Camber Theory

[ace004]

Ok so now we have several people across the forum claiming camber is misrepresented numerically? Where 1.0 is most likely 0.1? Basically 10 times the stated value? I dont think I will be able to test this for myself today, but if that's true then adding 0.1-0.3 evenly front and rear should show increased grip and improved lap times. Also if the above is true is camber true in position? Meaning front is indeed the front and rear is rear? Or is it backwards? The positive theory explained quite a bit as adding camber to the rear showed oversteer, but if it is represented correctly then adding little camber to the rear should slightly reduce oversteer.

 

[donpost]

I'm busting to repeat my skidpan tests with camber at 0.1, 0.2, 0.3.... etc. but work and social life are getting in the way!

If anyone wants to do it in my stead can I suggest you use a car that can corner quickly (without aero), so that it's easier to spot any improvement. (i.e. a 1% improvement on 40mph is 40.4mph which will still show as 40mph - but a 1% improvement on 80mph will be 80.8mph shown as 81mph and therefore detectable).

 

[FussyFez]

It seems this issue will need constant attention with all these hot fixes.

Hopefully, now PD are giving explanations with the hot fixes, the next one will say "Camber adjusted to work more realistically".

The fact that they noticed and fixed the 4wd bug so quickly tells me they do test the game, so they must know camber isn't right.

 

[Motor City Hami]

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.

This is a well thought out possibility and completely testable. I think I have also seen @BlueShift mention this so maybe you both deserve credit for thinking of it. This type of suggestion is far better than the "I know better than everyone else" tone from the other camber thread.

Can't wait to test this out tonight. Would be cool if this does work.

 

[FussyFez]

This is a well thought out possibility and completely testable. I think I have also seen @BlueShift mention this so maybe you both deserve credit for thinking of it. This type of suggestion is far better than the "I know better than everyone else" tone from the other camber thread.

Can't wait to test this out tonight. Would be cool if this does work.

I look forward to reading your findings.

 

[GTsail]

I'm not much of a tuner, so I haven't been too worried about having the exact correct camber setting, however, I am always interested in finding more speed thru the corners, so I've been reading everyone's recent posts about the possibility that the camber settings are not working properly. So I gave this some thought and have come up with a quick test to see if having the camber at zero is better than a higher value.

My first step was to buy a new Mazda MX-5 1800 RS (NB,J) '04 from the Mazda Dealership.

I then purchased a few parts:
---Custom Suspension
---Custom Transmission
---Sport soft tires

I then took the Mazda MX-5 to the Time Trials in the Arcade mode and picked the Motegi Super Speedway track

I turned off all aids (including ABS) and set the auto slider for the transmission to 168mph.

I took a look at the default suspension settings and saw that the camber was set at 0.0/0.0, so I left it there for my first run (I made no changes to the default suspension settings). So I began running some laps and got the following results for my best lap time after running six laps at each setting, with the only change being the camber value:

Camber --- Lap Time
-------------------------
0.0/0.0 --- 43.110
0.5/0.5 --- 43.196
1.0/1.0 --- 43.208
2.0/2.0 --- 43.447
3.0/3.0 --- 43.753

During the above runs my MX-5 would reach about 130-135mph in 5th gear and then scrub off this speed down to about 120mph in the tighter end of the track. I was not doing any shifting once I had the MX-5 up to speed, so I was staying in 5th gear. And for the entire lap I had the accelerator fully pressed and was not lifting in either end of the Motegi track. The fall-off in speed with the higher camber settings was being caused because I had to turn my steering wheel more acutely to make the corners, but the sharper corner was still achievable at full-throttle, I was just losing some speed due to tire scrub.

After the above runs, I put the camber back to 0/0 and ran another six laps to see if the results were any different and I got a best lap of 43.054 which was a slightly better time than my first run as I had gotten used to the MX-5 and was doing a better job of making smooth entries into the tighter end of the Motegi track.

So from the results above I would say that having zero camber is the best if you are after faster lap times.

