Racing Transmission vs. Fully Manual Transmission

  • Thread starter Tommy_D
  • 32 comments
  • 13,717 views
Tommy_D

Tommy_D

1,036
United States
United States
Hey all,

I'm not that great at tuning so I generally use someone else's tune and I make little adjustments to make it work better for my driving style. Well one day I noticed that someone had chosen to go with a Fully Manual transmission instead of using the Racing transmission. Okay, no big deal, so I put in the Racing transmission and the PP jumped over the maximum required for the race. This got me thinking, what's the difference between these two transmissions? Both allow for full customization of every gear and the final drive ratio but the Racing Transmission generally is another ~10-12 PP more than the Full Manual Transmission.

In my A/B testing I have not noticed any significant difference in the performance of the car or it's driving dynamics between these two different transmissions. There is only 1 car I have used that I did notice a difference in performance and that was the Porsche 962C. For some reason that car does not do well with the Full Manual transmission. In my hands it performs a lot better with the racing transmission.

Considering that the Racing transmission is ~10-12 PP more than the Manual transmission and that it does not provide a noticeable improvement in the majority of the car's in the game, I'm more inclined to go with the Manual transmission and use the saved PP on things like more engine output, less ballast, or more front-end downforce.

Am I alone in this feeling? Am I missing some benefit that the Racing Transmission has over the Manual Transmission that I should know about? What are y'alls thoughts on this and how do you go about choosing the right transmission for the job?
 
Last edited:
Interesting, I'll try the two out. I always just opt for the racing one, cause well, 'racing'. But it could be nice to 'save' 10PP.


Jerome
 
There's one noticable trait in the Porsche that really makes a difference between the two - massive turbo lag. With the "racing" ie. sequential transmission the throttle remains floored during shifts, with the manual it's lifted and the turbo drops out of boost every time.
 
Greycap
There's one noticable trait in the Porsche that really makes a difference between the two - massive turbo lag. With the "racing" ie. sequential transmission the throttle remains floored during shifts, with the manual it's lifted and the turbo drops out of boost every time.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that's an interesting observation. I can't recall if I upgraded the turbo in that car or not. I will have to look when I get home. I wonder if an anti-lag system would help with that. I don't believe anti-lag adds any PP to the car.
 
Doesn't matter if you upgraded it, it's horrible already as stock. Many older race cars are very bad in that regard, the Skyline Silhouette is another prime example. Neither can have anti-lag applied for what I can remember, but for those cars that can, while buying the anti-lag "part" itself doesn't affect PP, the strength it's set at does.
 
Last edited:
Greycap
Doesn't matter if you upgraded it, it's horrible already as stock. Many older race cars are very bad in that regard, the Skyline Silhouette is another prime example. Neither can have anti-lag applied for what I can remember, but for those cars that can, while buying the anti-lag "part" itself doesn't affect PP, the strength it's set at does.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's good to know. I've never tried using the anti-lag part on any of my cars yet.

The reason I'm asking about the different transmissions is that I was having a discussion with another member about grinding Sardegna with the Mazda 787B. I had made some adjustments to my tune and I was able to get an additional 60hp, drop 74 lbs of ballast and increase my front-end downforce so all my rotational g's were greater than his setup, but we both came in at the same PP for the race. The only thing we could see that made the difference was the change in the transmission type. That 787B can rev to the moon so turbo lag is not an issue on it. I didn't notice any appreciable difference using the racing transmission, so I felt the manual was the way to go. He is a faster driver than me and I figured this tweak could drop his times on that track by possibly a second or more per lap.
 
Last edited:
Fully customizable manual transmission allows for use of the clutch pedal if you have a manual H pattern set up, whereas fully customizable racing transmission doesn't. That's the main difference between the two, so if you're not using a shifter you're better off using the racing transmission.
 
Greycap
There's one noticable trait in the Porsche that really makes a difference between the two - massive turbo lag. With the "racing" ie. sequential transmission the throttle remains floored during shifts, with the manual it's lifted and the turbo drops out of boost every time.
Click to expand...
Curious, if it's a car that has a 'Strong' Anti-Lag system, would it help close that gap between shifts. I don't recall off-hand how many PP get added for the Anti-Turbo lag, but that would eat into the 100PP gain of choosing the manual transmission. Still, I'll try and test this out this weekend, time permitting.


