Anti-Roll bars/sway bars , how do they work in GT5?

[Highlandor]

I don't want to open a can of worms, and most threads on this subject has generated quite strong long discussions and its difficult to see any conclusions.

But its great to keep things simple. I think its obvious that ride hight is backwards. If one setting is backwards, its possible that there are more. These are all also in the same tuning menu.

I don't view this as a conspiracy but a simple mistake. It wouldn't be the first time a company has done it.

To be honest, the only way to see a conclusion is to test, test, test and test some more for yourself. This way it's your driving style and your equiptment and your settings of that equiptment (which sometimes can contribute to differences of opinion) and you can see or feel for yourself.

That's all I've done - relentlessly for the past months, trying to work out what does what in the game and how this reflects 'on the track' in terms of lap times, tyre wear and comparison with friends who've I raced for years.

When you start beating guys you don't normally beat, and your car feels better than it's ever been before, tyre wear is good and people (who normally would never ask) are asking you "what the hell have you done to that thing", then you sort of know you're on the right track.

Then, when you share this with your friends and they experience the same thing too, I think that's a good indicator that you're doing something right.

I've been in the same race series for over 6 months now, racing the same guys regularly on the same tracks - when you se yourself doing laptimes you never thought possible and you're not burning out your tyres and the car feels better than ever before - you must be doing something right. Then, as mentioned, you share this with friends and they agree....

We don't race for competition, we have a small 'community' of guys who have the same philosphy on racing, we regularly get together for setup and practice session, bouncing idea's off each other. Now, pretty much everyone is using the same thoery in tuning and setups, but 'tweaked' slightly to their own driving style and equiptment - that's got to be saying something.

This doesn't include the left hand sid reverse Or the max front and min rear 'theories' either. No-one I know uses them, some guys have tried, they went backwards in every race - one of them was a finalist at the UK GT Academy final at Brands Hatch this year.

Guess what 'setup' theory he now uses....??

 

[praiano63]

I don't want to open a can of worms, and most threads on this subject has generated quite strong long discussions and its difficult to see any conclusions.

But its great to keep things simple. I think its obvious that ride hight is backwards. If one setting is backwards, its possible that there are more. These are all also in the same tuning menu.

I don't view this as a conspiracy but a simple mistake. It wouldn't be the first time a company has done it.

"Simple mistake. It wouldn't be the first time a company has done it."

You're right for this ,i agree, what i don't accept is that this company don't say, publish or do anything to apology, correct and make all their clients happy and able to play this great game ,that can't be name simulator because of all this small "details".
I don't like to be treated like this , their are alone for the moment, but if the concurence do a better game and showing that they care about they "CLIENTS" after they buy their game , at this moment , i will say bye bye GT to never buy again any game made by PD. One time not twice.
When i was kid i've learn an important thing.

Don't spit in your own soup. That's what "Polyphony Digital Inc." have to learn quickly. If not GT players will not forgive them anymore at the first oportunity.

 

[nomis3613]

Highlandor, your post has some excellent suggestions, but... and I don't mean to sound rude...I reckon your claims about "common knowledge", "everybody knows", etc are going a bit far.

The rolls bars are massively linked to your springs and dampers - if these are not 'matched' then you can do what you like, the car won't feel right.

Everyone knows:
hard / stiff springs and dampers = soft roll bars.
soft / stiff springs and dampers = hard roll bars
medium springs and dampers = medium roll bars

There is an element of driver preference in the balancing of spring vs roll bar strength. People have different ideas about how much dive, squat and roll they want to feel, so there are many tunes which "feel right" to some people even though you would call their settings "unmatched".

Add to this effective LSD tuning and the camber and toe almost becomes obsolete, but not quite though. That will need tweaking for each car, but it's no way as important as 'matching' your springs, dampers and roll bars to work together (or the LSD or ride height).

Try doing this the opposite way round, see if your car will feel so good or do anywhere near the laptimes times it can do if tuned according to 'front IS front' scenario (which is what it is).

Even if the handling behaves the "correct" way if you use the method you posted, this is a very narrow set of tuning possibilities to base a universal "springs, dampers and anti-roll bars work correctly" theory on.

The only thing which is reversed in settings is the ride height, everyone knows this.

I reckon the "observations on suspension settings" thread (aka "which settings are backwards") will continue until the end of time without any consensus
...so I don't think it is valid to state that "everyone knows this"

This has been covered so many times on this forum already.... it should be common knowledge by now.

It has been covered so many times because people have very different perceptions of what is happening. It won't ever be common knowledge while people have vastly different opinions on the issue and it's unlikely we'll ever be able to prove what is "right".

 

[CyKosis1973]

The only thing I know for certain is that ride height is peculiar. I've found the effect is somewhat reversed, however the over or understeer (for me) appears to only be when you're coasting or off the power. If you're on the beans, then the car will behave according to the rest of the suspension, etc. I've used the "reverse" ride height thing on a number of cars. Most of these cars, if you're heading for the outside of a corner, lift off the juice and the car will swing back onto line.

