camber- test results for GT5

  • Thread starter nomis3613
  • 61 comments
  • 15,027 views
nomis3613

nomis3613

Premium
831
Hi, I’ve done some testing of camber, just thought I’d share the results and get your thoughts. My aim is to have a better understanding of the actual effect of camber in GT5, rather than relying on real-life theory or results from GT3/GT4. I would like to be able support it with more numbers (ideally skidpad speeds) but unfortunately it’s not possible in GT5, so my results are a mix of cornering speeds and subjective impressions.

Test Method
Using an understeering car, measure front grip for various camber angles using mid-corner speed (for a low speed and a high speed corner) and comment on car feel. Repeat test for Sports Soft and Racing Soft tyres.

The car used was an Aston Martin DB7. Suspension settings were default, except for 0/0 toe and 1.2 deg rear camber. LSD settings were all minimum (not the best move in hindsight, more on that later...)

The track was Tokyo R246, chosen because it has long high speed and low speed turns, both without banking. High speed cornering was measured at turn 4. Low speed cornering was measured at turn 10.

Cornering speeds are the highest speeds where the car would hold the desired line (for example keeping within the lanes marked on the road). To try to obtain consistent results, the corners were taken as constant radius turns, instead of the normal method of hitting the apex. But it wasn’t foolproof, so there is probably +/- 1km/h accuracy in the results. Speaking of which...

Results
high speed = km/h through high speed corner
low speed = km/h through low speed corner
comments = how the car felt compared with the previous camber angle (eg for 0.5 degrees it describes the difference compared to 0 degrees)

SPORTS SOFT
cambersports.jpg


Notes: Lap times did not improve above 1.5 degrees, despite the improved turn-in. It felt like the car could not maintain the front grip after turn-in and the change in handling balance through the corner actually slowed it down (and it doesn’t help that I’m not a great driver!)

I tried to set the car up to understeer and remove any effects of the LSD, however as front grip improved it became obvious that power oversteer could be used to compensate for exit understeer. In hindsight, the LSD should have been tighter, however I tried to minimise the effect by avoiding throttle steer.



RACING SOFT
camberracing.jpg


Although cornering speeds and lap times were still near their peak at 3 degrees, at this point the car started feeling awful to drive. I suspect this feeling was caused by big changes in grip due to weight transfer (unloaded grip started becoming a lot less than loaded grip) and the difference between high speed grip and low speed grip. The feeling got worse as camber was further increased.

My Theories
SPORT SOFT TYRES
1) increasing front camber improves turn-in, up to a point
2) there is an angle where low-speed grip is maximised
3) there is a higher angle where high-speed grip is maximised
4) above this, grip returns to the levels of 0 camber. I suspect tyre wear would increase with camber angle (not tested).

RACING SOFT TYRES
5) increasing front camber improves overall front grip, up to a point
6) camber has greater effect than for sports tyres, and higher angles are needed
7) there is an angle where low speed grip is maximised
8) there is an angle where high speed grip is maximised, but at this point low-speed grip and unloaded grip have decreased noticeably. Therefore choosing a camber angle is a more difficult decision than for sports tyres.

MISC
9) I have only tested one car, will be interested to see how it works for different weight distributions and drivetrains.

Discuss!
 
Camber is a tricky subject because in real world tuning it is dependent on the type of suspension linkage where effects can either be linear or exponential depending upon the type equipped. How this gets translated into the game is another mystery. While I do understand your results in testing and think they are accurate under many circumstances, there are others such as when tire wear is on or wet conditions when I have found over 2.5 to be more useful.
 
Thanks for this, Nomis. I had just recently been experimenting with higher camber angles, and was getting mixed results. I think my problem was I was looking at each corner as one motion, rather than looking at entry vs exit, as you have displayed. At first glance of your results, it would appear that a 2.0 to 2.5 camber setting would be ideal, slightly adjusting it depending on the speed of the track being approached. Very helpful.
Add: as I have plenty of spare time at the moment, (thanks Sony), I'll be running your test on my 69 z28 RM. I'll let you know if any results are different
 
Last edited:
Mudd
Add: as I have plenty of spare time at the moment, (thanks Sony), I'll be running your test on my 69 z28 RM. I'll let you know if any results are different
Click to expand...

