3 Pages123PrevNext
Rank: C-Class Racing License
#26 Posted : Saturday, December 14, 2019 10:47:41 AM(UTC)
I've done many endurance races in this game. I've run far faster laps on 70% wear than with 90%+ tire wear. As far as I can tell, until about 80% tire wear your grip does not decrease at all, in fact, I've found it to get better after about 85% wear than with perfect tires.

Fuel has no effect at all. The reason why your car is plowing is because your tires aren't heated up yet which actually matters in this game but it does not take them long to do so.
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#27 Posted : Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:01:29 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: uber understeer Go to Quoted Post
I disagree, I think and pretty sure both have an affect. I been using sim fuel and tiers since game came out.

No.

Fuel weight has no effect which can be easily demonstrated by just having two people in a hopper drag race, one with cosmetic damage on and one with fuel and tires with the fuel quite depleted. There's no difference whatsoever.

Tire wear has no effect until 80%. Best car to show this is the Renault R.S.17.
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#28 Posted : Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:40:43 PM(UTC)
you can start a drag race with low fuel?
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#29 Posted : Wednesday, December 18, 2019 2:19:02 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: uber understeer Go to Quoted Post
you can start a drag race with low fuel?

No but you can just get somsomeone do laps and burn it off and get someone to stand still for a while.
Rank: Driver's Permit
#30 Posted : Tuesday, January 7, 2020 11:00:39 PM(UTC)
Simplest way to test this would be to run down the fuel as much as possible by driving slow but at a very high rpm, (in order to conserve the tires as much as possible) then pick a straight away and see if you're hitting a higher top speed by the end of the straight. I've done this many times in rivals on Road atlanta and Im faster when im below 30% fuel for sure.
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#31 Posted : Sunday, January 19, 2020 2:38:55 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: uber understeer Go to Quoted Post
I disagree, I think and pretty sure both have an affect. I been using sim fuel and tiers since game came out.

They don't. It's extremely easy to test as well with another player.

1. Pull all assists on so you essentially eliminate driver error.

2. Get one player to drive around and burn off all their fuel.

3. Line up on a long straight and drag race them.

There's no difference in acceleration ergo, no fuel weight simulation is present. I tested it multiple times.

Also to bust another common myth while I'm here, Forza does not simulate active aero like some claim to. Here's how to bust that myth.

1. Hop into a McLaren P1 (or any car with an air brake).

2. Turn braking pressure to 0%

3. Hit the brakes.

There's no difference between braking or lifting off throttle ergo active aero doesn't exist.

To expand on what Baby Cow said, I've recently been BOP'ing the Forza GT class, so I did around 100 laps at Daytona the other day in the 2017 Porsche 911 RSR. My fastest time was a high 1:45 but I was consistently hitting low 1:46's until pitting as my fuel ran out.
Rank: A-Class Racing License
#32 Posted : Monday, January 20, 2020 9:49:53 AM(UTC)
I have ZERO faith in FM fuel weight and in most instances tire wear. This is definitely not F1, where you can FEEL it through a race in every corner, how your shift points change, and lap times as gas burns off. Let alone how much better a fresh set of hards feels so much better than worn Super Softs. You can even manage the mix to come up .4 laps short and try your luck. Most fastest laps are set 5-10 laps from the finish, depending on what compound you are finishing on. Even 30 lap races in FM I don't notice much of anything changing non weather related. NO WAY would I put that effort or time into testing it or trying to lighten a fuel load in this game... I think most differences I notice is a balance of familiarity or fatigue.

I typically don't go too long as there is no clear pit strategy in the game and even on any track on unbeatable am I in any position but 1st in any car that's not terribly miss-tuned, unless I stuff it and decide to continue on. I never consider getting run off by FM AI something I wont rewind like I will in F1. F1 AI doesn't just smash into the back of you and keep on driving. The AI pits if they've hit you and their wing gets trashed. You can see them falling off your pace with wing damage, even minor.

As for 'aero' I sure hope next time around that when you get adjustable aero you can pick more wings that are adjustable versus the default 'boy racer' tray table, and be able to adjust the default aero on cars that actually have it IRL.

