Tuner Challenge Championship ~ April McLaren MP4

[Basilea]

I would still go with something like this:

I think there should be at least 3 drivers testing a car on a track. Right now with 10 drivers, I would suggest to split them in two groups and drive on two tracks!

This month the cars would be first the Nissan XANAVI NISMO Z ‘06 and then in two weeks the Honda RAYBRIG NSX ‘06. Half of the drivers tests the Nissan on track A, the other half on track B and the Honda is tested the other way around. Some drivers maybe have the time and will to drive each car on both tracks...

 

[budious]

Adrenaline, replied to email sent to tuners with follow up question. I'll also ask here for public discussion.

Do we want to do Stock HP, or many GT 500 cars have Engine Tune 3 and Turbo 2/3 options available for upgrade, any is fine by me but since there are usually upgrades available we should clarify it.

 

[Basilea]

Online people drive with the best possible car, don't they? I will tune my Nismo anyways either now or after the stock testing for tuners challenge...

 

[Motor City Hami]

What do the online GT500 series use? It looks like they stay true to the real world series of around 500 hp. That means no additional hp mods. Oil change and go.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Can the tuners at least know the range of tracks that the car could be tested on? Maybe have each driver post their preferred track or a list of their top three tracks? That way the tuners can at least know the range of top speeds needed and make a choice. If the tracks are fully open for the driver to pick, I will have to assume that I tune close to the longest straight available in the game? Then if half of the drivers pick Autum ring, I lose, not on my overall tune, but on top speed alone. Would be nice to know the range of tracks that drivers intend to use.

Thoughts?

 

[Adrenaline]

Tuning, is stock + oil change + chassis stiffening.
No more, no less.

As for the drivers and range of tracks tracks, this is up for debate, so I can't give you a definite answer yet, that's why we're discussing it. A custom track, is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve though. Basilea's half & half idea is decent, but still forces drivers to tracks where they might not produce accurate results.

 

[GT5SER]

How about Fuji Speedway?

- Jeramy

 

[docholiday720]

As for the drivers and range of tracks tracks, this is up for debate, so I can't give you a definite answer yet, that's why we're discussing it. A custom track, is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve though. Basilea's half & half idea is decent, but still forces drivers to tracks where they might not produce accurate results.

What if we poll the top 3 tracks for each driver and see what they want.

For instance

Driver A likes 1 Fuji 2 Suzuka 3 Deep Forest
Driver B likes 1 Deep Forest 2 High Speed Ring 3 Rome
Driver C likes 1 Trail Mountain 2 Deep Forest 3 Fuji

Then the track for those 3 drivers would be Deep Forest. You could do this for all drivers and as long as there are 3 drivers that have the same track in their top 3 tracks. That way we could have up to 3 different track tested each month.

 

[budious]

The only tracks I would put on an objectionable list would be Indy, Daytona, High Speed Ring, and SS7. I'd be okay with Indy Road Course or Daytona Road Course though. You could even throw Sarthe and Nordschleife in there and just lower the required amount of test laps per tune if drivers want to use those.

 

[drivehard]

Ya this is tough. To make a decision that will yield the most conclusive results. Initially I think we need a set track but if you look at all the data for the first round you could say that the winning tune trumped driving style. So in the long run the new system should work just fine. But it's hard for me to see that far ahead after just one round so I don't know.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Tuning, is stock + oil change + chassis stiffening.
No more, no less.

As for the drivers and range of tracks tracks, this is up for debate, so I can't give you a definite answer yet, that's why we're discussing it. A custom track, is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve though. Basilea's half & half idea is decent, but still forces drivers to tracks where they might not produce accurate results.

Tires? Racing Hard?

 

[Basilea]

Tires? Racing Hard?

Racing Soft! It's in the first post...

 

[Adrenaline]

Tires? Racing Hard?

Did you get the email I sent?
I don't see your name on the mailing list, shoot me an email to gtplanet.tgb@gmail.com so I can add you to the contact list and I'll send you the details I sent out.

 

[NingDynasty]

I'm new around here and I don't claim to have read the entire discussion about track specific tuning but here are my 2 cents.

To be able create a tune that is well balanced and can be brought to any track is something anyone would be proud of, however we should remember that the reason we do this is for the love of competition in motorsport. The teams that are truely successful are the ones that can dial a car in based on what the conditions on the track are. To me tuning a car for a specific track needs to be a part of this competition as it allows us to see the true potential in the mechanic.

Now if your going to be doing two different cars a month why not have round 1 be the all-around tune and round 2 be track specific. As a driver being put in a car that is setup perfectly for a specific track should be one of the most enjoyable experiences you can have and brings out the best in your abilities as your able to push the car that much more.

Again just an opinion.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Just my opinion on the multiple tracks tuning. I find that if you get a car to corner correctly, it will work very well on 90% of the tracks in the game. I only change the transmission settings from track to track to optimize lap time.

The exceptions:
Nurburgring Nordschleife
Circuit de la Sarthe
Trail Mountain
and a few more exceptions if this were GT4

My only concern with not knowing the tracks that the drivers prefer is if a majority like Autum Ring/Tusuka or something on the other end with a long straight like Fugi. If I set up to top out at Fugi and many drivers use Autum Ring or Tusuka, I lose. In that scenario, did it really test my tune or just test that I chose the correct top speed? Same in reverse, if I go with a conservative middle of the road setting for straights at like Trail Mountain, Special Stage 5 or Rome, and many drivers choose Fugi, then my tune will bounce off the rev limiter half way down the straights.

