Anti-Roll bars/sway bars , how do they work in GT5?
- Thread starter Christian_C
- 116 comments
- 21,929 views
- 262
- smalldave
Just as I thought I was getting the hang of GT5 tuning, I stumble across this! *face palm*
I've skimmed through the thread but it looks to me as though everyones just seeking clarity on what everyone else has just said, so I apologise if I've repeated anything that has been said but I'll say this:
When tuning my NSX (hopefully release it too) i found I had bestowed it with a brilliant change of direction, very pointy front end, and immense fun. I proceeded to make it less murderous by softening the rear springs... and it worked - more understeer, more predictable, but slightly slower and less fun.
The same happened when tuning my Evora - it had a very stiff rear end giving telepathic turn in (apologies for lack of modesty/slight exaggeration) but to make it more usable I softened the rear springs. It then became noticeably more docile.
While I'm here, slightly off topic, but the diff still boggles my mind on occasion - specifically Initial Torque and Acceleration. If anyone can help it would be appreciated, as I imagine I would get shouted at by 'forum veterans' for starting a thread about that
Also, feel pity as I typed this once on my iPod, and as I came to post the Internet failed so I had to remember what I typed...and do it again.
I've skimmed through the thread but it looks to me as though everyones just seeking clarity on what everyone else has just said, so I apologise if I've repeated anything that has been said but I'll say this:
When tuning my NSX (hopefully release it too) i found I had bestowed it with a brilliant change of direction, very pointy front end, and immense fun. I proceeded to make it less murderous by softening the rear springs... and it worked - more understeer, more predictable, but slightly slower and less fun.
The same happened when tuning my Evora - it had a very stiff rear end giving telepathic turn in (apologies for lack of modesty/slight exaggeration) but to make it more usable I softened the rear springs. It then became noticeably more docile.
While I'm here, slightly off topic, but the diff still boggles my mind on occasion - specifically Initial Torque and Acceleration. If anyone can help it would be appreciated, as I imagine I would get shouted at by 'forum veterans' for starting a thread about that
Also, feel pity as I typed this once on my iPod, and as I came to post the Internet failed so I had to remember what I typed...and do it again.
- 322
- New Zealand
Thanks for posting this, it leads perfectly to what I was about to say.
I don't think the suspension tuning is backwards. In my opinion, something in PD's calculations is skewed towards a car set up to have good initial grip, so most cars respond to settings that achieve this(stiffer springs/bars, higher roll center) . Some cars are different though.
Try different ride height settings on the BMW V12 LMR. A high front end will give good initial steering response, but mid-exit corner understeer. I run my LMR with 5mm higher rear height to make the car well balanced through the whole corner.
Thats my 2c on this anyway
- 12,635
- paracuru
- praiano63
You're welcome. This explanation also reveal some importants points clearly to me. Check this link if you want, it's about LSD, i've post it today and it's very simple and clear too.with this i hope you can resolve the BMW tune . I'm working on it too, it's not an easy one.
Have a good night.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5752659#post5752659
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I was going to quote Highlandor's post #38 but it's too long for a quote. Up until now I've tuned by the knowledge I've gained as a layman, mainly from these forums, and by feel. I've never seen that type of calculation before but I'm definitely going to try it out and see what happens. Just from the looks of it, I think it's pretty close to what I'm doing right now but it sure would be handy to develop a little spreadsheet, plug in some figures and voila, instatune.
Someone mentioned earlier about this being "only" a $60 videogame and yes, that is the retail price. However, seeing as how each of GT1-4 sold a minimum of 10,000,000 copies I'd say this is actually a $600 Million dollar video game and as such, I think we are perfectly reasonable in expecting a lot from this game. $600 Mill buys you a lot of R and D and a lot of programmers...lol. Fix the dumb stuff for God's sake...
Someone mentioned earlier about this being "only" a $60 videogame and yes, that is the retail price. However, seeing as how each of GT1-4 sold a minimum of 10,000,000 copies I'd say this is actually a $600 Million dollar video game and as such, I think we are perfectly reasonable in expecting a lot from this game. $600 Mill buys you a lot of R and D and a lot of programmers...lol. Fix the dumb stuff for God's sake...
