Camber

[Johnnypenso]

This is what happen to one of my replica :

View attachment 110741

The car has almost zero camber ( 0.1 front and back ), when it's on foxhole at green hell, as you can see, the camber increases as the suspension heavily compressed, I think this might be only visual for now.

A picture from behind or close to it might be more helpful but like you said, we have no way of knowing if there is a direct connection between the visual and the actual programmed physics of the car, so even if it showed 10 degrees of camber we'd have no way of knowing if that carries any meaning or not. Damn you PD

 

[Stotty]

Personally, ABS tune usually don't work for me they tend to be unstable and loose when no ABS used and let's not start with SRF

The tune also has very soft spring rate ( almost stock level ), soft damper on front tire as well, not sure how often it will bottom out at Trial Mountain, with no ABS, that alone would cause some trouble when braking hard on some section at the track that usually compresses front suspension in a big way. I see why SRF is used with such tune to take advantage the added grip when instability sets in - nice exploits.

Should be relatively easy to dial out the braking instability... though you'd likely lose some trail braking ability.

Otherwise, I don't see what difference it makes whether SRF is on or off... the principals of tuning a car remain the same don't they? All SRF does is multiply the total amount of grip a car has (much like sticking on higher grade tyres).

I do think Ramon's tune shows some of the weirdness in GT6's suspension model, and some of the tricks to get the best out of the game... high overall ride heights, front higher than rear, soft front suspension and dampers, zero camber, much less use of -ve rear toe to create rotation... all these are different approaches to GT5... and some are counter-intuitive to real life.

 

[Zuel]

Feel free to post one of your cambered setups so we can subject it to some testing.

I ran some tests in the Pozzi at 529pp 505hp at Silver Stone International Circuit at 13:00hrs. First test tire is use were the sport soft, second test tires in use were racing softs. I thought it would be just due to most of you run on softs with no changes to the suspension besides camber, each run was two laps.

Test session one Sports Softs

Run 1: Stock camber 0.5 Front 0.3 Rear; Time 1:08.205

Run 2: Adjustment 0.0 Front 0.0 Rear; Time 1:08.715

Run 3 Adjustment 1.6 Front 1.1 Rear; Time 1:07.875

Session two racing softs

Run 1: Stock camber 0.5 Front 0.3 Rear; Time 1:05.521

Run 2: Adjustment 0.0 Front 0.0 Rear; Time Dirty time car uncontrollable

Run 3: Adjustment 1.1 Front 0.8 Rear; 1:05.155

Zero camber really doesn’t affect street cars running sports softs as to what I believe the model has correctly or got close to which tire flex or sidewall flex under load which may is made shown its face while running racing soft, though I’m not sure at the moment, more testing will be needed later on. I’ve found while running SS with no camber somewhat stable at times considering the situation and which part of the track I was at. Even though Silver Stone may seem flat the track is far from it, there are small transitions that may upset the car pending on the line taken. I found the car to be more stable as it should through the turns with camber “which camber is intended for”. Even though it improved my time slightly it was only due to how I was able to enter and exit the turn, which was due to camber, which is to allow the profile off the tire to go flat under load making the car more stable in turn. Granted the car was still twitchy at times throughout the course it was still off corner load at times.

While running the racing soft it was a different matter, first off running zero camber made the car very unstable in turn, on power in turn and off load. No matter what I did I couldn’t get a clean lap, even if I altered my enter into and exit of an apex the car would break lose in some fashion, front of the car, rear of the car, it didn’t matter. When I started adding camber the car became more stable through the turn which is intended. Even though it did not improve the time a great deal, it still allowed the car to get through in a more stable environment, allowing the car more speed going in, through and out of a turn.

From what I found and as it should be, you'll make up more time in the set rather than camber. Wait for the 7 post and you understand more.

I have yet to retest any race cars to see if this has the same affects.

 

[PsuPepperoni]

👍 It's nice to finally see test results that support the other side of the argument.

It raises some questions though. Did you roll A 20-sided die to get your camber values? They seem randomized.

Also, why didn't you ever test with higher camber in the rear? Wouldn't instability(oversteer) problems would make you want to increase rear grip?

Zero camber really doesn’t affect street cars running sports softs as to what I believe the model has correctly or got close to which tire flex or sidewall flex under load which may is made shown its face while running racing soft, though I’m not sure at the moment, more testing will be needed later on.