I also used this method (but in reverse, ironically) to tame the oversteer on my Caterhams.

At the end of the day, I always reflect on something an Old Indian once told me, Cause and Effect. If you do something and it's beneficial, then keep doing it, if not, then stop doing it...

{Cy}

 

[Christian_C]

I think this requires some further investigation and I don't think a universal opinion will ever reside over this issue.

It does seem that reversing the settings (whilst it may not be 'correct') does yield desirable effects.

 

[Nicktune]

Hi Tiddy!!The stiffer anti-roll bar prevents excessive positive camber from ocurring on the front tires in a turn (your car is probably at 0 camber right?)Usually this results is strongest on cars which inherently understeer a great deal,so a larger front anti-roll bar is almost always a help to the handling with no other changes.>>this is taken from a chassis/suspension book....

..If you read a lot on the subject you'll find that it's not gt5 that is backwards (like on every suspension thread) it's the people understanding/interpretation of data.So your observation on harder Front anti roll bar does make sense (in this case).Sorry for my english!!lol

nic

 

[Lazy Liquid]

Its funny to see how in every thread about settings everyone have their own belives, and preach hard in favor of them. I simply quit to follow any of them, i prefer to stay with mine.

Each car, each weight %, each axis distance (horizontaly and between axes) have diferent effects in the setups. And they all works as a team, you can´t work only at the suspension if you leave away the LSD, accel settings, weight distribuition, aero.... and so on...

 

[Highlandor]

Highlandor, your post has some excellent suggestions, but... and I don't mean to sound rude...I reckon your claims about "common knowledge", "everybody knows", etc are going a bit far."

Yes, true, it's the way I speak and words I use, plus I tend to be a bit presumptious about people sometimes.

When I mean "everyone" and "common knowledge" I'm talking about a certian group(s) of people (that just happen to be mostly the people I know on GT5, race with, chill out with and bounce idea's off with). I tend to speak like this in real life, so when I type I use the same language.

There is an element of driver preference in the balancing of spring vs roll bar strength. People have different ideas about how much dive, squat and roll they want to feel, so there are many tunes which "feel right" to some people even though you would call their settings "unmatched".


Even if the handling behaves the "correct" way if you use the method you posted, this is a very narrow set of tuning possibilities to base a universal "springs, dampers and anti-roll bars work correctly" theory on.

Yes, I'm 100% aware of this, this is why I said that once you hvae a basic tune it needs to be tweaked to suit another person's driving style and equiptment.

One of my closest GT5 friends is now convinced of this method of tuning, BUT his driving style and wheel setup is completely different. He still starts each tune via the weight ditribution and % theory, he also matches his springs, dampers and roll bars accordingly - and says his cars have never felt better.

But, we'll have very slight differences between dampers and roll bars - possibly -1 or +1. The affect of a simple click on the roll bar or dampers can be dramatic though, it can completely change a car's handling when tuning this way. As I said, you need to tweak one click at a time, then suddenly, the car will come alive - it's a real knife edge, but when you hit the sweat spot, it's instant handling nirvana.

He likes his cars really loose at the back, I don't, I like my cars to be 'planted'.

I reckon the "observations on suspension settings" thread (aka "which settings are backwards") will continue until the end of time without any consensus
...so I don't think it is valid to state that "everyone knows this"


It has been covered so many times because people have very different perceptions of what is happening. It won't ever be common knowledge while people have vastly different opinions on the issue and it's unlikely we'll ever be able to prove what is "right".

Yeah, I've got that thread saved and read it loads.

Think of these two things:

1) The entire scientific community and ship building industry used to say the highest sea born wave possible was 12 metres. So every sea going ship ws built to withstand waves of 12 metres, because it was scientifically impossible for a sea born wave to go higher (not a breaking wave on a beach - a sea born wave that remains at sea).

An American professor teaching in Italy had this crazy theory that waves could in fact be unlimited - everyone laughed at him when he published his theory.

Then in 1996, in the North sea in the English channel, a wave of over 20 metres was recorded (this was famously know as the New Years Wave) - after much extensive further investigation, it was found that at least one wave of up to 30 metres was happening at any given moment throughout the worlds seas, other waves of over 20 metres were happening in virtually every sea across the world.

He proved the entire scientific comminity and shipping industry wrong - just on a crazy theory, and now everyone has to look at his theory and forget what they previously had always known and relied on.

(I like that man - nice one Al).

2) More apt to GT5. Look at ballast - if you add ballast to an umodified car, it changes the handling right?

So, within GT5 somewhere, there must be somethng to do with the weight distribution of the car that is linked to the program, equaton, calculation, code or 'whatever' that tells the physics engine of the game to make the car act the way it does and change when ballast is added.

So weight distribution must be recognised in the physics engine that calculates the handling of a car, somehow, or at least it's an 'important' factor.

Take a car with poor weight distribution, say 60-40 like the Evora or the HPA Audi TT, work this theory on those cars, you'll have low springs and dampers where the weight is 40% and high where the weight is 60%.

The anti roll bars would be reversed, so they'll be tight where the weight is 40% and loose at the 60% end.

