A Vector tuning theory for drift cars

[Serum]

Worse in the sense of setting the ride height beyond its maximum value and camber set to values never or very rarely seen in "tune" threads, all in the name of form>function. It may not be the fastest, it may mot be reliable on tracks with lots of bumps, but it will look cool.

That quote was a joke about the horrible influence the US had on pro drifting. So, sacrificing a little handling to habe a better looking car because nothing looks worse than a car with a bodykit and near factory ride height.

 

[Stavingo]

Fair enough but to me it doesn't matter what the 🤬 your car looks like if you're getting good scores in a drifting competition or you can tandem well in a open lobby

You get decent scores in a drift comp and turn some heads I assure you the last thing that'll be on your competitors mind is "ermahgawd he got dat nice hellaflush stance"

 

[Lock2Lock]

Worse in the sense of setting the ride height beyond its maximum value and camber set to values never or very rarely seen in "tune" threads, all in the name of form>function. It may not be the fastest, it may mot be reliable on tracks with lots of bumps, but it will look cool.

That quote was a joke about the horrible influence the US had on pro drifting. So, sacrificing a little handling to habe a better looking car because nothing looks worse than a car with a bodykit and near factory ride height.

I tune for looks first, performance second. Honestly I cannot drift a car that I am comfortable with. Hints the reason why it seems that I constantly switch cars. Something about knowing what a car can do, rather than finding out what a car can do by pushing it to its limit, isn't appealing to me.

I like the car to have that lively suspension lean like real life D1GP cars have, and the thing to scare me while driving it. Maybe I like a challenge.

I've always said skill over tune when I raced on GT5. Anyone can drive with a tune, but you put two drivers in the same car, that's where the real skill shows up .

 

[riverfiver]

I've always said skill over tune when I raced on GT5. Anyone can drive with a tune, but you put two drivers in the same car, that's where the real skill shows up .[/QUOTE]


very true

 

[Stavingo]

I won't deny that either, but does it really matter what the hell your car looks like while going sideways?

 

[Lock2Lock]

I won't deny that either, but does it really matter what the hell your car looks like while going sideways?

To some people yes. Plus a un-lively suspension handles like crap on the wheel. You don't feel what the car is doing 90% of the time.

It's a look and feel type of thing

 

[Stavingo]

Haha fair enough, because if someone sees you drift with a stock ride height and small camber they care about the stance.

"Damn thats a nice S15 in this open lobby"

"Oh yeah I wonder what ride height and spring rates he rollin on"


Also haven't drifted on a wheel for awhile, so I really wouldn't feel the differences between a lively or un-lively suspension setup.

 

[iSlide]

without reading the thread (except the OP) I'd like to just inject a few things. Not trying to be a know-it-all (I don't know anywhere close to all of it) but,

The vector thing, it's cool stuff with some good ideas and some bad ones, and it may work for you. But it's misguided, I would direct you to some links here:

First thing you want to do is google "On the Dynamics of Automobile Drifting". Check out Figure 3. The 3D tire force plot, it's badass.

This basically shows you whats happening during an ebrake initiated drift. So we're turning, we're cornering somewhat. Our rear tires are at point A (producing sideways grip) and our fronts are doing similar. We lock the ebrake. We go to point B (no sideways grip). Same thing happens if we spin the tires; we lose sideways grip. What happens? The fronts are turning, have slip angle, therefore have sideways grip. The rears can't match it and so the back end steps out. That takes us to point C where the rears are 'forced' or 'allowed' to slide sideways, at a high slip angle. Notice: very little increase in sideways grip; it's very flat as slip angle goes up (when longitudinal slip is high) so the car doesn't really 'oppose' this happening.

This link explains the same thing but the picture of the tire force plot of the first link is way better: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-physics-of-oversteer-feature

And also give this a read: http://www.motoiq.com/tech/the_ultimate_guide_to_suspension_handling.aspx

The motoiq thing is GREAT. Often the comments section is more interesting and has more content because the guy answers questions. That link is the Part 1 and there are many parts, if you can grasp everything you can get the big picture on some level. The geometry/alignment stuff is cool (camber, caster, scrub, KPA, toe, ect).

And we haven't even mentioned stiffnesses, load transfer, F/R static load, wheelbase and track width stuff. But the tire is the most important thing to know.

Don't want to be condescending or anything but really, if you're gonna put effort into thinking about these things, don't make your own system from scratch. We have working systems already. Everything is built on these systems.

 

[iSlide]

And that being said, this:

I think it's a valid statement. Comments like this:



Reek of arrogance. It's been brought up a few times that, quite frankly, this numbers-based tuning can't be completely accurate because GT doesn't even provide some of the numbers needed. It's a bunch of guess-work, pseudo-math, and self-fulfilling ego boosting. GT's incredibly simple tire model (with a completely silly selection of options that represent nothing more over other grades than a grip multiplier) means we can't get some of the figures Ghost claims to be using.

All that, except I'm not sure if the grip multiplier thing is correct. I still think race tires grip drops off more steeply than streets, it's not just multiplying the whole curve it's a different shape. I could be totally wrong tho.

We don't have BARELY ANY parameters available, in all aspects of the car. And the tire model is improved vastly over GT4 but still lacking (no tire widths, no pressures, and only 9 tires to choose from?, totally bizarre low speed characteristics, and so on and so forth).

All that being said in my massive walls of text, of course there are 'good' and 'bad' setups both in feel/drivability and in actual capabilities (speeds, angles, ect).

In all due respect to GT5, tire data/modelling is crazy complicated and compound this with the requirement of running real-time, online, is impressive. It's notoriously difficult and secretive to get some good data and a good system going. I'm assuming its 'pre-figured-out' look up tables, so it can run quick enough. By far, the most important thing to get right. Not to mention the rest of the whole car! They did a decent job imo. I think this sums it up the challenges in getting everything 'right': http://www.iracing.com/inracingnews/iracing-news/iracings-corvette-good-enough-is-not-good-enough Don't forget that nothing is 'given' to them and there is alot of fill-in-the-blanks going on.

I don't know where I was going with all this. I rarely post/read. But came across this and felt the need