1.09 update physics changes....

[332i]

Your tire shouldn't be inflated to x, if it is rolling onto the sidewall. There is inflating for the sake of thinking you can induce x and inflating, because the tire is not inflated enough. No one is going to the track and running the suggested tire pressures (usually) or x pressure that induces the sidewall rolling under. Let's assume we're at a track, since we're talking camber, top speeds, etc. for the sake of congruency and sense. I have never seen someone run higher pressures in the front around a circuit, unless they had a compromised front setup for some sort of reason. Doesn't matter the weight, weight distribution, etc.

Running higher pressures up front (when the tires arent rolling under - this was not why he mentioned raising pressures) would in no way be advantageous to a fwd, awd, rwd, FF, FR, RR, or MR car. You would be left with a car that understeers. To boot, many run staggered setups, with wider rears. Again, never seen this at the track. Never heard someone mention it, etc. If you're having to increase front tire pressures, something is wrong. How the hell did we start talking about focus' and tires rolling? We weren't...and we weren't talking about a ford focus that just rolled off the dealer lot with a sixteen year old girl piloting it.

Your post has nothing to do with what we're talking about in regards to tire pressures. It's like having a conversation about cheeses and one person decides to interupt with talk of tomato sauce, because cheese reminds him of it. Both are similarly irrelevant to the matter, but bother are interjected. People increase and decrease tire pressures for wear and gas mileage reasons, too...they don't have any place in the conversation either.

There was no reason to assume the tires were rolling and interjecting with that just for the sake of it.

 

[oppositelock]

Sorry, you forgot to mention what your track car is, what pressures you're running, and how you arrived at those pressures. You could also give some examples of your buddies cars, and what pressures they run.

P.S. I find TireRack a great source of info.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=58

 

[332i]

No need to be sorry. It's okay Why do you want to speak of tire pressures so badly? Did you read all of our posts? It doesn't make sense - talking about tires rolling due to inadequate pressure, etc...good that you are aware of such things, but nothing to do with why we were speaking of tire pressure. Totally different reasoning. Not to prepare car for track, to adjust car that is for the track already. It was never suggested that we were speaking of anything other than a car on a circuit or a drag car.

And sure, my track car is an E36M, my kart is a phoenix sprint chassis with assorted motors for various classes and I'm not sure if you're trying to get my goat, but what you're asking has nothing to do with what we were going back and forth about, before you interjected into the conversation. Tire rack is indeed a great source of info.

I would go back if I were you and read my posts in this thread before you decide you want to jump in and argue with me when it comes to the mechanics of physics. Most notably when the argument was pretty much over. Idk what can possibly be disputed in my last post to him. And I'm saying that to go back and look to be nice. I assume you have a sort of reputation to uphold with that app you've got.

The jab about tire pressures in the game at the end of your comment - that's not mocking lol, it puts you right on lar with us, not on the higher road. It says exactly that.

 

[praiano63]

But I have no idea why I'm talking about tire pressure since it's not in GT anyway...

👍

 

[TheBull]

With refference to the new physics

I am currently working on my Nascar ,at Indy i had to add a little extra front downforce ,and soften up the rear sping by 2 whole points ,just to get the car to rotate in the same manner previous to the patch

At Daytona the ride height had to be raised to help the springs work ,with no loss of straight line speed at all but a drop of 3 mph on the turns than usuall

The problem is a huge imbalance between car set-ups .A fast car still has a negative rake ,where as a positive rake is needed to get the cars smooth and stable you have to loosen the car up a lot .Ride height must be raised a lot(particualarly on the rear) with a small ammount of camber when you do this ,your car is almost a second slower

This results in 2 cars set-up to be stable pushing all the way around being slower than the single tight neagtive rake car

Im hoping PD will have tested this and will adress issue quickly

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

No, my point has been friction and drag related to camber and how they impact drag. And how does higher pressure fronts over rears induce rotation?? I don't feel like sifting through your posts ITT, but I'll take an assumption from the post I've quoted: "in the time taken to reach V-max,is practically irrelevant.". But, back to the higher front tire pressures...that would do the opposite of any sort of rotation, unless you're driving in reverse lol. That's a recipe for understeer. You could have all the front grip in the world and too much tire pressure could totally negate that. It won't induce throttle lift oversteer, it won't induce rotation on entry, exit and so on.

