Tuner Challenge Championship ~ April McLaren MP4
- Thread starter Adrenaline
- 897 comments
- 74,943 views
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
@ Blueshift - I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say?
@ Paulie - That is a possibility, but it's one that assumes the driver did the tunes in a 1,2,3 order, which I asked them not to do. Also, looking at the lap times, I'm rather confident it wasn't an HP issue, it appears to be much more likely a driving style preference, but I can't say for sure.
@ Paulie - That is a possibility, but it's one that assumes the driver did the tunes in a 1,2,3 order, which I asked them not to do. Also, looking at the lap times, I'm rather confident it wasn't an HP issue, it appears to be much more likely a driving style preference, but I can't say for sure.
- 757
- Paris
- BlueShift
About car prize, well, car prize.
About translating, in the leader board, you can give tuners names, once the board changes (only).
Say today
1 - tune #32 +0.00
2 - tune #46 +0.284
3 - tune #17 +0.587
Somebody submit driving times, you can change to
1 - DaBestTuner +0.00
2 - DaFastTuners +0.182
3 - DaNonFastTuner +0.602
That way nobody can guess since the classification have changed. Knowing who's the best tuner don't mean anything if drivers didn't post their time yet and don't know which tune belong to who, having only tune#.
If they post their times, "they could guess", by tracking the result, but who cares, they posted their time allready.
Ah... Maybe I'm wrong for round 2 ?
About translating, in the leader board, you can give tuners names, once the board changes (only).
Say today
1 - tune #32 +0.00
2 - tune #46 +0.284
3 - tune #17 +0.587
Somebody submit driving times, you can change to
1 - DaBestTuner +0.00
2 - DaFastTuners +0.182
3 - DaNonFastTuner +0.602
That way nobody can guess since the classification have changed. Knowing who's the best tuner don't mean anything if drivers didn't post their time yet and don't know which tune belong to who, having only tune#.
If they post their times, "they could guess", by tracking the result, but who cares, they posted their time allready.
Ah... Maybe I'm wrong for round 2 ?
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
Multiple people have expressed that they don't even think they need to be anonymous at all, so I don't see the need to cover it up any further. The leader board is just so that the tuners can track their progress over the driving period. The prize car isn't a bad idea, but it's completely up to the tuners.
- 757
- Paris
- BlueShift
Yeah but I want to tease Rotary Junkie (who, I think, is just in front of me... At least a RKM)
Yeah comp<ext, yeah sector 1 yeah, yeah... Watch out your mirrors
hahaha comp>ext is art of braking and accel... on oversteering cars yeah but... ah. Let's do a nsx would we ?
(lvl 40 spin-doctor-spec ftw )
Last edited:
- 1,139
- budious
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
As Blueshift mentioned, the stock car isn't on the leader board list, only in my mini reviews. My 3 lap average for the stock 'set up' was 1:28.422.
That includes all of the 'upgrades' installed as per the specifications of the challenge, but zero changes to suspension, lsd or torque split. The driver levels seems to have a solid 'range' already.
Fastest -
2nd fast is +1.2 seconds
3rd fast is +2.6 seconds
Which is a good thing for a competition like this, where we want to target all levels of driving skill. No driver needs to worry about there speed, as we want all types of drivers, to better the input field.
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
Makes me wonder if people are even testing mine in the correct configuration... I didn't get the driver's version of the email you sent out so I don't know how you worded it or if you sent my tuner's notes out with it?
"OH THAT'S THE STOCK CAR!"
No, he's asking what lap times people are getting in the STOCK car. Not the tune with the stock parts. He's trying to compare his lap times on the stock set up, to decide if his times would be comparable on the Tuner Set ups.
- 2,958
- Geneva
- Kimky
- Kimky
Ok I'm done with my times, I kinda feel like my times are not really representing the tuner's capability because I had lot of trouble to do even lap.
However a few things I could note still.
