can a car be too light?

[CSLACR]

How did you determine that? No sarcasm, just curious.

Adding a wing and increasing rear downforce on the Viper ACR improves it's off the line acceleration, so much that you can literally see the difference watching the speedo climb from 0-80.
(And it made massive differences on the acceleration tests I did at SSR7, blowing the doors off the version with less downforce)

I think your perception of REAL physics is what's off here. Light cars most certainly have a very serious handling advantage in real life, all else being equal. Anybody with any sort of actual seat time can tell you that. The fact that your lighter cars are faster in the game proves my point, not yours.

Below.

Why is it that when a race team; be it F1, Nascar, SCCA, autocrossers, remote controlled, etc. are allowed to remove weight down to a minimum weight level, why do you think they always remove as much as possible trying to skim to the limit? I remember listening to broadcasts of IRL and hearing Roger Penske tell his winning driver to pick up some extra rubber on the way back to the pits. That's purely to make minimum weights (and maybe a little ride height).

Both of these statements are made without regard to the power that is tied to the weight.


It seems you've both mistaken my point to be "weight shouldn't help". Or something along that line.
It's actually just a matter of "how much should weight help", and I think it helps to much in GT5.

Speaking of real leagues, look at some of the cars specs in GT5, cars that weigh more then their competition, and still keep up. Kaz's 1500KG GTR rings a bell. The Audi R8 LMS at 1350KG also rings a bell.

But it gets muddy very quickly, because to really compare the effects of weight in GT5, you have to pick 2 cars that have been given the same amount of grip relative to their weight by PD.
The PP shootouts show this very clearly, some cars at the same specs drastically outperform others, etc.
It's something I don't see as really "testable" in GT5, because of this. Perhaps just adding weight to the same car could work, but we'd need real world figures for both the lighter weight, and the heavier weight, I have no knowledge and any such example.

 

[ryanerb]

^^^^
Power to Weight ratio... actually in American Iron the cars are not power limited or weight limited... They are actually limited to a power to weight ratio. Thats where you get some weaker cars that can out-run some more powerful ones.

And yes, in American Iron they still try to lighten the car as much as they can with the given power they design the motor to run with. And one of the fastest cars on the track is a fairly stock GT Mustang (2011) that has had most of it gutted and a few hundred pounds lost... Not bad for a "stock" engine. But the company that built it attacked the weight and didnt jump at the power. (The car I am referring to is the Performance Autosport / Speedlab Saleen 2011 Racecar)

 

[-raVer-]

...
Speaking of real leagues, look at some of the cars specs in GT5, cars that weigh more then their competition, and still keep up. Kaz's 1500KG GTR rings a bell. The Audi R8 LMS at 1350KG also rings a bell.
..

I doubt the Kaz GT-R can keep up with any of the SuperGT 500 GT-R´s.
Maybe if you give them the same Specs ( Power , Weight , Tyres and Downforce)
Easy to check:
Take a Nismo GT-R and rebuild the Specs of the stock Kaz GT-R (including Tyres)

Other example:

Run a FGT at 750 PP (Max Weight added , 40/60 Downforce , 5 hundred sumthing bhp , RH tyres) against a Minolta ( same Downforce , RH tyres , maybe a oil change to meet the 750 PP) and test which ones better.


raVer

 

[CSLACR]

^^^^
Power to Weight ratio... actually in American Iron the cars are not power limited or weight limited... They are actually limited to a power to weight ratio. Thats where you get some weaker cars that can out-run some more powerful ones.

And yes, in American Iron they still try to lighten the car as much as they can with the given power they design the motor to run with. And one of the fastest cars on the track is a fairly stock GT Mustang (2011) that has had most of it gutted and a few hundred pounds lost... Not bad for a "stock" engine. But the company that built it attacked the weight and didnt jump at the power. (The car I am referring to is the Performance Autosport / Speedlab Saleen 2011 Racecar)

Right, but that's a heavy car with decent power to start. I would gut a 2 ton vehicle before simply adding power too.

I doubt the Kaz GT-R can keep up with any of the SuperGT 500 GT-R´s.
Maybe if you give them the same Specs ( Power , Weight , Tyres and Downforce)
Easy to check:
Take a Nismo GT-R and rebuild the Specs of the stock Kaz GT-R (including Tyres)

Other example:

Run a FGT at 750 PP (Max Weight added , 40/60 Downforce , 5 hundred sumthing bhp , RH tyres) against a Minolta ( same Downforce , RH tyres , maybe a oil change to meet the 750 PP) and test which ones better.


raVer

I'm really confused as to how my point has been taken so far out of context, but I guess that's the way of the internet, so I'll try it one more time.


I am of the opinion that lower weight in GT5 helps more then it should.
It's only one sentence, surely we can all understand it. It doesn't mean weight is not a significant factor, it doesn't mean heavy, high powered monsters should rule the road, nor anything else, apart from, "it helps more then it should".

I understand that depending on the track lighter with less power is faster, but I also understand that depending on the track heavier with more power is faster.
Like I said, the only feasible way I can think of to test this in GT5, is taking a car, and adding power/weight to try the different options on different tracks. But no matter what the waters will get muddy and it will be open to opinion.

