Camber Theory

Can I just say that I never said it PROVES anything - it's just a set of results. Take from it what you will. Without being able to look inside the magic box that is the GT physics engine we can't really prove anything.

It does APPEAR to show that adding any camber at all lowers your ability to generate lateral g. In every other racing sim I play what you normally see is that adding camber increases lateral g up to a point, and then beyond that it starts having negative effects. That point may lie between 0 and 1 and I've just missed it. However, again in all other racing sims I play that point is usually around 2.0, dependant on suspension geometry, roll stiffness, overall grip etc etc.
 
Voodoovaj
That doesn't prove it's broken or backwards. It proves that large angles produce adverse results. Large angles are supposed to give adverse results.

I usually avoid the real world comparisons, but here is a relevant read. The HIGHEST angle quoted is 5, and that is only for one suspension type. You will notice that from 0 to 1.5 is stated a few times (which I've stated quite a bit in threads about this).

What kind of suspension does GT6 have? An educated guess is that the connection to the car is very simple 90 degrees.

The stock settings are most likely aesthetic, since race cars would have such angles in real life. However, as far as function goes, keep it under 1 for the most part.

You'll also notice the suggestions are always more in front and less in the rear. In the game though, I've found that it's best to have more on the light end, whether it be front or rear. I expected the opposite to be the case, but my cars' behavior says different. I still want to test in more places because I think it should be more on the heavy end or more on the front.

EDIT - hotfix when I started the game, now more camber on the heavy end works as I expected. I updated my wizard to match.
Click to expand...


Sorry, are you saying the hotfix has fixed camber?
 
FussyFez
Sorry, are you saying the hotfix has fixed camber?
Click to expand...

No, just that I got what I expected now.

I don't know what you guys are doing, but to each his own I guess. I'm getting gains so I'm sticking to the notion that camber helps. Maybe I'm the only one setting it correctly :)
 
hsv010
I like the fact you're using 1200hp cars to disprove my theory. I'm saying what works, as proven by my lap times, TT performances and online wins. And really, all cars can benefit in some way from toe in.
Click to expand...
TT-R is 600hp, half what you says... Both my fitt cars are at 400hp...
Braking distance and accel are affected by toe, you can't deny that. Or reread your fracking classics !
It's not hard to understand : accel is lost sideways, braking is lost grip-wise.
Ok you've got better dynamics in corner entry and exit, I agree 100% but most of it can be balanced usually by the camber without using toe.
 
donpost
That point may lie between 0 and 1 and I've just missed it. However, again in all other racing sims I play that point is usually around 2.0, dependant on suspension geometry, roll stiffness, overall grip etc etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. "Other simulators" may very well have more depth of movement to their suspension. So far, less than 1 is a sweet spot. The less you car rolls, the less camber you'll need.
 
I've retuned all of my cars with no camber and slight toe. WOW:P I cant believe the big difference it makes! all of them are a second faster after also removing flat floors! Thanks to all the testers who take the time to share their knowledge!
 
Have you guys looked at the tires mid corner with the photo mode?

I'm looked at my Mach 1, lowered to 77 in the front with 0.8 camber. In mid corner under load, that tire is square on the ground. Full contact patch and the sidewall deforming. No surprise then, that it sticks really well.

I looked at it again with a camber of 2.5, same corner, and the tire isn't flat enough on the ground to get the sidewall working. You can see that the sidewall has no deformity.

So, camber may not be working as everyone is expecting, but it is working.

With the new tire model, that sidewall has to get involved for the tire to grip, that's why 0 works far better than 2. If you lift the outside of the tire too much, you will lose that sidewall.
 
