Quote from Scawen :

The purpose of this thread is to get the balance right, so hopefully the ballast added after patch Y is minimal.... ....By the way, to others who talk about perfect balancing, that will never happen and it's not the aim. The aim is that some of the cars are better on some tracks and some are better on others. What we don't want is what we had before, FZR the best choice on all tracks regardless of which track you were on.

Since about a week we now have had the chance to have a look at the new Y-balancing. Here are my first impressions:
Looks like the FZR, having lost 80 online kg´s, is still flying all over the tracks followed by the XRR´s which now have become 10kg´s lighter then the FXR´s but use as much fuel as the FXR.
FZR´s still can flatshift over a period of time without getting too much clutch heat.
Tyres:
Sprint races the FZR still is able to do with R2´s, the FXR has to have R3´s in front - racing for more then 2 laps.
I now can agree 100% on PaulC2K´s statements made.
Especially the -30kg XRR contra -20KG FXR but still having the same gearbox doesn´t make any sense to me as the XRR already was the overall faster car of these two cars.
In my oppinion the GTR´s need to get re-balanced for sprint- and short distance races (that´s what we do online racing on public servers day for day) and for endurance races the organizers could balance these cars if they really think it´s necessary and needed.


Sidenote:
I sometimes get minor engine damage at what I call normal downshifting using autoclutch in the FXR. Some people call it an improvement not to be able to repair engine damage.This matter for sure doesn´t make the FXR my first choice for longer races - but that´s a different story...

"Engine damage can not be fixed on a pitstop. This probably the single most biggest improvement from Y patch.
FXR - totaled
XRR - totaled
FZR - ~none "
*http://www.lfsforum.net/showth ... p;highlight=engine+damage

What´s your personal oppinion about the new GTR balance so far?

The balance is weird to say the least. Aside from the identical horsepower and weight (which one could argue comes from the GT class rules in LFS-land), the GTRs also generate exactly equal downforce and drag, and F/R downforce distribution is also within half a percent. There are a lot of variables to play with to make the cars "balanced" (e.g. FZR could have less high-speed stability), but we don't see much of it. I also don't see how mastering the XRR is easier than FZR . Don't turbo cars require more attention in general since you have to keep the boost pressure high? IMHO FZR is not THAT much harder. Keep in mind that I'm a noob and drive on the level of "quick" AI in patch Y.

As for FZR complaints, why not just cut down its power and torque? Especially torque, even race-spec 3.9 L flat-6 in Daytona prototypes does not develop 500 Nm, more like 430.

Part of the reason they're 'identical' in their stats is probably down to the fact that the class would be based on a series set of rules, they'd have tight restrictions on every important aspect of the cars design. The other classes of cars are meant to be say a collection of road car which happen to be evenly matched but arent intended to be closely matched in construction. The race cars are basically designed around the rules of a ficticious series, they'll have a limits they'd have to fit into, and thats done to keep the cars evenly matched while the build & spec of the car is done by the individual teams rather than a fixed car (F1 compared to A1GP, or WTCC to Clio cup).
Thats my take on it at least, its obviously not pure co-incidence they're near identical on power/weight stats, so it makes sense to assume they'd be ficticious regulations placed on their class.

Has anyone done a reasonable number of laps in the FZR yet, say 30min straight run or longer? I'll admit i havent, however the car makes a horrendous noise now, maybe its purely the gearbox, but it instantly reminded me of the popcorn days when the engine is on its way out, a noise ive not heard (or dont recall hearing) since S1 came along.
Now, with an important 24hr race coming up in... 3wks, the last thing i wanna see is half the field drop out, and i say that as someone driving an XRR, so im hoping thats just the crappy noise everyone has to put up with, i think that alone should help an XRR win personally, wouldnt wanna listern to that for ~6hrs thats for sure! Its definately not n00bish gearshifting, but i can definately hear it popping away like a mofo.


