Camber Theory

[DolHaus]

Ahhh, you're catching on grasshopper. I had this same thought yesterday.

Always learning mate, always learning lol
I don't think the gains are ever going to be huge, but it definitely feels like they are there to be had now

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Always learning mate, always learning lol
I don't think the gains are ever going to be huge, but it definitely feels like they are there to be had now

For sure. 👍 I have also done a lot of reading on K&W's website and there is some very good information to be had there as it relates to their suspension model and setting things up. Obviously we are far from things working in the game as the do in real life (backwards RH), but I have found some very good and useful information there that can be used, you just have to read closely. We're a lot closer now though than we were in GT5, I'll tell you that. If we can only get this implemented, https://www.gtplanet.net/kw-7-post-rig-gt6/ we'd be all set.

 

[Bo]

Some who are unsure about the camber fix are probably comparing it to GT5's physics, which is probably quite a bit different to this camber model. There is definitely an advantage to be had with camber now, which is great 👍

 

[RacingManiac]

I find that there was definitely a difference between 1.09 and before, in that pre-1.09 Running with camber was pretty much guaranteed to be slower, now you are able to run similar laptimes(to the consistency of my ability). Though I haven't found camber to be too helpful in altering balance as a whole...

 

[Otaliema]

I find that there was definitely a difference between 1.09 and before, in that pre-1.09 Running with camber was pretty much guaranteed to be slower, now you are able to run similar laptimes(to the consistency of my ability). Though I haven't found camber to be too helpful in altering balance as a whole...

Are you slapping camber on to a 0 camber tune? If yes than you will see little positive possibly negative results with that. I can tell you right off camber is working bye I've been retuning my c7 and I see definit improvement in cornering at entry, I can now use positive rear toe to stabilize the car on exit it's doing wonders so far a medium stuff set up and I'm using 2.3 on the front and 0.6 on the rear for camber so far with similar if not better results have to drive it differently from a 0/0 set up though

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

similar to @Otaliema i just finished a 600pp murc SV tune and used that as my test bed for 1.09 camber settings. With 0/0 camber the car would push and slide slightly more than a 1.08 0/0 setup would. at .5 front and rear, i really couldn't tell a difference. at 1.0 front and rear i had a bit higher entry speed but it would wash out mid corner when I over loaded the tires with the weight transfer. I settled at 2.3 front and .08 rear and had nice turn in with the rear rotating nicely. I also had significantly more corner exit grip than with the 0/0 setup. It's different than GT5 because 2.3 would have been a bit high for me in that game. On a very stiff car in gt6 i could see camber numbers drift up into 3's and 4's.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Sounds better and better now

 

[Bo]

If the CCS-R was pre-1.09, I guarantee it'd feel stupidly sloppy like all the 'Ring setups were with broken camber. The IS-F feels lively yet controllable, and feels right at home on the 'Ring.

 

[RacingManiac]

Are you slapping camber on to a 0 camber tune? If yes than you will see little positive possibly negative results with that. I can tell you right off camber is working bye I've been retuning my c7 and I see definit improvement in cornering at entry, I can now use positive rear toe to stabilize the car on exit it's doing wonders so far a medium stuff set up and I'm using 2.3 on the front and 0.6 on the rear for camber so far with similar if not better results have to drive it differently from a 0/0 set up though

I am more interested to seeing if it does anything. Even without any other tune, adding camber "should" affect some degree of balance, whether in aiding more grip or turn-in or something. But I can't feel it at all. Only thing was a bit less braking power, which was sorta expected. I'd expect if I slap of 3 deg of camber on one end of the car it should feel some difference mid-corner but I just don't feel it at all. On an actual car adding 3 deg of camber without doing anything else to the car will definitely manifest some handling change(to put it mildly).