Try this, then 'reverse' it (i.e left hand side theory) - see how different the car feels.

As mentioned before, the Evora has very hard springs naturally, so I won't increase their stifness, but I use this theory on all cars now and pretty much 8/10 will be running 20% stiffer springs and 1/10 will be 10% stiffer springs, and the final 1/10 that already have really stiff suspension I don't make it any more stiff, it's good enough as it is.

Here's an example of what I do:

HPA Audi TT (the one I use for my race series - rules are 585pp - racing hard tyres - no power limiter or ballast allowed)

648bhp - 1338kgs - 585 pp - racing hard tyres (aero 5 fr - 5 rr)

Weight distribution = 59% front - 41% rear (not great is it?)

So (with FULL custom suspension added):

Front springs:

Min = 5.1 & Max = 15.5

So the spring travels - 10.4

59% of 10.4 = 6.136

The add minimum setting (5.1) = 11.236

That's your stock spring rate, but I prefer stiffened springs, so:

10% stiffer = 12.3596
20% stiffer = 13.4832

I tend to round up or down at 0.5 being the cut off:

So my front springs would be:

13.5

Rear - do the same

Min = 4.1
Max = 15.5

15.5-4.1 = 11.4 (travel)

41% of 'travel' = 4.674

+ min (4.1) = 8.774 (stock spring)

10% stiffer = 9.6514
20% stiffer = 10.5288

So my rear spring is:

10.52

So I've got:

Front = 13.5
Rear = 10.5

These are numerical values, but it's the % of 'strength' which is now important.

The front are over 3/4's strength, but not maximum, the rears are just over half. So match your damper extension to this (front 8 and rear 6), then reverse your roll bars to this (front approx 1/4 = 2 and rear just under 1/2 = 3).

So the basic starting point setup would be:

Front
13.5 - springs
8 - damper extension
2 - roll bar

Rear
10.5 - springs
6 - damper extension
3 - roll bar

This is the starting point for your setup, but you will now have to tweak to personal driving style and equiptment setting.

Some of my friends also run this car and they will 'tweak' the roll bars either +1 or -1 - but I've said this all along, this is not uncommon, people's style and equiptment setup and settings varey hugely.

I run modest ride height, camber and toe settings, nothing crazy, all within the realms of acceptability, I just tweak the roll bars mainly.

BUT, with some cars, this does take ALOT of tweaking, especially if the track has elevation changes as you may need to change the dampers +1 or -1 to stop tyres from going 'red'. This is not uncommon, but when you finally get it 'right', it all comes together, the car is balanced, tyre wear is excellent and tyre temperature remains stable - you've hit the sweet spot and the car is flying and feels very good.

Try it on another car - same result, and again, and again, and again - every car I've tried, all my friends that have tried this, it's the same result, their cars feel better then ever before. What am I supposed to think when I'm getting feedback like this from so many people and my own pesonal cars tell me the same thing to??

If the left hand side figures were reversed, this theory simply wouldn't work, but it does, which is why I'm so against this left hand side 'reverse' theory.

The above is alot more complicated than what it seems, the amount of variables between cars, level of tuning, tracks and individual driving styles are huge - however, the theory of basing a car's setup on it's weight distribution remains (at the moment - until I find something better!).

The more you try it, the more experienced you get, the easier it becomes to tweak and fine tune setups, but at first it might seem confusing and a little bit daunting. Also, there are, for some people, some cars that might mean tweaking a roll bar + or - 2 will give them what they need, but this doesn't affect the fundamental belief of setting up according to weight distribution.

 

[Christian_C]

Highlandor I'm just about to try your idea now, I'll report back with my findings later

 

[praiano63]

I traduce this from a french site. It have the advantage to be clear and simple. good for me.



Anti roll bars are used to spread the lateral grip of the car.Those bars resist against the roll of the chassis and consequently transfer the mass from the internal wheel to the external wheel.More this bar is stiff, more the mass transfer is important.But, if the external wheel is not able to transform this overload in more grip this grip will be reduced.Also this will modify the balance of the car, having a repercussion on the opposite side of the chassis ; because of this, increasing the stiffness of the bar one side make loose grip on the same side ,but increase the grip on the opposite side.
The overall grip of a chassis can’t be changed ,but it’s possible to equilibrate and distributed differently to the four wheels.The anti roll bars are a very eficient tool to change the balance of a car. Also, the rigidity of the chassis is the most important thing for the eficiency of the sway bars, like this a stiffer chassis will transmit and show better the diferents results of each sway bar settings.

FRONT SWAY BAR:
The front sway bar principally act principally on the direction sensitivity entring a corner.

Effects of the front sway bar settings:

More soft :
Increase the roll of the chassis
Increase the front grip (and decrease the rear grip)
Decrease the direction sensitivity entring a corner , less responsive to the wheel, slower response.

More strong :
Decrease the roll of the chassis
Decrease the front grip (and increase the rear grip)
Increase the direction sensitivity entring a corner , more responsive to the wheel, quicker response.



REAR SWAY BAR :
The rear sway bar act principally on the stability under acceleration middle and going out of a corner.

