1.09 update physics changes....

[DolHaus]

I throw wrenches sir. good day to you.

With a big enough calculator and a long enough run up a man can change the world (I'm fairly sure that's how maths works )

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.

I know what you mean, I can't quite put my finger on what they've done to change rear heavy cars. I'm also not complaining but it would be nice to know what has been done so we can start using it to our advantage.

 

[funz]

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 have welcomed all the new changes, there were some cars that pre-patch, I could not tune/adjust/drive to save myself, and I don't consider myself a terrible driver. Perfect example was the R8 LMS. No matter what setup I tried, the rear end was never settled (especially under braking) But now, after a good hours tweaking suspension, I can throw it in to nearly every corner at Nurburg (apart from slow speed) with confidence and commitment and know what the cars going to do.

Looking forward to PD implementing Tyre pressures and In/mid/out tyre temps properly to maximise camber settings (I can dream)

 

[mustangxr]

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.

Hami,
I did a bunch of testing today also. Praiano said that there was no real increase in grip with1.09 but using the Toyota 88C-V I tested using Praiano's tune and the default 1.09 tune and Praino's tune won every time. I raced while testing to get the realistic conditions required for "racing' BUT AFTER RUNNING THE 24 MINUTES OF NURBURGRING 4 times with Praianos tune and the default 1.09 suspension tune there was no dispute, no doubt, the Praiano tune with ZERO camber is faster.

The default 1.09 suspension times were all slightly over 8 minutes and Praiano's suspension tune was all under 8 minutes.

His tune is so solid that I had passed all the 15 cars before the first uphill to the jump on the Nordschliefe! Not quite as good on the cambered setup. You can read my post to him on page 94 of his thread with all the times.

Anyway, my latest conclusion is that camber is not adding any overall grip although it might change turn in or other.
Cheers, MUSTANGXR

 

[TheBull]

I think you guys must have missunderstood how to use the formula or were expecting it to be a half assed way of tuning a car quickly without putting any effort into it

The spring rate formula ,only works if you have your ride height first .You can only do that by getting on the track.Then and only then should you use the spring rate formula as a guide ,as it only puts you in the right area

I can only assume if your getting a lot of understeer using this formula that your rear ride height is too low as ride height and spring rate work in conjunction together and how your tuning is to drop the rear ride height then raising rear spring to lighten the load and create a front weight bias with the springs to help create rotation

I mean dont get me wrong ,i`m not here to rubbish your tunes ,the way you tune may be neccessary for road courses as a lower centre of gravity may be essential ,i know if i took @Lionheart2113 tyre spring theory onto Nascar i would be in the wall on the first turn and kicked from the room for causing a pile up

But thankyou for the feedback its good to know my spring rates only work on Nascar LOL

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Real life coilover spring rate are good source of information. I have built many replicas and GT6 do simulate certain car model motion ratio and wheel rate, so specific spring rate used in real life works in similar way in GT6 when properly tuned. Some example from my garage are F430 Scuderia, Lancer Evos, NSX etc.

 

[LS Chiou]

Hi Ridox,

Do you mean, GT6 does simulate the effect of motion ratio? So, we often see the rear springs are very stiff in default setting (be it OE or default values of full racing suspension), which reflects the real spring rate in real suspension?

In many mult-link rear suspensions, the spring is mounted at about half way of the arms, so it needs to be double in stiffness to generate the supporting force of which it's right at the wheel (like struts).

If GT6 does do it, then it's good because very real, but OTOH we can't see the SR intuitively because motion ratio would affect the real stiffness a lot.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Hi Ridox,

Do you mean, GT6 does simulate the effect of motion ratio? So, we often see the rear springs are very stiff in default setting (be it OE or default values of full racing suspension), which reflects the real spring rate in real suspension?

In many mult-link rear suspensions, the spring is mounted at about half way of the arms, so it needs to be double in stiffness to generate the supporting force of which it's right at the wheel (like struts).

If GT6 does do it, then it's good because very real, but OTOH we can't see the SR intuitively because motion ratio would affect the real stiffness a lot.

From some of the car that built, yes, but I can't say for sure all of them are. The best example would be my Hakosuka and Alfa Romeo 1600 Giulia Spint GTA. 2 cars at the opposite side of the coin when it comes to rear spring rate setup. What I can say is, adapting real life tuning method works quite well in GT6.

Check the notes of these 2 to know why I set the rear spring rate very soft or hard.