R.Kolz:
Couldnt agree more on the fact that the cars should be balanced for sprint racing, i remember hearing all the chatter YEARS back about how the various cars were being balanced, how big testing sessions between the devs & testers were being held in endurance races, and wondering WTF they're doing that for. I *love* endurance racing, but i'd wager that maybe 1 in 10,000 races last longer than 60min, and thats how these cars are supposedly being balanced. We're on attempt #3 with the GTR's, still looking completely hopeless, the TBO's a bit better, and i really wonder what goes on in these tests.
For my estimated 1:10,000th race, let the organisers balance the cars as they see fit, in MoE they've been self-balancing for years, awarding different cars a different set of points to try and even things out. So clearly it doesnt work for Endurance racing all that great to begin with. Now their characteristics can be modified manually it should be left to the organisers to enforce their own rules on what is fair, while the other 9,999:10,000 races are ran over 5 laps where the cars are equally quick round a track straight out of the box, sod the fact that one car sucks a tiny bit more fuel over an hour, it makes no difference when the typical race is over within 15min, so 'balanced' it isnt, and thats why nobody in their right mind drives the FXR or XRR in a random server if they actually care about where they finish.
Personally, i couldnt care less about public racing, havent joined a random server for months, possibly over a year (certainly feels like it), they dont interest me a jot, but im not ignorant enough to think they're not where a considerable majority of people spend their time and blissfully ignore it. I'd prefer they were perfectly equal over a few hours, but just like i'd suggest its tough for drifters wanting things perfect for them, they're in the minority and just a small aspect of LFS's community and why its popular. Still, i'd settle for them being balanced any way possible, it'd make a nice change.

Quote from PaulC2K :

Part of the reason they're 'identical' in their stats is probably down to the fact that the class would be based on a series set of rules, they'd have tight restrictions on every important aspect of the cars design.

Well, as I said in my post, I can buy that for weight/power. But there is no way cars with such different bodywork generate the same L/D. All of them generate 0 lift with the body (huh?) and 3000N drag @ 100 m/s. In reality, FZR would likely create the most lift--so it would require more agressive wing settings to compensate with added downforce, increasing drag and slowing it down. XRR looks like it would generate most drag, but least lift.

Not to mention that a series enforcing identical lift/drag ratios (which is pretty ridiculous), should just enforce a single chassis and be done. Even F1 (which is very strictly regulated) has cars with diff. aero, despite having tons of restrictions on wing width, height, position, etc. I understand that it's probably a temporary measure by Scavier to balance cars while the physics is WIP, but that's the thing -- it doesn't balance anything There are threads complaining about FZR since what, 2005?

All I'm saying is there are a lot of subtle ways to balance cars, except for bhp/ton, but sadly we don't see it. Which is sad, since our physics probably allows for much more.

I get the feeling that this close matching between the aerodynamics of the cars is to make balancing them a more simple task, with fewer variables.

It may change, but then again, it's a possibility that the cars were designed with a ficticious series in mind which dicates the lift/drag ratios the car should have with zero wing angle, by making the three cars use different undertrays to compensate for the differences in their bodies' aerodynamic properties - so the very close aerodynamics might be here to stay.

As for tyres on these cars, having run a 20-lap race at AS6, I found that - with my driving style - the FZR was perfectly capable of regulating an R3/R3 tyre setup to an optimum temperature while still going noticeably faster than an FXR which needed an R4/R3 configuration to keep the fronts cool enough to last the race. Having said that, the FXR was being raced by a keyboard driver, so all this really tells us is that the FZR is wearing tyres quite evenly and not at all harshly. In short, the combination of weight distribution and drive to the front is making the FXR far harder on front tyres than the FZR.

It's still debatable whether or not the lower fuel range of the FZR makes up for this - the FZR is getting through roughly 135% of the fuel the FXR does over a given distance, making the FXR's fuel range at AS6 37 laps against the FZR's 27. Personally, I reckon the FZR's fuel consumption is helping to pull it back in line with the other cars in longer races due to the increased pitstops, and in shorter ones due to the increased weight. There's a more subtle balancing method for you

Sam

But the weight of an extra 35% fuel load is still not enough to slow down the FZR...we need changes such as reduced engine size and reduced horsepower to really make a difference...and the forced H-pattern doesn't have quite the desired effect. Going into corners, I can heel-toe downshift faster than it takes a sequential box to go down through the gears, which makes up for the slower up-shifts...

The FZR is about 1.5sec a lap faster round AS6, roughly, and being generous too i think.

If the extra pit-stop time is +60sec (fairly reasonable for 4 tyres & full juice-up at most tracks) then the FZR can make that up entirely within 40 laps. So unless the race is between 37 & 40 laps, the FXR must pit, and its pretty much undebatable from that point onwards.
Lap 27 - FZR has a 40sec lead, just before pit #1 (+60)
Lap 28 - FXR is now 18.5 sec ahead
Lap 37 - FXR has a 5sec lead, just before pit #1 (+50, less fuel)
Lap 38 - FZR now leads by 46.5sec
Lap 54 - FZR now leads by 1:10.5 before pit #2 (+60)
Lap 55 - FZR still leads, despite extra pitstop, by 12 sec.

