Weight Reduction...

  • Thread starter Thread starter sleak
  • 20 comments
  • 1,717 views
Messages
2
Is this important to get? Currently im using a Nismo 400r with level 3 weight reduction and im not sure whether to regret it or not. The car tends to shake a bit more now, making me think maybe this wasn't worth it. Do you guys always get level 3 reduction on your cars? or should i take this as a lesson not to do it again :yuck: ?
 
Stage1 weight reduction is one of my top 3 best value mods. Stages 2 and 3 take much less off and cost a packet but I still do them - I just can't say no to more lightness!
 
Hi Sleak

What's possibly happening is that as you've reduced the weight of the car you haven't adjusted the suspension to suit?

If the dampers are too stiff for the supported mass then you will certainly see more in the way of transmitted vibration and could also create handling problems. Try softening the Bound by a click or two and see if that helps.
 
i got a question about weight reduction;

i was over a friends house and he was playin' with my RUF RGT '00, which has 569hp, and he says the car has too much power for its weight which is why it cant handle very well.

i was just wondering if it's possible to have too much horse power for a car to handle at light weights? if you hit a specific number of horse power, should you hold off on lvl2 or lvl3 weight reduction? if you do have too much power for your weight, what are some of your options to compensate for this loss?

thanks.
 
qwazy|06
i got a question about weight reduction;

i was over a friends house and he was playin' with my RUF RGT '00, which has 569hp, and he says the car has too much power for its weight which is why it cant handle very well.

i was just wondering if it's possible to have too much horse power for a car to handle at light weights? if you hit a specific number of horse power, should you hold off on lvl2 or lvl3 weight reduction? if you do have too much power for your weight, what are some of your options to compensate for this loss?

thanks.

At 569hp its probably verging on being overpowered. It would be better to reduce the amount of power than add weight (depening on the track). A quick fix might be to put some traction control on it - that way the computer will limit the power for you in hairy situations but you get to use it all on long straights where it's not a problem ;)
 
qwazy|06
i got a question about weight reduction;

i was over a friends house and he was playin' with my RUF RGT '00, which has 569hp, and he says the car has too much power for its weight which is why it cant handle very well.

i was just wondering if it's possible to have too much horse power for a car to handle at light weights? if you hit a specific number of horse power, should you hold off on lvl2 or lvl3 weight reduction? if you do have too much power for your weight, what are some of your options to compensate for this loss?

thanks.
Yeah, those 900+ horsepower, 1500 lb F1 cars handle like ass ... :rolleyes:
 
Some cars can use all the weight reduction you can give it though. *Looks at the Chevelle*

But somtimes I think Stage 3 is just a waste for your money. 22k just to take off 45kg?
 
do stage 1 early, do stage 2 once you have already done a little in every other area, do stage 3 if you must waste another 30k credits on the car you already have maxed out.

a car works as a package. a honda s2000 with a stage 3 weight reduce is a $60k s2000 that is missing an interior, and fractions, if any seconds quicker. sound reasonable in real life?
 
Another questin is , Whenever I do the chassis stifferener (sp? sorry) It makes the car total crap! I find it's better with out it . Am I wrong?
 
Jmac279
Yeah, those 900+ horsepower, 1500 lb F1 cars handle like ass ... :rolleyes:

i'm pretty sure he was speakin' of the RGT specifically.

i'm gonna' try out the tcs tip since i dont drive with any aids
and probably mess around with the suspension a bit.
 
LedaM3
do stage 1 early, do stage 2 once you have already done a little in every other area, do stage 3 if you must waste another 30k credits on the car you already have maxed out.

a car works as a package. a honda s2000 with a stage 3 weight reduce is a $60k s2000 that is missing an interior, and fractions, if any seconds quicker. sound reasonable in real life?
I don't have GT4, so I don't know if it's the same percentage ...

But in GT2 ...

Under 2733 lbs
Stage 1 - 98%
Stage 2 - 95%
Stage 3 - 92%

Over 2733 lbs
Stage 1 - 95%
Stage 2 - 92%
Stage 3 - 89%

Using CarTest 4.5 ...

