set by the 'pace' car for that driveline, you were docked considerably. I remember that debate with my Silvia against the S2K in RWD, how I could beat the time but others couldn't.

What about a theme like no race-grade components allowed, only sports and semi-race parts, or maybe only 1 race-spec component allowed, and everything else has to be sport or S-R ?

Interesting....to add to that, how about N3's aswell.

And how about multiple entries per category ?, I've got 2 FF's I'd like to enter, but if we're only allowed one then I'll just have to choose one I guess

That makes it harder for judging if all of us did multiple entries. Look at MFT, RRV & me....that would be 15 rides in an instant. Add ETZ, yourself, and all the other tuners and we'd still be doing FF in August.

 

[in.s@ne]

So if I'm reading this right, the 'theme' of sorts for TCV5 is going to be "build a car to the best and fastest it can be everywhere, forget fun and creative"....am I right ?

My understanding is that TCv4 and TCv5's theme was to build a car that was great to drive everywhere.
Fastest isn't necessarily best. I'd give more points to a car that was fun to drive (eg not boring) rather than the car that just trudged itself around the track at lightning speed.

 

[Skygrasper550]

My understanding is that TCv4 and TCv5's theme was to build a car that was great to drive everywhere.
Fastest isn't necessarily best. I'd give more points to a car that was fun to drive (eg not boring) rather than the car that just trudged itself around the track at lightning speed.

correct, a balanced setup is the key to a good score.., the judge needs to have that "feel-at-home" feeling when driving the car on any track..,

 

[Rotary Junkie]

So if I'm reading this right, the 'theme' of sorts for TCV5 is going to be "build a car to the best and fastest it can be everywhere, forget fun and creative"....am I right ?

Practically the same 'theme' we had for TCV4

No. Not at all.

It would be to make the car as good as it can be, period. It wouldn't have to be fully built to be a winner, just be good full stop. I am thinking about making improvement on stock more of a yardstick, but I'm actually thinking more "stock suspension + differential vs tuned" but with all used power and weight mods installed. If the stock, as in original equipment, parts take the power and use it better than the tuned (be it stock diff and FC or SR or sports suspension or full FC or whatever) aftermarket bits, well... You didn't improve anything, now did you? Also, quite a few cars have more issues with the untuned FC bits than stock suspension (BMW 330i comes to mind) sooo...

Thoughts on this?

 

[Skygrasper550]

that's a definite head-scratcher..,

 

[PF]

I want a class just for yellow cars. And I don't want people whining about mustard yellow or chrome yellow, nor trying to pass off a light orange car as yellow. I mean really yellow, where we get back to the spirit of yellow, and should be deeply suspicious of the colours red and blue.

 

[PF]

@RJ, (sorry if double posting everyone but I bet someone else gets in there first): Yes. Yes. Perhaps YES .

One would have to tie this to the judging, and this fits rather nicely with something I was about to post before getting carried away with Pythonesque satire:

I actually responded to Kurei's post within minutes (yesterday or so? longer?) but I've just noticed the hypertubes must have swallowed my words. Truncated version:
1) You are right to link the 'theme' with the entry conditions, and this will have some bearing on the type of entries ...
however
2) A more coherent and comprehensive judging criteria would be more useful in inspiring the types of tunes we want. Essentially the improvement on the car (aka tune) should be all-important, and I think it worked pretty well last time (insert bias here). However it could be better if the improvement/difficulty tune was more linked to the score.

Kurei, I've noticed you agitating for a few different styles/methods over the months, perhaps try to influence the judging criteria as well as the track and format, this makes even more of a difference IMO.


EDIT: Reposting, thought I'd deleted it

 

[shoman]

I think we need to do a little flavor of TCv3, they had the yardstick. make a balanced car that can snipe with the big boys, cap horsepower, and make us tuners tune to hunt. Just to focus on handling and not power

 

[Kurei]

I remember back in TCV3 Kent put the focus on handling while using sector times for reference, not judging, the sector times becoming important was all the tuner's trying to +1up each other in a Time Attack-essence battle of sorts

@PF, I have shared my opinions on what I'd like to see the next challenge form into and how car's should be judged (it's in one of the thread's here...somewhere..), but more people came in wanting different power classes and other things that my opinion must of been washed out as page count built up in the thread

