550 PP FR VS. 4WD(90% FR distribution) Laguna Seca Battle.

[Gran_Turismo]

Sorry for the "90% FR distribution." part. I mean't Rear Power.

So this time I decided to do a more "Fair" comparison with added cars.

Sorry for video display. Was saved Widescreen 480p, but youtube messed it up.

Comparison Details:

This video is shot in one go. There were no retries, but had to edit out alot of filler to meet the youtube limit.

Time to beat is 1:30.315 set by me early with the same GT-R. I gave myself 2 laps to try to beat the time.

Cars in starting order:

1. 8C Competizione 615 HP 7800 RPM Record: 1:33.332
2. Corvette Z06 (C6) 543 HP 6000 RPM Record: 1:31.791
3. R8 5.2 FSI quattro 530 HP 8000 RPM Record: 1:31.727
4. GT-R 505 HP 5800 RPM Record: 1.31.033

Tuning Details:

All cars weigh 1500 Kg (FR car's ballast were set to -25 for the rear to keep traction in the rear).

All cars are using Sports Soft tyres.

All cars are fitted with Full Custom Transmissions with 4 gears set to reach top speeds of 1- 60, 2- 100, 3- 150, and 4- 200 MPH.

Full Suspension setting for all cars:

Front Rear
-15 Ride Height -10 (Excluding the Z06. Cannot lower from 0)
1/2% Spring Rate 50/50 (Adjust for half maximum in front and centered rear)
2 All Dampers 5
2 Anti-roll Bars 3
2.5 Camber Angle 2.5
0.75 Toe Angle 0.25

This is just a comparison video to see how the cars would fare against each other when all are at the same performance points.

The 4WD cars were set to 90% power to the rear (Maxmium setting) to even the odds.

The 8C was the only car that didn't perform as well as others around the corners, but was fastest on the straight.

The GT-R was the slowest on the straight, but edged itself away from the others in the corners due to its ability to remain stable and then pull away with ease when entering and exiting.

The Z06 and R8 share minimal differences with each other, here. I think these two are more of a match for each other, than the Z06 and GT-R.

I'm not a perfect driver as there was room for improvement with all the cars (I'm not going to put that much of my time for it), but the podium finish would have most likely remained the same.



Feel free to share your thoughts.

 

[Highlandor]

15 Ride Height -10 (Excluding the Z06. Cannot lower from 0)
1/2% Spring Rate 50/50 (Adjust for half maximum in front and centered rear)
2 All Dampers 5
2 Anti-roll Bars 3
2.5 Camber Angle 2.5
0.75 Toe Angle 0.25

What exactly are you trying to either prove or show by this thread??

I'm sorry, but again this 'test' is just as flawed as the last test.

You cannot apply the same 'setup' to 4 cars, also the setup you're using (with quite alot of rear stability) could be affecting one car more than another.

The higher rear ride hide, 0.25 rear toe and 2.5 rear camber, in my experience, will hurt alot of 4wd drive cars in terms of understeer.

Also, if you're going to use custom suspension, why not a LSD aswell?? When doing PP racing, a LSD can be used and an LSD can, with SOME cars,, make a big difference.

By utilising an LSD you might find you will not need such rear stability with the suspension setup, and subsequently this will possibly alter the performance and handling of one (or more) of the cars in your test.

Why is 90% power to the rear wheels better / best or being used?? Most 4WD cars have between roughly 20-80 to 55/45 split, most would be roughly or approximately 30-70.

The gears too, how do you know if this is best or worse for one particular car.

Sorry, but this is just not a correct 'test', as mentioned before, when testing something you need to keep as many variables the same or equal for credibility or accuracy.

I know I'm sounding harsh, and I do sincerely apologise, I do not wish to criticse you personally, but you have to understand, when testing something (almost anything) there's certain ways of doing things that will give your test credibility and other ways that will have the opposite affect.

Having the same PP is a good start, alot of people race according to PP, but there's 2 ways of getting to a PP limit - either by weight or by power modification.

