Tuner Challenge Championship ~ April McLaren MP4

  • Thread starter Adrenaline
  • 897 comments
  • 72,087 views
mclarencaperingperipher.png


mclarencaperingperipher.png

Attention: The FAA has not certified this classification of light recreational aircraft for guardrail landings. :scared:
 
Last edited:
So, I'm curious... what happens when/if your tune isn't the fastest? At what point do you ditch this silly calculation?
 
Adrenaline
So, I'm curious... what happens when/if your tune isn't the fastest? At what point do you ditch this silly calculation?
Click to expand...

budious
<snip>

Oops, meant to type that into the other reply box tab I had open :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, meant to paste to my tuning thread just as a further example of math.

To answer your question though, not being the fastest doesn't mean the equation isn't valid, just that perhaps I didn't use the right combination of variables in the equation. You can balance it in more than one way. The equation is meant for an efficiency comparison between values, not necessarily as a way to determine which are actually best. Think of needing to determine the amount of stabilizers required for your tune for a particular track, then you could apply my way of thinking to determining the amount of required dampers for those stabilizer settings. You could then also base your minimum spring rates off of those first two comparisons but not necessarily have determined the maximum.
 
budious
I only listed them out to differentiate that custom transmission set auto to 267mph was very different gearing from the factory transmission also with a top speed of 267mph. I just didn't want people to get the two mixed up as I have said to use the factory transmission in the past on the Subaru tune; but for this one, custom transmission set to auto 267mph's generated defaults... even then the differences are still small so it's not really a problem if they do get the two confused, which I have probably now achieved! :)
Click to expand...

I'm not confused.
I haven't driven the McLaren for a while, but I do remember it. I hope not to offend anyone, I'm just trying to contribute to the thread. Here then is my "mental" review of the tunes as a driver. :dopey:
First, I'm looking at the ride height versus the downforce. Everybody has the rear downforce all jacked up, so I'm preparing to "point before I push", meaning I have to "point" the car in the direction I want to go before I "push" the accelerator.
The first tune is low to the ground, so I'm expecting to see stiffer spring rates, which I do. Because it's so low, I'm going to drive this car VERY clean, meaning no rumble strips until I know what they will do to the car. This tune tells me to be cautious on entry, but quick on the throttle for exit. This will produce nice lap times. This is a hot-lap tune.
The second tune has maxed both dampers and sway bar, so now I'm relying on an effective balance between the LSD and wheel alignment. Since the toe is neutral, camber is even more important. Camber is really high , so I'll need to be careful with my tires. Initial torque is also high, but I may need that to protect the tires from the camber. This is a racers tune, and I would be happy to get this tune within three tenths of a hot-lap tune.
The third tune represents a radical departure from the others. The rear end is lower, so the rear springs are harder. But then the front springs are stiffer than the rear, almost negating any advantage gained, only to be undone by a super soft front sway bar versus the rear. The strong brake bias implies a late corner entry under hard braking, leaving me again at the delicate balance between LSD and wheel alignment. Is the high rear brake setting used to offset or enhance the high rear brake LSD setting? This is a tune that needs to be driven aggressively, pushing everything to the limit all the time. It seems it will wear out the tires before the gas runs out. If you use soft tires for the grip necessary to max the tune, they will wear out. If you use harder tires, you won't get the grip needed to max the tune. But then, they throw in the gearing twist!

I will need to take it to the track to see how accurate these remarks are. I will try to find time tomorrow to put them up against each other. Until then,

Race On! :cheers:
 
I don't know who submitted the "D"-tune. But I guess it should be clarified that gearbox setting means adjusting the top speed setting first and than changing the final gear ratio? If final gear is adjusted first you really get 230 km/h top speed, which is probably not intended? The gearbox sound is awful with that final gear btw.

It's sad Motor City Hamilton did apparently not submit his tune? After 10 laps Tokio with each: Hamilton's is 0.5 sec quicker for me.
 
Z1-AV69
It's sad Motor City Hamilton did apparently not submit his tune? After 10 laps Tokio with each: Hamilton's is 0.5 sec quicker for me.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I looked at his pdf and he spec'd a 0kg ballast at -35. If you are using that and put it on any of these tunes you'd probably make up the same time difference you are seeing there.
 
budious
Ok, so I looked at his pdf and he spec'd a 0kg ballast at -35. If you are using that and put it on any of these tunes you'd probably make up the same time difference you are seeing there.
Click to expand...

On Racing Softs Hamilton's is even quicker with +/- 0 distribution. I think -35 is way too much, maybe -5 would indeed help. The MP4-12C's weight distribution is fine imho, the problem is only to make it "move" right for the different driving states.
 
I forgot to mention that in the email, but for April, the ballast is required to be 'reset to default' for all 3 tunes.

chukabilly
The third tune represents a radical departure from the others... But then the front springs are stiffer than the rear, almost negating any advantage gained, only to be undone by a super soft front sway bar versus the rear.
Click to expand...

Hoping to prevent any mistakes, but all 3 tunes, including D, are running a stronger rear spring than front. Make sure you double check the settings you apply to the car, before you test them.


Z1-AV69
I don't know who submitted the "D"-tune. But I guess it should be clarified that gearbox setting means adjusting the top speed setting first and than changing the final gear ratio? If final gear is adjusted first you really get 230 km/h top speed...
Click to expand...
Yes, they are listed in the order that they are to be adjusted. This is why 'Top Speed' is the first listed value in the spreadsheet, despite it's location in game. Tuners often submit 'comments' or 'notes' in their emails, but I haven't been including them in the spreadsheet. I may need to add a section for that in the future.
 