And RJ, if you look up the judging criteria for TCV3, we also judged the cars on improvement from stock in a way, but more so we used "Touge Monster's" as the benchmark of sorts for the different powertrain's, and judged cars (or at least I did) based on improvement over stock and comparision to the Touge Monster, and also took things like fun and creativity into account as well (remember how I claimed your ITR was like the new FD2 Civic Type R ?, FR handling in a FF)

Now I know the criteria for TCV4 was stock vs. improvement = score, but the way I see it, lots of tuners can build a good handling car to fit the criteria, but only a few have made interesting cars that not only meet it, but go beyond that and basically bring 2008-09 performance into a game 4 years old (Leo's Focus comes to mind)

And that's what I want to see continue, competition's full of good cars with unique twists, not just good cars with a 'normal' appeal of sorts

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Now I know the criteria for TCV4 was stock vs. improvement = score, but the way I see it, lots of tuners can build a good handling car to fit the criteria, but only a few have made interesting cars that not only meet it, but go beyond that and basically bring 2008-09 performance into a game 4 years old (Leo's Focus comes to mind)

And that's what I want to see continue, competition's full of good cars with unique twists, not just good cars with a 'normal' appeal of sorts

👍

 

[Vince247]

I agree, but doesn't this depend on the tuner. For me, it makes sense that less experienced tuners have less of a chance creating a 'car with a soul'. Wouldn't this handicap them from the start?

On the other hand, this could push them to original car choices.:-)

 

[CamryFan]

I agree, but doesn't this depend on the tuner. For me, it makes sense that less experienced tuners have less of a chance creating a 'car with a soul'. Wouldn't this handicap them from the start?

On the other hand, this could push them to original car choices.:-)

It depends how you define soul I suppose.

 

[Vince247]

Why don't we just do something like this:

Three categrories:

1st: Tune a car for the 200 miles El Capitain enduro.
2nd: Tune a FF car for the 300 km Grand Valley enduro.
3rd: Tune a car running N3's for NY 200 miles.

This would be interesting as a challenge, I guess. At least it would be original.

As you can see, things get harder from the first until the third. This means many tuners are going to enter the first category. So I think that the tuners who're entering the 1st but not the 2nd and the 3rd are obliged to judge the other categories.

What do you think?

 

[CamryFan]

Why don't we just do something like this:

Three categrories:

1st: Tune a car for the 200 miles El Capitain enduro.
2nd: Tune a FF car for the 300 km Grand Valley enduro.
3rd: Tune a car running N3's for NY 200 miles.

This would be interesting as a challenge, I guess. At least it would be original.

+1, but I have a few issues with that idea. You'd have to test in some way that would simulate Endurance conditions. I'm also under the impression that the Grand Valley Enduro was for race cars. In fact if you removed the word Enduro I'd think that would work well.

Anyway I just had an idea, TCv5: Roadster and Convertible Cup. Except I believe that limits FF car's to a bunch of Del Sols. (oh and the copen, and probably tonnes of other car's as well)

 

[mafia_boy]

If that's the case for enduros, for the first one I'll just enter my Silvia from TCv3 in there. It's won the El Capitan (200pts.) & 'Ring 4hr (82pts.) enduros already.

Swap GVS for Laguna Seca for the 2nd track, it's all road cars, but the AI cars are allowed race tyres and are a bit quicker than normal.

3rd enduro (NY), you need something with heaps of balls....period. I'm trying to do that with the stock 200pts. races and you need something with under a 4.000 WPR to do anything decent in that enduro otherwise the Speed 6 eats you alive.

 

[Vince247]

Oh well I was just brainstorming. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Kurei]

It sounds like a good idea for a different comp, but I'd rather keep this a "tune whatever you want for whatever-type driving/racing" event, I already have cars lined up, and rather not have to switch them, plus I just found that "perfect-tune" for my 'replica' FF of sorts I'll be entering

...changed one settings one notch:idea:, and BAM!, the whole car's different and runs so much better

 

[in.s@ne]

While the Enduro sounds like a reasonable idea, it would be hell to judge - imagine having to do an endurance event 8 times! I'd go nuts!

 

[mafia_boy]

Since there's been a bit of rumble under the surface about TCv5, I figured I'd bring it back to the surface and throw in a few new ideas.

