Camber

[FussyFez]

@Jack Napier.

On reflection, your theory would definitely have more traction if applied to FF cars in regards to getting the power down out of a corner.

 

[Jack Napier]

Make sure you watch the video

I have taken this from another thread that you need not worry about.



That pretty much says everything I want to say on the matter.

I'm sure others will probably agree.

I said before that I have read your theory about it, but I still believe the outside tyre is what we need to be worrying about.

As far as the tire deformation I thought the general GTP consensus on tire deformation is that it is not in the game? Picking and choosing when to apply real world stuff??

Either way tire deformation point is moot because this will not alter how or why we adjust camber it will only vary the sweet spot angle by the amount of tire deformation... Big deal, but since tire deformation is not presant in GT6 (at lest not to that extent if at all) this is something we need not consider when In Game Tuning.

Remember stick to stuff that works in the game right???

That moves on to your second pic a real life old ass car with god only knows what's been done to it and in what era. Probably live axle rear end not independent.

Again this is moot, I'll explain why. Unless the entire track is cork screw type corners you really are searching grasping at straws with that.

Also that is a IRL pic are we not supposed to be talking in game?

Taking the cork screw into consideration do you think tuning camber to that 1 technical twisting dropping corner ingnoring the rest of the non cork screw corners is smart tuning OR Don't you think the other 90% of the track important?

So that brings us the the only relevant picture in your post and directly applicable to the game.

However your reason for posting it unclear it doesn't really matter.

The outside front tire has neg camber in the photo, adding more neg camber will NOT flaten the outside front contact patch , it would do the EXACT opposite and reduce the outside front grip. Not good especially since the set up for that track is a compromise in that corner causing the inside lift (if doing that in every corner that driver has a funny style) it would be obvious adding neg camb at the point in the pic would have zero impact on the inside tire while adding neg cam to the outside WOULD NOT flaten it's contact patch and therefore it will not increase grip adding neg camb will reduce the contact and remove grip...

This is why you think it broken, your looking at it wrong...

 

[FussyFez]

My reference to the real life theory and imagery, was in response to your theory regarding the inside wheel being the most important factor in camber angle on the front end. You also claim that GT has camber modelled perfectly correctly.

That is what you are claiming, no?

I am not claiming GT models tyre deformation.

I am claiming however :

If GT had perfect physics, camber would/should work as per the graphic I quoted, even if the deformation was not visible, it would be coded to have the sweet spot you speak of.

GT does not currently model camber correctly.








I posted the images of real life cars.

The lotus cortina was heralded as an excellent handler in its day. Camber was in use during the setup of its suspension. There are cars in GT with extremely similar setups and layouts to this car.

The Aston shows a modern day race car, in no way utilising the inside tyre mid corner.

Both instances show real world proof that the inside front tyre is in no way as important as the outside.

I agree that flattening the inside tyre probably does help. And in some cases it probably makes all the difference.

You chose to ignore the F1 video?

 

[donpost]

Fez you're wasting your time mate. He's on the windup, has to be.

That F1 video is awesome btw. Never seen that before.

 

[FussyFez]

Fez you're wasting your time mate. He's on the windup, has to be.

That F1 video is awesome btw. Never seen that before.

I know, I hadn't seen it before either. It's in the first post in the 'other' thread. Another good one below it there as well.

 

[PsuPepperoni]

Can you show me a situation where a slammed, race stiff, full weight reduction car will have pos camber on the outside tire requiring neg camber to flatten out the contact patch?

Negative camber doesn't compensate for positive camber, it compensates for sidewall flex.

 

[Jack Napier]

The F1 team is not doing it wrong at all. I believe your interpretation of what they are doing and what I suggest to is a little bit off.

I don't say use the inside more the the outside or have a bigger contact patch, im teaching you we use camber manipulate the contact patch...

Why is it me saying stick to in game stuff? I thought GTP was adament that IRL dont natter unless directly applied to the game,, more tire deformation stuff, doesnt the GTP consensus say no deformation in GT6? Why do you guys keep using it in your defence when not even aplicable?

IRL physics tells us the outside tire being pushed into the road will have a bigger contact patch then the same tire with less weight, this IRL smooshes the tire more into the road on the outside, and less on the inside. This again relates to tire deformation and without tire deformation we are not going to see patch size increase based on load.

Even still without the deformation manipulating inside the sweet spot window, does not mean you will land at perfectly flush as optimum.. It just lets us know EXACTLY where the inside contact patch is largest and we know from this point adding more camb will reduce the contact patch moving to riding the inside of the tire through the corner, while at the same time reducing the contact patch on the outside tire from more neg camber OR reducing the amount of neg camb riding the outside of the tire through the corner while the same time adding grip to the outside from lowering the neg camb from that point the inside tire is flush.

Finding our centre lets is know the point where increasing or decreasing camb has opposite effects. So we can tune being aware of what the adjustments are doing to our wheels.