First of all the stock car (all part installed no tune done) was beaten by 6 tunes out of 10 I tried.
Tune #10 was really weird for me, I had both oversteer and understeer and kinda feel like the rear tyres had trouble getting the power to the ground because of the torque split.
Tune #3 and #7 were the best for me. I feel like I could still gain maybe half a second on both if only I could had achieved a perfect lap but it didnt happen. Tune #3 feels like it had a very lively front, which is good.
Also 260km/h as top speed seems a bit low. I kinda feel that it hit the rev limit at the end of the straight on the small hill when rev goes up because of lift up. I actually gain some times at that place with a car at 310km/h as top speed.
I didnt really took note during the time attack I did but I saw some tuners wanted feedback so I'm gonna try to write more stuff for the next Time Attack.
I did change oil every 2 run, car was at 542 HP.
I did a rerun for the one using stock lsd etc.. because I realized I used stock settings and not stock part. So yeah rerun that and gain like half a second. Wasnt a bad setup neither.
However a few things I could note still.
First of all the stock car (all part installed no tune done) was beaten by 6 tunes out of 10 I tried.
Tune #10 was really weird for me, I had both oversteer and understeer and kinda feel like the rear tyres had trouble getting the power to the ground because of the torque split.
Tune #3 and #7 were the best for me. I feel like I could still gain maybe half a second on both if only I could had achieved a perfect lap but it didnt happen. Tune #3 feels like it had a very lively front, which is good.
Also 260km/h as top speed seems a bit low. I kinda feel that it hit the rev limit at the end of the straight on the small hill when rev goes up because of lift up. I actually gain some times at that place with a car at 310km/h as top speed.
I didnt really took note during the time attack I did but I saw some tuners wanted feedback so I'm gonna try to write more stuff for the next Time Attack.
I did change oil every 2 run, car was at 542 HP.
I did a rerun for the one using stock lsd etc.. because I realized I used stock settings and not stock part. So yeah rerun that and gain like half a second. Wasnt a bad setup neither.
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
Cars with 310km/hr or 300km/hr as top speed will by far and away have the best gearing, because peak power is only 7,500rpm, anything past that and you're just not making power any more. Those 260km/hr tunes will be sitting well above peak power before the end of the back straight.
- 757
- Paris
- BlueShift
Then you can accelerate fast enough to the wall
It's a bad reason for using 310 km/h box because on a 800m straigth run a 250km/h box is faster than a 310km/h, even if 250km/h hit the rev.
Braking at middle shift give decreasing engine brakes too then go to another shift, and braking at end of a shift make increase engine brake before it decrease then go to a lower shift. So you brake better/smoother and have overall better control since it makes a "torque barrier" to pass instead of a "torque hill" to go down.
A good reason is track elevation/needed torque adaptation, I though you all made that for that purpose...
This+(comp<ext)+toe no wonder I'm still in middle/good place of the competition : your cars can have problems to brake or accel
Last edited:
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
I respectfully submit that you're bloody well wrong about gearing. 
Particularly for those who use automatic (Adrenaline for one). Why? Peak power is so far below redline that longer gearing will spend more time closer to peak power... Resulting in faster acceleration.
Shorter gearing != automatically faster acceleration. Given 100% traction, the shorter geared car will have an advantage on launch (matters none with flying laps) until it needs to hit 2nd gear... Where the longer-ratio car will keep pulling for a bit, shift, and still be accelerating well while the short-ratio car is running out 2nd... Same for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth until the short-ratio car hits the rev limiter.
Particularly for those who use automatic (Adrenaline for one). Why? Peak power is so far below redline that longer gearing will spend more time closer to peak power... Resulting in faster acceleration.
Shorter gearing != automatically faster acceleration. Given 100% traction, the shorter geared car will have an advantage on launch (matters none with flying laps) until it needs to hit 2nd gear... Where the longer-ratio car will keep pulling for a bit, shift, and still be accelerating well while the short-ratio car is running out 2nd... Same for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth until the short-ratio car hits the rev limiter.