Effects of the rear sway bar settings:

More soft :
Increase the roll of the chassis
Increase the rear grip (and decrease the front grip)
Less steady under acceleration

More strong :
Decrease the roll of the chassis
Decrease the rear grip (and increase the front grip)
More steady under acceleration. More responsive under quick change of direction like quick chicanes.

 

[Highlandor]

Highlandor I'm just about to try your idea now, I'll report back with my findings later

Cool,..

_______________________

I forgot to mention, this theory is for Online racing, not offline, but it works fine offline.

Also, I tune my cars for consistency and even / good tyre wear, I do NOT bother with single lap times (they're only good for Time Attack competitions anyway).

I tune for balance and consistency, so a car feels the same throughout a race. Most of the races I do are between 20-30 miles (30-45kms), I don't do short sprints that are regular occurance in alot of random lobbies.

They are ways of making your car faster over a flying lap - that's easy, but consistent laps over race distance, that's a different story and that's what I try to tune too.

So don't judge this theory by individual best lap time, look at race distance time and how the car feels over race distance.

 

[CSLACR]

Cool,..

_______________________

I forgot to mention, this theory is for Online racing, not offline, but it works fine offline.

Also, I tune my cars for consistency and even / good tyre wear, I do NOT bother with single lap times (they're only good for Time Attack competitions anyway).

I tune for balance and consistency, so a car feels the same throughout a race. Most of the races I do are between 20-30 miles (30-45kms), I don't do short sprints that are regular occurance in alot of random lobbies.

They are ways of making your car faster over a flying lap - that's easy, but consistent laps over race distance, that's a different story and that's what I try to tune too.

So don't judge this theory by individual best lap time, look at race distance time and how the car feels over race distance.

I've also tuned for races online with tire wear, and the principals don't change at all.
You always want to run fast laps, regardless of race length.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to see this "proper" set up from anyone.
Of course, since online is more over-steer prone I know it will be different from an offline tune, and the rear will be stiffer than offline tunes, since stiffening the rear helps tune out over-steer.

 

[Sail IC]

I've also tuned for races online with tire wear, and the principals don't change at all.
You always want to run fast laps, regardless of race length.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to see this "proper" set up from anyone.
Of course, since online is more over-steer prone I know it will be different from an offline tune, and the rear will be stiffer than offline tunes, since stiffening the rear helps tune out over-steer.

You mean softening the rear by putting in a higher number ... LOL

For us backwards people, when putting i higher number for the rear springs, do you:
- Softening the rear
- Or stiffening the front

That's what I like to know. The result is similar from an over/understeer point of view, but not how the car sprung as a whole

 

[praiano63]

You mean softening the rear by putting in a higher number ... LOL

For us backwards people, when putting i higher number for the rear springs, do you:
- Softening the rear
- Or stiffening the front

That's what I like to know. The result is similar from an over/understeer point of view, but not how the car sprung as a whole

Here is one more bomb ... No serious.
The only thing for me is backward or inverted in the game is the ride height. I tune all the rest normally. I know it's not very normal, sometime you need to apply some insane settings to work goof . But for the inverted settings i repeat or me it's only the ride height.

 

[Highlandor]

I've also tuned for races online with tire wear, and the principals don't change at all.
You always want to run fast laps, regardless of race length.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to see this "proper" set up from anyone.
Of course, since online is more over-steer prone I know it will be different from an offline tune, and the rear will be stiffer than offline tunes, since stiffening the rear helps tune out over-steer.

Don't agree 100% of the time with 100% of cars.

Wack up the springs and / or camber rates, and / or maybe run + toe instead of - toe (either both or just front or rear) on some cars on some tracks and you'll put in faster laps, but wear the tyres quicker too.

Some setups heat up and wear out tyres quicker, others will be far 'softer' on the tyres.

I've run longer distance setups in shorter races in random lobbies, my tyres will still be cool when others have already wamred up theiir tyres and started to wear them out.

Then they come to my lobby / races, they shoot off into the distance, but by half race distance they're tyres are gone, I catch them and beat them easily to the end.

But I agree about putting in a safety margin of rear stability into a setup to allow for the car being more 'loose' in the race. I do this with all my cars.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to see this "proper" set up from anyone.

What are you waiting for.....what "proper" setup you talking about??

 

[CSLACR]

You mean softening the rear by putting in a higher number ... LOL

For us backwards people, when putting i higher number for the rear springs, do you:
- Softening the rear
- Or stiffening the front

That's what I like to know. The result is similar from an over/understeer point of view, but not how the car sprung as a whole

I think your theory is devised to commit to GT5 excellence, and you are in denial.
Click on the yellow icon in the game, and it will tell you higher numbers = stiffer.

Here is one more bomb ... No serious.
The only thing for me is backward or inverted in the game is the ride height. I tune all the rest normally. I know it's not very normal, sometime you need to apply some insane settings to work goof . But for the inverted settings i repeat or me it's only the ride height.

I have to wonder if it's not the definition of over-steer and under-steer that people are getting mixed up here.

