**INTEREST CHECK -- "American Iron" - REVISED**

[63AvantiR3]

S3's on Both AI / AIX? -- pending testing.
NO transmission mod allowed for AI (but is allowed for AIX)
Ride Height minimum AI = 127mm, AIX =102mm

I did notice in an earlier post you noted that TCS/ASM is "illegal" unless I wanted to implement it in the AIX format? Does real life AIX allow TCS/ASM?

Yes, S3 tires would be my inclination to start the series with. Let me do some testing with some cars built to AI specifications. I guess I shall make AI my next "race series" garage section. I've got VVC, CMC, and a few others done. This way I can help you out with my findings as well.

Correct. Leave the transmission stock for AI. The only caveat being if some of the older cars, who were limited to 4 speeds and tall gear ratios, can't be competitive because they end up being gearing limited. Let me see what I run into as far as gear and differential ratios. Tire height also comes into play but P.D. conveniently left that out of the game I wish we could alter tire sizes. AIX is free to do what they want with the transmission.

Correct ride height.

Rereading brings this up as per the NASA CCR (Club Codes & Regulations), "Traction Control devices other than factory-installed units are expressly prohibited." So the answer is, kinda. They sorta do allow traction control devices and they sorta don't. How do you want to approach this? I know that things like ASR (anti-slip regulation) have been on the Corvette since 1992. Do we presume that other GM models 1993-present (the 2004 GTO for example) get traction control in AI and AIX? Or do you wish to shut it down completely? I suggested it for AIX because those cars can get to be a handful. They get serious torque output and have to control it on twisting courses. AI cars are much better balanced machines.

I've just noticed a problem with some of the cars' initial HP being above the AI limit of 390HP (Chevelle, Super Bee and Superbird). Additionally some of the cars' initial HP is high enough that an oil change may put them over that limit also (Charger R/T, Cuda, 2004 GTO). I need to get all the proposed cars in my garage and change the oil and see their revised HPs.

I was going to force an increased amount of ballast to the cars that came close to, or exceded the limit. The CCR says that no more than 150 pounds (68kg for GT4) can be added. I believe this is only because that during a collision, it can break free and become an airborne projectile in or even outside of the automobile. Digitally speaking, we don't have to worry about safety of our drivers, we can add ~440 pounds (200kg) worth of weight without it becoming airborne and seriously injuring a person. I doubt anyone's PS2 (that weighs in at a hefty 400+ pounds) jumps off their desk and flies at them when they have a collision in GT4. That would have to be one seriously pissed off and demonicly possessed PS2.

Looking more at the CCR, I'll pay special attention to the 9.0:1 torque to weight ratio. V-8s can easily make more torque than horsepower. So much so that you could be over the TQ power allowance and still be under the HP to weight ratio.

 

[63AvantiR3]

I am looking over the CCR again. There is no minimum weight for 4 or 6 cylinder AI/AIX cars. This means that, in theory, the Buick GNX can get as light as it possibly can. I heard from my friend that the SVO Mustangs (the turbo I-4 models) were sought after for AI. I guess this is why.

Here is the .pdf of the CCR for American Iron: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/American-Iron-rules.pdf
I can see a bit of domination by the turbo Buick, even if the car does fit the 9.5:1 pounds per horsepower & 9.0:1 pounds per pound/foot of torque. Cornering speeds will be increased by a lighter car. I'll keep working on the cars to see what I come up with. I just purchased 16 cars for AI duty; I'm checking to make sure they'll be legit for competition.

 

[goixoye]

I just purchased 16 cars for AI duty; I'm checking to make sure they'll be legit for competition.

I think it might be 18 cars? On your spreadsheet I believe you omitted the Super Bee and according to my handy game guide the Chrysler 300C is FR...and we all know game guides are never wrong. I'll have to check that one out in the game to make sure.

Also I noticed the torque limitations but thought that might be too much to try to keep up with so I dropped it. I think when your adding parts it only indicates changes in HP. If that's correct it might be a little cumbersome trying to get both figures to work out? Do you think we need the torque limitations too?

 

[Kolyana]

Just wanted to note that you two are putting in some sterling research on this little puppy ... it's shaping up to be something veeeeryyy nice 👍

 

[63AvantiR3]

I think it might be 18 cars? On your spreadsheet I believe you omitted the Super Bee and according to my handy game guide the Chrysler 300C is FR...and we all know game guides are never wrong. I'll have to check that one out in the game to make sure.

