Camber Theory

Guess what my next test's going to be;)

You could be on to something here @DolHaus, I have been quite convinced that the tyre flex was the biggest contributor to the camber problems for quite some time. I will be quite interested to see the results of this one with my own eyes, I can't believe I hadn't thought to do it yet, good call!
 
Guess what my next test's going to be;)

You could be on to something here @DolHaus, I have been quite convinced that the tyre flex was the biggest contributor to the camber problems for quite some time. I will be quite interested to see the results of this one with my own eyes, I can't believe I hadn't thought to do it yet, good call!
I didn't think rim size made a difference until the data logger told me otherwise, hopefully it will prove another piece to the puzzle. The difference is fairly small and really wouldn't make a noticeable change to cornering performance but it might have other effects elsewhere.
 
This reminds me of one thing in GT5.

One of the last event I played in GT5 is K-car competition (or the likes), i.e. Japanese small cars. On one of the attendee (forgot the model), it's allowed to fit a type of obvious larger rim. Typically the tires are small in that kind of cars. And this mods was so obviously different in overall size. Looking good aside, it's indeed effective in handling.

With significantly grippier front end, the FF little car could ride on rail up front and swing its tail around the corners. This behavior was unique in that group.
 
I didn't think rim size made a difference until the data logger told me otherwise, hopefully it will prove another piece to the puzzle. The difference is fairly small and really wouldn't make a noticeable change to cornering performance but it might have other effects elsewhere.
It is certainly worth exploring,

It may well prove to be to be a fairly important small change depending on how it can work in relation to the other components it will effect. If you are correct and the tyre is modelled better than I for one previously thought that could have a pretty big bearing on the suspension settings for sure. Take your taller tyre side wall, this would also offer a little more give in the tyre would it not? It would help absorb some of the bumps meaning the suspension would not take as much of the load so this would need adjusting to account for it, what do you think? I can also see it helping a little on the kerbs, which if coupled with a little camber, that @LS Chiou felt also helped smooth out, could have a considerable effect. The big question I have now is, what else is going to be affected by making these changes?

I'm doing this test when I get up tomorrow. Part of me really wants to be wrong about the flex issue now. If I find the same result I'm going to run the other test again with the various wheel sizes and see what that throws up.

That's going to be a busy Sunday! Oh well at least there's the Moto Gp on to break up the Route 5 marathon:D
 
Right, tests done. I decided to keep with the same car as before running the exact same set-up. and as I had left the original wheels on for aesthetic purposes plus I already have two nice data logger files to compare against, I went and bought myself some 1" up wheels. I would really have liked to to do this again with a car which will allow 2" up wheels too but that will have to wait. I have put in about 6-700 miles on this F430 this week alone and probably 80% of that time has been round Route 5 tuning, then performing my other test so It made sense to stick with it instead of starting fresh with a different car, I think it makes for a fairer test.

I did the exact same test as before, ran 10 laps with no camber, saved the fastest lap. Added the same amount of camber as the other test (0.7/0.5) and did another 10 laps and saved the fastest lap from that run too. I also loaded up the ghosts from the previous test and ran against the corresponding one(0/0 camber with small wheel, against 0/0 comber with big wheel and the 2 camber using models against each other.)

So what did these test have to show me?

Firstly the Overall Speeds and wheel speeds, again at the slowest point in the corner.


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

Without Camber, Wheels: +1"
Overall speed: 93 MPH Front Left:92 Front Right:91 Rear Left: 97 Rear Right: 93

With Camber 0.7/0.5, Wheels: +1"
Overall Speed: 92 MPH Front left: 90 Front Right: 89 Rear Left: 95 Rear Right:93


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

Without Camber, Wheels: +1":
Overall speed: 53 MPH Front Left:52 Front Right: 54 Rear Left:53 Rear Right:54

With Camber 0.7/0.5, Wheels:+1"

Overall speed: 65 MPH Front left: 61 Front Right: 65 Rear Left:66 Rear Right:67

Corner 3
(Hairpin)
Without Camber
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

Without Camber, Wheels: +1"
Overall speed: 39 MPH Front Left: 37 Front Right:40 Rear Left: 38 Rear Right: 41

With Camber 0.7/0.5, Wheels: +1"
Overall Speed:42 MPH Front left: 39 Front Right: 43 Rear Left: 42 Rear Right: 42

I hate to say it but I think as far as the slower corners go, the winning combination is pretty clear.

Well as far as speeds go at least. What about those pesky G-Forces?

I'll give you the short version. The first comparison is both of the non-camber running set-ups.

Longitudinal Gs: The standard wheel produced the overall smoother curve but this is the only plus side for me.
The larger wheel showed higher G's in both acceleration and braking as well as in the corners, but the results of this were almost too close to call. If it hadn't been for the slower corners on the track this would have been quite hard to distinguish

Lateral Gs: The standard wheel again showed a smoother curve but I found it also just pulled slightly higher Gs in the slower corners and at the direction changes at the chicane. The larger wheel was far more peaky and generated higher G's in the middle section of the track( from the tight left hander, all the way down to the hairpin) and again in from the hairpin to the chicane and in the final long sweeping right hander.