- 60
- JasonMann
my opinion is that all of us shouldnt argue about if the settings are backwards or not, we should be tuning out cars based on how we like it. spend 30mins tuning one car so u can better understand it, no matter if the settings are backwards or not. simply treat all of the settings as just numbers, and not with the thought in your head that "if i soften the front roll bar. it will understeer less" that may not be the case, because it it is very difficult in anything to replicate life.
Despite all, i am booting my ps3 to try all of you guy's tuning advice, and report on it
cheers,
Despite all, i am booting my ps3 to try all of you guy's tuning advice, and report on it
cheers,
RamoSapiens
(Banned)
- 1,555
- GTF_Max
THX Johan!
I have no idea what you´re talking about....hehe!
But that setup works very well for a GT-R also.
Improved my laptime at Laguna with 0.5 seconds,
compared to my old setup. Now it really turns in.
Lapping now low 1´17´s with a GT-R at 610PP.
And tire wear is awesome! 20 laps is no problem at all....
PS: I´ll send you a car as a gift for that setup.
- 2,385
- Retired to a padded cell
- GTP_Padded_Cell
- Microsoft sucks..
No you didn't, you inflamed the fire by digging your heels in, contradicting yourself and having the complete inability to see anything other than you're own point of view.
You came up with a ridiculous one variable test that in your eyes proved you were right and you weren't prepared to listen to or deal with anything else other than you're ridiculous test.
A perfect example of the sort of person who's ruining this website by driving way the good guys who like to help people because feeding your oh so fraglie and oh so over inflated ego is more important.
Your 'test' was based on one variable. LMFAO....
My theory about the weight distribution has been tested by multiple people over the past weeks with multiple variables such as:
Different cars i.e. 4WD fr and rr engined, RWD both fr and mr
Different tracks - smooth and bumpy, flat and elevation changes
Different people - i.e. pad users and wheel users
Different driving styles, people who like their cars planted and those who like their cars loose.
Most importantant, cars with varying weight distribution - 50-50, 40-60 and 60-40.
The theory was unanimously agreed on that it work - if you know how to tune and fine tune (as per my description). Or if you didn't, I'd tell people what to tweak (as per my original description), and then they agreed it worked.
You honestly think I'm going to jump on the Tuning section of GTP and post an idea that has just popped into my head without testing?? Just goes to show what a
you are then doesn't it??I gave the guy who runs PureGT (honourabledrivers.com) this setup for one his favourite cars to race with on Monday, next day he sent me a message describing it as a "dream".
So I sent him a saved email that explains how to apply this theory to his cars, he tested it and this is his exact response, copied and pasted:
"Sodding brilliant Andy, really am, I think my tuning thread will need changing, lol. Brilliant"
Considering the experience and quality of some of the guys on his site he has to draw from, weird how he's now using my theory, isn't it.
You didn't quell the fire, you just proved you were the perfect example of the GTP member who only cares about himself and sees what he wants to see, and won't accept anything else, and will then pedanticly nit pick over other people's post's to find the slightest error (in your eyes) that you will then use to justify how you are right and they are wrong.
Nice work 👍
Well done for contributing to the mass exodus of the good guys that used to make this site so special - big round of applause to you.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Clearly you didn't read my apology.
Apology revoked, don't be a dick. Just like you were in the other thread I saw you post in. Get off your high horse - FYI - You also have listened to nothing other than your own opinion.
nomis3613
Premium
- 831
Review (sort of) of Highlandor's Tuning Method
Just for background info, I started off trying this method with a Ferrari F40 on Sports Soft at Tsukuba. Unfortunately, with Stage 3 engine upgrade, even when I ripped off all the removeable upgrades it was still an overpowered monster. The twin turbo was totally dominating handling effects in every corner, so the results (both online and offline) were inconclusive.
Take II was an Integra DC5 RM with racing Soft tyres, to produce more consistent results without the threat/benefit of an engine happy to kick out the rear at any given opportunity. Since most of Highlandor's driving is online, I had hoped to do the comparison online, but in the end my testing was offline because
i) the differences on the F40 seemed to be the same online and offline (even if the overall balance was much different) and
ii) Highlandor says the method should also work offline
...and I find it useful to compare against my ghost to see where time is lost/gained between settings changes.