S2000 1/4 mile times ...
2811 lbs (Stock) - 14.70 seconds
2760 lbs (Stage 1)- 14.32 seconds
2586 lbs (Stage 2) - 14.21 seconds
2502 lbs (Stage 3) - 14.10 seconds

If you can pick up a couple tenths on every straightaway and a few more tenths in every corner, it'll add up quite quickly ...
 
Jmac279
Yeah, those 900+ horsepower, 1500 lb F1 cars handle like ass ... :rolleyes:
You make it sound easy, which its most certainly not. Remeber how much downforce they make, simply equivalent of more weight.
 
Jmac279
I don't have GT4, so I don't know if it's the same percentage ...

But in GT2 ...

Under 2733 lbs
Stage 1 - 98%
Stage 2 - 95%
Stage 3 - 92%

Over 2733 lbs
Stage 1 - 95%
Stage 2 - 92%
Stage 3 - 89%

Using CarTest 4.5 ...

S2000 1/4 mile times ...
2811 lbs (Stock) - 14.70 seconds
2760 lbs (Stage 1)- 14.32 seconds
2586 lbs (Stage 2) - 14.21 seconds
2502 lbs (Stage 3) - 14.10 seconds

If you can pick up a couple tenths on every straightaway and a few more tenths in every corner, it'll add up quite quickly ...

quarter mile times are no comparison to straightaways on a racetrack. most corners would already have the s2000 in third gear, any advantage a lighter car (3% lighter for that $30k mind you) would get in a 1/4 distance, does not double for every 1/4mile you add on to it. once you are moving, you are moving. its not start stop, start stop, lol.
 
Acceleration = Force/Mass

A reduction in mass is the equivalent of increasing force as far as acceleration goes ...

Let's say the S2000 has a completely flat torque curve of 140 lb-ft for a second here ...

Gear Ratios ...
1st - 3.133
2nd - 2.045
3rd - 1.481
4th - 1.161
5th - 0.971
6th - 0.811
Final - 4.100
Tire Diameter - 24.85826772"

Force (lbs) = Wheel Torque (lb-ft) * Gear Ratio * Final Drive Ratio *24 / Tire Diamater (in)

So we get ...

1st - 1736 lbs of Force (7723 N)
2nd - 1133 lbs of Force (5041 N)
3rd - 821 lbs of Force (3651 N)
4th - 643 lbs of Force (2862 N)
5th - 538 lbs of Force (2394 N)
6th - 449 lbs of Force (1999 N)

2nd Stage Weight - 2586 lbs (1173 kg)
3rd Stage Weight - 2502 lbs (1135 kg)

Acceleration = Force (N) / Mass (kg)

Stage 2 ...
1st - 7723/1173 = 6.584 m/s^2
2nd - 5041/1173 = 4.298 m/s^2
3rd - 3651/1173 = 3.113 m/s^2
4th - 2862/1173 = 2.440 m/s^2
5th - 2394/1173 = 2.041 m/s^2
6th - 1999/1173 = 1.704 m/s^2

Stage 3 ...
1st - 7723/1135 = 6.804 m/s^2
2nd - 5041/1135 = 4.441 m/s^2
3rd - 3651/1135 = 3.217 m/s^2
4th - 2862/1135 = 2.522 m/s^2
5th - 2394/1135 = 2.109 m/s^2
6th - 1999/1135 = 1.761 m/s^2

As you can see (and I shouldn't have needed to demonstrate), acceleration is inversely proportional to mass ... A lower mass will improve acceleration REGARDLESS of velocity ... In fact, it would (theoretically) help acceleration further as there would be reduced rolling resistance ...

As far as saying the only way a light, high-powered car will handle well is because of downforce, that's absolutely rediculous ...
 
I have yet to do stage 3 to any car... read the descripton! "install a new carbon fiber chassis". WTF? so it basically builds a stock-car-like (NASCARish?) carbon fiber shell with a body that looks like the original. (very stupid that it looks EXACTLY the same... still has headlights? still has stock fender dimentions? still has turnsignals? OK....) but I don't think that its a modification that counts as a realistic "modification" to a street car. If you want to build your own JGTC car, then go ahead, but otherwise, its just silly.
 
Jmac279
Acceleration = Force/Mass

A reduction in mass is the equivalent of increasing force as far as acceleration goes ...

