Historic Group C/GTP - Pre-Season Tyre Test

  • Thread starter Thread starter nitro_2005
  • 113 comments
  • 5,575 views
''89C - 900Kg / 908Hp (std)/ 954Hp in test (Slightly low @ 1.060)- 2'53.259''

Dels 1 second behind :grumpy: though he's very comfortable with the 89C .. seems to be the most 'drivable' of all the entrants .. for me anyway :) .. has the least amount of wheel spin .
 
OK,

I have finshed testing the cars with approximately the same P/W ratio's (1.06ish Hp/Kg), there are some adjustments needed probably in weight as that has a more universal effect over times than power. (weight effects the car all the time, whereas power just effects accel and top speed)

These are the times I got:

Jag XJR-9 = 2'53.682 (Quite loose, but has grip when it needs it. If that makes sense?)
Nissan 89C= 2'53.259 (Very grippy, but down on top speed)
Nissan92CP= 2'53.363 (Similar to the 89C)
Toyota 88C= 2'53.372 (Very twitchy & oversteers especially off throttle, but very fun to drive)
Sauber C9 = 2'51.858 * (VERY grippy, fast, very stable)
Mazda 787= 2'51.373 * (VERY fast!!!, but understeers and the brakes are not the best)
PUG. 905 = 2'57.946 * (Underpowered, changes gear in a very 'french' way, but very grippy too)

By saying that the Pug changes gears in a very 'French' way, what I mean is that you hit the up-shift, the car engages the clutch and changes gear, and then dis-engages the clutch when it's damn well good and ready to do it! :crazy:
Try it, you'll see what I mean!

Neil
 
Tried it .... sent it back to France straight away
 
Neil,

Great stats! So, it appears that the Jag, the two Nissans and the Toyota are fairly evenly matched at those settings. Further adjustments seem to be in order for the Sauber (more weight to make it less grippy) and the Mazda (less HP and less weight to improve upon its braking and to slow it down a bit) to bring them in line with the others. Not sure what to do about the poor Pug.

Anyone heard from nitro?
 
hi everybody
I was wandering if a "simple" solution would be to establish that all cars should be in a fixed range for P/W ratio ?

for example : the range could be from 1.04 to 1.08, or not greater than 1.1 or any figure that fits.

Then each partecipant would be free to do a little testing and find "his" best settings, either on power, weight, tires or gears setting ( I drive better and enjoy more a 800kg / 800Bhp Mazda than the same car set to 950kg / 950Bhp )

With very little math ( not done yet ) we could also modify the "weight system" in order to allow a better P/W ratio for drivers the lower part of the of the field and a worse ratio for drivers in the upper part ...

Do you think this might work ?
 
gz
hi everybody
I was wandering if a "simple" solution would be to establish that all cars should be in a fixed range for P/W ratio ?

for example : the range could be from 1.04 to 1.08, or not greater than 1.1 or any figure that fits.

Then each partecipant would be free to do a little testing and find "his" best settings, either on power, weight, tires or gears setting ( I drive better and enjoy more a 800kg / 800Bhp Mazda than the same car set to 950kg / 950Bhp )

With very little math ( not done yet ) we could also modify the "weight system" in order to allow a better P/W ratio for drivers the lower part of the of the field and a worse ratio for drivers in the upper part ...

Do you think this might work ?
Click to expand...

gz,

I agree that the Mazda 787B would benefit from, and be more fun to drive, in the area of 800kg/800hp. This setting would bring the Mazda's higher speed more in line with the other C-class cars and also help with the Mazda's relatively poor braking. :scared:

I like the idea of a P/W ratio range. However, it may not make much of a difference to everyone racing if the P/W ratio was a fixed number for each race which would be adjusted as the series progressed according to each individual racer's ability. I think both power & weight should be considered when making performance adjustments. 👍

At this point it may help if we all simply got into our cars and drove a few test runs. In order to manage the initial testing process, we should agree on a P/W ratio for all cars, perhaps in the range of 800/800, and report back lap times, tire wear (set to strong), and any stability issues at those P/W ratio settings. The test track should include a long straightaway, sharp corners, esses, hairpin turn and possibly a challenging elevation change. Laguna Seca or Midfield perhaps?

Everyone, any suggestions?

ERacer
 
I have some tentative adjustments to the settings for the Suaber Merc and the 787B.