I was only being an ass because I was slammed as wrong trying to help you guys out. All that aside we can test if the adjustments do what they should, we still got plenty to do to see it working correctly or not.

First thing we need to understand what we are doing to the wheels in a corner when adjusting. We might be on a better path but I'm far from done proving this stuff works difinitively, I need you guys to really feel it.

 

[Vegard]

 

[Jack Napier]

you wold love that because you see where this is heading dont you...

 

[eSZee]

Either way tire deformation point is moot because this will not alter how or why we adjust camber it will only vary the sweet spot angle by the amount of tire deformation... Big deal, but since tire deformation is not presant in GT6 (at lest not to that extent if at all) this is something we need not consider when In Game Tuning.

If tire deformation is not a factor in GT6 and in the real world camber is used to compensate for tire deformation/angle in the corners...wouldn't that mean that 0 camber would be optimal in GT6?

 

[FussyFez]

you wold love that because you see where this is heading dont you...

If you want anyone to take serious notice you need to break it down properly with full explanation.


Other members of the board are capable of laying out a theory in a clear and concise manner.

Even still without the deformation manipulating inside the sweet spot window, does not mean you will land at perfectly flush as optimum.. It just lets us know EXACTLY where the inside contact patch is largest and we know from this point adding more camb will reduce the contact patch moving to riding the inside of the tire through the corner, while at the same tire reducing the contact patch on the outside tire from more neg camber OR reducing the amount of neg camb riding the outside of the tire through the corner while the same time adding grip to the outside from lowering the neg camb from that point the inside tire is flush..

This is almost incomprehensible. I have read it 5 times. I know I'm tired but really?

 

[Jack Napier]

If tire deformation is not a factor in GT6 and in the real world camber is used to compensate for tire deformation/angle in the corners...wouldn't that mean that 0 camber would be optimal in GT6?

No because of the caster angle causing camber effect the tires still get camber angle in the corner, we are manipulating this. Camber will also compensate for tire deformation but not important as there is no tire deformation in GT6, that only means we do not have to use it to compensate for deformation that is not there.

 

[Jack Napier]

I find that interesting because I have put my "theory" out pretty clear and when I ask for the GTP theory explained, you fall on BS that is irrelevant like tire deformation lmfao..

Upset I explained it well yet you lack an explication all together...

 

[FussyFez]

I find that interesting because I have put my "theory" out pretty clear and when I ask for the GTP theory explained, you fall on BS that is irrelevant like tire deformation lmfao..

Upset I explained it well yet you lack an explication all together...

Indeed.


I'm still being genuine.

I have read all of your posts.

I feel you have ignored many, not necessarily from me.

Please, carry on.

You still have 3 tunes with 0 camber to improve, and one tune that had existing camber to evaluate.

Please go and thoroughly test your theory with these 4 cars.

Clearly record all data inc settings(track,weather, aids), any and all observations and alterations to set up, tyres, input device, general comments and of course conclusive results.

Then post your findings in a way that is clearly broken down into separate points.

The use of bullet points might help as your comma button appears to work as well as camber in gt6.

Please do this, I am not trying to be some forum idiot who is shouting down the minority.

Good luck and I look forward to reading your full and insightful write up on the matter.

 

[PsuPepperoni]

So Jack is saying that GT6's model is correct if tire deformation doesn't exist? I can agree with that.

 

[HOOT44]

.... you need to break it down properly with full explanation.

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[FussyFez]

If Jack can deliver with the 4 posted tunes then I don't see why we (I atleast) shouldn't read the results. It's only fair, this is a public forum afterall.

He has as long as he wants. I'm in no rush for them. Id rather he got some proper results that we can understand and compare to cars that we know already drive well (for a large range of people, many people come to GTP for tunes without signing up).

 

[Jack Napier]

Since all the GTP testing has been done based on that flawed theory it's no surprise the results are as they are....

I'm suggesting a test with a new theory that may yield different results, but those locked in not wanting to have their tuning theories collapse on them refuse to take part as they can probably see where this is going....

I just want to see though, you find it good testing to only test one theory and after seeing that theory not work, don't you think a different theory need be at least tested??

I disagree and like to be much more thorough and open minded...

All the testing based on that theory prove the THEORY to clearly be wrong & NOT that camber doesn't work correctly... Time to test a new theory eh?!?!?!?

However at this point you don't have to agree with me, like I said I will prove camber works, and MY "theory" correct. Even though nobody at GTP wants this to be proven to be true.

I at least have a clear picture of the GTP consensus now..

I'll fish out those X-Bow settings and move on to our test corner..

Everybody agrees though the GTP theory is add neg camber to somehow give the outside front better contact patch in the corner, right? Other comers than just the cork screw with a car 3 wheeling right? Or are you guys less sure of your theory now?