Base tune (no tweaks to fix balance)
The flow from one corner to the next was much smoother than my KMW tune. However, going back to default camber and toe settings hurt the Integra and I was 0.3s slower than the KMW tune. Changing the rear toe to -0.2 (from +0.2) and the camber to 2.0 / 2.5 (form 0 / 0) brought the grip back and in the end my lap time became 0.2s faster than the KMW tune.
My driving style is very rough, even for a controller user. I like a car with heaps of turn-in that can hold the balance throughout the corner. It's possible that a smoother driver would find more improvement in Highlandor's method than I did.
For reference, my interpretation of the method gave me these settings:
height 0 / 0
springs 10.1 / 7.9
damper ext 7 / 4
damper comp7 / 4 (not sure if this was meant to stay default?)
anti-roll 3 / 5
Tuning balance- stiffer front anti-roll (aka "are the settings backwards or not"
)
Anti-roll 5 / 4
Definitely more understeer. Lap time increased by 0.3s.
Tuning balance- stiffer rear anti-roll
Anti-roll 2 / 6
Hmmm... this is where things get murky. I thought the car was slightly understeery in the "base tune" so in theory a bit more oversteer would make for quicker laps. After a heap of laps, I eventually got the same time as by baseline tune, but this might be more to do with the driver improving than the tune. There was definitely a difference, but ummmm I'm not totally sure what it is. My theory is that the softer front reduced turn-in, but improved exit front grip
So there was some signs of the traditional "stiffer = less grip" theory at play, but the difference in handling balance was a lot less than I have seen from rear toe or ride height changes. Also, the F40 experience (and softening the front of the Integra) showed that the effect can be easily masked by other handling phenomena.
Conclusions
Morals of the story:
- are the settings backwards somehow? No. But often there are other effects that make a greater difference to handling (such as power oversteer or front end stiffness improving turn-in)
- Highlandor's method might work for skilled drivers, but hacks like myself could struggle to see the difference.
(Highlandor, thanks heaps for sharing your method. Please don't think my comments are disputing it, it's more a complement that you and your buddies are better drivers and that perhaps my driving sucks too much to appreciate it!)
Just for background info, I started off trying this method with a Ferrari F40 on Sports Soft at Tsukuba. Unfortunately, with Stage 3 engine upgrade, even when I ripped off all the removeable upgrades it was still an overpowered monster. The twin turbo was totally dominating handling effects in every corner, so the results (both online and offline) were inconclusive.
Take II was an Integra DC5 RM with racing Soft tyres, to produce more consistent results without the threat/benefit of an engine happy to kick out the rear at any given opportunity. Since most of Highlandor's driving is online, I had hoped to do the comparison online, but in the end my testing was offline because
i) the differences on the F40 seemed to be the same online and offline (even if the overall balance was much different) and
ii) Highlandor says the method should also work offline
...and I find it useful to compare against my ghost to see where time is lost/gained between settings changes.
Base tune (no tweaks to fix balance)
The flow from one corner to the next was much smoother than my KMW tune. However, going back to default camber and toe settings hurt the Integra and I was 0.3s slower than the KMW tune. Changing the rear toe to -0.2 (from +0.2) and the camber to 2.0 / 2.5 (form 0 / 0) brought the grip back and in the end my lap time became 0.2s faster than the KMW tune.
My driving style is very rough, even for a controller user. I like a car with heaps of turn-in that can hold the balance throughout the corner. It's possible that a smoother driver would find more improvement in Highlandor's method than I did.
For reference, my interpretation of the method gave me these settings:
height 0 / 0
springs 10.1 / 7.9
damper ext 7 / 4
damper comp7 / 4 (not sure if this was meant to stay default?)
anti-roll 3 / 5
Tuning balance- stiffer front anti-roll (aka "are the settings backwards or not"
)Anti-roll 5 / 4
Definitely more understeer. Lap time increased by 0.3s.
Tuning balance- stiffer rear anti-roll
Anti-roll 2 / 6
Hmmm... this is where things get murky. I thought the car was slightly understeery in the "base tune" so in theory a bit more oversteer would make for quicker laps. After a heap of laps, I eventually got the same time as by baseline tune, but this might be more to do with the driver improving than the tune. There was definitely a difference, but ummmm I'm not totally sure what it is. My theory is that the softer front reduced turn-in, but improved exit front grip
So there was some signs of the traditional "stiffer = less grip" theory at play, but the difference in handling balance was a lot less than I have seen from rear toe or ride height changes. Also, the F40 experience (and softening the front of the Integra) showed that the effect can be easily masked by other handling phenomena.