From these two the car with the larger wheel size was the better overall I feel. It had more grip than before and it allowed me to brake a bit later and get back on the gas with more confidence but in those slower corners it just didn't want to rotate quite as quickly, I would also say from a stability point of view with this set-up as is the bigger wheels were better but as we know, more stability normally means more understeer (or less oversteer in this case!)

Which leads me to the two cars running camber.

Longitudinal Gs: This time I would have to give the standard wheel all round, smoother curve and slightly higher G's everywhere except on exit. But there is a reason for this I'll get too later.

Lateral Gs: The standard wheel car here had again the smoother of the two curves(If you remember the last test, you will know that this was due to less grip/ more slip from the tyres.) and in the faster corners and at the direction changes this one produced the higher Gs of the two. The larger wheel displayed higher Gs in the slower corners(Which, If you look above at the cornering speeds, I think you might just see a pattern.) with a pretty obvious peak above the other car just after getting back on the gas.

Right now that's all said and done, what do I take from these extra tests?

Well, some of these results may seem to contradict our good friend @DolHaus with his theory about the wheels and the flex/compliance issue. But I would actually think the reverse to be true. As pure chance would have it, this was the only car I have tuned which doesn't run on the biggest wheels available and this is the reason I think the results differ from what he would have suggested. This car is nowhere near how I like to drive it even on the normal wheels and SRF off in the tests this thing is still a little too safe for me and I had to change my normal style to even get consistent laps done now imagine the fun of having a car which is too safe and then putting on bigger wheels which seemed with this set-up to generate more grip than the smaller wheel. The extra stability really hurt the test on the bigger wheels, I just couldn't get the rotation i could with the standard sized ones. There goes 5-6 months work down the drain, I've been working with the belief that the wheel size didn't matter because the tyres had no flex and now it looks as though they might just. Like he said not all that much to make a big difference but I think It may be enough to work with.

I did say earlier I would explain about the Big Wheel Camber using version, so here goes. For the purpose of objectivity, I wanted to run the exact same two tests as before but with the bigger wheels to compare them against the standard ones. this was all I was looking at in this test, wheel against wheel to see if there was any noticeable difference between the two, but I think I have found more than I was looking for with this test.
I added the exact same camber settings to the car with the bigger wheels as I did with the standard ones. Not as I did the last time, when I applied the factory settings then adjusted for balance. The same settings had a much bigger difference than it did on the Standard wheels but again not a big difference in lap-time. There are a few reasons for this, Firstly I had to change my driving style a lot for that last one, the camber being added caused a huge amount of understeer on entry to the corners, whenever I had to brake hard for the corners I didn't have the ability to turn in as sharply as before so I had to brake and delay my turn in, square off the corners, this did however allow me to get back on the gas earlier and exit the corner at a far higher speed but once I got use to it, I found the right line to use what I had and started to get the slower corners more consistently. The higher speed corners were a different story but they showed me that this car was just changed, my once nice and slippery F430 has been turned it to an understeering super grippy whale and I had to make so many corrections in the long fast corners, through the tunnel, down from the hairpin to the chicane and the long right hand finisher that I ruined what could and should have been a very quick lap, considering how much faster I was going through the slow corners.

Now, I shall let you all once again draw your own conclusions, And feel free to replicate the tests if you will, all of the information you need is provided in one place or another, but if you don't know where to look and you want to try just ask.

More tests to come me thinks. Damn, I should have taken the blue pill.
 
Right, tests done. I decided to keep with the same car as before running the exact same set-up. and as I had left the original wheels on for aesthetic purposes plus I already have two nice data logger files to compare against, I went and bought myself some 1" up wheels. I would really have liked to to do this again with a car which will allow 2" up wheels too but that will have to wait. I have put in about 6-700 miles on this F430 this week alone and probably 80% of that time has been round Route 5 tuning, then performing my other test so It made sense to stick with it instead of starting fresh with a different car, I think it makes for a fairer test.

I did the exact same test as before, ran 10 laps with no camber, saved the fastest lap. Added the same amount of camber as the other test (0.7/0.5) and did another 10 laps and saved the fastest lap from that run too. I also loaded up the ghosts from the previous test and ran against the corresponding one(0/0 camber with small wheel, against 0/0 comber with big wheel and the 2 camber using models against each other.)

So what did these test have to show me?

Firstly the Overall Speeds and wheel speeds, again at the slowest point in the corner.


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

Without Camber, Wheels: +1"
Overall speed: 93 MPH Front Left:92 Front Right:91 Rear Left: 97 Rear Right: 93

With Camber 0.7/0.5, Wheels: +1"
Overall Speed: 92 MPH Front left: 90 Front Right: 89 Rear Left: 95 Rear Right:93


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

Without Camber, Wheels: +1":
Overall speed: 53 MPH Front Left:52 Front Right: 54 Rear Left:53 Rear Right:54

With Camber 0.7/0.5, Wheels:+1"

Overall speed: 65 MPH Front left: 61 Front Right: 65 Rear Left:66 Rear Right:67

Corner 3
(Hairpin)
Without Camber
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

Without Camber, Wheels: +1"
Overall speed: 39 MPH Front Left: 37 Front Right:40 Rear Left: 38 Rear Right: 41

With Camber 0.7/0.5, Wheels: +1"
Overall Speed:42 MPH Front left: 39 Front Right: 43 Rear Left: 42 Rear Right: 42

I hate to say it but I think as far as the slower corners go, the winning combination is pretty clear.