Let's say the S2000 has a completely flat torque curve of 140 lb-ft for a second here ...

Gear Ratios ...
1st - 3.133
2nd - 2.045
3rd - 1.481
4th - 1.161
5th - 0.971
6th - 0.811
Final - 4.100
Tire Diameter - 24.85826772"

Force (lbs) = Wheel Torque (lb-ft) * Gear Ratio * Final Drive Ratio *24 / Tire Diamater (in)

So we get ...

1st - 1736 lbs of Force (7723 N)
2nd - 1133 lbs of Force (5041 N)
3rd - 821 lbs of Force (3651 N)
4th - 643 lbs of Force (2862 N)
5th - 538 lbs of Force (2394 N)
6th - 449 lbs of Force (1999 N)

2nd Stage Weight - 2586 lbs (1173 kg)
3rd Stage Weight - 2502 lbs (1135 kg)

Acceleration = Force (N) / Mass (kg)

Stage 2 ...
1st - 7723/1173 = 6.584 m/s^2
2nd - 5041/1173 = 4.298 m/s^2
3rd - 3651/1173 = 3.113 m/s^2
4th - 2862/1173 = 2.440 m/s^2
5th - 2394/1173 = 2.041 m/s^2
6th - 1999/1173 = 1.704 m/s^2

Stage 3 ...
1st - 7723/1135 = 6.804 m/s^2
2nd - 5041/1135 = 4.441 m/s^2
3rd - 3651/1135 = 3.217 m/s^2
4th - 2862/1135 = 2.522 m/s^2
5th - 2394/1135 = 2.109 m/s^2
6th - 1999/1135 = 1.761 m/s^2

As you can see (and I shouldn't have needed to demonstrate), acceleration is inversely proportional to mass ... A lower mass will improve acceleration REGARDLESS of velocity ... In fact, it would (theoretically) help acceleration further as there would be reduced rolling resistance ...

As far as saying the only way a light, high-powered car will handle well is because of downforce, that's absolutely rediculous ...



hey jerkoff, i understand the physics. my point is that spending $30k on a one second or one half lap advantage is ludicrious. in fact the only case i can see someone thinking that it is okay to do is when they cant get the freaking car around the track in a decent amount of time anyways. sure, you cant drive for ****, so spend $30k to get the given weight advantage to see if it will outweigh your skill disadvantage.

spending money on upgrading your car or not aside, that is the single least cost effective modification in the game bar none. add up all the **** you want, you are still on the losing end of the stick, i wil smoke your ass any day of the week stranger.

you are simply picking for an argument. my input on the situation was entirely correct, the modification is a complete waste, given that you are at a driving skill level as high as my own. my tuning consists of custom suspension, soft street tires, and racing brakes for any given car. its all you need, why go overboard. a well driven slow car will beat a poorly driven quicker car any day.
 
I understand you , there is no need to lose 18kg for 22k . It's just a waste , STAGE 1 is the best reduction kit you can get in GT4. The others only lose you about 20-30 kg
 
LedaM3
hey jerkoff, i understand the physics. my point is that spending $30k on a one second or one half lap advantage is ludicrious. in fact the only case i can see someone thinking that it is okay to do is when they cant get the freaking car around the track in a decent amount of time anyways. sure, you cant drive for ****, so spend $30k to get the given weight advantage to see if it will outweigh your skill disadvantage.

spending money on upgrading your car or not aside, that is the single least cost effective modification in the game bar none. add up all the **** you want, you are still on the losing end of the stick, i wil smoke your ass any day of the week stranger.

you are simply picking for an argument. my input on the situation was entirely correct, the modification is a complete waste, given that you are at a driving skill level as high as my own. my tuning consists of custom suspension, soft street tires, and racing brakes for any given car. its all you need, why go overboard. a well driven slow car will beat a poorly driven quicker car any day.
This was mature :rolleyes:

Where did I ever say it was cost effective ?
Don't you think it's a little presumptuous to assume that you're a better driver than I am considering you've never seen me drive ?

Your post implied (to me) that a reduction in mass made little difference once you were moving ... I replied to that and didn't intend to be a "jerkoff" about it, so I'm sorry if I came off that way ...
 
Back