I don't understand this.

I found the car to be more stable as it should through the turns with camber “which camber is intended for”.

Who or what are you quoting here?

 

[HOOT44]

I did not intend to test anything, but I got an outcome that may be relevant here.

After struggling to improve my time on the Jaguar+Rome trial I tried the setup below.
Initially I experienced understeer in some parts of the track and oversteer in other parts (probably me, not the car or the tune). Gradually I got used to the way the car was behaving and reached what I thought was my limit with this one - 1:10.068

Slight improvement, still leaving time out there. 1'09.709

Here is my tune.

560 PP
570 HP
1,412 kg.
Sports Hard tires
Power Limiter 96.7%
No Oil change
Custom wheels
Power-to-weight ratio 2.47kg/HP

Parts Added
Fully adjustable suspension
Racing brakes
Fully adjustable trans
LSD
Triple plate clutch
Carbon drive shaft
Engine tuning stage 3
Cat. Conv.: Sports
Weight Red. stage 3
Carbon hood
Window weight red.
Front Aero

Suspension
RH 112/88
SR 9.50/7.68
Comp. 7/3
Ext. 9/4
ARB 5/6
Camber 0.0/0.0
Toe -0.08/-0.08
Brake Balance 3/7
LSD 6/20/5
Ballast 70/50%

Transmission
FG to 5.000
Max speed to 137mph
1st 2.545
2nd 1.857
3rd 1.463
4th 1.190
5th 1.000
6th 0.882
FG to 3.650

Then I saw yannagas had written in one of the TT threads that a little camber worked on the Jaguar.
💡
I made the following adjustment to CargoRatt's tune.
Toe -0.04/0.04 and Camber 0.1/0.0
The handling felt less "under/oversteery".
Time = 1:09.886 (I could be wrong about the last 2 numbers here,but definitely 1:09.8something)

Encouraged by the progress I adjusted camber to 0.1/0.1 - car was now more "under/oversteery" than ever.
Adjusted to 0.2/0.1 - no improvement.
Back to 0.1/0.0 = happy car.

I ran out of time to continue, but now I am confident I can improve - maybe up to 0.5 faster, judging by red lap times.

 

[Z1-AV69]

Regarding laptimes for testing I got some methodological doubts: If your cars balance is tuned for camber, it might be faster with some camber even if it has less grip. Using camber reduces grip and thereby changes the balance of the car. If you take away that camber from a formerly balanced car, it might gain grip but still lose so much balance wise you're still slower. Looking for cornerspeeds or over- understeer impressions seems better to me.

[On top of that: everything where you got trouble completing a clean lap will be more about your driving than about the setup]

 

[HOOT44]

Regarding laptimes for testing I got some methodological doubts: If your cars balance is tuned for camber, it might be faster with some camber even if it has less grip. Using camber reduces grip and thereby changes the balance of the car. If you take away that camber from a formerly balanced car, it might gain grip but still lose so much balance wise you're still slower. Looking for cornerspeeds or over- understeer impressions seems better to me.

[On top of that: everything where you got trouble completing a clean lap will be more about your driving than about the setup]

However, isn't lap time the name of the game here.
I think I understand your doubts regarding methodology, but I consider the lap times the most objective measure of things in this situation. Have I overlooked something?

To add a subjective note to this - the car felt better with that tiny bit of camber.

This thread is occasionally quite technical and I am merely a driver, I don't really know what makes it go. I have tried to contribute observations so that wiser heads may make sense of it - hoping to pick up tricks.

 

[Z1-AV69]

However, isn't lap time the name of the game here.
I think I understand your doubts regarding methodology, but I consider the lap times the most objective measure of things in this situation. Have I overlooked something?

To add a subjective note to this - the car felt better with that tiny bit of camber.

This thread is occasionally quite technical and I am merely a driver, I don't really know what makes it go. I have tried to contribute observations so that wiser heads may make sense of it - hoping to pick up tricks.

Of course I didn't want to say anything against speaking out even subjective findings. There aren't enough good tools for hard scientific tests anyway, so a broad range of experiences might be the best we can get.