Testing is done by professionals on skidpads, and through the slalom.
If, when you increase speed, you have to turn the wheel further to continue turning the same radius, you are under-steering - hence steering more = under steer.
If, when you increase speed, you keep the wheel at the same turning angle, you have achieved neutral, as you don't have to increase or decrease steering input for higher speeds.
If you have to dial back the steering angle, and steer less at a higher speed, you have over-steer.

TGTT is the best (widest) place I can think of for trying it this directly.

What are you waiting for.....what "proper" setup you talking about??

The one I asked for, which should be no problem for you to create, where a car that under-steers has it's under-steer cured by increasing rear spring rate's, dampers, and anti-roll bars.
I expect to see equal ride heights on it, since we've all so far agreed on that, and I don't want to see negative rear toe, super high front/low rear camber, I want to see under-steer cured by stiffening the rear suspension as you claim is not only possible, but the correct way to go.
I know I won't see it, but it'd be nice to see the attempt.

A perfect car would be something like the ACR, which starts off with exactly equal front/rear settings.

 

[Highlandor]

The one I asked for, which should be no problem for you to create, where a car that under-steers has it's under-steer cured by increasing rear spring rate's, dampers, and anti-roll bars.
I expect to see equal ride heights on it, since we've all so far agreed on that, and I don't want to see negative rear toe, super high front/low rear camber, I want to see under-steer cured by stiffening the rear suspension as you claim is not only possible, but the correct way to go.
I know I won't see it, but it'd be nice to see the attempt.

A perfect car would be something like the ACR, which starts off with exactly equal front/rear settings.

Er...where exaclty did I say I could cure underster by stiffening the rear??

I wasn't talking to you or answering your question, my post was for someone else and had nothing to do with your request / understeer issue.

You're saying I claim to cure understeer by stiffening the rear suspension - er...no, my post was about a generalistic theory of setting up cars according to weight distrubution, absolutely nothing about stiffening the rear springs, dampers AND roll bars.

If you could be bothered to read what I wrote you'll clearly see that I said that having all three of these set at the same (either soft or hard) is wrong.

So why on earth you directing that question to me..??

Anyway - I had a go at your little challenge:

Stock ACR Viper:

Custom suspension

Ride height = level
Spring = Increased
Dampers = Default
Roll bar = Increased
Camber Front = 1.5 / Rear = 1.0
Toe Front = -0.15 / Rear = +0.10

Custom LSD and brakes tuned.
Aero, ballast and power all default - all driving aids turned off.

Tried both racing hard and default sports hard - what understeer???

Car was luverly, even with sticky racing hards and a super planted rear end, in turned in (and around) very well, with lesser sports hards, you can't beat some power oversteer to cure some understeer - a la Le Stig...

Even on faster corners with no wheelspin, considering it had sports hards on, it turned very well, even I was surprised.

I didn't even have to tweak it either, I dialled in a weight distribution theory setup and the car felt great, I didn't get any understeer, and I didn't decrease any spring, damper or roll bar settings.

Ok, my 'test' might not be exactly to your specs - but seeing as I never claimed to be able to do what you were asking, I think (using the method I posted for another person, not you) things turned out pretty well - like I say - what understeer???

 

[Sail IC]

I think your theory is devised to commit to GT5 excellence, and you are in denial.
Click on the yellow icon in the game, and it will tell you higher numbers = stiffer.

I was joking. I know what the yellow icon reads, but so does the yellow icon from ride hight reads, and it works the opposite.

When increasing the stiffness of the rear springs, it should create oversteer. But it does the opposite, it creates understeer. You and I agree here. So something is wrong or backwards. I see two alternatives when putting in a higher value for the rear springs.

1, A higher value for the rear springs actually makes them softer, ie more rear grip.
2, A higher value for the rear springs actually maker the front springs stiffer, ie less front grip.

Both above alternatives has the same effect on over/understeer, but not how the car is sprung as a whole. The reason why I like to figure this out is that in general terms, a soft sprung car has more grip but is more difficult to controll but a stiff sprung is the opposite. It also affect what to do with things like the camber.

To put it different. On the left side of the suspension menu. How is it backwards?

1, Higher number is softer spring/ARB/Dampers
2, Swap Front/Rear (higher number is harder, but Front affects Rear, and Rear affects Front)

I'm not looking to convince the people who think its right, but if backwards, understand better in which way its backwards.

 

[Christian_C]

I've read every post in here and I can say... I'm completely confused

I did try highlandor's tuning 'method' to see what results I would get and well, it does work to an extent.

I've adopted an approach of when I adjust the spring rate/roll bars/damping that I adjust them all as one rather than individually. The game suggests that when you stiffen the springs you should soften the roll bars too but I see how it works yet at the same time I don't. I understand it from the point that stiff springs mean less roll naturally so the roll bar can be slackened off since it's 'need' will be less but I don't see why you'd want to soften it off just because it's not 'needed' as much?

 

[Highlandor]

I've adopted an approach of when I adjust the spring rate/roll bars/damping that I adjust them all as one rather than individually.

