GT5 Update New Tunes Coming?

[budious]

Sport Soft or Race Hards... I'm not particular about track, but if I was picking, I'd say 2 laps at Nurburgring Nordschleife. Engine power either with Engine Tune 2 at 524HP, or power limiter at no less than 500HP. You meant just offline practice results comparison or did you actually want to go online?

 

[oppositelock]

Too much margin for driver error at the Nur. I'm thinking single best offline lap at Tsukuba. I don't get off work for another four hours. To be continued...

 

[GT5Pro]

Tsusuka does sound good. although I still think a bone stock car is the best way to judge, for each of you. Just restored, LSD and Suspension would yeald the best results.

 

[budious]

Give me a track and your best time. Tire choice is yours.

Too much margin for driver error at the Nur. I'm thinking single best offline lap at Tsukuba. I don't get off work for another four hours. To be continued...

Nonsense... from ballast and suspension settings in my Spec II-B tune currently in my thread... but on Sport Softs and some custom gearing and LSD retuning working towards my Spec III vision. Driving with DS3 and AT shift. Driving Line: on , TCS: off , SRF: off , ASM: off , ABS: 1 , Outside/Wet Grip: Low

524HP/6200RPM
447FT-LB/5200RPM
1231KG (w/ ballast wt)
556PP

Tsusuka does sound good. although I still think a bone stock car is the best way to judge, for each of you. Just restored, LSD and Suspension would yeald the best results.

How would that resolve any part of our debate, it is about ballast and overall car weight, not who is the best stock car tuner.

Edit: Here was the setup used for the first run for reference, but final spec is 3 posts below and in my tuning thread.


RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87

TEST SPEC - See other post for final spec or my tuning thread.
---------------------------
523HP/6200RPM
447FT-LB/5200RPM
1231KG (w/ ballast wt)
556PP
-------
* Purchase at used car dealership
-------
GT Auto
-------
+ Oil Change
-------------
Tune Shop
-------
+ Weight Reduction 3
+ Chassis Reinforcement
* Ballast System:
@ Ballast Amount: 150KG
@ Ballast Position: -27
-------
+ Engine Tune 2
-------
!Note: You must first set Final Gear and Top Speed sliders to get the available gear ratio ranges in some cases. 6th gear was a bit short on this setup for max speed on the last straight.
+ Customizable Transmission
@ Top Speed: 211 MPH (will display a different amount of MPH at top when fully setup)
@ Final Gear: 4.100
@ 1st: 2.600
@ 2nd: 1.700
@ 3rd: 1.200
@ 4th: 0.950
@ 5th: 0.775
@ 6th: 0.645
-------
+ Customizable LSD
@ Initial: 10
@ Acceleration: 14
@ Deceleration: 11
-------
+ Fully Customizable Suspension
@ Ride Height: +1 F / +1 R
@ Spring Rate: 6.1 F / 6.1 R
@ Extension: 5 / 5
@ Compression: 5 / 5
@ Anti-Roll Bar: 4 / 4
@ Camber: 0.0 / 0.0
@ Toe: 0.00 / 0.00
-------
* Brake Controller @ 5 / 5
-------
+ Sport Soft
-------
!Notes: ... just read the ones above for now.
----------------

 

[oppositelock]

524 HP (Limited)
1081 kg
570 PP
No Ballast
Sport Soft
HKS Controller
Aids Off
ABS: 1

1st: 3.271
2nd: 2.213
3rd: 1.640
4th: 1.264
5th: 1.000
6th: 0.809
Final: 3.000

Initial: 24
Accel: 36
Decel: 36

Ride Height: -10/-10
Spring Rate: 9.6/11.2
Damper Extension: 5/9
Damper Compression: 7/7
Swaybars: 6/2
Camber: 1.8/2.2
Toe: 0.00/1.00

Brake Balance: 8/2

 

[GT5Pro]

Well the car is sloppy from the getgo, and this isn't about who is the best tuner it's about if balast will impare the car by being too heavy or if it will benifit by acheiving better weight distribution. a stock car gives less room for differences between both of you. and the ring has far far to much room for error and variation. and to be quite honest I think you are only pushing for that tune on the yellowbird because it's what you already have the tune for. I want results that are actually comparable.

 

[budious]

524 HP (Limited)

Thank you for your honesty. I doubt you are intentionally trying to be misleading with your results; I guess you have Engine Tune 3 installed and cannot remove it? Just to clarify our results to third parties reading our thread, I will explain why that is also a factor.

