NeverGiveUp Garage: 530pp Seasonal - Ferrari GTO '84

Ridox2JZGTE
Am I wrong ? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I can only speak about NASCAR because I'm a hillbilly at heart and it's mostly the only racing I watch, but if your car handles well....
1. You will use less brake.
2. You can roll thru the center better and carry more speed out of the turn.
3. Your tire wear "should" be better/more consistent because you're not fighting the car.
4. You can pass cars by using lanes that they can't!:dopey:
All of these will lead to a car that doesn't need to push so hard, using less fuel, to keep its dominant lap times/speed and letting the rest of the field look at his bumper. (Hopefully it will say NationWide on it!):lol:
 
Last edited:
Lionheart2113
I can only speak about NASCAR because I'm a hillbilly at heart and it's mostly the only racing I watch, but if your car handles well....
1. You will use less brake.
2. You can roll thru the center better and carry more speed out of the turn.
3. Your tire wear "should" be better/more consistent because you not fighting the car.
4. You can pass cars by using lanes that others can't!:dopey:
All of these will lead to a car that doesn't need to push so hard, using less fuel, to keep its dominant lap times/speed and letting the rest of the field looking at his bumper. (Hopefully it will say NationWide on it!):lol:
Click to expand...

From my practice session online on my fan club, with Diablo SVR at Monza, when I push hard in 1:55/56s lap range on SH, the fuel ran out quicker ( about half lap difference I think ) than when I'm on slower pace of 1:57s. My tires were about 75% rear when fuel in red. Tire wear very fast :) I also ran out quicker when I did practice run at Suzuka with NSX-R ( Keiichi version ) a few weeks ago ( same club event ) than when I was in lower pace ( SH, tire very fast ). If you interested, join every saturday for replica based races online, we have several regulars like @danbojte, @TurnLeft, @Thorin Cain, @OdeFinn, @Brewguy44 :)

We always do races with tire wear very fast and 30 minutes at least :) So, it could be a good test too :)
 
Ridox2JZGTE
If you interested, join every saturday for replica based races online, we have several regulars like @danbojte, @TurnLeft, @Thorin Cain, @OdeFinn, @Brewguy44 :)

We always do races with tire wear very fast and 30 minutes at least :) So, it could be a good test too :)
Click to expand...
Actual racing online???:scared: Last time I tried that, this happened.....
image.jpg

Now that's a Mary Poppins car! I'd be interested in joining you boys, somebody has to be in the back!:sly: It would probably be every other Saturday pending what time you start.
 
Lionheart2113
Actual racing online???:scared: Last time I tried that, this happened.....
View attachment 373489
Now that's a Mary Poppins car! I'd be interested in joining you boys, somebody has to be in the back!:sly: It would probably be every other Saturday pending what time you start.
Click to expand...

I think it was 8 in the morning for US folks, that would be around midday in the UK :)

Next one will be at Motegi oval on Camaro GT3 replica :)

danbojte


Please read and follow the
GTPlanet OnLine Racing (OLR) Rules & Guidelines

==========

staytuned.png


Penalty: Weak, Wear: Very Fast, Damage: Light
No Aids & ABS

30 min Races

Racing numbers with Gran Turismo logo are mandatory

==========

Please read and follow the
GTPlanet OnLine Racing (OLR) Rules & Guidelines
==========

Important!
The races will Start on time, so prepare yourself to be ready. The room will be opened 30 min earlier.
If you'll miss the Start, you can still watch the race and jump in to the next one. :P 👍

:cheers:​

Click to expand...
 
Ridox2JZGTE
I think it was 8 in the morning for US folks, that would be around midday in the UK :)

Next one will be at Motegi oval on Camaro GT3 replica :)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be able to make that Saturday race at midday, but I could have a practice room open that Saturday morning for those wanting to practice/race for fun before the main event.(If that's not against the rules) it would give me a good chance to test a new car and the track you suggested earlier, just more HP than discussed. I'll look up the Camaro tune and move any more responses pertaining to this over to the right thread.👍
 