New categories:

1. Budget. Small points for it (say 5 or 10) but obviously, if you can build as good a car as the next guy with less cash you get a higher score in this category.

2. Bring back the speed. Let's give good points for the quick guys...the guys who make 200hp compete with 600hp on the track/strip and the ones who make 600hp compete with 1200hp.

3. Functionality. What I mean by this is would it be suitable ALL around in any situation. Can you drift it around Tsukuba, then with the same setup drive sensibly and whip Zonda's around it?? Could it be as good at Fuji as it is at Nurburgring or Midfield?? Could you then put Dirt tyres and go around Tahiti Maze. That's what I mean.

Debate away guys.

 

[Vince247]

Good idea mafia, almost two months of no discussion about the next tuner challenge...

I like your idea, the enduro's were a bit to much I guess.

Now people, lets get this event going. Who would like to be the organiser(s)?

I can't, because I've got big A*S exams coming up in three weeks. After that it's summer holidays for me, so take your time.

 

[Spec M]

Sorry i've been away for a while guys. I see that TCV5 planning has gone under way but has there been any official rules made yet? Any ideas on what course(s) it will be held on? I personally think Nurb will open up a wide field of different auto marques...

I kinda get what mafia is saying about fuctionality, but I dont think my Suzuka setup will quite work on Tahiti Maze lol.

I think judging TCv5 should have to do more with the cars themselves. Lets face it, many cars out there hardly require tuning to be half desent around the race track. Then the're the other cars that require more emphasis, skill, track time, experience etc. And these are the cars that aren't seen as much in our featured competition. For example if im a judge, respectively iam going to be more enthused to see a built BTR than a built 350z. I understand its all about personal preference, but I know both these cars and the physics PD has granted them and honestly I know that a BTR is going to be more of a challenge to tune than any Z.

Tuner Challenge... To me not only does it mean to challenge the opposition in a build off, but to challenge myself and my skill. That doesn't mean im a prodigy when it comes to tuning because I have given up on some cars before...


PS: Also I dont think it would be fair to judge on the criteria of price or least money spent. Main reason being that the Asian cars are the cheapest and most availabe in GT4, while European, American, and Australian usually have stationary prices and aren't as available to everyone. Frankly, asian tuners would have the unfair advantage.

 

[in.s@ne]

I think a stock vs tuned comparison may be in order, or (and this is a big or) a one-car tune.

This way we would get some sort of comparison either directly between tuners, or an improvement level

 

[mafia_boy]

We tried that with the Vintage Tuner Cup and it didn't work out too well. 2 of the divisions were decided because one car was a worse base tune than the other, even though both times the cars were evenly matched after tuning. The people affected included myself, RJ and Greycap.

 

[Spec M]

How about having weight being a factor in each class.
For example a sub-grand touring class may vary weights from 1500kg to 1700kg,
while the compact class line up will vary from, lets say 900kg-1200kg.
It shouldn't restrict the range of base vehicles to choose from either.
I think this will even out the field and will be especially helpful for tuners and judges during time attack comparisons.

mafs, regretfully I wasn't a part of the vintage tuner cup. I have a passion for the vintage European cars and I can only hope and prey that one day in the GT serious I will have the previlige of driving an Austin Healey or a 65 DB5. Has there been any talk of a new vintage tuner cup? If not I would like to participate in organising another, once TCv5 is completed and sucessful.

PS: Sorry for straying off subject

 

[mafia_boy]

That's what I was thinking for a class structure Soprano too, maybe have a WPR limit?? For example:

Group 1: WPR of 2.499 or less (400hp for 999kg limit)
Group 2: WPR of 2.500 > 3.249 (400hp for 1000kg to 1299kg)
Group 3: WPR of 3.250 > 3.999 (400hp for 1300kg to 1599kg)
Group 4: WPR of 4.000 > up. (400hp for 1600kg+)

Anyone in those categories must run S3's, and then an unlimited FF category because those other categories would be dominated by RWD/4WD cars.

 

[Spec M]

That's what I was thinking for a class structure Soprano too, maybe have a WPR limit?? For example:

Group 1: WPR of 2.499 or less (400hp for 999kg limit)
Group 2: WPR of 2.500 > 3.249 (400hp for 1000kg to 1299kg)
Group 3: WPR of 3.250 > 3.999 (400hp for 1300kg to 1599kg)
Group 4: WPR of 4.000 > up. (400hp for 1600kg+)

Anyone in those categories must run S3's, and then an unlimited FF category because those other categories would be dominated by RWD/4WD cars.

