Camber Theory
- Thread starter PsuPepperoni
- 589 comments
- 61,558 views
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
I have to agree with @praiano63 I have just done a bit of testing myself and in my opinion, camber is still bugged. 0.0 still seems to be the best setting for max grip, nothing has changed. I can't believe they haven't fixed this yet because as far as I'm concerned, it is a very big and glaring tuning issue. It really needs to be fixed.....I'm looking at you Kaz.
- 1,159
- Finland
- CONTINUE_F5
Well, it seems it is time to build up my rig again and get behind the wheel. For me Dualshock3 just isn't accurate enough in camber testing obviously.
At my early quick test ('94 ZR-1 Corvette: 0 rear camber vs. 2.2 rear camber, both with 0 toe) there was no hazardous sliding with 2.2 camber, which surprised me - and it gave me betterr time. But as I mentioned already, better test with the wheel. I'm not going to argue with tuning wizards with pad on my hands
.
At my early quick test ('94 ZR-1 Corvette: 0 rear camber vs. 2.2 rear camber, both with 0 toe) there was no hazardous sliding with 2.2 camber, which surprised me - and it gave me betterr time. But as I mentioned already, better test with the wheel. I'm not going to argue with tuning wizards with pad on my hands
.
Yeah the camber bug is buggy, you can get results with camber!Well, it seems it is time to build up my rig again and get behind the wheel. For me Dualshock3 just isn't accurate enough in camber testing obviously.
At my early quick test ('94 ZR-1 Corvette: 0 rear camber vs. 2.2 rear camber, both with 0 toe) there was no hazardous sliding with 2.2 camber, which surprised me - and it gave me betterr time. But as I mentioned already, better test with the wheel. I'm not going to argue with tuning wizards with pad on my hands
As far as I'm concerned, there is potential to maximise contact patch during cornering (and in turn grip) by adding camber, so camber works generally correct in theory, maybe.
I have never found any huge gains in lap times or cornering speeds from camber. Any of my best tunes I make with camber can lap about as good with 0/0 camber, it can sometimes be too close to call which makes better lap times, considering I don't have the ability to run 100% accurate 100% of the time. Even looking at the data logger, two tunes will carry almost the exact speed through corners and any difference could easily be due to driver inconsistencies as much as setup differences.
While I can't provide any concrete proof of camber giving an advantage, getting lap times with camber that are as good as without camber is proof that "0/0 camber is max grip and the more camber you add, the more grip you lose" theory is busted.
If I'm really chasing a top setup for a car, I will sometimes make any and every change I can to find more speed. I will make a change to something and just to confirm that the change made the car better or worse, I will make the opposite change and test that as well, so I don't have a preference for any particular way to tune a car unless something gives results consistently (which 0/0 camber doesn't).
The one thing I can say for 0/0 camber though, is that it's never slow and it's never terrible!
- 12,638
- paracuru
- praiano63
Perhaps you´re not regular enough to make the difference. If you´re able to drive within 0.300 lap after lap on a track you know perfectly, then you will see that 0/0 camber will perform the best time because max grip.
I´m not a very fast driver but i can do this on several tracks like suzuka , eiger or the Nordschleife.
Any very performant driver , alien or alien pretender can tell you this for sure. The difference is not small and more you add camber more it will increase your lap time.
0/0 camber = max grip NOT busted.
Last edited:
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
I have been doing some testing recently (1.06 mostly) and I've found that a small amount of camber on the front wheels (0.3ish) gives better late corner grip where a high steering angle and a small amount of body roll is involved. Turns 1-5 at Laguna Seca are a good example of the turns where I've been finding a late corner grip advantage.
If you add any more then the grip is lost and any less the grip difference is barely noticeable. If matching camber is applied to the rear wheels it instantly loses grip again. It seems to increase the load the outside front tyre can take before slipping.
I think its something to do with countering the induced camber when steering but I'm not entirely sure.
If you add any more then the grip is lost and any less the grip difference is barely noticeable. If matching camber is applied to the rear wheels it instantly loses grip again. It seems to increase the load the outside front tyre can take before slipping.
I think its something to do with countering the induced camber when steering but I'm not entirely sure.
Thorin Cain
Premium
- 2,298
- Glasgow
- THORIN-RAYVEN
Hi Guys. I was noticing some alerts to this thread last night and thought I'd test this out. I was originally going to do a comparison on the new VGT car as @praiano63 had already highlighted the camber it came with. I had a little play about with this car last night doing some online races with some friends and it's perfectly clear by knocking off 6-7 seconds a lap with an ok quick-tune and no custom transmission that having 0.0/0.0 camber is still very fast. compared to the stock settings of 3.0/2.5. But I did think that the original camber made the cornering just feel better.
