The next tuner challenge..

  • Thread starter Leonidae
  • 1,235 comments
  • 54,514 views
Because they're more powerful...

A Honda NSX is something like 3000cc so it would flatten an FF like a civic, however, with the time penalty, the civic would have a good chance at winning.
 
The original proposal didn't have a spot-race as a part of Phase 1 - that was only for the Touge section. Also, Phase 1 should be specified to S-tires and below - R tires are just WAY too sticky.

I do have to weigh in one more time on course selection - Citta d'Aria really isn't a good choice. It's far too short to be a fair machine test, and places a HUGE advantage on small torquey cars. Nurburgring is NOT nearly as wide as Fuji, as Setsunakute says, and while it CAN fit two to three cars abreast THEORETICALLY, it's nearly impossible to do at speed in the technical sectors without unsporting levels of contact - much like most mountain passes. They're mostly two lanes wide, with THEORETICAL room for overtaking. It's just difficult at the speeds in question. And as for real danger, I'd say check the statistics. I guarantee you there have been quite a large number of deaths through that sector in just the past decade alone. I'm also curious as to how you made your evaluation about "realistic" levels of downforce.

If there are a lot of objections to the Nurburgring though, El Capitan, while wider, would be an excellent choice as well given its freakishly uneven track surfaces in certain spots.
 
El Capitan seems to exaggerate oversteer, however, and cars tuned for there understeer like pigs elsewhere most of the time.

I like the idea of using the 'Ring.
 
El Cap does indeed inflate oversteer which isn't necessarily a bad thing for a touge battle, but it IS extremely wide, and has a fairly long straightaway. Honestly, if we were looking for a challenging track without a long straight that has tougey aspects, and we didn't care about width, I'd suggest Infineon.

All that said, I definitely favor the Ring as well.

In the next day or two, either Greycap or I are planning to post something we've been working on that we hope will help guarantee strong reliable judging, as well.
 
the track surface is smooth as butter. the track itself TRIES to be challenging with those multiple off-camber corners..
 
Fast, no. It has 12 corners of which 4 or 5 necessitate using the second gear so it's far from fast as a whole. Even the fast corner section near the end is limited by the handling of the car, not the power. About the flatness, it depends on what is meant by flatness. The actual surface certainly is flat when compared to the Nürburgring but the rolling hills make the track itself very unflat.

The already mentioned Autumn Ring is still a very good candidate if the emphasis is on tight cornering but I share the opinion about the superiority of the Nordschleife, especially the T6 to T9 section of it. That section is some six metres wide at certain points, just a bit more than a single lane on a highway. Certainly narrow enough to simulate a mountain pass... hell, it IS a mountain pass at the Eifel mountains!
 
We do need to decide what to do about the rotaries. For example, a 2-rotor '96 FD RS can be bought used for right around 12K. It's a 654cc-per-rotor 2-rotor, so theoretically, at 1308cc, it falls in 1.8L and under category, but will unquestionably demolish almost any competition from that division, since with only the most minor power upgrades, it'll run MUCH faster while handling just as well. If anything is to be handicapped, the rotaries should be it.
 
1308 x 1.8 = 2354cc, so there's for the NA rotaries, if a power adder is used...

1308 x 1.8 x 1.7 = 4002cc, there's your power adder rotary size.
 
That, and their advantage isn't big enough to need it.

EDIT: SPS on CLS.

The figures come from... I want to say Rally America's rule book...
 
VTiRoj
Personally, I've never heard of a car will a full racing rollcage, that still has its interior intact. So if no weight reduction is allowed, neither should the rollcage.
Click to expand...

Also you should check the old school Group C Big Bangers from the '80s in Australia. Full Roll cage, full interior (almost). They just put the cage through the seats.

setsunakute
In the same manner as with allowing high downforce, the reasoning behind using N3 Road tires is completely defeated. But even if we allowed your obscene weight reduction (read: near-total bodywork dry carbon replacement worth $100,000), we'd stray away from the event's purpose and realism: the number of touge competitors that would do such a feat is zero.

Never think of weight reduction as something as simple as running a hot knife through butter. The first stage of weigh reduction for 1500kg (give or take) vehicles in the game will instantaneously make it road-illegal and place it in race car territory. Even Stage 3 weight reduction is stretching reality for first-class race cars...
Click to expand...

What is an Amuse Carbon R then? You've got to allow some weight reduction.......
 
As far as weight reduction for the touge division goes, I don't see any need for any restrictions per-se. Again, the tires present their own limitation. If a tuner decides he WANTS to rip the car down, fine, but on N-tires it's almost always going to result in a car that's slower due to loss of traction.
 
CraftyLandShark
As far as weight reduction for the touge division goes, I don't see any need for any restrictions per-se. Again, the tires present their own limitation. If a tuner decides he WANTS to rip the car down, fine, but on N-tires it's almost always going to result in a car that's slower due to loss of traction.
Click to expand...

But also the extra weight may overload the grip thresh hold of the tires, therefore making it turn even worse. It's all a fine dance between how much weight you can take off without losing traction or overloading the tires
 
Or within the budget, I honestly can't see anyone spending 25 000Cr on stage 3 just to remove 40kg. Oh wait, there isn't any budget for Phase 2 :embarrassed:
 
That doesn't quite make sense. It's logical that a lighter car will resist plowing through a turn compared to one that is heavy. The game's road tires place their traction stake in the car's factory tire widths. You might be missing the point of restricting weight reduction altogether. Reducing the weight yields an obvious improvement in handling, but it also dissolves the car's unique behavior. Don't try to build the N-class event by tracing your past events on sports and racing tires because they are completely different realms.

The later sections Nuerburgring and first half of Deep Forest *may* work as a testbed, but you'll have to enforce limitations on output and not displacement to have a consistent range of competitiveness. But the road remains relatively wide. 'What does that mean for touge?' That means a heavyweight powerhouse isn't threatened by a narrow exit and will slaughter its lightweight competition; light weight doesn't amount to anything if a monster GT-R can exit a corner onto a straight (even one that's only 100m long) with maximum momentum.

Here's an idea of a two-tier class system: organize the classes into categories of output. For example: 200ps and under, 300ps and under, and 300ps+. From there, you apply a second restriction on each class if desired, whether it be spending limitation or

And FYI, touge is supposed to be categorized by output. Aspiration and displacement classes are only used for racing. And even if you use a displacement restrictions, turbocharged entrants multiply their displacement by, say, 1.5x and then get entered into the resulting displacement class.

Re: downforce, you lot may need to get off your 20+ downforce habits and get used to using just 6 to fully stabilize a sports coupe on the Nordschleife. We're not building race cars anymore, such high levels of downforce aren't used by typical sports cars, tuned or otherwise. Tuning an N-class road car (a.k.a. "pro street") means the car gets off your driveway and onto the racetrack without *any* modification. It uses the same performance radials, same computer program, same suspension configuration; everything is unchanged.

If I have to be lenient, 10 would be an acceptable maximum for the rear, but the nose of a car will always be weaker.
 
No one is trying to get downforce in there from what I can see, just weight reduction. The idea of taking away a car's quirks is to make it better, of course we get weight reduction then. Plus touge would still get some reduction, most of them are Japanese cars with carbon fibre hoods and stuff aren't they?
 

Latest Posts

Back