AC Amateurs: Tatuus FA01 @ Mugello - Tuesday 15th August 2017

Assetto Corsa Racing Club event
Glad to hear I'm not suddenly totally slow :roflmao::inlove:
I had a look at RSR too and it's full of 1.46:xxx :confused: But yeah, I guess they are with way lower ambient temp. since RSR deleted many laptimes done below 10°C in the past!
Ahh, didn't know that. I guess AC used to allow lower temps then?
I did notice some pretty low times at RSR, but then I also remembered that not only are most of them at lower ambient temps, but they are potentially/probably using ALL of the road as per AC invalidation rules, as compared with the RD limits (white lines). This is worth how much? No real idea, but I'd guess it at least a few tenths, maybe more.

I have to get on with other stuff in a moment, but I'll post a set later with some timing comments. Let's just say that I got rather better times after I took @BhZ's advice and went higher on aero rather than lower ;)
I also got my overall best time at 10°C on mediums - the softs felt like they might have worked better but they were overheating a bit even with such a low temp. That's somewhat academic of course since we're racing at high temps. I am still trying to get my head around the different behaviour of the medium and hard tyres. It's not as simple as I expected. However, my best time at 33°C was on mediums as well, and it wasn't all that much worse than my 10°C time.
 
Soft will give the best laptimes at 10 degrees. At a higher temp mediums might be better. Remember that different compund require different tire pressure since the tire temp will be different.
Speaking of the difference between hard and medium tires:
Medium tires are pretty straight forward and they work very similar to the soft. The laptimes are also similar (probably because it has a lot of aero and not much power).
Hards on the other hand are particular. I don't know if it's a bug or not, but i noticed they start at around 90% of efficiency. With some laps they reach 100 and they stay there for a while. Then they start to drop. They reach 80 and then they start to improve again, reaching 90ish, then they drop again. The laptimes seem to confirm this behaviour as at barcelona my best laptimes during the race arrived with the front tires at 92 and basically half of the fuel i started with.
If anyone wonders, i use sidekick to see the tire efficiency.
 
Thanks for this awesome discussion guys! Makes me happy to see this! :)
To the Aero: Mugello def. is a "mid downforce" track. With too less you lose the bite in the fast turns and with too much you lose too much high speed on the straight.
Around 5-8 on the rear wing seems to be the best. Need to experiment further!
Then you can mix a lower front arb (or higher rear arb) with more front wing. I'll try your suggestions @BhZ! Thanks for the input.
As I see you prefer more front wing with stiffer front arb, also a soft rear arb as you have more traction with it. I just found the Tatuus a bit floaty on the rear. Maybe it gets better with slightly more rear wing :)
 
Thanks for this awesome discussion guys! Makes me happy to see this! :)
To the Aero: Mugello def. is a "mid downforce" track. With too less you lose the bite in the fast turns and with too much you lose too much high speed on the straight.
Around 5-8 on the rear wing seems to be the best. Need to experiment further!
Then you can mix a lower front arb (or higher rear arb) with more front wing. I'll try your suggestions @BhZ! Thanks for the input.
As I see you prefer more front wing with stiffer front arb, also a soft rear arb as you have more traction with it. I just found the Tatuus a bit floaty on the rear. Maybe it gets better with slightly more rear wing :)
Mugello doesn't really have "slow" turns, which imho is where the lower front arb works best (i might be wrong). Rear arb could be stiffer since there aren't places where you need traction.
 
I don't know if it's a bug or not, but i noticed they start at around 90% of efficiency. With some laps they reach 100 and they stay there for a while. Then they start to drop. They reach 80 and then they start to improve again, reaching 90ish, then they drop again.
Odd behaviour indeed. Is that the "wear" level you're referring to or am I missing something in sidekick? Unless it's related to another setting somewhere, my sidekick cycles through pressure, wear and temp.
 