However, I have been working on a Ferrari F430 tune this morning to try and help @romynovanda get this tune to better suit his style. So I have put in a great amount of laps around SSR5 and have been running more or less consistent 1.17.3s with the set-up I have recommended, in my garage Free Run with SRF on. So I've turned it off and started doing some testing with the camber. Now running at 1:18.3 and not really noticing a huge difference in the handling, just a little less grip mid corner.
I thought I'd start by reinstating the stock camber of 1.0/0.5 to see the effect it had ,but I decided to add the rear only first. I noticed a difference from the first corner, I had to make some changes to this car to make it a bit "safer" on corner entry and for my style the changes I made were just a little to "safe" for me however, with the 0.5 camber added this car started to feel closer to my liking again but after 10 laps I could really not see any difference in lap time at all but the car suited me a little better. It makes sense to assume then that the grip is still better with zero camber but this leads me to a problem which has manifested itself with this introduction of rear camber. The front end of the car, which I felt before was turning smoothly now seemed to stutter in mid corner...so I added the 1.0 stock camber back to the front end and did another 10 laps.
Now the car feels more stable on entry but is exhibiting bad understeer as a result of the lost grip from the front tyres but mid corner now feels smoother and at exit I seem to be having better traction as i am coming back past the ghost which passed me in the first half of the corner. Still no real difference in lap time though I've been at 1:18.3 give of take 0.3-0.4 secs for most of the tests (crashes not included).
So out of curiosity I am going to reduce the front camber until I loose the understeer and achieve balance with the rear, then do another 10 laps.
Got camber set at 0.7/0.5 and just put in a lap of 1:18.013 during my 10 lap run. It's the fastest lap I have done with SRF off but again I am on average about the 1:18.3 mark so still no big difference in lap times. I would say though that it really does feel better with the camber. I feel as though I have better control of the car in the bends, and it's really noticeable for me when the lift off oversteer kicks in, it just seems so much easier to deal with and more responsive to my inputs when getting back on the throttle as well as lifting off.
I have saved the best lap time replays for zero camber and full camber so I can go and compare them and see If there's anything interesting in the Data logger. I will report back here if I find anything useful.
However, I have been working on a Ferrari F430 tune this morning to try and help @romynovanda get this tune to better suit his style. So I have put in a great amount of laps around SSR5 and have been running more or less consistent 1.17.3s with the set-up I have recommended, in my garage Free Run with SRF on. So I've turned it off and started doing some testing with the camber. Now running at 1:18.3 and not really noticing a huge difference in the handling, just a little less grip mid corner.
I thought I'd start by reinstating the stock camber of 1.0/0.5 to see the effect it had ,but I decided to add the rear only first. I noticed a difference from the first corner, I had to make some changes to this car to make it a bit "safer" on corner entry and for my style the changes I made were just a little to "safe" for me however, with the 0.5 camber added this car started to feel closer to my liking again but after 10 laps I could really not see any difference in lap time at all but the car suited me a little better. It makes sense to assume then that the grip is still better with zero camber but this leads me to a problem which has manifested itself with this introduction of rear camber. The front end of the car, which I felt before was turning smoothly now seemed to stutter in mid corner...so I added the 1.0 stock camber back to the front end and did another 10 laps.
Now the car feels more stable on entry but is exhibiting bad understeer as a result of the lost grip from the front tyres but mid corner now feels smoother and at exit I seem to be having better traction as i am coming back past the ghost which passed me in the first half of the corner. Still no real difference in lap time though I've been at 1:18.3 give of take 0.3-0.4 secs for most of the tests (crashes not included).
So out of curiosity I am going to reduce the front camber until I loose the understeer and achieve balance with the rear, then do another 10 laps.
Got camber set at 0.7/0.5 and just put in a lap of 1:18.013 during my 10 lap run. It's the fastest lap I have done with SRF off but again I am on average about the 1:18.3 mark so still no big difference in lap times. I would say though that it really does feel better with the camber. I feel as though I have better control of the car in the bends, and it's really noticeable for me when the lift off oversteer kicks in, it just seems so much easier to deal with and more responsive to my inputs when getting back on the throttle as well as lifting off.
I have saved the best lap time replays for zero camber and full camber so I can go and compare them and see If there's anything interesting in the Data logger. I will report back here if I find anything useful.