My original comment was a 2 part comment though. I've been comparing with/without camber since the logger was available and ran the same car/same track back to back every update to see, without much actual optimization just to see what the effect might be. Before 1.09 the peak load at the corner that I observe(the "ring" of Cape Ring, yes banked blah blah) was noticeably slower with any amount of camber on the car. You need to modulate the throttle and fight with the steering more. And overall lap time is slower throughout. 1.09 changed that, in that the car does not feel different in the ring and throughout the lap it doesn't seem that different. There was definitely difference in how the car is working before and after the update. But when I just took a car I just slap some random setup on, drove it around a different track(Apricot Hill), and only thing I change between run is adding more front camber. The lap time variance doesn't seem to be there, balance doesn't seem that different, and as I said only thing noticeable seems to be slight reduction in braking power.

 

[praiano63]

What PD say: The effect of the tyre geometry has been changed (mainly for the “Camber Angle” option)
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION:
-After some intensive test with FF FR MR RR cars i can confirm that the best and same grip will be found in the range from 0.0 camber to 3.0 camber angle.

-0.0/3.0 or 3.0/3.0 or 3.0/0.0 will have the same grip after the car stabilized on his driving line during a turn.

-You ´ll not add grip at the front or the rear playing with the camber staying under 3.0 camber value. Above this yes, there is a progressive lost of grip.

-If in a range from 0.0 to 3.0 the grip stay the same after the weight transfered on the tires, a 0.0 camber value allow a faster weight transfer than a 3.0 value.

For example:
On a FF car , a 3.0 front camber and 0.0 rear camber will transfer the weight over the tires faster on the rear of the car during corner entry according to the driving input and only at this moment. After , the overall balance will stay the same with any front or rear camber value between 0.0 and 3.0

On some MR or RR cars showing a tendency to spin at the apex with a sudden take of grip of the front tires, like on the BMW Z4 GT3 , Audi R8 LMS or Pagani Huyara....
Then a 0.0 front 3.0 rear camber will contain this oversteer tendency , because the weight tranfer over the rear tires will be more progressive during corner entry according to the driving input and only at this moment.

 

[332i]

I'm interested to see what people can bring to the table online tonight. I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of whining about having to tweak everything, because adding x caused x, but trying to counter that caused x, etc. Going to be hearing a lot of that tonight IMO haha.

(I'm in the eastern time zone)

 

[LeoStrop]

Another tune with positive feedback.

Chevy Nova SS, with 1.5 at front, the car felt much better at Bathurst, tried 1.0 at the rear but i was losing too much traction under acceleration, so i went back to 0.6(R).

PS. Sport hard tires

 

[quattpequatt]

Alright so now that camber is "fixed" how does one proceed to tune? How does this tie in with ARB and toe and ride height and springs? Is there any values one can start with when tuning camber wise? What is the useful threshold ?

I was decent at tuning cars now with camber 0/0... now this changes everything can some one shed some light on how should some one go about tuning now that the camber has been fixed?

Thank you!

-Sent from my tablet, while taking a dump.

 

[DolHaus]

So far I'm noticing a trend between tyre compound and most effective amount of camber - higher grip tyre = more camber

Comfort tyres seem to work best within 1 degree of 1.0 (0.0 -2.0)
Sports tyres seem to work best within 1 degree of 2.0 (1.0 - 3.0)
Not played with racing tyres yet but I would guess within 1 degree of 3.0

Appears to amplify body roll/weight transfer a bit, the car can be a little sensitive if not stiffened up properly. It does seem to remove some of the understeer associated with stiffer setups though.

Lower ride height (shorter suspension travel) seems to be quite key as well.

It seems to be useful for those situations where you need both low speed handling (previously attained by increased weigh transfer via softer springs/dampers) and high speed stability and cornering (body roll always costs you a few MPH). Now you can use camber to enhance low speed rotation while running a stiffer overall setup to get better high speed performance.

Braking seems to be slightly diminished when using camber but I've not really noticed the thresholds yet.

Higher front camber seems to make the car rotate more aggressively whereas higher rear camber seems to enhance stability and encourage understeer.