That is a good car for doing what I call stupid camber tricks. Go 10.0 / 8.0 and have fun driving sideways and popping massive wheelies.
 
i did some camber testing on both front and rear camber angles and what i found was that if you increase front camber up to a point then it causes the car to oversteer more and if you increase the rear camber it causes the car to understeer more but above 3.5 (this was the value from testing could be different for other cars) the car becomes very unstable under braking and rear end breaks loose quickly. just thought i'd share that to anyone that was looking through this thread for a general rule for camber.
 
When I'm karting IRL, I simply base camber off of how the tires wear.
You want even wear across the tire, so if it's more worn on the outside, you decrease the camber and vice versa.

Camber is basically how the tires are tilted in/out when you're looking straight at the car/kart.

I you want grip at turn in, you want the camber set as close to zero as possible. This way you have most of the tires contacting the ground at turn in.
However, this will change as you continue to turn.
The contact patch will change and you won't be using as much of the tire if your camber is set to zero.

In contrast, if you have a lot of camber, not as much of the tire will be touching the road at turn in.
But as you continue to turn, the angle of the tires will change as more weight is put on them so they will come flat against the ground around mid turn giving you more grip at the exit.

Questions?
 
articzap
I'd be interested to see results with vary spring rates too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's a few people saying that stiff cars need less camber (which is consistent with real life theory), but I'll approach it with an open mind when I get around to it.

(this testing is quite time consuming, cos I run 5 laps to get used to the baseline, then ~3 laps per camber angle until I am satisfied that the results are correct)

budious
Camber is a tricky subject because in real world tuning it is dependent on the type of suspension linkage where effects can either be linear or exponential depending upon the type equipped. How this gets translated into the game is another mystery. While I do understand your results in testing and think they are accurate under many circumstances, there are others such as when tire wear is on or wet conditions when I have found over 2.5 to be more useful.
Click to expand...
Yeah who knows what's going on with camber gain etc inside the black box that is GT5 physics!

When you say that camber > 2.5 can be useful for tyre wear, do you mean deliberately increasing tyre wear on one axle so that the car stays balanced as the tyres wear? Or is it something else?

I'm surprised that high camber would benefit wet tracks, I'd have thought that less grip = less camber required.

Mudd
Thanks for this, Nomis. I had just recently been experimenting with higher camber angles, and was getting mixed results. I think my problem was I was looking at each corner as one motion, rather than looking at entry vs exit, as you have displayed. At first glance of your results, it would appear that a 2.0 to 2.5 camber setting would be ideal, slightly adjusting it depending on the speed of the track being approached. Very helpful.
Click to expand...
You're welcome. Yeah, it really helps to break up the corner. Although I was surprised at the difference between tyre types: sports tyres only increase turn-in grip when the camber is increased, but for racing tyres grip at all stages throughout the corner was increased.

Mudd
Add: as I have plenty of spare time at the moment, (thanks Sony), I'll be running your test on my 69 z28 RM. I'll let you know if any results are different
Click to expand...
That would be great, thanks. I'm keen to hear what you find.
 
Camber is to counter the cars lean in a corner to keep the tires as flat on the road surface as possible. As the car leans if the tires remain at 0 degrees camber to the body, they will have positive camber angle on the road surface. We apply negative camber so when there is positive lean, the negative camber counters it to flatten out the tire on the road.

With more lean comes more need for camber, the faster you're hitting the corners, the more weight is transferred to the outside, the more lean the car experiences.

As you counter the lean, the need for high value camber decreases. Lowered ride height, reduced weight, stiffer suspension.

Then the road surface plays a part. Roads that have a slight dip on either end at times (the 'Ring) it need be reduced to accommodate this as it can result is instability. Banked corners in tracks the angle of the bank will require it to be raised to accommodate this.
 
Last edited:
We know what the hell camber is, we're trying to test the numeric values to provide results relevant to maximum grip obtainable and it's relation to corner speeds. Not looking for an explanation of what it does.
 