What do you think? Does this simple test show the drop-off in speed as the camber settings increase?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FussyFez]

I'm not much of a tuner, so I haven't been too worried about having the exact correct camber setting, however, I am always interested in finding more speed thru the corners, so I've been reading everyone's recent posts about the possibility that the camber settings are not working properly. So I gave this some thought and have come up with a quick test to see if having the camber at zero is better than a higher value.

My first step was to buy a new Mazda MX-5 1800 RS (NB,J) '04 from the Mazda Dealership.

I then purchased a few parts:
---Custom Suspension
---Custom Transmission
---Sport soft tires

I then took the Mazda MX-5 to the Time Trials in the Arcade mode and picked the Motegi Super Speedway track

I turned off all aids (including ABS) and set the auto slider for the transmission to 168mph.

I took a look at the default suspension settings and saw that the camber was set at 0.0/0.0, so I left it there for my first run (I made no changes to the default suspension settings). So I began running some laps and got the following results for my best lap time after running six laps at each setting, with the only change being the camber value:

Camber --- Lap Time
-------------------------
0.0/0.0 --- 43.110
0.5/0.5 --- 43.196
1.0/1.0 --- 43.208
2.0/2.0 --- 43.447
3.0/3.0 --- 43.753

During the above runs my MX-5 would reach about 130-135mph in 5th gear and then scrub off this speed down to about 120mph in the tighter end of the track. I was not doing any shifting once I had the MX-5 up to speed, so I was staying in 5th gear. And for the entire lap I had the accelerator fully pressed and was not lifting in either end of the Motegi track. The fall-off in speed with the higher camber settings was being caused because I had to turn my steering wheel more acutely to make the corners, but the sharper corner was still achievable at full-throttle, I was just losing some speed due to tire scrub.

After the above runs, I put the camber back to 0/0 and ran another six laps to see if the results were any different and I got a best lap of 43.054 which was a slightly better time than my first run as I had gotten used to the MX-5 and was doing a better job of making smooth entries into the tighter end of the Motegi track.

So from the results above I would say that having zero camber is the best if you are after faster lap times.

What do you think? Does this simple test show the drop-off in speed as the camber settings increase?

Respectfully,
GTsail

Great stuff. There are claims that tiny (0.1) increments might be better way to approach it.

Your test seems entirely valid to me. If you want to re-run from 0.0-0.5 that should give good results to compare to @Motor City Hami and @BlueShift results when they post them.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Same test as @GTsail290. A new Mazda MX-5 1800 RS (NB,J) '04, added Custom Suspension, Custom Transmission set to 168 top speed, Sport soft tires taken to Time Trials in the Arcade mode at Motegi Super Speedway with all aids (including ABS). One warm up lap with each setting followed by 5 hot laps. It is easy to be smooth with this test using the G27. I pretty much drove on top of the ghost for as much consistency as possible.

First let me get this out of the way. @Jack Napier will not think this is a valid test, so if you are Jack or one of his fans, please stop reading here and skip to the next post.

Second, I really had hope that this theory was true. It was good thinking and a good suggestion to the community, so props to the originator(s) for that. Test below.

Camber 0/0 = 43.034 understeer in turn 4
0.1/0 = 43.069
0.2/0 = 43.075
0.3/0 = 43.065
0/0 = 42.998
0/0.1 = 43.028
0/0.2 = 42.950
0/0.3 = 42.920 <- best
0/0.4 = 42.963
0/0.5 = 42.967
0/1.0 = 42.991
0/1.5 = really got bored with this test and need to do some racing tonight.

As I increased front camber by these small increments, the turn 4 understeer got slightly worse. Then, as I increased rear the turn 4 understeer was reduced but quickly flattened out.

My conclusions after testing this one car, camber at zero will still produce the fastest lap time.

Thoughts from the community?