I can think of two ways to manage this issue.
1.) Have the drivers report which track they intend to use prior to tune submission.
2.) Have Adrenaline come up with a standard top speed for each track that is to be used and apply it to everyone's tune.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Did you get the email I sent?
I don't see your name on the mailing list, shoot me an email to gtplanet.tgb@gmail.com so I can add you to the contact list and I'll send you the details I sent out.

No. I didn't receive. Email sent to you now.

 

[budious]

So now that we got fully customizable transmissions this round, is it acceptable practice to have a two speed gearbox that tops out at 250MPH, eliminating the need for the extra shifting?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

So now that we got fully customizable transmissions this round, is it acceptable practice to have a two speed gearbox that tops out at 250MPH, eliminating the need for the extra shifting?

You know, with the figures the Xanavi puts out it wouldn't surprise me if that would actually work reasonably

 

[BlueShift]

@budious : this is stupid. You will pass on the max torque range only twice, making very hard to accel and braking for your car.

 

[drivehard]

If I race all tunes without chassis rigidity it wouldn't make much of a difference. How about a drivers option not to use that...thing.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

If I race all tunes without chassis rigidity it wouldn't make much of a difference. How about a drivers option not to use that...thing.

It would actually... It may affect different tunes in different ways.

 

[GT5SER]

If I race all tunes without chassis rigidity it wouldn't make much of a difference. How about a drivers option not to use that...thing.

Rules are rules. If you don't like then or approve, then you might not be the ideal driver for this battle.

- Jeramy

 

[GT5SER]

I like the idea about the drivers become friends with the tune shop and borrow the cars from them. No, I guess that wouldn't work.

- Jeramy

 

[drivehard]

I have no intention of breaking the rules but I have to try. I really don't know enough to argue for or against when it comes to tuning. I do think installing that thing makes the car less fun to drive. Something about feeling the tiny weight shift while throwing the car into high speed corners. Like its more dangerous or your making more of an investment.

 

[drivehard]

I like the idea about the drivers become friends with the tune shop and borrow the cars from them. No, I guess that wouldn't work.

- Jeramy

Ya I wish. With the competition going on...The nature of friendship could be abused. It would begin with good intentions but eventually someone would remember that the world is watching and I have to prove such and such.

 

[budious]

@budious : this is stupid. You will pass on the max torque range only twice, making very hard to accel and braking for your car.

Well I know it shouldn't obviously work in real world cars but the GT engine to transmission conversion is flawed as hell. This actually does work so try it before you say otherwise. I did not test on Xanavi but I was trying it out with a similarly powered Ford GT and could get an extra 20MPH top end speed on Daytona with a two speed setup then I couldn't get with any other combination of a traditionally geared transmission.

I have no intention of breaking the rules but I have to try. I really don't know enough to argue for or against when it comes to tuning. I do think installing that thing makes the car less fun to drive. Something about feeling the tiny weight shift while throwing the car into high speed corners. Like its more dangerous or your making more of an investment.

Thing is, if the car is actually tuned right you shouldn't notice a different, or should see a definitive improvement. This upgrade only gets a bad reputation because when applied to a bad tune it just makes it so much worse.

 

[drivehard]

Ya I have no idea how to finely tune a car so all it does is mess everything up.

 

[NMRacing]

Well I know it shouldn't obviously work in real world cars but the GT engine to transmission conversion is flawed as hell. This actually does work so try it before you say otherwise. I did not test on Xanavi but I was trying it out with a similarly powered Ford GT and could get an extra 20MPH top end speed on Daytona with a two speed setup then I couldn't get with any other combination of a traditionally geared transmission.

That does not sound flawed at all it actually sounds right. Have you ever driven a 2 speed car (ie: powerglide) in drag racing this is a common gearbox, on daytona it works for the same reason.

 

[budious]

I'd assume it work with high torque and high horsepower engines to some degree, guess I should have said impractical for engine wear and fuel consumption unless there was at least a third shorter gear to drop into for economy driving once you rode the first two to the top.

I was having fun with my Ford GT (production model premium), full weight reductions bringing it down to ~1200 KG and Engine Tune 3, no other power upgrades, for ~660HP, ~550LB-FT. Set the gearbox up to run two speeds up to about 300mph; actually I don't know if I ever even shifted out of first on Laguna Seca and finished second place a few seconds behind 2J Race Car on American Championship A-spec. Anyways, would accelerate fairly easy up to 150-160mph in first gear on the straights, and go to Daytona and get in second and you hit 220mph fairly easily, top speed at this spec.

 

[NMRacing]

I'd assume it work with high torque and high horsepower engines to some degree, guess I should have said impractical for engine wear and fuel consumption unless there was at least a third shorter gear to drop into for economy driving once you rode the first two to the top.

fuel economy is pretty much how we got to today where we have 7 speed gearboxes.

A fair few forms of motorsports still use 2 speed gearboxes quite regularly and salt racing is one of them. Acceleration is sacrificed at the cost of having the car remain in its peak power/torque band for longer periods, you are correct in assuming that high power/ torque is needed, but it is mainly low down torque that needs to be high.

As for economy, generally in street driven 2 speed cars first gear is set to allow for easy take off and second is so high that at average traffic speeds the car is only really idling, it is higher freeway speeds where the engine is revving higher (say 3000rpm) that economy is really lost.