Conclusions
Morals of the story:
- are the settings backwards somehow? No. But often there are other effects that make a greater difference to handling (such as power oversteer or front end stiffness improving turn-in)
- Highlandor's method might work for skilled drivers, but hacks like myself could struggle to see the difference.
(Highlandor, thanks heaps for sharing your method. Please don't think my comments are disputing it, it's more a complement that you and your buddies are better drivers and that perhaps my driving sucks too much to appreciate it!)
Last edited:
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
What I can tell you is everyone I saw, including the fastest of the fast, disagreed here -
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=205155
But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as they say.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Honestly, you should go through the thread, and watch multiple seconds continue to drop off everyone's laps.
My first posted splits: 23.445 - 29.684
My final splits: 22.729 - 28.601
And T3 was the biggest gain, to bad they couldn't be documented.
All in all, I saved 4.5 seconds off my first 'good' lap, using "reverse" tuning.
A few quick reads tell you real-world tuners stiffen the rear of FWD cars to induce oversteer, including ARB.
nomis3613
Premium
- 831
I don't think they're disagreeing with my testing, the comments are about a tune that uses almost every trick in the book to reduce understeer (ride height glitch, higher front than rear camber, etc etc). No-one specifically tests what part the stiffer front anti-roll bars are playing in that.
Also, the WRS Civic was understeering like a pig so it benefited from sharper steering response*. My baseline test started off with decent turn-in, so there's less room for improvement from a stiffer front end.
* IMHO steering response and front grip sometimes need to be considered separately. Even if a car has good front grip, if it's all roly-poly and takes ages to settle, then the steering response will suck. (Sorry for the lecture if you already know this, just wanted to clarify. Peace)
nomis3613
Premium
- 831
Cool, that extra info is good to know, thanks.
I'm not saying that a stiffer front will always understeer more. Did you read my 2nd paragraph (the bit you didn't quote)? Cos I have provided a theory for what is happening (for the WRS Civic) that you've totally ignored.
In fact, it would be much appreciated if you could try to understand people's posts as a whole, instead of finding a small point to nitpick on and distract from the main discussion.
You did exactly the same thing with my big post, by ignoring the whole point of it:
...instead, you found a statement, pulled it out of context and then criticised it based on some poorly-evidenced result obtained under very different tuning circumstances, and finally dragging it through a slow, painful death despite my attempts to explain to you that our observations and theories are not necessarily opposing.
I was hoping you were going somewhere interesting with your last few replies, now it's obvious that you're either looking for a fight or not bothering to read anyone else's replies properly. Either way, it's not a very useful contribution to the discussion IMHO.
Hey Tiddy, sorry we don't have a simple answer for you! If nothing else, hopefully seeing all these opinions flying around are food for through to help you figure out what works for you.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Yes you did, you chalked it up to quicker steering response.
So if I don't quote the entire post it automatically means I didn't read it?
I fully understand, you've decided it's "steering response" And everyone that tested it then didn't notice.
Well, I fail to believe that 30+ drivers were too stupid to "realise" what you "found" in a few tests.
No, I quoted the part I wished to continue discussing.
No I didn't, I replied to the only part you'd discuss.
That's not humble at all.
It's more assumptions you've made, based 100% off me not quoting the entire post.
So you think everyone couldn't decipher the differences you did?
Steering response doesn't effect mid-corner and corner exit, but what would 30+ drivers have in knowledge over you, right?
Well clearly as stated above, you feel nobody else is capable of discerning the difference.
What part of any of this would you like me to respond to?
I disagree, I can point you to a large list of drivers that agree.
Nobody else could discern the difference the way you can.
I'm not telling you what to believe, I tried to give you the opportunity to learn from what a large group of drivers found as fact in an extreme amount of testing in collaboration.
What you choose to learn from the information I have provided you is up to you, but when you sit there and say, "oh it's just steering response, everyone else is mistaken", what reply do you expect?
Well then we can agree on something.
nomis3613
Premium
- 831
I don't think that I am better than the WRS drivers!!