That depends entirely on your starting pressures. If you're at the optimum pressure on all 4 tyres then increasing the front pressure will increase understeer since you're reducing the contact patch. In the same way, taking pressure out of the front tyres increases side wall deflection and heat generation, which can also cause understeer. Optimum tyre pressures could be anything, hence why I phrased it as a question.

Dragsters don't use skinny/small tires up front, for less rotating mass. That's a biproduct. A happy accident. It is sprung mass, because they're connected to a suspensionless chassis. Not unsprung mass like on a road car or 99.99% of other race cars. The exact reasons are to reduce rolling resistance and reduce weight (not rotating mass - net weight). The rotating mass does not matter, because it is sprung, unlike an unsprung wheel attached to a suspension, which is attached to the body; the sprung mass. Rotating mass that is sprung is fine on wheel meant for steering (friction is friction/drag is drag/etc. They just need to yield as least drag as possible, both through aero resistances (yes, aero drag as well) and ground frictions. Of course the less the better for drive wheels. Do some reading before saying this stuff. A quick Google search will probably net you some feedback from drag racers.

The front wheels have to be turned. Which draws, a very minor amount, of power. As you say, narrow wheels also have less aerodynamic drag. But the narrowness has nothing to do with less friction, that's to do with the rubber compound and tyre pressure.

Rolling resistance is the direct result of friction...you're walking yourself into punches. And my whole argument has been based around friction regarding camber levels and drag, not cooling efficiency (not sure what you've been reading if you think that has been my point all this time) although that has been discussed somewhat. Idk what you have been reading, but this is a joke. Anything I am saying can be looked up with ease, because it is simple physics and common knowledge in the racing/performance engineering world. Merely in the racing world itself. Doesn't take engineering and physics-geared minds to understand this these things. Not going to repeat myself anymore.

Here you go:

I suppose the easiest way to explain it is that, instead of creating a lot of friction with a narrow pressure point, you're creating a little less, but with a far wider pressure point and nowhere for the heat to disperse to, other than ambient air. There is nowhere for the heat to disperse right or left into the rest of the tire either with zero camber.

But it's not common knoweledge. Look it up anywhere- a narrow tyre does not necessarily have less rolling resistance than a wider one under the same conditions.

I will say it again and one last time: running camber over 0 camber will increase TOP speed results. Running camber begins to reduce contact patch slightly and it is also putting more pressure on a narrower part of the tire, because much of the tire has much lower pressure on the rest of it and the pressure has to shift somewhere. Less contact patch = less drag. Higher pressure on said patch = less drag. Less drag is a result of reduced friction. When you reduce friction, you reduce heat generation (just to include that minor point that you thought was my entire argument). I think we've covered all the bases, no? Do you still feel 0 camber creates less friction or however you think it won't affect top speed? You don't have to answer that.

And my point is that it doesn't reduce the contact patch, because the tyre pressures are the same. This means that the deformation volume of the tyre is the same. This means the cambered tyre deforms much more in terms of height, as the initial contact point (imagine lowering it onto the tarmac slowly) has a much smaller area. This means both have more-or-less equal contact patches under typical loads.


Now I'd like to respectfully agree to disagree and allow the thread to return to topic, so I'll say no more on the matter.

 

[332i]

lol oh my. I am at a loss of words pertaining to some of the ideas you have, especially on deformation and drag. The narrow tire vs wider creating the same drag under the same conditions - that's gold or you're trolling. There is no way in the world that you could possibly believe that rofl. It is physically impossible for that to occur if they are of the same compound, under the same condition, etc. But, ok, man

 

[Motor City Hami]

O.k. I am just as lost as everyone else with 1.09 physics. I took my favorite car, the Honda S2000 Type V '03, to my favorite track, Silverstone Grand Prix Circuit with my favorite tune from the 1.08 game update and ran around ten laps with each. Here are my results.