My first attempt at 7:52" was with 50/50 weight distribution plus 70kg of paperweight but since the new custom gearing along with LSD tuning is making the car a lot more manageable I was able to dump the excess 70kg. I ran some further tests with with only the 80kg nose ballast to achieve 50/50 weight distribution with no excess baggage, set a 7:43" and 7:41" laps with two different damper compression settings, rest of setup was the same between those latter two runs. The first run of 7:52" was also influenced by having the 6th gear set just a bit too short for achieving maximum speed on the long straight to finish.

Now, on the explanation as to why using the power limiter also influences the results. For the following demonstration I bought the High RPM Turbo since it is removable, but the results would be applicable to Engine Tune 3 being run at Engine Tune 2 level HP equivalent performance.

Engine Tune 2: Note power curves and peak at 523HP

Engine Tune 2 + High RPM Turbo: Note power curve peaks at 648HP

Engine Tune 2 + High RPM Turbo (523HP Limited): Notice power curve now flattens out and includes a wide rpm range of peak performance at 523HP. Note also +6PP (undervalued?)

Take the following conditions under consideration, his car is lighter than mine and has more available peak power in a wider RPM range but his fastest lap is only 4.5 seconds faster than mine. We are essentially running neck and neck at the moment.

These were my settings for the 7:43" and the 7:41", I will add the settings from the 7:52" to that post.

RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87

Spec II - Nurburgring Edition
---------------------------
523HP/6200RPM
447FT-LB/5200RPM
1161KG (w/ ballast wt)
560PP
-------
* Purchase at used car dealership
-------
GT Auto
-------
+ Oil Change
-------------
Tune Shop
-------
+ Weight Reduction 3
+ Chassis Reinforcement
* Ballast System:
@ Ballast Amount: 80KG
@ Ballast Position: -50
-------
+ Engine Tune 2
-------
!Note: You must first set Final Gear and Top Speed sliders to get the available gear ratio ranges in some cases.
+ Customizable Transmission
@ Top Speed: 224 MPH (will display 231 MPH at top when fully setup)
@ Final Gear: 3.000
@ 1st: 3.600
@ 2nd: 2.300
@ 3rd: 1.600
@ 4th: 1.200
@ 5th: 0.975
@ 6th: 0.825
-------
+ Customizable LSD
@ Initial: 21
@ Acceleration: 28
@ Deceleration: 23
-------
!Note: Compression was at 7/7 for 7:41" and 6/6 for 7:43"
+ Fully Customizable Suspension
@ Ride Height: -12 F / -12 R
@ Spring Rate: 6.6 F / 6.6 R
@ Extension: 6 / 6
@ Compression: 7 / 7
@ Anti-Roll Bar: 4 / 4
@ Camber: 0.0 / 0.0
@ Toe: 0.00 / 0.00
-------
* Brake Controller @ 5 / 5
-------
+ Sport Soft
-------
!Notes: ... just read the ones above for now.
----------------

 

[oppositelock]

I like the car with the stage 1 engine tune (stock) combined with the low-RPM turbo, a combo which puts out 502 HP @ 6000 RPM and 468 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM. To get over the 524 HP barrier while remaining able to revert to my preferred setting I bought the mid-RPM turbo kit, which results in this:

Just to be as fair as possible I set the limiter at 99.9% to get 524 HP, which doesn't change the chart at all. Now, this does result in an extra 63 lb-ft of torque down low, but does not create the ultra wide power plateau described above. If you compare the green horsepower curves between my chart and your first one, you'll see a slight "lump" on the left side of mine, but overall they're pretty similar. Is this lump worth five seconds around the Nordschelife? I have no idea.

More important to the discussion is that you went significantly faster by shedding weight and working on your tune, not throwing ballast at the problem. If this isn't an acknowledgement that I'm fundementally correct then I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I'm absolutely confident that if you shed every ounce of ballast and worked harder on your setup that you could easily beat my time with seconds to spare. In fact, I'd bet dollars to donuts on it.

 

[Adrenaline]

I want results that are actually comparable.

Then apply both of their set ups, and test them both yourself.
Comparing their driving ability isn't going to determine which set up is better either.

 

[budious]

I like the car with the stage 1 engine tune (stock) combined with the low-RPM turbo, a combo which puts out 502 HP @ 6000 RPM and 468 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM. To get over the 524 HP barrier while remaining able to revert to my preferred setting I bought the mid-RPM turbo kit, which results in this:

Just to be as fair as possible I set the limiter at 99.9% to get 524 HP, which doesn't change the chart at all. Now, this does result in an extra 63 lb-ft of torque down low, but does not create the ultra wide power plateau described above. If you compare the green horsepower curves between my chart and your first one, you'll see a slight "lump" on the left side of mine, but overall they're pretty similar. Is this lump worth five seconds around the Nordschelife? I have no idea.

