![gtr evolution chart gtr evolution chart](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/c4/b3/fac4b310a24a2e67ad95ac25bf44fd5f.jpg)
Despite the jump in interest expense, our clients are laser-focused on working capital solutions and trying to find more low-cost financing alternatives. Sullivan: We’re not witnessing a slowdown in demand. I think there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic that we’ll continue to see more growth and new products. They’ve got ESG goals, which can be better met with more use of trade finance. They are reshoring, and that requires different types of trade finance they need more resilience in their supply chains, and that also requires more trade finance. A lot of corporates now are emphasising operational efficiency and new ways to support their trading partners. But demand has increased in different ways. Richman: We continue to see increasing overall demand, and the fundamental trend of corporate clients wanting to have good working capital management continues unabated. Maureen Sullivan, head of supply chain finance, MUFGīrady: How would you assess the trade and supply chain landscape over the course of the last year? What have been some of the major trends driving demand, appetite and capacity?.Michael Stitt, head of supply chain finance origination, US Bank.Anubhav Shrivastava, commercial bank trade head, JP Morgan.Jonathan Richman, head of US trade finance and working capital, Santander.Glenn Ransier, global standby and demand guarantee product manager, Wells Fargo.Joon Kim, global head of trade finance, working capital and portfolio management, BNY Mellon Treasury Services.João Galvão, head of trade finance sales, Americas, Standard Chartered.Geoff Brady, global head of trade and supply chain finance, Bank of America ( host and chair).Ozgur Akdeniz, North American trade sales head, Citi.GTR’s annual Americas roundtable discussion convened in New York in September to tackle perennial and emerging topics in trade finance such as digitisation, the evolution of sustainable finance, the role of capital markets, fluctuations in demand for supply chain finance and appetite for inventory financing solutions. OilMinimumCooling=8.00e-003 // heat dissipated without oil/water transferįrom the above there are some small changes in fuel consumption, rev limits and such, the powers graphs are pretty close for both of them with only slight differences and the engine lifetime data is much the same with only the safe rpm limit being increased in line with the higher rpm that the engine now has.Related News JBIC and Japanese banks team up on ¥11bn Boeing transaction Kairos Risk snaps up credit and surety veteran Lim Miga sticks by €349mn guarantee for African trade finance Some banks praised for “rapid progress” on deforestation, but wider action needed Bank results show muted trade finance market OilWaterHeatTransfer=(3.962e-001,7.925e-005) // heat transfer from oil to water (base, w/ engine speed) OilMinimumCooling=7.50e-003 // heat dissipated without oil/water transfer Going to have a look around some other stuff later. Had a quick look at the eng files and the Lifetime Avg and var look much the same as they did in gtr2. Some have said they though the evo cars felt like they had hard tyres compared to gtr2 but if you look at the data then they look more like something between soft and medium for grip but the wear rates are nearer the soft tyres than anything else. The brake and accel curves also drop off more sharply as the tyre gets worn so braking and getting the power down with worn tyres is harder than it ever was in gtr2.įrom the ones i have looked at so far there is very little differences between the different models but some have ever so slight changes in the wear rate, but the grip factors and slip curves look the same from car to car. There are now 2 lateral slip curves the first one drops of roughly the same as gtr2 but the later drops off a lot sharper. From the tyr files I have looked at so far (just a few gt pro cars) they appear similar in some ways to those found in gtr2.