Adrenaline
We know what the hell camber is, we're trying to test the numeric values to provide results relevant to maximum grip obtainable and it's relation to corner speeds. Not looking for an explanation of what it does.
Click to expand...

Doing test in that way fails to illustrate the benefits of camber and are leaving people with the wrong idea.

It's not showing the benefits in the areas where it's going to be used.

Good idea but not extensive enough to draw any reasonable conclusions. It's like your testing something at point AB when it's designed to help at point B. Yeah you see some results, but not the complete picture. Testing only on as flat as possible surfaces is the worst way to test camber, it's literally testing where potential befits are lowest. Testing would have to vary the bank angle to illustrate where it becomes more beneficial (test on flat track, test on banked, to go 1step further go to the 'Ring also) I agree with high speed and low speed testing, but unless you have results to compare with from banked corners it's incomplete testing.

Also The test car would show show greater results depending on how much it leans, so multiple cars would have to be used, to go further you would even test them on different height/stiffness settings, but that would be extreme testing.

It would seem like some clarity on the dynamics of what's going on was needed. I would of preferred not to outright point out a few of the test flaws, but rather hint at factors that need considering, that don't seem to be considered, or not considered enough in the testing done.

Your welcome Adrenalin, way to keep the board confrontational.
 
Last edited:
No_OBsT33R
Doing test in that way fails to illustrate the benefits of camber and are leaving people with the wrong idea.

It's not showing the benefits in the areas where it's going to be used.

Good idea but not extensive enough to draw any reasonable conclusions.
It's like your testing something at point AB when it's designed to help at point B. Yeah you see some results, but not the complete picture. Testing only on as flat as possible surfaces is the worst way to test camber, it's literally testing where potential befits are lowest. Testing would have to vary the bank angle to illustrate where it becomes more beneficial (test on flat track, test on banked, to go 1step further go to the 'Ring also) I agree with high speed and low speed testing, but unless you have results to compare with from banked corners it's incomplete testing.

Also The test car would show show greater results depending on how much it leans, so multiple cars would have to be used, to go further you would even test them on different height/stiffness settings, but that would be extreme testing.

It would seem like some clarity on the dynamics of what's going on was needed. I would of preferred not to outright point out a few of the test flaws, but rather hint at factors that need considering, that don't seem to be considered, or not considered enough in the testing done.

Your welcome Adrenalin, way to keep the board confrontational.
Click to expand...

Uhm... improper handling of solid objects within an highly fragile, silica based environment?
 
Adrenaline
We know what the hell camber is, we're trying to test the numeric values to provide results relevant to maximum grip obtainable and it's relation to corner speeds. Not looking for an explanation of what it does.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read the whole thing,it is FAR from a general explaination of what it is and rather covers it in more complex detail with regards to the situation and it's results.That is,IF you actually bothered to read the whole thing...

Oh and beyond what has been mentioned,increase in negative camber IRL will affect braking and straight line grip,aka the tires longitudinal grip.So some testing on braking distance might help there.

Just a suggestion y'all,don't hate.:scared:
 
phil bell
Oh and beyond what has been mentioned,increase in negative camber IRL will affect braking and straight line grip,aka the tires longitudinal grip.So some testing on braking distance might help there.

Just a suggestion y'all,don't hate.
Click to expand...

Good point, covering impact outside of the corner.

Don't pay attention to Adrenalin, he's overly confrontational.
 
Less wasted posts and more test results, people.

Seriously, stop ruining threads like this with crap posts.

To the op, thanks for the info.
 
Wow... that was...ummm... unexpected!

I don't wanna take sides (can't be bothered with arguments, just wanna talk GT5 tuning :) ), but I will say that there are heaps and heaps of threads on here already explaining how camber works IRL. So I was hoping to have a discussion centered around observations of how it works in GT5. Post whatever you like about camber, but if you could keep this in mind, that would be ace!


DMoss84
Less wasted posts and more test results, people.

...

