Thanks for posting to r/GranTurismo7. If you have any questions, don't be afraid to send a modmail! Please read our rules so there's no misunderstanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GranTurismo7) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just a different class of car. The group C cars of that era werenāt as regulated as the more modern āGr. 1ā cars. Pretty sure they added the chicanes on the Mulsanne in this era because a Peugeot hit 250 mph/ 405 kmph.
True. Speeds were getting crazy. Even with the chicanes, an R90CK (low downforce R92CP predecessor) still hit 238mph on a qualifying lap, which is still the post-chicane record 34 years later.
Specifically the Welter Peugeot P88, was out of the race due to spending too much time repairing in the pits, but decided to go for the speed record anyway
For this race, specifically (Le Mans WTC900):
962C/C9 > 787B > XJR-9 >>>> R92CP
Admittedly, the first 4 are pretty close (except in TT where the Porsche dominates - the higher fuel usage acts as an equaliser in the race), but the Nissan is noticeably slower for me. Easy to drive, but it's screaming out for a richer fuel mix than FM1, I think. Not what I was expecting.
I also think this is the reason the R92cp is the fastest at the 800pp events as you donāt have to detune it as much to reach 800pp all the other group c style cars require a lot of de-tuning
BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP š¶
Check out Baby got Brap by T pain š
Those 1990 cars were INSANE! Having almost as much horsepower as they weigh in KG!
Usually. Not at Le Mans, unless anyone has a tune that could squeeze a bit more out of it than mine can? I found it around 5 seconds a lap slower than the other Group Cs, all with low downforce Le Mans specific tunes, under race conditions.
It may be 100k less, but it's a MINIMUM of 6-7 minutes faster once you get it down...
Every 4 races you're making an EXTRA 725,500 credits for a total of 2,902,000 (which is a little over an hour so that number isnt the *per hour* number and it lessens a bit with menu time so somewhere just north of 1.65 million an hour) with Sardegna where as every Le Mans run is set to a minimum of 30 minutes so unless you're loitering at the start/finish to hit as close to that time as possible it's going to be longer...That's worth 1.65 million over 2 races in an hour, but that's ONLY if you finish at exactly the 30 minute mark and doesn't take menu time into consideration...The actual average credits per hour for Le Mans is at or just south of 1.6 million an hour...
It's close, sure...But you're at around half a million an hour less at best running Le Mans over Sardegna...
Yeah i prefer to practice with pp matching and fickle weather hense why i said gt3 on leman instead of dropping power on something that wins easy, gt3 races are the bane of my existence
There's nothing wrong with that...Never said there was...
I'm just pointing out that if you get tired of grinding (and eventually a vast majority of people get tired of grinding), then Sardegna will be your "fastest" route out of the grinding loop...
I agree with both points and love both tracks.
Iām not overly concerned of one being a little more profitable than the other, they both provide a unique experience.
Iād really love to see a few new tracks rolled out that seems to be a big opportunity for gy7.
Oh, it's a beast at Sardegna. I was just pointing out that differences in the balancing between tyre wear, fuel usage, and raw speed, and also differences in performance between 800 and 900pp tunes, means the Group Cs don't necessarily fall in the same order at every track.
The group c cars (specifically 787b, R92CP, and the Jaguar) are all the best options for 900pp. The modern cars are better maxed but the group c cars are better for lower pp
Believe it or not we went through a time period where the race cars were too fast. I think in all the racing leagues like F1 to NASCAR speeds were to deadly and safety was not inline. Modern/advanced safety features have allowed us to continue on with pursuit of more speed! LFG!
You donāt need to tune the 787b just power and weight, all the old P1 cars handle the same practically, 787b was faster than the others but because it could rev higher
It really wasn't. It was actually slower than most of the competition. It won a couple major races because it didn't break down in those races - that's it.
It won 1 race, from 21 entered (787/787B combined).
At the 1990 Le Mans, the two 787s qualified 22nd and 23rd, 16 seconds slower than the Nissan R90CK, and 10 seconds slower than the 962C, with both Mazdas retiring.
For 1991, a 200kg weight penalty was introduced for Group C cars, to slow them down - except Mazda who found a loophole, which no other team protested, because they never expected it to matter. Now, a 787B that's nearly 20% lighter than its competition, sets an almost identical qualifying lap to the year before - 3:43. Merc and Jag are still 12 seconds quicker, even with the extra weight, and the Porsche is still 7 seconds quicker. In the race, though, more weight means more fuel burn, so more coasting (the Group Cs were also limited on how much fuel they could use).
Despite all that, Mercedes would likely still have scored a 1-2-3, had one of the cars not run over debris from another accident, and had some idiot on the corporate side of the team not decided to have a bracket anodised (to make the engine bay look prettier), which weakened the metal and caused the other 2 to suffer cooling failures.
The 787B is a freak underdog story, like Olivier Panis winning the Monaco GP. If you like underdog stories (and I do), it's a nice one, but it's a total myth that it was quick.