So, if thats correct (it's certainly going to be pretty close), it suggests the FXR doesnt have a hope in hell of beating a FZR unless the race ends moments after the FZR needs to pit. So if it cant beat it over 40 laps, how the hell can anyone expect it to provide competitive racing in shorted length races?? Its just crazy.
Infact, im comparing qualifing type laps, what the FZR & FXR *can* do, ignoring the fact that to get to 37 laps the FXR needs to bolt on harder tyres making it only slower. I've also be generous with the 10sec difference for the comparatively insignificant difference in fuel loading times (2-3sec max), but still the is shown to be a useless option for people wanting to be competitive. If you dont care about being competitive, fair enough, but it seems most people do care but cos they're not bothered about driving it they're not fussed, 'sod em'.


Repeating my previous comments on Fuel economy and its worth as a negative point for the FZR....
Fuel consumption is pretty much an false & misleading statistic, the cars kill they're tyres sooner than they burn through a tank of fuel, so while its more thirsty it currently isnt a limiting factor. So fuel doesnt play a role in strategy, the only thing it effects is car weight and refueling time.
The capacity of all the GTRs is 100 Litres so the weight is the same no mater what car they're in, 1% is an identical measure in the class.

In Patch X:
The FXR/XRR needed about 55-60% to go the distance the R2's allow, thats 57.5 litres.
The FZR needs 70% for the same distance, ignoring whether the tyres can take it that far (probably close, but just short). The weight of 10-15% extra fuel might help the XRR keep up, but the FXR might as well not bother, its a tiny drop in the ocean.
If the R3's werent so slow then maybe they'd be an option, but you lose far more time wearing them than you actually gain by carrying a full tank (also slowing you down slightly)

Unless Y has serious changes where the R3s make a frequent appearance for endurance racing, and the FXR & FZR can utilise the empty 40-45% space in the tank, while the FZR only has 30% in there, then things wont have changed all that much.
I think it'll take a while before things truely settle down after the updates, but you can bet you backside its as unbalanced as ever.

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

we need changes such as reduced engine size and reduced horsepower to really make a difference

We might get a smaller, higher-strung engine to lower the torque, but lower power isn't going to happen - if the power limit for the series these cars are designed around is 490bhp, all of the cars are sure as hell going to have 490bhp, or close enough to make no difference.

Quote from PaulC2K :

Infact, im comparing qualifing type laps, what the FZR & FXR *can* do, ignoring the fact that to get to 37 laps the FXR needs to bolt on harder tyres making it only slower.

Just a quick note, the FXR that was using R4/R3s in that race was obviously using 0/1 throttle and braking, which means you could probably get the car to cope with R3/R3s over 20 laps or so.

The rest of your post, particularly the scenario with the FXR/FZR race, seems quite accurate. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the FXR is not supposed to be able to compete with the FZR, or indeed the XRR, and is designed as an easier introduction to the power and speed of the GTR class, so that new GTR drivers can cope with the cars in a race situation more easily. The FXR is not meant to be as fast as the other GTRs, and so arguing over class balancing to make the FXR and FZR even is somewhat pointless. Balancing the FZR with the XRR is the point Scawen wants to get at, I think, and the gearbox is the way forward in this one.

So, has anyone run comparisons between the XRR and FZR? Unfortunately I have next to no experience in the XRR myself.

Just to back up what I've said about the FXR:

Quote from Wiki :

The FXO GTR is the easiest of the GTR cars to drive, thanks to its stable handling and four-wheel drive. Unfortunately it's also the slowest over a single lap. In the hands of a skilled driver it can usually beat most comers, but even the best FXO GTR driver can't catch a well-driven FZ50 GTR or XR GTR in a sprint race. In endurance races the playing field is leveled somewhat, as the FXO GTR is easier on its tires than the other two GTR cars and has superior fuel economy. Ultimately the FXO GTR is a great car for somebody just getting used to the extra power offered by the GTR cars or for somebody who just wants to have some fun in the GTR class, but if you want wins and don't like long races you have to move to one of the rear-wheel drive GTR cars.

Quote from Wiki :

It [The XRR] likes to eat FXO GTRs for breakfast, so watch out.

The second quote, and much of the first, can be found on the main LFS site as well as the Wiki

Sam

The XRR and FZR however are very well balanced now in endurance races. The XRR uses less fuel, and is slightly easier on the tyres than the FZR. The FZR now must use R3's to last a reasonable number of laps, which slows the car down obviously in the corners.

Quote from Scawen :

Please report here what you find out about the GTR class balancing.
Handicaps have now been removed as the cars should be more naturally balanced now.