Autodelta Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint 1600 GTA Historic Touring / Rally Car
Special Build of Autodelta Alfa Romeo 1600 GTA
Comfort Soft to Racing Hard​

View attachment 143131​

CAR : Alfa Romeo Giualia Sprint 1600 GTA '65
Tire : Comfort Soft to Racing Hard

Specs
Horsepower: 184 HP at 6700 RPM
Torque: 152.9 ft-lb at 3900 RPM
Power Limiter at : 97.0%
Weight: 740 kg
Ballast : 5 kg
Ballast Position : 50
Weight Distribution : 54 / 46 as stock
Performance Points: 445


GT AUTO
Oil change
Improve Body Rigidity ( INSTALLED in this build ) - MANDATORY - for racing tires fitment
Wheels : Standard Size - PDI P525N in White or Silver or Black
Car Paint : Alfa Red



Tuning Parts Installed :
Engine Tuning Stage 2
Sports Computer
Racing Exhaust
Isometric Exhaust Manifold
Catalytic Converter Sports
Intake Tuning
Suspension Fully Customizable Kit
Adjustable LSD
Twin Plate Clutch Kit
Fully Customizable Dog Clutch Transmission
Window Weight Reduction
Racing Brakes Kit

View attachment 143132​

Suspension - Autodelta GTAm Coil Over Kit
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 75 75
Spring Rate: 9.00 4.28
Dampers (Compression): 3 5
Dampers (Extension): 3 4
Anti-Roll Bars: 2 3
Camber Angle: 0.2 0.2 ( 0.00 all around for max grip )
Toe Angle: -0.07 0.00


DOG CLUTCH TRANSMISSION - GTA Racing Close Ratio Gear Set with Stock Final
Set Default
Set Final to 5.000
Set Auto Max Speed to 220kmh / 137mph
Adjust each gear :
1st 2.536
2nd 1.701
3rd 1.256
4th 1.000
5th 0.856
Set Final Gear : 4.555 ( Optional Alfa Romeo Final Gear : 3.728, 3.910, 4.100, 4.780, 5.125, 5.375, and 5.860 - shortest )



LSD - 2 Way ZF LSD with 4 Lock Position - 35% Lock
Initial Torque : 32
Acceleration Sensitivity: 20
Braking Sensitivity: 20

View attachment 143130
​

Brake Balance:
3/4 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 3/4, for ABS 1 4/5 or feel free to use your preferred brake balance.


Recommended setting for DS3 user :
Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 4/5 brake balance as starting point.



Notes :
Inspired by classic historical touring car and rally car from 60's, I made this special build, not a replica, but rather a tune with replica theme

I based this tune on a real car that has Furiani built racing engine at 184HP that was installed on a very rare race spec Autodelta built Alfa Romeo 1600 GTA ( there were only around 40 built ). The real car has roll cage, 5 speed close ratio gearbox, custom suspension and dry weight at 740kg.

For suspension, I used real life approach in tuning, 1600 GTA has a high rear roll center, while the front has low roll center, even more so when the car is lowered, this produces steep roll axes. This is the main reason the car needs to run very stiff front springs and very soft rear in real life, the same applies in GT6 . This also creates another problem which requires good damper and ARB tuning to balance things out. I settled for 9k/4.28k springs with damper tuned to even the load, and ARB to stabilize the car on entry and mid corners.

LSD is based on 2 way competition spec ZF LSD with larger friction plates, and 4 lock position at 25%, 35%, 50%, and 70%. For this build, I chose 35% lock with optimized initial torque for balance on all tire grades from comfort/street to racing/slick tire.

Gearing is based on racing spec close gear set, with a host of factory final gear options from Alfa Romeo ranging from 3.728 to 5.860. The stock final 4.555 is used on this build.

I tuned and tested on a variety of tracks, from Autumn Ring Mini, Tsukuba, Silverstone Stowe, Fuji Speedway F, and Brands Hatch GP.
When tested at Tsukuba, it managed 1:08s on comfort soft, and at Autumn Ring Mini 45s on comfort soft .
The car has a a lively rear on mid corner to exit, easily controlled with throttle. This gives the driver so much fun and enjoyment on all tires from comfort to racing tires. With racing hard, it's capable of easily post sub 2 minutes at Fuji Speedway F.

Nissan Skyline Hard Top 2000 GT-R "HAKOSUKA" (KPGC10) '70
GRIP/DRIFT Entry Level Real World Setup

Special Build of Grip/Drift Entry Level Hakosuka
Comfort Hard to Comfort Soft​

View attachment 167743
​

CAR : Nissan Skyline Hard Top 2000 GT-R (KPGC10) '70
Tire : Comfort Hard to Comfort Soft

Specs
Horsepower: 183 HP / 185 PS at 7200 RPM
Torque: 147.6 ft-lb at 5700 RPM
Power Limiter at : 100%
Weight: 1100 kg
Ballast : 0 kg
Ballast Position : 0
Weight Distribution : 59 / 41 as stock
Performance Points: 392



GT AUTO
NO Oil change
Improve Body Rigidity ( NOT INSTALLED in this build )
Wheels : +1 Inch Up American Racing Vintage TORQ THRUST painted in Metallic Dark Grey
Car Paint : Titanium Gray Metallic II or Brilliant Black


Tuning Parts Installed :
Isometric Exhaust Manifold
Catalytic Converter Sports
Intake Tuning
Suspension Fully Customizable Kit
Adjustable LSD
Twin Plate Clutch



GRIP Pack
Suspension - Swift Springs 200/400 with Aragosta Damper
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 95 120 ( to replicate visual level height )
Spring Rate: 3.57 7.14
Dampers (Compression): 4 3
Dampers (Extension): 4 2
Anti-Roll Bars: 3 1
Camber Angle: 1.5 1.0
Toe Angle: 0.09 0.36


