"Reverse engineering" on PP's.

  • Thread starter mtsmtts
  • 47 comments
  • 5,992 views
87
Brazil
Brazil
mtsmtts
Whats the objective behind this thread:
Try to understand, by investigating and doing some math, how power parts interacts with the others and with the PP. Also, analyzing the Weight Reduction and effect on PP.

How
I don't have access to the GT's engine, just the cars specs showed for everyone on the Car Settings tab. So, yeah, I'm doing this on the hard way, and the not-so-precise method. Everyone should now that there are maybe one or two numbers after the comma. And maybe, 10 numbers after the comma.
So, when you see "180 hp", it can be "180,20 hp" or even "180,2000000009"

To show what I'm talking about, let's take my Elise 111R for this test: Custom power parts: Engine Stage 1; Sports Computer; Racing Exhaust; Isometric Manifold; Catalytic converter Sports; Intake tuning;

Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................517.........280...............184
98,1%.............................515.........275...............184
98,0%.............................514.........275...............184
50,0%.............................432.........140...............169


With this data, we discovered that:
>> With the power limiter at 98,1% and 98,0%, we've got the same HP, same torque, but a gap of 1 PP. This proves that we got numbers after the comma on HP and torque that they don't show us.
>> The torque kept the same even with 2% of power limiting.
>> The torque is much more less sensitive to the power limiting than the horse power itself. With 50% of power limiting, we got 50% less HP, 280 to 140, and just 9,2% of torque loss.



Continuing, using the El Camino this time: Custom power parts: Full tunned.

Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................584.........828...............911
50,0%.............................510.........413...............660


We got 828hp and a massive torque of 911ft-lb. Again, at 50% of the power limiting, we got a loss off 50% on horse power, and 27,5% of torque loss.

Supposing that we need the car to be used in a 577pp race, we can:

* Lower the Power Limiter
* Try to remove some parts, and see how the PP, HP and torque deals with the new setup.

TEST 1:

Fist, let's do the power limiter thing:

Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................584.........828...............911
93,1%.............................577.........770...............900


Nothing new here.

Now, let's try to get to 577pp, or the closest possible to it, only removing parts:
To make the explanation faster and easier, the letters will be the setups names.

.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....93,1%.............................577.........770...............900 - All performance parts installed.
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 - Intake standart
D.....100% .............................577.........774...............885 - Standart computer

E.....100% .............................579.........782...............893 - Sports Exhaust (instead of racing ones)
F.....99,0% ............................577.........772...............893 - Sports Exhaust (instead of racing ones) and lowering to 99% the power limiter

Now we got something. Let me show you:

*With the C setup, we got the same PP from B, with more 12hp, but at the price of 40ft-lb of torque.
*With the D setup, we got the same PP from C, with more 25ft-lb of torque, but at the price of less 8hp.
*With the F setup, we got somewhat between the setup B and D.

With this data, we discovered that:
>> PP involves torque too.
>> Certain parts gives more torque instead of horsepower.
>> Certain parts gives more horsepower than torque.

Of course, in this particular case, the best choice we got is the C setup. 860ft-lb is more than necessary, and we'll got more horsepower/pp in this way.

Now, lets try a 550PP setup. In this case, I'll try to remove only one or 2 parts. I don't want to make a giant list of possible setups. I don't have all day.

TEST 2:
Starting again with the power limiter thing:

.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....69,3%.............................550.........572...............792 - All performance parts installed.
C.....100% .............................550.........592...............704 - Engine Stage 1 + Sports Exhaust


This time, we see a major gain of horsepower on C, comprising with B.

By knowing that, you can use this method to try gain more horsepower when trying to lower the PP, or to get a higher torque, by using the power limiter instead of removing parts.

Now that we saw the effect on the specs when lowering the PP, lets take a tour by the tunning thing.

With the original engine, we got: (Remember, we got a full body done, with weight reduction, carbon hood and windows).

.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................475.........341...............430 - Original engine
A.....100% .............................510.........428...............577 - Original engine with only supercharger and intake tuning.
B.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....50,0% ............................510.........413...............660 - All performance parts installed.


Analyzing this data, we see, again, that we got more power/pp by using the lowest possible number of engine modifications. By using all performance parts, but limiting to 50%, we got more torque, but a big gap on the horsepower.
TEST 3:

Now, lets take it down to the Weight thing, analyzing the PP and the Power-to-Weight Ratio:

The same case the first one, lets try to get to 577pp, now with the body setup:

.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)------KG
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3
B.....100% .............................577.........828...............911 ...................1,453 - w/ no weight reduction
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3 + intake standart (the best scenario on the first test)


So, B and C with 577pp. But lets analyze the kg/hp ratio:

*B got 1,75 kg/HP
*C got 1,53 Kg/HP

With this data, we discovered that:
>>When lowering PP, it's better to remove a power part instead of increasing the Weight.