Changes in GTR class :

FXO GTR is 20 kg lighter
FZR has an H-pattern gerabox so slightly slower gear shifts
FZR engine is also more limited by its redline so earlier gear shifts

This is post 1 of this thread.
Scawen included the FXR ( FXO GTR ). The WIKI posts are obviously outdated or most of us must have misunderstood Scawens very first post.

Quote from DaveWS :

The XRR and FZR however are very well balanced now in endurance races. The XRR uses less fuel, and is slightly easier on the tyres than the FZR. The FZR now must use R3's to last a reasonable number of laps, which slows the car down obviously in the corners.

I cant say with any certainty whether or not the XRR needs R3s or if it can manage R2's for a worthwhile distance, so i dont know how it'd compare. The FXR its already been said that definately needs harder tyres on the front, whether thats R3/R2 or R4/R3 i dont know. But from the bit of testing ive done with the GT2 XRR the tyres dont go too far, they're staying much more consistant but the R2's seem to be more of a sprint distance tyre than endurance, so it could be that R3 will become the endurance drivers choice of tyre, which IMO it always should have been, the R2s should be designed for short races, R3s for medium length, and R4s for extreme distances.


Dark Elite:
Im not sure those comments come from any official statement, personally they sound like an opinion, just like me saying R2s are for sprint races, R3s for endurance & R4's if your stupid, it sounds like their take on the situation rather than intentionally making the car so slow its uncompetitive beyond a doubt.


Whether the WIKI info is accurate (to the dev's opinion) or someones personal opinion (pretty much the whole communities opinion probably), IMO there shouldnt be a 'learner' car in any class, if people havent learnt to cope with the bigger cars, then they have the baby GTRs till then, theres no logic in intentionally making a crap car so people can learn to drive the other 2 properly, so for that reason i dont really buy into it being intentionally uncompetitive.
Creating the FOX as a simplified & tamed FO8 i can understand as they're considerably different to what was offered before S2, just as the XFR & UFR or TBOs ease people into FZ5/RAC or GTR cars, but making a signficiantly slower car within a class is backwards, a class should be designed to be different but reasonably equal.
The RB4 isnt the sacrificial car for the TBO class, why would the FXR be?
Also, considering the GTR cars are what the top level series are using to showcase talent, and i suspect thats the developers intentions for it too, it seems bizarre to have such a weak link in there, granted they're the ones who've made it so weak and dont seem to care about fixing that aspect, but i think everyone would rather have 3 closely matched cars (taking everything into account in the process) than what we have now, which is 2 reasonably matched cars and a n00b car. I dont expect it to be a race winner, but it should at least be competitive rather than it pootling around. Drivers should be required to ask themself a question before picking which car to use, do you play it safe and see if it pays off, or go for broke and run the risk of making that small mistake and losing. Thats not what goes through any drivers mind right now, currently its a case of do you want to come last or race with people.

As i say, i dont know what there is to back up those WIKI comments, if they're fact or just common opinion, but it sounds bonkers and nothing like what *i'd* have thought the developers would have intended, like they've over-compensated for it being easy to drive. If it is their opinion, its laughable, and disregards everything ive seen them do in almost 5 years of playing LFS. Its an unloved, unwanted & unbalanced car and its sitting in the main class pretty much going to waste.

Quote from R. Kolz :

This is post 1 of this thread.
Scawen included the FXR ( FXO GTR ). The WIKI posts are obviously outdated or most of us must have misunderstood Scawens very first post.

My immediate thought about that is that Scawen doesn't want the FXR to be left too far behind, and so taking the 20kg of ballast out is to match up with the XRR and FZR also losing ballast - in effect, trying to keep the balance between the FXR and the other two more or less equal to how it was before.

Quote from PaulC2K :

IMO there shouldnt be a 'learner' car in any class [...] currently its a case of do you want to come last or race with people.

I do agree with you here, and personally I don't think that the fastest (although I wouldn't want to call it 'main', as a lot of people prefer TBOs) class should be burdened with a car for new drivers. Basically, it seems that the quicker drivers are having a third car taken away from them by the needs of the slower drivers. But, as I said, this does come from the main LFS website, the one not open to public editing:

Quote from http://www.lfs.net/?page=contents& :

The FXO GTR is a great car for somebody just getting used to the extra power offered by the GTR cars or for somebody who just wants to have some fun in the GTR class, but if you want wins and don't like long races you have to move to one of the rear-wheel drive GTR cars.

Whether this description outdated or not, I don't know (the statistics are), which is why Scawen filling us in on his intentions for the GTR class could save a lot of pointless debate.

Sam