Re-released: SimBin WTCC Vauxhall Vectra 2007 Online Custom Skin Enabled

[Günthar Rowe]

as this build has been used now a few times here at RD, can I get a bit of feed back as to if it is correctly balanced with the other cars in the WTCC 07/08?

Cheers in advance...

 

[Rhys Gardiner]

From my experience in the Touring Car events, it would seem to be balanced pretty well with the other cars. The only way I believe it's different is in terms of driving enjoyment... to me all the other FWD WTCC cars are boring to drive compared to the Vectra!

 

[Günthar Rowe]

well, that's great news mate, you should drive the Chev a bit more then, it's a similar spec'd car

 

[R-oi]

We tested it now 2 Times and it´s really nice.
Not to fast or slow.
Thank You for update this Mod.

 

[Günthar Rowe]

Cheers R-oi

 

[Mark Guy]

I think the car is spot on actually. I used the vectra at Knutsdorp and created a setup with it a few days ago. On Tuesday night I raced a chevrolet at Knuts and used the same setup and the time were within 1000ths of each other.
I think they are perfect.

 

[Günthar Rowe]

cheers Mark

 

[Adam Vaughan]

some of the regular USA guys belive it is too advantaged over the other cars but I dont belive it is. the stronggest car is still very much the honda. The car feels like a chevvy but with less back end. The honda feels like its glued to the track.

 

[Paul Herman]

Can someone give me a link to a correct template to make a skin? Thanks!

 

[Ryan Callan]

I believe it is a little too quick myself Gunthar - it just needs a small tweak down - it's on the same speed as the WTCC 08 Volvo C30.

 

[Günthar Rowe]

Chev 2007 vs Vectra 2007

Max torque: 283Nm vs 270Nm
BumpStop Front L&R: 4.00cm vs 4.25cm
BumpStop Rear L&R: equal/same
Wheel Track: +8.5cm wider on Vectra
Diffuser Downforce: +0.6% more Downforce on Vectra
Oversteer: +0.46% more on Vectra
CofG: +1% more to the front on Vectra
Fuel Tank Position: 2cm lower on Vectra
Front wing downforce: equal/same
Rear wing Downforce: equal/same
Body drag: equal

Seat 2007 vs Vectra 2007

Max torque: 277Nm vs 270Nm
BumpStop Front L&R: 5.50cm vs 4.25cm
BumpStop Rear L&R: 5.50cm vs 4.00cm
Wheel Track: +1.5cm wider front on Vectra, +0.5cm wider rear on Seat
Diffuser Downforce: +2.5% more downforce on Seat
CofG: +1% more to the front on Seat
Fuel Tank Position: 3cm lower on Seat
Front wing Downforce: +2.7% on Vectra
Rear wing Downforce: +5.7% on Vectra
Body drag: -4.3% on Vectra
Oversteer: +6.5% more on Vectra

So, you can see that the Vectra is under powered compared to the Chev and just to the Seat. Wider wheelbase to Chev, but ~ the same as Seat. ~ same downforce as Vectra, more and less in different areas vs Seat. Much more oversterr than Seat and ~ same as Chev.

I think that if the Chev was the "new" car and more drove it, the Chev might be looked upon in the same light at the Vectra.

The Chev has the power and only loses out on wheel track. The Seat loses on wing downforce, but get helped by more diffuser and less oversteer...

I wonder if I used the exact physics of the Chev it would still be seen as unequal?

I'm not saying that I won't look into this more but, try some Vectra setups on the Chev and see how you go...

 

[Ryan Callan]

I think perhaps it's the wheel track that's giving it an advantage? I'm pretty sure it has higher torque and rpm being a BTC-spec rathaer than S2000-spec enegine too. What is the wheelbase like?

 

[Günthar Rowe]

Wheel base is not defined, it is worked off the graphical location of the wheels on the car. But, I will load the two cars into 3DSimED and have a look to see.

Here is the Torque in 250rpm steps.