I have to admit that your concept is pretty entriguing.
I see nothing wrong what so ever with this layout. Also I agree with the FF class being granted unlimited.
This will definately even out the fields undescriminately. We all know that FFs are usually the underdogs.
If you would like to follow through with this concept you have my vote 👍

With this layout I belive that we will see the most diverse group of vehicles ever in a TC.

 

[mafia_boy]

mafs, regretfully I wasn't a part of the vintage tuner cup. I have a passion for the vintage European cars and I can only hope and prey that one day in the GT serious I will have the previlige of driving an Austin Healey or a 65 DB5. Has there been any talk of a new vintage tuner cup? If not I would like to participate in organising another, once TCv5 is completed and sucessful.

PS: Sorry for straying off subject

It's nowhere off subject for me. I reckon it could be interesting to have a VTC2 and explore new avenues with the old school cars as there's plenty of them left to use but as you said, let's organise this one first.

Everyone else, what do you feel about the WPR aspect of this??

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Hmm...

800-1050kg: 276hp max.
1051-1300kg: 380hp max.
1301kg-1600kg: 450hp max.
1600kg+: 600hp max.

At least somewhat equal, lighter vehicles in a given category will be best off in terms of lap time perhaps, but the idea is that this will class vehicles somewhat according to their style; the 276hp class will be the the hot hatches, the Miatas, the MR2s, so on and so forth, all brought up a noticeable bit in overall performance; the 380hp class will bring in our usual fare of NSXs, Evos, RX7s, Imprezas, the occasional R-car, so on. 450hp will be heavier hitters like most of the GT-Rs, the Americans, perhaps a few sedans and wagons. 600hp is for the grand-touring cars packing a hell of a punch but also a lot of mass to try and counteract around corners.

Oh and one thing about judging and the old system... I don't think people really interpreted the cornering prowess and attitude areas correctly. Attitude should've been purely based on how it behaves, not how fast it's going when it displays a given behavior. Prowess should've been how fast it can clear a corner no matter how badly it's trying to understeer off a cliff or murder you with oversteer. And it never got treated as such really, with many finding them very closely related, which they are. But some cars will understeer noticeably yet still be cornering at very good velocities, while others will do the same with oversteer, and more still will feel great but never actually have the overall grip of others.

 

[mafia_boy]

I'm just doing quick calculations on this myself RJ and the WPR's would be the following:

800-1050 (276hp) = 2.898 to 3.804
1051-1300 (380hp) = 2.766 to 3.421
1301-1600 (450hp) = 2.891 to 3.556
1600+ (600hp) = 2.667 and up.

Let's try and make these more even. I can see something we can do. Gimme a few minutes to work some calculations to make it spot on.

Here we go, how about these figures?? I just did a little adjusting and voila.

800-1050 (280hp) = 2.857 to 3.750
1051-1300 (370hp) = 2.841 to 3.514
1301-1600 (460hp) = 2.828 to 3.478
1601+ (575hp) = 2.785

What do you think about that one??

 

[Spec M]

Hmm...

800-1050kg: 276hp max.
1051-1300kg: 380hp max.
1301kg-1600kg: 450hp max.
1600kg+: 600hp max.

I can agree with the 600hp max for the 1600kg+ vehicels, logically. Because of the fact that most cars with that much mass are going to come out the factory with big PS and torque numbers. I have a fleet of tuned AMGs and it does'nt take much for me to reach the 600ps+ range so I think we should take more consideration into what the max is considering heavy cars, stock have heavy numbers.

As for the 1300kg-1600kg, I think that this range is ok for the JDM field. But we also have to take into cosideration that this is common supercar mass, (Marcielago, Zonda, Z06, RT10, SL65 AMG, Ford GT etc). All these cars start at around 500bhp and weigh between 3100-4400lbs and having a limit set 450hp will be very restrictive and tuners will be losing out on great oppurtunities to work with these and similar platforms.

Besides the limits of the last two (heaviest classes), I agree with this layout also, because of its simularities with mafs orignial concept.👍👍