 

[oppositelock]

I think there's confusion going both ways. You said up front that you disagreed with my assessment, but nothing you've said really conflicts with my statements. My point was that even though GT5 physics aren't perfect, that's no reason to purposely ignore very basic scientific principles which are obviously incorporated into the game. The problems you mentioned, even if true, don't mean the physics are entirely wrong or even mostly wrong. If I had to put a number on it I'd say they're 80% to 90% accurate. Ergo, reality is still very relevant. As a wise man once said, "You have to know the rules before you can break the rules." That's all.

 

[CSLACR]

I think there's confusion going both ways. You said up front that you disagreed with my assessment, but nothing you've said really conflicts with my statements. My point was that even though GT5 physics aren't perfect, that's no reason to purposely ignore very basic scientific principles which are obviously incorporated into the game. The problems you mentioned, even if true, don't mean the physics are entirely wrong or even mostly wrong. If I had to put a number on it I'd say they're 80% to 90% accurate. Ergo, reality is still very relevant. As a wise man once said, "You have to know the rules before you can break the rules." That's all.

Downforce was my main example for that, otherwise, I'll admit I'm not thinking of other places you can't look to real physics to get a good idea of what will happen.

I do recommend you try the downforce bit though, it's astounding to watch. Obviously downforce should slowly ease in, but from what I've seen, it really starts at 0. It actually made my 1031HP Viper bog down in first gear originally, until I made it a bit quicker.

 

[Sharkiex]

at 550 pp, the lfa is faster with stage 1 weight reduction than with stage 3.

 

[CSLACR]

at 550 pp, the lfa is faster with stage 1 weight reduction than with stage 3.

Do you know why?



It's because you have to use to much power limiter with the lower weight. Because GT5's PP system penalizes heavy power limiter use.

 

[Blaze_409]

nvm

 

[Sharkiex]

poweeeeerr

 

[DDAAVVIIDD82]

Pros and cons of weight reduction can vary from track to track, too. A track with a high number of elevation changes, particularly sudden ones and ones positioned mid-corner can often send a lightweight car wall-bound. Reduced traction caused by excessive weight reduction is a concern as well. Honestly there are far too many variables to set a distinct "benefit limit" for weight reduction but it shouldn't be something taken lightly.

 

[Johnnypenso]

9/11 was a conspiracy...a conspiracy of mostly Saudi terrorists to destroy the Twin Towers...

Anyway, as often happens in this game, everyone bandies about different real life ideas as if they must somehow apply directly to the game. They do not. So talking about centrifugal force or gravity or moments of inertia or any real life physics is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters relating to how a car drives is how PD modelled the physics, not real life physics.

As has been talked about in many, many different threads, some aspects of reality are modelled well in the game, some not so well, and some probably not at all. Some may or may not be backwards. You need to work within what the game gives you, not what you think it should be according to the real world.

Nobody knows how PD models the physics, that's why we have to look to reality to understand what they're at least trying to accomplish. The effects of mass and inertia are easily demonstrated in the game, but you don't want to talk about them because the rest of the model isn't 100% perfect? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you can demonstate that a particular aspect doesn't conform to reality, fine, make an exception. But once you throw basic scientific principles out the window you're left tuning by voodoo. No thanks.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
Where's the facepalm smilie when I need it?

Bin Laden was a Saudi and so were most of the 9/11 clowns.

If you look closer Opposite, what I said was,

The only thing that matters relating to how a car drives is how PD modelled the physics, not real life physics.



Of course this means you need to understand the real life physics to get going, but if the real life physics say A = B if C = D but if C = E then A = F, and PD said, "Nah that's too complicated we'll just make A = B = C = D = F" ...then once you determine this, real life becomes irrelevant because it will not help you deal with something that is not patterned after real life.

As an example, someone above said that downforce begins at 0. Obviously that's not real life if it's true, so when you begin factoring downforce into your tuning you don't say to yourself, "Okay, downforce below X km/h is near zero so I won't worry about it" because you'd be wrong.

If you have your car just about right and you go to a track known for slight understeer like maybe Suzuka, and you want it to turn a bit sharper and you've got 20 seconds to adjust it. A lot of guys would raise the front end a couple of points and it would work like a charm for them. Works for me. Is that what real life physics would dictate? No.

So my point is, the real life physics are irrelevant, unless they are modelled directly and precisely on real life. What is relevant is how PD modelled the physics and the real battle is to figure that out.

 

[GTPEarthbound]

Not sure if this is relevant to this thread, but the OP asked if a car can be too light... In my findings yes, a 430 Scuderia handles better with Stage 2 lightweight, compared to Stage 3 @ same PP(just feels more responsive, with more grip).. this is not true for all cars(458 Italia for example, Stage 3 lightweight is best for acceleration and handling).

That being said, I have also found that HP to weight ratio is lowered(better) with each weight reduction per PP, up(down) to 900kg. Which to me seem a little backwards, but that is how PD programmed it, so that's how it is(good example of this is Miura). Take full advantage of every inch given(by PD), go lightweight, but not too lightweight.