LSD - 1.5 Way NISMO GT Pro TT LSD
Initial Torque : 22
Acceleration Sensitivity: 30
Braking Sensitivity: 5

View attachment 167741​

DRIFT Pack - Comfort Hard Tire - Highly Recommended
Suspension - Swift Springs 200/400 with Aragosta Damper
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 95 120 ( to replicate visual level height )
Spring Rate: 3.57 7.14
Dampers (Compression): 4 4
Dampers (Extension): 4 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 3 4
Camber Angle: 1.5 1.0
Toe Angle: 0.09 0.36


LSD - 2 Way Drift Spec TOMEI Technical TRAX Advance LSD
Initial Torque : 48
Acceleration Sensitivity: 40
Braking Sensitivity: 40

View attachment 167742​

Brake Balance:
4/6 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 4/6, for ABS 1 4/6 or feel free to use your preferred brake balance.

Recommended setting for DS3 user :
Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 4/6 brake balance as starting point.


Notes :

I have owned this Hakosuka since early days of GT6. I really love this legendary GTR

First of all, I built this car using real world tuning approach, from my past experience and consulting friends who have had experience with the car, I decided to use 200/400 spring and tuned the damper to balance the car from using front lower ride height. I used much lower front ride height to visually replicate the close to level ride height of a tuned Hakosuka in real life. In real life, Hakosuka needs very high rear spring to avoid bottom out when tuned for track/drift.

I included 2 Pack Setup, one for Grip another for Drift. The Grip Pack uses damper and ARB tuned for grip street/track driving with LSD in 1.5 way from NISMO GT PRO TT.

While for Drift Pack, damper has been stiffened at the rear for more control and ARB is also stiffer at the rear to increase response and easier to rotate. LSD is 2 way courtesy of TOMEI Technical Trax Advance LSD, with high initial torque and cam angle, the LSD in real life is bred for drift

Power is modest 185PS, this is more than enough for entry level drifting I recommend Tsukuba for drifting practice. The car favors feint drift technique, but you can also use E brake to initiate drift.

ENJOY

 

[TheBull]

Ok my formula revamped to include wheel rate ,would be as follows

after you attain the number for the rear spring ,you then do this

Take the lowest point of both front and rear springs ,divide the highest number by the lowest to give the wheel rate ratio

Eg (using Nascar) 10.54/9.34 = 1.128 times by the above rear spring (formerly15.33) now 17.29

Using the CSL with 50:50 wt distribution 6.05 /4.01 = 1.508 wheel rate

So if you have a front spring of 7 ,to find rear spring you multiply 7 by 1.508 =10.556

Please note this is just an early stage test theory and has only been tested on FR cars

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

To get wheel rate, one would need to know the motion ratio at very least.

EIBACH Suspension Worksheet
STEP 1: MOTION RATIO
In developing a basic spring setup, you first step is determining your Motion Ratio. A different formula is needed for the type of suspension your race vehicle utilizes: A-arm or Beam axle. Please take into consideration the Angle Correction Factor in your computation.

A-arm Suspension - (See Diagram 1)
MR Motion Ration

d1 Distance from spring centerlines to control arm inner pivot center (in) or (mm)
d2 Distance from outer ball joint to control arm inner pivot center (in) or (mm)
Beam Axle Suspension - (See Diagram 2)
MR Motion Ration

d3 Distence between spring centerlines (in) or (mm)
d4 Distance between tire centerlines
Angle Correction Factor
ACF Angle Correction Factor

A Spring angle From Vertical (see diagram 1)

DIAGRAM 1 (A-ARM SUSPENSION)

The motion ration is a lever arm effect of the control arm acting on the spring. If the spring is mounted at an angle, the reduced motion of the spring must also be taken in account.

DIAGRAM 2 (BEAM AXLE SUSPENSION)

The motion ration of a live axle setup is shown here. Over two-wheel bumps, the motion ration is 1:1. Over single wheel bumps and during body roll, the motion ratio as shown in step 1. The motion ratio is only used for calculating roll resistance, not for suspension frequencies.



STEP 2: WHEEL RATE
Wheel Rate is the actual rate of a spring acting at the tire contact patch. This value is measured in lbs/inch or N/mm, just as spring rate is. The wheel rate can be determined by using the formula below.
Wheel Rate (non beam)
WR Wheel Rate (lbs/in) or (N/mm)

C Spring Rate (lbs/in) or (N/mm)
MR Motion Ratio
ACF Angle Correction Factor


STEP 3 SUSPENSION FREQUENCY
Suspension Frequency refers to the number of oscillations or "cycles" of the suspension over a fixed time period when a load is applied to the vehicle
Suspension Frequency
SF Suspension Frequency (cpm)*

WR Wheel Rate (lbs/in) or (N/mm)
Sprung Weight Vehicle corner weight less unsprung weight
Tip 1: Calculation of Wheel Rate for a given frequency
WR Wheel Rate (lbs/in) or (N/mm) (see step 2)