FM has always been about short 'events' to play to a 600+ car lineup so everyone finds something to play(and buy). The racing aspect has always been second fiddle to getting everyone's 'favorite' car in there, upgradable to any class. So fans(i.e.owner) of a 1993 Civic Si can 'race' it even in X class. Considering the power of modern hardware and how cheap silicone is, all these aspects can be put into one title, especially at T10 levels of budget. In their defense, games/sims that represent racing first never has anywhere close to the number of cars any FM tile has ever had. Definitely could be done though. I'd pay more for FM with ACC/F1 level racing in it.

Edited by user Monday, January 20, 2020 12:07:42 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rank: S-Class Racing License
#33 Posted : Friday, January 24, 2020 12:51:17 PM(UTC)
I am testing this.
Rank: D-Class Racing License
#34 Posted : Saturday, January 25, 2020 9:02:56 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: KrabbyPatty678 Go to Quoted Post
Simplest way to test this would be to run down the fuel as much as possible by driving slow but at a very high rpm, (in order to conserve the tires as much as possible) then pick a straight away and see if you're hitting a higher top speed by the end of the straight. I've done this many times in rivals on Road atlanta and Im faster when im below 30% fuel for sure.


I get better lap times the more laps I do too, it has nothing to do with fuel weight though.
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#35 Posted : Friday, February 7, 2020 12:17:03 AM(UTC)
I worked out that different car and tracks and power and toque and engines and grip all have an affect or fuel and/or tiers.

I will next choose a track /car /engine that is easy on tiers and hard on fuel and test against tiers and fuel off and also vice versa (hard on tiers and easy on fuel).
Rank: Driver's Permit
#36 Posted : Friday, February 7, 2020 5:53:54 PM(UTC)
The only effect with gasoline that I find is the percentage of consumption per lap,7%-11% slow-fast lap time, in endurance races like Sebring, it means that you need 3 or 4 stops in the box.
Rank: S-Class Racing License
 1 user liked this post.
#37 Posted : Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:14:43 PM(UTC)
I started working and about half way though testing.

Results look like Tire wear is a thing and fuel is a thing.


I did testing and found out that fuel is directly liked to power that you car is at when accelerating. The more the power the more fuel is used. AWD uses more fuel.

With tyre wear the more grip the more the tyre wears out, the more the toque you have the more your tyre wear out.

Both are also based off the power/toque curve/numbers you are in while racing/accelating.



So they exists but what is faster?

The more wear % the slower. (less grip (and sometimes more unbalance)
The more fuel used the faster. (the lighter you are)

So depending on a lot of factors you could be faster or slower with ware and fuel on simulation depending (mostly) on driving style, car, track, upgrades of car.

I tested the same car on the same track at Laguna saca 20 laps and the car with sim tyer and fuel was 4 seconds faster (0.145%) than the same car with it off.


Also I built 2 alfa 155Q4 to have same grip, toque.(to try and have same tyre wear to see if fuel is a thing.)

One to use as much fuel as possible (AWD, lots of power ) and the other to be very good a fuel. (RWD and low power engine).

Reuslts so far
car tyer wear on? track laps best lap total time avg lap lost time fl tw% fr tw% rl tw% rr tw% fuel left

AWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 13 01:32.814 20:16.00 9.418 13 13.4 9.3 8.2 5.6
RWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 12 01:40.458 20:16:00 10.5036 8 8.6 8.2 7.3 60.5
0
RWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 12 01:39.880 20:12.95 101.07 14.39 0 0 0 0 100
AWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 13 01:33.081 20:21.08 93.923 11.028 0 0 0 0 100


The alfa that was thirsty was 0.418 % faster with sim on over off.
The alfa that was good on fuel was 0.250% slower with sim on over off.

Note the AWD alfa was harder on tyre ware than the RWD one.

Edited by user Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:33:57 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rank: A-Class Racing License
#38 Posted : Thursday, May 28, 2020 5:42:49 AM(UTC)
Nice test. Yes we know fuel burn is a thing, and already knew the more power the more fuel burn. The question was if the weight is taken into account. The answer is no. If the driver is consistent the lap times can be consistent all the way until out of fuel or the tyres fall off. You pretty much proved this with your lap times comparison between sim on and off. You had your best laps on the same exact lap both times and for the most part were very consistent with each other between sim on and off.