1.08 tune with zero camber, lap time of 2:25.033
1.08 tune with camber at 2.2/1.8. lap time of 2:25.085
1.09 default suspension settings, lap time of 2:25.129

My 1.08 tune has been my go to tune for online racing. It was perfectly balanced and fast last week. Now it is still fast, but has picked up a little bit of exit understeer. I should be able to tune that out by using the ride height glitch and with dampers/springs. As for camber, it feels like camber just doesn't matter. The further I got from zero, I felt that there was more exit understeer, but the lap time was still right on top of my ghost.

Changing to the default suspension settings with 0.60 rear toe in, even dampers and arbs all at 3, softer springs and higher ride height should have killed that lap, but it drove nearly the same.

I have a lot more testing to do, but so far, the camber "fix" may have been to neuter camber tuning. They did this with ride heights in GT5, so it is plausible that they used a similar "fix" here?

Much more testing to do. Nothing makes sense so far. My zero camber tune is still the fastest.

 

[TheBull]

O.k. I am just as lost as everyone else with 1.09 physics. I took my favorite car, the Honda S2000 Type V '03, to my favorite track, Silverstone Grand Prix Circuit with my favorite tune from the 1.08 game update and ran around ten laps with each. Here are my results.

1.08 tune with zero camber, lap time of 2:25.033
1.08 tune with camber at 2.2/1.8. lap time of 2:25.085
1.09 default suspension settings, lap time of 2:25.129

My 1.08 tune has been my go to tune for online racing. It was perfectly balanced and fast last week. Now it is still fast, but has picked up a little bit of exit understeer. I should be able to tune that out by using the ride height glitch and with dampers/springs. As for camber, it feels like camber just doesn't matter. The further I got from zero, I felt that there was more exit understeer, but the lap time was still right on top of my ghost.

Changing to the default suspension settings with 0.60 rear toe in, even dampers and arbs all at 3, softer springs and higher ride height should have killed that lap, but it drove nearly the same.

I have a lot more testing to do, but so far, the camber "fix" may have been to neuter camber tuning. They did this with ride heights in GT5, so it is plausible that they used a similar "fix" here?

Much more testing to do. Nothing makes sense so far. My zero camber tune is still the fastest.

Zero camber is way faster with Nascar too ,i think they have just tightened the rear of the car while reducing grip on the front ,because thats how it feels when driving my old 1.08 tune and what ive had to do for 1.09

 

[energiser]

Hi all
This is my view on update 1.09
PHD are aiming to make the ultimate driving simulator game. This means that it will always (probably) be work in progress - until GT7 arrives.
Technology is moving very fast and all car manufacturers are trying to build cars better than the next.
So it appears even the most basic car can be improved to drive & ride better. A great deal of improvement into car handling etc can be gained from Formula 1, World Touring Cars and many more events across the world.
The car manufactures have used information from these formats to improve high end performance cars in the past and in more recent years, everyday cars which we can all drive.
It seems to me that PD are doing the same thing. The make the cars in GT6 as life like as possible to the real thing. Update 1.09 is a major step to make GT6 'The Ultimate Driving Simulator'.

Camber, Toe, ARB and other descriptive parts of the cars which are hidden underneath mean nothing to most of us. Sure we may have heard of them, mainly due to very informative televised motoring events. However they do have a very important and very complicated effect on any cars performance, either a benefit if you know how these work or as a negative if you don't !!!
I myself fall into the latter.

Those that discovered the Gran Turing series early and have followed it for years, will be able to see the difference from GT1 up to GT6. I myself only joined from GT6. However, I can see vast changes in the handling of the cars over this time.
It was possible to achieve a decent result in a race using default settings against partially tuned cars. That is not so now.