 

[DSUjoeDirte9]

Same test as @GTsail290. A new Mazda MX-5 1800 RS (NB,J) '04, added Custom Suspension, Custom Transmission set to 168 top speed, Sport soft tires taken to Time Trials in the Arcade mode at Motegi Super Speedway with all aids (including ABS). One warm up lap with each setting followed by 5 hot laps. It is easy to be smooth with this test using the G27. I pretty much drove on top of the ghost for as much consistency as possible.

First let me get this out of the way. @Jack Napier will not think this is a valid test, so if you are Jack or one of his fans, please stop reading here and skip to the next post.

Second, I really had hope that this theory was true. It was good thinking and a good suggestion to the community, so props to the originator(s) for that. Test below.

Camber 0/0 = 43.034 understeer in turn 4
0.1/0 = 43.069
0.2/0 = 43.075
0.3/0 = 43.065
0/0 = 42.998
0/0.1 = 43.028
0/0.2 = 42.950
0/0.3 = 42.920 <- best
0/0.4 = 42.963
0/0.5 = 42.967
0/1.0 = 42.991
0/1.5 = really got bored with this test and need to do some racing tonight.

As I increased front camber by these small increments, the turn 4 understeer got slightly worse. Then, as I increased rear the turn 4 understeer was reduced but quickly flattened out.

My conclusions after testing this one car, camber at zero will still produce the fastest lap time.

Thoughts from the community?

I personally haven't the time to do a test like this and if i was im not a consistent enough driver to post accurate results unless i spent hours learning the car first.

But for yet another opinion on camber.

As most have said i find 0 camber gets the most grip, but i have found exception for some cars that having a little tiny bit on the rear will give me faster lap times. Usually (just like your test Motor City) it was around the .3 mark for the rear depending on the car, if that car had a sweet spot to be found in the first place.

So im going off experience and 0 testing that the sweet spot for camber right now is between 0 and .3 (which if you look at Motor City's chart. Is pretty much were 2 of his 3 fastest times are at.

3/3 of his fastest times if you go from 0-.4

 

[HOOT44]

... everyone should go to my site, use the wizard for camber settings, and then report back :tup:

I tried your wizard - an outstanding initiative.
I tried to get something for the Toyota 86gt TT and ended up trialling the "medium" setting. Although it did not do magic, the setup I tried was entirely competent and the car went easily under gold time and not much slower than my own efforts at tuning - I guess the wizard is a work in progress.
I think the good thing about it was that it offered a sort of "ball park" (for lack of a better term) combination which could then be fine tuned. Your wizard probably needs to be used regularly for it to become a real timesaver and once off quick-test such as I did today would not really do justice to it.
I think that the ride height figure should also be wizard-calculated.
Thanks for the effort.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not much of a tuner, so I haven't been too worried about having the exact correct camber setting, however, I am always interested in finding more speed thru the corners, so I've been reading everyone's recent posts about the possibility that the camber settings are not working properly. So I gave this some thought and have come up with a quick test to see if having the camber at zero is better than a higher value.

My first step was to buy a new Mazda MX-5 1800 RS (NB,J) '04 from the Mazda Dealership.

I then purchased a few parts:
---Custom Suspension
---Custom Transmission
---Sport soft tires

I then took the Mazda MX-5 to the Time Trials in the Arcade mode and picked the Motegi Super Speedway track

I turned off all aids (including ABS) and set the auto slider for the transmission to 168mph.

I took a look at the default suspension settings and saw that the camber was set at 0.0/0.0, so I left it there for my first run (I made no changes to the default suspension settings). So I began running some laps and got the following results for my best lap time after running six laps at each setting, with the only change being the camber value:

Camber --- Lap Time
-------------------------
0.0/0.0 --- 43.110
0.5/0.5 --- 43.196
1.0/1.0 --- 43.208
2.0/2.0 --- 43.447
3.0/3.0 --- 43.753

During the above runs my MX-5 would reach about 130-135mph in 5th gear and then scrub off this speed down to about 120mph in the tighter end of the track. I was not doing any shifting once I had the MX-5 up to speed, so I was staying in 5th gear. And for the entire lap I had the accelerator fully pressed and was not lifting in either end of the Motegi track. The fall-off in speed with the higher camber settings was being caused because I had to turn my steering wheel more acutely to make the corners, but the sharper corner was still achievable at full-throttle, I was just losing some speed due to tire scrub.

