Disclaimer- this is by no means a comprehensive study of the PP system, there are some flaws in the experiment and probably also in the write up! So please feel free to point them out and any comments and ideas are welcome. Also this is still on going, I will update if there in any interest.

If you just want the results (given a PP limit, which car is best?), scroll down to the red & blue lists, otherwise read on!



Let's start with the what - What are performance points? As the name suggests, they are numerical representations of the overall performance of a given car. The exact algorithm to compute the PP's is unknown, but it is most likely based on HP, weight, weight-distribution, down force and so on. However the specific relationship between these variables and PP's is not of interest here.

Rather, I wanted to investigate the "reliability" of the PP system -namely: Would two cars with identical PP's hold identical performance? And if not, which cars are more "efficient". Here we define efficiency as those cars which perform better than expected, for given PP's - this will make more sense later on.

How? Well the process is pretty simple, I chose a track (custom generated Toscana circuit*) and recorded lap times of cars with varying PP's. Then by plotting lap-time vs. PP's - not only can different cars of the same PP be compared, but we can also see the overall relationship between lap-time and PP's. I used the DFGT wheel, manual transmission, no driving aids apart from ABS (=1) and sport soft tires.

Now to get the issues out of the way -

There is one big way in which this experiment can be improved - by using "stock" cars and thereby removing the variable of tuning. However, I actually started this as my tuning routine and after having these results at hand, decided to do the PP study. This could throw off the results - e.g. if my suspension and transmission settings are completely off, then it doesn't matter which PP the car is, the time would not be an accurate reflection. However, since tuning is done by myself only - I would assume the consistency in tuning somewhat alleviates this problem.

Each car was run at least 5 times, thereby ensuring that I was "used" to the car and a representative lap time achieved.

Findings

blue 'o' represents power-to-weight ratio

Any car on the line fits our predictions (the given PP yields the predicted lap time)

Any car above the line is "expensive" (the given PP yields a slower lap time than predicted)

Any car below the line is "efficient" (the given PP yields a faster lap time than predicted)

It can be seen that most cars are within a "close" range to the prediction. However it is interesting to look at the outliers - compare the BMW M3 with the R34 Nur Spec. If we account for the 0.5s error, we can still see that they manage the same time, even though the M3 has almost 70 PP lower. And I have found this to be the case online, even at 550 PP races I was performing better than most cars on track. (could also be due to my mad skills)

Higher the HP:KG ratio, higher the PP

Higher the HP:KG ratio, lower the lap time

Efficient Cars

F430 Scuderia

M5

RS8

NOMAD DIABLO

RE RX7

BMW M3

Syliva S15

Countach 25th

ZR1 RM

EVORA

NSX 91 RM

Expensive Cars

coutach lp400

Gallardo 560

R34 NUR

s2000

Viper STR10 ACR

fairlady z II

EVO 10

Ford GT

EVO VI TME

Corvette ZR1

GATHERS EK9

WRX STI 10

Veyron (this track is definitely too tight for the Veyron)