They produced similar times at Le Sarthe to the others as posted above. (Within .2 of a second, best lap, 5 lap runs)

Sauber Mercedes C9
From 955Hp & 893Kg to 945Hp(+2) & 928Kg(+4) with a P/W of 1.018
This takes a little power away and increases the weight by 35Kg. Making it slightly slower on the straights and less grippy round the twisties.
Mazda 787B
From 886Hp & 830Kg to 815Hp(+3) & 805Kg(-3) with a P/W of 1.012
Less power for this fiesty beast, and less weight, which reduces the understeer quite drastically and helping it on the brakes too (which are not the best)

Still playing with the figures for the Pug, but it's looking like +15 Hp and +0 Kg, but that's still a little too slow for my liking.
But seeing as this thing spends more time waiting for the gears to change than accellerating, I am not sure it will ever be competative.

Neil
 
Neil,

Great stuff 👍 So, if I understand correctly, these latest HP/Wgt settings for the Mazda and Sauber bring these cars more in line with your settings of the other five cars. Just so that everyone is clear on the settings, myself included, could you post all seven together again?

Second step is to agree on a test track. I'm up for any suggestions. I love driving la Sarthe I & II, but not sure if they represent your typical track. But I'll defer to the more experienced drivers. 👍

ERacer
 
I'm really no experienced driver, but if you want "long straightaway, sharp corners, esses, hairpin turn and possibly a challenging elevation change", may I suggest Apricot Hill ( easy ) or Trial Mountain ( less easy ) ?

These are shorter than La Sarthe and imho should be more forgiving in order to compare laps.
 
Car__weight__Power__Hp/Kg

Jag - 894Kg / 951Hp - 1.064
89C - 900Kg / 954Hp - 1.060
92CP-900Kg / 958Hp - 1.064
88C - 850Kg / 906Hp - 1.065
C9 - 928Kg / 945Hp - 1.018
787 - 805Kg / 815Hp - 1.012
905 - 750Kg / 918Hp - 1.224


These are the settings that I have found the cars to be pretty equal at Le Sarthe II.
The exception is the Pug, still can't get that right.

Maybe a change to Grand Valley would give all the requirements?
Long straight, esses, hairpin, 90 degree corners, long sweepers.
Or
Maybe the East section for a short sharp shock with most requirements
Neil
 
Did a lap around Circuit De la Sarthe II. the Minolta and the Jaguar make about the same lap time. The toyota has more grip, but the Jaguar is a handfull, despite it being slower. I got them both times around 2'53.

say, has anyone ever driven through the Porsche curves with no brake without aids?
 
RACECAR
Did a lap around Circuit De la Sarthe II. the Minolta and the Jaguar make about the same lap time. The toyota has more grip, but the Jaguar is a handfull, despite it being slower. I got them both times around 2'53.

say, has anyone ever driven through the Porsche curves with no brake without aids?
Click to expand...

Looks like you're about on pace with myself there bud! 👍
Have a look at the figures above ^^^^ they give low 2'53.xxx laps for all the cars except the Pug. That one is at a low 2'54 laptime, so it's a second down.

I may have to suggest a reduction in weight for the Jaguar (no more power tho!), but I want someone else to verify that it needs it. As I'm gonna be driving it, and don't want to appear biased.
It helps reduce the squirrellyness of the back end.

I still like it because it is loose (as is mentioned in "Days of Thunder", loose is fast!), but it is a handfull, that's for certain.

And the Porche Curves are pretty straightforward without brakes, you just have to be in the right gear for them. The one that causes problems is Maison Blanche (or Neuvell Maison Blanche, depending on the map you use), as the fast route through it is a suicidal sweep clipping the rumbles on the right at exit. Get it wrong or too fast and it's wall city for certain.

Neil
 
Tyre King
Car__weight__Power__Hp/Kg

Jag - 894Kg / 951Hp - 1.064
89C - 900Kg / 954Hp - 1.060
92CP-900Kg / 958Hp - 1.064
88C - 850Kg / 906Hp - 1.065
C9 - 928Kg / 945Hp - 1.018
787 - 805Kg / 815Hp - 1.012
905 - 750Kg / 918Hp - 1.224


These are the settings that I have found the cars to be pretty equal at Le Sarthe II.
The exception is the Pug, still can't get that right.

Maybe a change to Grand Valley would give all the requirements?
Long straight, esses, hairpin, 90 degree corners, long sweepers.
Or
Maybe the East section for a short sharp shock with most requirements
Neil
Click to expand...

Perfect Neil! Thank you very, very much! 👍

All, please use above settings for the testing and please report back lap times, tire wear (set to strong) and please share your handling or stability observations. I'm eager to try all the cars even though I've committed myself to the Jaguar. I would encourage everyone to test as many cars as you have time for.