Now, the last part of the test, lets see what's best: Removing a weight reduction stage, or using ballast weight to lower the PP:
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)------KG
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3
B.....100% .............................575.........828...............911 ...................1,262 - w/ weight reduction 2
C.....100% .............................575.........828...............911 ...................1,262 - w/ weight reduction 3 + Ballast


With this data, we discovered that:
>>When lowering PP, weight reduction change or ballast will work in the same way.
>>Ballast may be a better solution, by allowing you to choose the ballast position and achieving a better Weight Distribution.

--------------------------------

That's all, folks! :gtpflag:

Of course I could be here calculating every single power part PP increase, HP and Torque, all in percentage. The problem with this, is that the percentage would be precise ONLY for this car model. Thats happens because, as I said on the beginning, it's impossible to do precise work with only the integer. GT doesn't show us the numbers after the comma on HP, Torque, and maybe KG (this one i couldn't prove, but I'm almost sure that there's numbers hided after the comma on the numbers).

Also, as you guys should noticed, the torque gain in this particular model is huge. I've not tested, but I'm sure that the Elise's torque gain in percentage is not so high as the gain on the El Camino. So, for a particular model, you need to test by your own. But the major rule is what you saw here.

And, IMO, HP > torque. Specially when talking about a car like the El Camino, who got a ton of torque already. But it's up for you, use this knowledge for what you want to get from the car. Don't come here to complain about "hurr, horsepower isn't everything". Thanks :cheers:.

Just another detail: I'm Brazilian. For us, one thousand is "1.000,00", and for Americans, you guys use the point instead of the comma for the decimal numbers. When I said "after the comma", is the hidden decimals numbers. Also, sorry for any error, specially on the language. I'm not a native speaker, and it's kinda hard to express myself :dopey:.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, I'll have to read this in more detail later but wanted to respond to this part
>> With the power limiter at 98,1% and 98,0%, we've got the same HP, same torque, but a gap of 1 PP. This proves that we got numbers after the comma on HP and torque that they don't show us.

While you are quite possibly correct in there being fractional hp or torque that is not shown you should also consider that when you use the power limiter it drops the rpm where the max hp occurs and flattens out the power curve so it holds max hp for a longer span which may also impact the PP. If not then it really should
 
While you are quite possibly correct in there being fractional hp or torque that is not shown you should also consider that when you use the power limiter it drops the rpm where the max hp occurs and flattens out the power curve so it holds max hp for a longer span which may also impact the PP. If not then it really should
Yes, exactly.

I've read thru your post and don't have anything to add right now(exciting stuff!), so let me be the first one to congratulate you on a very well written and in-depth thread.
Thanks man, glad you liked it.
 
The weight distribution plays a role on PP as well, and it seems basic. The farther back the weight, the more the PP and vice versa. There is, obviously, a greater change when the change in ballast is a larger percentage of your car (say 200kg on a 750kg car).

The PP engine seems to take into account many undeterminable variables with such possibilities as tire widths, suspension geometry, model year, Cd, torque curve, or some other game variable like grip multipliers, etc. It would be cool ,but a daunting task to try to determine an algorithm for the PP engine. But this would explain why some cars have vastly different PP even with the same HP-Tq-Kg
 
The PP engine seems to take into account many undeterminable variables with such possibilities as tire widths, suspension geometry, model year, Cd, or some other game variable like grip multipliers, etc. It would be cool ,but a daunting task to try to determine an algorithm for the PP engine. But this would explain why some cars have vastly different PP even with the same HP-Tq-Kg

Yes, but I'm kinda sure that this variables are fixed. You don't get more PP points for a well worked suspension work. The PP, of course, may use this variable, but its a fixed variable. The same for drag coefficient, if you got a car with a wing with the minimum on the downforce setup, when you raises it, the PP keeps as the same. You'll loose your final speed, but, again, looks like the downforce is a fixed variable.

We got racing tires, that give us better grip. But this isn't count for PP. See my point?

By the point this variables are fixed, we may got just KG, HP and Torque as non-fixed variables on PP.
I agree with you that all this thing MAY be on the PP calculation, but only for the "original" car. As you said, we got cars with the same hp-tq-kg and different PP's. Thats the difference between the fixed variables, the ones that comes with the car and cannot be changed.
 