Well as far as speeds go at least. What about those pesky G-Forces?

I'll give you the short version. The first comparison is both of the non-camber running set-ups.

Longitudinal Gs: The standard wheel produced the overall smoother curve but this is the only plus side for me.
The larger wheel showed higher G's in both acceleration and braking as well as in the corners, but the results of this were almost too close to call. If it hadn't been for the slower corners on the track this would have been quite hard to distinguish

Lateral Gs: The standard wheel again showed a smoother curve but I found it also just pulled slightly higher Gs in the slower corners and at the direction changes at the chicane. The larger wheel was far more peaky and generated higher G's in the middle section of the track( from the tight left hander, all the way down to the hairpin) and again in from the hairpin to the chicane and in the final long sweeping right hander.

From these two the car with the larger wheel size was the better overall I feel. It had more grip than before and it allowed me to brake a bit later and get back on the gas with more confidence but in those slower corners it just didn't want to rotate quite as quickly, I would also say from a stability point of view with this set-up as is the bigger wheels were better but as we know, more stability normally means more understeer (or less oversteer in this case!)

Which leads me to the two cars running camber.

Longitudinal Gs: This time I would have to give the standard wheel all round, smoother curve and slightly higher G's everywhere except on exit. But there is a reason for this I'll get too later.

Lateral Gs: The standard wheel car here had again the smoother of the two curves(If you remember the last test, you will know that this was due to less grip/ more slip from the tyres.) and in the faster corners and at the direction changes this one produced the higher Gs of the two. The larger wheel displayed higher Gs in the slower corners(Which, If you look above at the cornering speeds, I think you might just see a pattern.) with a pretty obvious peak above the other car just after getting back on the gas.

Right now that's all said and done, what do I take from these extra tests?

Well, some of these results may seem to contradict our good friend @DolHaus with his theory about the wheels and the flex/compliance issue. But I would actually think the reverse to be true. As pure chance would have it, this was the only car I have tuned which doesn't run on the biggest wheels available and this is the reason I think the results differ from what he would have suggested. This car is nowhere near how I like to drive it even on the normal wheels and SRF off in the tests this thing is still a little too safe for me and I had to change my normal style to even get consistent laps done now imagine the fun of having a car which is too safe and then putting on bigger wheels which seemed with this set-up to generate more grip than the smaller wheel. The extra stability really hurt the test on the bigger wheels, I just couldn't get the rotation i could with the standard sized ones. There goes 5-6 months work down the drain, I've been working with the belief that the wheel size didn't matter because the tyres had no flex and now it looks as though they might just. Like he said not all that much to make a big difference but I think It may be enough to work with.

I did say earlier I would explain about the Big Wheel Camber using version, so here goes. For the purpose of objectivity, I wanted to run the exact same two tests as before but with the bigger wheels to compare them against the standard ones. this was all I was looking at in this test, wheel against wheel to see if there was any noticeable difference between the two, but I think I have found more than I was looking for with this test.
I added the exact same camber settings to the car with the bigger wheels as I did with the standard ones. Not as I did the last time, when I applied the factory settings then adjusted for balance. The same settings had a much bigger difference than it did on the Standard wheels but again not a big difference in lap-time. There are a few reasons for this, Firstly I had to change my driving style a lot for that last one, the camber being added caused a huge amount of understeer on entry to the corners, whenever I had to brake hard for the corners I didn't have the ability to turn in as sharply as before so I had to brake and delay my turn in, square off the corners, this did however allow me to get back on the gas earlier and exit the corner at a far higher speed but once I got use to it, I found the right line to use what I had and started to get the slower corners more consistently. The higher speed corners were a different story but they showed me that this car was just changed, my once nice and slippery F430 has been turned it to an understeering super grippy whale and I had to make so many corrections in the long fast corners, through the tunnel, down from the hairpin to the chicane and the long right hand finisher that I ruined what could and should have been a very quick lap, considering how much faster I was going through the slow corners.

Now, I shall let you all once again draw your own conclusions, And feel free to replicate the tests if you will, all of the information you need is provided in one place or another, but if you don't know where to look and you want to try just ask.

More tests to come me thinks. Damn, I should have taken the blue pill.

Very interesting, good to see that there is an appreciable difference there and maybe it can lead to future developments in tuning.

My initial findings were the same in principal, if you have a car tuned to a certain specific level, changing something that was previously thought to have no effect actually seems to change the performance characteristics. I find this encouraging because there might be more small details with far reaching effects hidden in plain sight.

Far from a definitive answer but another piece to the puzzle and a step in the right direction hopefully.
 
@ Thorin Cain,

Thanks a lot for your time and effort in the tests. Your data pretty much reflect what I've found.

Last night I did some tests myself, too. Not as thorough and not the same method, though.

I took some cars to Ascari. Let each car run some laps with different cambers. Here are my findings:
  1. The spring rate is mostly under 5 in street car's stock suspension. Switched to fully adjustable racing suspension and keep that spring rate, negative camber can be as much as 1.5 / 1.0 and get overall benefit - better lap time, better feel and confidence.
  2. If spring rate is up to 10 or so, then the 1.5/1.0 or the like would be too much and the whole situation turns from benefit to loss. In this case, I like the range of 0.6-0.8 / 0.4-0.6 or so.
  3. If the car is set very stiff, say, spring rates are 15 or above, then it'd need even less camber. More is doing no good. I prefer under 0.6/0.4.
The 'better lap time' mentioned above is not a very large gap but significant enough, at least 1-2 secs and such gap is stable. As to the feel and confidence, they are hard to quantified, but if they're there, you'll know. (Also, the descriptions above are all by my own driving style.)