- 322
- Markham
My drift cars all handle the same. Good amounts of camber up front and very little at the back. Now, if camber was fixed, they would all spin out really easily, however, they don't. Any difference in lap time can be attributed to a bad tune (such as too much oversteer) that was balanced out by the introduction of camber.
- 12,638
- paracuru
- praiano63
Nobody is providing evidence , just feeling, thinking that..... but laptime is a real solid argument. Check the WRS people , only very fast guys, nobody there is using camber to go faster. Simple, nobody want to have less grip at the front or rear of the car.
If you want to induce something to the overall balance of the car, you have a lot of settings you can fix first to have the result you want. Camber just will make the front or the rear less grippy. For me , this is not the good solution.
This is my opinion, i let you with your.
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
Well, I have consistently improved lap-times by adding negative camber to the rear of a FWD, allowing it to rotate more quickly on small tracks like Tsukuba (which is the opposite of what it would do in real life).
But yes, nobody is providing evidence of camber "working". Most of the arguments are the equivalent of saying, "Turning on traction control made my car easier to drive, so it must be better."
3.34.9XX. With camber 0/0... not sure off the top of my head, but not as fast. It's not a perfect, perfect, perfect lap but I haven't managed to match it with camber 0/0. The closest I have come to beating it once, I had the ghost in my face coming into the last chicaines and made a driver error. In any case, it's proof that the camber doesn't reduce grip. If I had reduced grip at both ends of the car, it wouldn't be a contest.
I had someone that tried my tune, changed gears not camber to go faster. I don't know if 0/0 camber was tried, but I would assume that anyone as fast as me, or faster, would know to try 0/0 camber to look for more speed. If someone knows a very performant driver that could test this, then that might be interesting.
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
- 1,460
- England
As far as I'm aware...
Big negative camber on the rear of a FF should increase peak load grip, but the eagerness to rotate from going straight would also increase...
In a straight line you are running on the inside tyre edges, Inital turn in will see the load on the outside rear tyre increasing, until you are at full lean, and then when the outside tyres are being fully pressed into the road, you will see /feel the grip from the negative camber in the rear.
I've been playing alot of LFS recently, and its widely regarded as being very realistic.
Big camber values very rarely see proper gains except on the tightest and bumpiest of tracks requiring relatively high ride heights and soft springs, giving increased body roll - the main thing (alongside sidewall flex) that we use negative camber to fight in our setups.
I can't slap - 3 front and - 1.5 rear on my FR touring car and just expect to have more grip on every corner at every track, it doesn't work like that. - 0.5 front - 0.2 rear would be alot more likely to yeild all round results.
There is also a difference between static camber (car off the ground) and dynamic stationary camber (loaded suspension). LFS recognises this, I run - 4.5 on the front of my drift car with a live value of - 6.5. Because I have the ride height very low, this increases the negative camber naturally. If I had a neutral or tall ride height, that would decrease negative camber naturally.
I run a positive camber value on the rear of my FR drag car, because the very soft rear suspension combined with long stroke gives a negative camber increase under full throttle acceleration, so I run a positive value, and the tyres are flat under full straight line acceleration.
In the GT6 setup screen, if we are setting 0.0 static camber at below neutral ride height, we may be introducing high amounts of stationary dynamic camber without realising, and therefore any increase in static negative camber is likely to have a detrimental effect.
We may all be getting the cars too low and stiff to gain anything from negative camber...
Edit
Just to contradict myself, I still think it's broken.
Taking the new BMW VGT as an example.
If PD supply a car setup with relatively aggressive camber, removing all camber to 0.0 should under no circumstances give the car more grip under 90% of cornering conditions.
Until the above is true, camber is, in my opinion, broken.
Last edited:
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
It is really easy to do your own test. Take any tune and run it with zero camber then take same tune and only change camber. Report back what you felt and what your lap times did.
For me, still broken. Zero is still giving me the lowest lap times. I do use camber (by adding some to the rear) to reduce rear grip in cars that are difficult to tune.
Last edited:
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Just keep posting tunes. Your tunes really speak for themselves.
The best test of all would be to take any Praiano tune, add camber and see if you went faster.
0/0 Camber with the R18 seems to neutralize the handling but I notice a lot of four wheel slides out of slow corners like the Ford Chicanes. This is obviously not good for lap times.
The changes to that tune above that lowered my time to 3:32.76 were 1.06 update and did not involve camber changes. Camber changes were made with my own tune not with @MrGrado tune.