Thanks Adrenaline. I wrote the set-up down right but then cross-referenced my notes during typing. I'll be more careful.
 
budious
Ok, so I looked at his pdf and he spec'd a 0kg ballast at -35. If you are using that and put it on any of these tunes you'd probably make up the same time difference you are seeing there.
Click to expand...

We had 15 days of time to tune where there was no mention that balast was off limits in our tunes. 4 days before due date, one voice got it tossed. Put two and two together and you have the reason my tune got posted straight to my garage. I didn't feel like nor have the time to go back and rework my tune.

Good luck to all the tuners this month. Looking forward to the reviews.
 
budious
Why is you work dependent on a ballast? Even the responder praising your tune said it worked better without one...
Click to expand...

My tune was great with it. I was working to improve it without ballast, but it just wasn't as good. If I am going to use this car anywhere else, I would personally use it with ballast. I just disagree that it got tossed even with a 3 to 1 representation.
 
Whatever, if you want to run your car with ballast in the competition this month then Adrenaline is free to change his mind and reissue the email. I'll accept the handicap and run without it. The fact that he did side with me makes it 2 to 2 though by my count?
 
It didn't get tossed, it's never been used throughout the entire challenge so far.
It wasn't until people mentioned it's use, to 'allegedly' gain an unfair advantage, that I felt the need to clarify. The discussion I was looking for, was to discuss if it should be allowed in future months. At this point, it really doesn't matter though.
 
Motor City Hami
Thanks for the clarrification.
Click to expand...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
In your scenario, you designed your tune around the ballast. By saying it can't be used, you feel you got screwed.
On the other hand, had I allowed it's use, I can safely assume other tuners would have been pissed off, because they designed their tune without it, since it was never mentioned, and you would of had an advantage.
 
Yeah, I know but now I have to grind some money again to buy the Mclaren, because the Nissan R92CP Race Car just showed up in my UCD...
 
Offline times are fine.
You're one of the tuners, and 1 of the other 2 also agreed.
So I don't see why not, especially due to the PSN issues.
 
Rotary Junkie
I'd lean towards throwing the entire setup out. Go back to the old way of subjective judging with some time measurements, separate drivetrain classes, and a free-for-all on car choice so long as it's a road car and slots under whatever extra requirements there are (power cap, weight minimum, PP cap, etc).

But that's just me.

Edit: Of course this turns it into a very long process which gives people more time to do a car (as it is needed), more time for judges to make time to drive each class, etc etc. They get big quick when you have 3 drivetrain classes and 10+ tuners in each.
Click to expand...

I also prefer the old tuning challenge setup used in the GT4 forum. Tuners were able to pick whatever car they wanted (provided it fit within a specific class) which yielded a large variety of tunes/cars. As a casual player and forumer I found the old setup exposed me to many cars I otherwise would have overlooked. Also, the reviews submitted by the testers were far more interesting to read than lists of lap times.

Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful for the contributions of everyone in this thread and as just an observer (and beneficiary ;) ) I don't expect my opinion to hold any weight. However, I just believe that the old tuning comp provided for a more robust tuning output and discussion than the present setup.
 
Thanks to PSN being fubar, I have been testing the tunes offline and the results are funny on CRP (like budious's pics). I think I will restrict myself to Grand Valley, less chance of flying :P

I am recording the lap times offline but with luck PSN will be back in time to do the runs online as well.
 
Basilea
A thing that would be actually great, so we can compare the difference between on- and offline...
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's what I was thinking. I generally do mostly offline racing in GT5 (finding good rooms in Australia is quite the chore). In saying that, I am not a 'super' driver by any means either but I think this challenge will be good for me as I will know where I sit amongst some of the more seasoned players here at GTP.
 
Ohhhh my god! I can tell you that I will never like this car! I just can't handle it and I wonder what the tune can do about it... just drove it stock on Grand Valley (15 laps). I can almost not full throttle the car... not even in the 4th gear + and therefore I can't do a real fast lap. Out of the 15 laps I had 4 red laps, 6 laps with spins that didn't turn red but were over 2 minutes and 5 laps under 2 minutes... the 3 best laps are all within 0.1 second, so at least it's consistent but I know with a good lap I can shave off another 5-10 seconds...

Why did the tuners barely change the gear rations? I think this could be a very important thing to go faster on this car? How will the tune with less downforce than stock turn out? I feel the car isn't even stable with stock downforce...

Ok let's go with the first tune. I hope it helps...
 
i'll Definitely Be In It To Win It In May.... I Think My Fellow Tuner Zach Will Be Joining In On The Fun In May!
 
Dylans1o
i'll Definitely Be In It To Win It In May.... I Think My Fellow Tuner Zach Will Be Joining In On The Fun In May!
Click to expand...

At this current time, I'm not sure as to what the future of this competition will be, if it even has one. It seems much interest has been lost and I'm not positive how to change things to help draw in more tuners. A few request for an 'old format' but to me the old format doesn't really make sense, as far as a level playing field. I've gotta do some reading through the archives of the old layout. I don't currently have plans to proceed with the competition in May. :guilty:
 
Adrenaline
At this current time, I'm not sure as to what the future of this competition will be, if it even has one. It seems much interest has been lost and I'm not positive how to change things to help draw in more tuners. A few request for an 'old format' but to me the old format doesn't really make sense, as far as a level playing field. I've gotta do some reading through the archives of the old layout. I don't currently have plans to proceed with the competition in May. :guilty:
Click to expand...
:(
 

Latest Posts

Back