Jerome
 
So taking a Nissan Perf Z '23 @ 612PP @ TM:
Anti-Lag: Strong with Fully Custom Manual Transmission: 2:07.3xx
No Anti-Lag with Racing Transmission: 2:06.2xx
There was less than 1PP between both setups, but what I saw was the turbo lag still drop way down the gauge (like 1/3 below '0' if you will) with the manual transmission.
With the Racing Transmission, it stayed above '0' at about half way between '0' and the first 'notch'.
As you would expect, each shift resulted in mega time loss, so there you go; the best way to get the most out of your turbo is with the racing transmission and I'd expect the same to be true with NA cars, but just less of a difference.


Jerome
 
Jump_Ace
So taking a Nissan Perf Z '23 @ 612PP @ TM:
Anti-Lag: Strong with Fully Custom Manual Transmission: 2:07.3xx
No Anti-Lag with Racing Transmission: 2:06.2xx
There was less than 1PP between both setups, but what I saw was the turbo lag still drop way down the gauge (like 1/3 below '0' if you will) with the manual transmission.
With the Racing Transmission, it stayed above '0' at about half way between '0' and the first 'notch'.
As you would expect, each shift resulted in mega time loss, so there you go; the best way to get the most out of your turbo is with the racing transmission and I'd expect the same to be true with NA cars, but just less of a difference.


Jerome
Click to expand...
Couple questions:

1) How much PP did the manual transmission save you over the racing?

2) How much PP did the anti-lag add when you turned it on?

3) Did you have room to add more power from the ecu instead of adding anti-lag?

4) What about changing other settings like removing ballast or adding more front end downforce/removing rear downforce to increase your overall speed through the turns or the straights vs upping the anti-lag?

The reason I ask is because it wouldn't make sense to save the PP with the manual transmission only to put it right back on by using anti lag. You could better be served by adding more horsepower, removing weight, or adjusting your downforce to increase handling. However, if your ECU is already at max, you aren't using ballast and your car already handles great, then lowering the PP with the manual transmission could likely lead to the outcome you experienced.
 
Tommy_D
Couple questions:

1) How much PP did the manual transmission save you over the racing?

2) How much PP did the anti-lag add when you turned it on?

3) Did you have room to add more power from the ecu instead of adding anti-lag?

4) What about changing other settings like removing ballast or adding more front end downforce/removing rear downforce to increase your overall speed through the turns or the straights vs upping the anti-lag?

The reason I ask is because it wouldn't make sense to save the PP with the manual transmission only to put it right back on by using anti lag. You could better be served by adding more horsepower, removing weight, or adjusting your downforce to increase handling. However, if your ECU is already at max, you aren't using ballast and your car already handles great, then lowering the PP with the manual transmission could likely lead to the outcome you experienced.
Click to expand...
It saved me 12PP
Anti-Lag increased my PP by 1
Yes, there's room for that. I was concentrating on minimizing the shift lag between the two transmissions in this test.

I agree, the 12PP could be better spent vs the anti-lag; putting back more ECU, less ballast, DF, etc.


Jerome
 
Great thread. I'd noticed the racing trans seemed to shift faster but not looked in much detail.

On some cars the PP goes higher for weak antilag than strong (stock trans). Don't know what happens with the custom trans.

And the lightened flywheels increase shift speed, this should interact with the time "off boost".

Quite a few variables to play with and optimise!
 
Okay, I tried to do some "scientific" data collection this afternoon. I purchased the Mercedes Sauber this morning and having no prior experience with it I purchased the Fully Manual Transmission, the Racing Transmission and the Mid-RPM turbo. I used Praiano's 800pp suspension settings and tested it with the standard transmission that comes with the car. This was just a shake down run to check the car setup and to establish if it needed other suspension or aero tweaks to be a controlled car at the Sardegna track. Fortunately, the car drove well on the track, so I was set to do some testing.

