Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gran Turismo Sport' started by rex1825, Dec 25, 2017.
You should you post the cars with and without BoP.
...to much time consuming TBH, maybe... not promising anything... would be nice from PD when they change MPG to basically say how much it went up or down in %, that way one doesn't need to retest all cars...
Really? The Porsche is now as good as the 4C in fuel consumption?
Some may recall that the build used for last years Regional and World Finals had an adjusted tyre setup, which reduced the durability difference between compounds. Recent FIA races made me suspect that this adjustment is now in the public build, so after my Group 4 tyre test, I took the tyre eating PUG and ran the same test using the other race compounds. I've converted my results into the same format that the OP used, that being durability relative to the soft tyre;
A definite shake up then compared to what used to be. I think it's better this way as now we have reason to want to race the Medium tyre, at least when the available compounds are M+H. But Softs in turn remain strong in races where the choice is S+M.
For people who want to calculate fuel consumption for their cars without BoP (and I hope I got these right!), try these. Going by the figures in the first post.
Every 1% of power increase takes approximately 1,3% away from the range.
If the car has its power increased by BoP: 1 / (0,987^(BoP power percentage - 100)) x measured range = 100% power range
Every 1% of power decrease adds approximately 0,52% to the range.
If the car has its power decreased by BoP: 1 / (1,0052^(100 - BoP power percentage)) x measured range = 100% power range
Every 1% of weight increase takes approximately 0,4% away from the range.
If the car has its weight increased by BoP: 1 / (0,996^(BoP weight percentage - 100)) x measured range = 100% weight range
Decreasing the weight results in a meaninglessly small change so I'll leave it out.
How did you figure this out. Logically it makes no sense that an increase would have different size effect from a decrease...
Simply by calculating from the figures in the first post:
And yes I know that it makes no sense but that's what it says there...
The Ferrari Dino 246 GT '71 is n200 not n300.
I'm sure you haven't got the new cars yet but, noticed your also missing the Amuse S2000 GT1 Turbo is from n600.
911 I can run map 2 the whole 2 laps on nurb. And run map 3 for a few sectors and can map 1 on straights. I've tried it with the 650, and Ferrari. Both are inferior in fuel economy running hards. The 911 sucks in the straights but excels in the turns.
...srry guys but some things came up, I won't have time for now to make changes to MPG in this thread. Hopefully I'll be able to redo all up until the end of May, and on top of all my HDD died so I lost all of data that I had before...
Has anyone done a similar test with tyre wear for Gr3/4 cars? I know people say there's too much variable and stuff, so I'm not looking for exact km at which your tyre lose xxx pixel, more just general trends. Like I know the GT86 Gr.4 has stupidly good tyre life, and last week FIA race I got smoked by a one stopping Beetle Gr.3 at Suzuka. Any other cars that has much better tyre life than others in the class?