Also I noticed the torque limitations but thought that might be too much to try to keep up with so I dropped it. I think when your adding parts it only indicates changes in HP. If that's correct it might be a little cumbersome trying to get both figures to work out? Do you think we need the torque limitations too?

Yes the 300C is a FR platform. It's a four-door sedan but there aren't any rules about that. While we're on the topic of Chrysler, what do you feel about the Prowler and Crossfire? They're 6 cylinder models so depending upon what you want to do, they could be lightened up a lot to better meet the power ratios.

For my own garage, I just nixed the AI: Charger, Chevelle, Cougar, Cuda, Super Bird and GTO (not the new one) due to the torque figures. Those cars can stick around in AIX. You/we can still allow these cars to compete in AI if you'd like. To test them, I added 200 kilograms to the weight and the stock amount of torque was still too much. Going by purely horsepower:weight, they were fine. An addition to AIX may also be the Buick Special.

Here's where I wish Polyphony Digital would have programmed in more engine options. Those 426 Hemi and 440 cubic inch beasts put out an awful lot of torque, but if I could get a Charger with a 360 or 383 V-8, a Cuda with a 318 V-8, or a Cougar with a 351 instead of the 390, they'd have power ratios that would easily make the cut.

You're correct that the game only shows horsepower figures. I lost my job so I've got nothing but time (except for school). I've found a rhythm where I can check torque figures and can always back out if I've gone over the limit. Just a little over the limit and I can tag on a few extra kilograms. I save the game before I start modifying the power and weight so I can restart if need-be. So far I haven't had to restart very frequently.

 

[63AvantiR3]

Well, here's what I got for A.I. times on different tires. There were points on the track where even with S2 tires, I was ahead of my best S3 lap, with each car.

I picked the IROC and the GTO because the IROC had the most pounds per horsepower, and the GTO had the least pounds per horsepower; they still meet AI regulations though.

1988 IROC
S3
1'47.857
In Sports Car layout, Sears Point is a 2.52 mile track. 107.857 seconds around the track is 0.02336 miles per second or an average speed of 84.1 MPH.
S2
1'48.569
108.569 seconds around the track = average speed of 83.6 MPH.

2004 GTO
S3 Tires
1'43.042
103.042 seconds around the track = average speed of 88.0 MPH.
S2 Tires
1'44.221
104.221 seconds around the track = average speed of 87.0 MPH.

To compare, Guy Cunningham's average speed on his record setting 1'49.991 time is about 82.5 MPH. My closest average speed to Guy's was the worst power:weight ratio car I had, on S2 tires. I didn't build and test the Chrysler cars you and I threw around in earlier posts. I just have the AI cars I listed on my spreadsheet, minus the cars that I listed above as too torquey.

Damm Polyphony all to hell-o. Haha. I wish they knew more about the subject they keep building a "simulation" of. Maybe I could get on with Polyphony's product development team?

So far even S2 tires net results too quick for American Iron. What I suggest you do, is start everyone on S3 tires. After a race or two, use S1 and S2 tires to slow down the faster drivers, range into R1 and R2 tires to bring the slower drivers up. If tires don't work, start adding ballast weight. Here's the way Speed World Challenge does it:
http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?pagetype=2&form_article=10627
I'll build up some W-C cars in my race series garage (really just a 3rd memory card) after I'm done with the other NASA series.

 

[goixoye]

Relative to the Crossfire and Prowler. I think the Prowler is a "special" car or whatever PD calls that and can't compete in the normal races? But that aside I think, at least for this running of the series I'd like to stay with the "sedan" part of the AI/AIX rules. If there is a next time maybe other cars could be allowed.

I left out the Buick Special because: 1) it's got too much HP for AI 2) it's HP level make it seem almost like a "race car" compared to this group.

My thought on the higher level cars was maybe to limit those drivetrain efficiency parts so they could have the higher HPs but with a educed efficieny still have a theoretical HP at the wheels that was inline with the other cars. Even so that would allow 427HP max. The Chevelle would still be out. The Superbee and Superbird look like they'd still make it....but without the oil change. The '04 GTO, 440 R/T and Cuda look like they might make it with an oil change and some combination of the drivetrain parts....didi you understand what I was doing with the efficiency part?