My methodology was simple. Install the various components one by one, adjust the PP settings by adjusting the ECU and power restrictor to get as close to 800pp without going over and run the Sardegna track for 10 laps each. I took note of what my top speeds were on both the main straight and the back straight, what my fastest lap was, what my average lap was and what my best "ideal" lap time could be by taking my best split times and piecing them together.

I ran the Fully Manual transmission first, then the Racing Transmission, then added the Mid-RPM turbo with the Fully Manual Transmission 3rd and finally the Mid-RPM turbo with the Racing Transmission last. All gear ratios were the exact same between the two different transmissions in this testing. Here is what the results were:

Merc Sauber: Fully Manual Transmission, stock turbo - 799.92pp, 561hp - 10 lap test
Main straight: 173 mph
Back straight: 167 mph
Fastest lap: 1:36.033
Average lap: 1:36.940
Best split time lap: 1:35.683

Merc Sauber: Racing Transmission, stock turbo - 799.78pp, 517hp - 10 lap test
Main Straight: 170mph
Back Straight: 166mph
Fastest Lap: 1:36.153
Average lap: 1:36.737
Best split time lap: 1:35.457

Merc Sauber: Fully Manual Transmission, Mid-RPM turbo - 799.83pp 539hp -10 lap test
Main Straight: 171mph
Back Straight: 165mph
Fastest Lap: 1:36.171
Average lap: 1:36.921
Best split time lap: 1:36.037

Merc Sauber: Racing Transmission, Mid-RPM turbo - 799.79pp, 510hp - 10 lap test
Main Straight: 174mph
Back Straight: 165mph
Fastest Lap: 1:35.125
Average lap: 1:35.731
Best split time lap: 1:34.673

I do find it interesting that the test with the lowest hp (mid-rpm turbo and racing transmission) kind of wiped the floor with the other tests. It was only 1mph faster on the front straight but the car felt like it had better engine braking and could turn on a dime right when you slammed on the brakes. The turbo never fell out of boost between shifts but this didn't really show to be a game changer in the overall top speeds. It clearly must have out accelerated all the other tunes but never really overtook the others by any meaningful margin. It just performed better, little by little, in all places which resulted in faster lap times.

Speaking of accelerating vs out-pacing, one thing that was very apparent was that the racing transmission, with this car, dramatically out accelerated the Fully manual transmission. Pretty much every lap of my second test (racing transmission only) I would speed past my ghost coming out of the turns and by the end of the straights the ghost would overtake me by a hair. Then I would get past the ghost by a little bit only to be overtaken again.

To me this says that the racing transmission would prove to be much more beneficial on tighter, more technical tracks where high top speeds are not required. The faster shifting and acceleration would lead to quicker lap times vs a car that can have more power, but a slower transmission. A track that has more long straights or requires higher top speeds would likely see faster times with a car that has more power than faster shift times. In that case the Fully Manual Transmission option would likely prove to be the better setup.

Now this is just one test, but I think there are some pretty good take-aways from it. I would be curious to try this with a naturally aspirated car and/or a car with a more modern turbo system that may not have as much lag. The differences could be less apparent, or it could prove to be an even larger difference.
 
Last edited:
Tommy_D
Okay, I tried to do some "scientific" data collection this afternoon. I purchased the Mercedes Sauber this morning and having no prior experience with it I purchased the Fully Manual Transmission, the Racing Transmission and the Mid-RPM turbo. I used Praiano's 800pp suspension settings and tested it with the standard transmission that comes with the car. This was just a shake down run to check the car setup and to establish if it needed other suspension or aero tweaks to be a controlled car at the Sardegna track. Fortunately, the car drove well on the track, so I was set to do some testing.

My methodology was simple. Install the various components one by one, adjust the PP settings by adjusting the ECU and power restrictor to get as close to 800pp without going over and run the Sardegna track for 10 laps each. I took note of what my top speeds were on both the main straight and the back straight, what my fastest lap was, what my average lap was and what my best "ideal" lap time could be by taking my best split times and piecing them together.

