11-20-2015, 06:49 PM
Perhaps I'll be stating the obvious but perhaps someone does not realises this.
Anyway.
Why having greater top speed is not necessarily better? Let's have a look at the chart below:
Fig1. Distance vs Time
Fig2. Speed vs Time
Now some definitions:
"Normal gears" - setup with gears you'd use to maximise end-of-straight speed
"Shorter gears" - setup with gears allowing for better acceleration (like for drag racing) - ideal one with unlimited number of gears
"Shorter gears (top speed limit)" - same as above but with limited number of gears - top speed is capped
As you can see on the images sometimes it really pays of to sacrifice even 20% of top speed in trade for travelled distance time.
Admittedly there's a point when this is no longer advantageous and you're just sitting duck at the end of the straight :-)
And to back it with some real life testimony I've just (couple hours ago) improved my PB on BL2 by simply reducing tops speed for gears 4 and 5
Attached: spreadsheet to play with if you'd like.
Anyway.
Why having greater top speed is not necessarily better? Let's have a look at the chart below:
Fig1. Distance vs Time
Fig2. Speed vs Time
Now some definitions:
"Normal gears" - setup with gears you'd use to maximise end-of-straight speed
"Shorter gears" - setup with gears allowing for better acceleration (like for drag racing) - ideal one with unlimited number of gears
"Shorter gears (top speed limit)" - same as above but with limited number of gears - top speed is capped
As you can see on the images sometimes it really pays of to sacrifice even 20% of top speed in trade for travelled distance time.
Admittedly there's a point when this is no longer advantageous and you're just sitting duck at the end of the straight :-)
And to back it with some real life testimony I've just (couple hours ago) improved my PB on BL2 by simply reducing tops speed for gears 4 and 5
Attached: spreadsheet to play with if you'd like.