In theory laptimes might be best, but in practice in this game I seriously doubt anyone here is driving consistently enough to show minor differences from tuning in laptimes over a whole lap. Often the differences from tuning will be less than 0.2 sec per lap, which will be the difference between an average and an awesome lap from a good driver too. It would at least need a diagram of steering and pedal inputs to compare and see where differences are coming from. In my opinion it is easier and more precise to try an easy corner with constant speed or the skidpad at willow. Or said check for a change of balance towards over- or understeer.

From my experience some camber indeed helps at some parts of cornering. For example the moment when you start steering. 0 camber has a too big contact patch which might hurt there. At this transition from straight to corner the effect of positive or negative camber will be largely the same, which is less contact patch. The difference only appears once the tyres turned in. In my tests I always thought at first they had fixed camber. It feels better, no doubt. But once I check for the possible cornerspeeds or especially for understeer on exit, so far I always had to realize adding camber makes matters worse.

 

[Stotty]

In theory laptimes might be best, but in practice in this game I seriously doubt anyone here is driving consistently enough to show minor differences from tuning in laptimes over a whole lap. Often the differences from tuning will be less than 0.2 sec per lap, which will be the difference between an average and an awesome lap from a good driver too. It

True enough.

But if you get a VERY fast driver in a car/track combo they are already familiar with (and have a ghost for), they should be able to tell you what the difference is.

That's the reason I originally suggested using a Seasonal time trial as a test combo - you tend to get very fast drivers (ie; Ramon or Banditkarter), running a lot of laps. Drivers like this will immediately be able to tell you if one setting is better/worse than another, and by how much.

 

[Z1-AV69]

True enough.

But if you get a VERY fast driver in a car/track combo they are already familiar with (and have a ghost for), they should be able to tell you what the difference is.

That's the reason I originally suggested using a Seasonal time trial as a test combo - you tend to get very fast drivers (ie; Ramon or Banditkarter), running a lot of laps. Drivers like this will immediately be able to tell you if one setting is better/worse than another, and by how much.

I agree. My point was just to avoid taking some laptime as the be all end all. I'd count more on the words of those drivers too (even more on me trying it myself).

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

Ok, I tried to read this whole thread before posting but only made it to like page 6 or 7, as there is a lot of technical jargon thats a bit over my head, or.. petty troll-like bickering. *cough cough, Jack*

I just have a simple, quick, 2-part question:

1) has this been fixed yet, either through patch 1.04 or a hotfix?
2) on a car with camber values already in the stock tuning (Group C/LMP/etc.) will setting it to 0 improve it's handling and/or laptimes? (Specifically, Sauber Merc C9 and Bentley Speed 8)

I'm not much of a tuner, so please keep any replies down to earth.

DS3, no aids, ABS 1.

I used the new corvette concept andcremoved the factory camber and was instantly faster. Its not a race car though so I dont know how much of a difference it will make on race cars

 

[FussyFez]

I agree. My point was just to avoid taking some laptime as the be all end all. I'd count more on the words of those drivers too (even more on me trying it myself).

I completely agree, but when I see such drastic results in one lap with cold tyres, it's hard to ignore the times. (see my civic test a couple of pages back)

Without even telling you that it felt much better to drive, the times do the talking I feel, at least when it is such a big gap.

 

[Matt368]

To be honest I also agree with the above. I have a very basic base setup of an RX7 with slightly stiffer damping and some toe out front and toe in rear, nothing out of the ordinary in real-life or in GT. If I add 2 degrees negative camber, again nothing crazy there, my times are at least half a second slower around SSR5 short.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I did this for the now infamous @Jack Napier. Which car appears to have better contact with the road? Both taken under load, same steering angle, Stowe, X Bow with only camber changed in one photo.

 

[Matt368]

The 1st picture with no camber looks better in terms of visual contact but the second picture with negative camber doesn't look right at all, the body lean relative to the amount of camber looks wrong. what do you think?

 

[VELOCI_2NR]

Pure speculation here, but maybe camber is of by a factor of ten between the setting sheet and the physics algorithm, but not the visual portion. It would explain why very little to no camber feels the best as most times IRL you're hard pressed to go over 2-3 degrees of camber in most situations, which in my theory would translate into .2-.3 degrees of camber. Again, just thinking out loud. No direct proof of my claims.

 

[Zuel]

👍 It's nice to finally see test results that support the other side of the argument.

It raises some questions though. Did you roll A 20-sided die to get your camber values? They seem randomized.