BlueShift
TT-R is 600hp, half what you says... Both my fitt cars are at 400hp...
Braking distance and accel are affected by toe, you can't deny that. Or reread your fracking classics !
It's not hard to understand : accel is lost sideways, braking is lost grip-wise.
Ok you've got better dynamics in corner entry and exit, I agree 100% but most of it can be balanced usually by the camber without using toe.
Click to expand...
I know how it works, all I said was Group C/LMP cars do require a fair amount of rear toe to be as fast as they can be.
 
hsv010
I know how it works, all I said was Group C/LMP cars do require a fair amount of rear toe to be as fast as they can be.
Click to expand...
You were saying ALL CARS need toe. You were also saying that front spring must be set higher than rear springs on all C/LMP cars, and I gave you two exemples that didn't comply to that.

They don't need rear toe, they need TCS, as in reality. irl a driver / tuner that would say "hey remove that TCS on that LMP" would the most stupid person in the world.
 
On cars that don't have TCS in real life? I'm not bothered if you don't stick lots of toe in on your cars, all I care about is what makes a car as fast as it can be.
 
hsv010
On cars that don't have TCS in real life? I'm not bothered if you don't stick lots of toe in on your cars, all I care about is what makes a car as fast as it can be.
Click to expand...
All my tune are ABS1 / no help but on LMP which have TCS at 3 or less.
In real life all LMP car have TCS. I'm not speaking about 70's LMP there. If you want to buy one in the game, it's 20m allready and nobody will be running your tune so they are quite a niche that I don't have the money to be testing. Respecting the car would say remove TCS on these aswell or making it at least an option. There you use rear toe.

On other cars, what's the benefit of rear toe if you have TCS, killing a little more your accel and start to deteriorate braking aptitudes ?
Front toe on LMP is questionable aswell. Front toe is used, to me, to make the front direction more "vivid". On a LMP car, it's allready vivid.
It's a driver tuning pref I think.

On rally cars I use rear toe in my no TCS attempts but that's a different story. Rally is a niche aswell.

All that new front toe and rear toe mandatory thing is just there because the fracking camber is fracking broken if you want my opinion. In GT5 I don't remember people using toe that frequently, esp front.

Rear toe can almost always be avoided by setting LSD and dampers/spring/rh. It's a lazy setting that cost way too much in braking distance for what it gives in my opinion.
Tried it again yesterday to compensate lack of camber on the jaguar seasonal. Result is -0.3 on Roma. Removed it after 150km, broke my record by 0.3 the 1st lap I tried (somewhere in 1'12.3xx)
 
Last edited:
Voodoovaj
Exactly. "Other simulators" may very well have more depth of movement to their suspension. So far, less than 1 is a sweet spot. The less you car rolls, the less camber you'll need.
Click to expand...

I'm going to try that test again but look at camber between 0.0 and 1.0, although it might be hard to accurately record differences in speeds when making such small changes.

Why can't PD just come out and TELL us what's happening? It would save a lot of bother trying to figure it out ourselves!
 
donpost
I'm going to try that test again but look at camber between 0.0 and 1.0, although it might be hard to accurately record differences in speeds when making such small changes.

Why can't PD just come out and TELL us what's happening? It would save a lot of bother trying to figure it out ourselves!
Click to expand...
I'd say camber is x10 what it should be. If you set 0.1, that's 1.0 in GT5 but it's a guess. I yet have to find a car that benefit for 1.0/1.0 settings to prove his. (the Jag need 1.5/1.0 on Roma yesterday so 1/1 or 2/1 is way to unbalanced for it to work)
 
Nürburgring Nordschleife_.jpg
Nürburgring Nordschleife__1.jpg
Voodoovaj
Have you guys looked at the tires mid corner with the photo mode?

I'm looked at my Mach 1, lowered to 77 in the front with 0.8 camber. In mid corner under load, that tire is square on the ground. Full contact patch and the sidewall deforming. No surprise then, that it sticks really well.

I looked at it again with a camber of 2.5, same corner, and the tire isn't flat enough on the ground to get the sidewall working. You can see that the sidewall has no deformity.

So, camber may not be working as everyone is expecting, but it is working.

With the new tire model, that sidewall has to get involved for the tire to grip, that's why 0 works far better than 2. If you lift the outside of the tire too much, you will lose that sidewall.
Click to expand...