As far as track goes, and unless anyone objects, lets go with the full Grand Valley course (normal direction), Arcade Mode, Race Mode, 8-10 difficulty, TCS if desired but not required, gearing free, tires at RM/RM only, and run it for 10 laps. Please try to keep the tires at RM/RM as it will help evaluate and compare each car's performance and handling.

Am I missing anything? Otherwise … put your helmets on, strap yourselves in and have fun!! :D

ERacer
 
If you wish, I'll change the track in the first post to Grand Valley so everyone can test there. How does that sound?
 
nitro,

Sounds like a good idea. Could you also update the entry list while you're in there? I had PM'd you with my entry details but please let me know if I should resend.

Do you still not have access to a PS2?

ERacer
 
sorry, for the double post, but no, i still don't have access :(
 
I tested the Mazda, Toyota and Jag last night. Took awhile to get used to Grand Valley, but quickly learned to respect it and enjoyed the challenge. It's a fun course!!

I was unable to match Neil's HP/Kg settings and thought perhaps it was because I'm playing a different version NTSC(?) vs PAL. But then realized I had flip-flopped the settings :D :dunce:

So, a wasted session last night but had fun learning GV. Can't wait to get back in tonight. Anyone else had any luck testing?

ERacer
 
Is it too late to join? I'll use a Jaguar XJR-9, no. 16, sponsored by Red Bull.

xjr-9
 
no, it's not to late to join. Sign-up will be open pretty much all season, so anyone can join in.

could you fill in the details thing i've got in the sign-up thread and post there please! :)
 
ERacer
I tested the Mazda, Toyota and Jag last night. Took awhile to get used to Grand Valley, but quickly learned to respect it and enjoyed the challenge. It's a fun course!!

I was unable to match Neil's HP/Kg settings and thought perhaps it was because I'm playing a different version NTSC(?) vs PAL. But then realized I had flip-flopped the settings :D :dunce:

So, a wasted session last night but had fun learning GV. Can't wait to get back in tonight. Anyone else had any luck testing?

ERacer
Click to expand...

Nice effort there, but no ceegar! :D

Can everyone say 'Muppet'? :lol:

No really, not had any time today, it being payday/bill paying/shopping day. But I will give it a serious try later on.
With a beer or three by my side of course!

Neil
 
I'd be interested in joining because I've always loved these wild crazy fast beast....

.....and I love your efforts to equalize the field to the extent possible through exhaustive testing by various drivers, all evaluating the relavent parimeters...

....all good stuff:tup:


BUT, in this humble driver's opinion, "You ain't never gonna equalize the cars with 'tire wear' as a factor." It's always going to throw everything off in the actual race event so as to render all your equalizing efforts useless. If you don't believe me....after you think the cars are about equal, test them all over the race distance and you'll see certain cars come up with an unbeatable advantage because of tirewear.

My solution for good heads-up racing, without excessive skewing toward tire issues is eliminate "tire wear" completely in favor of a predeterminded number of mandatory pit stops for all cars. Drivers can decide when to make stops as long as they make the required number of stops for each race event.

You'll see this to be a better solution, especially at a long tracks like Nurburgring where tire wear would make it an annoying drive because of constant pitting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion:

1.Eliminating the tirewear means a driver can focus on picking the right combination of tires to balance and enhance his cars performance, instead of selecting primarily because of wear issues.

2.Tire wear on these cars without drivers aids, simply means every car will be skating on ice most of the time with torn-up rears and drivers will never get to really put together a series of good hard fun laps at 100%.

3. Equalizing the cars will be a lot easier without tire wear. It will be enough of a challenge to driver ability to go lap after lap without driver's aids, putting the power down on good tires especially on the tighter tracks. Red rear tires ruins that challenge all together.

So, don't hate me if you don't agree.....I've been in several events where tirewear simply took all the driving fun out of the event and the best car on tirewear generally always won considering all other factors being relatively equal.

Just my opinion.....make pit stops....they're fun, but bump the tire wear.

Think about it....Good Luck....👍 :)
 
Gt3Emperor
BUT, in this humble driver's opinion, "You ain't never gonna equalize the cars with 'tire wear' as a factor." It's always going to throw everything off in the actual race event so as to render all your equalizing efforts useless. If you don't believe me....after you think the cars are about equal, test them all over the race distance and you'll see certain cars come up with an unbeatable advantage because of tirewear.
Click to expand...