All cars are using SH tire, 1" or 2" up sizing rim if it's allowed.

Cars I've tried:

Isuzu 4200R Concept
Ferrari F40
Cizeta V16T
Mustang Boss 302 and GT500
BMW M5

All cars' behaviors are consistent with the principles above.

BTW, among them there's a vivid example. In fully adjustable racing suspension kit for 4200R, the default camber setting is 0.0/2.0. I don't like it, the tail is too slippery. Turn it down to 1.2 or so, it's obvious more stable.

The next test will be 10-lap full race with 1 pit stop to see if camber affect tire wear. Obviously, that'll take much more time to draw any conclusion.
 
@ Thorin Cain,

Thanks a lot for your time and effort in the tests. Your data pretty much reflect what I've found.

Last night I did some tests myself, too. Not as thorough and not the same method, though.

I took some cars to Ascari. Let each car run some laps with different cambers. Here are my findings:
  1. The spring rate is mostly under 5 in street car's stock suspension. Switched to fully adjustable racing suspension and keep that spring rate, negative camber can be as much as 1.5 / 1.0 and get overall benefit - better lap time, better feel and confidence.
  2. If spring rate is up to 10 or so, then the 1.5/1.0 or the like would be too much and the whole situation turns from benefit to loss. In this case, I like the range of 0.6-0.8 / 0.4-0.6 or so.
  3. If the car is set very stiff, say, spring rates are 15 or above, then it'd need even less camber. More is doing no good. I prefer under 0.6/0.4.
The 'better lap time' mentioned above is not a very large gap but significant enough, at least 1-2 secs and such gap is stable. As to the feel and confidence, they are hard to quantified, but if they're there, you'll know. (Also, the descriptions above are all by my own driving style.)

All cars are using SH tire, 1" or 2" up sizing rim if it's allowed.

Cars I've tried:

Isuzu 4200R Concept
Ferrari F40
Cizeta V16T
Mustang Boss 302 and GT500
BMW M5

All cars' behaviors are consistent with the principles above.

BTW, among them there's a vivid example. In fully adjustable racing suspension kit for 4200R, the default camber setting is 0.0/2.0. I don't like it, the tail is too slippery. Turn it down to 1.2 or so, it's obvious more stable.

The next test will be 10-lap full race with 1 pit stop to see if camber affect tire wear. Obviously, that'll take much more time to draw any conclusion.
Did yiu try again going from 1.2 rear camber to 0 ? If what is being found with you and @Thorin Cain perhaps your lap times would have crept up again ? Very interesting with what both of you have found. Great work.
 
Thanks @LS Chiou. I'm more than happy to put in as much time as needed to try and find some difinitive answers and to contribute to the debate.

I think that there is clearly more to learn here and from the tests I have ran so far I can really only draw one conclusion with any certainty. There are obviously some big changes in the tyres grip levels happening with these two variables and the effects are not necessarily detrimental to lap times.

I'm not finished with this one just yet, the final set of results I got were very encouraging to me. @ImToLegitToQuit I don't really know if it will be the case but I felt that last set-up with the camber and the 1"up wheel has the potential to improve considerably in lap-time, based on what happened when I introduced the camber in the first set of tests.

I think your rabbit hole just got a little deeper @DolHaus, but don't worry. I think I can still see some light up there.:lol:
 
I would play with this a little myself because I'm still perplexed as to why adding camber to the front OR rear is detrimental to grip but adding camber to the front AND rear is benieficial,but......the FITT tuning challenge lottery is today :scared::)
 
I would play with this a little myself because I'm still perplexed as to why adding camber to the front OR rear is detrimental to grip but adding camber to the front AND rear is benieficial,but......the FITT tuning challenge lottery is today :scared::)
So far I've been having the most success with adding small amounts to the front on certain circuits but I've not been doing much experimentation. I've found that adding it to the rear has just reduced grip but I have a feeling that its more to do with the suspension not being intentionally tuned for camber.
Looking forward to this FITT contest, I hope I get the manufacturer I'm after
 
@Thorin Cain have you considered testing different compounds and type of tyre to see if there is a difference in the amount of flex? I would imagine a Comfort hard would be more prone to flexing than a Racing soft perhaps?
 
A well tuned car with camber can drive pretty good, but it will still be quicker with less camber or zero camber :) Take this NSX for example, a replica of sort with real world setup used, it has more camber at the rear than front.
Most would expect the car will slides/drift as it MR, and I even use real life NSX weight distribution which is more on the rear 42/58 than the stock GT6 value ( wrong value as most of them are :lol: )
I tested it at Ascari, Tsukuba and several other tracks including Spa, this car easily lap in less than 2:30s :) It drives more like in real life IMO, not easy or safe, no car is easy in real life :lol:

Drive it with CS tire then SM tire. I think camber can give certain driving feel. If curious, test it with camber, then increase front and back by 0.1, then use zero camber all around. The result should ensure if the camber works as it should or not.