To the op, thanks for the info.
Click to expand...
No worries. Here's some more test results to try and keep the thread on the topic of camber ;)

I have read posts here about camber reducing top speed (through increased drag or something). Testing at SSR7 showed no difference in top speed for any camber angle below 6. In every test I did, top speed was exactly 330km/h.


No_OBsT33R
Testing would have to vary the bank angle to illustrate where it becomes more beneficial
Click to expand...
Good point. I'm not having a dig, but most of the corners are unbanked, so I think this was a good starting point.

No_OBsT33R
Also The test car would show show greater results depending on how much it leans, so multiple cars would have to be used, to go further you would even test them on different height/stiffness settings, but that would be extreme testing.
Click to expand...
Indeed, there are so many factors to consider if you want to be 100% conclusive!

Adrenaline
we're trying to test the numeric values to provide results relevant to maximum grip obtainable and it's relation to corner speeds.
Click to expand...
Amen. See opening rant! But now that No_OBsT33R has put things in perspective, it makes sense now where he's coming from.

No_OBsT33R
I would of preferred not to outright point out a few of the test flaws, but rather hint at factors that need considering, that don't seem to be considered, or not considered enough in the testing done.
Click to expand...
Thanks for trying to not offend, I appreciate the thought. But actually, given the option, I would prefer to be told straight out "hey dufus, you forgot about X"! I'm too lazy to try and read between the lines of politeness! To be honest, when I read your first reply, I was like "oh, here we go again, another lecture about camber IRL, wish people would focus on what it actually does in GT5..." but now I see you were just trying to politely point out what I'd missed. Thankyou.


phil bell
Oh and beyond what has been mentioned,increase in negative camber IRL will affect braking and straight line grip,aka the tires longitudinal grip.So some testing on braking distance might help there.
Click to expand...
Good point. As well as top speed (see above), I've since done some tests on braking. There's no accurate way to measure braking distance, so I tested stability into the first hairpin at GVS (where you're needing to change direction in the braking zone). I'll concede that there are far more unstable cars than the DB7, but what I found was no noticeably difference in stability (or braking distance FWIW) for any camber angle up to 4 degrees. The real test will be unstable MR cars, but for FR it could well be "Myth: busted".

Peace!
 
Glad everything got cleared up with no flame war, it sucks when good threads get derailed.

A good spot for banked testing would be the cape ring with that long-ass corner.
 
My only issue for a 'test' fo camber such as this is what it is beig tested for. It is one thing to test for a high camber on short runs (2-3 laps) but what will said camber adjustments do in longer races (10+), how often will tyres need to be changed?

An indication of just how long the testing per setting was will give a better idea of just how much they will last overall.
 
I think this test is very informative. It is something all of us should repeat on our individual cars and tires. The numbers are obviously different between sports and racing tires. I suspect the numbers may also change when spring rates and roll bars are changed. And obviously tire wear is important for endurance racers...but performing this test gives you a starting point. You will know the highest camber you should use on a given car/setup and you can lower it to improve the feel or decrease tire wear.
 
chuyler1
I think this test is very informative. It is something all of us should repeat on our individual cars and tires. The numbers are obviously different between sports and racing tires. I suspect the numbers may also change when spring rates and roll bars are changed. And obviously tire wear is important for endurance racers...but performing this test gives you a starting point. You will know the highest camber you should use on a given car/setup and you can lower it to improve the feel or decrease tire wear.
Click to expand...

That's all true, and what makes test like this tough to get tangible information from. What I think it does do is give people an idea of cause and effect in different circumstances (what is it doing for me on a flat corner, what is it doing for me on a banked corner etc), the results will be more and more informative when more various circumstances are tested.
 
For all I know, the tester could have tested the results over 15 laps per setting. Would be good to have his input is all I was asking.

Sorry if it it came across sounding otherwise, I don't like to start flame wars :)
 
One other item I'm not sure was discussed is braking distances. Going with crazy camber, especially in the front can really increase your straight-line braking distances. The time you make up in a single turn can easily be lost in one brake zone.

It's good to have a baseline for the maximum camber you should use on a given turn, but the real work is finding the sweet spot for a given track that gives you the most speed in turns and the shortest braking distances.
 
phil bell
Oh and beyond what has been mentioned,increase in negative camber IRL will affect braking and straight line grip,aka the tires longitudinal grip.So some testing on braking distance might help there.

