Camber

[eSZee]

Are they even his videos?
Can you post one of a purple YB with pink wheels? Thanks.

 

[V4.SKUNK]

The higher your spring rate the less camber you need.
Low spring rate can use more camber.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Ok, so 600PP yellowbird, no ballast...because it actually doesn't need it anyway . Racing hard. Brands Hatch GP. 5 laps on each and giving Jack the benefit of the doubt, I went without camber first to shake off the cobwebs.

0/0 camber 1:26.175
6.0/1.5 (as suggested) 1:27.849

I could have gone faster with both setups, but camber was definitely slower...WAY slower. It felt nice mind you, but slower is slower.

 

[Jack Napier]

Let's see replays no ABS TCS sfr or driving line



I show video lets see yours

 

[Zenmervolt]

The lap time at the end of Mr. Napier's second video is 1:27.095, for anyone wondering.

Also, I just took the CTR out to Brands Hatch to see what his fuss was about. At 554 PP (46 PP lower than the car he used) with the same RM tires that he used in the 1:27.095 video, I ran a 1:26.412, no aids.

Here are the settings I used:

Power:

• Stage 2 Engine Tuning (no oil change)
  
• 539 HP
• 461 ft-lbs

Suspension:

• Ride Height: 90/90
• Spring Rate: 5.16/6.99
• Dampers (Compression): 4/3
• Dampers (Extension): 3/3
• Anti-Roll Bar: 4/2
• Camber: 0.0/0.0
• Brake Balance: 6/4

Body:

• Stage 3 Weight Reduction
• Carbon Hood (Body Color)

Same car, changing camber to 0.5/0.5 and leaving all else equal, ran a 1:27.763 with noticeably less overall grip. I was not able to get on the power as quickly out of corners and the car slid a lot more in Westfield and Sheene (corners 6 and 7). The overall balance, however, did not change from my previous settings.

Changing again to camber values of 0.2/0.0 and leaving all else constant the car exhibited mid-corner understeer and an unwillingness to turn in that was so bad I did not complete a lap. Based on extrapolation, I would expect to have run in the 1:28.xxx range with this setup due to the need to slow down excessively before the corner and the car's overall lack of balance.

Based on this experience I can only conclude that adding camber reduces grip on that axle.

 

[Jack Napier]

Too bad your tune was designed around no camber or you. Would of got more out if that nice feeling.. Think I said camber after the fact is not like camber used in making the tune oh Kay

BTW those in race laps were not my fastest in the Bird, it's about demonstrating smooth, no breaking out the rear smooth racing NO ASSIST let's see how you drove the full race....

I don't front on tires used in videos uploaded and posted in other threads last week lmfao u kidding?

Grab some RH tires set a lap post the video... Talking about it while watching my video??

I'll race any vid you have Voo on SS or RH a YB proving no assist used as I

Look at that, seen that before?
do


Oh and just imagine how nice if you tune around that nice feeling oh yeah....

 

[Zenmervolt]

That's one lap pick up n go not a hot lap

But video of you getting those times proving no assist and no driving line required to talk smack

I'm not spending $100 on an HDMI capture card just to stroke your ego. Sorry kid.

The important part isn't the the fact that my "hop in and go" lap with those settings was faster than yours despite your car having (vastly) more power, but rather the delta between my own times when I changed the camber settings. This delta is larger in practice since the faster lap was set without a one-lap warmup whereas the camber lap benefited from a couple of laps to feel out the car and had a slightly faster speed over the start/finish line to begin the timed lap.

Same car, same driver, same track, within 5 minutes of each other, 1.351 seconds SLOWER with camber at 0.5/0.5 than with camber at 0.0/0.0 but no change in overall handling balance. Clearly there is less grip available with increased camber. The effect was much like going to one class less grippy of tire.

I have posted the full settings I used for others to test if they want to replicate my results for themselves and see whether they are faster or slower by adding camber to my settings or not.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't front on tires used in videos uploaded and posted in other threads last week lmfao u kidding?

Grab some RH tires set a lap post the video...

View attachment 112430

Avoiding the burn Jack? Cat's out of the bag dude...