Lionheart2113
Camber/TOE compared to Tire/Fuel Usage

Does a tune using Camber/TOE consume less fuel and better on tire wear than a tune that does not use Camber/TOE?
I can't remember where I read this from, but it stated that a car utilizing Camber & TOE, is better on the tire wear and uses less fuel. It makes perfect sense in the real world, and I would agree with it 100%, but this isn't real world...this is GT6.
I went to the 1st place that came to mind when looking for tunes that use proper Camber/TOE; @Ridox2JZGTE Replica Garage.👍
I figured that I would pick a replica tune and use B-Spec mode having BOB throw it around the track. I chose the Honda NSX Type R '02 (479pp Dyno Power version on Sports:Hard) and the race of choice was the Apricot Hill 20-Minute challenge.
I tested (or should I say I had BOB test) the car 3 different ways...
1. As the tune is written (tune link here)
2. The same tune except Camber and TOE are all set to 0.
3. My stock"ish" setup. I used the same weight/power/tuning parts etc as the tune describes except...
After installing the Custom Suspension don't adjust RH or Springs (stock). All dampers & ARB set to 1.
LSD is set to 10/20/20.
Brake Balance 5/5.

At the start of the every race, I instructed BOB to "Push the Pace" then observed the race. I made the PIT stop on Lap 9 coming up to Lap 10. Although this car is severely under powered for this event, I just want starting point to get some data. The Fuel shows how many Liters was used i.e. how much it took to get the tank full again.
View attachment 372704
Tests 1-3 using BOB seems to be hit and miss when it comes to lap times.:odd: Test 4 is when I decided to run this event myself, using the different ways.
Feel more than free to judge for yourselves, but to me, this particular tune proves a few things...
The tune without Camber/TOE seems to be the overall winner using less fuel, better tire wear, and slightly quicker lap time averages. But most importantly, even though I run faster than BOB, I really need to take a few classes on tire management!:banghead: Laps 8-9 felt as if I didn't have a right rear tire.

I also wanted to test like for like compared to online tire wear and fuel usage.
Note: When setting up the online room I made sure that the room settings matched the Apricot Hill 20-Minute Challenge at the start of every practice run.
Time: 14:00
Temp: 21° C (I believe this to be the leading contributor to some tracks being "slower" online vs offline) more testing needs to be done to verify.
Track Surface: 0%
Tire/Fuel Depletion: Very Fast
View attachment 372705
Once again this shows that the tune without the Camber/TOE fairs better in fuel usage, tire wear, and lap times.
This is my first test comparing these items, but I plan on testing a few more cars (drivetrain/PP/Type/Tires) under the same restrictions and look at all the times over the entire 10 laps. I would be very interested if anyone else has proof for similar tests or if I might be over looking something.:cheers:
Click to expand...
Very nice work. It is always good to see tests being done and data being published to show the results :cool: And I applaud you for your efforts :bowdown: I like the approach and really hope you find what you are looking for and look forward to seeing your results. Good luck with your future testing :cheers:

Lionheart2113
I didn't want to tackle or add to the whole "Camber is broken/works a little/not like it should" thing. But in a round about way, I can see how it can be pulled into that debate.:dunce:
Click to expand...
Any time that word is mentioned around here the flags go up :lol: I've found myself in the middle of it a few times too many myself while I was trying to learn something :irked: And I hope you don't have to in here.

As far as I'm concerned, I've found my answers and I'm happy with them :) I've moved on to my next step.
Ridox2JZGTE
@Thorin Cain found something else with camber when he tried the Diablo SVR replica on high camber ( the last event race at Monza ) He prefer high compared to lower camber that we used for the race.
Click to expand...
The only times I'll mention camber again is to say how much I prefer :D It's not always the higher option ;)

Poster's Disclaimer: By the time I finally got round to finishing this post this ended up a lot shorter than previously expected. So I thought I'd beef it up a little with an explanation :crazy: I had a nice little piece about what I said about why I preferred it. But Ridox has kindly provided a way for interested parties to find it so I won't bother doing so here too.