QUOTE]

That was my thought as I was reading the thread. Camber affects breaking and acceleration as well so to prove the overall value of a given level of camber front and rear, entire laps need to be run. I would assume, although I have no idea how much PD has taken this into account in absolute terms, that higher rear camber = lower acceleration in higher powered cars. Higher front camber = longer braking distances in all cars, most especially the heavier ones.

Great idea to do this kind of testing though OP it's a great starting point. I think we users need more of this data.
Click to expand...
 
nomis3613
I have read posts here about camber reducing top speed (through increased drag or something). Testing at SSR7 showed no difference in top speed for any camber angle below 6. In every test I did, top speed was exactly 330km/h.
Click to expand...

It does influence top speed in fact. However this comes only with certain other influences.

On a straight line with no height increase, "thin" tyres are just fine as soon as the intial power delivery of a potent engine in 1st and 2nd gear is gone (so no slipping anymore)
See for example high speed tests in death valley, they basically use bicycle tyres and attach a jet turbine to it.

Now if you have a potent engine and lets say "335" tyres, the car will overcome the air friction and the tyre drag to the surface (due to sheer power) and still reach its top speed/limiter.

This changes when you need to accelerate uphill (out of corners - Nordschleife for e.g.) however as you will need grip for the engine to deliver its power. This grip will be absent if you have to high camber as not all of the tyre surface is in contact to the track. Thus your tyres will slip and you will see a decrease in acceleration.

Nice Thread btw!
 
(Please excuse the out of order quoting, it's just so I don't have to repeat myself.)

rumblina
For all I know, the tester could have tested the results over 15 laps per setting. Would be good to have his input is all I was asking.
Click to expand...
Actually, I didn't test with tyre wear on. Even without testing tyre wear if took long enough anyway :), cos of multiple runs at each ange to get have confidence in the results.

chuyler1
I think this test is very informative. It is something all of us should repeat on our individual cars and tires. The numbers are obviously different between sports and racing tires. I suspect the numbers may also change when spring rates and roll bars are changed. And obviously tire wear is important for endurance racers...but performing this test gives you a starting point. You will know the highest camber you should use on a given car/setup and you can lower it to improve the feel or decrease tire wear.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Agree totally about the tyre wear, it's good to know the potential benefits, then you wind it back to avoid burning out your tyres.

chuyler1
One other item I'm not sure was discussed is braking distances. Going with crazy camber, especially in the front can really increase your straight-line braking distances. The time you make up in a single turn can easily be lost in one brake zone.
Click to expand...
Well I only did a quick test (see last point here), but I reckon it makes no difference to braking. Still possible that it causes more tyre wear under brakes, though.

Thaddaeus
It does influence top speed in fact. However this comes only with certain other influences.
...
This changes when you need to accelerate uphill (out of corners - Nordschleife for e.g.) however as you will need grip for the engine to deliver its power. This grip will be absent if you have to high camber as not all of the tyre surface is in contact to the track. Thus your tyres will slip and you will see a decrease in acceleration.

Nice Thread btw!
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Guess I should have said "top speed for normal tracks" instead of "top speed". Yeah, camber may do weird stuff say above 350 km/h, but for most tracks 330 km/h is plenty. And I reckon if there was any high speed wheel slip due to camber, it would have reduced my top speed.
 

Similar threads

lbpomg95
Camber and Damping - Not Making Much Difference?
Replies
0
Views
889
lbpomg95
lbpomg95
Michael88
Negative camber - negative experience.
Replies
5
Views
2K
gameboy32588
gameboy32588
Windfire1010
Group 1 BoP Test by Windfire1010 1.52 Physics Edition
Replies
24
Views
2K
Windfire1010
Windfire1010
Windfire1010
Group 2 BoP Test by Windfire1010 1.50 Physics Edition
Replies
11
Views
1K
Mert160
Mert160
778racing
BMW M4 2018 gt4
Replies
0
Views
446
778racing
778racing

Latest Posts

Back