Following the test suggested by Highlandor, I now have seen that a stiffer front can cause understeer. So I am trying to rationalise this result with the usual outcome (ie stiffer front is helpful for an understeering car). So I am currently proposing this explanation for why it was helpful for the WRS Civic but gave a bit more understeer to my RM Integra:
- in most cases*, a stiffer front helps turn-in (as per by Civic)
- but sometimes it can slightly increase understeer (as per Integra, note that Integra had adequete turn-in to start with)
- for the Civic, if there was an increase in mid-corner and exit understeer then it may have been either tuned out with the other settings (rake, etc) or the trade-off was worth it
* yes, it's still a wishy washy theory!
Cheers,
Simon
Following the test suggested by Highlandor, I now have seen that a stiffer front can cause understeer. So I am trying to rationalise this result with the usual outcome (ie stiffer front is helpful for an understeering car). So I am currently proposing this explanation for why it was helpful for the WRS Civic but gave a bit more understeer to my RM Integra:
- in most cases*, a stiffer front helps turn-in (as per by Civic)
- but sometimes it can slightly increase understeer (as per Integra, note that Integra had adequete turn-in to start with)
- for the Civic, if there was an increase in mid-corner and exit understeer then it may have been either tuned out with the other settings (rake, etc) or the trade-off was worth it
* yes, it's still a wishy washy theory!
Cheers,
Simon
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Well that's my point, and why I only quoted part of it.
I simply disagree, I've seen a few cars in the shootouts have the same theory applied, including Integra's, and when I applied a stiffer front than rear (uncluding arb), under-steer faded and my lap times greatly improved.
There can be multiple theories for why something works, with pretty much any setting, I think this is evident across the tuning forum, where you can find 10 or more theories on lsd functions alone, let alone the entire suspension setup.
Though from what I've seen, most of the WRS drivers are pretty well agreed on most of the functions, still vastly different settings in most cases work for different drivers.
Typically, the more alien-like a driver's ability, the more they'll subscribe to using a stiff "front" soft "rear", across all spring, damper, and arb settings. this makes sense to me, because over-steer is harder to control then under-steer.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
ARB is correct, spring rates are correct.
The response to those changes is odd at times however.
The response to those changes is odd at times however.
- 1,019
- johnkiller2
I agree that responses could and should be odd if operating with extreme settings.
If, and if we want to get to some kind of common conclusion, below should be a reasonable process.
1, We elect a test car that has a reasonably balanced handling with default settings. The car should should be available in the new dealership. Ideally (in my view), it should be a FR car as those are easier to predict, but an MR car might be more balanced with stock settings.
2, When taking above car, stiffen the front and soften the rear, it should induce understeer.
We would then post our settings and findings. It is as simple as that.
What would be a good test car.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
It's the "extreme settings" clause that keeps people thinking it induces under-steer.
If all you change (and it's all you can when just talking about the ARB) is one click each way, the difference is usually minimal, it's when you go to higher changes that the differences become more obvious.
I'm willing to give it another try, but I already know the outcome, but when/if it needs to be a large difference between the two to become obvious enough everyone notices, then the "extreme settings" theories pop up.
That said, I can't think of a single neutral stock car in GT5, it's always under-steer or over-steer.
under-steer to slightly less under-steer is hard to detect, and over-steer to more over-steer is hard to detect.
I do think a stock ACR is about as close to neutral GT5 gets, the reason I picked it earlier, but when every other setting gets changed, one can make any argument they wish. It needs to stay "stock" aside from the specific individual part being changed.
And then the "different settings effect other settings" theories come into play.
All in all I think it's a lost cause, there's theories to explain each different happening, most of which I think are born from people not wanting it to be backwards.
But if someone wants to compare single suspension changes, I'm still game.
- 1,019
- johnkiller2
Stupid question .... Which car is a stock ACR, and can it be bought from the new car dealership.
What tires would you recommend. I think its important to have enoght tire grip for the available power.
Also, do you test online or offline. It has a hugh impact on a cars stock settings.
What tires would you recommend. I think its important to have enoght tire grip for the available power.
Also, do you test online or offline. It has a hugh impact on a cars stock settings.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Dodge - Viper ACR - Premium.
That's the thing, there's currently theories/thoughts on online physics changing depending on connections, etc.