These are my observations so far, there's a few other changes to the physics that have affected some of my cars (FRs are now slower and rear weight bias cars are different somehow but I can't quite place why) so its hard to tell what is going on until I build a new car from the ground up to work with it.

 

[LS Chiou]

I like 1.x to 2.x with sports soft in Suzuka these days, varied with cars. Seems slightly less agressive than your choice. I feel the grip drops once the angle goes beyond a point, which is around 2.5 or so in my experiences.

All are 600pp street cars with stiff setting (spring rate >10, ABR>4).

My tests are not thorough at all at this moment. More are surely needed.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

So far I'm noticing a trend between tyre compound and most effective amount of camber - higher grip tyre = more camber

Comfort tyres seem to work best within 1 degree of 1.0 (0.0 -2.0)
Sports tyres seem to work best within 1 degree of 2.0 (1.0 - 3.0)
Not played with racing tyres yet but I would guess within 1 degree of 3.0

Appears to amplify body roll/weight transfer a bit, the car can be a little sensitive if not stiffened up properly. It does seem to remove some of the understeer associated with stiffer setups though.

Lower ride height (shorter suspension travel) seems to be quite key as well.

It seems to be useful for those situations where you need both low speed handling (previously attained by increased weigh transfer via softer springs/dampers) and high speed stability and cornering (body roll always costs you a few MPH). Now you can use camber to enhance low speed rotation while running a stiffer overall setup to get better high speed performance.

Braking seems to be slightly diminished when using camber but I've not really noticed the thresholds yet.

Higher front camber seems to make the car rotate more aggressively whereas higher rear camber seems to enhance stability and encourage understeer.

These are my observations so far, there's a few other changes to the physics that have affected some of my cars (FRs are now slower and rear weight bias cars are different somehow but I can't quite place why) so its hard to tell what is going on until I build a new car from the ground up to work with it.

Well, I was going to post what I have found in more detail, but you have pretty much summed it up with your post here. My findings so far have been pretty much spot on to what you have said. As opposed to my old tunes, my spring rates and ride height shave both been generally a bit lower. This is the trend in how I have noticed it as compared to my old tunes.

1) Ride height - generally a bit lower (RH glitch still applies)
2) Spring rates - A bit softer setting
3) Dampers - About the same for me, really depends on the car and its handling and what I need it to do.
4) ARB - Tad softer settings than I've been using.
5) Toe - Considerably less than what I've been using.
6) LSD - Typically I was able to use higher Acel settings, Decel about the same, and Initial was kinda up and down, depending on the car. All of my testing has been done at Laguna Seca, a track I know very, very well and am very consistent on.

Again, this is just all generally speaking and may not apply to all cars. Also, I am making the above comparison as it relates to my old tunes for the same cars. So far that includes the first 5 cars in my garage (look at those tunes and compare them to the trend above) and 3 in my private collection. Still a lot more testing to do, but at least I now know the general direction I need to go with my tuning as it relates to my driving style. I am also still noticing a increase in lap times as compared to my PB before the update, but it seems to have leveled out to around .200 - .250. Cars now seem more planted and can be pushed a tad harder in the turns. A thing to note though, I had to change my trans settings on all my cars so far as I was losing a little accel times coming out of the corners, especially the tighter ones. Once I adjusted the trans though and also the LSD, I was able the negate any loss I had before, even picking up some time in a lot of cases. Most, if not all, of my time increases have come through the corners and on exit after adjusting the trans and LSD as mention above.

These are the way I am seeing things so far as it relates to my tuning and driving style. Others may see differently of course, but this is the direction I am going to be headed with my tuning. Anyway, that's my insight and hope it helps.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

Well, I was going to post what I have found in more detail, but you have pretty much summed it up with your post here. My findings so far have been pretty much spot on to what you have said. As opposed to my old tunes, my spring rates and ride height shave both been generally a bit lower. This is the trend in how I have noticed it as compared to my old tunes.