All good points Gt3Emperor. Right now we are keeping the tire type (RM/RM) constant throughout our testing primarily in order to focus our evaluation on each car's handling and lap times. Tire wear is going to be a huge factor for only two of the cars in the C-class, the remaining field exhibits almost identical tire wear. We plan to make HP and/or weight adjustments for the two cars which have shown tire wear outside of the normal range which will hopefully remove any significant advantage or disadvantage. So, for example the Toyota may wear quickly, but is also much faster than the Jaguar. Conversely, the Jag is slower than the Toyota, but has better tire wear. Certain courses will favor the Jag while others will favor the Toyota. And that is how it should be.

ERacer
 
One more response and I'll leave you guys alone.....I like this concept so much but....

Yes, I know you are testing now with RM's without 'tire wear' to evaluate the cars...that's great for a baseline.

After you think the cars are about equal, try testing each cars with the same tires and with 'Strong' tire wear selected at least a 3 lap race and compare the overall race time (not lap times) at the end the session for each car.

See what the time difference is between the cars then. The cars that appeared to be almost equal will all behave differently under race conditions and the overall time will prove be a more accurate way to find out how much.

I'll test some myself......👍
 
Now i'm getting confused .. ''Mode: Arcade Mode - Single Race w/ tyre wear - 10 laps, AI - 8-10 difficulty'' .. does 'w/tyre wear' .. mean with or without ?

Please edit throughly for people like me who are slightly :crazy: 💡 👍
 
ERacer
Finished a very basic, preliminary test of five vehicles:

Jaguar XJR-9
Nissan R92CP
Mazda 787B
Sauber C9
Toyota 88C-V

Power-to-weight ratio was set as close to 1:1 as possible. I used 900 HP-to-900 kg. Only the Nissan R92CP came out exactly at 900:900, but the others were very close and the difference is probably insignificant. Gearing on all three cars was set to 440 so that maximum speed could be measured without redlining. Could have been set higher but at the expense of acceleration. Tires on all cars were RM/RM. Tire wear set to strong. No aids. Test track was La Sarthe II.

Results:

Jaguar:
Avg lap time: 3'10.xxx
Top speed: 234 mph
Tire wear: Lasted 6 laps (rears deep orange)
Notes: Slightly unstable in the curves and corners, but the aero package proved surprisingly fast down the Mulsanne Straight. Slowest of all five cars, but also the best tire durability.

Nissan:
Avg. lap time: 3'07.xxx
Top speed: 231 mph
Tire wear: Lasted 3 laps (rears deep orange)
Notes: This growler seemed slow to accelerate at 440 gearing, but deceptively turned in third fastest laps of all five.

Mazda:
Avg. lap time: 3'04.xxx
Top speed: 241 mph
Tire wear: Lasted 3 laps (rears orange)
Notes: 900 HP and 900 kgs seemed too much for the Mazda as it tended to sweep into the kitty litter at every corner and suffered from poor braking. I had to change the gearing to 480 on this little beast as the 900 HPs ran through the short gearbox (5 gears) very quickly. Fastest laps of all five. Mr. Wankel would be so proud of his revolutionary engine.

Sauber:
Avg. lap time: 3'05.xxx
Top speed: 233 mph
Tire wear: Lasted 3 laps (rears deep red)
Notes: This may very well be the most vunderbart car to drive. Very stable cornering & braking. Great acceleration at 440 gearing. Even with rear tires at orange the Sauber handled the quick deceleration and ensuing sharp righty at the end of the Mulsanne Straight beautifully and then took the Indianapolis with equal ease. Unfortunately, even German engineering could not save the Sauber from the same poor tire durability as most of its C-class peers suffer from. Still, a great car with a great engine sound too!

Toyota:
Avg. lap time: 3'09.xxx
Top speed: 231 mph
Tire wear: Lasted 3 laps (rears deep red)
Notes: Amazingly stable with great acceleration at 440 gearing. However, down the Mulsanne you could hear the rears making a chirping, or squeaking, noise as the aerodynamics tried to keep it from bouncing. On lap 2, at Tertre Rouge the rears were turning yellow, incredibly, by the very end of Mulsanne they were turning orange and finished lap #3 an undrivable deep red.

ERacer 👍
Click to expand...

Actually your test session here is closer to revealing how complex the tire wear issue will be to fix. Based on your test results above, at the end of 3 laps using your averaged lap times for each car, the cars would be spaced as follows:

Gap in sec./ Car
+00.0_Mazda 1st
+3.0_Sauber 2nd
+9.0_Nissan 3rd
+15.0_Toyota 4th
+18.0_Jaguar 5th

These are pretty big gaps just after 3 laps, and the likely pit sequence is not revealed by this test. If all the cars, except the Jaquar pitted every 3 laps and ran a 9 lap race, the finish gap widens to the following:

Gap in sec. / car
+00.0_Mazda 1st
+9.0_Sauber 2nd
+27.0_Nissan 3rd
+45.0_Toyota 4th

As you can see, the actual race results of seemingly closely match cars gets to be, not even close.....that still doesn't take into consideration actual pit stops of each car for the total race distance.