I ran the Fully Manual transmission first, then the Racing Transmission, then added the Mid-RPM turbo with the Fully Manual Transmission 3rd and finally the Mid-RPM turbo with the Racing Transmission last. All gear ratios were the exact same between the two different transmissions in this testing. Here is what the results were:

Merc Sauber: Fully Manual Transmission, stock turbo - 799.92pp, 561hp - 10 lap test
Main straight: 173 mph
Back straight: 167 mph
Fastest lap: 1:36.033
Average lap: 1:36.940
Best split time lap: 1:35.683

Merc Sauber: Racing Transmission, stock turbo - 799.78pp, 517hp - 10 lap test
Main Straight: 170mph
Back Straight: 166mph
Fastest Lap: 1:36.153
Average lap: 1:36.737
Best split time lap: 1:35.457

Merc Sauber: Fully Manual Transmission, Mid-RPM turbo - 799.83pp 539hp -10 lap test
Main Straight: 171mph
Back Straight: 165mph
Fastest Lap: 1:36.171
Average lap: 1:36.921
Best split time lap: 1:36.037

Merc Sauber: Racing Transmission, Mid-RPM turbo - 799.79pp, 510hp - 10 lap test
Main Straight: 174mph
Back Straight: 165mph
Fastest Lap: 1:35.125
Average lap: 1:35.731
Best split time lap: 1:34.673

I do find it interesting that the test with the lowest hp (mid-rpm turbo and racing transmission) kind of wiped the floor with the other tests. It was only 1mph faster on the front straight but the car felt like it had better engine braking and could turn on a dime right when you slammed on the brakes. The turbo never fell out of boost between shifts but this didn't really show to be a game changer in the overall top speeds. It clearly must have out accelerated all the other tunes but never really overtook the others by any meaningful margin. It just performed better, little by little, in all places which resulted in faster lap times.

Speaking of accelerating vs out-pacing, one thing that was very apparent was that the racing transmission, with this car, dramatically out accelerated the Fully manual transmission. Pretty much every lap of my second test (racing transmission only) I would speed past my ghost coming out of the turns and by the end of the straights the ghost would overtake me by a hair. Then I would get past the ghost by a little bit only to be overtaken again.

To me this says that the racing transmission would prove to be much more beneficial on tighter, more technical tracks where high top speeds are not required. The faster shifting and acceleration would lead to quicker lap times vs a car that can have more power, but a slower transmission. A track that has more long straights or requires higher top speeds would likely see faster times with a car that has more power than faster shift times. In that case the Fully Manual Transmission option would likely prove to be the better setup.

Now this is just one test, but I think there are some pretty good take-aways from it. I would be curious to try this with a naturally aspirated car and/or a car with a more modern turbo system that may not have as much lag. The differences could be less apparent, or it could prove to be an even larger difference.
Click to expand...
Excellent insights. Thanks.
 
I ran another test today with the Bugatti Veyron. Same testing procedure as I did with the Sauber above. I figured it was a more modern vehicle with a more modern turbo system that likely will have less turbo lag. Also, because of the PP levels of the Veyron, I was able to add some additional components to the car to give it better handling, braking and aerodynamics but not put it too high to where I couldn't down tune it to 700pp for a test out at Le Mans.

With the same procedures as above I did my scouting run at Le Mans to test the suspension/aerodynamics with the stock transmission. I have never tuned this car nor taken it out at Le Mans in any sort of Racing situation so I have no bias towards one setup or another. Boy this car needs some weight reduction but I didn't want to do that and put the car too high in PP to the point I can't down tune it enough. After a few laps with some tweaks I had a setup that was controllable and I didn't fear spinning out. Here are the numbers:

Bugatti Veyron Manual Transmission - 699.99pp, 852hp/800.1tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 212/204/194mph
Back Straight: 202mph
Fastest Lap: 3:55.854
Average lap: 3:56.720
Best split time lap: 3:54.598

Bugatti Veyron Racing Transmission - 699.98pp, 792hp/751.7tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 208/201/192mph
Back Straight: 199mph
Fastest Lap: 3:54.444
Average lap: 3:55.441
Best split time lap: 3:53.813