BTW...
Lionheart2113
Actual racing online???:scared: Last time I tried that, this happened.....
View attachment 373489
Now that's a Mary Poppins car! I'd be interested in joining you boys, somebody has to be in the back!:sly: It would probably be every other Saturday pending what time you start.
Click to expand...
That'd be pretty cool 👍 but the back is currently reserved for either Myself or @Brewguy44.:P
 
@Lionheart2113 most important thing when testing fuel consumption is identical laps, identical shift points and pedal position.
Several times I have run situations where I'm nearly running out fuel, and will do so if driving as normal pace, but short shifting is one key to achieve fuel savings, real-life economy driving ways can be applied on GT6.
Good camber setup can be fuel saver if it's made for fuel saving, or it can be just beast making fast lap times while eating your fuel reserves, then comes question, what you want it to be, maybe just good compromise between those, tuned to keep good traction thru fuel and tire range, full to empty, mint to worn.
Normally my fuel consumption varies few dl per lap, and over few liter when pushing really hard, then again saving a lot when hanging on draft.
No easy answer coming for fuel or tire consumption, too many variables including driver changes.
 
OdeFinn
@Lionheart2113 most important thing when testing fuel consumption is identical laps, identical shift points and pedal position.
Several times I have run situations where I'm nearly running out fuel, and will do so if driving as normal pace, but short shifting is one key to achieve fuel savings, real-life economy driving ways can be applied on GT6.
Good camber setup can be fuel saver if it's made for fuel saving, or it can be just beast making fast lap times while eating your fuel reserves, then comes question, what you want it to be, maybe just good compromise between those, tuned to keep good traction thru fuel and tire range, full to empty, mint to worn.
Normally my fuel consumption varies few dl per lap, and over few liter when pushing really hard, then again saving a lot when hanging on draft.
No easy answer coming for fuel or tire consumption, too many variables including driver changes.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to display information based off of my driving style. There are too many variables, as mentioned, to say that this way is 100% better than another. I didn't want to get into that game of writing GT6 laws.:crazy: But for me....I know how I drive, and it is um... unique, but if I can find advantages I'm going to use them based off of how I drive. You said short shifting can save fuel? What is that???:lol::lol::lol: Short shifting isn't an option for me (automatic transmission) the best I can do is alter the gears or know when the RPMs drop enough to kick in the downshift!:dopey:

I'll be the first to admit that the way I play the game is the farthest away from a driving simulator, but I still have a blast doing it. All I can do is put out more and more results from different types of tests that show my findings. If they work for others that would be great, if not, hopefully there might be some other information in there that could help. I come from an engineering background and I'm a huge fan of numbers, proof, and yes graphs!:sly: If someone has the numbers to back up their claim that is opposite to mine, it's hardly worth contesting it. Then my next approach would be why/how their results are different.
:cheers:
 
Lionheart2113
I just wanted to display information based off of my driving style. There are too many variables, as mentioned, to say that this way is 100% better than another. I didn't want to get into that game of writing GT6 laws.:crazy: But for me....I know how I drive, and it is um... unique, but if I can find advantages I'm going to use them based off of how I drive. You said short shifting can save fuel? What is that???:lol::lol::lol: Short shifting isn't an option for me (automatic transmission) the best I can do is alter the gears or know when the RPMs drop enough to kick in the downshift!:dopey:

I'll be the first to admit that the way I play the game is the farthest away from a driving simulator, but I still have a blast doing it. All I can do is put out more and more results from different types of tests that show my findings. If they work for others that would be great, if not, hopefully there might be some other information in there that could help. I come from an engineering background and I'm a huge fan of numbers, proof, and yes graphs!:sly: If someone has the numbers to back up their claim that is opposite to mine, it's hardly worth contesting it. Then my next approach would be why/how their results are different.
:cheers:
Click to expand...
Short shifting is shifting at a lower RPM then optimal point, and your right AT users can't do that. You're also correct longer gears can help as you spend less time at high fuel burning RPM.
To make the most of this you need lots of low end torque to keep your acceleration up.
 
It's not like I remember when I was a kid, but atleast the kids and wife enjoyed it. A decent day out and we got to see a Mondeo ripped in half.

Beaulieu Motor Museum Truckmania 2015

image.jpg

image.jpg


This next one makes me miss watching Big Foot and Grave Digger defying gravity when I was my children's age.
image.jpg

image.jpg
 
Lionheart2113
@Otaliema I should have used the sarcasm button after asking the short shift question.:D But that is why I come to you for transmission help.:bowdown:
Click to expand...
O_o dang dry British humor didn't translate well in text :lol:
One if these days I'll finish the blasted guide I'm writing. Need photos of the transmission set ups. Due to code changes I have to rewrite the image codes again.
 