The car is probably dead neutral online, but with the theories, nothing can be proven, which leaves us offline, which I find more realistic in the first place.
Plus track-to-track physics definitely change online, sometimes corner-to-corner.
So offline it will have to be, I would recommend SSR5, the smoothest track I can think of.
- 1,019
- johnkiller2
Dodge - Viper ACR - Premium.
That's the thing, there's currently theories/thoughts on online physics changing depending on connections, etc.
The car is probably dead neutral online, but with the theories, nothing can be proven, which leaves us offline, which I find more realistic in the first place.
Plus track-to-track physics definitely change online, sometimes corner-to-corner.
So offline it will have to be, I would recommend SSR5, the smoothest track I can think of.
Tried the car, both online and offline, sports hard and racing hard
Maybe its down to driving style, but I think that car has a lot of understeer on entry, mid, and corner exit. Only on corner exit it can be provoced into oversteer by being very uncareful with the throttle on sports hard. Othervice, its understeer heaven for me.
I think it would require a lot of tuning to get balanced.
- 4
- CCorse
Before I was reading this thread, the anti-roll bars didn't make any sense for me.
I'm racing most times with JGTC GT500 Cars and with my settings changing the arb didn't have a noticeable effect. Unbeliefable, but that's true. Maybe because my basic settings that worked for me, were so strange.
A week ago, I was finetuning my car for a big 12 hour race on Nordschleife with all weather conditions, including night and rain and hard damage. I needed to be fast, because I know my opponent for being long time racers with much more experience than me.
It turned out, that on a wet track my setup wasn't really pretty.
Then I found the interesting idea of weight distribution that Highlandor introduced here in this thread.
I tried it on two JGTC cars, the Toyota Castrol Tom's '97 and the Nissan Yellowhat GT-R. On both that worked really well, so my team partner and I decided to race with the Yellowhat vs. several Corvette, Viper, Ford GT and a Calsonic GT-R.
Having setup the car based on the weight distribution, the arb now influencing the cars behaviour much more than before. After altering the setting with +/-1 as Highlandor advised, I finally found a setup that was working so stable no matter how slippery the track was.
Thanks to the new found stability, we've had much less accidents and I was able to run really constant fast laps. After 12 hours racing, we won!
Thanks Highlandor for this great advice.
I'm racing most times with JGTC GT500 Cars and with my settings changing the arb didn't have a noticeable effect. Unbeliefable, but that's true. Maybe because my basic settings that worked for me, were so strange.
A week ago, I was finetuning my car for a big 12 hour race on Nordschleife with all weather conditions, including night and rain and hard damage. I needed to be fast, because I know my opponent for being long time racers with much more experience than me.
It turned out, that on a wet track my setup wasn't really pretty.
Then I found the interesting idea of weight distribution that Highlandor introduced here in this thread.
I tried it on two JGTC cars, the Toyota Castrol Tom's '97 and the Nissan Yellowhat GT-R. On both that worked really well, so my team partner and I decided to race with the Yellowhat vs. several Corvette, Viper, Ford GT and a Calsonic GT-R.
Having setup the car based on the weight distribution, the arb now influencing the cars behaviour much more than before. After altering the setting with +/-1 as Highlandor advised, I finally found a setup that was working so stable no matter how slippery the track was.
Thanks to the new found stability, we've had much less accidents and I was able to run really constant fast laps. After 12 hours racing, we won!
Thanks Highlandor for this great advice.
i too tried highlandors approach and here's what i've found:
- the math approach came very close to the settings i'd come up with through testing and trial and error approach to tuning. the biggest difference is that it seems my arb settings were usually higher and spring rates lower. perhaps a by-product of racing the 'ring all the time. in a couple of cases, the car felt more stable and 'easier' to drive (though I suspect a little slower for hotlapping). this is propably due another difference, my style - my settings typically have a stiffer rear (springs when compared to the fronts and ARBs) and prone to a little more oversteer.
- i don't 'do' fwd - my comparisons were done on FR and MR cars.
- the math approach came very close to the settings i'd come up with through testing and trial and error approach to tuning. the biggest difference is that it seems my arb settings were usually higher and spring rates lower. perhaps a by-product of racing the 'ring all the time. in a couple of cases, the car felt more stable and 'easier' to drive (though I suspect a little slower for hotlapping). this is propably due another difference, my style - my settings typically have a stiffer rear (springs when compared to the fronts and ARBs) and prone to a little more oversteer.