Yes, but I'm kinda sure that this variables are fixed. You don't get more PP points for a well worked suspension work. The PP, of course, may use this variable, but its a fixed variable. The same for drag coefficient, if you got a car with a wing with the minimum on the downforce setup, when you raises it, the PP keeps as the same. You'll loose your final speed, but, again, looks like the downforce is a fixed variable.

We got racing tires, that give us better grip. But this isn't count for PP. See my point?

By the point this variables are fixed, we may got just KG, HP and Torque as non-fixed variables on PP.
I agree with you that all this thing MAY be on the PP calculation, but only for the "original" car. As you said, we got cars with the same hp-tq-kg and different PP's. Thats the difference between the fixed variables, the ones that comes with the car and cannot be changed.

I don't disagree. But I was just adding more to what is in the PP engine, as you have your thread title stating "reverse engineering." Those variables are fixed, but it would be nice to crack the code to figure out what cars would statistically be best for each PP scenario and why the PP system seems messed up. In theory all cars should have about the same performance on average with equal PP.
 
Now, let's try to get to 577pp, or the closest possible to it, only removing parts:
To make the explanation faster and easier, the letters will be the setups names.

.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....93,1%.............................577.........770...............900 - All performance parts installed.
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 - Intake standart
D.....100% .............................577.........774...............885 - Standart computer

E.....100% .............................579.........782...............893 - Sports Exhaust (instead of racing ones)
F.....99,0% ............................577.........772...............893 - Sports Exhaust (instead of racing ones) and lowering to 99% the power limiter

Now we got something. Let me show you:

*With the C setup, we got the same PP from B, with more 12hp, but at the price of 40ft-lb of torque.
*With the D setup, we got the same PP from C, with more 25ft-lb of torque, but at the price of less 8hp.
*With the F setup, we got somewhat between the setup B and D.

With this data, we discovered that:
>> PP involves torque too.
>> Certain parts gives more torque instead of horsepower.
>> Certain parts gives more horsepower than torque.

Of course, in this particular case, the best choice we got is the C setup. 860ft-lb is more than necessary, and we'll got more horsepower/pp in this way.

I'm hoping weight is the same across a-f?
How do the power curves look for all these setups?
The usual case is that when you use the limiter, you create flat power curves, that give a wider power band.
Have you taken all these setups and ran the cars with them to see which performed best?

Just another detail: I'm Brazilian. For us, one hundred is "1.000,00",

Hundred or thousand?
 
I don't disagree. But I was just adding more to what is in the PP engine, as you have your thread title stating "reverse engineering." Those variables are fixed, but it would be nice to crack the code to figure out what cars would statistically be best for each PP scenario and why the PP system seems messed up. In theory all cars should have about the same performance on average with equal PP.
Yeah, I know that you agreed with me.
About the code cracking, seems impossible to me. First, we don't know what is those fixed variables, how many of them are in the PP counting, or even if they exist. Maybe the whole thing is just about the KG-HP-Ft-lb. Or they just gives a reasonable, but random number for the car, as original PP on the dealership based on others car's PP's. It's just impossible for us now to know.

I'm hoping weight is the same across a-f?
How do the power curves look for all these setups?
The usual case is that when you use the limiter, you create flat power curves, that give a wider power band.
Have you taken all these setups and ran the cars with them to see which performed best?

Hundred or thousand?
Oh, yeah, at this part I was just talking about power (Hp and torque) versus PP. It's all the same weight from A to F. :D
Maybe tomorrow I'll take some pictures of each power curves.
About me going to the track, man, I'm not good at feeling the car differences on track. This may be a work for another person.
And sorry, its thousand. As I said, I'm not native speaker. I got confuse sometimes about number's names.
 
Last edited:
i have a test planed when finally i can got in my hands the two next news redbulls, in order to make a test whit, formula gt, redbull x2014 standard, x2014 fan, x2010 (any of them), x2011, peugeot 905bis... this cars can get the same numbers (only a 5kg diference in the x cars) but in all of the rest, you can get the same numbers. weight distr/ suspension settings/brake/Power/ aero charges. see what will hapens
 
and, nobody is talking about cornering speed... cornering speed is the reason for the 7xx PP that the redbull junior has, is the reason behind the LCC rocket`s PP after full tuning. is easy to realice that when more cornering speed has the car more base PPs it has.
 
and, nobody is talking about cornering speed... cornering speed is the reason for the 7xx PP that the redbull junior has, is the reason behind the LCC rocket`s PP after full tuning. is easy to realize that when more cornering speed has the car more base PPs it has.
You're right. I'm just talking about how you can get the most form your car in particular.
I'm not comparing the El Camino with the Elise in any way, for example. It's the different setup's effects on PP, HP, ft-lb and KG. All on a specific car. Again, not comparing with other cars.