Otaliema
O_o dang dry British humor didn't translate well in text :lol:
One if these days I'll finish the blasted guide I'm writing. Need photos of the transmission set ups. Due to code changes I have to rewrite the image codes again.
Click to expand...
British humor? I've only lived over here for 5 years... And I thought I was doing a good job of keeping my American accent and attitude!:P
 
Fuel saving is depending to your gear changing at the correct rpm and also depend on the engine with high/low, hp/torque. Eg; Ferrari F40. Full rev to the redline and then try rev 1000rpm lower from the redline. Simply try Apricot hill will see the result. Less fuel usage/faster time lap/easy to control when cornering. (For massive torque car). For high reving car/ low torque , for less fuel usage only depends on low weight of the car/aerodynamics. GT6 don't have aerodynamic tunnel to measure... haha.
 
steve nfs
Fuel saving is depending to your gear changing at the correct rpm and also depend on the engine with high/low, hp/torque. Eg; Ferrari F40. Full rev to the redline and then try rev 1000rpm lower from the redline. Simply try Apricot hill will see the result. Less fuel usage/faster time lap/easy to control when cornering. (For massive torque car). For high reving car/ low torque , for less fuel usage only depends on low weight of the car/aerodynamics. GT6 don't have aerodynamic tunnel to measure... haha.
Click to expand...
:lol: Wind tunnel in GT6, that's funny! Thanks to all of the feedback I've been getting, I'm slowly putting together a list of car/track combinations, and I will put your suggestions on that list as well. As mentioned though, I'm stuck at what RPM the gears change, but I can alter the speed at which it changes by slower acceleration.👍
:cheers:
 
Just some findings running a stock RX-7 trying to figure if installing the better clutch and/or propeller shaft helps shifting and braking. All of these numbers were taken from MoTeC. Once again I'm a little sceptical on these numbers as you can see patterns on most of the numbers. And the braking from 100-0mph could have a lot to do with driver error. I'm still trying to think of a better way to collect that data. Maybe start braking from 110mph and record the distance once I hit 100mph downwards?
image.png


Transmission settings used for tests...
image.jpeg

 
Lionheart2113
Just some findings running a stock RX-7 trying to figure if installing the better clutch and/or propeller shaft helps shifting and braking. All of these numbers were taken from MoTeC. Once again I'm a little sceptical on these numbers as you can see patterns on most of the numbers. And the braking from 100-0mph could have a lot to do with driver error. I'm still trying to think of a better way to collect that data. Maybe start braking from 110mph and record the distance once I hit 100mph downwards?
View attachment 497406

Transmission settings used for tests...
View attachment 497400
Click to expand...
Are you using a course creator 400m/1000m drag strip to gather data? I've been using these to study acceleration and modify my transmission settings recently, extremely useful.

I planned some braking tests a while back as part of the camber experiments and the method I settled for was a stock C7 corvette running 50% power at SSRX, the car had long enough gearing to hit its aerodynamic speed limit before hitting the redline and the engine had enough grunt at that point to sustain a constant top speed rather than creeping up and dropping back all the time. This gave me a consistent speed at which to start testing, I could hit identical split times on approach using by using AT and then was just a case of hitting the brakes after a certain marker and collecting the replay data, the ability to sustain an exact speed removed driver variable as much as possible and made the test easy to repeat. The idea was eventually scrapped as it would take too much time to gather results using SSRX but with the course maker this process could be easily streamlined
 
DolHaus
Are you using a course creator 400m/1000m drag strip to gather data? I've been using these to study acceleration and modify my transmission settings recently, extremely useful.