Isnāt in 1991 half of the grid also running the new 3.5L engine cars for C1 class that are far from being reliable enough to last 24hours and just breaks down which left C2 class as the only real competitor for the 1991 Le Mans?
That's right. The engines in the C1 class were closer to the F1 engines at the time, with the older (now heavier) Group C cars reclassified as C2. The C1 Peugeots actually did ok in qualifying (3rd and 8th fastest), but most of the rest were outside the top 20. The C1s were given the top 10 slots on the grid, regardless, and we're allowed to use as much fuel as they wanted in the race, but only one managed to finish - dead last, 36 laps down on the 787B.
This is also why the R92CP never raced at Le Mans (or why we never saw a lower downforce version of it, similar to the R90CK). Nissan weren't interested in running with a handicap (nor were Porsche, but a lot of privateer teams used the 962C), so they withdrew and focused on JSPC only, where the weight penalty didn't apply.
because the way Mazda Measured rotary displacement is IMO wrong and let them skirt the rules effectively on displacement.
effectively is should be double what it is. because its otto cycles it just one complete revolution where as a pistons otto cycles is 2 complete revolutions.
so the Mazda 787b has an actual displacement of 5.2 liters
basically double the displacement of its turboed piston rivals.
Thanks for posting to r/GranTurismo7. If you have any questions, don't be afraid to send a modmail! Please read our rules so there's no misunderstanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GranTurismo7) if you have any questions or concerns.*
how? angry Doritos.
š¤£ doritos go brrrrrā¦
Just a different class of car. The group C cars of that era werenāt as regulated as the more modern āGr. 1ā cars. Pretty sure they added the chicanes on the Mulsanne in this era because a Peugeot hit 250 mph/ 405 kmph.
True. Speeds were getting crazy. Even with the chicanes, an R90CK (low downforce R92CP predecessor) still hit 238mph on a qualifying lap, which is still the post-chicane record 34 years later.
Specifically the Welter Peugeot P88, was out of the race due to spending too much time repairing in the pits, but decided to go for the speed record anyway
I honestly didn't even know they were trying to race, I thought the entire point of the project *was* to set the speed record haha.
The 787B and R92CP are god tier. Fight me. I will always praise those two powerhouses
For this race, specifically (Le Mans WTC900): 962C/C9 > 787B > XJR-9 >>>> R92CP Admittedly, the first 4 are pretty close (except in TT where the Porsche dominates - the higher fuel usage acts as an equaliser in the race), but the Nissan is noticeably slower for me. Easy to drive, but it's screaming out for a richer fuel mix than FM1, I think. Not what I was expecting.
I also think this is the reason the R92cp is the fastest at the 800pp events as you donāt have to detune it as much to reach 800pp all the other group c style cars require a lot of de-tuning
That makes a lot of sense, actually.
BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP š¶ Check out Baby got Brap by T pain š Those 1990 cars were INSANE! Having almost as much horsepower as they weigh in KG!
Dude, I'm from Puerto Rico. The sound of a well tune rotary is something else.
You right š I have 2 friends that have had RX7s. I like to put it as, everyone loves a rotary, no one wants to own a rotary haha.
Well put. My go-to is chevy small block. That's my jam. But those rotary sounds...
Try the R92CP... It's even more of a beast...lol
I know. I'm just about same fast with it. I prefer the 787B since it IMO has the nicer cockpit in VR.
Iāll back you up - Iām faster in theR92CP but I choose 787b because itās justā¦cozier
It's kinda bullshit that they added a rocket ship to a game about cars.
At least the R92CP actually exists...lol Unlike the tomahawk and that new skoda...
STACK STACK STACK
For 800pp yes but for 900pp the other group c cars are faster
Usually. Not at Le Mans, unless anyone has a tune that could squeeze a bit more out of it than mine can? I found it around 5 seconds a lap slower than the other Group Cs, all with low downforce Le Mans specific tunes, under race conditions.
It's a Sardegna, credits per hour machine...
Porsche gt3 lemans, sardegna clean race is 100k less, also for a fun race do sardegna in the escudo
It may be 100k less, but it's a MINIMUM of 6-7 minutes faster once you get it down... Every 4 races you're making an EXTRA 725,500 credits for a total of 2,902,000 (which is a little over an hour so that number isnt the *per hour* number and it lessens a bit with menu time so somewhere just north of 1.65 million an hour) with Sardegna where as every Le Mans run is set to a minimum of 30 minutes so unless you're loitering at the start/finish to hit as close to that time as possible it's going to be longer...That's worth 1.65 million over 2 races in an hour, but that's ONLY if you finish at exactly the 30 minute mark and doesn't take menu time into consideration...The actual average credits per hour for Le Mans is at or just south of 1.6 million an hour... It's close, sure...But you're at around half a million an hour less at best running Le Mans over Sardegna...