More important to the discussion is that you went significantly faster by shedding weight and working on your tune, not throwing ballast at the problem. If this isn't an acknowledgement that I'm fundementally correct then I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I'm absolutely confident that if you shed every ounce of ballast and worked harder on your setup that you could easily beat my time with seconds to spare. In fact, I'd bet dollars to donuts on it.

OK... well I had no idea how to distinguish other than by limited but that could mean a lot of things as we have pointed out.

Maybe I could keep working on it and make it faster, maybe it will be without ballast in the front.

Here is another I did with the ballast in the rear, which was much more important on this car since it loved to burn rubber before:

Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C2) Race Car '63

There is no sweet spot. It's not a parabolic relationship between weight and lateral grip, it's linear. Less mass pushing laterally on a tire means more lateral grip. You guys should read a book before making stuff up. I like "Tune To Win" by Carroll Smith and "How To Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn. I give up. Goodnight.

"How To Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn

This may be an older edition of the book you are referencing that is up for preview on Google Books, but is not Chapter 2, pg. 10-13 (and beyond), of which I have read so far related to this very topic?!

See scrubbing off speed, limit of adhesion, and coefficient of friction.

You can make a good case that a tire has a coefficient of friction with a particular surface because there is both side force and downforce due to the weight on the tire, and they have some ratio.

It is the ratio of side force to downforce that's important. In the same turn at the same speed, a heavier car will have more centrifugal force tending to make it leave the course. It will also have more downforce on the tires because it is heavier, and it will have more friction because friction is some percent of the downforce.

I prefer to avoid the question of what kind of friction the tire has and what is its theoretical limit and pin the whole responsibility on tire grip. Grip is what causes cornering force. It is equal to the side force divided by the vertical force on the tire, just as it would be if we called it coefficient of friction.

 

[Lusitano]

My yellow bird(A bit obvious ) was the first car that I put ballast, on center, I have noticed a increment of driving quality with this car now on corners, and stability in straight.

 

[oppositelock]

"How To Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn

This may be an older edition of the book you are referencing that is up for preview on Google Books, but is not Chapter 2, pg. 10-13 (and beyond), of which I have read so far related to this very topic?!

See scrubbing off speed, limit of adhesion, and coefficient of friction.

I just curbstomped you, and I think I tried to do it in the most courteous and respectful manner humanly possible. If your response is going to be to gnaw at my ankles with broken teeth then the beating shall continue.

Now, if you had actually read the book instead of skimming for a poorly worded statement that superficially conforms to your own theories, you would have found this on page 21:

THE RELATIONSHIP OF GRIP TO WEIGHT

This will be mentioned more than once and used in following discussions because it's important. Grip is not a constant percentage of the downforce on the wheel.

Suppose there is 800 pounds on one wheel and the grip is 0.8 or 80 percent. There will be 640 pounds of side force or traction force available at the contact patch of the tire.

Now double the weight on the wheel. Measurements of traction and cornering force show that these forces do not double. With a load of 1,600 pounds on the wheel, the side force may only be 1,120 pounds instead of 1,280 as you might expect, based on a grip of 0.8. The grip at a tire loading of 1,600 pounds decreased with the higher load and is now only 0.7. Slip angle increased.

When a car is in motion, accelerating, braking, turning, going uphill and down, the weight of the downforce changes on each tire according to the operating condition of the car at each instant.

The rule is, when a tire is more heavily loaded, the grip of the tire is reduced.

Now please, please, please, just lie there and let it bleed. I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

[GT5Pro]

Your books are for real life, Gran Turismo 5 is not real life, and while all this book is saying sounds good in theory it's still quite obvious that we are talking about a game. Also, you can keep all your books to yourself. It's obvious that no matter what that kid says to you, you've already read your books and therefore know all.

It's plain to see that without ballast on a stock yellowbird, she's tail happy. Every time that tail slides and the tires perform one single rotation in slip, thats 4 feet down the track that your not. Now with the ballast, if the car is nuetral in handeling and does not slip, it's obvious that it WILL be further down the track.