Adjust the front and rear individually, according to the weight distribution (springs & dampers) then the roll bars being the opposite to these.

I use this (from an ex member) to tune the rolls bars, which I find very helpful.

Direct tuning approach
If your front is not rotating lower the front ARB, if your rear is not rotating lower the rear ARB. If your front is rotating too much increase the front ARB, if the rear is rotating too much, increase the rear ARB.

You can alternatively

Indirect tuning approach
If your front is not rotating enough, increase the rear ARB, if your rear is not rotating enough increase the front ARB. If your front is rotating too much, decrease the rear ARB. If your rear is rotating too much decrease the front ARB.

Here's the thread it's from:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=198591&page=2

Do as I mentioned with the springs, then match the dampers to the springs 'stiffness', start with your roll bars the opposite to these and fine tune according to the above.

 

[CSLACR]

Er...where exaclty did I say I could cure underster by stiffening the rear??

I wasn't talking to you or answering your question, my post was for someone else and had nothing to do with your request / understeer issue.

You're saying I claim to cure understeer by stiffening the rear suspension - er...no, my post was about a generalistic theory of setting up cars according to weight distrubution, absolutely nothing about stiffening the rear springs, dampers AND roll bars.

If you could be bothered to read what I wrote you'll clearly see that I said that having all three of these set at the same (either soft or hard) is wrong.

So why on earth you directing that question to me..??

Anyway - I had a go at your little challenge:

Stock ACR Viper:

Custom suspension

Ride height = level
Spring = Increased
Dampers = Default
Roll bar = Increased
Camber Front = 1.5 / Rear = 1.0
Toe Front = -0.15 / Rear = +0.10

Custom LSD and brakes tuned.
Aero, ballast and power all default - all driving aids turned off.

Tried both racing hard and default sports hard - what understeer???

Car was luverly, even with sticky racing hards and a super planted rear end, in turned in (and around) very well, with lesser sports hards, you can't beat some power oversteer to cure some understeer - a la Le Stig...

Even on faster corners with no wheelspin, considering it had sports hards on, it turned very well, even I was surprised.

I didn't even have to tweak it either, I dialled in a weight distribution theory setup and the car felt great, I didn't get any understeer, and I didn't decrease any spring, damper or roll bar settings.

Ok, my 'test' might not be exactly to your specs - but seeing as I never claimed to be able to do what you were asking, I think (using the method I posted for another person, not you) things turned out pretty well - like I say - what understeer???

You claim the setting aren't backwards, so you should be able to provide the tune that proves so.

Ride height = level
Spring = Increased
Dampers = Default
Roll bar = Increased
Camber Front = 1.5 / Rear = 1.0
Toe Front = -0.15 / Rear = +0.10

This is simply doing exactly what I said you'd do, using camber, toe and unspecified brakes and lsd, it has literally nothing to do with whether or not the left side settings are backwards.
Post again when you have something to show they are backwards, aside from theory, as practice has already dis-proven your current theory.

Count me in for no 3.

You ask, you receive. Now please show the setup that increases over-steer by hardening the rear suspension, be it springs, dampers, or anti-roll bars, take your pick. That doesn't mean harden both equally and change other settings to prove other settings change things, that's about as useful as tits on a bull.

I'm not sure how you would have ever considered keeping a suspension at the same rates front and rear proves anything on the subject of changing front rear spring/damper/arb settings.

I was joking. I know what the yellow icon reads, but so does the yellow icon from ride hight reads, and it works the opposite.

When increasing the stiffness of the rear springs, it should create oversteer. But it does the opposite, it creates understeer. You and I agree here. So something is wrong or backwards. I see two alternatives when putting in a higher value for the rear springs.

1, A higher value for the rear springs actually makes them softer, ie more rear grip.
2, A higher value for the rear springs actually maker the front springs stiffer, ie less front grip.

Both above alternatives has the same effect on over/understeer, but not how the car is sprung as a whole. The reason why I like to figure this out is that in general terms, a soft sprung car has more grip but is more difficult to controll but a stiff sprung is the opposite. It also affect what to do with things like the camber.

To put it different. On the left side of the suspension menu. How is it backwards?

1, Higher number is softer spring/ARB/Dampers
2, Swap Front/Rear (higher number is harder, but Front affects Rear, and Rear affects Front)

I'm not looking to convince the people who think its right, but if backwards, understand better in which way its backwards.

But higher is stiffer, we can tell this because it bounces harder and rolls less with high settings.
If you're testing at a low ride height it will be harder to see the difference, I recommend at least 0/0 ride height.

 

[Christian_C]

Adjust the front and rear individually, according to the weight distribution (springs & dampers) then the roll bars being the opposite to these.

I use this (from an ex member) to tune the rolls bars, which I find very helpful.

Direct tuning approach
If your front is not rotating lower the front ARB, if your rear is not rotating lower the rear ARB. If your front is rotating too much increase the front ARB, if the rear is rotating too much, increase the rear ARB.