 

[Raddad1591]

View attachment 112430

Avoiding the burn Jack? Cat's out of the bag dude...

RIDDLE ME THIS(OH WRONG GUY)...If this I fact(not doubt don't know how ya did it) its just over.. batman what now??

 

[Zenmervolt]

Too bad your tune was designed around no camber or you. Would of got more out if that nice feeling.. Think I said camber after the fact is not like camber used in making the tune oh Kay

While you're right that camber is not set in a vacuum, there is no real-world tune on god's green earth that would not at least pick up a little bit of additional grip through corners when going from 0.0 degrees of camber to half a degree of negative camber.

 

[Johnnypenso]

RIDDLE ME THIS(OH WRONG GUY)...If this I fact(not doubt don't know how ya did it) its just over.. batman what now??

It's a screenshot from the second video he posted 0:22

 

[Jack Napier]

Hot laps my bird runs 1:25 no assist so post your 1:26 video I'll drop my 1:25 video...

Or 1:21 KTM X-Bow no assist maybe???

1:23 Aventador no assist


My any standard my times are not slow, even if you top it by a bit, so what, I have very little time for GT lapping got a life too, but set at it I'll knock any time..,

 

[Zenmervolt]

My any standard my times are not slow, even if you top it by a bit, so what, I have very little time for GT lapping got a life too, but set at it I'll knock any time..,

Now you're just intentionally missing the fact that absolute times are not the issue here. No-one is accidentally as oblivious as you're being.

On the off chance you actually do need a reminder though, I've quoted the most relevant parts of what I've already posted (which you have utterly failed to address):

Same car, same driver, same track, within 5 minutes of each other, 1.351 seconds SLOWER with camber at 0.5/0.5 than with camber at 0.0/0.0 but no change in overall handling balance. Clearly there is less grip available with increased camber. The effect was much like going to one class less grippy of tire.

And:

While you're right that camber is not set in a vacuum, there is no real-world tune on god's green earth that would not at least pick up a little bit of additional grip through corners when going from 0.0 degrees of camber to half a degree of negative camber.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hot laps my bird runs 1:25 no assist so post your 1:26 video I'll drop my 1:25 video...

Or 1:21 KTM X-Bow no assist maybe???

1:23 Aventador no assist


My any standard my times are not slow, even if you top it by a bit, so what, I have very little time for GT lapping got a life too, but set at it I'll knock any time..,

Don't forget to tell them it's race mediums Jack...

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

Hot laps my bird runs 1:25 no assist so post your 1:26 video I'll drop my 1:25 video...

Or 1:21 KTM X-Bow no assist maybe???

1:23 Aventador no assist


My any standard my times are not slow, even if you top it by a bit, so what, I have very little time for GT lapping got a life too, but set at it I'll knock any time..,

So I'm guessing it's a no on testing your tune then ? I noticed how you just glossed right over my challenge to start arguing again lol

 

[Zenmervolt]

It's a screenshot from the second video he posted 0:22

A post which he subsequently deleted. Looks like he's trying to erase the evidence.

Not trying hard enough. The video showing that he's using Race Mediums is still up in another thread.

 

[Zuel]

OK, I’m sleepy. Here are the replays that you asked for @Lewis_Hamilton_ ,a total of four tests done but only there were saved. I would go into detail about how the car changed with it change but I not due to I’m done and I got to be at work at 6:30am. I’ll make the run again tomorrow, I’ll just share the sets with the camber, toe changes with times. Down force setting are 225 Front; 454 Rear and on hard tires. On some run I could have gone faster if I was more alert.