I'll later edit the initial post to talk about my vision about the original PP and the things I already discuss with you, with @eSZee , @HBR-Roadhog and @VELOCI_2NR

:cheers:
 
but im agree with you, your investigation is perfect in relation to the tune up settings, and im talking the PP in relation to the driving experience. also i need to say that you were right when you said that there are unknown parameters that affect the PP.
 
one example, you cannot add any upgrades on the x2010/2011, and using the power limitator, you can set both cars whit the same numbers in everything. but, the x2011 always has 4 or 5 extra PPs...why? the only thing that comes into my mind is the Cx or Cd(dont remeber which) and that is something we dont see into the game or the description in numbers into the tune up menu. but it somehow affects the PP indicator.
 
Found an old thread of mine, regarding the HP gain on GT5. Its an amateur work, and it's not accurate, but is kinda funny to look back and see that I've kinda done this before. :D

Take a look guys:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/performance-parts.161231/

one example, you cannot add any upgrades on the x2010/2011, and using the power limitator, you can set both cars whit the same numbers in everything. but, the x2011 always has 4 or 5 extra PPs...why? the only thing that comes into my mind is the Cx or Cd(dont remeber which) and that is something we dont see into the game or the description in numbers into the tune up menu. but it somehow affects the PP indicator.
Yes, I've understood that.
It's the same case described by @VELOCI_2NR , the car has the same specs numbers, but stills a lower PP.
In this case, as I've explained before and you said it too after, it's one of the invisible fixed variables, or, just the difference on the base PP. And I'm almost sure that the car with higher PP, even with the same power and weight, will be the fastest one.

Try to avoid posting twice in a row (double posting). Remember, you can always press the "edit" button.
 
sorry, i forgot that.

im trying to explain why, for example, you realiced that leave the car with the base weight or reduce the weigth and then add ballast doesnt affect the PPs. that`s because the ``game`` calculates the cornering speed whit the final weight. it is a expantion of what you are talking about, not a replay.
 
sorry, i forgot that.

im trying to explain why, for example, you realiced that leave the car with the base weight or reduce the weigth and then add ballast doesnt affect the PPs. that`s because the ``game`` calculates the cornering speed whit the final weight. it is a expantion of what you are talking about, not a replay.
Take a car and buy custom susp. Place an extreme camber and toe, higher front and lower rear, some random numbers on the dumpers and others, make something really bad, some amateur work. Now, go and check the PP. Still the same, right? Now go to track. Try a corner. The car will feels like 🤬.

Now, take your best car, buy a custom clutch. Make the trans the longest possible. I'm quite sure that a lower pp car would be alot more faster than your top notch car with a bad trans.

The PP doesn't take account of this details. It's just a reference number, not a benchmark test.

PP doesn't have nothing about cornering speed. The cornering speed depends on PP, not the opposite.

I'm not saying you disagreed with me its just something I've had to say.
 
Last edited:
The reason less torque is lost is due to it's peak cycle being hit at an early revolution than peak power, which is what seems to be the most important fact in PP adjustments. Since GT doesn't provide other power restricting measures
 
not too sure, of course you can ruin the performance doing what you said, but why altering the weight distribution affect the PPs?
 
And, IMO, HP > torque.

HP IS torque.

HP = (Torque * RPM)/5252

The two cannot ever be separated.

You have to remember that engines have a power curve. Just because torque has already peaked at a lower RPM, HP can still increase as RPM rises.

Loosely speaking, if the RPM increases faster than the torque curve falls off, HP will still increase with RPM. If you increase the rate of torque fall-off at high RPM, peak HP may fall even though peak torque does not, depending on the shape of the torque curve.

Changing the engine's "power limiter" changes the peak HP value, with the accompanying adjustment to the torque curve.

Different performance parts actually change the shape of the underlying torque curve, moving the peak value up or down the RPM range.

All of this is really just a long way of saying that you're completely correct. It's important to pay attention to the shape of the engine's power curve in order to decide how a car will behave. The PP rating does appear to take the shape of the curve into account, but does not seem to pass judgment on whether low-end torque or high-RPM horsepower is better. It may simply look at the overall area under the curves but I'm not sure.
 