You can alternatively

Indirect tuning approach
If your front is not rotating enough, increase the rear ARB, if your rear is not rotating enough increase the front ARB. If your front is rotating too much, decrease the rear ARB. If your rear is rotating too much decrease the front ARB.

Here's the thread it's from:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=198591&page=2

Do as I mentioned with the springs, then match the dampers to the springs 'stiffness', start with your roll bars the opposite to these and fine tune according to the above.

Ahh sorry, I was meaning to say I softened the front springs I would also soften the front dampers and stiffen the front ARB not that I'd soften/stiffen the entire suspension front and rear in unison.

 

[Highlandor]

You claim the setting aren't backwards, so you should be able to provide the tune that proves so.
This is simply doing exactly what I said you'd do, using camber, toe and unspecified brakes and lsd, it has literally nothing to do with whether or not the left side settings are backwards.
Post again when you have something to show they are backwards, aside from theory, as practice has already dis-proven your current theory.
You ask, you receive. Now please show the setup that increases over-steer by hardening the rear suspension, be it springs, dampers, or anti-roll bars, take your pick. That doesn't mean harden both equally and change other settings to prove other settings change things, that's about as useful as tits on a bull.

I'm not sure how you would have ever considered keeping a suspension at the same rates front and rear proves anything on the subject of changing front rear spring/damper/arb settings.

I DIDN'T

You said don't use - rear toe or high camber, I didn't, but this still isn't good enough for you. I didn't keep the springs and roll bars equal - I raised them at the rear as I quoted. As you wanted me too!?!?!?!?

The entire front suspension was default, the rear increased, as you wanted, the car didn't understeer..... I had no crazy camber angles and still had + toe on the rear, and you're still not happy??? Because of my LSD and brakes settings, wow these are going to have a huge affect on a 1.5 ton car with 500+bhp running sports hard tyres whilst accelerating around long corners aren't they???

My theory has nothing to do with the left hand reverse rubbish, my theory is about weight distribution and matching the springs and dampers to this. It has got nothing to do with your pedantic arguement about increasing the rear only - so stop telling me to prove this and stop telling me my theory doesn't work because of this AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY THEORY

You say practice has already disproved my theory, really, show me what car, tune, tyres, and settings you were using on what track then?? I'll show what you're doing wrong and what you need to correct to make it work, like I have with countless others who now use this theory. I've already provided a tune to prove my theory which subsequently, just happens, to disprove the left handed reverse theory.

If you want the rest (camber, toe, ride height etc) of what I use to go with it, then fine, I'll post that and you and everyone else can see and test it for yourself.

The car I quoted had a 59% front & 41% rear weight split, Try doing the same on a car with the opposite, but using the same formula - it still works, I know, myself and many friends have tried it - why not come to my lobby, speak to the guys running this theory and see and hear for yourself?

We've tested it on front biased cars and rear biased cars, the results are the same -the car is better than ever before. How on earth is a left handed reverse theory going to improve different cars that have such dramatic opposite weight distribution..??

 

[CSLACR]

The entire front suspension was default, the rear increased, as you wanted, the car didn't understeer..... I had no crazy camber angles and still had + toe on the rear, and you're still not happy??? Because of my LSD and brakes settings, wow these are going to have a huge affect on a 1.5 ton car with 500+bhp running sports hard tyres whilst accelerating around long corners aren't they???

Oh, so "raised" now means something? 0.1? 0.2? 8.5?

Ride height = level
Spring = Increased
Dampers = Default
Roll bar = Increased
Camber Front = 1.5 / Rear = 1.0
Toe Front = -0.15 / Rear = +0.10

You did not say you raised anything for the rear, just "raised".

I may have overreacted a smidgen here, apologies issued to readers and Highlandor.
I've no idea how anyone can try a stiffer front softer rear for springs, dampers, and arb without agreeing they induce over-steer, but such is life, enjoy.

 

[nomis3613]

Highlandor,
Thanks for sharing the knowledge with your epic posts!

I'm keen to try out your method and theories soon.

One of my closest GT5 friends is now convinced of this method of tuning, BUT his driving style and wheel setup is completely different. He still starts each tune via the weight ditribution and % theory, he also matches his springs, dampers and roll bars accordingly - and says his cars have never felt better.

Just wondering, maybe there is a difference between what you and some other people are trying to achieve with tuning (in addition to online vs offline, hop lap vs enduro, wheel vs controller, etc etc).

I have a feeling that you are willing to drive according to the cars natural preference (eg not using settings as a big stick to beat some oversteer into a car has a natural tendancy to push wide mildly). So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not actually saying that increasing front springs usually increases understeer? More that there needs to be a whole synergy between all of the settings (which is more complicated than just "the car understeers" or "the car oversteers") and you can't get this if think that springs/dampers/anti-roll settings are backwards?

Whereas other people prefer to tune the over/understeer balance of the car to suit the driving style. So they are debating "should stiffening or softening the front reduce understeer?"

Maybe these two very different perspectives are the cause of the wildly different observations/opinions we're seeing here.
(sorry if I've totally misinterpreted what you've said- which would mean this entire post is wrong )

 

[CSLACR]

Highlandor,
Thanks for sharing the knowledge with your epic posts!