Also, 1 track, especially Laguna, is not accurate for a conclusive 'test', look at the thread for people's test tracks, Laguna is hardly mentioned.

What about tyre wear, which car looks after it's tyres the best, a one lap 'shootout' is not reflective of a car's RACE time. This, however, can also be affected by someone's driving style (as would the setup).

Instead of doing a 'test' like this, why not try walking before you can run.

Start by using the cars totally stock on a number of tracks that are popular for testing. Do between 10-20 miles runs, record all laps times and tyre wear data, if possible do at least 3 different types of tracks - a bumpy track, a high speed track (possibly Monza, Fuji, Le Mans, High Speed Ring) and a longer track that 'works' the car i.e. Grand Valley, Cape Ring etc etc.

Then stage by stage start to modify the test variables but keep doing the same amount of laps on the same tracks and record all data that is valid or of interest i.e. all laps times, best lap times, 'race' time, tyre wear and tyre temperature (throughout each run).

Different variables would include things like:

Same PP achieved through weight amendment
Same PP achieved through power adjustment
the above repeated but with custom suspension, LSD and transmision - against stock suspension, LSD and tranmission
Fully tuned engine power limited to PP regulations against power limiter NOT used and engine tuned through conventional methods only
etc etc
You're going to have to find a way of making full custom suspension, LSD and tranny settings 'fair' though.

Like I say, I know I'm sounding harsh, but you don't seem to realize what makes a test valid and creditable against what makes a test a waste of time.

You need to stat to understand this before carrying on as you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

All credit to you for tring to be helpful, but like other threads like this where people have tried to 'help' by doing tests, if your actual test is flawed and not creditable, then the results are useless, but others may not realise this and take the results as being true. Instead of helping people you're actually providing false information.

Best of luck for the future though, like I say, all credit for trying to help 👍

 

[counter345]

Like the previous poster said, there are an extremely large amount of variables to consider. It would be almost impossible to make the cars behave exactly the same.

 

[Gran_Turismo]

What exactly are you trying to either prove or show by this thread??
That despite the same PPs, some cars just do a better job as track cars.

I'm sorry, but again this 'test' is just as flawed as the last test.
Ok. Lets see you use these four cars with the same PPs and do a better comparison, since mine is just so flawed.

You cannot apply the same 'setup' to 4 cars, also the setup you're using (with quite alot of rear stability) could be affecting one car more than another.
The rear was set up to keep the cars from slipping and it worked, so I did the job as intended. The front was set up for better cornering and less understeer.

The higher rear ride hide, 0.25 rear toe and 2.5 rear camber, in my experience, will hurt alot of 4wd drive cars in terms of understeer.
The cars were set up to be driven as Rear wheel drive. If I didn't set up it as I did, the cars would have been either too loose in the rear or too stiff, which would have increased understeer. The stability kept the cars manable with minimal room for errors to be easily made. It works for me.

Also, if you're going to use custom suspension, why not a LSD aswell?? When doing PP racing, a LSD can be used and an LSD can, with SOME cars,, make a big difference.

By utilising an LSD you might find you will not need such rear stability with the suspension setup, and subsequently this will possibly alter the performance and handling of one (or more) of the cars in your test.
LSD would have slown the cars down if I used it. LSD is mean't to keep the tyres from slipping when going through the corners. It would create artificial understeer, which would limit ME from driving the cars to my favored potential.

Why is 90% power to the rear wheels better / best or being used?? Most 4WD cars have between roughly 20-80 to 55/45 split, most would be roughly or approximately 30-70.
The 4WDs were mean't to be driven as RWD as much as possible.

The gears too, how do you know if this is best or worse for one particular car.
This isn't about what settings work better for which car. The gears are also set to work in favor of rear stability, as shorter gears would increase the chances of the cars losing rear traction through the corners and to stabilize low speed acceleration to keep the tyres from spinning on the straights.