If we're going to consider the torque -- to simplify things I think we need to pretty much provide the parts list for each car. If we leave it out we could just let everybody shoot for the HP target. There might be a little variation on how to get there...which would allow some driver input and possibly a little "ownership" in the race series. The testing I did for the AMC made me feel a little more pride in my ride because I got some flexibility in selecting parts and "building" it.

If you have a chance take some of the cars to the PD Cup and Tuner Grand Prix and see how the tire choices (AI=S1, AIX=S3) perform there against that competition. Part of the the tire choices I have listed is relative to the performance in those events againts the computer competition.

I feel like I really want to stick with TCS/ASMs=0.

 

[goixoye]

Looks like we posted almost simultaneously...didn't see you post until just now.

Your times are a little quicker than Guy's. IRL I expect guy would make most of us look pretty silly out there. Shouldn't we at least consider S1s (for AI)....they worked best with the PD cup races (for me) and should result in times more comparable to Guy's.

I'd rather start with AI=S1 and AIX=S3. Maybe tires could be "improved" for some drivers as the series progresses...but allowing some drivers to qualify for the events should result in a sufficent "head start"?

If you are able to find some time for additional testing maybe try AI w/ S1's in some of the PD Cup events and AIX w/ S3's in some of the Tuner Car Grand Grix events. I am a WRS D3 driver and these tires resulted in decently competitive races for me. S3's (or even S2's) really put the computer drivers at a disadvantage in the PD Cup events where I tested. But I was using the Mustang SVT as a test car which might be one of the best cars in the field?

For your testing are you using my HP guidelines (AI=390HP, AIX=560) or something else? How about the other parts...clutches, flywheels, driveshafts, etc.? I assume you may be going by the parts info in your spreadsheets?

 

[63AvantiR3]

Real quick... My tests were made using the limit of 2800 pounds (1271kg) as the lightest the car can be, and either 9.5:1 pounds per horsepower, or 9.0:1 pounds per pound-foot of torque, whichever the car satisfied first. Since these cars already put out a lot of power, lightening the car was not really an option. I wish P.D. factored in that the roll cage would add weight. Then we really could do a stage of weight reduction.

The drivetrain stuff on my test cars is the best it can be. Race clutch, race flywheel, 1.5 LSD (since even if I buy the fully customizable one I tune it to equal the 1.5 version) and the carbon driveshaft. I understand what you're saying regarding the drivetrain efficiency; that would work out alright.

The IROC is a very torquey car, making 360.13 TQ and 251 HP (in modified trim) to a weight of 3242.996 pounds (1471 kg). The GTO is closer to balanced (HP-TQ wise) but unlike the Camaro, the GTO's horsepower ratio was its limiting factor. The GTO has 394.63 TQ, 388 HP and weighs 3725.808 pounds (1690 kg).

*All stats taken from the car's specification, or sell, sheet.

This is why I'm so flustered at Polyphony Digital. If we could manipulate the timing of an engine, we could place the power band where we wanted it.

Advancing an engine sacrifices horsepower but boosts torque. Retarding an engine's timing sacrifices low end torque, but boosts horsepower. Variable valve timing engines do this adjustment on the fly. With other cars, you've got to get out and play with the cam timing belt/chain & sprocket yourself. And that's impossible to do while the engine is running.

By retarding the IROC's engine, I could give the car more horsepower, lower torque and keep applying "power parts" to get the car to meet both 9.5:1 pounds per horsepower and 9.0:1 pounds per pound-foot of torque simultaneously. Maybe we'll get more tuning options with GT5 or 6?

Anyway, I've got to get a journalism essay done and turned in by tonight so I'm going to do that. I'll be back on here later.

 

[goixoye]

This torque stuff is confusing me. How are you controlling that? Buying a part...then going back to the garage to see what the torque value is...then going back to the dealership...buy another part...go back to the garage?

I know it's part of the AI rules but it seems that it may be too complicated (like my drivetrain efficiency chart)? I suppose for more sophisticated drivers such as yourself we could allow the torque ratio option. Otherwise we may have to put together the part list and weight for each car...which I guess wouldn't be that big of a deal...it sounds like you've about got done anyway?