Honda NSX Type R '92 ( Real World Setup version ) 500PP version
Ayrton Senna Tribute

Special Build with Real World Alignment Honda NSX Type R '92 500PP
Comfort Soft to Sports Medium




CAR : Honda NSX Type R '92
Tire : Comfort Soft to Sports Medium

Specs

Horsepower: 353 HP at 7500 RPM
Torque: 263.7 ft-lb at 6000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 99.4%
Weight: 1140 kg
Ballast : 105 kg
Ballast Position : 47
Weight Distribution : 42 / 58 as in real life
Performance Points: 500

GT AUTO
Oil change
Wheels : Stock
Car Paint : Milano Red or Black


Tuning Parts Installed :
Racing Exhaust
Isometric Exhaust Manifold
Catalytic Converter Sports
Twin Plate Clutch
Suspension Fully Customizable Kit
Fully Customizable Dog Clutch Transmission
Adjustable LSD
Weight Reduction Stage 3
Window Weight Reduction



Suspension - BC Racing Coilover Kit Lowered with Real World Alignment and Damper Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 95 95
Spring Rate: 10.00 8.00
Dampers (Compression): 5 4
Dampers (Extension): 6 4
Anti-Roll Bars: 3 2
Camber Angle: 0.3 1.5 ( front camber range 0.3+-0.5, rear camber range 1.5+-0.5 )
Toe Angle: -0.30 0.49 ( front toe out 3.5mm+-1mm, rear toe in 6mm+-1mm )


DOG CLUTCH TRANSMISSION - COMPTECH Complete Close Ratio Gear Set with Honda NSX-R 4.235 Final
Install all power parts
Set Default
Set Auto Max Speed to 260kmh / 162mph
Adjust each gear :
1st 3.071
2nd 1.960
3rd 1.430
4th 1.120
5th 0.910
Final Gear : 4.235 ( Optional 4.44 OS Giken Final, COMPTECH 4.550 Final for more acceleration or US NSX Final 4.062 for more top speed )


LSD -Honda Torque Control Differential with factory preload
Initial Torque : 30
Acceleration Sensitivity: 30
Braking Sensitivity: 15





Brake Balance:
6/5 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 6/5, for ABS 1 6/5 or feel free to use your preferred brake balance.

Recommended setting for DS3 user :
Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 6/5 brake balance as starting point.



Notes :
I made this special tune to commemorate Ayrton Senna :)
This time, the car is Honda NSX Type R '92, the 1st generation of Type R Honda at 500PP :)

The car setup is not your typical GT6 tune, I used real world setup alignment, similar to some of my older replica like ADVOX Supra :)

Suspension has been changed with BC Racing Coilover, 10/8 springs and a well tuned damper for road and track complement the springs. The ARB, Toe and Camber are all based on real life setup of a stock Honda NSX Type R.

Most people do not know that later generation NSX has lower spring rate at the rear to give more grip and less oversteer. Most coilover kits uses the same arrangement, while KW V3 uses same spring rate. Obviously the real world spring rate works great in GT6.

Real life specs : front camber range 0.3+-0.5, rear camber range 1.5+-0.5; and front toe out 3.5mm+-1mm, rear toe in 6mm+-1mm.

The LSD has been updated using real world setup, Honda Torque Control Differential has high preload.

The weight distribution on the NSX is wrong in GT6, real life NSX has 42/58, so to achieve that, I used some ballast and weight reduction.

Gearing has also been updated for better performance on the track, adapting 6 speed COMPTECH Close Ratio Gear Set based on NSX-R 6 speed, I used only the 5 gears, and NSX-R 4.235 Final also implemented for better acceleration. OS Giken Final 4.44 and COMPTECH 4.550 Final are optional, use them when more acceleration is needed or use US spec NSX 4.062 Final for more top speed.

To drive the NSX, you will need some real world driving approach, steer like you would in a real car, brake and gas like you would in your own car on the road :P

I tuned and tested the car at Ascari, Bathurst, Spa and Tsukuba. The car is capable of sub 2:30s at Spa.

The car is a joy to drive, feels like what a real stock NSX would drive :) It made GT6 Honda NSX more sim like, well almost like on PC :lol:



ENJOY :cheers:


 
@Thorin Cain have you considered testing different compounds and type of tyre to see if there is a difference in the amount of flex? I would imagine a Comfort hard would be more prone to flexing than a Racing soft perhaps?
Oh absolutely, that's one of the many things that's been rattling around upstairs for the past day or two. I think you would be right there about the flex too. I would expect that due to the stress put on a racing tyre it would have to be a lot stronger than a street tyre, so yeah, I think more flex in a sports tyre and even more in a comfort tyre would be logical.

As far as the different compounds are concerned, I'm not too sure if they would necessarily have any difference with regards to flex on not. I know obviously that the tread or surface of the tyres would be different between each of the compounds and I do know that the rubber on the sidewalls is made from a different compound to the tread but I have no clue whether on not Tyre companies would use the same compound on all the sidewalls of a particular model of tyre that came with more than one tread compound.

But Yup, it's another thing worth testing for sure! But I don't care what anyone says, I am not putting comfort hards on my F430, I like slippery but that's too far:lol:

I have a few cars buried back there somewhere from seasonals/career mode. So I'll dig one or more of them out and get going on them, but that will have to wait. I've got a little catching up to do with some requests so the next batch of tests will most likely be either Thursday or the weekend. Should be pretty interesting though.
 