My main concern is that PD are actually creating a game within a game so that we will have those that understand Camber, Toe etc and those that do not.
The latter will rely up on the 'knowledgeable ones' to pass on their setups to us before we become frustrated in our own abilities at tuning and eject the GT6 disc in favour of something a little more rewarding.

 

[Lionheart2113]

Yeah FFs and maybe 4WDs are the only cars that I'd ever really use rear toe out, RWD has easier and safer ways of aiding rotation. I tend to stay around 0.16 with drift setups, I find it strikes a nice balance between rotation and over rotation so you can just hold the throttle and concentrate on steering.
You should give my '88 Supra a spin, pretty happy with how that thing drives. Its my first drift tune since the update so its nice to play with working camber again, really helps with balancing the car
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...accepting-requests.301978/page-6#post-9795995

I gave this tune a whirl in the seasonal. I like it! I'm not a drifter, not even an average one...usually just take a high powered car and handbrake it through the turn and try holding it. Lots of trial and error doing it this way. But I didn't have to use the handbrake once and did the more common switchback approach and it worked great...I beat my old score by the 4th attempt. And it's down to the tune, not the driver!

And on the camber note, I've also noticed that default settings seem to be just as good. I'll just sit back and wait for the pros to handle this one!

Edit:
On second thought, I wouldn't want to sit on the sidelines, I won't be the one lighting the fire, but there's no reason why I can't help get the kindling. I just find it frustrating, as I'm sure you all do, that for a game that prides itself on being a simulator that it is not as accurate as it probably should be. With ride height glitches, camber issues, and the like, it's hard for the tuners to really test their changes. Recently I found this from testing...
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...ime-glitch-returns.302113/page-4#post-9790849
I'll save those from the long boring read and just say that PD or whoever can't seem to get the basics right and this is just in segment times and leaving the track. Let alone some of the deep down physics that go over my head.(Ok, not just over my head, I would have to jump out of a hot air balloon on a pogo stick to have the slightest chance of reaching them) So with not really being able to trust the lap numbers, which really concerns me with data logger, should we just go based on the feel of the car and the ghost replay? Not necessarily for the ghost lap time, but stay back from the ghost and see if you gain/lose in certain areas and why? Or is this going to be one of those issues that will constantly be debated because the tuners don't have the proper tools to be able to test, or the ones they can use might be flawed?

 

[kolio]

I run in a league where we drive tuning prohibited Nascars.

Our most recent race was full hp at Twin Ring Motegi Superspeedway. Yes the stock setups have taken a turn for the worse for most of us. The physics did too.

My question to you smart GTP people in this forum is: Do you think the DS3 has a larger disadvantage now than it did before?

Just wondering because last nights race, there was 2 defined packs of controller users and wheel users. Wheels being dominant, and no this is not open grabs for arguing over!

 

[DolHaus]

I run in a league where we drive tuning prohibited Nascars.

Our most recent race was full hp at Twin Ring Motegi Superspeedway. Yes the stock setups have taken a turn for the worse for most of us. The physics did too.

My question to you smart GTP people in this forum is: Do you think the DS3 has a larger disadvantage now than it did before?

Just wondering because last nights race, there was 2 defined packs of controller users and wheel users. Wheels being dominant, and no this is not open grabs for arguing over!

Are the Nascars now running 0.60 toe at the rear?

 

[Thorin Cain]

I run in a league where we drive tuning prohibited Nascars.

Our most recent race was full hp at Twin Ring Motegi Superspeedway. Yes the stock setups have taken a turn for the worse for most of us. The physics did too.

My question to you smart GTP people in this forum is: Do you think the DS3 has a larger disadvantage now than it did before?

Just wondering because last nights race, there was 2 defined packs of controller users and wheel users. Wheels being dominant, and no this is not open grabs for arguing over!

I have been noticing that the steering does seem to be a little more sensitive. I have mostly been running MR cars and I knew that the characteristics of those and RR cars had been changed, so I've just assumed that the lighter steering was part of it.