Sorry, but this is just not a correct 'test', as mentioned before, when testing something you need to keep as many variables the same or equal for credibility or accuracy.
Then show me the "correct" way of doing it, using the same cars with the same PPs, but using your own setups.

I know I'm sounding harsh, and I do sincerely apologise, I do not wish to criticse you personally, but you have to understand, when testing something (almost anything) there's certain ways of doing things that will give your test credibility and other ways that will have the opposite affect.
I understand an appreciate the sincerity and I apologise if I come off as using my defense as an offense.

Having the same PP is a good start, alot of people race according to PP, but there's 2 ways of getting to a PP limit - either by weight or by power modification.
Those are the only way to come up with the same PPs. The game does not include other things that may give cars advatages over others, such as integrated assist systems that would help the cars perform in ways raw powered cars couldn't.

Also, 1 track, especially Laguna, is not accurate for a conclusive 'test', look at the thread for people's test tracks, Laguna is hardly mentioned.
I could do other tracks, but they would have to be well portioned, so that there are enough straights, corners, and such so that none of the cars have an advantage based on the track, but that would take some time for me to do and the tracks can't be too long, which is why I would never use the large tracks. Too much room for errors and restarts.

What about tyre wear, which car looks after it's tyres the best, a one lap 'shootout' is not reflective of a car's RACE time. This, however, can also be affected by someone's driving style (as would the setup).
There are only two laps for each of the cars and the tyres don't wear anywhere near enough to make a difference in the game.

Instead of doing a 'test' like this, why not try walking before you can run.

Start by using the cars totally stock on a number of tracks that are popular for testing. Do between 10-20 miles runs, record all laps times and tyre wear data, if possible do at least 3 different types of tracks - a bumpy track, a high speed track (possibly Monza, Fuji, Le Mans, High Speed Ring) and a longer track that 'works' the car i.e. Grand Valley, Cape Ring etc etc.

Then stage by stage start to modify the test variables but keep doing the same amount of laps on the same tracks and record all data that is valid or of interest i.e. all laps times, best lap times, 'race' time, tyre wear and tyre temperature (throughout each run).
This is hot laps only. This isn't to see which car does better in the long run or understand a certain ammount of stress. I am not a robot. My performance would not remain consistant and as I said before, it would take up too much time to do.

Different variables would include things like:

Same PP achieved through weight amendment
Same PP achieved through power adjustment
the above repeated but with custom suspension, LSD and transmision - against stock suspension, LSD and tranmission
Fully tuned engine power limited to PP regulations against power limiter NOT used and engine tuned through conventional methods only
etc etc
You're going to have to find a way of making full custom suspension, LSD and tranny settings 'fair' though.

Like I say, I know I'm sounding harsh, but you don't seem to realize what makes a test valid and creditable against what makes a test a waste of time.

You need to stat to understand this before carrying on as you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
I know what I'm doing and I'm doing it my way. I am not picking favorites or botching any of the cars. I would waste my time doing such a thing. It is others who are shooting at me. If all the cars were stock, the results would have been the same in terms of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, but the times would be more spread apart.

All credit to you for tring to be helpful, but like other threads like this where people have tried to 'help' by doing tests, if your actual test is flawed and not creditable, then the results are useless, but others may not realise this and take the results as being true. Instead of helping people you're actually providing false information.
I never state anything was certain in this comparison. I just setup a two lap time attack session between two FRs and two 4WDs under certain regulations and then showed the results. I'm not giving my opinion. I've giving my results.

Best of luck for the future though, like I say, all credit for trying to help 👍
Again thank you for the response. It is welcomed even if I may seem overly defensive.

My response is in the the quote.

 

[McClarenDesign]

Like the previous poster said, there are an extremely large amount of variables to consider. It would be almost impossible to make the cars behave exactly the same.

The driver makes all the difference. If you're good, you can find the limits of the car and make an educated comparison. If you're bad, you'll reach your limits first, and made an uneducated comparison.