- i don't 'do' fwd - my comparisons were done on FR and MR cars.
Last edited:
- 2,385
- Retired to a padded cell
- GTP_Padded_Cell
- Microsoft sucks..
Exactly - because the car is now fundamentally 'balanced' so the roll bars are now 'free' to 'work' to their maximum affect. When the car is unbalanced, all different parts of a setup are not working together, they're working AGAINST each other and subsequently you'll be going round in circles trying to figure out what does what.
Just like tyres and suspension setups - if the suspension & LSD is not setup 'right, or well, you'll be forcing the car into the corners, subsequently burning the tyres out.
Whereas, if the setup is 'working' then it allows the tyres to function to their maximum ability, resulting in better grip and tyre wear.
The reason why so many different types of setups 'works' is because of two thigs.
1) the lack of understanding about the relationship and interaction between the LSD, suspension, brakes, aero and WEIGHT distribution of the car.
2) Most driviers in the WRS drive the 'same' i.e. feathering the throttle, trailing the brake and driving 'properly'.
Doing this simply doesn't allow you to push the boundaries of what a setup can do, you need to look beyond your blinkers and start to push the car and setups in a way you wouldn't normally do, then you can see the whole picture.
Driving one way, you'll only see part of it.
Example:
By feathering the throttle in lower gears to reduce wheelspin and increase traction, you MAY not be putting enough power through the diff to make the diff 'react' and for you too see which way to adjust it, in order to get it 'spot on'.
Once it's 'spot on', you know you don't have to worry about this (apart from a tweek + or - 1/2 to cater for differences between free run or practice, or for tyre wear during a race) and you can move on to other area's of the setup.
If it's not 'spot on', then this may well be affecting other area's of the setup.
The grip available through correct springs, dampers, roll bars and ride height is huge. By feathering the throttle how do you know how to optimise the grip from the suspension to the grip from the LSD when your right foot is not allowing you to see where to 'draw the line' and to match what with what, to create setup nirvana.
This is why so many different setups work, it's not the setups, it's the driving style and skill that is having an impact on the setup and overcoming shortfalls in the setup.
Individual parts of LSDs and suspension can be very powerful and influential on some cars with some tyres. But another combination of car and tyre what happens individually is not as important as what happens collectively.
ie racing car with racing tyres compared to high powered road car with sports tyres.
Whether something is soft or hard is irrelevant, until you start to match this to the cars weight distrubution. Then it becomes imperative.
Look at how powerful ride height settings are, these can easliy 'overpower' other parts of a car's setup, or the driver's driving style. For the best results, a 'collective' setup is always what you want to achieve.
Here's a test my friends and I done 6 months ago (might have changed, there's been many updates since this).
Honda HSC - tuned to 530pp sports soft tyres.
'nail' the throttle, you get wheelspin in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Try going round the ring (at Cape ring) at full whack, no can do, back end won't have it.
Add spoiler, full aero, try again - same result.
Remove spoiler, add racing hard tyres on rear only, get them to operating temperature, try again, same result.
Put spoiler back on, full aero - try again (now with both racing tyres and aero), same result.
Remove spoiler and racing hards - go back to sports soft tyres front and rear, add custom suspension, tune it and then....voila, steady as a rock. Didn't even add an LSD.
That's the power of suspension setups when dialled in 'right', we found them more powerful than adding a spoiler AND racing hards for rear grip. But, unless you're pushing the boundaries of setups, you simply won't understand anything I'm saying - ever, on any post or thread.
It's like a magazine or TV programme testing a 'shopping trolly' car - do they just take it down to ASDA, K Mart and back, no - they thrash the life out of it, yet it's a grandma / shopping trolly car, not made in any way shape or form to be thrashed or put on a track. But, everynow and then, this reveals something to the testers they wouldn't normally see if they just popped down the shops with it for some milk 'n cookies.
Think about that and apply that to GT setups, et voila - things will be so much clearer. Coupled with the last update, there's only one way to be going now with setups on GT5 (until Polyphony decide to sneakily change the physics and not tell anyone - AGAIN).....