After the above runs, I put the camber back to 0/0 and ran another six laps to see if the results were any different and I got a best lap of 43.054 which was a slightly better time than my first run as I had gotten used to the MX-5 and was doing a better job of making smooth entries into the tighter end of the Motegi track.

So from the results above I would say that having zero camber is the best if you are after faster lap times.

What do you think? Does this simple test show the drop-off in speed as the camber settings increase?

Respectfully,
GTsail

Same test as @GTsail290. A new Mazda MX-5 1800 RS (NB,J) '04, added Custom Suspension, Custom Transmission set to 168 top speed, Sport soft tires taken to Time Trials in the Arcade mode at Motegi Super Speedway with all aids (including ABS). One warm up lap with each setting followed by 5 hot laps. It is easy to be smooth with this test using the G27. I pretty much drove on top of the ghost for as much consistency as possible.

First let me get this out of the way. @Jack Napier will not think this is a valid test, so if you are Jack or one of his fans, please stop reading here and skip to the next post.

Second, I really had hope that this theory was true. It was good thinking and a good suggestion to the community, so props to the originator(s) for that. Test below.

Camber 0/0 = 43.034 understeer in turn 4
0.1/0 = 43.069
0.2/0 = 43.075
0.3/0 = 43.065
0/0 = 42.998
0/0.1 = 43.028
0/0.2 = 42.950
0/0.3 = 42.920 <- best
0/0.4 = 42.963
0/0.5 = 42.967
0/1.0 = 42.991
0/1.5 = really got bored with this test and need to do some racing tonight.

As I increased front camber by these small increments, the turn 4 understeer got slightly worse. Then, as I increased rear the turn 4 understeer was reduced but quickly flattened out.

My conclusions after testing this one car, camber at zero will still produce the fastest lap time.

Thoughts from the community?

Well done and thanks to both of you for the testing:tup:👍

 

[BlueShift]

0/0.3 = 42.920 <- best
(...)

Thoughts from the community?

It seems to confirm that the camber effect is x10 ?
But if that cured understeer, it means the rear grip the less at this value...

So what if both my intuitions were rigth ie x10 and positive camber maybe ?

 

[HOOT44]

Has anyone done a straight-line test?
On the straight camber should reduce the force of drag of the tyre against the road surface and the straight line top speed should be slightly greater than with 0/0. The effect should be more pronounced on wider tyres.

 

[FussyFez]

Top marks to Hami and GTsail.

As much as I want to believe that camber gave more grip. It reduced the time due to initial understeer. Camber was added to the rear and the time came down. This tells me rear camber helped rotation. Not exactly what it should be doing.

My interpretation of both sets of results is that adjusting camber is doubtlessly doing somthing to the contact patch, but by the looks of things, it's definately not doing what it should, and not acheiving real world results.

Thanks guys for the time and effort put in 👍



The coincidence that the best gain was 0.3 leads me to believe that BlueShift could be on the right lines with his x10 theory. But, in my opinion, if this was the case, 0.2 or 0.3 on the front should have been the sweet spot for reducing understeer, not 0.3 in the rear only.

I'm glad the community is Intent on getting to the bottom of this, all the talk of livery editor and various other things has me worried when something as basic as camber isn't implemented properly.

All I ever really wanted in the step from gt5 to 6 was tyre pressure adjustment. I'm not sure I'll ever get it in GT if they can't do camber correctly.

I hope the guy that had the idea of PD being yet to release the new tyre model is correct, and that this is the issue.

 

[Voodoovaj]

I tried your wizard - an outstanding initiative.

Thanks for the effort.

