- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
Wallbanger's Cafe & Outlaw Motorsports Garage (New Tunes 6/15/12)
- Thread starter XDesperado67
- 2,688 comments
- 353,346 views
- 88
- Alberni Valley
Afraid you'll have to catch the Cuore/Mira in the UCD.:
By the way the Mira TR-XX Avanzato '97 is the same car, Daihatsu just used the Mira name for Japanese Domestic sales.
Thanks! I will keep an eye out for each/either.
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
- 88
- Alberni Valley
Hey Trainman post a couple of those tunes we talked about before here and I'll send you one!(bribe, bribe)
Of course I'm booked till Monday on my sends so you might get one before I could get it to you anyways.
I will post as many as I can, but it may not be until Sunday anyway. It will be fun sharing them, and getting feedback on how to make them better!
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
FF Shootout
All information relating to the rules for the FF Summer Shootout, and discussion of the event, and its rules has been moved to the following thread:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209217
All information relating to the rules for the FF Summer Shootout, and discussion of the event, and its rules has been moved to the following thread:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209217
Last edited:
- 829
Yes yes yes!!! It begins. I think first up should be Track suggestions and a voted on or agreed upon Track. I think we got 500PP and FF covered. Ohh, I don't like the use of the Power Limiter. This is to tune to 500PP no dialing down from higher HP to keep a flat power curve. I also would like an Entry deadline.
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
Two thoughts on the 500PP limit. Personally I think it either needs to be a hard cap meaning no power limiter or ballast allowed or else it should be up to the tuner. Personally I feel ballast is at least as disruptive as the power limiter. Being able to basically redistribute weight for free is a major enhancement to handling. Add in that you almost always get a better power to weight ratio through the use of ballast over the use of the power limiter, and that possibly flattened torque curve isn't such a big deal.
- 6,380
- United Kingdom
- RoJJieE
- mb6roj
Just a thought, but what if a 0-mile car has 500PP, but when broken it in, it ends up with 501PP?
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
Hmmm not sure I've seen stock FF car that was 500 PP...
Again my suggestion would be if we set a hard cap meaning no ballast or power limiter allowed then any car a test driver has go over the PP limit is disqualified.
Otherwise then additional adjustments could be made.
Would also highly recommend that all cars be thoroughly broken in if new before testing and if used that an engine overhaul be performed prior to testing.
- 829
XDesperado67
I would respectfully disagree. If anybody uses ballast that adds mass to the car. While it can be done to get better weight distribution adding it always brings down your PP. You then need to compensate with Power, but the extra mass is still being lugged around. This I think embodies a Shootout. The Power Limiter is much different (IMO) you need to increase the PP well above the allowed limit and dial down with the power limiter. This gives an un-recognized advantage in the rest of the Power band, while adding ballast gives a very recognized increased mass (disadvantage) when compared to using the Power Limiter. I would suspect everybody to be forced to use a little ballast to make a clean 500PP unless they get the perfect part list to hit 500PP, or are comfortable with their Tune a PP or 2 shy of 500PP.
I'm very open to hear people's opinions on the matter.
VTiRoj
That's where you need to break in the car before getting your 500PP, or decide if you want to add mass to bring it down. All cars for testing should be fully broken in and have gone through a rebuild otherwise HP/PP keeps growing until the "broken in" point.
Back in a bit, out for some Cosmo's Breakfast. (local old school grease pit breakfast joint) back when my Belly's full.
Last edited:
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
Actually if we make it a hard cap you might get a better assortment of cars as then people are looking to build to as close to that 500 PP limit as possible and thus might consider cars that say max out at 486 or 497 PP. Otherwise they are looking to build only cars that can get over that 500 PP limit and then restrict down to it.
- 6,380
- United Kingdom
- RoJJieE
- mb6roj
I don't mean stock, I mean after tuning.Hmmm not sure I've seen stock FF car that was 500 PP...
That's settled then.
👍
- 829
I think it will add diversity and show more character from the Tuners. Some will get to the PP limit increasing power, others will get there reducing and moving weight. Then there will be some who do a little of both 
Unlike ballast, The power limiter has no drawbacks. It only increases power and the car needs to be tuned well above the PP limit to be reduced down. Ballast reduces PP the more you use & the extra mass increases braking distances, slows acceleration for all the good it does in the corners. It improves balance yes, but at the cost of PP directly. The Power Limiter adds power the PP level doesn't recognize
, that's why I disagree with it's use. If it were to limit power on an even scale across the entire rpm range & reflect any advantage in power curve in PP I'd have no gripe with it's use. Maybe next patch.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm open to discussion and would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. We must understand we may not agree but we can always vote past these differences when setting up the event.