SF SF Suspension Frequency (cpm) (see step 3)
Sprung Weight Vehicle corner weight less unsprung weight
Tip 2: Calculation of Spring Rate needed for a given Wheel Rate
C Spring Rate (lbs/in) or (N/mm)

WR Wheel Rate (lbs/in) or (N/mm) (see step 2)
MR Motion Ratio
ACF Angle Correction Factor


Determining Spring Rate
All Eibach motorsport springs are tested between 20% and 70% of the spring’s total travel.
This spring rate can be measured easily using the following steps:

Example Spring—Standard: 1200.250.0500 (12”Free Length, 2.5”ID, 500lb/in)
Metric: 0300.060.0100 (300mm Free Length, 60mm ID, 100N/mm)

STEP 1: DETERMINE TRAVEL

For the spring to be rated, please refer to the specifications listed for your spring part number in this catalog and record the travel measurement. This number represents the total available travel from free height to coil bind.
Our example spring travel measurements for standard: 6.25"metric: 146mm

STEP 2: DETERMINE TEST RANGE
Calculate the first test point by taking 20% of 6.25" (which equals 1.25") or 20% of 146mm (which equals 29.20mm) and the second test point by taking 70% of 6.25" (which equals 4.375") or 70% of 146mm (which equals 102.20mm). The actual travel between these two points (3.125") or (73mm) is where we determine the spring rate.

STEP 3: SPRING RATE TEST

Preload the spring 1.25" or 29.20mm and record the force measurement. Continue to compress the spring an additional 3.125" (total compression of 4.375") or 73mm (total compression of 102.20mm) and record the force measurement. Calculate and record the difference in force between the two points (1.25"><4.375") or (29.20mm><102.20mm). In our example the difference would be approximately 1565lbs or 7300N.

STEP 4: SPRING RATE CALCULATION
With Eibach4s precise spring rate tolerance of +/- 2% (500 x 2% = 10 lbs) the spring rate should fall between 490 and 510 lbs/in (1565 / 3.125 = 500lb) or 95N and 105N (7300N / 73mm = 100N/mm).

Motion ratio, wheel rate can often be obtained from forums ( car club, owners and garages ) or simply use spring rates that they use in real life as starting point, that's how I chose the spring rate for my F430 Scuderia, adapting spring rates that are proven on the track in real life ( taken in to account motion ratio and wheel rate )
Aftermarket coilover kits are also good source as they are all well researched and tested on actual cars on the track and road.

 

[TheBull]

To get wheel rate, one would need to know the motion ratio at very least.



Motion ratio, wheel rate can often be obtained from forums ( car club, owners and garages ) or simply use spring rates that they use in real life as starting point, that's how I chose the spring rate for my F430 Scuderia, adapting spring rates that are proven on the track in real life ( taken in to account motion ratio and wheel rate )
Aftermarket coilover kits are also good source as they are all well researched and tested on actual cars on the track and road.

The link you supplied is the very first one i read this morning ,ive read it 4 times now ,still havent got it LOL

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

The link you supplied is the very first one i read this morning ,ive read it 4 times now ,still havent got it LOL

It's not really hard if you have access to the actual car and on hand to do the measurement ( lots of them including unsprung weight ) But, luckily you can find most of the information online ( wheel rate and motion ratio )

 

[szejok666]

After this toe/camber update I have question about suspension, and You People seem right people to ask. I've spotted recently, that factory spring rates in vast majority of stock cars are different (mostly much stiffer), than real ones. Is it because PD messed with them for casual players (Cars come with much grippier tires in standard, so if suspensions were soft as in reality, stock cars would move in corners too much), or there is some more physical stuff included in stock spring rates by PD, so they behave more true-to-life?

Edit: In GT5 Spring Rates values were mostly the same as in real cars.

 

[DolHaus]

See here for real Corvette's suspension. And, in that site, you may also find many detail photos of other cars' suspensions, and the markings of the motion ratios.

Wow, I didn't realise the C7 still used a leaf spring. I knew the previous models did but I thought they'd ditched them on the new one

 

[szejok666]

Here's some values:

Stock:
135i
Front: 120 lb/in
Rear : 350 lb/in

e90 ZSP or e92
Front: 145 lb/in
Rear: 460 lb/in

e90/e92 BMW Performance (Calculated given that the material of this spring is the same as the ZSP springs)
Front: 195 lb/in
Rear: 505 lb/in

M3
Front: 160 lb/in
Rear: 550 lb/in

Source: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235797
lb/in to kgf/mm converter: http://www.convertunits.com/from/lbf/in/to/kgf/cm
Seems that these values are also different from what we have in GT6
I'm trying to understand all of this and still don't have any idea how this relates to the game

 

[jblackrevo9]

It's great that camber is fixed, but damn annoying when it screws up all the tuning work done on the cars.

I'm in a racing series, so now my car will need a complete re-tune before the next race. I'd got it handling pretty sweet and things were looking good.

Ah well, it's fixed and that's the main thing. 👍

Not neccessarily if you tuned your cars accordingly to real world physics (though the weren't any good prior).

Kudos now I will be back to my old tricks like GT5

Advice : Pay close attention to suspension....it is the key to winning in almost every car.