You're welcome . Yes, as you surmised, it gets you to a competent start point that tries to be neutral, then you can take it from there. It circumvents the first few frustrating hours of trying to get to that first pass of a good setup.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It seems to confirm that the camber effect is x10 ?
But if that cured understeer, it means the rear grip the less at this value...

So what if both my intuitions were rigth ie x10 and positive camber maybe ?

A couple of hundredths of a second is really statistically insignificant and could be produced by any number of things including slightly different steering input, slightly off or on the racing line etc. When we start getting into the tenths of a second it'll be time to take notice.

 

[FussyFez]

You're welcome . Yes, as you surmised, it gets you to a competent start point that tries to be neutral, then you can take it from there. It circumvents the first few frustrating hours of trying to get to that first pass of a good setup.

I'm going to try this with my S13 later, it has intruded me enough to visit the site and click some ads. Will post in your thread with results.

(edit: intruded was supposed to be intruiged but auto correct on my phone made the sentence funnier)

 

[Voodoovaj]

A couple of hundredths of a second is really statistically insignificant and could be produced by any number of things including slightly different steering input, slightly off or on the racing line etc. When we start getting into the tenths of a second it'll be time to take notice.

I've seen that, however, the caveat is this (for me, and I am restating) my lap time gains have come from getting to the proper line and holding onto it. I've also noticed that I drift less after landing from a jump. It "feels" better and that might be all it takes for me to go faster. Also, I'm talking about camber settings between 0-0.6.

I'm on a controller still, because I like the convenience. Although I'm going to have to invest in a driving seat at some point if I want to get to those really impressive times.

I went faster on every track I tried, and with every car. It is either the change in the tires, or the camber, or a combination of both.

Honestly though, this is an interesting topic for me because the significance to the users seems disproportionate to the value of the setting

 

[Voodoovaj]

This just occurred to me. What if it isn't that the camber is off by a factor of ten. What if, instead, the camber adjustment is affecting the wrong axis?

So, when you drive a gt3 car for instance, you'll notice how "lively" the steering is. They tend to have 3.0 camber.

Now, the camber angle is definitely working visually. a camber of (negative) 10.0 gives VERY cambered wheels.

Here is my hypothesis - Visualize the wheel with an X, Y, and Z axis. Assume the X axis points towards the front of the car, the Y axis points towards the sky, and the Z axis points inward, towards the car.

Toe (and steering) adjusts rotation around the Y axis of the wheel.

Camber is supposed to adjust rotation around the X axis (as it does visually)

What if it (physically) adjusts around the Z axis, effectively providing castor rather than camber?

Edit - just rephrased it for clarity

 

[FussyFez]

Oh my. What have you done.

I think you might have just opened pandoras box.

 

[subsist]

This just occurred to me. What if it isn't that the camber is off by a factor of ten. What if, instead, the camber adjustment is affecting the wrong axis?

So, when you drive a gt3 car for instance, you'll notice how "lively" the steering is. They tend to have 3.0 camber.

Now, the camber angle is definitely working visually. a camber of (negative) 10.0 gives VERY cambered wheels.

Here is my hypothesis - Visualize the wheel with an X, Y, and Z axis. Assume the X axis points towards the front of the car, the Y axis points towards the sky, and the Z axis points inward, towards the car.

Toe (and steering) adjusts rotation around the Y axis of the wheel.

Camber is supposed to adjust rotation around the X axis (as it does visually)

What if it (physically) adjusts around the Z axis, effectively providing castor rather than camber?

Edit - just rephrased it for clarity

Shouldnt Toe be the X axis and Camber the Y axis in this case?