If you're tuning, it's easy to dial just about everything into/out of a car based upon your driving style and comfort level. Sure, there may be subtle differences, but if you're driving at your limits before the cars and leaving time and speed on the track, it's hard to say which is an improper tune or an improper technique.

The best answer to this comparison is "the Engineer's" answer, simply put:

"It depends."

When Prologue had leader boards, I at least had something to compare myself to, and could accurately gauge my consistency (and/or lack thereof). I wish GT5 had a better timing and scoring system, including leader boards and opponent pit indication.

 

[BroncosXR8]

A little better than your last 'test' but as pointed out your use of control factors is somewhat random.

The use of PP's is the best thing you did, but why the 1500kg limit.
Rather you should have tuned the cars individually to their potential (or yours).
The gearing also shouldn't be 'set' but rather tweaked for the particular car, this can make a massive difference - I myself also don't have the time to be fine tuning the gearbox... but try checking out the tuning forums!
Definitely use the LSD if available! It will help immeasurably in stability for FR cars and powerdown.

On track choice, what I do is use 2 different style tracks - Monza No Chicane and Autumn Ring. Yes some cars will dominate at one rather than the other, but I find most work out roughly the some on the leaderboard in the end.
It also gives you the ability to say X car is better suited to Y track than Z car but not at W track.
Try a minimum of 4 laps, no more than 10. This will give you a few laps to get a feel for the car and iron out any major errors in your lap.

Your test is a little better than the last, keep working at it you'll get there

P.S If your interested all my laptimes are on the Public Leader Board in my sig, although I do all my times stock (bar brake distribution) with SH or RH tyres.

BTW I voted Bad comparison.

 

[Jimmie]

Just by looking at the video I wouldnt say your driving is consistent enough to ensure an objective comparison.

 

[Gran_Turismo]

Just by looking at the video I wouldnt say your driving is consistent enough to ensure an objective comparison.

As I state before. This was all in one go. No retries to better my times. I know there was room for better times with each car, but I didn't want to that much time into it.

 

[JDM_WAAAT]

I get lap times of 1:30:XXX with my 300bhp 02 NSX with full weight/sus/tran/drivetrain, and racing hard tyres...

And just a tip, you're running WAY too much camber.

 

[Skiddy]

I still don't get this test.. Why are you comparing 4WD cars CONVERTED to FR cars with regular FR cars? Just doesn't make any sence.

If i want a FR car, i'll get one. If I want a 4WD car i'll get one too.

And there's no chance in hell that you can call a 90% rear wheel drive a FR. Think about it. Take the audi for example. It has 530 BHP. that's 477 BHP rear and 53 bhp front. That is not a small margin. Then again you have 540 bhp corvette all rear. To much difference there.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...I know there was room for better times with each car, but I didn't want to that much time into it.

I hate to say it... but that devalues the result even more.

It would be great to see your test improved in the ways that people have suggested - but it'll take time.

Test sessions can run to many many many laps...

 

[Zenith]

Too many variables once again, but you made good improvements from the last one. Big thumbs up 👍

 

[Skiddy]

You want a test worth the time?

Try this: make a time x credits comparison. Select couple of cars, put down the credits invested in them and drive them around the track. The car that has the lowest money x time product wins... You can even have different categories (for example 1:30:00 cars and below, etc)
This test is just silly, there is just to many variables, setups, 90% rear wheel 4 WD mumbo -jumbo ..

I would do it my self, but i have day job, night job and everything in between job, so yeah. No time.

 

[huskeR32]

My response is in the the quote.

You're still missing a very big point that you missed in the last "test."

An AWD car set up to distribute torque 10/90 F/R is nowhere near the same thing as a RWD car. That 10% that is still being sent to the front wheels makes quite a large difference to the corner-exit abilities of the car. Until you figure this out, these tests are not going to make any sense.

 

[VQuick]

The 'one size fits all' suspension and transmission settings, along with the ballast adjustments, are probably hurting your results. The settings may be good for some of the cars, but it might not help others.

It might be better to just leave them stock, so that at least the different cars' natural behavior is apparent.