Unlike ballast, The power limiter has no drawbacks. It only increases power and the car needs to be tuned well above the PP limit to be reduced down. Ballast reduces PP the more you use & the extra mass increases braking distances, slows acceleration for all the good it does in the corners. It improves balance yes, but at the cost of PP directly. The Power Limiter adds power the PP level doesn't recognize
, that's why I disagree with it's use. If it were to limit power on an even scale across the entire rpm range & reflect any advantage in power curve in PP I'd have no gripe with it's use. Maybe next patch.As I mentioned earlier, I'm open to discussion and would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. We must understand we may not agree but we can always vote past these differences when setting up the event.
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
I think it will add diversity and show more character from the Tuners. Some will get to the PP limit increasing power, others will get there reducing and moving weight. Then there will be some who do a little of both
Unlike ballast, The power limiter has no drawbacks. It only increases power and the car needs to be tuned well above the PP limit to be reduced down. Ballast reduces PP the more you use & the extra mass increases braking distances, slows acceleration for all the good it does in the corners. It improves balance yes, but at the cost of PP directly. The Power Limiter adds power the PP level doesn't recognize
As I mentioned earlier, I'm open to discussion and would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. We must understand we may not agree but we can always vote past these differences when setting up the event.
Did you see the second half of my point about ballast? You actually get a better power to weight ratio with ballast used to reach a given PP than with the power limiter used to reach that same limit.
Personally I can work with anything and if you want to let me play with ballast I'm cool with it.
Oh and Onboy123 I just sent the "Pocket Monster" over.
Take good care of him and feed him the occasional tuner car!
Last edited:
- 829
XDesperado67Did you see the second half of my point about ballast? You actually get a better power to weight ratio with ballast used to reach a given PP than with the power limiter used to reach that same limit.
Personally I can work with anything and if you want to let me play with ballast I'm cool with it.
Oh and Onboy123 I just sent the "Pocket Monster" over.
Take good care of him and feed him the occasional tuner car!
Absolutely, I commented on it. You do get better weight distribution, but it is still with added mass that reduced the PP. That mass while improves cornering balance (if set right) still slows down your acceleration and increases braking distances. The mass even if placed right hurts performance directly in some areas while it improves performance in others. Tuners are supposed to find the balance through tuning if they go that rout. It's not something anybody would be forced to use.
I'd really like to hear what others think on the subject.
Last edited:
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
My new Original Gangstaz Golf would be perfect for this...in terms of PP.
That's why we use independent test drivers.
They'll take the cars on an as yet to be determined course and log the times.
Best composite average time wins.
Anyways as you can see we're still hashing out the rules so any input you might have is welcome.
- 11,127
- Bromley
- V16T91
- E0nLeader
But even if they drove it it wouldn't win. It's not designed for serious driving at all.
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
- 829
Anybody else want to share their opinions on Track Selection & the discussed regulations? We need as much input from others as possible so we can insure all people getting involved feel the competition is fair.
- 199
- Drewsifer3X
Hmm. I got a pug coupe sitting in the garage just begging me to tune it!
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
Hey Drew just picked up another Isuzu Piazza. I know it doesn't qualify for the FF shootout but I have a few ideas to get it handling better. You interested?
- 387
- D3MONIC_Z3RO_
I think each tuner should be allowed to use the ballast/limiter if they choose to. Let each tuner decide if it is the right thing to do for the tracks we will be using. After all part of being a tuner is picking the right parts to go along with your settings.
I suggest trying to keep the rules as simple and straight forward as possible.
Onboy123
Premium
- 8,872
- Hong Kong
- Onboy123
Sorry for the lat reply, was sleeping
And yea, since I'm back at the start of summer (1st of July), it'll leave me with a few days to collect the cars and a week to test them.
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
Sorry for the lat reply, was sleeping
And yea, since I'm back at the start of summer (1st of July), it'll leave me with a few days to collect the cars and a week to test them.
HeHe you weren't the only one sleeping!
Was working on that price of scrap metal and plastic otherwise refured to as a CT390R in the pits at the Supercar Eifel when I passed out. Guess my body is trying to say it needs more than 3 hours sleep a day to function!
Anyways glad to hear you'll be in as a driver for this shootout. Any suggestions for a track?
- 829
zero_speed
If that's how the people want it then let it be so. I'm open to PP & Ballast, let the Tuners use whatever they can to hit 500PP.