I also found that the dampers react much more better than so keep that in mind....

 

[jblackrevo9]

HONESTLY, I run nascar and I have worked on my setups for 6 months now and they dont work AT all. Why polyphony... Stop messing with the way the game plays litteraly half a year after you release the game.

Pay attention to weight distribution

Example

58 font 42 rear

Front

Have dampers for front like between 8 or 9 for extension (Controls sprung weight)

Have dampers for front like between 7 or 8 compression (Controls unsprung weight)

Rear

Have front Extension 5 or 6

Have Rear Compression 4 or 5

At this level this will keep the weight from shift to the outside tire (causing the inner tire to lift off ground, losing contact)

But keep in mind the the compressions made need to be adjusted depending on road conditions

For Nascar have them (Compression) high since must courses have leveled surfaces.

For Course like the NURB, it is a bit trick since some parts of the track have leveled sufaces while other are not.


Also keep in mind of spring rate, the heavier the car, the higher the spring rate needs to be to get in to handle more better at higher speeds when cornering.

Don't Give up..........you can do it!

 

[332i]

I did, which is why I didn't critique the whole bit. I got your message. I will revisit my tune for my e92 that was pre-1.09, make a few changes and send it your way when I have some time. Always down for collaborating.

 

[funz]

Not neccessarily if you tuned your cars accordingly to real world physics (though the weren't any good prior).

edit: GTP had it's crash as i posted earlier

I found the way i tuned my cars (much like i would if I was applying it to RL) i have had to do minimal tweaking of any of my setups which is a god send. Throwing on camber, i find i usually only adjust rear springs/sway bar settings to fix things.

 

[GTP IWIN]

The funny thing is all my cars understeer a bit more but still feel great after update.
I normally only use street cars but I still feel zero camber is best even after update.

Also my times on the nurburgring have not dropped as much as some of my other Japanese friends that I race with at 500pp ss tyres I've lost about 2 to 3seconds depending on the car some of my friends have lost as much as 5 seconds around the nurburgring.

 

[LS Chiou]

Wow, I didn't realise the C7 still used a leaf spring. I knew the previous models did but I thought they'd ditched them on the new one

I guess they like it a lot. I remember there're some desriptions about the advantages in that article. And therefore "ditch" won't be a proper word for them. LOL.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Top speed is major issue when building replicas :/ PD do not put enough drag on cars, so cars with no aero/dowforce can still gain speed with ease above 160kmh. Then there are some cars that should not have high aero built in the chassis One of my GT4 cars is way quicker than the rest due to this.

 

[Motor City Hami]

The funny thing is all my cars understeer a bit more but still feel great after update.
I normally only use street cars but I still feel zero camber is best even after update.

I would just like to point out that both @praiano63 and I have endorsed this comment.

It feels like this thread has turned into the comparison to real world thread or the replica thread so I am not sure if this is where I should post testing results for 1.09 physics?

I tested the Peugeot 908 HDi FAP Base Model '10 at a few tracks. My 1.08 tune was pretty ok in 1.08, but would snap loose every so often on corner exit and I was working on discovering the reason. Then 1.09 hit so I went back to re-thinking the tuning. With the 1.08 tune in 1.09, the car was actually very well planted, but developed a little mid-corner understeer and a little corner exit oversteer. This condition was not present in 1.08. I changed suspension settings for a while, but the car just did not improve much. Nothing I tried would make much difference in feel or lap time. So, I gave up, put the suspension settings back to default and boom, the car was on rails. It still had a little exit oversteer so I made a couple of small adjustments and went back to racing.

My thoughts right now, with lots of testing left to do is that if you want a rocket, stock it... put the default settings on the car and start from there. Make a few minor changes and call it a day. Tuning seems to have been "watered down" or neutered a bit. The gains may have been minimized.

Now that I have the car to a place where I can run consistent lap times, I am going to run a bunch of camber tests. I'm not convinced that anything other than 0/0 camber is faster. Other settings may be closer to 0/0, but I have not found a car yet that is faster without 0/0.

Peugeot 908 HDi FAP Base Model '10
700PP, 792HP, 930kg

Pit Service
none

Installed Parts
Racing Hard Tires
Fully Customizable Suspension
Racing Brakes
Fully Customizable Transmission
Fully Customizable LSD
Low Range Turbo Kit
Power Level 87.2%

Transmission (set after all power upgrades have been installed)
Final Gear to 5.000
Top Speed to 149 (never change this number past this point)
1st gear 2.700
2nd gear 1.800
3rd gear 1.365
4th gear 1.105
5th gear 0.925
6th gear 0.800
Final gear 3.300 (change this number to get the 6th gear to hit red line at the end of the longest straight)

1.08 Tune
Ride Height 70/70
Springs 17.50/18.00
Dampers Compression 3/5
Dampers Extension 4/5
Anti-Roll Bars 4/3
Camber 0.0/0.0
Toe -0.05/+0.05
Brake balance 6/5
LSD 12/11/14
Downforce 600/750
Ballast 0
Ballast Position 0
Weight Distribution 50:50

1.09 Tune
Ride Height 80/80
Springs 17.50/18.50
Dampers Compression 3/3
Dampers Extension 4/4
Anti-Roll Bars 3/3
Camber 1.5/3.5 (just tried 0.5/1.0 and went faster)
Toe -0.25/+1.00
Brake balance 5/5
LSD 13/11/17
Downforce 600/850
Ballast 0
Ballast Position 0
Weight Distribution 50:50

Again, more testing to do, but so far I think PD made the default settings easier to drive and also reduced the gains in tuning. It might take another FITT tuning competition to test out this theory.[/B]

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

I would just like to point out that both @praiano63 and I have endorsed this comment.