Will continue testing. One thing to note, 1.07 did change something as I can brake much later than usual.
Edit: on the other hand I can achieve a 3:24.xx with the Team Oreca Matmut 908 Hdi minimum downforce and stock everything else when using TCS at 8, steering sensitivity at 7, ABS at 1, and no SRF in Arcade Time Trial. Lowering the camber to 0.0/0.0 lowered my lap time to 3:23.xx with update 1.07.
Last edited:
Thorin Cain
Premium
- 2,298
- Glasgow
- THORIN-RAYVEN
Hello again guys. I had a good look over the data logger results and well, to be honest I think we can safely assume that yes, the camber issue remains the same. Let me share the results I have and see what you think.
I set up all 3 custom slots to show the individual wheel speeds and used the remaining option in all three sets to include 1: Longitudinal G-force, 2: Lateral G-Force, 3 Speed. I thought these would be the the most useful things to look at to determine what's happening with the camber. Please, if anyone has any other idea of what I should be checking for this, don't hesitate to tell me.
Test conducted at Special Stage Route 5 in Ferrari F430 on RS tyres all aids off but ABS:1
Firstly I checked the set with Speed and the wheel speeds. I focused more on the corners I had to break for as, these were the one's I felt the biggest difference between the two set-ups not to mention in every one of these corners I was passing my ghost mid corner. This limited me to 4 zones to test, Unfortunately on the camber run I hit a kerb in the last chicane and it through the wheel speeds out big time so I ended up with 3 zones which I could get all the data for. (Just out of interest, even though I hit the kerb and lost momentum, I still came out of the corner ahead of the ghost that entered the corner just before me.)
Here are the results for Overall speed and Wheel speeds at the slowest point of the corners.
Corner 1 (Tunnel)
Without Camber
Overall speed: 90 MPH Front Left:83 Front Right:85 Rear Left: 90 Rear Right: 89
With Camber 0.7/0.5
Overall Speed: 91 MPH Front left: 87 Front Right: 90 Rear Left: 89 Rear Right: 91
Corner 2 ( Tight left 2 after tunnel)
Without Camber
Overall speed: 55 MPH Front Left:52 Front Right: 55 Rear Left:55 Rear Right:57
With Camber 0.7/0.5
Overall Speed: 58 MPH Front left:56 Front Right:59 Rear Left:58 Rear Right: 59
Corner 3 (Hairpin)
Without Camb
Overall speed: 33 MPH Front Left:28 Front Right:31 Rear Left:35 Rear Right:35
With Camber 0.7/0.5
Overall Speed: 35 MPH Front left: 31 Front Right: 34 Rear Left: 37 Rear Right: 37
Ok, this set of figures suggests to me that the camber does indeed have an effect which can help the cars cornering, as all three sets of results display the same thing. The car (with the same set-up )with camber added did go through the corners quicker. However this by no means suggests camber works properly, why not? let me explain!
I know from doing my tests what I was feeling the difference was between the two cars, more importantly I could see the difference at every corner and in every bend because at every braking point the ghost would break a little later(or it seemed that way) than I was with camber, not by much but enough for the ghost to be in front of me limiting my view, and in every instance from apex to exit I would go back past the ghost. This was also evident when I looked at the "Time difference " figure on the data logger and the constant changing between which one was faster in every corner was a good indication that something was amiss.
Which brings me to the two sets of G-force results. This one is really tough because I have no figures to show what was happening I can only tell you what I saw on the charts, and I was a little baffled but not too surprised.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong about this, but I thought that, if camber worked the way it should be, then I would see stronger G-forces acting on the car with the camber added. So if I am going through a corner at higher speed, centrifugal force would be increased and therefore the G-forces pushing the car out would be increased on the logger. This is not however what I saw.
In every braking zone, In every corner or bend and exiting every corner, the G forces acting on the car with camber were less than the car without. The overall results of both Longitudinal and Lateral G-Forces showed a much smoother curve with camber added which I believe to show, that rather than working correctly by limiting the grip loss in the corner by adding camber to increase the contact patch. What adding the camber actually did was to allow more slip from the tyres allowing more rotation. To me this only reinforces what I was feeling from the car when I was doing the test.
The main things I noticed from the test runs were how the car behaved in certain situations.
The braking distance was slightly longer, the turn in was not quite as sharp but I felt I had more control over the steering during braking and turn in.
Once into the corner the car felt a little more stable and the speeds above show corner speeds were quicker(between 1 and 3 MPH ) Again I would say that I just felt I had more control over the steering here too.