Are you applying the efficiency factor to the HP & torque?

garage (flywheel) HP x 0.82 = rear wheel HP
garage (flywheel) torque x 0.82 = rear wheel torque?

 

[63AvantiR3]

Your times are a little quicker than Guy's. IRL I expect guy would make most of us look pretty silly out there. Shouldn't we at least consider S1s (for AI)....they worked best with the PD cup races (for me) and should result in times more comparable to Guy's.

Yeah Guy is a very good driver with an excellently prepared Griggs Racing Mustang. We should focus on a 3-5 second deficit to his time, so about a 1'53.000 around Sears Point.

I'd rather start with AI=S1 and AIX=S3. Maybe tires could be "improved" for some drivers as the series progresses...but allowing some drivers to qualify for the events should result in a sufficent "head start"?

That sounds fair enough.

If you are able to find some time for additional testing maybe try AI w/ S1's in some of the PD Cup events and AIX w/ S3's in some of the Tuner Car Grand Grix events.

I can't test AI at the PD cup or AIX at the Tuner Car events yet. I only have built AI cars so far, and the card I'm building all of my race series' on is a barebones memory card (except for the 1 trillion credits and all-gold licenses codes). I haven't unlocked the extreme or endurance events yet. In the next few days I'll do the things that unlock the other modes and I'll be getting into building the AIX cars shortly also.

But I was using the Mustang SVT as a test car which might be one of the best cars in the field?

In terms of power to weight ratio, for AI anyway, the Mustang SVT has the 6th most pounds per horsepower out of the ten AI cars I have built so far. 6th is relative though because the GTO so far has the best power:weight ratio at 9.6026 and the SVT has a ratio of 9.7003; a difference of 0.0977 pounds per horsepower. That amount is fairly nominal considering that four other cars fit snugly between them. Talk about close competition.

This torque stuff is confusing me. How are you controlling that?

I'll do all of the other non-power upgrades, go to the garage, and save. I have a program called "convert" http://www.joshmadison.com/software/ on my computer. My computer and PS2 are side-by-side so it helps tremendously. I can convert kilos to pounds with Josh's program. I'll do the math where I figure the car's weight and divide it by both 9 and 9.5 on my computer's calculator program. I can open more than one calculator so I set one aside for TQ and the other for HP. Then with the math completed I will know how much power I can add before I go over the allowed amount. That's when I go back to the dealer and buy parts. If the calculations figure that HP will be the limiting factor, that's when it's easy because the game lists HP like you had said. If the calculations figure that torque will be the limiting factor then I will slowly add parts that I feel will bring me close to the limit.

Horsepower is calculated, torque is measured. HP = torque x RPM/5252. Knowing how horsepower and torque are related allows me to better guess at what parts will work on the car before the amount of torque goes over its limit.

...Otherwise we may have to put together the part list and weight for each car...which I guess wouldn't be that big of a deal...it sounds like you've about got done anyway?

I've got the two 1969 Camaros, three new Camaros (1988, 1997, & 2000), Buick GNX, 2004 GTO, and 3 Mustangs (Shelby, SVT, & GT) all taken care of for AI. I was going to grab the 300C and build that car up next.

Are you applying the efficiency factor to the HP & torque?

garage (flywheel) HP x 0.82 = rear wheel HP
garage (flywheel) torque x 0.82 = rear wheel torque?

No, I'm not getting that in depth with the power ratings, though I see where you're coming from. You're taking into account the parasitic loss that the drivetrain typically takes away. Automatics suck up more power than manuals do, though I think this game presumes all transmissions are manual. The automatic mode just automatically shifts through the gates for you.

• In the end, this is your series. I agree with your decision regarding no TCS and ASM. That'll keep the drivers busy . I figured that I could lend a hand and help you out with testing since I was going to build a lot of NASA sanctioned events on an extra memory card anyway. AI was coming up next in my list about the time you mentioned wanting to start a series. I nixed the big brute 400+ cubic inch monster engined cars from AI competition on my card, but you're more than welcome to add your own panache to the series and host it.

• Northern California GTi-Cup guys have made amendments to the national GTi-Cup rules. Out here we're passing Pro7 cars and hunting down Spec. Miatas. Other parts of the country don't allow a Quaife differential, a header, and cam upgrades in GTi's. We do. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just different. GTi Cup was a dying breed so the few guys that were in it decided to make the series fun and possibly appealing again. Just because the CCR says-so, doesn't mean you can't alter it to something that you feel would make the series fun.