Also, why didn't you ever test with higher camber in the rear? Wouldn't instability(oversteer) problems would make you want to increase rear grip?


I don't understand this.

Who or what are you quoting here?

If the tire model includes tire flex or side wall flex, running of sports soft wouldn't have that much of a affect on some cars due to the amount of side wall flex and along with setup. If the wall of the tire flexes under load the tire will still have enough contact area to get grip but not full grip.

Increasing camber to a higher level front or rear really doesn't work to create over-steer or under-steer very well though it can have a small affect on it as well. You also must take in account for the track surface you're running on which has a great deal of influencing the camber degree pending on set and tire. Enough though increasing camber to the rear would help in cornering it will also hinder the drive coming out of the corner due to the low contact patch. The camber values are randomized because there is not set formula on camber, the only formula for camber is rotation to load or pivot. I layman terms a car is basically a box with tires with a center pivot point, when weight transfer through the center of the car it will send load to one side or to one point at a time but in time for pivot. I'll draw up some graphs later on to better explain this but for the mean time try a little experiment.

Take a 3X8 index card or a box of similar shape, five items of equal weight and a stick, pencil or pen. Place you items at each corner of equal weight then the fifth item in the center then place it on the stick, pencil or pen and try to balance it as you move it in a turning arc and watch how the card moves as it moves through the arc. A car reacts the same way in a turn. Now think of the suspension as a counter force of the weight of the box. When one side loads it will have a counter reaction and reaction in one. First the load of the weight was counter reacted with force "Shocks compressing=force, Sway bar straightening=force,Springs compressing=force, Spring rebound=force reaction, Shock rebound= force reaction" With the force reaction of the actions and rebound additional force is transferred into the wheel area allowing flex allowing the contact patch on the tire to rotate flat.

I'm running behind, I must be off to class. If I have time tonight I'll share more, but I know there are tons of video's that shows the loading of a car on a suspension and how the camber will change.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The 1st picture with no camber looks better in terms of visual contact but the second picture with negative camber doesn't look right at all, the body lean relative to the amount of camber looks wrong. what do you think?

I took pictures of both cars from the front to show the lean/load. They look like they are in near identical positions visually. I can post them if need be. One is taken from slightly higher off the tarmac so that might have something to do with it.

 

[Z1-AV69]

Interesting pictures. The big difference to reality seems to be the tyre sidewall flex which is completely missing. With sidewall flex the camber in the second picture might even be better.

 

[Verbal]

Interesting pictures. The big difference to reality seems to be the tyre sidewall flex which is completely missing. With sidewall flex the camber in the second picture might even be better.

The graphical representation will have very little to do with what's considered by the tire model or not...

 

[JimbobMarley65]

Not wanting to go over old ground but I don't think any graphical representation of camber can be trusted in the game , after seeing tyres buried in tarmac etc. I was wanting to ask though if anybody has noticed a difference in the handling of cars and not just the 4wd mentioned in the update . I think all cars have been "tampered" with and it seems to be on the camber and toe settings . I had a few cars set up quite nice (following tunes on here) and since the last update they seem to have become different. It's mainly the ones that had a camber included in the tune so I reversed the cambers and found it settled the car down . In my humblest of humble opinions I think something has been tweaked behind the scenes and 0·0 camber is no longer the way to go . What do you think ??

 

[Zuel]

In my humblest of humble opinions I think something has been tweaked behind the scenes and 0·0 camber is no longer the way to go . What do you think ??

👍👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not wanting to go over old ground but I don't think any graphical representation of camber can be trusted in the game , after seeing tyres buried in tarmac etc. I was wanting to ask though if anybody has noticed a difference in the handling of cars and not just the 4wd mentioned in the update . I think all cars have been "tampered" with and it seems to be on the camber and toe settings . I had a few cars set up quite nice (following tunes on here) and since the last update they seem to have become different. It's mainly the ones that had a camber included in the tune so I reversed the cambers and found it settled the car down . In my humblest of humble opinions I think something has been tweaked behind the scenes and 0·0 camber is no longer the way to go . What do you think ??

I think you should post your full setup from before and then the changes you made so we can talk specifics instead of generalities. Laptimes would be a nice touch.

 

[JimbobMarley65]

I think you should post your full setup from before and then the changes you made so we can talk specifics instead of generalities. Laptimes would be a nice touch.