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
Updated 
- 757
- Paris
- BlueShift
What I'm saying is you still have torque at the end of the straigth line that's great... But you want it for what ? Accelerate in the curve ? Hit your brake and fly ?I respectfully submit that you're bloody well wrong about gearing.
Particularly for those who use automatic (Adrenaline for one). Why? Peak power is so far below redline that longer gearing will spend more time closer to peak power... Resulting in faster acceleration.
Shorter gearing != automatically faster acceleration. Given 100% traction, the shorter geared car will have an advantage on launch (matters none with flying laps) until it needs to hit 2nd gear... Where the longer-ratio car will keep pulling for a bit, shift, and still be accelerating well while the short-ratio car is running out 2nd... Same for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth until the short-ratio car hits the rev limiter.
Esp on manual gearing, braking distances are not similar, since you attack braking phase with a brutal max torque, your decel differential locks instantly esp with high decel values and front comp set low (weigth goes instantly front too). That don't make a very academical braking phase. And that curve alone made you set your aero/decel settings.
Yeah, you may actually have 5 more kilometers (still 310 km/h vs 250/260 i don't beleive that) for, say 5-10 meters. (still with me driving I don't hit the rev)
But at this corner the braking distance is 25m long. My car don't slip in that corner, and if I remember well and don't idealize the situation two weeks after that, all the power stay on the road for 25m full meters. "full apex" around that curve is possible, which I think is the best trajectory, and not possible with a slipping car.
I may loose 0.1 sec before but win 0.2 in the corner and after so it's a fair trade
Maybe I can't go fast but you can't brake then accel after a curve, and if it had been an oversteering car instead of that sticky 4x4 I would be #1 atm
Guys, I don't really think that tuning in this aera is possible : if every single racer tell the same, it must be that way.
Last edited:
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
Blueshift, the only mistake you're making, is assuming that they used the straightaway to base their gearing... Which they didn't. That 'maximum torque' they're referring to, is being utilized throughout the entire first sector. (I assume, based on my driving)
- 757
- Paris
- BlueShift
I don't think so, look at that :
and that
A 400km/h (say) gearbox will stay a longer time in the max torque range, you're rigth. It will stay also a longer time in the min torque range, so it's not even good for accel.
Torque alone don't make accel : that's torque * rpm / gear ratio.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
*sigh*
Acceleration is influenced entirely by the amount of horsepower the engine is putting out at a given speed in excess of resistances.
Therefore, being as close as possible to the peak power output of the engine for as long as possible will result in faster acceleration. Shorter/lower/numerically higher gear ratios will only enhance low-speed acceleration, and even then only until there is enough torque multiplication to cause wheelspin...
Your car, quite literally, will lose to 50mph to one of the cars with longer gearing, will lose to 100, will lose to 150. First gear needs only to be short enough to just slightly spin the tires on launch, the rest should be as wide-spaced as possible without dropping out of the meat of the power curve (and the top gear should be set so that when the car cannot accelerate any further the engine is at peak power).
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
[Announcer Voice]Tune 4 jumps a spot, Tune 3 closes the gap to first, the bubble position narrows to .036 and Tune 7 becomes the only tune to finish in the top 3 for every driver so far![/Voice]
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
Is it me or did tune 9 move a lot just now?
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
- 1,139
- budious
Not position but in average score, it was much closer to 5 before? Now the margin has doubled.
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
And again you're completely disregarding the power band of this motor. Using the shorter gearing will leave you stranded well out of range of peak power for a very long time down the back straight, you'll be hitting 9,000rpm or what ever when peak power was way back at 7,500rpm and a dubious decline afterwards. The point RJ is trying to make, I think, is that shorter gearing does not provide enough of an acceleration off-set to justify the major loss in top speed, simply because of the reasons he's mentioned.
