I think it might be better to name the new class differently. It seems a bit misleading to use the name 'GT2' for what is now called GT1, and GT3 for what is currently known as GT2. Maybe something like GTX or GTP (for Prototype), or something else! Or is the new GT2 actually likely to be quite different to the old GT1?
Maybe it's too premature for this kind of discussion or the admins have already decided upon the class names. Just thinking aloud.
I might be able to participate on the Saturday event, depends a tiny bit on how early I get home. Sunday is a no go for me
Could somebody provide me with a usable setup? XRR GT1 preferred. I guess it won't make any sense to participate without having a suitable setup, but since I don't have the time to develop a setup on my own this would be very kind
If I get this right. Partly, you are aiming to balance the classes slightly. If that’s the case then the test race track (ky3) is will not provide so obvious results. It’s completely normal for FXR, or generally an AWD car with front biased weight distribution, to be slower than the other two on tracks with high speed corners and long straights. The obvious advantage of a car like this is low speed corner exit traction. That is usable on tracks with many tight corners followed by short straights or other mid speed corners. If all three cars got equal on a track like ky3 then the FXR would be much faster on tighter tracks.
There is another side of that though.
The fact of the matter that FXR would anyway be slower on fast tracks doesn’t mean that there is nothing that should be done to improve its chances just a bit. (If possible)
There are many factors that make FXR slower and as speed increases it gets less and less competitive with the other two cars.
First of all, regardless downforce and tire pressures, transmission efficiency makes FXR to lose a lot of acceleration and absolute speed above ~200km/h.
In normal GTR mode (490hp) it’s already losing about 5 km/h of top speed comparing with the other two in ky3. And this not just 5km/h above 260. The rate of acceleration through the whole straight is significantly lower.
The front biased weight distribution is also making things even worse because you have to adjust downforce in proportion to the weight of each end of the car.
For almost the same total downforce, the FXR has a lot more drag comparing with XFR and FZR.
eg for 40m/sec test speed and typical downforce values for a track like Ky3 we get.
FZR 10deg Front, 15deg Rear , 2806N total downforce, 956N drag
XRR 15deg Front, 11deg Rear, 2788N total downforce, 949N drag
FXR 20deg Front, 8deg Rear, 2793N total downforce 979N drag
All three cars have the same simplified aero model. Eg. 1deg on the front wing of FZR produces the same amount of downforce as in XRR or FXR front wind. The increase in drag is not linear in proportion with wing angle increase. Also the front wing causes more drag comparing with the downforce it offers.
In short, the front wing is less efficient than the rear. And because FXR has more weight to the front than the other two, it needs to use more that less-efficient front wing, hence the increased drag.
Also that front weight bias plays obviously a huge role in tire management. FZR has tire widths in proportion of its weight distribution.
XRR and FXR on the other hand have identical tire width in front and rear. (Actually XRR has a bit higher rim diameter in front and lower profile tires. This gives an advantage in tire management because less negative camber is needed)
Same tire width on all tires might be ok for XRR weight distribution, (with some fuel added it gets to 50:50) but not so for the FXR.
This would be not that a big of a problem, if the tire model handled the load sensitivity a bit better, and we could actually distribute a bit the traction between the front and rear axles using suspension stiffness. Now suspension tuning is only good enough for handling some bumps and loading the hell out or the tire which needs more traction.
So there you have a great disadvantage in cornering that combines perfectly with the down force “issue”.
In short, current FXR sucks in many ways. It sucks so much that it doesn’t have any advantage. Not even in the tightest track of LFS where AWD should definitely have an advantage.
Could we make it suck a bit less, so it’s existence in the race has actually a meaning?
I don’t know exactly what modifications you did to the modified lfs.exe in order to alter power oughtput or what else you could do. I guess that both XFR and XRR use the same engine so it’s not possible to change independently the power curve characteristics. An alteration in weight and/or power through the default handicap system might be helpful.
Right now I think that XRR has the advantage overall.
All in all I did some tests with the GT0 FXR and even I was surprised by the speed difference between this and the XRR.
With the downforce settings I mentioned earlier in both cars, XRR got me 285km/h top speed just before the T1 break zone while with FXR I struggled to get above 275km/h.
Of course lap times are not only a matter of top speed on the main straight but, as I mentioned earlier, things aren’t any better in corners either.
We are not talking about a small speed difference here. This is another class.
[edit]
I am not ignoring your post, I just don't think that I have anything worth sharing (not enough time for setup development here either) and I really don't think you want to drive FXR.
It seems we've moved on to choosing one of three classes. According to this thread that was quite unpopular. Have we missed something? Where is the poll?
If you don't want to race the GT0, you don't have to sign up for it. If there's not enough interest (read: not enough signups) for the class, it won't be run.
So there are basically two scenarios:
1. There's enough GT0 interest; we run 3 classes.
2. There's not enough GT0 interest; we run GT1 + GT2.
GT0 + GT1 was never an option; GT2 is too popular. GT0 + GT2 is not an option; the gap in speed between the two is too pronounced.
Hi. I've just re-read what Phil said a while ago, about last year's GT2 domination and things being lop-sided plus that teams should be placed in a class with teams of the same pace to avoid such domination, and to that I say - are you kidding me?
What would give you the idea that anyone would listen and obediently drive something they don't want to? I've heard from a few sides that this year's GT1 class is going to be a "graveyard", since teams who consider themselves "top" are going for the "top" GT0 class and others who are looking for something easier are going for GT2. By your reasoning we (Sirius) shouldn't be allowed to drive the class of our choice (currently GT1) because we could potentially win too easily?
Interesting..
P.S. Please don't go with the "that's not what I meant" or "that didn't come out as intended" argument again.
Yes, we probably would. But that won't happen. There's established interest in GT2 and GT1 at this point. It's GT0 that's the question, and the applications will answer it.
Isn't the "poll" through the applications? If you want the old GT classes back, simply don't register a GT0 team. If you want to race the new GT0, then send in an app.
The application count should therefore be your poll.
@scipy: Was referring to having 3 classes and you guys running GT2 again. GT1 I honestly don't care.
They are not one and the same. Applications count votes on a team-by-team basis, generalising opinion. Individuals get forced to vote for whatever the majority of their particular team wants. A poll allows individual opinions to be heard and multiplies the number of votes by several times.
Consider that instead of offering dozens of choices on tracks, 3 calendars were presented and we had to vote with our applications. In this scenario 3 out of every 4 members of the team hate FE4 and it doesn't get on the calendar. Yet in the poll it only took 11 individuals (less than one per team) to get it on the calendar. Here we are limited to someone elses choice, with the favorite choice of many individuals immediately dismissed.
Not to get too poli-sci on this relatively mundane argument, but representative democracy works out pretty well for most governments. Direct democracy, on the other hand, is typically a disaster.
Sorry you feel so strongly against this decision, Jack, and sorry we changed our minds on the method of selecting the classes, but this is how it's going to be. You can continue to debate whether it's the best method, but it's the one that will be used.