RPM Chev Vectra %
0 -58 -58 0.00%
250 -9 -9 0.00%
500 64.1 60 -6.83%
750 82.4 83.6 1.44%
1000 98 98.9 0.91%
1250 111.6 114.9 2.87%
1500 123.9 131.1 5.49%
1750 135 147.1 8.23%
2000 145.3 162.3 10.47%
2250 154.9 176.7 12.34%
2500 163.9 190.1 13.78%
2750 172.4 202.2 14.74%
3000 185.5 213.1 12.95%
3250 193.2 222.7 13.25%
3500 200.7 231.2 13.19%
3750 208 238.6 12.82%
4000 215.1 245 12.20%
4250 222.2 250.4 11.26%
4500 229.2 254.9 10.08%
4750 236.3 258.6 8.62%
5000 243.6 261.5 6.85%
5250 253.5 263.7 3.87%
5500 262.6 265.3 1.02%
5750 270.1 266.3 -1.43%
6000 275.9 266.8 -3.41%
6250 280 267 -4.87%
6500 282.4 269.5 -4.79%
6750 282.9 269.7 -4.89%
7000 281.4 270 -4.22%
7250 281.9 269 -4.80%
7500 272.4 266.8 -2.10%
7750 264.6 263.5 -0.42%
8000 254.5 258.6 1.59%
8250 242.1 251.4 3.70%
8500 231.1 240 3.71%
8750 220.9 217 -1.80%
9000 207.4 174 -19.20%
9250 191.8 129 -48.68%
9500 169.1 82 -106.22%
9750 149.2 46 -224.35%
10000 127 24 -429.17%
10250 102.4 16 -540.00%
10500 75.3 4.7 -1502.13%

The Vectra has more torque below 5500rpm, then ~5% less till 7500rpm (meat and potatos) and + or - 3% in the top 500rpm (shifting slot). Now you can forget all the "bonus torque" below 5500rpm and this rpm range is seldomly used in general S2000 racing (barring the TDI's)

 

[Günthar Rowe]

I do need to make one point here. I'm all for getting the cars performance on par with the other cars, I just don't want to see the "new car" syndrome kicking in here either...

FYI, the Vectra uses the exact same gearbox and tyre physics as all the other WTCC2007 cars.

 

[Ryan Callan]

It's definitely not a 'new' car syndrome from my POV - don't mind being wrong at all but something doesn't feel right with it. Drag?

The theory I have is that it has a longer wheelbase (or at least a lower CoG due to it's sedan shape) than the SEAT, less drag it should have due to the sedan shape and around the same track so perhaps this combination is causing a slight imbalance?

So compared to the Chevy it has wider track and 5% less power, which I don't think is a big factor as it still has the same power as the Honda. Maybe the low down torque allows you to use a higher gear for half a second in a corner? Perhaps that's why it's easier to drive fast? You don't have to stress the revs it just at the apex and therefore you get less power understeer?

 

[Günthar Rowe]

all 3 cars have the same vertical CoG and the Vectra is in the middle of the Seat and Chev in the CoG front to rear...

 

[Ryan Callan]

I think it's possible that the wheel track being wide is helping a little too much? Perhaps the small amount of downforce advantage it has too? This would tally with it 'being easier to drive faster' as most of the fast drivers report.

Downforce and wide track certainly fall under that category. Perhaps a small (2-2.5cm) track adjustment would do it?

 

[Günthar Rowe]

So, for a second, lets look at the Chev vs Seat strengths.

The Chev is more torque, more front and rear wing downforce and less drag.
The Seat is wider wheel track and more aero resistance to oversteer.

Are these cars seen as being generally on par on track? I seldomly see a Chev driven often...

 

[Günthar Rowe]

Honda vs Seat

Honda is 5kg lighter and 3% less drag and more torque (basically the same engine performance as the Chev).
Seat has 3.5cm wider wheel track

 

[Günthar Rowe]

Honda vs Chev

Honda is 5kg lighter, fuel tank is 5cm lower, CoG is 2% more to front and wider wheel track.
Chev has less drag and more front and rear wing downforce.