• I can multi-task. I'll build my fleet on the side and help you with decision making for the online series. Just tell me what your thoughts are and I can give you some advice if you need it.

 

[goixoye]

This torque thing is really blowing my mind...I'll have to print your posts and look at it when I'm next to the PS2. Until the AMC wraps up I can't afford to get too distracted so I may have to wait about 2 weeks. Are the GT4 garage values matching up with the calculated figures for torque? I really haven't paid any attention to the torque figures in all of this. I latched onto the HP regulation because it was easier to monitor.

I'm really having alot of trouble following you and understanding what specs you're building your cars to. So you're setting aside my upper limit of HP and going with the straight AI / AIX rules. And I suppose designing to the point where you have the lowest denominator in either the HP or TQ ratio which would be HP or TQ respectively...calling it a power weight ratio is deceptive when it's actually a weight to power ratio.

Per NASA's regs, in GT4, you could build an AI car that totally maxed out the HP and then just add weight until the ratio was satisfied...might not result in the best "version" of the car as far as getting it around the track but it would be legal. Ditto AIX you just don't have to worry about increasing the weight...just meeting the minimum. Of course the no TCS/ASM would prevent you from benefitting from all that HP.

Because of that I e-mailed someone involved in the AI/AIX website about how much HP folks were using in real life...the response seemed low...then I realized they measure HP at the wheels not the flywheel...so I did a little research about drivetrain efficieny. So the real life AI/AIX HP figures divided by a realistic efficiency factor and there you have my upper limits...basically I converted GT4s figures, which match up with manufacturer specs and they measure HP at the flywheel (where its higher...in the good ole USA bigger is always better), to rear wheel figures (where it's lower).

I felt I had to set some limits otherwise the various competitors would tune to different levels and we'd get a real broad range of what people were driving and the times could be all over the place. I also want to keep this as "real world" as possible. So even though AI/AIX doesn't limit top end HP there was a reasonable HP figure provided by a real life AI/AIX person...that when thrown together with an efficiency factor results in something reasonable in the GT4 world. It also really helped to cement these limits when I tested and found some GT mode series that the cars could participate in where the computer competition provided an entertaining race.

I really hadn't intended to do a lot of testing...but realize now I probably should to make sure my "theory" is sound. My theory being that cars with an equal weight to power ratio and the same approximate HP, the same tires, etc. should be relatively equal. I've found that cars with more HP and same ratio are superior to one with less HP. Some minimal testing I've done indicates this is accurate but I probably should give all the cars a go...and intend to do so to at least try to order the field and try to possibly work out a bonus point system to encourage using the weaker cars in the field.

For me anyway the on-track competition dimension of this series is crucial. So testing the cars in those events is as important as testing them against each other. I have added in a fair mix of the "time trial" style event to hopefully make it attractive to a broad group.

 

[63AvantiR3]

...Are the GT4 garage values matching up with the calculated figures for torque?

When I must build to a torque specification, I am using the percentage of increase that the part adds to horsepower and I apply roughly that same percentage to my existing torque. This method works pretty well when sticking with the small increase parts; the parts that only add 3 and 4 percent more power. I experimented with a stage 3 natural aspiration upgrade and it did exactly what it would in real life. It boosted the upper RPM horsepower by a greater percentage than it boosted low end torque.

I really haven't paid any attention to the torque figures in all of this. I latched onto the HP regulation because it was easier to monitor.

Can't say that I blame you. Since the game tracks HP, stick with it. I like keeping a close eye on torque numbers because two cars with horsepower in the same ballpark, but different torque levels are not equal cars. There are a lot of variations (where torque hits in the band, how soon it comes on, how long it lasts, amount of torque, etc..) that can make two seemingly equal cars, unequal.

So you're setting aside my upper limit of HP and going with the straight AI / AIX rules.

Yes and no. It turns out that because these cars weigh plenty and make good power already, that except for one car, I have not gone over your 390HP figure. The one car is the 2004 GTO, it has 393 HP advertised, but only 388 on its stats sheet. I could pull out stage one worth of weight (203 kilograms) and add some back (about 100) with ballast and that would bring it closer to 370HP max.