Bugatti Veyron Manual Transmission Ultra High Turbo - 699.92pp, 856hp/840.7tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 212/204/195mph
Back Straight: 202mph
Fastest Lap: 3:53.888
Average lap: 3:54.584
Best split time lap: 3:53.009

Bugatti Veyron Racing Transmission Ultra High Turbo - 699.95pp, 802hp/749.2tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 208/201/193mph
Back Straight: 200mph
Fastest Lap: 3:54.064
Average lap: 3:54.726
Best split time lap: 3:52.916

This time I added in the torque figures as I noticed the rear end of the car getting a bit squirrely coming out of the turns when I installed the Ultra High RPM Turbo. It looks like the HP figures are fairly close between the standard and the upgraded turbo options when using the Manual transmission but there are 40 more ft-lbs of torque with the upgraded turbos. I'm not sure how this setup manages to come in at less PP than the standard turbo option, but oh well.

Something really strange happened with the handling characteristics of the car when I had the racing transmission and the upgraded turbo(s). The Sauber somehow got better/more accurate handling when these two options were put together. Unfortunately, for the Bugatti, it got worse. It's like the car gained 300-400lbs unexpectedly. The car ran wide on almost every turn, turn in was sluggish and apexes kept being missed. It was like wrestling an elephant and the lap times suffered because of it. Granted my best split time lap was achieved with this setup, my best real lap time and my best Average lap time came from using the Fully Manual Transmission. Despite the manual transmission's squirrley nature, it was much more manageable than the Racing transmission's fat pig nature.

So that's a second study on this topic. I don't think there is conclusive evidence just yet, other than "throw on the biggest darn turbo you can and down-tune it to go faster." Of course I dont know what sort of fuel ramifications that could cause during the course of a race. It would suck to make that change only to have to pit 1 more time and make the overall race last longer.
 
Last edited:
Tommy_D
Hey all,

I'm not that great at tuning so I generally use someone else's tune and I make little adjustments to make it work better for my driving style. Well one day I noticed that someone had chosen to go with a Fully Manual transmission instead of using the Racing transmission. Okay, no big deal, so I put in the Racing transmission and the PP jumped over the maximum required for the race. This got me thinking, what's the difference between these two transmissions? Both allow for full customization of every gear and the final drive ratio but the Racing Transmission generally is another ~10-12 PP more than the Full Manual Transmission.

In my A/B testing I have not noticed any significant difference in the performance of the car or it's driving dynamics between these two different transmissions. There is only 1 car I have used that I did notice a difference in performance and that was the Porsche 962C. For some reason that car does not do well with the Full Manual transmission. In my hands it performs a lot better with the racing transmission.

Considering that the Racing transmission is ~10-12 PP more than the Manual transmission and that it does not provide a noticeable improvement in the majority of the car's in the game, I'm more inclined to go with the Manual transmission and use the saved PP on things like more engine output, less ballast, or more front-end downforce.

Am I alone in this feeling? Am I missing some benefit that the Racing Transmission has over the Manual Transmission that I should know about? What are y'alls thoughts on this and how do you go about choosing the right transmission for the job?
Click to expand...
Race trans shifts quicker because of synchros…It’s pretty noti in close races…I sometimes use close ratio high for 700 pp lemans beca it seems to shift quickly and sometimes it’s perfect to hit 190 or so mph…It’s different for every car though.
 
Tommy_D
I ran another test today with the Bugatti Veyron. Same testing procedure as I did with the Sauber above. I figured it was a more modern vehicle with a more modern turbo system that likely will have less turbo lag. Also, because of the PP levels of the Veyron, I was able to add some additional components to the car to give it better handling, braking and aerodynamics but not put it too high to where I couldn't down tune it to 700pp for a test out at Le Mans.