Therefore the increase in weight is more than made up for by the increase in balance

 

[killerjimbag]

Your books are for real life, Gran Turismo 5 is not real life, and while all this book is saying sounds good in theory it's still quite obvious that we are talking about a game. Also, you can keep all your books to yourself. It's obvious that no matter what that kid says to you, you've already read your books and therefore know all.

It's plain to see that without ballast on a stock yellowbird, she's tail happy. Every time that tail slides and the tires perform one single rotation in slip, thats 4 feet down the track that your not. Now with the ballast, if the car is nuetral in handeling and does not slip, it's obvious that it WILL be further down the track.

Therefore the increase in weight is more than made up for by the increase in balance

It is tail happy because
A: Someone cannot drive it properly
B: They have a tune that is not appropriate for the car

 

[GT5Pro]

Noway dude I don't care if you are the Stig, you will slide that car out.

And I'm talking bone stock, so shove the tune thing up your rear.

You go get a stock yellowbird, put some sports softs on it, and tell me how fast you can go around Deep Forest

 

[killerjimbag]

Noway dude I don't care if you are the Stig, you will slide that car out.

And I'm talking bone stock, so shove the tune thing up your rear.

You go get a stock yellowbird, put some sports softs on it, and tell me how fast you can go around Deep Forest

Are we not in the tuning forum?
Putting sports softs on it would hardly be a tune.
The guy has made valid points in his post's,some cannot take constructive advise.
2 words SLOW DOWN and drive it at it's limit and not beyond it's limit.
Have you ever watched the World Supercar Challenge?
They use ballast for the heat winners and they sure don't seem to win the race with that in their trunk.

 

[oppositelock]

Therefore the increase in weight is more than made up for by the increase in balance

Prove it. I've provided more than sufficient evidence to the contrary.

 

[killerjimbag]

Prove it. I've provided more than sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Agreed!👍

 

[GT5Pro]

No you haven't. You can't introduce what you've done and claim it evidence. You didn't even try it with ballast. You just tried to turn a fast time and say look i'm correct. I give up with both of you. I know how much better my Yellowbird acts after the ballast, and I'm confident in saying that you are just flat out wrong

 

[killerjimbag]

No you haven't. You can't introduce what you've done and claim it evidence. You didn't even try it with ballast. You just tried to turn a fast time and say look i'm correct. I give up with both of you. I know how much better my Yellowbird acts after the ballast, and I'm confident in saying that you are just flat out wrong

Ok I will make it as simple as possible.
Grab any car and take it to Daytona easy track to drive.
Put the same set-up on both.
Run 1 without ballast and 1 with 50kg or whatever in the trunk.
Tell me your tire wear, top speed, fastest lap and check the fuel gauge at the end of 10 laps
What car is the fastest etc etc etc.
Simple enough.
Should take 20 mins max.

 

[oppositelock]

You're free to do your own testing and to post the results. Nobody is stopping you. It's not incumbent upon me to prove your theory. That's your job.

 

[GT5Pro]

Dude I'm not stupid, If I'm driving for top speed i'm not putting weight in my car. If i'm driving on technical tracks, which is what I stick to, I'll set my car up for the balance that I drive best with. I'm ready to just agree to disagree.

And OppositeLock, though I may have gotten in a few heated discussions with you, I respect your input. And to the comment earlier about not seeing anybody add weight unless to meet the rule book, I can recall our resident porsche-guy of Greenville has a 930 Turbo with a beautiful whale tail. And when I approached him in a parking lot of a shopping center, he indeed did have a 50lb weight secured in the front baggage compartment. And i cannot quote him word for word, but the conversation to some extent was that he basically found it far to easy to overpower the front of the car at the lower speeds.

And I do agree, at a few local track days/autocrosses attended, I have not once seen anybody add any weight to their cars. And, in real life, I don't think I ever would apply this method of tuning. But in Gran Turismo 5 it's more of a tool than burden. And that's shown by them allowing you to adjust the location.

 

[Adrenaline]

If you can't drive or tune the car, ballast makes it easier.

This is all I hear you saying.
You're using ballast as a crutch, not an advantage. You need to understand the difference.

 

[budious]

I just curbstomped you, and I think I tried to do it in the most courteous and respectful manner humanly possible. If your response is going to be to gnaw at my ankles with broken teeth then the beating shall continue.

Now, if you had actually read the book instead of skimming for a poorly worded statement that superficially conforms to your own theories, you would have found this on page 21:


Now please, please, please, just lie there and let it bleed. I'm tired of repeating myself.