It's hard to explain but I'll try...The steering seemed a little more precise, Not pointy as I feel sometimes is the case, but somehow smoother. A smaller input was needed while I was in the corner to adjust my line but it didn't seem as easy to over-steer the car as it sometimes does using the DS3. (I hope that last bit's not too confusing. If it is, think active steering control.)
And as @DolHaus said previously, coming out of the corner there was more grip and less roll allowing a quicker exit, the place I found this most was out of the chicane towards the end and round the sweeping right hander to the finishing straight (It was evident exiting every slower corner because I always coming out ahead of the ghost.). Mainly because I didn't need to brake again before the end of the lap. This took my camber laden car from dead level at the direction change in the chicane to 0.308 seconds ahead at the end of the lap.
And finally, (and please excuse me if I slip in to Motorcycle mode for a bit here I just find this bit easier to explain that way.) I did also notice that in cases of lifting off for some of the faster corners, that the lift-off oversteer had been reduced...but not really!
Now in the back to that long looping right-hander at the end. With the set-up I was running for the test I had to apply a little brake mid corner to get the nose turned in for the apex. I usually have them set up to use the lift-off oversteer for that purpose in this corner, which adding camber allowed me to do. But instead of how it will normally work for me both, the front and the rear of the car started to slide into a nice 4 wheel drift until I got back on the gas, which then launched me out of the corner onto the straight 0.274 seconds ahead of the ghost, which was just straightening up.
I have since gone back and tried this out on the same car. In cases where the lift-off oversteer is too much or when the rear looses traction (through over eager use of the gas) on the way out of the corner there is a point where you get what we motorcycle fans call a High-side! ( Top Gear fans think Stig crashing the koenigsegg.) This is when you have lost the traction, slid and as you attempt to correct the vehicle, the traction is regained and you go shooting off into god only knows where or what. Well, I had a little play about inducing these such instances and once I was happy the car wanted to kill me for it, I introduced camber back into the equation Now I will say that even this situation seems a lot less violent with camber added to the car, firstly it was a little harder to induce the mishap in the first place because the front would slip away too and when I did it was so much easier to correct.
Sorry for the length of the post guys and gals, and sorry I haven't got any nice pictures or videos to break up the wall of text. I know there will be a call for the evidence of my testing and I do have all the data saved, but If I had the time, knowledge and means to stick them up I would have done so. If that is what is required I will have someone help me out with it and do just that.
Now my conclusions are: Yes, 0.0/0.0 is the setting needed for the most grip. As has been the case since 1.01. Having said that, now that I have tested this out for myself and have found neither way to be distinctively faster over the course of a lap, and judging by the results I have found in different parts of the track, I may just have to explore the use of camber to help achieve what I'm looking for when I'm tuning my cars. There are too many positives to using it in my opinion and I only felt let down by adding camber at all was in the braking zone. and that's something that can be worked on with the rest of the settings.
I hope this helps the discussion, and please no-one think I am telling you to use camber. It is pretty clear it is not working as it should but it does have some uses. Try it for yourself and please, draw your own conclusions!
I for sure am going to be doing more testing with this and a couple of related issues in the near future. If I find anything useful I'll let you guys know.
I set up all 3 custom slots to show the individual wheel speeds and used the remaining option in all three sets to include 1: Longitudinal G-force, 2: Lateral G-Force, 3 Speed. I thought these would be the the most useful things to look at to determine what's happening with the camber. Please, if anyone has any other idea of what I should be checking for this, don't hesitate to tell me.
Test conducted at Special Stage Route 5 in Ferrari F430 on RS tyres all aids off but ABS:1
Firstly I checked the set with Speed and the wheel speeds. I focused more on the corners I had to break for as, these were the one's I felt the biggest difference between the two set-ups not to mention in every one of these corners I was passing my ghost mid corner. This limited me to 4 zones to test, Unfortunately on the camber run I hit a kerb in the last chicane and it through the wheel speeds out big time so I ended up with 3 zones which I could get all the data for. (Just out of interest, even though I hit the kerb and lost momentum, I still came out of the corner ahead of the ghost that entered the corner just before me.)
Here are the results for Overall speed and Wheel speeds at the slowest point of the corners.