 

[HOOT44]

If Jack can deliver with the 4 posted tunes then I don't see why we (I atleast) shouldn't read the results. It's only fair, this is a public forum afterall.

You are right. A proposition can be valid regardless of the source.

(It reminds me of a theory that a million monkeys on a million typewriters can hack out the complete works of Shakespeare given a million years.)

 

[PsuPepperoni]

Since all the GTP testing has been done based on that flawed theory it's no surprise the results are as they are....

I'm suggesting a test with a new theory that may yield different results, but those locked in not wanting to have their tuning theories collapse on them refuse to take part as they can probably see where this is going....

I just want to see though, you find it good testing to only test one theory and after seeing that theory not work, don't you think a different theory need be at least tested??

I disagree and like to be much more thorough and open minded...

All the testing based on that theory prove the THEORY to clearly be wrong & NOT that camber doesn't work correctly... Time to test a new theory eh?!?!?!?

However at this point you don't have to agree with me, like I said I will prove camber works, and MY "theory" correct. Even though nobody at GTP wants this to be proven to be true.

I at least have a clear picture of the GTP consensus now..

I'll fish out those X-Bow settings and move on to our test corner..

Everybody agrees though the GTP theory is add neg camber to somehow give the outside front better contact patch in the corner, right? Other comers than just the cork screw with a car 3 wheeling right? Or are you guys less sure of your theory now?

*hypothesis

None of us are testing based on a "theory", we just bought GT6, played GT6, and realized that negative camber decreases lateral grip in GT6.

 

[Jack Napier]

Since all the GTP testing has been done based on that flawed theory it's no surprise the results are as they are....

I'm suggesting a test with a new theory that may yield different results, but those locked in not wanting to have their tuning theories collapse on them refuse to take part as they can probably see where this is going....

I just want to see though, you find it good testing to only test one theory and after seeing that theory not work, don't you think a different theory need be at least tested??

I disagree and like to be much more thorough and open minded...

All the testing based on that theory prove the THEORY to clearly be wrong & NOT that camber doesn't work correctly... Time to test a new theory eh?!?!?!?

However at this point you don't have to agree with me, like I said I will prove camber works, and MY "theory" correct. Even though nobody at GTP wants this to be proven to be true.

I at least have a clear picture of the GTP consensus now..

I'll fish out those X-Bow settings and move on to our test corner..

Everybody agrees though the GTP theory is add neg camber to somehow give the outside front better contact patch in the corner, right? Other comers than just the cork screw with a car 3 wheeling right? Or are you guys less sure of your theory now?

 

[FussyFez]

If you are responding to me then I do not represent the community.

 

[Jack Napier]

It going to be be GTP consensus on what car GTP wants to represent the GTP consensus. I will put my camber tuned X-Bow against it..

We will test both cars with and without camber as one is tune with the other without I promise this will reveal other interesting tuning details...


So you guys agree on the Tune to represent GTP I'll post mine to rep my style.

 

[Vegard]

Here's my hypothesis:

At the moment we only have static camber in the suspension physics.

I suspect that PD/KW are working on realistic dynamic camber models for all cars.

 

[FussyFez]

You are right. A proposition can be valid regardless of the source.

(It reminds me of a theory that a million monkeys on a million typewriters can hack out the complete works of Shakespeare given a million years.)

Mathematical statistics say anything is possible given infinite time.

 

[PsuPepperoni]

I'm predicting that Jack will add camber to his X-Bow and cut 30 seconds off his lap at Daytona.

 

[Verbal]

If tire deformation is not a factor in GT6 and in the real world camber is used to compensate for tire deformation/angle in the corners...wouldn't that mean that 0 camber would be optimal in GT6?

No, that would be 0 absolute camber, i.e. relative to the road surface. You'd still need camber angle relative to the body to compensate for body roll.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

If you are right Jack you are right and respect will be given, but so far all got have done is argue you're point. LESS WORDS, MORE RESULTS. That will prove people wrong or right. I personally have found that more negative camber washes out the car and makes it less responsive so I also go with zero camber in game.

 

[Motor City Hami]

If you are right Jack you are right and respect will be given, but so far all got have done is argue you're point. LESS WORDS, MORE RESULTS.

Agreed.

@Jack Napier are you still working on proving out your camber theory to yourself or do you already know that it works? It would seem that if you had already spent time proving out that the theory works, then you should be able to crank out some results in about 15 minutes. Instead, you have taken days and done nothing but post long threads about nothing. Still waiting for any type of results from you. What happened to the video replay you promised. If your method works then crank out some results.

 

[Zuel]

Here's my hypothesis:

At the moment we only have static camber in the suspension physics.

I suspect that PD/KW are working on realistic dynamic camber models for all cars.

This is correct, though the model is not finished yet. I've found improvements with adding camber, more than I have been using before the 1.04 update. Reaction to camber can be improved some though.