Session 1

2:09.430

Ride Height; 58/59

Spring Rate; 17.15/15.93

Damper Compression; 6/5

Damper Extension; 5/4

Roll Bar; 3-3

Camber; 1.9/0.7

Toe; 0.28/0.53

Session 2

2:09.112

Ride Height; 58/59

Spring Rate; 17.15/15.93

Damper Compression; 6/5

Damper Extension; 5/4

Roll Bar; 4/4

Camber; 2.3/1.7

Toe; -0.28/0.53


Session 3

2:08.618

Ride Height; 58/59

Spring Rate; 17.15/15.93

Damper Compression; 7/6

Damper Extension; 5/6

Roll Bar; 4/4

Camber; 3.1/2.2

Toe; -0.28/0.53

Session 4

2:08.235

Ride Height; 58/59

Spring Rate; 17.15/15.93

Damper Compression; 7/6

Damper Extension; 5/6

Roll Bar; 4/4

Camber; 3.1/2.2

Toe; -0.36/0.53

 

[Johnnypenso]

Toe; -0.28/0.53

Toe; -0.36/0.53

Once I got the car to stay flat in the turns I adjusted the camber and toe some more to get the rotation for my driving style.

<< +0.53 Toe for more rotation?

You didn't say what car, track, tires or power you used.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Depending on the car wheel diameter, +0.53 toe is around 7mm total toe in for 18 inch wheel, not an extreme value, where some street cars have up to 6mm toe in

 

[Stotty]

I decided to that further direct involvement in this thread was pointless, but I keep coming in to have a look at the posts when I need cheering up.

I had the same reaction to the toe settings

Add more front camber = need to add increasing amounts of -ve front toe to try and overcome the understeer.

Add more rear camber = need to add increasing amounts of +ve rear toe to try and overcome the oversteer.

Adding more +ve rear toe = more understeer = need to do even more extreme settings to compensate.

Unless a car has ridiculous amounts of lift off or brake oversteer you should never need more than +0.10 for rear toe.

I'd be interested to see what the diff settings were too.

Hilarious

Depending on the car wheel diameter, +0.53 toe is around 7mm total toe in for 18 inch wheel, not an extreme value, where some street cars have up to 6mm toe in

You're assuming GT6 = real life. In GT you NEVER need that much toe on a car unless it has very extreme handling characteristics.

Even if GT6 did = real life, that's a HUGE amount of +ve rear toe on what I think is a FR car?

I don't have the settings for my 996 to hand, but IIRC from my last alignment, they are around +0.20 (+0.10/side +/-0.05). And 911's tend to have a lot of +ve rear toe stock for obvious reasons. I'll dig out the settings sheet later.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

So far, most of my replica works fine using real world settings. I always use real world values when tuning in GT6 whenever possible, the result speak for themselves My next replica GT86 Toyota Motorsports GmbH 86 GT CS V3 Cup car have quite large toe front and back base setup from factory I often visit other forums where people share their street or track day / auto x car alignment, some ran 4mm toe in at the rear on a FR car like Scion FR-S.

The old Datsun Sunny B110 sedan has 4-6mm toe in, and van is 5-7mm toe in ( stock factory range )

MAZDA Miata 1.8 official toe in from factory is 3(+-4)mm toe in ( just checked manual workshop online )

NOBLE M400 geometry settings used by one of the owner who do track/street driving :

2mm to 3mm total toe out front.

4mm to 6mm total toe in rear. (6mm = 0.45 on 18 inch wheel , 0.50 on 16 in wheel -rough estimation)

Got it from another forum discussing alignment settings

 

[FRoSTeD]

Hot laps my bird runs 1:25 no assist

If I'm to assume that you've tuned your yellow bird to be quick to the fullest extent that you can, and that 1:25 for your yellow bird is a quick lap at Brands Hatch GP, then I must say that your yellow bird is... well... slow.

I have no experience with RUF's or RR cars for that matter. I bought a new yellow bird, tuned it to 600pp, racing mediums, no aids, etc etc, with the completely fixed stock suspension (which, by the way has no camber) and ran a quite sloppy 1:22.689

This took me roughly 10 minutes of tuning and 5 minutes of track practice.

I think you have other tuning issues besides camber you may want to look into, Jack...

 

[Stotty]

Snip

How are you reading the toe measurement and scale in GT... Degrees, minutes or mm's?

I've always read toe in GT as parts of a degree as this seems to be the most likely conversion given the other options don't really convert on the scale... so +1.00 in the game = 1* positive toe, or 60 minutes, or 16.8mm (and vice versa for -ve).