I'm not sure how delusional you can get, you had a 60FT-LB torque advantage in the lower RPMs, as soon as I can find a dupe and retest my setup with Engine Tune 1 w/ Low RPM Turbo I'll get back to you. So far you've "curbstomped" no one.

All I see is an over confident nit wit quoting a book I have no doubt that he's read, I only doubt your ability to comprehend the material. If the author wanted to say "A lighter car will always be faster and always better," he could have just put that in big bold print somewhere along the start of chapter. I'm sure all the equations he provides are simply irrelevant also if we can deduce that lighter is always better... maybe you should actually try using them.

You're going to keep going down this road and the only thing that is going to be nullified is the validity of your expert opinion and years of track racing.

 

[Will27]

All this about the Yellowbird... Can anyone say.. sledgehammer effect?
The reason the Yellowbird/BTR behave like they do is because they are extremely rear end heavy, because Porsche hadn't edged the engine forward far enough yet/figured the suspension out properly. (I would love to have adjustable roll-center)

I know its not ideal to add weight, but in extreme situations (if the handling cannot be sorted completely by the suspension etc), or where the car wants to behave like a thrown sledgehammer for example, ballast may be necessary to balance the car. Just look at F1. Renault had loads of ballast in the R25's(2005) nosecone

 

[GT5Pro]

This is all I hear you saying.
You're using ballast as a crutch, not an advantage. You need to understand the difference.

I know what that difference is, and if you think that's the context in which I have been reffering to ballasts in then you are just flat wrong. My whole view the entire time on ballast was a yet another tool thrown into the tuning realm of GT5, what these other people seem to be saying is that if you add weight you screwed up period. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

[Adrenaline]

Oppositelock specifically said "it's just a band-aid for poor tuning ability."
Then I said "You're using ballast as a crutch..."

You're using the extra weight, to try to improve 'balance' 'driveability' or whatever word you want to use to basically say 'easier to drive'. That's great, you can do it, and it will be effective. Neither oppositelock nor myself have said 'oh em gee, you screwed up!' we just feel 'easier to drive' does not mean 'faster'. No more, no less.

 

[mafia_boy]

Have to agree with BlueShift. If the solution to a handling problem is making your car heavier and slower, it's not a very good solution. I see ballast as a good way to meet minimum weight requirements for certain races, but that's it. No racer would use ballast unless required by regulations.

UNLESS, those cars gain advantages from ballast being put in the right spots. Now I am speaking from a straight line perspective here but in GT4, when we had the ballast in the right spots (ie. weight & location) we would see improvements of up to 0.4 in the 1/4 mile just from the added traction that was gained by the added weight being put onto those tyres.

As for the comments about the car being too light and you would only put ballast on if regulations allowed it, how about not using every single stage of weight reduction?? 💡

When GME GT4 was running, I noticed bigger improvements in stability from a car that didn't have weight reductions applied. Some cars when you take the weight out make it too twitchy because the weight balance of the car is thrown out of proportion and the amount of suspension tuning needed to bring the car back up to it's maximum potential (yes it will be faster regardless, but not like it can be) almost makes it an exercise in futility. Others when the ballast is located correctly will allow the car to handle better, which can lead to faster cornering speeds and better pull out of the corners which can more than make up the time lost due to the lack of straight line speed. Just because the car doesn't have the same top speed doesn't necessarily mean it's slower.

Back to topic: I'm just lucky that I haven't opened my garage yet and I don't have to edit all my tunes unlike all the other garages.

 

[oppositelock]

I'm not sure how delusional you can get, you had a 60FT-LB torque advantage in the lower RPMs, as soon as I can find a dupe and retest my setup with Engine Tune 1 w/ Low RPM Turbo I'll get back to you. So far you've "curbstomped" no one.

I won when you when you went faster by losing ballast and working on your tune, which was my whole point. It doesn't have much to do with my lap time versus yours. Although when you beat my time with your original ballast and setup (edit: but with a comparable engine tune) I'll apologize and admit defeat.

All I see is an over confident nit wit quoting a book I have no doubt that he's read, I only doubt your ability to comprehend the material. If the author wanted to say "A lighter car will always be faster and always better," he could have just put that in big bold print somewhere along the start of chapter. I'm sure all the equations he provides are simply irrelevant also if we can deduce that lighter is always better... maybe you should actually try using them.

It was you who quoted the book first, and you who couldn't understand it.

You're going to keep going down this road and the only thing that is going to be nullified is the validity of your expert opinion and years of track racing.

You keep mentioning my driving experience with quotation marks and italics. If you're calling me a liar, call me a liar. Don't beat around the bush.