It feels like this thread has turned into the comparison to real world thread or the replica thread so I am not sure if this is where I should post testing results for 1.09 physics?

I tested the Peugeot 908 HDi FAP Base Model '10 at a few tracks. My 1.08 tune was pretty ok in 1.08, but would snap loose every so often on corner exit and I was working on discovering the reason. Then 1.09 hit so I went back to re-thinking the tuning. With the 1.08 tune in 1.09, the car was actually very well planted, but developed a little mid-corner understeer and a little corner exit oversteer. This condition was not present in 1.08. I changed suspension settings for a while, but the car just did not improve much. Nothing I tried would make much difference in feel or lap time. So, I gave up, put the suspension settings back to default and boom, the car was on rails. It still had a little exit oversteer so I made a couple of small adjustments and went back to racing.

My thoughts right now, with lots of testing left to do is that if you want a rocket, stock it... put the default settings on the car and start from there. Make a few minor changes and call it a day. Tuning seems to have been "watered down" or neutered a bit. The gains may have been minimized.

Now that I have the car to a place where I can run consistent lap times, I am going to run a bunch of camber tests. I'm not convinced that anything other than 0/0 camber is faster. Other settings may be closer to 0/0, but I have not found a car yet that is faster without 0/0.

Peugeot 908 HDi FAP Base Model '10
700PP, 792HP, 930kg

Pit Service
none

Installed Parts
Racing Hard Tires
Fully Customizable Suspension
Racing Brakes
Fully Customizable Transmission
Fully Customizable LSD
Low Range Turbo Kit
Power Level 87.2%

Transmission (set after all power upgrades have been installed)
Final Gear to 5.000
Top Speed to 149 (never change this number past this point)
1st gear 2.700
2nd gear 1.800
3rd gear 1.365
4th gear 1.105
5th gear 0.925
6th gear 0.800
Final gear 3.300 (change this number to get the 6th gear to hit red line at the end of the longest straight)

1.08 Tune
Ride Height 70/70
Springs 17.50/18.00
Dampers Compression 3/5
Dampers Extension 4/5
Anti-Roll Bars 4/3
Camber 0.0/0.0
Toe -0.05/+0.05
Brake balance 6/5
LSD 12/11/14
Downforce 600/750
Ballast 0
Ballast Position 0
Weight Distribution 50:50

1.09 Tune
Ride Height 80/80
Springs 17.50/18.50
Dampers Compression 3/3
Dampers Extension 4/4
Anti-Roll Bars 3/3
Camber 1.5/3.5 (just tried 0.5/1.0 and went faster)
Toe -0.25/+1.00
Brake balance 5/5
LSD 13/11/17
Downforce 600/850
Ballast 0
Ballast Position 0
Weight Distribution 50:50

Again, more testing to do, but so far I think PD made the default settings easier to drive and also reduced the gains in tuning. It might take another FITT tuning competition to test out this theory.[/B]

Previously most MR cars very super responsive (dino, F430, NSX) and had lots of rotation. All you needed to do was tame the weight transfer a bit to have a really really fast car. Now it seems as @GTP IWIN said, they seem to understeer but still feel ok. It seems to me like they drive as if they are heavier or have a much stiffer chassis. They still turn in decently but will then push through the middle of a corner and not want to rotate on exit.

I know I don't have the pull as a tuner around here like you and @praiano63 do but I've really been trying this thing out with the changes to MR cars and addition of camber. I have to agree and disagree at the same time. I'm getting various results on a car by car basis and was incredibly surprised by my latest retune today.

I've been updating my top 3 tunes for each class to see which is now the fastest for that class and I've been working on 550pp. First was my fastest with The Audi R8 4.2 that ran a 2:00.4 around the Nurburgring GP/F (my main test track). Leaving the 1.08 tune on with 0 camber it lost a complete second due to pushing out through the corners that made me have to go slower to maintain grip. I tried adding camber to the existing tune with a high of about 2f and 2.3r with no real results. I then bought a new car and went completely from scratch and eventually ended up with a similar tune but stiffer and with higher LSD settings but could only match the same lap time.

For the last 2 days I've been tuning a 550pp F430 scuderia that previously ran a 2:00.7 just behind the R8 before 1.09. I started from scratch again and was able to get down to a 2:00.1 with again a stiffer car and completely different damper settings than my 1.08 tune. I knew if I could just get the back to move around a bit more i could brake that 2min barrier I've been trying for.