Last edited:
Oh absolutely, that's one of the many things that's been rattling around upstairs for the past day or two. I think you would be right there about the flex too. I would expect that due to the stress put on a racing tyre it would have to be a lot stronger than a street tyre, so yeah, I think more flex in a sports tyre and even more in a comfort tyre would be logical.

As far as the different compounds are concerned, I'm not too sure if they would necessarily have any difference with regards to flex on not. I know obviously that the tread or surface of the tyres would be different between each of the compounds and I do know that the rubber on the sidewalls is made from a different compound to the tread but I have no clue whether on not Tyre companies would use the same compound on all the sidewalls of a particular model of tyre that came with more than one tread compound.

But Yup, it's another thing worth testing for sure! But I don't care what anyone says, I am not putting comfort hards on my F430, I like slippery but that's too far:lol:

I have a few cars buried back there somewhere from seasonals/career mode. So I'll dig one or more of them out and get going on them, but that will have to wait. I've got a little catching up to do with some requests so the next batch of tests will most likely be either Thursday or the weekend. Should be pretty interesting though.
I will give Sport Hard/Medium a look when i've got my FITT cars finished and compare the rim size difference effects. I suspect you are right about the different compounds though, I wouldn't expect to see any change but hopefully there will be more difference between comfort/sports/racing tyres. It might help explain why higher camber angles seem to work on drift tunes, most of them are running comfort tyres.
Maybe that's part of it? Maybe you have to use progressively less camber as you go up through the types? Very few people tune on comfort tyres so that might explain why no one has found results yet. Pure speculation of course but food for thought.
 
Wouldn't be a good ideia to test all those settings in some easy and highspeed cornering track with no banking, like Indy ?
It needs to be corner that can be hit consistently and put a high lateral load on the car, Indy might be perfect for that. I will have a look when I get some time for testing. The final corner at Grand Valley was going to be my starting choice for those reasons.
 
I tried RUF CTR Yellow Bird last night, with camber 0/0, 0.4/0.4 and 0.4/1.2. (the spring rates are around 6/8 or so, not very stiff, so there's some roll, dive, squat... etc.)

In a few laps of trial run, I prefer the settings with camber. I feel the maximum available grips are similar. And I also made similar lap times with different cambers on this car (the difference is not as significant as other cars, odd). The major difference is the feel of transition between grip and slip. It's smoother with camber. Overall balance is looser and a larger operation margin near limit, which fits my (imprecise) driving style/skill better.

I took it to 10-lap Ascari race. It ran OK in the first 3 laps (and lap 6-8). With camber of 0.4/0.4, it's getting slippery in lap 4/9 and really struggling in lap 5/10. The tire wear before pitting at lap 5/6 was:

SH all round
front: 9/9
rear: 7/6

With camber of 0.4/1.2, it got the same number earlier in lap 4. And the rear got one point less at lap 5, with the front remained the same. The balance became really bad.

So, 1.2 is obvious too much.

Haven't tried 0 camber in the same race, yet. No enought time.
 
Wouldn't be a good ideia to test all those settings in some easy and highspeed cornering track with no banking, like Indy ?
For checking differences in flex of each of the tyre types on the different wheel sizes, that could be perfect. Good idea, the speeds involved and the length of those corners should definitly give us the results we need. I was thinking the first corner at Motegi, but Indy would be a lot better. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
I tried RUF CTR Yellow Bird last night, with camber 0/0, 0.4/0.4 and 0.4/1.2. (the spring rates are around 6/8 or so, not very stiff, so there's some roll, dive, squat... etc.)

In a few laps of trial run, I prefer the settings with camber. I feel the maximum available grips are similar. And I also made similar lap times with different cambers on this car (the difference is not as significant as other cars, odd). The major difference is the feel of transition between grip and slip. It's smoother with camber. Overall balance is looser and a larger operation margin near limit, which fits my (imprecise) driving style/skill better.

I took it to 10-lap Ascari race. It ran OK in the first 3 laps (and lap 6-8). With camber of 0.4/0.4, it's getting slippery in lap 4/9 and really struggling in lap 5/10. The tire wear before pitting at lap 5/6 was:

SH all round
front: 9/9
rear: 7/6

With camber of 0.4/1.2, it got the same number earlier in lap 4. And the rear got one point less at lap 5, with the front remained the same. The balance became really bad.

So, 1.2 is obvious too much.

Haven't tried 0 camber in the same race, yet. No enought time.

GT6 simulate dynamic camber on suspension when there's load ( braking, accelerating, and cornering ). I also found when building the Blackbird, that the camber on the car works like real life Porsche 930 Turbo. The recommended rear camber on 930 Turbo is 0.00 to 0.50 ( street tires ), the main reason is when the rear tire is loaded or lowered, the camber will increase due to suspension geometry. So if you use more than 1.5 camber, it will increase too much :)

I used 0.3 camber on my Wangan Midnight Blackbird replica, and I look carefully at the replay, when on straight line acceleration, braking and cornering. It's clear that when cornering, the rear camber increase, maybe close to 1.0

BTW, have you tried my Blackbird ? I also tested it at Ascari, but on CS tire - good for 2:30s lap.