With the same procedures as above I did my scouting run at Le Mans to test the suspension/aerodynamics with the stock transmission. I have never tuned this car nor taken it out at Le Mans in any sort of Racing situation so I have no bias towards one setup or another. Boy this car needs some weight reduction but I didn't want to do that and put the car too high in PP to the point I can't down tune it enough. After a few laps with some tweaks I had a setup that was controllable and I didn't fear spinning out. Here are the numbers:

Bugatti Veyron Manual Transmission - 699.99pp, 852hp/800.1tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 212/204/194mph
Back Straight: 202mph
Fastest Lap: 3:55.854
Average lap: 3:56.720
Best split time lap: 3:54.598

Bugatti Veyron Racing Transmission - 699.98pp, 792hp/751.7tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 208/201/192mph
Back Straight: 199mph
Fastest Lap: 3:54.444
Average lap: 3:55.441
Best split time lap: 3:53.813

Bugatti Veyron Manual Transmission Ultra High Turbo - 699.92pp, 856hp/840.7tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 212/204/195mph
Back Straight: 202mph
Fastest Lap: 3:53.888
Average lap: 3:54.584
Best split time lap: 3:53.009

Bugatti Veyron Racing Transmission Ultra High Turbo - 699.95pp, 802hp/749.2tq - 5 laps Le Mans
Main Straight: 208/201/193mph
Back Straight: 200mph
Fastest Lap: 3:54.064
Average lap: 3:54.726
Best split time lap: 3:52.916

This time I added in the torque figures as I noticed the rear end of the car getting a bit squirrely coming out of the turns when I installed the Ultra High RPM Turbo. It looks like the HP figures are fairly close between the standard and the upgraded turbo options when using the Manual transmission but there are 40 more ft-lbs of torque with the upgraded turbos. I'm not sure how this setup manages to come in at less PP than the standard turbo option, but oh well.

Something really strange happened with the handling characteristics of the car when I had the racing transmission and the upgraded turbo(s). The Sauber somehow got better/more accurate handling when these two options were put together. Unfortunately, for the Bugatti, it got worse. It's like the car gained 300-400lbs unexpectedly. The car ran wide on almost every turn, turn in was sluggish and apexes kept being missed. It was like wrestling an elephant and the lap times suffered because of it. Granted my best split time lap was achieved with this setup, my best real lap time and my best Average lap time came from using the Fully Manual Transmission. Despite the manual transmission's squirrley nature, it was much more manageable than the Racing transmission's fat pig nature.

So that's a second study on this topic. I don't think there is conclusive evidence just yet, other than "throw on the biggest darn turbo you can and down-tune it to go faster." Of course I dont know what sort of fuel ramifications that could cause during the course of a race. It would suck to make that change only to have to pit 1 more time and make the overall race last longer.
Click to expand...
Sweet, I'm so much faster now! And... I'm pitting again 🤬
 
Wildcat Dave
Sweet, I'm so much faster now! And... I'm pitting again 🤬
Click to expand...
I took the Veyron out at Le Mans for the 700pp race. That's a thirsty SOB. I can only go 2 laps on FM6 with short shifting the whole way. Fortunately, it rained like mad and the AI forgot to swap tires giving me a big enough lead to do 3 pit stops during the race. Still won by a minute over 2nd place but if the rain wasn't as strong I'm not sure this car would have been able to win with all the pit stops it requires.
 
Wow, I haven't done any "scientific" testing other than trying a couple laps at Tokyo with the Toyota Celica GT4 Rally car with a 600pp tune, but this is a drastically different case than what I have posted above.

My typical "fast" tune for that car has 713hp (599.15pp) with the manual transmission. When I put in the racing transmission I have to lower the output so much that the car only has 524hp with 599.88pp. This is the crazy thing, though. With the lower hp output the game says its faster over the 1/4 mile, faster over .62 miles and faster from 62-93mph than the tune with 713hp. So I take it for a spin at Tokyo to see if it is infact faster around the track.

20230130_205741.jpg


HELL NO!!! Top speed down the main straight with the 713hp tune (manual trans) is 209mph. Top speed with the 524hp tune (racing trans) is 185mph. If that wasn't shocking enough, the handling with the racing transmission was almost impossible to control without major suspension adjustments. It's like I was running around on Comfort Hard tires out there. There was no grip on the back side of the track.