The power comes into play because for the most part, if I lighten these cars, the stock power then becomes too much. There's no way to reduce stock power in GT4, though I wish we could via different size air restrictors.

...calling it a power weight ratio is deceptive when it's actually a weight to power ratio.

It is still a power to weight ratio in the regard that the two things being compared to each other are power and weight. We could always flip it around and show it as--> 1:9.5, but it's more impressive if the larger number is first. Also, if we really showed it in the regard of power:weight, you'd see a statistic for a 377.8 HP Mustang SVT Cobra that weighed 3589.121 pounds (or nearly a perfect 9.5:1) as this--> 0.105:1. That's one hundred five thousandths of one horsepower moving every one pound. Flipping that, 1:0.105 means that every pound is getting acted upon by the same one hundred five thousandths of a horsepower... I only displayed it that way to put the larger number in front.

It is organized as weight : power and here's why. Long ago, the average horse was found to be able to lift 550 pounds one foot in one second. That is the definition of one "horsepower" literally. Because horsepower takes the amount of weight it has to work on into consideration, the amount of weight one horsepower must move is more important to know. We would rather know how much weight 1 HP is forced to move, than the amount of horsepower acting upon each unit of weight.

And actually, to further confuse you, horsepower doesn't exist. That mathematical equation in my post above, HP = Torque x RPM/5252, is how we figure out what horsepower is. Machines like dynometers only measure torque.

I hope I explained it well enough, without approaching brain melt-down for anyone.

Per NASA's regs, in GT4, you could build an AI car that totally maxed out the HP and then just add weight until the ratio was satisfied.

You could, sorta. Sometimes even maxing out the weight doesn't meet the specified ratio. That's what I did with the cars that I nixed from my own AI series. I found out what each car weighed, hypothetically added 200kg (the max we can add through ballast) converted that figure into pounds, and did the math to see if each car could still compete while meeting the HP and TQ ratios. The cars that I didn't include in my AI series had too much stock power even at full weight.

...then I realized they measure HP at the wheels not the flywheel...so I did a little research about drivetrain efficieny.

Sweet. Always good to do research and to learn more.

I've found that cars with more HP and same ratio are superior to one with less HP.

That's what I've found as well.

...and intend to do so to at least try to order the field and try to possibly work out a bonus point system to encourage using the weaker cars in the field.

Sounds like a winner. I always like a situation where even the underdogs can have a fair fighting chance.

 

[63AvantiR3]

I've got my own version of AI built up, I'm working on AIX now. I should be able to test AIX at the tuning car grand prix sometime tonight. I'll let you know what my thoughts are on it.

 

[goixoye]

Now that the AMC has concluded I'll be getting back to this. Currently my goals are:

1) Test the cars in an effort to order the field with the possibility of awarding bonus points for selecting lower placing cars. This will be a chore. I have yet to develop a game plan for this.

 

[Kolyana]

If there is anything I can do to help test cars, let me know.

 

[Eric.]

So has it been decided whether we can use a different car for AI and AIX? If so, I'd like to use the Z28 (1997) for AI and the SS (2000?) for AIX, just for the heck of it.

 

[Jetboy.]

Muwahahaha. Put me in the Bird. I never noticed it there in the list, before.

 

[Kolyana]

oh crap no.

 

[goixoye]

If there is anything I can do to help test cars, let me know.

I'd love some help. The focus is ordering the field. Some testing relative to the GT mode events would be helpful too. Post 16 shows a revised venue.

I've already discovered that certain cars cannot be used in AI (only AIX) because of HP levels. You could test either AI or AIX or both. The approach to the testing is up to you but I think should be tested in AI or AIX trim (not stock form).

For AI use 390 garage HP max. With maximum drivetrain efficiency parts -- triple clutch, racing flywheel, Custom LSD, Carbon Driveshaft. Using .82 for efficiency 390 x 0.82 = 320 HP. Using 9.5:1 #/HP = 9.5 / 2.205 = 4.308 kg/HP. Minimum wt. = 320 x 4.308 = 1379kg. Use any HP part combo you want to get to 390, except I'd use the oil change as mandatory . Use all the non-HP goodies -- brakes, tranny, suspension, etc. Use stiffness (roll cage). I think that covers it. Oops S1 tires. Probably shouldn't do any parts tuning. TCS/ASMs=0.