I also will release McLaren MP4 12C GT3 with 3 sets of alignment, one of them has camber of over 2.0 front and rear, but still drives really well when I tested at Silverstone GP. ( Racing Hard was used ), I think camber gives better feel with properly tuned suspension, but the cornering grip limit and speed is still taking the hit.

Camber can also alter handling balance, giving more rotation at the rear or reduce rotation at the front ( for cars with sensitive front steering ).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the insight. I'll try your Black Bird.

BTW, in the 10-lap Ascari, it needs steady 2:20-ish per lap to win. The Yellow Bird with SH tire I mentioned above can do that when there's enough rubber. However in lap 4, 5, 9, 10 when I'm struggling in keeping it on track, it'd lose too much pace:(
 
I will give Sport Hard/Medium a look when i've got my FITT cars finished and compare the rim size difference effects. I suspect you are right about the different compounds though, I wouldn't expect to see any change but hopefully there will be more difference between comfort/sports/racing tyres. It might help explain why higher camber angles seem to work on drift tunes, most of them are running comfort tyres.
Maybe that's part of it? Maybe you have to use progressively less camber as you go up through the types? Very few people tune on comfort tyres so that might explain why no one has found results yet. Pure speculation of course but food for thought.
That is an interesting point. I'm sure that your on the right track(Excuse the pun!) with it.

But the more I get into this, the more I get the impression that the suspension and tyre physics and in particular the relationship between the two, are just a little bit more complex than in previous games and perhaps even more so than most of us have given credit for.

I was also going to suggest that decreasing ride height may be causing an automatic increase in negative camber too but @Ridox2JZGTE beat me to it. My tuning partner has had the same idea for a while, but we've just been getting on with it under the assumption that the camber is "just broke" as there was just too many people convinced through testing that this was the case. Now that I've been testing this out myself I'm not entirely sure it is.

Again, I'm no expert with how any of this should work, just a curious soul who likes to make up his own mind. But the more research I do, the more this is starting to make a lot of sense to me. It just needs loads of testing to figure it all out.

@LS Chiou, I'm interested to know how the tyre wear is with 0/0 camber. And I don't know if both tyres going off at the same rate would be that bad a thing, to me I would think this would keep the cars handling more balanced when the tyres grip levels drops off together.
 
As far as I can tell, you gain negative camber under spring compression but you don't gain any by lowering the ride height (like all of GTs tuning parameters, the suspension auto corrects when changes to settings are made). When steering the outside wheel gains negative camber and the inside gains positive camber, this is what I've been able to deduce from photos/replays.
Whether the amount of camber gained increases with lower ride height (or the other way around?) I don't know yet (eg. at 120mm a gain of 2.0 degrees vs. at 75mm a gain of 3.5 degrees).

This might all turn out to be nothing in the end but at least we'll know for certain, I'm enjoying the exchange of ideas and theorising anyway.
 
2nd round test to the Yellow Bird in 10-lap Ascari.

With 0 camber, the situation of tire wear was worse than 0.4/0.4 I mentioned in post #259, and pretty much the same as 0.4/1.2. Tire condition of front/rear was already 9/6 at lap 4, and the rear dropped another point in the following lap, the balance was really bad.

The difference is, with camber, the changing of grip seems more linear; with 0 camber, the grip maintain pretty well in the first 3 laps but drop very fast in lap 4 & 5. (when the f/r difference is larger then 20%, it'd be so hard to drive)

Then I tried Ridox's Blackbird replica. It drives surprisingly good with CS, and I did a lap under 2:27 in just 2 or 3 laps' practice. With SH, it's easily doing 2:20 or so. (Thanks a lot for sharing this, Ridox2JZGTE. BTW, I switched back to OE brake soon after I tried the racing stuff, it's too easily locked for my driving style.)

With stiffer spring and camber of 0.3/0.3, I suppose the tire wear should be similar to my previous 0.4/0.4 setting. It did so in the first 3 laps, and it ran better than my own setting. However, the 100kg rear ballast still increased the wear, and I was struggling as much as when the camber was 0 and 1.2 in lap 4, 5, 9, 10.

When the rear rubber is good, this Yellow (or Black) Bird sweeps through the bends swiftly with the rear tires in a stream of slight and steady slip. That's the most enjoyable moment, but it's actually riding on the edge of a blade. In the crowded race, it encounters an additional threat because of this. A very slight touch of opponent is enough to send it deep into the grass or wall. And funny that some opponents are so good at finding the right spot and right moment to attack. (Mostly the Lamborginis in my impression, interestingly.)

So, my preliminary conclusion is, some slight camber can be good. In both lap time and endurance.

And, I'm dying for the tire width modification. When can I have it, PD?
 
2nd round test to the Yellow Bird in 10-lap Ascari.

With 0 camber, the situation of tire wear was worse than 0.4/0.4 I mentioned in post #259, and pretty much the same as 0.4/1.2. Tire condition of front/rear was already 9/6 at lap 4, and the rear dropped another point in the following lap, the balance was really bad.

The difference is, with camber, the changing of grip seems more linear; with 0 camber, the grip maintain pretty well in the first 3 laps but drop very fast in lap 4 & 5. (when the f/r difference is larger then 20%, it'd be so hard to drive)

Then I tried Ridox's Blackbird replica. It drives surprisingly good with CS, and I did a lap under 2:27 in just 2 or 3 laps' practice. With SH, it's easily doing 2:20 or so. (Thanks a lot for sharing this, Ridox2JZGTE. BTW, I switched back to OE brake soon after I tried the racing stuff, it's too easily locked for my driving style.)

