Best way to lose 20PP - and the winner is...

[dnlnnhs]

The winner is Ballast!

Did some testing with the Aston Martin DP-100 to try to determine how best to lose 20PP with least amount of impact to performance and fuel economy - only comparing Ballast, ECU, and Power Restrictor.

Adding 200kg of Ballast had almost no impact to performance (max speed) or fuel economy while reducing PP by about 20 points. Granted this was measuring on SSRX, so I did not measure any handling impact.

Reducing ECU or Power to shave off ~20pp both reduced performance almost the same, with reduction in ECU leaving a little more in the gas tank.

Now let's factor in the Fuel Map. Each "notch" in the Fuel Map (2 - 6) increased Time to Empty by 12 - 15%. Going from 1 to 6 nearly doubled the run time (186%) with no PP adjustment.

Adding Ballast had almost negligible impact to the Fuel Map results.

Reducing Power Restrictor values gave slightly better performance than ECU adjustments, but ECU gave better fuel Economy.

So, my take on this (admittedly very small sample size) result is to add Ballast first to reduce PP, if fuel range is desired reduce ECU next, else reduce Power Restrictor for slightly better performance.

 

[Samus]

Granted this was measuring on SSRX, so I did not measure any handling impact.

Er, that's a pretty big oversight. Of course more weight doesn't affect top speed, but it's certainly going to affect handling.

 

[Fuzzi0n]

The fact you didn't test handling makes this pointless, weight doesn't affect top speed, just acceleration. The track you're racing at makes a huge difference as to which one is going to perform better, with a load of straights you're better off running higher ride heights, lower downforce and ballast whereas a circuit that demands good cornering performance the opposite is true. The type of car also makes a huge difference as sometimes it's not worth running the extra power with the ballast as it makes the handling so much worse. I did some testing with the 2016 Super GT Nissan and found that most of the time I was faster with just the power turned down to reach the PP limit. Running races with increased fuel consumption also make reducing the power a lot more useful as it can massively reduce the fuel consumption. You'll also find you will have much better tyre life with the power turned down on some cars versus running the ballast.

The best way to tune for PP is to just find one of the weird 'holes' where the PP dips for basically no reason. Sometimes 1mm of ride height is worth like 10PP, or +5/-5 on a rear wing can do the same. It's still a very flawed system that only really works for each car - I've found trying to compare cars at the same PP level pretty much pointless because you can have multiple seconds a lap difference.

 

[dnlnnhs]

Er, that's a pretty big oversight. Of course more weight doesn't affect top speed, but it's certainly going to affect handling.

Agreed this could make quite a difference in the overall performance - but I was just satisfying my curiosity about these particular settings. I'm no expert, just thought I would share something I found interesting. YMMV

 

[Aksu593]

How much horsepower would you have to give up to lose 20PP? I think comparing lap times on a circuit would be a good idea here, as on some tracks and cars the weight could certainly hinder performance and tire wear more than less power, although you might be right in the end about ballast being a better option, because it seems like this game vastly overstates the value of cornering against power in PP calculation. Sometimes I have had massive PP increases from just slightly optimizing aero and suspension set-ups to add grip or reduce understeer to the point where I could have added another 30 horsepower for the same PP cost, which in the end turns out to be more useful than a couple of tenths off cornering times

 

[ebadevil]

The fact you didn't test handling makes this pointless, weight doesn't affect top speed, just acceleration. The track you're racing at makes a huge difference as to which one is going to perform better, with a load of straights you're better off running higher ride heights, lower downforce and ballast whereas a circuit that demands good cornering performance the opposite is true. The type of car also makes a huge difference as sometimes it's not worth running the extra power with the ballast as it makes the handling so much worse. I did some testing with the 2016 Super GT Nissan and found that most of the time I was faster with just the power turned down to reach the PP limit. Running races with increased fuel consumption also make reducing the power a lot more useful as it can massively reduce the fuel consumption. You'll also find you will have much better tyre life with the power turned down on some cars versus running the ballast.

The best way to tune for PP is to just find one of the weird 'holes' where the PP dips for basically no reason. Sometimes 1mm of ride height is worth like 10PP, or +5/-5 on a rear wing can do the same. It's still a very flawed system that only really works for each car - I've found trying to compare cars at the same PP level pretty much pointless because you can have multiple seconds a lap difference.

I understand what you're saying, and it's not that you are wrong, I think you are mostly right on this. BUT... When testing for change, you can't test 12 different things. You have to test one thing at a time. What the OP did was valuable test/analysis of how these changes affect speed. Testing handling would be the logical next step now that we've established the baseline. You aren't wrong but I think you might be asking to analyze too many variables at once. OP is doing a more scientific analysis here.

 

[Fuzzi0n]

I understand what you're saying, and it's not that you are wrong, I think you are mostly right on this. BUT... When testing for change, you can't test 12 different things. You have to test one thing at a time. What the OP did was valuable test/analysis of how these changes affect speed. Testing handling would be the logical next step now that we've established the baseline. You aren't wrong but I think you might be asking to analyze too many variables at once. OP is doing a more scientific analysis here.

I think you misunderstood me or maybe I didn't explain it, but that's exactly what I did. I individually tested ride height, aero, ballast and power to reduce the PP to within 0.1% of the same value. I also ran that at two different tracks with different characteristics to see which was better. In addition I ran certain combinations of settings, like higher ride heights and ballast with extra power to see what would work best in that car.

The short version is there's no specific way of doing it that works for every car and track, so you pretty much have to test it on a case by case basis if you want to get every bit of performance.

 

[dnlnnhs]

The short version is there's no specific way of doing it that works for every car and track, so you pretty much have to test it on a case by case basis if you want to get every bit of performance.

Totally agree - not one method that works for every car/track to reach a final goal. These are the three settings I usually start with to detune a car to reach a certain PP level - you sound like you are way deeper into tuning than I am, and probably a much better driver. So, I appreciate the input as to what other settings I may need to consider. Not sure I can fit everything into my spreadsheet!