For AIX use 560 garage HP and minimum wt of 1225kg. Same parts stuff except S3 tires.

The cars that I know have to much HP for AI are: (so these are AIX only)
Chevelle
Super Bee
Superbird.

Some on the edge are:
R/T
'Cuda
'04 GTO
I haven't had the chance to check them out. Probably by the end of the week I will have had a chance to look at HP levels to determine exactly which cars will be AIX only choices.

If you do testing to order the field it would be helpful to provide results for all the cars. I know that's alot to ask but that way I would have tabulated results for the entire field from the same driver. If that's too demanding maybe take a few of the cars for a spin in some of the proposed GT mode events to see what you think relative to how well these cars match up to the computer competition. In addition to exciting competition relative to each other I'm shooting for an exciting race with the computer guys too.

Any help from anyone wanting to contribute would be appreciated.

 

[goixoye]

So has it been decided whether we can use a different car for AI and AIX? If so, I'd like to use the Z28 (1997) for AI and the SS (2000?) for AIX, just for the heck of it.

Yes I will revise things for those who might want to use different cars for the different categories.

Muwahahaha. Put me in the Bird. I never noticed it there in the list, before.

Unfortunately the 'Bird is likely to be an AIX only ride because of the HP. But the Bird could be used in conjunction with a different car for AI events.

Thanks for your input / interest.

 

[goixoye]

On those cars with HP issues:

The Chevelle is an AIX only car.
The Super Bee and Superbird can compete in AI but only in full stock form. NO modifications of any kind (HP or non-HP) at all. NO oil change ever...even when the HP begins to drop off.


The R/T and 'Cuda can compete in AI without an oil change (ever) or any HP mods but they are allowed the full range of non HP parts.

The '04 GTO can compete based on the standard limits. With an oil change it has 375HP...so it's close but within the guidelines.

I think I'm gonna go ahead and revise the 1st post of this thread to incorporate this and the venue revisions.

 

[goixoye]

I've edited the 1st post to show revisions to the venue and a few other things -- including some specific regulations for a few of the cars.

 

[goixoye]

I eliminated the Z28 Camaros. Simply too many cars to test and the Z28 is not that different from the SS. If anybody has serious issues I'll eliminate the SS instead but I need to reduce the number of cars because of testing and I tought the SS's were better...the 1997 Z28 is only available "used" anyway and likely suffers from HP deficiency (in the AIX class anyway).

 

[Kolyana]

That's fine (for me) ... I wouldn't have gone with the Z28 anyway, because of obvious reasons.

 

[goixoye]

A few folks have offered to help with testing. If you are so inclined it would helpful if anybody were to test at least just 2 different cars. Both would need to be either AI or AIX but non one of each and both cars would need to be tested at the same venue (of your choice). I'm conducting my testing at Mid-Field (forward and reverse) because it's a short quick course that even the computer drivers do pretty well on. Right now I'm testing using both A-spec and B-spec to see how that turns out (my B-spec is 9210).

The way I'm "comparing" cars to on another I don't need testing of ALL the cars (and they don't need to be tested at the track I'm testing on) but if you could test at least 2 cars I could compare those relative lap time differences to see how they compare to my lap time differences. I am testing with TCS and ASM at default levels so I can compare my times to the B-spec driver (the B-spec drivers CANNOT drive without the asissts).

I may completely throw out the B-spec results depending on how it turns out and then have to retest all the cars with TCS/ASMs=0.

Oops, almost forgot. I've got the adjustable parts on the cars but I'm not doing any "tuning"....except maybe an auto tranny bump so the cars won't bounce of the rev limiter on the long straights.

 

[Kolyana]

PM sent Goixoye ... I'm wondering about parts on the cars you've got listed, but if I understand it right I can upgrade with anything, just stay within the HP and weight restrictions. I'll print off the list now and start testing tonight.

 

[goixoye]

PM sent Goixoye ... I'm wondering about parts on the cars you've got listed, but if I understand it right I can upgrade with anything, just stay within the HP and weight restrictions. I'll print off the list now and start testing tonight.

Yes. All upgrades are allowed except on the AI versions of the Super Bee and Superbird -- they are not allowed anything, not even an oil change because the stock HP is too high. The AI versions of the 'Cuda and R/T are allowed the best non-HP parts but no oil change and no HP parts, again because of the HP.

Thanks for the help.