With stiffer spring and camber of 0.3/0.3, I suppose the tire wear should be similar to my previous 0.4/0.4 setting. It did so in the first 3 laps, and it ran better than my own setting. However, the 100kg rear ballast still increased the wear, and I was struggling as much as when the camber was 0 and 1.2 in lap 4, 5, 9, 10.

When the rear rubber is good, this Yellow (or Black) Bird sweeps through the bends swiftly with the rear tires in a stream of slight and steady slip. That's the most enjoyable moment, but it's actually riding on the edge of a blade. In the crowded race, it encounters an additional threat because of this. A very slight touch of opponent is enough to send it deep into the grass or wall. And funny that some opponents are so good at finding the right spot and right moment to attack. (Mostly the Lamborginis in my impression, interestingly.)

So, my preliminary conclusion is, some slight camber can be good. In both lap time and endurance.

And, I'm dying for the tire width modification. When can I have it, PD?

Happy the Blackbird works for circuit racing too :) It was mainly tuned for Wangan Battle at SSR7. I used the ballast to replicate real life weight distribution, you can reduce it or move it forward, but the spring rate might not work well. Weight placement and amount of it have a huge effect on a well tuned suspension, sometimes 1 or 2 click of ballast position can alter handling balance. Try to reduce rear spring rate by 0.20kg/mm when shifting the weight balance forward.

To reduce the likelihood of the rear slipping, you can also increase front camber slightly, maybe try 0.5 to 0.7 at the front while the rear at 0.3
 
I need a rest, so I put the Yellow/Black Bird aside and turn to Diablo GT.

With 40:60 distribution, SH tire, and stiff spring rate setting (around 15 and above), I use cambers of 1.0 / 0.3.

This combination works wonderfully in 10-lap Ascari. In addition to very good behavior, front/rear difference of tire wear keeps within 1 point.

At the pit stop in the end of lap 5 and the end of race, tire indicator shows front:8 / rear: 7. So the balance is well maintained. I can keep the same pace throughout the race and got a best lap time at lap 9.
 
As far as I can tell, you gain negative camber under spring compression but you don't gain any by lowering the ride height (like all of GTs tuning parameters, the suspension auto corrects when changes to settings are made). When steering the outside wheel gains negative camber and the inside gains positive camber, this is what I've been able to deduce from photos/replays.
Whether the amount of camber gained increases with lower ride height (or the other way around?) I don't know yet (eg. at 120mm a gain of 2.0 degrees vs. at 75mm a gain of 3.5 degrees).

This might all turn out to be nothing in the end but at least we'll know for certain, I'm enjoying the exchange of ideas and theorising anyway.
You may be right and this may all end up being a waste of time. On the other hand, we'll never know for sure unless we try. But having the data logger is certainly going to help find out exactly what is going on.
About your point about the wheels gaining negative camber under compression! Have you noticed if the opposite is true at all? The wheels

gaining positive camber if the spring extends any more than if it was at it,s standing ride height? Like for instance if you go over a crest and the springs unload on the front wheels?


@Ridox2JZGTE, I look forward to trying out that McLaren. I've got a nice fresh one sitting waiting. I'll let you know how I get on, should be fun:)

2nd round test to the Yellow Bird in 10-lap Ascari.

With 0 camber, the situation of tire wear was worse than 0.4/0.4 I mentioned in post #259, and pretty much the same as 0.4/1.2. Tire condition of front/rear was already 9/6 at lap 4, and the rear dropped another point in the following lap, the balance was really bad.

The difference is, with camber, the changing of grip seems more linear; with 0 camber, the grip maintain pretty well in the first 3 laps but drop very fast in lap 4 & 5. (when the f/r difference is larger then 20%, it'd be so hard to drive)

Thanks @LS Chiou, this is pretty interesting regarding the tyre wear. So with the camber settings you tried, the car felt better to drive and had small benifits to your tyre wear?
 
You may be right and this may all end up being a waste of time. On the other hand, we'll never know for sure unless we try. But having the data logger is certainly going to help find out exactly what is going on.
About your point about the wheels gaining negative camber under compression! Have you noticed if the opposite is true at all? The wheels

gaining positive camber if the spring extends any more than if it was at it,s standing ride height? Like for instance if you go over a crest and the springs unload on the front wheels?


@Ridox2JZGTE, I look forward to trying out that McLaren. I've got a nice fresh one sitting waiting. I'll let you know how I get on, should be fun:)



Thanks @LS Chiou, this is pretty interesting regarding the tyre wear. So with the camber settings you tried, the car felt better to drive and had small benifits to your tyre wear?
Extension is a bit odd, it doesn't really extend that far and I can't say I've noticed any camber change. I will have a look though, been busy with an urgent work project so I've not really had time for driving.
I did a little bit of testing the other day on my FITT Imprezza and noticed that you do get increased lateral G tolerance with a bit of camber but it only really shows up in the highest load corners. To get a noticeable gain you have to be subjecting the car to massive lateral load (1g+) before it starts doing anything positive.
This makes me wonder if it might be more effective on cars with significant downforce because of the constantly increased load and intentional utilisation of larger cornering forces.
 
Back