Corner 1 (Tunnel)
Without Camber
Overall speed: 90 MPH Front Left:83 Front Right:85 Rear Left: 90 Rear Right: 89
With Camber 0.7/0.5
Overall Speed: 91 MPH Front left: 87 Front Right: 90 Rear Left: 89 Rear Right: 91
Corner 2 ( Tight left 2 after tunnel)
Without Camber
Overall speed: 55 MPH Front Left:52 Front Right: 55 Rear Left:55 Rear Right:57
With Camber 0.7/0.5
Overall Speed: 58 MPH Front left:56 Front Right:59 Rear Left:58 Rear Right: 59
Corner 3 (Hairpin)
Without Camb
Overall speed: 33 MPH Front Left:28 Front Right:31 Rear Left:35 Rear Right:35
With Camber 0.7/0.5
Overall Speed: 35 MPH Front left: 31 Front Right: 34 Rear Left: 37 Rear Right: 37
Ok, this set of figures suggests to me that the camber does indeed have an effect which can help the cars cornering, as all three sets of results display the same thing. The car (with the same set-up )with camber added did go through the corners quicker. However this by no means suggests camber works properly, why not? let me explain!
I know from doing my tests what I was feeling the difference was between the two cars, more importantly I could see the difference at every corner and in every bend because at every braking point the ghost would break a little later(or it seemed that way) than I was with camber, not by much but enough for the ghost to be in front of me limiting my view, and in every instance from apex to exit I would go back past the ghost. This was also evident when I looked at the "Time difference " figure on the data logger and the constant changing between which one was faster in every corner was a good indication that something was amiss.
Which brings me to the two sets of G-force results. This one is really tough because I have no figures to show what was happening I can only tell you what I saw on the charts, and I was a little baffled but not too surprised.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong about this, but I thought that, if camber worked the way it should be, then I would see stronger G-forces acting on the car with the camber added. So if I am going through a corner at higher speed, centrifugal force would be increased and therefore the G-forces pushing the car out would be increased on the logger. This is not however what I saw.
In every braking zone, In every corner or bend and exiting every corner, the G forces acting on the car with camber were less than the car without. The overall results of both Longitudinal and Lateral G-Forces showed a much smoother curve with camber added which I believe to show, that rather than working correctly by limiting the grip loss in the corner by adding camber to increase the contact patch. What adding the camber actually did was to allow more slip from the tyres allowing more rotation. To me this only reinforces what I was feeling from the car when I was doing the test.
The main things I noticed from the test runs were how the car behaved in certain situations.
The braking distance was slightly longer, the turn in was not quite as sharp but I felt I had more control over the steering during braking and turn in.
Once into the corner the car felt a little more stable and the speeds above show corner speeds were quicker(between 1 and 3 MPH ) Again I would say that I just felt I had more control over the steering here too.
It's hard to explain but I'll try...The steering seemed a little more precise, Not pointy as I feel sometimes is the case, but somehow smoother. A smaller input was needed while I was in the corner to adjust my line but it didn't seem as easy to over-steer the car as it sometimes does using the DS3. (I hope that last bit's not too confusing. If it is, think active steering control.)
And as @DolHaus said previously, coming out of the corner there was more grip and less roll allowing a quicker exit, the place I found this most was out of the chicane towards the end and round the sweeping right hander to the finishing straight (It was evident exiting every slower corner because I always coming out ahead of the ghost.). Mainly because I didn't need to brake again before the end of the lap. This took my camber laden car from dead level at the direction change in the chicane to 0.308 seconds ahead at the end of the lap.
And finally, (and please excuse me if I slip in to Motorcycle mode for a bit here I just find this bit easier to explain that way.) I did also notice that in cases of lifting off for some of the faster corners, that the lift-off oversteer had been reduced...but not really!
Now in the back to that long looping right-hander at the end. With the set-up I was running for the test I had to apply a little brake mid corner to get the nose turned in for the apex. I usually have them set up to use the lift-off oversteer for that purpose in this corner, which adding camber allowed me to do. But instead of how it will normally work for me both, the front and the rear of the car started to slide into a nice 4 wheel drift until I got back on the gas, which then launched me out of the corner onto the straight 0.274 seconds ahead of the ghost, which was just straightening up.
I have since gone back and tried this out on the same car. In cases where the lift-off oversteer is too much or when the rear looses traction (through over eager use of the gas) on the way out of the corner there is a point where you get what we motorcycle fans call a High-side! ( Top Gear fans think Stig crashing the koenigsegg.) This is when you have lost the traction, slid and as you attempt to correct the vehicle, the traction is regained and you go shooting off into god only knows where or what. Well, I had a little play about inducing these such instances and once I was happy the car wanted to kill me for it, I introduced camber back into the equation Now I will say that even this situation seems a lot less violent with camber added to the car, firstly it was a little harder to induce the mishap in the first place because the front would slip away too and when I did it was so much easier to correct.