But I wouldn't say this puts DS3 users at a disadvantage. If it was due to a change in the physics then everyone will be effected the same way. Yes, you can make minor adjustments to steering input a lot better with a wheel than a DS3. But the fast guys on a pad are just as fast as the fast guys on wheels!

My recommendation to anyone struggling with this issue is quite simple. If you find the steering to sensitive, turn down the steering sensitivity option in the driving options page.
If you feel the steering is not sensitive enough, turn up the steering sensitivity option in the driving options page.


....Doh! Why didn't I think of this before. Darn, I've been trying to turn it down with positive toe angles. (Sorry! I just thought that with this being the tuning forum and all, there really should be some tuning mentioned.)

 

[DolHaus]

The extra toe in would not benefit DS3 users driving Nascars. With a wheel you can make smooth steering inputs but on a ds3 it's more like a series of small, sharp corrections, its very difficult to hold perfect angle. The rear toe in is resisting those little inputs more and bleeding speed every time the angle is too great.
I know its a no tuning series but maybe a switch back to 0.20 on the rear would fix it
There will be a uniform overall lap time increase because of the RWD nerfing but you might be able to close the gap again.

 

[kolio]

Are the Nascars now running 0.60 toe at the rear?

1.00 in the rear

I have been noticing that the steering does seem to be a little more sensitive. I have mostly been running MR cars and I knew that the characteristics of those and RR cars had been changed, so I've just assumed that the lighter steering was part of it.

But I wouldn't say this puts DS3 users at a disadvantage. If it was due to a change in the physics then everyone will be effected the same way. Yes, you can make minor adjustments to steering input a lot better with a wheel than a DS3. But the fast guys on a pad are just as fast as the fast guys on wheels!

My recommendation to anyone struggling with this issue is quite simple. If you find the steering to sensitive, turn down the steering sensitivity option in the driving options page.
If you feel the steering is not sensitive enough, turn up the steering sensitivity option in the driving options page.


....Doh! Why didn't I think of this before. Darn, I've been trying to turn it down with positive toe angles. (Sorry! I just thought that with this being the tuning forum and all, there really should be some tuning mentioned.)

Really... I am off topic maybe with the tuning prohibited.

But the problem is that the car pushes up the track rather than stay turning. Many wheel users can take the first 2 turns at 156mph, however the controller is much slower and cannot hold that speed without hitting the wall up top. I do not really think it has to do with how precise the user is.

 

[Lionheart2113]

1.00 in the rear


Really... I am off topic maybe with the tuning prohibited.

But the problem is that the car pushes up the track rather than stay turning. Many wheel users can take the first 2 turns at 156mph, however the controller is much slower and cannot hold that speed without hitting the wall up top. I do not really think it has to do with how precise the user is.

I would say that it sounds like the difference between wheel settings and controller settings like @Thorin Cain mentioned and agree with you that it might not be the driver themselves. If the DS3 is set higher (4-7 range) you can cut down in the turns more, then there is using analog or dpads. Do you know the sensitivity settings of the controller users? Dpads or analog?

 

[kolio]

I would say that it sounds like the difference between wheel settings and controller settings like @Thorin Cain mentioned and agree with you that it might not be the driver themselves. If the DS3 is set higher (4-7 range) you can cut down in the turns more, then there is using analog or dpads. Do you know the sensitivity settings of the controller users? Dpads or analog?

Most of them run 7, I think one person uses 2.

I tried it myself, but I do not belong on the DS3

My qualifying time was a 33.798, the highest controller qualifier was a 34.9xx, not saying he is a doodle monopoly on the DS3. But just made the entire field of drivers very curious!

 

[Thorin Cain]

1.00 in the rear


Really... I am off topic maybe with the tuning prohibited.

But the problem is that the car pushes up the track rather than stay turning. Many wheel users can take the first 2 turns at 156mph, however the controller is much slower and cannot hold that speed without hitting the wall up top. I do not really think it has to do with how precise the user is.

Sorry. Apparently, I need to work on my jokes a little.

Don't worry about the tuning prohibited stuff. You have come to a thread about physics changes with a problem that came about because of physics changes, so that's what matters.