Edited by user Thursday, May 28, 2020 5:50:08 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified


PTG Home

Race Team
Tester
Tuner
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#39 Posted : Friday, May 29, 2020 7:52:11 PM(UTC)
Well when I burn more fuel I have lower lap times soci assume that is weight.
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#40 Posted : Saturday, May 30, 2020 5:01:36 AM(UTC)
I have done more calcs

From the little data I have gathered (alfa test+1 other run)

Tire wear 1% =+0.078125% total time

Fuel used 1%= -0.0134869% total time

So T/F point of equal time is 5.8 fuel % drain for 1% wear.

So the AWD alfa test with sim on I gained 1.27316336% (15.48 seconds) from fuel and lost 0.8574% (10.42 seconds) from wear.

Edited by user Monday, June 8, 2020 10:41:02 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rank: S-Class Racing License
#41 Posted : Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:23:47 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: uber understeer Go to Quoted Post
I have done more calcs

For the little data I have gathered (alfa test+1 other run)

Tire wear 1% =+0.078125% total time

Fuel used 1%= -0.0134869% total time

So T/F point of equal time is 5.8 fuel % drain for 1% wear.

So the AWD alfa test with sim on I gained 1.27316336% (15.48 seconds) from fuel and lost 0.8574% (10.42 seconds) from wear.

You're testing fuel incorrectly by inducing unnecessary variables.

Go to the drag strip, preferably the 1 mile long drag strip.

Turn all assists on max (STM, TCS on "Super Easy", aside from friction assist, keep that off) and tun on automatic shifting on as well (this will reduce driver error) and completely rev the car out before the launch (again, to reduce driver error).

Pick one car and do multiple runs at full fuel and multiple runs with no fuel (you can lose fuel by revving the engine out at launch which won't effect tire wear).

You'll have to do this multiple times for each run.
Rank: A-Class Racing License
#42 Posted : Monday, June 1, 2020 7:31:29 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: uber understeer Go to Quoted Post
I have done more calcs

For the little data I have gathered (alfa test+1 other run)

Tire wear 1% =+0.078125% total time

Fuel used 1%= -0.0134869% total time

So T/F point of equal time is 5.8 fuel % drain for 1% wear.

So the AWD alfa test with sim on I gained 1.27316336% (15.48 seconds) from fuel and lost 0.8574% (10.42 seconds) from wear.



Not really according to your data.

AWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 13 01:32.814 20:16.00 9.418 13 13.4 9.3 8.2 5.6
AWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 13 01:33.081 20:21.08 93.923 11.028 0 0 0 0 100

Sim off = .267 faster, both laps were the fastest on the same lap which means that the fuel/tyre wear does not have any effect as this .2 is likely down to driver error. If there is an effect it would be the tyre wear actually makes car slightly slower and fuel burn has no effect.



RWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 12 01:40.458 20:16:00 10.5036 8 8.6 8.2 7.3 60.5
RWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 12 01:39.880 20:12.95 101.07 14.39 0 0 0 0 100

Sim on = .578 faster. This was the higher grip easier to drive more fuel efficient car. The faster lap being set with sim on is puzzling on this one, because the fuel burn would be much less on this car yet it shows a much higher effect, which to me rules out that this is actually due to the fuel burn and leads more to driver. This also shows that both fastest laps were once again completed on the same lap which once again leads me to the fact that tyre wear and fuel burn have very little effect.

I dont know what happens in the background with any track transformation, however the only thing i can gather from this data is it takes you 12-13 laps to get into the groove, or something happens behind the scenes and the track is the fastest at this stage.

Also, do you have your lap times from the entire stint? How many laps did you do for each stint? You are talking about a time difference of 5 seconds over a stint. +/- 5 seconds over 18 laps a difference of .28 seconds per lap. This track is not a simple track and .3 per lap is easily accountable towards driver error, especially when you get down to the tail part of the tyres 10-30% (cant remember off hand when the tyres completely fall off) which is why it would be good to see each lap.


