Thanks for posting this, it leads perfectly to what I was about to say.I traduce this from a french site. It have the advantage to be clear and simple. good for me.
...
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.
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
Very true, exactly why I ceased the unnecessary fire.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,
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.
Very true, exactly why I ceased the unnecessary fire.
Clearly you didn't read my apology.Long insulting post. (flame bait)
What I can tell you is everyone I saw, including the fastest of the fast, disagreed here -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.
Honestly, you should go through the thread, and watch multiple seconds continue to drop off everyone's laps.^ which post? Sorry, I'm not gonna trawl through 36 pages!
Although I noted more understeer with the stiff front, personally I still prefer the turn-in response of a stiff front, and I'd use other settings to dial out the resulting understeer.
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.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
Why would you assume that? I know I did, I'm sure others did as well, but what would be the point in sharing a tune you know under-steers more, when under-steer is the plague for the current car?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.
Cool, that extra info is good to know, thanks.Why would you assume that? I know I did, I'm sure others did as well
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.but what would be the point in sharing a tune you know under-steers more, when under-steer is the plague for the current car?
...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.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.
Yes you did, you chalked it up to quicker steering response.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.
So if I don't quote the entire post it automatically means I didn't read it?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.
No, I quoted the part I wished to continue discussing.You did exactly the same thing with my big post, by ignoring the whole point of it:
No I didn't, I replied to the only part you'd discuss....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.
That's not humble at all.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.
So you think everyone couldn't decipher the differences you did?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.
Well clearly as stated above, you feel nobody else is capable of discerning the difference.* 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)
What part of any of this would you like me to respond to?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!)
I disagree, I can point you to a large list of drivers that agree.are the settings backwards somehow? No.
Nobody else could discern the difference the way you can.But often there are other effects that make a greater difference to handling (such as power oversteer or front end stiffness improving turn-in)
Well then we can agree on something.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.
Well that's my point, and why I only quoted part of it.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
ARB is correct, spring rates are correct.
The response to those changes is odd at times however.
It's the "extreme settings" clause that keeps people thinking it induces under-steer.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.
Dodge - Viper ACR - Premium.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.
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.
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.