It's the wear!
But not the vertical bar, but the colour of it.
Vertical bar = how much rubber is on the tire
Colour of it = how good is the surface
 
Mugello doesn't really have "slow" turns, which imho is where the lower front arb works best (i might be wrong). Rear arb could be stiffer since there aren't places where you need traction.
I'll need to try it again but I'm wondering whether a stiffer front arb (low 30's?) might feel better overall as there are quite a few corners with quick changes of direction. Guess that needs to be balanced against the longer sweeping corners to see how much overall grip is lost by being stiffer at the front.
 
Sidekick & tyre wear: yeah, for me I see softs starting at 67 (!!) and med/hard both start at 92. What they do after that is odd, for sure. I think the name “wear” is a pretty poor one (but it’s also called that in the AC docs, so not the Sidekick dev’s fault). One thing is for certain: the grip level doesn’t vary by anything like as much as the wear figure! (Recall how much slower you feel when the track grip level is as low as 97%...)

I have yet to truly convince myself that I’m faster at low temps because of the tyres themselves. One odd thing I noticed when I tested at 10°C and then 33°C today was that the car was noticeably quicker in a straight line at low temp. The air density is higher at low temps, so the engine power and the drag both go up. I expected those effects to cancel, but perhaps not. IIRC, this difference was worth well over 2 tenths on the main straight alone.

I experimented with various wing and ARB settings. Still not sure what is best, but I found 13/6 20/0 quick and very dangerous. (That’s F/R wing, F/R ARB.) I then found 11/6 25/1 very driveable and basically around the same speed, for me. I suspect I might be just as fast with 10/6 25/0?[d'oh! I think I meant to type 10/6 25/2 !!] Just guesswork really. My rationale for changing from 13/6+20/0 to 11/6+25/1 was because the rear end was too loose with the former. So in my head, raising the ARBs makes both ends less grippy :) and then lowering the front wing makes the rear effectively more grippy in relative terms. tl;dr – it worked for me anyway cos my crashing-out rate dropped a LOT after that change.

Btw, turns out I lied earlier when I said my best time at high track temp was with mediums. In fact it was on the hards, but there was only a couple of tenths in it. I also didn’t reoptimise the pressures for mediums so it wasn’t really fair – shuda dropped them by about 2 psi I think, at least on the left. That would probably have put them outside the optimum temperature window, but it seems that this is a smaller penalty than having them a couple of psi too high.

Pressures were F16/17, R15/15, and were optimised for hards at 31°C with an earlier version of the set. Probably still about right though.

I’ve attached the base set below (ignore the time in the name – I improved since I created it). I think the only other item to mention is the brake power – I actually left it at 100% (!!) despite me being the guy who always complains about his crappy brake pot. I don’t know why, but I was able to control the locking adequately well... :O_o: Maybe at some point I’ll play with the brake balance too.

Times: at 10°C with mediums substituted into the set below, I can manage high 46s (with at least a few tenths worth of mistakes) without taking too many risks (and more or less adhering to the RD white-lines rules :D).

At 33°C on medium I’m basically a whole second slower, while on hards I can do a mid 47. Oh, I used 10 litres of fuel for all of the “qually” type runs, and generally found my best times were on lap 2 or 3, mainly because the tyres start out a bit slippery as mentioned above.
 

Attachments

  • aero11-6 arb25-1 promising 14750.ini
    1.4 KB · Views: 172
Last edited:
@Neilski i never change brake power on this car as well.
Remember always that aero is about balance. 13/6 is way too high on the front. That alone makes the car "dangerous".
My experience in this car tells me that the higher the aero, the stiffer the arb must be.
 
@Neilski i never change brake power on this car as well.
Remember always that aero is about balance. 13/6 is way too high on the front. That alone makes the car "dangerous".
My experience in this car tells me that the higher the aero, the stiffer the arb must be.
Don't want to troll you, but maybe you could explain from which sides you are coming so that 13/7 is suggested for me to try and 13/6 is way too high at the fronts. I get that the wording comes from the different perspectives Neil and I came from but maybe you could say a few words about it. :)
I also may add that I find the "balance" is changing in a linear way. So 5/3 feels the same as 10/6 which would lead to 15/9 etc!
 