 

[demonchilde]

I've done a lot of testing on cam, and honestly have come to the conclusion, if it does anything, it's so little it's almost unnoticeable.
So, I have been making my tunes as if it worked the way it did in GT5. My hope is that someday, they will spit out an update that will make camber actually work right, and be effective, and if so, my cars will (I hope) already be pretty close to the right spot.
As far as lap times go, I guess I'm not consistent enough, because my best tests put 0 camber vs. any camber to be under .5 of a second, and if that's the case, I'm not going to put too much time into this until they REALLY fix it so it works the way it's designed.
I laugh at .5 of a second, I mean really, lol.
We got other settings that take so much more play in the cars drive, and really effect the car, for me to pay any attention, . . . . . . . YET.
I'm looking, I'm watching.
The second an update makes it worth my time, I will then give it that time.
That's my theory. Hope it helps, lol.

 

[V8-Johnboy]

So is a setting of 0 all round still feeling like the way to go? Grip wise that is.

 

[FussyFez]

So is a setting of 0 all round still feeling like the way to go? Grip wise that is.

I'm pretty sure that is still the general consensus.

 

[JLG_GT]

Been following this [amongst many other threads].

Im an aspiring tuner and trying to get my skills "tuned" before I publish tunes again.

However I have been leaving the camber at 0. Based on my results and then reading about this here. Placebo effect cant possibly work on all the experienced tuners here so I am taking what you guys say as the norm.

I feel like 0 should be the way to go because at some point they may fix this and to go back and recalibrate would be more difficult if the settings are not 0. If that makes sense?

In the long run yeah its sucks to not use a vital setting, but when it becomes applicable it may give you a better sense of its effect on your tuned car.

 

[Greycap]

I originally wrote this in a completely different thread but it certainly belongs here. There are a couple of things that made me think "what if" in the camber settings.

a) What if the value isn't absolute but added to what the car originally has? It would also explain the zero degree setups of every stock car, there may be for example 2° by default which is displayed as zero and when you put in 2° it's added to the default, resulting in 4° total.

b) What if the value isn't a "live" value but measured at full suspension extension and suspension geometry during the actual stroke changes it to something completely different? Live For Speed is a good example of this, there can be 1.5° of difference between the setup value and the actual angle of the wheel.

c) What if the super high angles really just don't work? Again in LFS, I seem to have less than 3° in all my setups (live values, the setup values are around 1°) and those include full blown race cars running on slick tyres.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I originally wrote this in a completely different thread but it certainly belongs here. There are a couple of things that made me think "what if" in the camber settings.

a) What if the value isn't absolute but added to what the car originally has? It would also explain the zero degree setups of every stock car, there may be for example 2° by default which is displayed as zero and when you put in 2° it's added to the default, resulting in 4° total.

b) What if the value isn't a "live" value but measured at full suspension extension and suspension geometry during the actual stroke changes it to something completely different? Live For Speed is a good example of this, there can be 1.5° of difference between the setup value and the actual angle of the wheel.

c) What if the super high angles really just don't work? Again in LFS, I seem to have less than 3° in all my setups (live values, the setup values are around 1°) and those include full blown race cars running on slick tyres.

You mean what if PD completely ignored the industry wide accepted standards concerning the measurement of camber and it's effectiveness in an automobile? As ludicrous as it sounds, there's nothing I wouldn't put by them

 

[donpost]

I've just tried the skidpan test on a Honda Life Step Van (don't ask lol). It really leans when cornering so if anything needs camber it's this vehicle. 0.2 degrees of camber front and back appeared to be a little slower. That could be just confirmation bias though.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Shouldnt Toe be the X axis and Camber the Y axis in this case?

No, if Y is the vertical axis, toe would rotate around that axis.

 

[Greycap]

You mean what if PD completely ignored the industry wide accepted standards concerning the measurement of camber and it's effectiveness in an automobile? As ludicrous as it sounds, there's nothing I wouldn't put by them

That applies to part a), yes. But if you want to dismiss parts b) and c) too it means that you also consider LFS to be just as bad and I've yet to hear somebody calling its physics model ludicrous. Or is it the usual double standards again - a "renowned simulator" doing thing X is perfectly acceptable but when PD does the same thing it's massively flawed?

To put things in perspective, there are cars in LFS that need their camber values to be set from 0.0° to +1.0° to actually run -2.0° or even more.