It doesn't make sense to me how a different transmission would affect the handling of the car. I sort of understand that maybe shifting while turning could affect the handling by the different transmissions as one could create more of a jolt to the drivetrain affecting the suspension of the car, but I'm just gliding through turns not shifting at all and the car is all over the place. I switch back to my high HP tune to run the track again and it holds the corners just fine.

This isn't making any sense.
 
Last edited:
Its how quick it's delivering power to the drive train. With the racing transmission it's delivering that power instantly and with far less lag. With the manual transmission there's some 'downtime' if you will to let the rpms and turbo drop and then rev up again. The result is amplified at places like Trial Mountain where there's so much elevation changes, all those weight transfers can amplify the quick power with the racing transmission is my guess.


Jerome
 
Last edited:
Tommy_D
Speaking of accelerating vs out-pacing, one thing that was very apparent was that the racing transmission, with this car, dramatically out accelerated the Fully manual transmission. Pretty much every lap of my second test (racing transmission only) I would speed past my ghost coming out of the turns and by the end of the straights the ghost would overtake me by a hair. Then I would get past the ghost by a little bit only to be overtaken again.
Click to expand...
In my run for human comedy Deep Forest I used fully manual transmission and changed gear ratios to not spend as much time shifting rather than accelerating. It felt more well rounded, though I dont remember if I ever bothered whether it also was actually faster or not. Using the default gear ratios seems like a waste when changing to fully manual transmission to me.
 
Tommy_D
Wow, I haven't done any "scientific" testing other than trying a couple laps at Tokyo with the Toyota Celica GT4 Rally car with a 600pp tune, but this is a drastically different case than what I have posted above.

My typical "fast" tune for that car has 713hp (599.15pp) with the manual transmission. When I put in the racing transmission I have to lower the output so much that the car only has 524hp with 599.88pp. This is the crazy thing, though. With the lower hp output the game says its faster over the 1/4 mile, faster over .62 miles and faster from 62-93mph than the tune with 713hp. So I take it for a spin at Tokyo to see if it is infact faster around the track.

View attachment 1227249

HELL NO!!! Top speed down the main straight with the 713hp tune (manual trans) is 209mph. Top speed with the 524hp tune (racing trans) is 185mph. If that wasn't shocking enough, the handling with the racing transmission was almost impossible to control without major suspension adjustments. It's like I was running around on Comfort Hard tires out there. There was no grip on the back side of the track.

It doesn't make sense to me how a different transmission would affect the handling of the car. I sort of understand that maybe shifting while turning could affect the handling by the different transmissions as one could create more of a jolt to the drivetrain affecting the suspension of the car, but I'm just gliding through turns not shifting at all and the car is all over the place. I switch back to my high HP tune to run the track again and it holds the corners just fine.

This isn't making any sense.
Click to expand...
Logic and GT7.........

I wouldn't give up almost 200hp either.

Thanks for the analysis.
 
Great thread. I knew the racing trans shifted faster, but my god it's a big difference. Some brief testing on an R32 with high rpm turbo.... The acceleration stats on the tuning menu showed a large difference when switching to RC trans from FC manual (all gear ratios are identical) Quarter mile was 12.47s -> 12.08s. 0.62 mi was 21.77 -> 21.17. 62-93mph was 3.28 -> 2.93.

Keeping the FC Manual trans and instead adding the best flywheel and strong antilag (the other "response" tuning parts) gave 12.24, 21.43, and 3.13 respectively. I didn't have carbon propshaft available to test.

Very roughly speaking the RC trans gives double the improvement.

I'm seeing the weird effects on handling that other users have mentioned. Could be driveline shock like people have said.... I'm thinking dampers and LSD might be a way of compensating, if it's even possible.
 
bread82
Great thread. I knew the racing trans shifted faster, but my god it's a big difference. Some brief testing on an R32 with high rpm turbo.... The acceleration stats on the tuning menu showed a large difference when switching to RC trans from FC manual (all gear ratios are identical) Quarter mile was 12.47s -> 12.08s. 0.62 mi was 21.77 -> 21.17. 62-93mph was 3.28 -> 2.93.