@Neilski i never change brake power on this car as well.
Remember always that aero is about balance. 13/6 is way too high on the front. That alone makes the car "dangerous".
My experience in this car tells me that the higher the aero, the stiffer the arb must be.
Good point about balance. Likewise when I tried your previously recommended settings of 13/7, I ended up bringing the front and rear a bit closer together (e.g. 12/8). Kinda follows on from your last post above as (with my limited driving skills at least), having the front and rear so far apart was definitely a bit too dangerous, at least to go a whole race without facing the wrong way at some point. Maybe if my consistency and general car control was better I'd be able to make use of that oversteery balance to get around the corners quicker, but perhaps not just yet ;)

I think you're right about higher aero / stiffer arb btw. At least (as I understand it) from the point of view of balance, as the higher aero will compensate somewhat for the lower ultimate grip available by increasing the arb. Would you say btw that aero has more effect at high speed, whilst the change in grip from arb settings has more of an effect at lower speeds (i.e. aero vs mechanical grip??)

Other effects from increasing both would be I guess better initial turn in / change of direction but lower top speed on the straight.

So much to consider already! Just wait until we open up the suspension settings too, aaargh :roflmao:
 
Don't want to troll you, but maybe you could explain from which sides you are coming so that 13/7 is suggested for me to try and 13/6 is way too high at the fronts. I get that the wording comes from the different perspectives Neil and I came from but maybe you could say a few words about it. :)
I also may add that I find the "balance" is changing in a linear way. So 5/3 feels the same as 10/6 which would lead to 15/9 etc!
You beat me to it, but I was kinda thinking the same thing :roflmao:
 
Don't want to troll you, but maybe you could explain from which sides you are coming so that 13/7 is suggested for me to try and 13/6 is way too high at the fronts. I get that the wording comes from the different perspectives Neil and I came from but maybe you could say a few words about it. :)
I also may add that I find the "balance" is changing in a linear way. So 5/3 feels the same as 10/6 which would lead to 15/9 etc!
It comes from my testing with the car at barcelona some time ago and silverstone during the time trial event. I noticed there that 11 was the max setting that 6 on the rear can handle. My target was to find the value that would give me very low understeer without encountering oversteer. 13/6 is definitely high and at silverstone and barcelona was not manageable. I doubt it's usable at mugello.
Anyway, from what i understand, aero is all about balance. Every car has his range and balance between the front and the rear. The tatuus start by default from 6/6. Imho that's extremely wrong and it's one of the reason why the car is so understeery by default.
The actual balance is probably around 11/6, 13/7 (it depends on the track and its turns).
 
It comes from my testing with the car at barcelona some time ago and silverstone during the time trial event. I noticed there that 11 was the max setting that 6 on the rear can handle. My target was to find the value that would give me very low understeer without encountering oversteer. 13/6 is definitely high and at silverstone and barcelona was not manageable. I doubt it's usable at mugello.
Anyway, from what i understand, aero is all about balance. Every car has his range and balance between the front and the rear. The tatuus start by default from 6/6. Imho that's extremely wrong and it's one of the reason why the car is so understeery by default.
The actual balance is probably around 11/6, 13/7 (it depends on the track and its turns).
6/6, wow! Yes I see how that would understeer horribly.
It just seemed that 13/7 was quite close to 13/6, hence our questions. 11/6 (or 13/7) seems more reasonable I guess if you're able to 'consistently' tame the rear end. Not sure if you caught my comment on YouTube btw, but great lap at Silverstone - congrats :)
 
6/6, wow! Yes I see how that would understeer horribly.
It just seemed that 13/7 was quite close to 13/6, hence our questions. 11/6 (or 13/7) seems more reasonable I guess if you're able to 'consistently' tame the rear end. Not sure if you caught my comment on YouTube btw, but great lap at Silverstone - congrats :)
Yes, thank you for the good words ;)
The impression is that for one point on the rear there are 2-3 points on the front. To make it easy, a point on the rear makes more difference than one on the front.
 

Latest News

Are you buying car setups?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top