I'm keen to try out your method and theories soon.

Just wondering, maybe there is a difference between what you and some other people are trying to achieve with tuning (in addition to online vs offline, hop lap vs enduro, wheel vs controller, etc etc).

I have a feeling that you are willing to drive according to the cars natural preference (eg not using settings as a big stick to beat some oversteer into a car has a natural tendancy to push wide mildly). So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not actually saying that increasing front springs usually increases understeer? More that there needs to be a whole synergy between all of the settings (which is more complicated than just "the car understeers" or "the car oversteers") and you can't get this if think that springs/dampers/anti-roll settings are backwards?

Whereas other people prefer to tune the over/understeer balance of the car to suit the driving style. So they are debating "should stiffening or softening the front reduce understeer?"

Maybe these two very different perspectives are the cause of the wildly different observations/opinions we're seeing here.
(sorry if I've totally misinterpreted what you've said- which would mean this entire post is wrong )

Well he hasn't really said anything in the way of what each setting does at all. Just that you should set each according to weight balance, etc.

All I can say to the "synergy" theory is FF lap times and settings blow that clear out of the water. Perhaps it works better with other drive trains, but it certainly doesn't make FF cars as fast as possible, not by a long shot.
I'd also like to see it for a Denso Dunlop Sard SC430.

 

[Sail IC]

I'd also like to see it for a Denso Dunlop Sard SC430.

I'm competing in a very competitive GT500 online racing league. We're just starting a new season first race on Thursday, and for this season I'll be using the Petronas SC430, the same or very similar to the Denso. Different tires but I haven't seen much difference.

My set-up is balanced with a slight oversteer to manage front tire wear better. It definitely display the backwards dynamics, ie when I increase rear springs/ARB, I get less oversteer.
First race is at Laguna Seca. As I'm in the middle of testing the car/track, and I spend quite some time on it. I'm lapping in the low 1'17 with a PB of 1'16.7xx on fresh tires running alone on track (no slipstream). We will run 60 laps, and tirewear is a toss between 2 or three pitstops.

This is in online private lobby (slight difference to public online). You also have to change track when entering private lobby or the tires will never heat up. There is a bug but this "reset" solves it.

Here is my set-up if you want to test it. I would very much appreciate your input.

Rating: 615PP (536hp, stage 3 engine downtuned to 536hp)
Tires: Racing soft
Aero: 40/65 (max)
LSD: 12/15/17
RH: +13/-2
Spring: 15.5/16.5
DH: 8/5
DH: 7/4
ARB: 4/5
Camber: 1.4/1.2
Toe: -0.15/-0.15
Brakes: 4/8

My set-up is slightly contradictory in the ridehight/spring/ARB. I probably set the Spring/ARB to even front/rear which would probably have the Ridehight going to +13/0 or similar.

Very much appreciate your inputs if you get the time to test.

 

[Adrenaline]

I'm competing in a very competitive GT500 online racing league. We're just starting a new season first race on Thursday

Can I get a link for potential sign up?
Checked the Racing Series Forum and checked 5 different gt500 threads, but none of them were what you're mentioning. Thanks in advance.

 

[Sail IC]

Can I get a link for potential sign up?
Checked the Racing Series Forum and checked 5 different gt500 threads, but none of them were what you're mentioning. Thanks in advance.

We have our own Web page www.GTForum.eu. You have to sign up to enter.

Below is a promotional video one member did. Its from a division 2 race. He is a professional driver but still doesn't make it into division 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFVYIX4-II&feature=player_embedded

We race GT500 cars, two divisions with 28 drivers in each. We race under the PP regulations. The GT-R has 610PP and all other cars 615PP. Still most people picks the GT-R and we're starting to understand why. At this PP level, tha cars are basically overpowered (520HP+) to what the chassis can handle and the GT-R has the best chassis. Most people also run at or close to full downforce as additioal HP doesn't benefit you that much. To put it another way, if using the NSX which is a challenging drive at this PP level, it doesn't matter if you use 610PP, 620PP, or 630PP. The lap times will be very similar.

Due to above we're just about to start an additional championship using GT500 cars at 590PP level. This has a lot of promise as all cars seems truly equal. In testing I've been trying the Woodone GT-R, Lexus Eneos/Bandai and they are nearly as comptitive as the other cars. Furthermore, Aero/HP tuning comes into play. In most leagues I know of ony full downforce makes sense. But at this level, a 35/45 downforce might be the fastest. Given this, I think this championship will be very interesting for a "tuner".

Sorry if I hijacked the thread, but from a tuning perspective, running GT500 races at 490PP level I think would be very intersting for the Tuning community.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Sorry if I hijacked the thread, but from a tuning perspective, running GT500 races at 490PP level I think would be very intersting for the Tuning community.

Already been done. Adrenaline once ran a tuners challenge that did the Xania GT-R and the Raybrig NSX.

I know that there are at least two, maybe four people racing in GT500 series' using my tunes. I have helped a few to make tweaks to the tunes to match their driving styles.