PTG Home

Race Team
Tester
Tuner
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#43 Posted : Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:35:18 AM(UTC)
the 13 band 12 laps are the total amout of laps. I was only taking the total times.

I do lots of laps to nullify as much of inconsistency as possible. My consistency is about 0.8 seconds per lap.

I can share the cars if you want and you can test them.

Edited by user Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:37:24 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rank: Driver's Permit
#44 Posted : Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:21:57 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: Spity0y0mafia Go to Quoted Post
I've done many endurance races in this game. I've run far faster laps on 70% wear than with 90%+ tire wear. As far as I can tell, until about 80% tire wear your grip does not decrease at all, in fact, I've found it to get better after about 85% wear than with perfect tires.

Fuel has no effect at all. The reason why your car is plowing is because your tires aren't heated up yet which actually matters in this game but it does not take them long to do so.


Sometimes I run in a extralong Endurance spa with the Corvette, the first four laps on new tires were always the best times, nothing happens during the period of about 21 laps on the weight of the fuel. new tires best times, this feeling is very clear in eau rouge. then if tire wear reaches 90%, it is better not to be on track.
Rank: A-Class Racing License
#45 Posted : Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:31:53 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: uber understeer Go to Quoted Post
the 13 band 12 laps are the total amout of laps. I was only taking the total times.

I do lots of laps to nullify as much of inconsistency as possible. My consistency is about 0.8 seconds per lap.

I can share the cars if you want and you can test them.


Not to sound rude but basically the whole test is void because you arent consistent enough to prove one way or the other. .8 between laps is is huge difference so having a difference of .578 between the fastest with sim on and off is 90% likely down to your driving. With that said even still by your pb's you still pretty much proved that fuel weight doesnt matter.

PTG Home

Race Team
Tester
Tuner
Rank: D-Class Racing License
#46 Posted : Wednesday, June 3, 2020 7:22:24 AM(UTC)
From all I read fuel load is not simulated at all. The game is full of shortcomings if one were to think of it in terms of a SIM.
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#47 Posted : Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:09:11 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: PTG Baby Cow Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: uber understeer Go to Quoted Post
the 13 band 12 laps are the total amout of laps. I was only taking the total times.

I do lots of laps to nullify as much of inconsistency as possible. My consistency is about 0.8 seconds per lap.

I can share the cars if you want and you can test them.


Not to sound rude but basically the whole test is void because you arent consistent enough to prove one way or the other. .8 between laps is is huge difference so having a difference of .578 between the fastest with sim on and off is 90% likely down to your driving. With that said even still by your pb's you still pretty much proved that fuel weight doesnt matter.


Correct, that is why I will do it all again to see how consistent or not I am. ( and to gather more data, o and to prove it or not)

Rank: S-Class Racing License
#48 Posted : Monday, June 8, 2020 10:47:29 PM(UTC)
I did it again and I went 4.89 seconds slower with low fuel drain(RWD) and 0.67 seconds faster with high fuel drain(AWD).(compared to sim off)

Edited by user Monday, June 8, 2020 10:58:08 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rank: A-Class Racing License
#49 Posted : Tuesday, June 9, 2020 5:49:12 AM(UTC)
You have lap times?

PTG Home

Race Team
Tester
Tuner
Rank: S-Class Racing License
#50 Posted : Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:09:27 AM(UTC)
AWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 13 01:32.814 20:16.00 1216 93.5384615385 0.72 9.418 1
AWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 13 01:33.052 20:20.623 1220.623 93.8940769231 0.84 10.947 2



AWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 13 01:33.081 20:21.081 1221.081 93.9293076923 0.85 11.028 1
AWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 13 01:32.958 20:21.211 1221.211 93.9393076923 0.98 12.757 2




RWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 12 01:40.458 20:16.000 1216 101.3333333333 0.88 10.5036 1
RWD alfa 155 Q4 y laguna saca 12 01:39.948 20:14.285 1214.285 101.1904166667 1.24 14.909 2




RWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 12 01:39.880 20:12.954 1212.95 101.0791666667 1.20 14.39 1
RWD alfa 155 Q4 n laguna saca 12 01:39.990 20:09.439 1209.439 100.7865833333 0.80 9.559 2
3 Pages123PrevNext

Notification

Icon
Error