After a whole days worth of trying different things I about gave up. I then decided to just see what would happen with the 1.08 settings and matched my best no problem ! I added a small amount of camber to get rid of the mid corner push, dropped the LSD accell 2 ticks, and stiffened the front springs to have a little more grip in the rear and ran a 1:59.8 with another tenth or two out there in a perfect lap. Despite braking 2min it still didn't come out of a corner like the 1.08 car. I then upped the accell setting to 26 and was the closest I had been to the 1.08 handling, the only thing missing was the lift off over steer. I decided to keep the 16 accell setting for the public tune because the 26 setting requires much more throttle control.

Borrowed your quick sheet Hami thanks.


1.08 Tune
Ride Height 75/100
Springs 8.5/13.00
Dampers Compression 4/4
Dampers Extension 5/5
Anti-Roll Bars 3/4
Camber 0.0/0.0
Toe -0.05/.12
Brake balance 6/5
LSD 8/18/8


1.09 Tune
Ride Height 75/100
Springs 8.95/13.00
Dampers Compression 4/4
Dampers Extension 5/5
Anti-Roll Bars 3/4
Camber 0.5/0.4
Toe 0/-.05
Brake balance 5/5
LSD 8/16/8

The point I'm getting too, sorry for length lol, is that i've now spent a lot of time on 3 cars i'm very familiar with and they each had different changes made to them.

The dino that used to rotate too much from the factory now reaches it's turn in limit very quickly and the rear follows the front instead of coming around. It turned into a dream with some tuning before and now needed a cvery different setup to get similar but slightly safer results.

The R8 used to be very neutral with understeer at the limit from the factory and now completely understeers all the time. When tuned, it never quite rotates like it did but is incredibly predictable even when driven at 100%

The Scuderia was a car I could say was 90% perfect from the factory. 10% tuning for stability and you had a masterpiece. Now it's a bit safer and has lost it's lift off over steer from the factory and takes more extensive tuning to be as responsive as the 1.08 car.

So I agree that the MR cars are still good and faster than the other drivertrains. but I disagree about the camber.

3 of 3 cars are faster and more stable with camber. small amounts (under 1)
2 or 3 cars needed complete retunes to be marginally faster
1 of 3 cars needed minor changes to incredibly faster

I've found that camber most affects corner exit grip and the progressiveness and ease of correction of a slide. I have yet to find one of my tunes that doesn't benefit from camber, even if it's just a small amount.

 

[332i]

If anything, tuning can actually be used now. Before it felt like you were driving around on a flat plain and late apexing felt like crap. Real world logic works now, not just physics exploits like zero camber. The diffs work right finally and don't amplifiy understeer way more than they should when locked high, toe works correctly, etc. Camber is allowing me to carry more speed through turns and I've actually gained front grip by adding camber with the right spring rates. I notice a dropoff in grip around .4-.5 neg camber on racing tires, but that could also be other parts of my setup affecting it.

I didn't get a special copy, so I am assuming it works. I wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the guys I race with, if 0 camber was best, let alone win...so idk how it does not work. I've put over 100hrs of racing and tuning into the 1.09 patch. IMO, it works, but we all have our own methods and setups that affect our opinions.

@ImToLegitToQuit I am in 100% agreement.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I applaud everyone's efforts on camber. It is a very good thing to have multiple tuners from different backgrounds and driving style working to understand the new physics. So please, no one take the question below personally. I am not trying to attack. I am not trying to prove my theory (well, because I am still trying to formulate one). I am not trying to say that there is only one answer here.

But, I do have a question for the tuning community. Why is it that in every post that supports that camber is now fixed, works like real world, that there is always a qualifying statement right after? Camber works, IF you get the other settings right. Why can't camber just work? Is it possible to take a car with default suspension settings and only change camber and see a result? Are we able to isolate camber and define an effect? This is what I want to test next.

Thoughts?

 

[Bowtie-muscle]

I applaud everyone's efforts on camber. It is a very good thing to have multiple tuners from different backgrounds and driving style working to understand the new physics. So please, no one take the question below personally. I am not trying to attack. I am not trying to prove my theory (well, because I am still trying to formulate one). I am not trying to say that there is only one answer here.

But, I do have a question for the tuning community. Why is it that in every post that supports that camber is now fixed, works like real world, that there is always a qualifying statement right after? Camber works, IF you get the other settings right. Why can't camber just work? Is it possible to take a car with default suspension settings and only change camber and see a result? Are we able to isolate camber and define an effect? This is what I want to test next.

Thoughts?

@praiano63 had a thought for FITT type challenge, I expanded that thought and would really like your input. See this.

 

[332i]

I applaud everyone's efforts on camber. It is a very good thing to have multiple tuners from different backgrounds and driving style working to understand the new physics. So please, no one take the question below personally. I am not trying to attack. I am not trying to prove my theory (well, because I am still trying to formulate one). I am not trying to say that there is only one answer here.

But, I do have a question for the tuning community. Why is it that in every post that supports that camber is now fixed, works like real world, that there is always a qualifying statement right after? Camber works, IF you get the other settings right. Why can't camber just work? Is it possible to take a car with default suspension settings and only change camber and see a result? Are we able to isolate camber and define an effect? This is what I want to test next.