See how complex it gets.....

Without conducting full race distance 'strong' tirewear testing with pitstops...you really have no way of really determining if the cars are even close.

TOO Many Varibles....and it would likely be different for each track and race distance.

I'd simplify because nobody will want to run a 10 race series with a car they realize can't possibly win. And that will be apparent probably after the first race.

Please forgive me for invading, but I see so many series ruined by this tire wear crap. Sorry again:tup: :)
 
Delfino
Now i'm getting confused .. ''Mode: Arcade Mode - Single Race w/ tyre wear - 10 laps, AI - 8-10 difficulty'' .. does 'w/tyre wear' .. mean with or without ?

Please edit throughly for people like me who are slightly :crazy: 💡 👍
Click to expand...


Sorry for the confusion Del. The tests should be conducted with tire wear set to strong and tire choice is RM/RM. Please also PM nitro with your best lap and total time for the 10 laps.

Thanks,
ERacer
 
Hello All,

Took the Mazda, Toyota and Jag out again, dialed in the HP/Kg ratios correctly this time.

787B @ 805Kg / 815Hp
88C-V @ 850Kg / 906Hp
XJR-9 @ 894Kg / 951Hp

Gearing = 350 for all three cars
Tires = RM/RM with tire wear set at strong

All three had to pit after lap five.

After 10 laps, the difference in total time between the fastest (Mazda) and the slowest (Jaguar) was 14 seconds. I'm inclined to agree with Neil that perhaps the Jag could use a bit less weight, and would further agree that someone else verify that opinion. Preferably someone that did not choose the Jag in this series. Alternatively, perhaps the Mazda should have an HP reduction.

Will test the Sauber C9 and Nissan R92C tomorrow. I don't have the Pug nor the R89C.

Does everyone feel that 10 laps is long enough? Should the test be 20? How do you like Grand Valley?

Thanks for helping out 👍

ERacer
 
Gt3Emperor
Actually your test session here is closer to revealing how complex the tire wear issue will be to fix. Based on your test results above, at the end of 3 laps using your averaged lap times for each car, the cars would be spaced as follows:

Gap in sec./ Car
+00.0_Mazda 1st
+3.0_Sauber 2nd
+9.0_Nissan 3rd
+15.0_Toyota 4th
+18.0_Jaguar 5th

These are pretty big gaps just after 3 laps, and the likely pit sequence is not revealed by this test. If all the cars, except the Jaquar pitted every 3 laps and ran a 9 lap race, the finish gap widens to the following:

Gap in sec. / car
+00.0_Mazda 1st
+9.0_Sauber 2nd
+27.0_Nissan 3rd
+45.0_Toyota 4th

As you can see, the actual race results of seemingly closely match cars gets to be, not even close.....that still doesn't take into consideration actual pit stops of each car for the total race distance.

See how complex it gets.....

Without conducting full race distance 'strong' tirewear testing with pitstops...you really have no way of really determining if the cars are even close.

TOO Many Varibles....and it would likely be different for each track and race distance.

I'd simplify because nobody will want to run a 10 race series with a car they realize can't possibly win. And that will be apparent probably after the first race.

Please forgive me for invading, but I see so many series ruined by this tire wear crap. Sorry again:tup: :)
Click to expand...

The real problem here is that your 'figures' and assumptions are based around 3 laps only!
This race series like most of the 'long race series', series, is to be ran over much longer distances. Therefore including multiple pit and tyre strategies!
3 laps isn't enough to evaluate the effects of tyre-wear 'v' speed.

That is why we are now testing with STRONG tyre-wear, RM/RM tyres, round a demanding(car/tyre wise) track, and reporting our results.

Once the results of this test, and the results of the hard work put in around Le Sarthe are collated, cogitated, and consulted on....there will no doubt be a definative, cogent, and fair assesment of all the cars made.
And as level a playing field as possible will be produced.

"WE, the long and proud standing masses of the L.R.F. will not rest until we have done the best we can to level these cars,
and, even if we cannot do so, we will not complain.
We have made our choices, we have set our flags!
We will drive the cars we have chosen, to the best of our abilities, and to the limits of the car's atributes, till the end of the season.

So help us the gods of OLR!"

"So say we all!"

Neil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back