Sorry for the length of the post guys and gals, and sorry I haven't got any nice pictures or videos to break up the wall of text. I know there will be a call for the evidence of my testing and I do have all the data saved, but If I had the time, knowledge and means to stick them up I would have done so. If that is what is required I will have someone help me out with it and do just that.
Now my conclusions are: Yes, 0.0/0.0 is the setting needed for the most grip. As has been the case since 1.01. Having said that, now that I have tested this out for myself and have found neither way to be distinctively faster over the course of a lap, and judging by the results I have found in different parts of the track, I may just have to explore the use of camber to help achieve what I'm looking for when I'm tuning my cars. There are too many positives to using it in my opinion and I only felt let down by adding camber at all was in the braking zone. and that's something that can be worked on with the rest of the settings.
I hope this helps the discussion, and please no-one think I am telling you to use camber. It is pretty clear it is not working as it should but it does have some uses. Try it for yourself and please, draw your own conclusions!
I for sure am going to be doing more testing with this and a couple of related issues in the near future. If I find anything useful I'll let you guys know.
- 156
- United Kingdom
Top work @Thorin Cain
This bit of your post seals it for me. More grip in corners = higher lateral g's pulled as you correctly state; so if increasing camber was giving you less g in the corners then it must also be giving you less grip.
- 672
- Fort Worth, TX
- imtolegittoquit
This is really rediculous. I've seen it multiple times in this thread including myself some pages ago with that guy and his high camber ruf. A pro-camber person comes in here and refers to all their own testing and tunes and everything else they have to prove camber works but cant seem to provide any of that proof or evidence when the time comes to pony up. Its hilarious but is starting to get old.
The camber broken crew as they were called has repeatedly done trials and testing and posted their findings. The few pro camber guys that have posted results (along with the broken crew) seem to end up with mixed results.
None of ut actually matters because we hqve seen how erratically and erroneously these cars have behaved while tuning them. When it comes to ride height and camber at least we are just taking advantage of poor programming, not tuning cars. "Real life" experience means exactly jack when we are dealing with broken figures.
Yes camber is broken. It ie broken because it does not give the desired or expected effect it does in real life. That is not to say it has no effect. All of my tunes typically run 0/0 because there is a noticable positive effect on grip when changing from a default setup thst included camber. On occasion (usually with 4wd cars) I have added camber to the rear to loosen it up. That is not what is supposed to happen with camber. So again I reiterate, it is broken. It has its uses in its broken state but is far from working as desired.
The camber broken crew as they were called has repeatedly done trials and testing and posted their findings. The few pro camber guys that have posted results (along with the broken crew) seem to end up with mixed results.
None of ut actually matters because we hqve seen how erratically and erroneously these cars have behaved while tuning them. When it comes to ride height and camber at least we are just taking advantage of poor programming, not tuning cars. "Real life" experience means exactly jack when we are dealing with broken figures.
Yes camber is broken. It ie broken because it does not give the desired or expected effect it does in real life. That is not to say it has no effect. All of my tunes typically run 0/0 because there is a noticable positive effect on grip when changing from a default setup thst included camber. On occasion (usually with 4wd cars) I have added camber to the rear to loosen it up. That is not what is supposed to happen with camber. So again I reiterate, it is broken. It has its uses in its broken state but is far from working as desired.
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
The only time I use camber is like you said, to loosen the rear of a FWD car, but only as a last resort. Never used it on a 4WD car. With cambers slower lap times (loss of grip) and using it to loosen up FWD cars just proves to me that it is in fact broken...or at least doesn't work like its supposed to. I don't even feel a "good" difference when using it either as far as handling goes. It really pisses me off that they can fix pixilated smoke or other low priority bugs but they can't fix a glaring suspension problem like camber. I mean, are they really that clueless in knowing how a car is supposed to work?? What really makes them look stupid is that they even have a suspension company that is working with them on the suspension model.
- 368
- Taiwan
It's nice to see the thorough comparison work by Thorin Cain. 
I just feel mild camber setting makes it smoother in the whole process of [ straight - turn in - apex - accelerating out - straight again ]. The car is also riding up and down the curb more smoothly. So far so good. (I haven't compared the actual corner speeds, though. )
But, I've also noticed some mild camber affects braking a lot, it's too much. Without ABS, the tires are too easily locked under braking with the same bias setting. I think this is the major problem PD must solve.