1) Ride height - generally a bit lower (RH glitch still applies)
2) Spring rates - A bit softer setting
3) Dampers - About the same for me, really depends on the car and its handling and what I need it to do.
4) ARB - Tad softer settings than I've been using.
5) Toe - Considerably less than what I've been using.
6) LSD - Typically I was able to use higher Acel settings, Decel about the same, and Initial was kinda up and down, depending on the car. All of my testing has been done at Laguna Seca, a track I know very, very well and am very consistent on.

Again, this is just all generally speaking and may not apply to all cars. Also, I am making the above comparison as it relates to my old tunes for the same cars. So far that includes the first 5 cars in my garage (look at those tunes and compare them to the trend above) and 3 in my private collection. Still a lot more testing to do, but at least I now know the general direction I need to go with my tuning as it relates to my driving style. I am also still noticing a increase in lap times as compared to my PB before the update, but it seems to have leveled out to around .200 - .250. Cars now seem more planted and can be pushed a tad harder in the turns. A thing to note though, I had to change my trans settings on all my cars so far as I was losing a little accel times coming out of the corners, especially the tighter ones. Once I adjusted the trans though and also the LSD, I was able the negate any loss I had before, even picking up some time in a lot of cases. Most, if not all, of my time increases have come through the corners and on exit after adjusting the trans and LSD as mention above.

These are the way I am seeing things so far as it relates to my tuning and driving style. Others may see differently of course, but this is the direction I am going to be headed with my tuning. Anyway, that's my insight and hope it helps.

i'm getting similar results so far. I really want to know what adjustments were made to the "rear heavy" cars. I had one 600pp murcielago gain over 2 seconds with minor changes and then my 450pp dino lost almost 2 seconds without any changes. I tried minor changes and a complete rework from scratch and both have brought me back to within 1/2 a sec of my previous best but I cannot get the same handling characteristics out of that car anymore. I've yet to try my R8's.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I think I am going to start over and rewrite my guide for 1.09. Will probably take about three weeks. I want to break down each setting from scratch. There is a lot of guessing that happens right after updates. It's too soon for definitive answers and I have respect for those who have proceeded with caution and who are posting results.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I think I am going to start over and rewrite my guide for 1.09. Will probably take about three weeks. I want to break down each setting from scratch. There is a lot of guessing that happens right after updates. It's too soon for definitive answers and I have respect for those who have proceeded with caution and who are posting results.

Not giving definite answers, just posting things the way I am seeing them. 👍 I even say other people may find differently. The only thing I did say for sure is that I know, for myself, generally which direction I will go with my tuning, unless off course I start seeing a different trend in things I find. Should I just stop posting my findings and let you write your guide? Sorry, didn't mean to step on the teachers toes. Me thinks I'll just remain quiet from now on and leave things to the experts. 👍

 

[Motor City Hami]

Not giving definite answers, just posting things the way I am seeing them. 👍 I even say other people may find differently. The only thing I did say for sure is that I know, for myself, generally which direction I will go with my tuning, unless off course I start seeing a different trend in things I find. Should I just stop posting my findings and let you write your guide? Sorry, didn't mean to step on the teachers toes. Me thinks I'll just remain quiet from now on and leave things to the experts. 👍

You are one who I think is being cautious. Most of your posts end with a comment about needing to do more testing. And, I think you are one of the experts now. You have your own garage and all.

Are you up for some joint testing? I wouldnt mind exchanging notes with you and even some track time.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

You are one who I think is being cautious. Most of your posts end with a comment about needing to do more testing. And, I think you are one of the experts now. You have your own garage and all.

Are you up for some joint testing? I wouldnt mind exchanging notes with you and even some track time.