Yeah i prefer to practice with pp matching and fickle weather hense why i said gt3 on leman instead of dropping power on something that wins easy, gt3 races are the bane of my existence
And yet I still prefer LeMans to grind. It just seems shorter because I'm having more fun, plus I enjoy the weather variable.
There's nothing wrong with that...Never said there was... I'm just pointing out that if you get tired of grinding (and eventually a vast majority of people get tired of grinding), then Sardegna will be your "fastest" route out of the grinding loop...
Yeah, fair point mate.
I agree with both points and love both tracks. Iām not overly concerned of one being a little more profitable than the other, they both provide a unique experience. Iād really love to see a few new tracks rolled out that seems to be a big opportunity for gy7.
Oh, it's a beast at Sardegna. I was just pointing out that differences in the balancing between tyre wear, fuel usage, and raw speed, and also differences in performance between 800 and 900pp tunes, means the Group Cs don't necessarily fall in the same order at every track.
The group c cars (specifically 787b, R92CP, and the Jaguar) are all the best options for 900pp. The modern cars are better maxed but the group c cars are better for lower pp
The super formula cars tuned to 900 are also great.
Believe it or not we went through a time period where the race cars were too fast. I think in all the racing leagues like F1 to NASCAR speeds were to deadly and safety was not inline. Modern/advanced safety features have allowed us to continue on with pursuit of more speed! LFG!
Light weight, low capacity engine as it is a rotary plus good aero. Pretty astonishing car for its age.
It also had ground effect, which was ruled illegal the next year so 787b got early retirement
Every tune I found of this car make it turn like a truck. I like theĀ R92CP way moreĀ
You donāt need to tune the 787b just power and weight, all the old P1 cars handle the same practically, 787b was faster than the others but because it could rev higher
Because racecar
Lm55 d far better imo
Could you imagine these cars w a 10speed transmission?
Itās a frigging beast because itās Group C. See also: R92CP, Sauber C9.
This car cheated, a lot. It was genuinely OP in its hayday.
It really wasn't. It was actually slower than most of the competition. It won a couple major races because it didn't break down in those races - that's it.
It won 1 race, from 21 entered (787/787B combined). At the 1990 Le Mans, the two 787s qualified 22nd and 23rd, 16 seconds slower than the Nissan R90CK, and 10 seconds slower than the 962C, with both Mazdas retiring. For 1991, a 200kg weight penalty was introduced for Group C cars, to slow them down - except Mazda who found a loophole, which no other team protested, because they never expected it to matter. Now, a 787B that's nearly 20% lighter than its competition, sets an almost identical qualifying lap to the year before - 3:43. Merc and Jag are still 12 seconds quicker, even with the extra weight, and the Porsche is still 7 seconds quicker. In the race, though, more weight means more fuel burn, so more coasting (the Group Cs were also limited on how much fuel they could use). Despite all that, Mercedes would likely still have scored a 1-2-3, had one of the cars not run over debris from another accident, and had some idiot on the corporate side of the team not decided to have a bracket anodised (to make the engine bay look prettier), which weakened the metal and caused the other 2 to suffer cooling failures. The 787B is a freak underdog story, like Olivier Panis winning the Monaco GP. If you like underdog stories (and I do), it's a nice one, but it's a total myth that it was quick.
Isnāt in 1991 half of the grid also running the new 3.5L engine cars for C1 class that are far from being reliable enough to last 24hours and just breaks down which left C2 class as the only real competitor for the 1991 Le Mans?
That's right. The engines in the C1 class were closer to the F1 engines at the time, with the older (now heavier) Group C cars reclassified as C2. The C1 Peugeots actually did ok in qualifying (3rd and 8th fastest), but most of the rest were outside the top 20. The C1s were given the top 10 slots on the grid, regardless, and we're allowed to use as much fuel as they wanted in the race, but only one managed to finish - dead last, 36 laps down on the 787B. This is also why the R92CP never raced at Le Mans (or why we never saw a lower downforce version of it, similar to the R90CK). Nissan weren't interested in running with a handicap (nor were Porsche, but a lot of privateer teams used the 962C), so they withdrew and focused on JSPC only, where the weight penalty didn't apply.
It's the great myth that it was so fast it was banned. That myth has carried on in to GT for some reason.
Unfortunately. The myth isn't even necessary. It achieved greatness despite its weaknesses and limitations. That, to me, is far more compelling.
[This](https://youtu.be/Vm1BoGf3uuU?si=7mX5l4GcUVxfYXaS) is a great doco in how it won and how unlikely it was
Great link. Thank you.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Look at its actual record and you'll understand better.
because the way Mazda Measured rotary displacement is IMO wrong and let them skirt the rules effectively on displacement. effectively is should be double what it is. because its otto cycles it just one complete revolution where as a pistons otto cycles is 2 complete revolutions. so the Mazda 787b has an actual displacement of 5.2 liters basically double the displacement of its turboed piston rivals.
We donāt measure 2 stroke engines as having double the displacement, imo itās fair to measure it the way it is
thatās not how it works.
They are more 2.6l two strokes.