If PD can calculate the behaviour of the car on the track (virtually) and consider what you done to the suspension... shouldn´t it be possible to determine which is the most effective and best tuning for handling? I mean written in the code are so many parameters and such. The must be a mathematical way to determine the best spot on tuning. Just comparing funktions and find siimilarities or whatever. I can´t propably explain what I mean in english so hopefully someone can understand what I mean. Using this and the PP system they have. They could define the perfect tuning for every car at which it is the quickest or the best drifter. You could even determine the best tuning for top speed etc. All written in the code. How else could they transfer the TUNING DATA onto the behaviour on track? Math. It´s only numbers. But unfortunatly
a) we will have no access to this kind of code
b) PD probably won´t give us the tool to use this in game. For example have a blue bar, that turns into red the more you come towards the best tuning setup for a given need. (For example choose drift... than whenever your tuning gets toward the best setup for this it turns into red... )

If some math-magicians could tell me if this is possible. I just had this brainfart. May I´m completely wrong with my thought. Or maybe nobody understands me. That´s all OK. :cheers: But maybe there this is right. That would be somehow cool... 💡
 
not too sure, of course you can ruin the performance doing what you said, but why altering the weight distribution affect the PPs?
As far I remember, nope, distribution don't affect the PP number on GT6. It happened on GT5, the same for down force, when on GT5 the downforce affected the PP's.

As far I remember, weight distribution that you changes by yourself, just affects the PP of cars on GT5. The same for downforce. When you go on the setup and rises or lower the downforce, the PP will be the same (tested on racing GT-R).

This needs to be tested: If you place 200kg of ballast and keep the distribution on 0, The PP will be, for example, 500pp.
Now, move the weight distribution all way to the rear. Stills 500pp.

Other thing that needs to be tested is the install of parts like diffusers (flat floors) and rear wings, if they affect the PP (by only installing them). But I'm 100% sure, as I said before, that when you changes the downforce, the PP keeps at the same number.

Example:

>500pp car originally.
>Add wing, *maybe* +5pp for the wing INSTALLATION.
>505pp car with 20 rear downforce.
>slides the downforce all the way up, to the maximum possible.
>stills a 505pp car.

HP IS torque.

HP = (Torque * RPM)/5252

The two cannot ever be separated.

You have to remember that engines have a power curve. Just because torque has already peaked at a lower RPM, HP can still increase as RPM rises.

Loosely speaking, if the RPM increases faster than the torque curve falls off, HP will still increase with RPM. If you increase the rate of torque fall-off at high RPM, peak HP may fall even though peak torque does not, depending on the shape of the torque curve.

Changing the engine's "power limiter" changes the peak HP value, with the accompanying adjustment to the torque curve.

Different performance parts actually change the shape of the underlying torque curve, moving the peak value up or down the RPM range.

All of this is really just a long way of saying that you're completely correct. It's important to pay attention to the shape of the engine's power curve in order to decide how a car will behave. The PP rating does appear to take the shape of the curve into account, but does not seem to pass judgment on whether low-end torque or high-RPM horsepower is better. It may simply look at the overall area under the curves but I'm not sure.
Well, I wasn't aware of all that. Cool explanation, thanks. :cheers:

If PD can calculate the behaviour of the car on the track (virtually) and consider what you done to the suspension... shouldn´t it be possible to determine which is the most effective and best tuning for handling? I mean written in the code are so many parameters and such. The must be a mathematical way to determine the best spot on tuning. Just comparing funktions and find siimilarities or whatever. I can´t propably explain what I mean in english so hopefully someone can understand what I mean. Using this and the PP system they have. They could define the perfect tuning for every car at which it is the quickest or the best drifter. You could even determine the best tuning for top speed etc. All written in the code. How else could they transfer the TUNING DATA onto the behaviour on track? Math. It´s only numbers. But unfortunatly
a) we will have no access to this kind of code
b) PD probably won´t give us the tool to use this in game. For example have a blue bar, that turns into red the more you come towards the best tuning setup for a given need. (For example choose drift... than whenever your tuning gets toward the best setup for this it turns into red... )

If some math-magicians could tell me if this is possible. I just had this brainfart. May I´m completely wrong with my thought. Or maybe nobody understands me. That´s all OK. :cheers: But maybe there this is right. That would be somehow cool... 💡
Yeah, this is quite possible. The code is within the game engine, it's the physics engine itself. And crack it down would be hard (got no idea how).
About a bar that changes color, that is a bad idea in my view. With this bar, you can just keep trying, for example, some suspensions specs, without really needing to ride the car and see for yourself.