Ah, alright. 👍 I would hardly call myself an expert though just because I have my own garage. Just someone, thanks to you, who likes tuning and likes sharing what I find with others. 👍 Thanks for the compliment though, but the expert status is best saved for people like yourself, @praiano63 @Otaliema @DolHaus @Ridox2JZGTE and others.

And yes, we can do some joint testing sometime, that would be fine. I'll always take the opportunity to acquire more tuning knowledge from the teach. 👍

 

[mustangxr]

Ah, alright. 👍 I would hardly call myself an expert though just because I have my own garage. Just someone, thanks to you, who likes tuning and likes sharing what I find with others. 👍 Thanks for the compliment though, but the expert status is best saved for people like yourself, @praiano63 @Otaliema @DolHaus @Ridox2JZGTE and others.

And yes, we can do some joint testing sometime, that would be fine. I'll always take the opportunity to acquire more tuning knowledge from the teach. 👍

You guys are amazing!
I posted this on another thread with the same topic and I will briefly report here that I have had two successes today with M/R tunes using the default suspension settings from 1.09.

The first car was my NSX-R LM Prototype road car in the 600PP SUZUKA "A SPEC" RACE. Sport Soft
I RAN EVERYTHING AS PER THE DEFAULT SETTINGS INCLUDING THE LSD AND BALLAST! (none)
The car handled better, ran faster in the corners with better turn in and reduced my 5 lap total time by 4 or more seconds.
I was BOGGLED that this was so easy with such bizarre rear camber and toe out (0.60) I averaged 2:01 per lap

The second car was the Lotus 111R and it also performed OK, right out of the box running at Rome in the A Spec races.

The third was the Lancia Stratos and I'm sorry to say that this car will need more work before racing. The default settings were suitable for multiple donuts but not much else.

This morning I was ready to burn my GT-6 disc.....so depressing. I got back in the saddle this afternoon and now I feel very optimistic that we are gonna have some fun here in GT-6. (about time too)

 

[SniperRed3]

Has anyone figured out a new tune for the gt3 Audi lms? It just under steers with my current setup as my tune was dealing with the old over steering beast but now i can't get those settings as the spring rate won't go as low. Stock is good but spins out in mid to low speed corners.

 

[LS Chiou]

Hi mustangxr,

Interesting finding.

I don't remember the default setting of NSX-R LM road car, but if the toe number is positive, it should be toe in.

And of course I'm going to give it a try myself.

 

[DolHaus]

I believe all cars are 0.60 on the rear now, seems a bit extreme but you can easily drop it back to 0.20 and it feels the same as before. I don't think anything has changed apart from the standard value of toe

 

[Thorin Cain]

You are one who I think is being cautious. Most of your posts end with a comment about needing to do more testing. And, I think you are one of the experts now. You have your own garage and all.

Are you up for some joint testing? I wouldnt mind exchanging notes with you and even some track time.

Hami, I have to say, that is a fantastic idea! I think a lot of us are looking forward to the findings and results of this collaboration.👍

Not at all, they should be unaffected unless they are already running camber.

Just going to check this theory out now. I have done a few myself after my little delve into the subject a little while ago. I'm quite interested to see how much difference there is.

Obviously the other changes made will have there effects. So I don't suppose I'll find a real obvious difference to say exactly how much the suspension geometry change alone, has altered the way in which the original camber angles are set. To me a few of them suggest a good amount of understeer in my near future

 

[DolHaus]

Just going to check this theory out now. I have done a few myself after my little delve into the subject a little while ago. I'm quite interested to see how much difference there is.