I mean, 1 or 2 degree negative camber is ordinary seen in cars IRL with mild modification or lowered suspension. In my experience IRL, I've never found such camber would affect grip of braking so much. Of course we seldom use brake 10/10 in road driving, while we do it a lot on track (in game). But it's not uncommon to actuate ABS in certain situations, still, I've not encountered any problem with such camber.
In more aggressive sport car tuning IRL, -2 to -3 degree is commonly seen. Not to mention those obviously larger angles on racing cars. In reality, they are all working well. And people do that with reasons.
To sim this right, I guess PD need to bring up tire deformation. Only that can ensure the correct conditions of real time contact patch. Well, I don't need it presenting in graphic since the hardware resource is runing out. But please inject some of it into the physics engine.
I just feel mild camber setting makes it smoother in the whole process of [ straight - turn in - apex - accelerating out - straight again ]. The car is also riding up and down the curb more smoothly. So far so good. (I haven't compared the actual corner speeds, though. )
But, I've also noticed some mild camber affects braking a lot, it's too much. Without ABS, the tires are too easily locked under braking with the same bias setting. I think this is the major problem PD must solve.
I mean, 1 or 2 degree negative camber is ordinary seen in cars IRL with mild modification or lowered suspension. In my experience IRL, I've never found such camber would affect grip of braking so much. Of course we seldom use brake 10/10 in road driving, while we do it a lot on track (in game). But it's not uncommon to actuate ABS in certain situations, still, I've not encountered any problem with such camber.
In more aggressive sport car tuning IRL, -2 to -3 degree is commonly seen. Not to mention those obviously larger angles on racing cars. In reality, they are all working well. And people do that with reasons.
To sim this right, I guess PD need to bring up tire deformation. Only that can ensure the correct conditions of real time contact patch. Well, I don't need it presenting in graphic since the hardware resource is runing out. But please inject some of it into the physics engine.
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
I think that camber is definitely not a fix all solution like it used to be, it seems to be much more specialised than before. In 5 you could throw a sensible amount of camber on any car and get a grip boost regardless of setup, driving style or track, it acted like a grip multiplier more or less.
I think that now it needs to be applied in a much more track/setup focused approach because it is acting in a much more realistic fashion than before.
Just to throw a bit of fuel on the fire, I think that tyre deformation is modelled and directly linked to rim size. I have noticed using the data logger that there is a very subtle difference between the way a car performs on standard size rim and the way it performs on a +1"/+2".
Looking at the Lateral G loads:
Standard Size Rim: Can sustain (slightly) higher load before letting go but appears to be constantly in flux (slightly wavy line). The change from traction to slipping appears to be slightly more linear as well.
+1" Rim: Appears to be far more consistent in terms of load (straight lines) but can't sustain the same amount of load before letting go. Once past the traction threshold the drop in grip appears to happen more suddenly once the limit is reached.
This leads me to believe that tyre flex is modelled and may be a contributing factor. A taller tyre wall would have more flex and therefore be able to sustain more load but as a downside it also flops around a bit and adds an element of uncertainty that could potentially upset certain setups.
I'm not saying that changing the rims will break or make your car but there is definitely a difference in terms of the way they act and the rabbit hole may go deeper than first thought.
In terms of camber, the taller tyre side wall would be more susceptible to deformation/flex and may well be a contributing factor as a result.
I think that now it needs to be applied in a much more track/setup focused approach because it is acting in a much more realistic fashion than before.
Just to throw a bit of fuel on the fire, I think that tyre deformation is modelled and directly linked to rim size. I have noticed using the data logger that there is a very subtle difference between the way a car performs on standard size rim and the way it performs on a +1"/+2".
Looking at the Lateral G loads:
Standard Size Rim: Can sustain (slightly) higher load before letting go but appears to be constantly in flux (slightly wavy line). The change from traction to slipping appears to be slightly more linear as well.
+1" Rim: Appears to be far more consistent in terms of load (straight lines) but can't sustain the same amount of load before letting go. Once past the traction threshold the drop in grip appears to happen more suddenly once the limit is reached.
This leads me to believe that tyre flex is modelled and may be a contributing factor. A taller tyre wall would have more flex and therefore be able to sustain more load but as a downside it also flops around a bit and adds an element of uncertainty that could potentially upset certain setups.
I'm not saying that changing the rims will break or make your car but there is definitely a difference in terms of the way they act and the rabbit hole may go deeper than first thought.
In terms of camber, the taller tyre side wall would be more susceptible to deformation/flex and may well be a contributing factor as a result.
Last edited:
