add Ballast

[tourist]

Hi everyone.

I will drive my Nomad this evening in a >1350kg <699kw(~950BHP) race.
So i have to add 150kg ballast. Where should i put it?

I would like to decrease the oversteer when accelerate out of a corner.
So i can push harder. I have to beat ~1.57.000 on Suzuka.

Should i put in -25 for better grip on front and a more balanced MR car?
A RR car has way more oversteer because all the weight is on the back right?

Thanks in advance.

Feel free to use this thread to talk about ballast in general

 

[brandon6i]

A pick-up truck is forced to drive along icy and snowy roads. Does the driver add cement blocks to the truck bed close to the rear tires or find a way to cram them into the engine bay?

Theoretically, adding weight to the rear willl increase grip to the rear as the force pushing down will overcome some of the torque spinning the wheels.

One question though, why can't you test it out yourself? o_O

 

[defaultoasis]

I've not done a lot of testing, but I personally cannot feel the effects of varying positions of the ballast.

 

[herrwazza]

hmm I added ballast to the X1 and the PP went up.anyone had this on any other cars?
If you wana decrease oversteer coming out of a turn (when accelerating) try making the front of the car higher than the rear in suspension setup, and set the LSD so acceleration is quite high (I never change this so cant remember the max value. I THINK its 60, so make acceleration LSD 45 or so.and initial torque quite high so u can hammer the power down without worrying about it not working). Lemme know how it goes, and anyone who thinks I'm wrong please correct me, I'm no pro tuner.
and ballast in the middle-rear but NOT all the way over the rear otherwise momentum will carry the tail around when braking and cause huge oversteer.

 

[cajunduby]

Adding ballast is the only way Bob can drive the Shelby and '09 GT-R spec-V!

 

[tourist]

One question though, why can't you test it out yourself? o_O

Its not that simple so exchange of experiences may help.

I could not feel a big difference between -50; -15; 20 and 50.
I noticed a bit mor grip in the front when the ballast is placed in front.

Oversteer stays the same more or less. But i did not have the time to do a lot of laps with each setup so maybe i was just not consistent enough.


@herrwazza
Usually i put the LSD down;

Initial 5-10,
Acc. Sens. 5-20,
Brake Sens. 10-25

on FR/MR/RR cars.
I felt the higher the numbers, the more oversteer and wheelspin.

 

[Slurm]

Just for the record, I think only in very rare cases will adding ballast make you faster than the lighter version of your car. It can definitely make it more competitive at it's new weight though. For the physics - Just imagine pushing a long stick along the ground: With a big weight at the back, it's like a pendulum - the rear has a lot of gravity and the front is loose. With weight at the front, and the back is now loose, but the front has momentum and is really resistant to changing direction.

 

[killerjimbag]

Just for the record, I think only in very rare cases will adding ballast make you faster than the lighter version of your car. It can definitely make it more competitive at it's new weight though. For the physics - Just imagine pushing a long stick along the ground: With a big weight at the back, it's like a pendulum - the rear has a lot of gravity and the front is loose. With weight at the front, and the back is now loose, but the front has momentum and is really resistant to changing direction.

You are correct thank you The back of the stick will also wear out faster and will take more to push/pull it.

 

[charliec]

A pick-up truck is forced to drive along icy and snowy roads. Does the driver add cement blocks to the truck bed close to the rear tires or find a way to cram them into the engine bay?

Theoretically, adding weight to the rear willl increase grip to the rear as the force pushing down will overcome some of the torque spinning the wheels.

One question though, why can't you test it out yourself? o_O

Drive the CTR Yellowbird on the Nurburgring with Sport Hards on and see how weight in the rear works out

What you're thinking of only works in drag racing (or with trucks with almost no weight in the rear to start with).

I would like to decrease the oversteer when accelerate out of a corner. So i can push harder.

I'm not sure what the weight balance of the Nomad is, but (in my opinion) you typically want to have weight centralized in the car to make rotation (turning) easier. If it feels like there's a rear weight bias, maybe add the weight slightly forward of center. You should try and reduce oversteer due to throttle primarily with suspension and drivetrain tuning. Adding weight in the front (or rear) affects handling too drastically, when all you're trying to reduce is oversteer during acceleration (which is a traction issue).

 

[Triple6wild]

Essentially you want a 50/50 % weight ratio to balance the car. Seeing as it doesn't show us the cars current weight ratio it's anyone guess as to how much weight to add. If you get the ratio from the real thing then a little math and some common sense can get it really close.

So where to put it. Heavier front end will understeer and a heavy rear end will oversteer at steady speed. 50/50 balance should cause all wheels to lose traction equally while turning with a steady speed.
(No acceleration and no deceleration)

If your aim is only balance then getting the least weight possible is what you want. Take your best guess at the minimal weight that can balance the car and place it as far in the right direction as it will go.

Weight ahead of the front wheels or behind the rear wheels will lift some weight off the other side but not anywhere near what you have added though. EX: Balance a pen on your finger but shorten one side so the other end is on the table. Consider your finger the front wheel Press down on the short end to balance it (Front bumper). Should be able to feel the additional weight loaded onto your finger and see the weight lifted off what would be the the rear.

If your being regulated then location is key. You want to balance the car. Loading the right % of weight on the proper wheels can go a long way.
Weight between the wheels will add to both the front and back. More % will go towards wheels that the weight is closer to. Now right above the front wheel will not lift nor add to the rear side.

If in doubt dead center keeps the cars current weight ratio. Or use the ballast to increase tire life. If your cooking front tires move the weight back. If your cooking only the rears move it forward. Should reduce wear on the tires dieing to fast and increase wear on the tires that don't wear down enough. Even tire wear means you can stay on track longer before pitting and the cars handling won't change as drastically for under/over steer.

For a general starting point. (Should be common knowledge here but for those that don't know)

MR cars the engine weight is usually in front of /on the rear axle and usually have a balance around 40/60 so placing the weight slightly forward right behind the front tires would be your best bet.

RR is usually heavy far back ##/60+ so farther forward can help.

FR are usually close to a 50/50 ratio. More like a 50 to 55 front. So center or a few ticks back.

FF are heavy up front 60/## so throw it near the trunk if not in it.

There are FF cars that are near 50/50, Etc,etc so those are not set in stone just a general idea of how to start figuring out where you want the weight.
Also adjust to your liking for understeer and oversteer if you prefer one over the other.

 

[tourist]

Great!
Thanks for sharing all the information!
Pretty much what i was assuming how it is in real life.
Question is, does it work the same way in GT5.

I think PD should have go further with ballast. Like showing balance of the car etc.
Other points are:

+- Max. is this behind or in front of the wheels?
Or is it right on top of the wheels?
Is it different on every car?

I could not tell after testing some more.

On a MR -20 to -10 should be best bet theoretical.
But only, if -50 is on top of the wheels and not in front of them.

 

[Slurm]

The description says a negative "-" is the front and the rear is the positive value!

I like that we can't just see the exact weight distribution in figures - that would be way too easy to just achieve perfect balance on all cars. It makes tuning more fun this way...

 

[tourist]

The description says a negative "-" is the front and the rear is the positive value!

I know. But where exactly is the ballast at -50

Over the front wheels or just at the furthest point it could be, depending on the car?

 

[evo-00]

Car will be fastest with no weight however if you have to add weight, run some test laps and watch front to rear tire wear and move weight to get even tire wear. Tires wear tells all and is the most important factor in racing.

 

[budious]

I know. But where exactly is the ballast at -50

Over the front wheels or just at the furthest point it could be, depending on the car?

The ballast would have a seesaw (leverage) effect if it was placed before the front axle or behind the rear axle, so I would assume -50 is on top the front axle and +50 on top of the rear axle.

 

[Slurm]

The ballast would have a seesaw (leverage) effect if it was placed before the front axle or behind the rear axle, so I would assume -50 is on top the front axle and +50 on top of the rear axle.

Porsche + RUF have the engine behind the rear axle, so why not add ballast there - or in front of the front axle? We can't know for sure but I guess -50 or +50 is the very front or rear of the car. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[marktyper]

First of all, adding ballast weight helps a lot. When your car is MR and if you feel that your rear is heavy, you will more likely to add ballast in front of the car.. If your car is FWD and if you feel lots of skid in front, you will add ballast in front as well to push down the weight so there will be less skid. If your car is FR, it depends.. sometimes you will need to put it in front or at the rear. it is car dependent. But if you will tune it right, you might have a new favorite car to drive I havent tried to tune my CTR2 which is RR. Hopefully it works well.

 

[tourist]

Why wouldn't it be?

It is PD

I found something in a german forum.
Somebody tried to adjust the balance without adding ballast and it seems to work...
So they could change the balance wiithout adding ballast..
Stupid but not even that surprising.

Why wouldn't it be?

It is PD

I will try this tonight. But can anybody cofirm this?

 

[charliec]

I found something in a german forum.
Somebody tried to adjust the balance without adding ballast and it seems to work...
So they could change the balance wiithout adding ballast..
Stupid but not even that surprising.

I will try this tonight. But can anybody cofirm this?

I doubt that would do anything and it'd be hard to objectively test. I guess it depends how the ballast system was implemented though, if the weight is added to the vehicle weight and then the balance adjusts overall car weight balance, maybe it would work? Seems like a pretty big glitch on PD's part since that would significantly lessen the effectiveness of using a ballast.

 

[budious]

Porsche + RUF have the engine behind the rear axle, so why not add ballast there - or in front of the front axle? We can't know for sure but I guess -50 or +50 is the very front or rear of the car. Why wouldn't it be?

Easy test, calculate the weight distribution by KG Fr to Rr. Add enough ballast to bring the front up to 1:1 weight distribution and position it at -50, balance your springs to even rates, enjoy your car on 50/50 distribution. If -50 was in front of the axle and not on top of it then my method wouldn't work, but so far, from my testing I have assumed it does work this way. This is essentially what my "Yellow Bird" tune with ballast to 50/50 weight distribution attempts to achieve, and as far as I can tell, does.

On the other hand, the physics engine may not be so complex to consider leverage a factor so -50 may the furthest front and ahead of the axle, but the effect remains largely the same as if you expected the weight to be placed directly above the axle. Just consider -50 to +50 a scale of 0.00 to 1.00 for calculation purposes, the actual range (location) is probably arbitrary outside of the computational aspects of simulating the weight of the car.

 

[Slurm]

Budious I'm so confused. Please explain why your method wouldn't work if "-50" represented the very front of the car?

 

[charliec]

Budious I'm so confused. Please explain why your method wouldn't work if "-50" represented the very front of the car?

When you measure weight, it's on the axles:

Going on the assumption that the weight is directly over the front axle at -50...

Let's say you have a 1000kg Porsche with a 40/60 F/R weight distribution. That means 400kg is on the front axle and 600kg is on the rear. Assuming -50 represents the location directly over the front axles, you can add the difference of 200kg at location -50 and even the distribution out to 50/50. If that weight is being added in front of the front axle, it'll front-bias the weight so you end up with something like 55/45 or something (and potentially impact the handling in a significantly negative way depending on amount).

Budious was suggesting getting equal 50/50 weight at the axles and then evening the suspension, but this is all on the assumption that -50 puts the weight directly over the front axle.

You can correct me if I'm wrong budious, that was my understanding of it.

 

[Slurm]

What I mean is that moving even a big 10% ballast a few % of the car's length beyond the axle is negligibly different to shifting it within the wheelbase. It might change the weight distribution by 1 or 2 percent. How can someone come and claim they've concluded one way or the other? Sorry but I just find big words and sentences annoying when they really don't mean anything.

Try moving your ballast from -50 to -47 or -45. Noticeable ?

 

[charliec]

What I mean is that moving even a big 10% ballast a few % of the car's length beyond the axle is negligibly different to shifting it within the wheelbase. It might change the weight distribution by 1 or 2 percent. How can someone come and claim they've concluded one way or the other? Sorry but I just find big words and sentences annoying when they really don't mean anything.

Try moving your ballast from -50 to -47 or -45. Noticeable ?

Oh, ya as far as it actually being noticeable or reaching a conclusion, I have no idea. It's hard to say since there's no point of reference or units of measurement that I'm aware of, but I'm sure the incremental changes are most likely minor.

Still though, it'd be nice to know if -50/50 represent the nose/tail of the car versus the front/rear axles as the effects of ballast would vary based on overhang.

Plus, I'm not sure there'd be any reason for moving weight beyond the axles, which would make me assume -50/50 would be axle locations.

 

[budious]

My conjecture is only relevant to my way of thinking, unless you want convince PD to open up the physics engine code... good luck. Testing marginal changes may be difficult due to human error, if there was a way to put Bob in the car on practice mode, maybe it would be easier to measure. I can't prove it works my way... but I can't prove it works any other way either.

[/VAGUENESS]

Say you figured...

Car is 1150KG, you need 50KG ballast to meet a 1200KG entry requirement.

Front is 570KG
Rear is 580KG

You want to balance both halves equally, so...

570+30
580+20

50KG x 0.60 = 30KG

In this case I would count backwards 40 units from the front, so optimal positioning would be at -10.

 

[budious]

I was searching about information on leveraging, while the page I found was about tractors, the same principles should be applicable to cars.

http://salesmanual.deere.com/sales/..._quik-tatch_weights_and_transfer_effects.html

One such example reads as follows:

Front weight multipliers for an ILS&#8482;-equipped tractor

Standard weight supports - front suitcase weights on a standard front weight support add 157 percent of their weight to the front axle and subtract 57 percent from the rear axle by leveraging about the front axle.


ILS front axle multiplier = 1.57 Rear axle multiplier = - 0.57


Each 47-kg (104-lb) suitcase adds 1.57 x 47 kg (104 lb) = 74 kg (163 lb) to the front axle and subtracts 0.57 x 47 kg (104 lb) = -27 kg (-59 lb) from the rear axle.

 

[sanmusa]

Please give my ballast and weight distribution calculator a try: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4978328#post4978328

My calculator makes the same assumptions as budious, that -50 is at the front axle and 50 at the rear axle.

 

[JMII]

MR cars the engine weight is usually in front of /on the rear axle and usually have a balance around 40/60 so placing the weight slightly forward right behind the front tires would be your best bet.

This makes a BIG difference.

In the current Japan 80s Seasonal Event I'm putting an MR2 G-Limited thru its paces and thus have been tuning it on a variety of tracks. Moving the ballast to -30 (front) completely changes how this car handles. Its not longer sloppy off throttle.

All the MR cars (except the NSX it seems) are a bear to drive because as you slow/brake the weight transfers to the front causing the heavy engine to swing like pendulum (back & forth). This makes for some really difficult to control tank slappers! However once you put some weight on the nose the car settles down. Give it a try you might find cars that were once tricky to drive are now more enjoyable.

It also nice to have a mod that is a "free" fix by just moving the weight around. From now on I'm going to start my tunes with a quick ballast tweak before doing anything else.

 

[Time_Attack]

Funny thing is MR2s and MR cars in general aren't nearly as twitchy as GT would have you believe. I think its just poor game design in that respect.

I don't see why I should make my car heavier and thus slower just because they can't design normal handling characteristics.

 

[chuyler1]

I just ran my own tests last night with the '86 MR2 N/A. I performed full weight reduction on it which brought it down to 960kg. Google says the '86 has a distribution of 45/55.

960kg * .45 = 432kg on the front axle
960kg * .55 = 528kg on the rear axle
Difference = 96kg

Added 96kg of ballast and moved it all the way to the front of the car.

Tune the suspension equally front and rear...
Height: -2 / -2
Spring: 5.8 / 5.8
comp: 3 / 3
ext: 3 / 3
roll: 2 / 2
camber: 0.5 / 0.5
toe: 0.05 / 0.20
brake balance: 6 / 3

Go for a spin on racing soft tires (didn't try with sport soft). WOW! All of my tracking issues on Trial Mountain are gone. The car just digs in and drives. No wacky tailspin on braking, no understeering on exiting corners, can run full throttle through the last turn without running wide. The only time I experienced any oversteer was one turn at Autumn Ring where I do a little light braking...but it actually helped rotate the car just enough.

I'm very pleased with this approach. Now that I know the potential of the car, I wonder if I can remove the weight and make tweaks to the suspension to arrive at the same feel. I had been trying for weeks and never got it right but now I have a baseline to work with. The only reason I want to remove the weight is that it now puts the car below 450pp. I was placing in the top 3 racing online with this setup but I think I can squeeze more straight line speed out of it if I don't have the extra 96kg to carry around.