The rear toe of 1.00 is your answer. And it has more to do with throttle control, than steering input but it is most likely a combination of both. With this toe angle the car wants to drive in a straight line whilst accelerating, this is what is causing the understeer pushing them up in to the wall.


My point is, wheel users have a much bigger range of movement from side to side when steering than using the stick or d-pad. So if for saying sake, you needed 30 degrees of steering to maintain the turn it is much easier to do with a wheel. As the range of movement in the stick is much smaller it is much harder to maintain the same steering angle.

The same is also true for the difference between using a pedal or a button/stick for throttle control.

It is simple maths, if the range of movement on a wheel is 50cm, then 30 degrees of angle would require 15cm of steering. And if the range of movement of the stick is only 2cm you need to apply 0.6cm movement to achieve the same angle. So you do need to be much more precise to be as smooth with a DS3 as you can be with a wheel.

And this is where the steering sensitivity setting can help. As for throttle control the best bet for smooth application of the throttle is to use the right stick on the pads. It has much better control than the alternatives.

I hope we could help you find the answers you were looking for

 

[DolHaus]

1.00 in the rear


Really... I am off topic maybe with the tuning prohibited.

But the problem is that the car pushes up the track rather than stay turning. Many wheel users can take the first 2 turns at 156mph, however the controller is much slower and cannot hold that speed without hitting the wall up top. I do not really think it has to do with how precise the user is.

Try dropping the rear toe back down to 0.20 on all cars in the series. It won't make much of a difference overall but will stop the DS3 users from losing so much speed. Its not really tuning if all cars are running the same identical setup.

 

[kolio]

Thanks Thorin and Dol! By the way, Thorin, my apologies for not getting your joke. I get worried about getting an infraction point on my GTP Status.

Glad you guys helped on the issue

GTP at the finest.

 

[Voodoovaj]

O.k. I am just as lost as everyone else with 1.09 physics. I took my favorite car, the Honda S2000 Type V '03, to my favorite track, Silverstone Grand Prix Circuit with my favorite tune from the 1.08 game update and ran around ten laps with each. Here are my results.

1.08 tune with zero camber, lap time of 2:25.033
1.08 tune with camber at 2.2/1.8. lap time of 2:25.085
1.09 default suspension settings, lap time of 2:25.129

Much more testing to do. Nothing makes sense so far. My zero camber tune is still the fastest.

Try 0.5/0.5

I still haven't found a set up that doesn't benefit from some camber, and I haven't found one that works better above 1.0.

 

[TheBull]

What i have found is ,if your car is lacking front end grip ,camber is not the answer

What i did initially was lower the ride height to compensate but where lowering the ride height isnt possible ,lowering or tightening the spring rate to give more mechanical force across the front axel pushing the car down onto the road

The next point is balancing the springs ,if i put too much force on the front spring the rear will spin out ,meaning there is an inblance in the springs

How i work out how to balance the springs is as follows
(using a Nascar as an example)

Total weight of the car is 1565kg
with a 54-46 weight split

If you divide 1565 by 100 you get 15.65 then times by weight split
15.65x54 = 845kg front
15.65x46 = 720kg rear

The springs also mimmick this front bias split

spring rate range
10.54-24.55 front
9.34 - 21.0 rear

There is a reason why the front spring is higher and has more range than the rear

now take the spring at its softest point 24.55 and 21.0 respectively

845kg / 24.55 =34.4 front
720kg/ 21 =34.3 rear

at its stiffest spring point

845kg /10.54 =80.1 front
720kg/9.34 =77 rear

How to work them out
If for example i`m racing Daytona and my set-up requires an 18 front spring then i need to stiifen the rear spring to prevent my rear from sliding out i do the following

845 /18=46.944 or 47

i then divide with that number against the rear weight of the car

720 / 47 = 15.31

meaning 15.31 is your new balanced rear spring

However that doesnt mean you car is set at this point .its just the balance point according the weight bias