I planned some braking tests a while back as part of the camber experiments and the method I settled for was a stock C7 corvette running 50% power at SSRX, the car had long enough gearing to hit its aerodynamic speed limit before hitting the redline and the engine had enough grunt at that point to sustain a constant top speed rather than creeping up and dropping back all the time. This gave me a consistent speed at which to start testing, I could hit identical split times on approach using by using AT and then was just a case of hitting the brakes after a certain marker and collecting the replay data, the ability to sustain an exact speed removed driver variable as much as possible and made the test easy to repeat. The idea was eventually scrapped as it would take too much time to gather results using SSRX but with the course maker this process could be easily streamlined
Click to expand...
Is it possible to take course creator data to MoTeC? I haven't really done much with the creator except borrow the track from the recent FITT challenge.
I used SSRX as well, and still do in some cases, but you are correct...it just takes too long. Indy takes about 2 mins per setup and I can get most of the things needed from there.
I think braking info is probably hardest to obtain consistently. Going 100mph, the feet seem to fly by trying to determine the exact braking point. I can easily see the results being skewed by up to 12 feet! Not good enough, and most would agree. Using the aero top speed idea is great, but I would have different speeds when that happens depending on the car? And if I set up the gearing to reach a specific mph for each car, that could change the transmission too much for what I'm trying to prove. Or is that where the power limiter would be used? If so, that could also have the chance to throw the results due to not having the full power going through the driveshaft during deceleration or Jupiter not being in alignment with Neptune or some other 🤬 like that.... You know what I'm on about!:lol:
 
I'm not sure what the figure would be for 100mph but, at 100km/h you're covering 112 feet per second. Take into account human reaction time & even if you were superhuman, one tenth of a second will have your results out by over 11 feet.
A+ for trying to nail down some results though :) 👍
 
Lionheart2113
Is it possible to take course creator data to MoTeC? I haven't really done much with the creator except borrow the track from the recent FITT challenge.
I used SSRX as well, and still do in some cases, but you are correct...it just takes too long. Indy takes about 2 mins per setup and I can get most of the things needed from there.
I think braking info is probably hardest to obtain consistently. Going 100mph, the feet seem to fly by trying to determine the exact braking point. I can easily see the results being skewed by up to 12 feet! Not good enough, and most would agree. Using the aero top speed idea is great, but I would have different speeds when that happens depending on the car? And if I set up the gearing to reach a specific mph for each car, that could change the transmission too much for what I'm trying to prove. Or is that where the power limiter would be used? If so, that could also have the chance to throw the results due to not having the full power going through the driveshaft during deceleration or Jupiter not being in alignment with Neptune or some other 🤬 like that.... You know what I'm on about!:lol:
Click to expand...
I can't see why it wouldn't work with Motec providing you can export the data, it doesn't need an official track map to follow or anything.

The method I have described removes the most questionable variables in terms of car modifications and driver error, sure it changes the power band of the car but that can be easily isolated and tested further if needs be. Give it a try and observe if the top speed changes as a result of changing the flywheels/driveshaft if it doesn't then you have your start point for consistent data collection. You're only looking for proof of concept at this early stage, variables such as car type, top speed etc. can be examined and compared later 👍
 
A track attack car with stiff ARBs and a transmission to match; set up for the 480pp Death Valley Seasonal.

Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02

image.jpeg

image.png


Driving Options
Driving Line: OFF
Blind Spot Indicator: OFF
Active Steering: OFF
Traction Control: 0
Active Stability Management (ASM): OFF
Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS): 1
Skid Recovery Force (SRF): OFF
Controller Sensitivity: 5

DS3 (dpads)
"X" throttle
Square brake
Automatic Transmission
Death Valley Fastest Lap: 1:25.745

Have fun and get that gold!👍

:cheers:
 
Last edited:
Lionheart2113
@RMan72 I see you beat my 480pp seasonal time.:bowdown:
Would you care to share your tune?;)
:cheers:
Click to expand...
I used this tune
Lionheart2113
A track attack car with stiff ARBs and a transmission to match; set up for the 480pp Death Valley Seasonal.

Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02

View attachment 519248
View attachment 519250

Driving Options
Driving Line: OFF
Blind Spot Indicator: OFF
Active Steering: OFF
Traction Control: 0
Active Stability Management (ASM): OFF
Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS): 1
Skid Recovery Force (SRF): OFF
Controller Sensitivity: 5

DS3 (dpads)
"X" throttle
Square brake
Automatic Transmission
Death Valley Fastest Lap: 1:25.745

Have fun and get that gold!👍

:cheers:
Click to expand...
Which is yours, great tune by the way 
 

Latest Posts

Back