Keeping the FC Manual trans and instead adding the best flywheel and strong antilag (the other "response" tuning parts) gave 12.24, 21.43, and 3.13 respectively. I didn't have carbon propshaft available to test.

Very roughly speaking the RC trans gives double the improvement.

I'm seeing the weird effects on handling that other users have mentioned. Could be driveline shock like people have said.... I'm thinking dampers and LSD might be a way of compensating, if it's even possible.
Click to expand...
Are you making any ECU or power restrictor adjustments to keep the same PP for the car? I'm curious to know if the car is actually faster when using the racing transmission vs the manual when using the same PP level.
 
No, not at this stage, this was just for pure improvement and adding the RC trans alone gave around a 10PP boost (nominal PP was about 600). Just checking on the fly now, to counter that PP increase I had to use the ECU to take away about 30 BHP. (586 down to 557 to be exact).

I reckon on high speed tracks, BHP will be critical to push through the aero drag. Low speed tracks.... I'd guess lighter weight and better shifting will dominate.
 
Last edited:
bread82
No, not at this stage, this was just for pure improvement and adding the RC trans alone gave around a 10PP boost (nominal PP was about 600). Just checking on the fly now, to counter that PP increase I had to use the ECU to take away about 30 BHP. (586 down to 557 to be exact).

I reckon on high speed tracks, BHP will be critical to push through the aero drag. Low speed tracks.... I'd guess lighter weight and better shifting will dominate.
Click to expand...
I did a test with the Veyron out at Le Mans. There were a few mph lost by using the lower bhp and the racing trans vs the manual and more power, but lap times were only .2 sec slower. That's pretty much a margin of error statistic. The bigger problem was the handling and consistency issues I was having with the racing trans on that car.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a case by case basis or if there is a pattern that develops. It seems that in all tested cases, adding the big turbo and nerfing it to get the PP to where you need leads to faster lap times, even if the power ends up being less than the car had prior to adding the big turbo. That's very odd, but there could be a turbo lag component to the game physics or it could be your average power across the whole curve that effects acceleration. I'm not really tracking that data at this time. Just the racing vs manual transmission and so far I haven't found any consistency in the data.
 
Last edited:
My gut feeling is average power across the usable curve range will have a lot to do with it... but this might not always reflect in PP.

Since the PP doesn't live update with gear, suspension, or LSD adjustments, it may be possible to game the PP system. The PP will change when you swap from stock to full customisable components, but it's due to the default values on the custom kit. If you then tweak the gears to suit e.g. the big turbo's narrow power band, you may gain performance but gain no visible PP.

This definitely works on LSD settings. I have fitted a custom LSD (I think the default is 10/40/40) to cars with a factory 5/15/15 LSD, PP drops as the custom diff has too much lock. When I then set the custom LSD to the factory LSD values, PP isn't regained. I can then recoup the "lost" PP by adding more engine power.

For gears I guess it would be worth trying a car whose default gears are very broad, these wont fit the peaky turbo so any gear ratio optimisation you then do won't incur PP. Or vice versa with tight gears and a broad turbo.

Coupled with the numerous ways to adjust engine power, powerband shape with turbos and the performance limiter (the exhausts and intercoolers also have a small top-end bias), its a very interesting question. To say nothing of weight, weight distribution, and as you say driveability.

Turbo lag is definitely a component in the physics. A while ago I played with an S13 Q's (NA), S13 Q's (bolt on turbo), and an S13 K's (factory turbo). I weight balanced all cars equally and used identical gear, LSD, and suspension. I tuned them to equal PP (I think, rather than power). The NA was my favourite, slightly better lap times and more fine control possible when i needed to make corrections. Some difference could have been powerband shape but I swear there was throttle response differences too.
 
Tommy_D
It seems that in all tested cases, adding the big turbo and nerfing it to get the PP to where you need leads to faster lap times, even if the power ends up being less than the car had prior to adding the big turbo
Click to expand...
PP is only by power, but torque still has impact on how the car handles. That is why adding tuning parts and then dialing back is better than not doing it at all (in most cases).
 

Latest Posts

Back