I'm very interested in your findings and will be investigating!

But.

I have some evidence that the graphical representation isn't really a direct representation of what might be happening with the physics.

I'll try and upload soon. (it's a picture from photomode of both nearside wheels on my EVO penetrating the ground during extreme compression)

Edit, see above .
 
Last edited:
FussyFez
I have some evidence that the graphical representation isn't really a direct representation of what might be happening with the physics.
Click to expand...

Yep... visual and physical is not always same in GT.. ride height is an obvious example from GT5 & GT6..

The E type Jag had the same issue (tyre penetrating tarmac) throughout GT5..

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is tyre heat, this has an impact of lap times.. Cold tyres aren't as bad as pre 1.04, but there still seems to be a difference in grip between cold tyres and operating temperature and cold tyres.

Some setups / driving style will get more heat into the tyre, so it may not be a specific variable that has changed, just the fact that that particular car / tyre / driver is now getting heat (or better heat) into the tyres and subesequently more grip, faster laps..

But without some kind of standardised test that can be repeated after each update it's going to be more work and more time to deduce what has changed / is going on..
 
Couldn't agree more H.

Pre 1.04 I was overheating tyres constantly. I did find some harder setups made the tyres overheat faster, as the overly stiff suspension is over working the tyre, but too soft would also cause overloading issues due to weight shift.

Since 1.04 the tyre temperatures are much more stable (imo) with a full hot lap barely causing them any issues. Cars with excessive power still overheat drive tyres. So 1 hot lap in a high powered 4wd car will see the tyres warm (with my, reletively aggressive driving style)

You definately have a valid point, and it is probably affecting results.

On all my streets of willow skid pan testing I try my best to get all the tyres up to a nice temp before any testing of speed/g difference.



EDIT: what is the issue with ride height in 6? I've seen it mentioned but no real explanatons (I know about 5's issues)
 
The best standardized testing I can think of is @Motor City Hami 's version of taking a car that is tuned and ready go, preferable fairly neutral and easy to drive to make for easily repeatable results (BRZ/GT86/FR-S comes to mind), then alter one variable at a time. Start at 0.0/0.0 then, 1.0/2.0/3.0 front with 0.0 rear and vice versa. You should be able to feel a difference and if you are consistent enough, run laps and see the difference on the clock.

This is as close to emperical testing you'll get in GT without a skidpad or any kind of usable telemetry.
 
Ah well. It's all good.

If no one else finds camber beneficial, then that's all good too.

I personally don't care what the camber value "should" be. It REALLY matters to some people, but it's a non issue to me.

Why do I see improvement, in a hard evidence sense? No idea. I'm finding it easier to get onto the line I want and easier to hold that line. It may very well be that the decreased grip that people are debating also benefits the driver. That's not unheard of.

For the time being, I will be on the side of adding small amounts of camber.
 
Johnnypenso
The best standardized testing I can think of is @Motor City Hami 's version of taking a car that is tuned and ready go, preferable fairly neutral and easy to drive to make for easily repeatable results (BRZ/GT86/FR-S comes to mind), then alter one variable at a time. Start at 0.0/0.0 then, 1.0/2.0/3.0 front with 0.0 rear and vice versa. You should be able to feel a difference and if you are consistent enough, run laps and see the difference on the clock.

This is as close to emperical testing you'll get in GT without a skidpad or any kind of usable telemetry.
Click to expand...

I would only change the test increments. Instead of 1.0/1.0/3.0 etc, go with 0.1/0.2/0.3 etc. With full degree increments, you'll find diminished grip right away.

If it helps, I came up with an algorithm in my wizard to return suggested camber angles based on weight, height, width, and ride height. Rarely does it go past 1 degree.
 
Voodoovaj
I would only change the test increments. Instead of 1.0/1.0/3.0 etc, go with 0.1/0.2/0.3 etc. With full degree increments, you'll find diminished grip right away.