From here you simply adjust the spring to how you want the car to react
for oversteer add or soften rear spring
for understeer minus or tighten rear spring


please note i have been using this theory since the last physics change on GT5 i do not know if this works on any other car except Nascars ,If any of you road course tuners would like to test this ,please feel free to post results

Thanks

 

[Lionheart2113]

What i have found is ,if your car is lacking front end grip ,camber is not the answer

What i did initially was lower the ride height to compensate but where lowering the ride height isnt possible ,lowering or tightening the spring rate to give more mechanical force across the front axel pushing the car down onto the road

The next point is balancing the springs ,if i put too much force on the front spring the rear will spin out ,meaning there is an inblance in the springs

How i work out how to balance the springs is as follows
(using a Nascar as an example)

Total weight of the car is 1565kg
with a 54-46 weight split

If you divide 1565 by 100 you get 15.65 then times by weight split
15.65x54 = 845kg front
15.65x46 = 720kg rear

The springs also mimmick this front bias split

spring rate range
10.54-24.55 front
9.34 - 21.0 rear

There is a reason why the front spring is higher and has more range than the rear

now take the spring at its softest point 24.55 and 21.0 respectively

845kg / 24.55 =34.4 front
720kg/ 21 =34.3 rear

at its stiffest spring point

845kg /10.54 =80.1 front
720kg/9.34 =77 rear

How to work them out
If for example i`m racing Daytona and my set-up requires an 18 front spring then i need to stiifen the rear spring to prevent my rear from sliding out i do the following

845 /18=46.944 or 47

i then divide with that number against the rear weight of the car

720 / 47 = 15.31

meaning 15.31 is your new balanced rear spring

However that doesnt mean you car is set at this point .its just the balance point according the weight bias

From here you simply adjust the spring to how you want the car to react
for oversteer add or soften rear spring
for understeer minus or tighten rear spring


please note i have been using this theory since the last physics change on GT5 i do not know if this works on any other car except Nascars ,If any of you road course tuners would like to test this ,please feel free to post results

Thanks

That's similar to how it get my initial spring settings based on the weight split of the car, but I factor in the quality of tires as well. (Lesson learned from Trackripper123 in GT5 with a little modifying for GT6) Comforts are around 25-40% of the available slider. Sports are 40-55% of the available slider. And Racing tires are in the stiffer 60-75% of the available slider range. Then adjust accordingly based on what the car is doing or what you want it to do, but I try not to venture outside of those ranges. If I have to, I must have messed something up somewhere. I'll have to try your precise method and see how it goes for me. Nice job!

 

[DolHaus]

What i have found is ,if your car is lacking front end grip ,camber is not the answer

What i did initially was lower the ride height to compensate but where lowering the ride height isnt possible ,lowering or tightening the spring rate to give more mechanical force across the front axel pushing the car down onto the road

The next point is balancing the springs ,if i put too much force on the front spring the rear will spin out ,meaning there is an inblance in the springs

How i work out how to balance the springs is as follows
(using a Nascar as an example)

Total weight of the car is 1565kg
with a 54-46 weight split

If you divide 1565 by 100 you get 15.65 then times by weight split
15.65x54 = 845kg front
15.65x46 = 720kg rear

The springs also mimmick this front bias split

spring rate range
10.54-24.55 front
9.34 - 21.0 rear

There is a reason why the front spring is higher and has more range than the rear

now take the spring at its softest point 24.55 and 21.0 respectively

845kg / 24.55 =34.4 front
720kg/ 21 =34.3 rear

at its stiffest spring point

845kg /10.54 =80.1 front
720kg/9.34 =77 rear

How to work them out
If for example i`m racing Daytona and my set-up requires an 18 front spring then i need to stiifen the rear spring to prevent my rear from sliding out i do the following

845 /18=46.944 or 47

i then divide with that number against the rear weight of the car

720 / 47 = 15.31

meaning 15.31 is your new balanced rear spring

However that doesnt mean you car is set at this point .its just the balance point according the weight bias