Although I'm the ones that is really bad at the tune-test thing, stills I don't want the gaming doing all the hard job for me.
 
Last edited:
So basically, if you've got a 500pp car you can buy certain power mods and use the power limiter to reduce it back to 500pp, you will end up with a more powerful car for the same pp?

I noticed this on my NSX; with engine mods the rpm increases from 9000 to 9900. I used the limiter so now I have a stock pp NSX that revs 900rpm higher. I'm not sure about the power band, I'll have to check again but its on stage 2 engine tuning so will also effect where the power band is.

Top thread by the way, thanks for the effort @mtsmtts 👍
 
RE: power and torque vs. PP.

If you're trying to understand performance / PP in terms of peak numbers you're not going to fully understand it.
Higher peak torque at 3000rpm isn't going to help you if you spend all your time between 5000rpm and 8000 rpm.

Also note that all engine tuning, except for turbo/supercharging, functions as a torque multiplier across the entire rev range.
Even though some part increase the rev range (in a static way, same for all engines), the curve profiles are stretched rather than shifted :ouch::banghead:
This is a very simplistic and unrealistic implementation, leading to some very silly results like:

A NA 1.6 L4 8v OHC with no variable valve/cam/intake/ignition producing 150 hp/l with a turbodiesel torque curve...
(that was a hypothetical example, but it's representative for what we have in Gran Turismo)
 
Last edited:
A nice post, just one quick thing:

The same case the first one, lets try to get to 577pp, now with the body setup:

.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)------KG
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3
B.....100% .............................577.........828...............911 ...................1,453 - w/ no weight reduction
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3 + intake standart (the best scenario on the first test)


So, B and C with 577pp. But lets analyze the kg/hp ratio:

*B got 1,75 kg/HP
*C got 1,53 Kg/HP

With this data, we discovered that:
>>When lowering PP, it's better to remove a power part instead of increasing the Weight.


Top speed is changed with power, but not with power/weight. So on a track like SSRX, it might be better to increase weight for the sake of power.
 
PP figures related to power:
In the OP, you are looking mostly at peak power and torque values. This is only one part (or rather dimension) of the story. There is enough evidence that the whole power curve is a factor in the calculation of the PP-figure. Mathematically speaking, it's the integral of the power and torque curves. If that doesn't mean anything to you, it's equivalent to the area under the power and torque curves.

Basically, that means that no matter where the power is increased, the PP figure goes up, even if the peak power/torque doesn't change at all. It does so, because acceleration and power delivery in some rpm-range has been increased. That does specifically not mean, that the car has to necessarily be faster with it on a specific circuit. If you never use the car in the affected rpm-range, it might not be faster at all.

On the other hand, the power restrictor sometimes (depending on the power curve) leaves a sort of spike in the torque curve, especially when heavy restrictions (e.g. >20%) are being used. Because of the overall area that the torque curve has lost, the PP-figure in these cases is quite dramatically lowered, but if you can nevertheless manage to drive the car in the rpm-range around that peak, you still can use much of the car's original power with the lower PP and have an advantage over the unrestricted cars with the same PPs.

I do not think that you can generally say that there is one strategy that will work on most cars. It depends heavily on the specific car, the parts you put on or take off and how much the restrictor is used in relation to the car's power curve.

What else factors into PPs:
Downforce in GT6 has been taken out of the equation. This is a bit controversial, but since downforce is modeled a lot better in GT6, it makes sense to take it out of the PP calculation, since now giving a car more downforce also increases its drag and vice versa. Of course it increases performance to lower the wings at Le Mans. But on the average circuit, the effects should cancel each other out.

I have not played around with how/if weight distribution affects PPs in GT6. What did affect PPs in GT5 though, was traction. This could be verified simply by buying the Gillet Vertigo. It already has an insane amount of power, and if you took the car from the dealership and made an oil change, increasing the power even more, the PP-figure actually went down. There is no other explanation than some traction coefficient (maybe in relation of weight, power and overall (invariable) aerodynamics of the car) came into play there. Someone should try this with this car in GT6. ;)
 
A nice post, just one quick thing:




Top speed is changed with power, but not with power/weight. So on a track like SSRX, it might be better to increase weight for the sake of power.
In this one case only. It's not cool to have more mass to push around corners at general courses.
 
Back