Thoughts?

Because it doesn't work well in real life if other settings are compromised... The camber will exist, physically speaking, obviously. Will it react the way you'd expect negative camber or x amount to, if the setup is compromised? Absolutely not. Could be better, could be worse. More often than not, an undesired effect in one direction or another. When you go changing setups IRL, you add or reduce camber accordingly, unless a sweet spot was found as a happy accident. If I went down stairs and took my 40% lock diff of the shelf and replaced my stock 25% two away with it, I would reduce camber and two or three other items. Because 1) you just achieved more stability by tightening/essentially syncing up the rear assembly more so. Given that, you can back off other items that will induce stability (but also understeer nudge nudge hint hint).

So tl;dr - using any level of camber with a setup that is improper is shooting in the dark and it won't get you what you want - stability.

Gone are the days of whipping up a few solid tunes in a single day. Cars are going to take a while to get strong setups going now. A setup that blows you away. You know the type. First corner you hit and you're smiling, because you know it is right. Things are much more complicated I am finding and I feel that people are doing exactly what someone said, throw a short and sweet setup together and call it a day. IE - give up. Things are not broken. They're just complicated, very dependent and make sense now if you have real world knowledge on setting cars up. People are just not willing to put enough time into one car it seems and that is what it takes now. It's not going to happen overnight anymore to get what you want out of a car. Trust me, I've used zero camber since we figured out it was clearly the best way.

The whole "grip is same until around -3.0" is false as well. It depends on the tire. Every tire set is modeled different. The weaker the chassis, the more you will benefit from camber. The softer the suspension, the more you will benefit from camber. To an extent, of course.

Ok, but the main thing is that if we've all be running whack toe number, because we've been running zero camber for so long... I run 2.2 degrees of camber in the rear on my car. In turn, I only run .07 degrees total toe-in out back. So, if I had been running zero camber before hand, I would want to adjust the camber, because the two are dependent on each in many, many situation. People need to stop applying what they thought work on the physics. Where dealing with what sits between the car and the road. Every little change will be felt if you're one good wheel now. There is no more - eh...I don't think that did anything.

If you want to tune cars well and stop pushing zero camber tunes (not you, all tuners) - stop tuning on smooth tracks like the high speed ring. You need tracks with bumps, off camber turns, long sweepers, and a hair pin. I tune at RBR now. The tunes I come up with there seem to work very well at most other places and just need a click up or down on the camber, possibly a rear wing adjust, but not usually. The street cars I tune on the short RBR ring.

I don't tune on original tracks either, because most of the pavement and strips are too smooth and the tracks are fairly ideal with very few off camber turns. Not good places to test camber. They're all dreamt up, ideal circuits. Not that I don't like them, they just weren't created when physics engines like this existed and you can see/feel that. Sure, they've made slight updates, but mostly to the very good ones, like apricot, special stage rt5,etc.

 

[332i]

@praiano63 had a thought for FITT type challenge, I expanded that thought and would really like your input. See this.

The problem I see with that is some tuners being so stubborn and false confident, that they'll put junk camber tunes out, making it look like people have tougher time handling or can't turn better laps on the provided setup. Just some tuners I chalk into said "convinced that camber doesn't work" stubborn category. I'm not generalizing or grouping all of them.

These challenges go by tuners providing a given setup and testers go out an run, then they collaborate, right? I've not look into FITT much.

 

[Motor City Hami]

@332i You really haven't read up about me have you. You are in dangerous territory to assume that I know nothing about real world tuning. Tuning and handling has been my life passion for many, many years. My real world race car likes different camber settings at different tracks. Mid-Ohio likes more camber than I can get into the front of the car.

So if you want to talk real life, let's talk real life. In the real world, at my favorite track, Mid-Ohio, I can change only camber and track a difference, with data and tire temps. That's one setting changing. The other things that you mentioned were changes to other settings that then also required a camber change to offset something negative that the new part carries with it. What I am asking is, what does camber do? It is a very convenient position to have, saying that well camber is linked to many other things, but not to be able to describe what those other things are.

I don't know how we can test and gain real, repeatable results if we cannot isolate camber in some way and track its effects. If finding the definitive answer on camber runs through a path of three or four other settings and days of tuning, then how can we be sure? Isn't there risk that the other settings that you are changing are in fact the levers responsible for the results and camber is contributing nothing? How would you know if you cannot isolate camber in some way?

 

[Motor City Hami]

The problem I see with that is some tuners being so stubborn and false confident, that they'll put junk camber tunes out, making it look like people have tougher time handling or can't turn better laps on the provided setup. Just some tuners I chalk into said "convinced that camber doesn't work" stubborn category. I'm not generalizing or grouping all of them.

These challenges go by tuners providing a given setup and testers go out an run, then they collaborate, right? I've not look into FITT much.

Ok. You double posted so I will too. Aren't you taking the very attitude that you are criticizing? You have never looked into FITT, but are willing to call most of the tuners involved closed minded.

Who is going to put junk tunes out there just to throw off the tuning community? That's crazy talk. Time to come back to earth and look to collaborate, not criticize.