From here you simply adjust the spring to how you want the car to react
for oversteer add or soften rear spring
for understeer minus or tighten rear spring


please note i have been using this theory since the last physics change on GT5 i do not know if this works on any other car except Nascars ,If any of you road course tuners would like to test this ,please feel free to post results

Thanks

That's similar to how it get my initial spring settings based on the weight split of the car, but I factor in the quality of tires as well. (Lesson learned from Trackripper123 in GT5 with a little modifying for GT6) Comforts are around 25-40% of the available slider. Sports are 40-55% of the available slider. And Racing tires are in the stiffer 60-75% of the available slider range. Then adjust accordingly based on what the car is doing or what you want it to do, but I try not to venture outside of those ranges. If I have to, I must have messed something up somewhere. I'll have to try your precise method and see how it goes for me. Nice job!

Suspension 101 👍

 

[TexasTyme214]

What i have found is ,if your car is lacking front end grip ,camber is not the answer

What i did initially was lower the ride height to compensate but where lowering the ride height isnt possible ,lowering or tightening the spring rate to give more mechanical force across the front axel pushing the car down onto the road

The next point is balancing the springs ,if i put too much force on the front spring the rear will spin out ,meaning there is an inblance in the springs

How i work out how to balance the springs is as follows
(using a Nascar as an example)

Total weight of the car is 1565kg
with a 54-46 weight split

If you divide 1565 by 100 you get 15.65 then times by weight split
15.65x54 = 845kg front
15.65x46 = 720kg rear

The springs also mimmick this front bias split

spring rate range
10.54-24.55 front
9.34 - 21.0 rear

There is a reason why the front spring is higher and has more range than the rear

now take the spring at its softest point 24.55 and 21.0 respectively

845kg / 24.55 =34.4 front
720kg/ 21 =34.3 rear

at its stiffest spring point

845kg /10.54 =80.1 front
720kg/9.34 =77 rear

How to work them out
If for example i`m racing Daytona and my set-up requires an 18 front spring then i need to stiifen the rear spring to prevent my rear from sliding out i do the following

845 /18=46.944 or 47

i then divide with that number against the rear weight of the car

720 / 47 = 15.31

meaning 15.31 is your new balanced rear spring

However that doesnt mean you car is set at this point .its just the balance point according the weight bias

From here you simply adjust the spring to how you want the car to react
for oversteer add or soften rear spring
for understeer minus or tighten rear spring


please note i have been using this theory since the last physics change on GT5 i do not know if this works on any other car except Nascars ,If any of you road course tuners would like to test this ,please feel free to post results

Thanks

This is really cool. A much shorter way (possibly less accurate) to do this is to just take that 18 front spring rate and multiply it by (46/54) from the weight distribution. 18*(46/54) = 15.33, and that's pretty close to what you got. I don't think what I did would work on the GT-R GT3 since I believe that car may have different motion ratios from front to back on it.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

math math

 

[DolHaus]

math math

All mechanical problems can be solved by throwing calculators at them

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

joking aside. I really wish we had a way of finding out what they did to the "rear heavy" cars. I tune a lot of MR street cars and they all are much more stable, understeery, safe. They still rotate reasonably well but they've all but lost that lift off oversteer that made them my favorite cars in the game. It's not an across the board adjustment though, it feels like some of them just got plain nerfed.

For example. My Audi R8 550pp tune had to be completely reworked from scratch to get back to the same lap time from pre 1.09. It was a perfectly stable and predictable car that could be trail braked all the way down to the apex if needed. Now it's predictable but has too much grip in the rear to get any real rotation before letting off the brakes.

Another example would be the Dino. It was considerably faster than any other car at 450pp and now is a little bit more safe but ridiculously slower. with no changes to the tune it lost over 2 sec. I had to start from scratch with it and ended up making it a bit faster than pre 1.09 but I think that's partially because MR cars are so much more easy to drive now.

I really don't even know if i'm complaining lol, I would just like to know what they did.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

All mechanical problems can be solved by throwing calculators at them

I throw wrenches sir. good day to you.