I think you should post your full setup from before and then the changes you made so we can talk specifics instead of generalities. Laptimes would be a nice touch.

I used several tunes , almost all of them from this site the one I noticed first was one of my favourites the spoon s2000 by Arrakis , the camber was suggested at 0·4 front & 0·2 rear which was fine at first up until recently when I noticed a drastic change in the handling especially on the powering out of corners so just to try something I reversed the numbers and there was a definite change. I might have this wrong but doesn't running a higher camber on the front help turn in on sharp cornered tracks like toca cars tend to use, if so this would suggest the tune was right BUT I am sure it changed last week. I can't post lap times at the moment and to be honest I don't want to suffer any embarrassment by doing so but I would like a good driver to test this out for me. What I am clumsily trying to ask is "have PD been tweaking undercover & have they got things back to front?".

 

[FussyFez]

Bought a stock civic type r touring car.

Without looking at the settings I went to tsukuba and did 17 laps with a best of 1.00.222.


I then looked at the settings. 3.5 front and 2.0 rear.

Set to 0 all round and ran a 0.59.521 on my warm up lap. I have paused it to post this.


Loving the diagrams etc.


Edit :


Lap 2: 0.58.788
Lap 5: 0.58.624


3 4 6 and 7 were scruffy but all still under a minute. I was on for a 58.5xx but ran wide at the Dunlop right hander.

I've retested this car.

Started with 0.0 all round (everything else stock settings except brake balance on 5-7 no abs.)

Ran 0.59.xxx out of the box and Consistently low 59s.

After lap 5 I dropped to high 58s but stayed consistent for another 10 laps.

Came out and put 0.1 camber on the front.

Immediately I could feel the front end slightly more eager to turn in.

Consistent low 58s for 6 laps with numerous overtaking of ghost, but small mistakes ruining the gain.

Came out and went 0.2 on the front.

Front was even more eager to turn in and grip on the exits aswell, I was a car length ahead of my ghost coming onto the back straight and ran a high 57 on lap 1. I carried on for 5 laps running mid to high 57s.

I came out and went 0.3 on the front.

Now things got very interesting.

Ultimately it felt like I had more grip, I could throw the car into the corners and lean on the outside tyre without worrying about understeer, but if I turn the wheel too much, there is a much steeper drop off in grip when you reach the understeer, than with the lesser camber values and 0.0. This meant that although I think the car was ultimately faster, I couldn't stop myself from steering too much and was encountering understeer as steering angles that would have been OK with 0.1 camber.

I came out and went 0.2 front and 0.3 rear.

I was unable to better my best time with this setup, but I think it was due to too many laps at tsukuba and driver fatigue.

I don't know what to make of this test except that it shows a strong possibility that the 10x theory is looking likely.

Please recreate my test for yourselves.

The Honda is a great little motor and an excellent test mule.

More testing is needed with different drive layouts.

 

[Verbal]

I don't know what to make of this test except that it shows a strong possibility that the 10x theory is looking likely.

I don't know, to me accidently multiplying by 10 seems like a very odd error to make compared to, say getting the sign convention wrong or using the wrong unit (like forgetting to divide by 57.3 to get from deg to rad, for example). But who knows...

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Maybe camber is suffering because of the new tyre model? Without flex, camber becomes rather moot, and since grip is supposed to be more real with new suspension and tyre models, missing flex will undoubtedly cause problems.

 

[Verbal]

Maybe camber is suffering because of the new tyre model? Without flex, camber becomes rather moot, and since grip is supposed to be more real with new suspension and tyre models, missing flex will undoubtedly cause problems.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record - besides the tire model very likely taking the effects into account (it's almost certainly not a physical model, but a mathematical model fitted to measurement data), more importantly camber wouldn't become moot at all. You'd just need to aim for a somewhat different angle.

 

[Z1-AV69]

Just tested it again: adding 0.2 front camber to my otherwise well balanced car gives me a little more understeer. The effect is small, but it's there. I'll stick with 0.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record - besides the tire model very likely taking the effects into account (it's almost certainly not a physical model, but a mathematical model fitted to measurement data), more importantly camber wouldn't become moot at all. You'd just need to aim for a somewhat different angle.

Correct, my bad. Wich also seems to be the case in many tests. I'm thinking about the "times ten theory" here.