Obviously the other changes made will have there effects. So I don't suppose I'll find a real obvious difference to say exactly how much the suspension geometry change alone, has altered the way in which the original camber angles are set. To me a few of them suggest a good amount of understeer in my near future

The cars should be unaffected unless they were using pre-patch camber to dampen front end transfer (reducing front grip to make a car less aggressive) or using rear camber to allow for faster rotation. Rear heavy cars (stock + ballasted)do seem to have changed a little bit though, it feels like they're a lot more stable. If you were using rear ballast to get more rotation you might need to check your car for changes

 

[DaBomm4]

I am very busy in these few days, I won't have a chance to update until the end of the week You can easily test it on my Ferrari F40 replica, if you haven't update to 1.09, build it and drive it at Tsukuba and Suzuka, preferably on comfort soft tire, it has real life camber alignment. Run it again on 1.09, if PD do fix camber, it should drive much better ( more grip than all zero camber and much more than with old broken high camber which has less grip than zero )

I just did essentially this test but with an NSX because at the time I didn't have enough money for an F40. The review notes are only based off of feel but the times surprised me, it felt the same if not a little more sloppy the second time around and it was still faster.

Review of @Ridox2JZGTE's Honda NSX Type R '92 Ayrton Senna Replica
Tested with G27, No aids except ABS = 1

Tires: Comfort Soft

Part 1: Game Version 1.08
This car is nicely balanced and the second MR tune I have driven in GT6, now I understand how MR cars should handle. It tells you how to drive it if you listen, a little more throttle control is needed during sharper corners but it can recover if you catch the rotation early enough. Braking is better in a straight line and there is some lift off throttle rotation (LOTR) but nothing too serious. It attacks corners very well, there is a hint of understeer near exit, but nothing that can't be solved with a little LOTR. There is a little hopping if I take a corner too sharp but otherwise it is very smooth and transitions very well, no snap oversteer.

Tsukuba = 1:07.063
Suzuka = 2.32.534

Part 2: Game Version 1.09
Note: I checked stock suspension settings before and after, camber was at 0/0 and is now at 0.5/1.5 which is close to you're settings on this car.
The main thing I noticed was that the rear felt a little more loose requiring even more concentration at the limit. When getting back on the throttle through the S curves, the limit of grip seemed to become bigger than before but I could still break loose if I pushed hard.

Tsukuba = 1:05.668
Suzuka = 2:29.229

Conclusion: This tune was very well made and it works very well in both versions of the game. I enjoyed throwing this car around the track.

 

[Bowtie-muscle]

What I am finding is camber helps FR cars to a limit, between 0.7-1.5 on the front but cars with solid rear axle (non-independent rear) camber does not help at all and may actually hurt. After giving camber of 1.0 to the front and leaving the rear at 0.0 on '00 camaro ss at Big Willow, gained 0.5 seconds but still suffers lack of rear grip on exit while turning, patience until you are straight not so bad. Did make adjustments to other settings but rear still flies if on throttle early on exit using SH tires, adding camber to the rear makes it worse. Still have to check independent rear suspension cars with FR(MR cars are all Rear independent susp). Camber seems to be working but I am not seeing some of the big numbers others have been but I have not played with MR cars or other than SH tires so far. Is it me?

 

[DolHaus]

What I am finding is camber helps FR cars to a limit, between 0.7-1.5 on the front but cars with solid rear axle (non-independent rear) camber does not help at all and may actually hurt. After giving camber of 1.0 to the front and leaving the rear at 0.0 on '00 camaro ss at Big Willow, gained 0.5 seconds but still suffers lack of rear grip on exit while turning, patience until you are straight not so bad. Did make adjustments to other settings but rear still flies if on throttle early on exit using SH tires, adding camber to the rear makes it worse. Still have to check independent rear suspension cars with FR(MR cars are all Rear independent susp). Camber seems to be working but I am not seeing some of the big numbers others have been but I have not played with MR cars or other than SH tires so far. Is it me?

I'm fairly sure when you put custom suspension onto any car it is replaced with coil overs rather than the coach springs it started with.
Running higher camber at the front should make the turn in quiet aggressive and can lead to mid corner traction loss if set too high, if you wanted to stabilise the rear you should increase the rear camber. The biggest downside I've seen so far is the effect on braking, the more camber you run the less effective your brakes are.
Does the car feel like its kind of tip-toeing on entry? Very darty at the front