If it helps, I came up with an algorithm in my wizard to return suggested camber angles based on weight, height, width, and ride height. Rarely does it go past 1 degree.
Click to expand...
Of course, if you think the values are 1/10th of what they should be, test it to find out if it's true or not. The more data we get the better. 👍 And if someone has a different theory they should test that too.
 
Johnnypenso
The best standardized testing I can think of is @Motor City Hami 's version of taking a car that is tuned and ready go, preferable fairly neutral and easy to drive to make for easily repeatable results (BRZ/GT86/FR-S comes to mind), then alter one variable at a time. Start at 0.0/0.0 then, 1.0/2.0/3.0 front with 0.0 rear and vice versa. You should be able to feel a difference and if you are consistent enough, run laps and see the difference on the clock.

This is as close to emperical testing you'll get in GT without a skidpad or any kind of usable telemetry.
Click to expand...

No offense, but that doesn't cater for the tyre to power / pp factor..

The grip from tyres and even possibly tracks too can easily over power some setup variables, each car will need XYZ amount of power to break grip if given 100% throttle with a certain tyre. Any car that has some kind of setup on it

By having at least one stock car of each drive train, but then on each of the compounds from each of the tyres (comforts / sports / racing) - this will help to give baseline settings of where / when traction is 'lost'. It can also help highlight differences in driving styles / steering sensitivty settings (from the testers/drivers) on variables like tyre temp.

Same car / tyre combo can then be tried with stock custom suspension and then again with tuned setup.

Once these 'baseline' setting are found, then tests on an individual variable can be compared against them. It'd be better with 2 cars from each drivetrain as sometimes individual cars can change i.e. R32 DLC touring car in GT5 was understeer 'king' when it first arrived, but turned on a dime at the end of GT5.

With such a huge amount of diversity in variables throughout GT5, and no baselines setting to compare against, then results of 1 person driving one car is almost irrelevant. Yes, it might be right for that car / person,, but no way can it be applied to all cars, with all drivers, in most / all situations.

A test like this is more valid because the variables being used are not changing and are neutral (a car setup for one might not suit another) and available to all - the more people who do this, the more valid it becomes.

No one has to test of all this, different people can test just one drivetrain, or one tyre etc etc - aslong as whatever they test remains the same after each update, then results are still valid..
 
Highlandor
No offense, but that doesn't cater for the tyre to power / pp factor..

The grip from tyres and even possibly tracks too can easily over power some setup variables, each car will need XYZ amount of power to break grip if given 100% throttle with a certain tyre. Any car that has some kind of setup on it

By having at least one stock car of each drive train, but then on each of the compounds from each of the tyres (comforts / sports / racing) - this will help to give baseline settings of where / when traction is 'lost'. It can also help highlight differences in driving styles / steering sensitivty settings (from the testers/drivers) on variables like tyre temp.

Same car / tyre combo can then be tried with stock custom suspension and then again with tuned setup.

Once these 'baseline' setting are found, then tests on an individual variable can be compared against them. It'd be better with 2 cars from each drivetrain as sometimes individual cars can change i.e. R32 DLC touring car in GT5 was understeer 'king' when it first arrived, but turned on a dime at the end of GT5.

With such a huge amount of diversity in variables throughout GT5, and no baselines setting to compare against, then results of 1 person driving one car is almost irrelevant. Yes, it might be right for that car / person,, but no way can it be applied to all cars, with all drivers, in most / all situations.

A test like this is more valid because the variables being used are not changing and are neutral (a car setup for one might not suit another) and available to all - the more people who do this, the more valid it becomes.

No one has to test of all this, different people can test just one drivetrain, or one tyre etc etc - aslong as whatever they test remains the same after each update, then results are still valid..
Click to expand...

I don't believe all this is necessary but it wouldn't hurt to try. IMO Either PD programmed camber to work properly or they did not from a coding standpoint. If you can establish a baseline with some simple testing and camber variations you should be able to establish how it works overall by using just a couple of cars. What happens with other drivetrains, tires etc. will then be a function of other variables associated with those particular cars but won't change the basic programming behind camber.

Think back to GT5 as well. We didn't need a degree in engineering to figure out camber. Add some and you get more cornering grip. Go too far and you get less cornering grip. Not quite that simple but the results were fairly obvious and easy to feel and measure.

Maybe it's more complicated than that and I'm missing something. But when I look at the overall design of the game, and the general "dumbing down" of the gameplay, I just find it hard to believe that PD buried the secrets of camber deep down inside a multiple of variables in car setup. Just like the reverse ride height in GT5, I think it's quite simple and it's just broken:lol:
 
BlueShift
All my tune are ABS1 / no help but on LMP which have TCS at 3 or less.
In real life all LMP car have TCS. I'm not speaking about 70's LMP there. If you want to buy one in the game, it's 20m allready and nobody will be running your tune so they are quite a niche that I don't have the money to be testing. Respecting the car would say remove TCS on these aswell or making it at least an option. There you use rear toe.

On other cars, what's the benefit of rear toe if you have TCS, killing a little more your accel and start to deteriorate braking aptitudes ?
Front toe on LMP is questionable aswell. Front toe is used, to me, to make the front direction more "vivid". On a LMP car, it's allready vivid.
It's a driver tuning pref I think.

On rally cars I use rear toe in my no TCS attempts but that's a different story. Rally is a niche aswell.

All that new front toe and rear toe mandatory thing is just there because the fracking camber is fracking broken if you want my opinion. In GT5 I don't remember people using toe that frequently, esp front.

Rear toe can almost always be avoided by setting LSD and dampers/spring/rh. It's a lazy setting that cost way too much in braking distance for what it gives in my opinion.
Tried it again yesterday to compensate lack of camber on the jaguar seasonal. Result is -0.3 on Roma. Removed it after 150km, broke my record by 0.3 the 1st lap I tried (somewhere in 1'12.3xx)
Click to expand...
Group C didn't have TCS ;)
 
Johnnypenso
I don't believe all this is necessary but it wouldn't hurt to try. IMO Either PD programmed camber to work properly or they did not from a coding standpoint. If you can establish a baseline with some simple testing and camber variations you should be able to establish how it works overall by using just a couple of cars. What happens with other drivetrains, tires etc. will then be a function of other variables associated with those particular cars but won't change the basic programming behind camber.

Think back to GT5 as well. We didn't need a degree in engineering to figure out camber. Add some and you get more cornering grip. Go too far and you get less cornering grip. Not quite that simple but the results were fairly obvious and easy to feel and measure.

Maybe it's more complicated than that and I'm missing something. But when I look at the overall design of the game, and the general "dumbing down" of the gameplay, I just find it hard to believe that PD buried the secrets of camber deep down inside a multiple of variables in car setup. Just like the reverse ride height in GT5, I think it's quite simple and it's just broken:lol:
Click to expand...


I agree with you about PD dumbing things down, I think things are alot simpler than what some make out, but not having 'baseline' reading / results means it's hard to show what is going on..

No offense, but I was talking about the standardised test which would highlight about physics generally, not camber....I know what I propose is long winded, but it'd help provide alot of useful info / results which individual variables and even setups can be compared against..

I don't expect it to get implemented, but I think having something which remains constant but has good diversity (i.e. drivetrain and different tyres), both in the test subjects (car & tyres) and driver, would save a bit (or alot) of time and effort..

👍
 

Similar threads

Michael88
Negative camber - negative experience.
Replies
5
Views
2K
gameboy32588
gameboy32588
lbpomg95
Camber and Damping - Not Making Much Difference?
Replies
0
Views
777
lbpomg95
lbpomg95
L
GT7 rotational G not changing with camber changes.
Replies
4
Views
4K
atfmarko
A
MasterGT
ChatGPT AI tuning in GT7
Replies
12
Views
9K
bread82
bread82
778racing
BMW M4 2018 gt4
Replies
0
Views
404
778racing
778racing

Latest Posts

Back