I checked my last alignment sheet, and factory settings on my 996 (on 18" wheels) for the rear is a total toe of +20 minutes (+/- 10 minutes), which is equivalent to 5.6mm or 0.33* of total toe at 'perfect' setting (5 minutes = 1.4mm = 5/60th's of 1 degree).

Unsurprisingly, a higher number than the MX5 settings you mentioned in your post given the instability of 911's during some weight transfer moments.

+0.33 (0.33*) would be a high setting in GT - higher than anything I have used on any tune I've ever built, and higher than any tune I've ever seen from any of the fast drivers in the seasonal TT's unless it's on a formula car... but given we don't have the same over riding requirements for safety in GT vs real life, this isn't a surprise. You can get away with a more unstable car as the penalty for crashing at high speed isn't death

+0.53 of toe (as per the tune posted earlier) on an 18" wheel is the equivalent of 8.72mm... which is an extremely high number from a real life perspective and for what my experience tells me is needed in the game.

+ve toe is something you add to make the car stable. The more you add, the less it will want to turn.

This is fine for an unstable car, but it kills speed for anything else. To be fast, you need the maximum amount of entry rotation your skill level can handle to get the car in to the apex as quickly as possible and point the car at the apex... it's one of the reasons there was such widespread use of -ve rear toe in GT5 to help get around the understeer.

A bit of +ve rear toe helps on exits (ie +0.00 to +0.10) by reducing oversteer when you want maximum forward drive, but high rear toe settings will ultimately kill your lap times.

So, whenever I see high +ve rear toe numbers (and high LSD decel settings) in a tune, I equate this with either 1) a very unstable car, or 2) unskilled drivers.

With regards to your 'replica' tunes... Older cars will have much higher positive toe numbers IRL due to poor geometry control that results in fairly large changes in camber as load changes during cornering. Modern cars have moved on enormously in this regard; multilink suspension and massive improvements in bushing design and material quality mean that the suspension geometry is much more accurately managed though the extremes of the suspensions range.

Not sure how much real life driving experience you have, but negative front toe on street cars is generally a horrible thing. You won't feel it in the game, and it might be OK on a flat/smooth track, but even a small amount of -ve front toe makes for a car that tramlines all over the place on normal roads.

 

[Stotty]

Double post

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

How are you reading the toe measurement and scale in GT... Degrees, minutes or mm's?

I've always read toe in GT as parts of a degree as this seems to be the most likely conversion given the other options don't really convert on the scale... so +1.00 in the game = 1* positive toe, or 60 minutes, or 16.8mm (and vice versa for -ve).

I checked my last alignment sheet, and factory settings on my 996 (on 18" wheels) for the rear is a total toe of +20 minutes (+/- 10 minutes), which is equivalent to 5.6mm or 0.33* of total toe at 'perfect' setting (5 minutes = 1.4mm = 5/60th's of 1 degree).

Unsurprisingly, a higher number than the MX5 settings you mentioned in your post given the instability of 911's during some weight transfer moments.

+0.33 (0.33*) would be a high setting in GT - higher than anything I have used on any tune I've ever built, and higher than any tune I've ever seen from any of the fast drivers in the seasonal TT's unless it's on a formula car... but given we don't have the same over riding requirements for safety in GT vs real life, this isn't a surprise. You can get away with a more unstable car as the penalty for crashing at high speed isn't death

+0.53 of toe (as per the tune posted earlier) on an 18" wheel is the equivalent of 8.72mm... which is an extremely high number from a real life perspective and for what my experience tells me is needed in the game.

+ve toe is something you add to make the car stable. The more you add, the less it will want to turn.

This is fine for an unstable car, but it kills speed for anything else. To be fast, you need the maximum amount of entry rotation your skill level can handle to get the car in to the apex as quickly as possible and point the car at the apex... it's one of the reasons there was such widespread use of -ve rear toe in GT5 to help get around the understeer.

A bit of +ve rear toe helps on exits (ie +0.00 to +0.10) by reducing oversteer when you want maximum forward drive, but high rear toe settings will ultimately kill your lap times.

So, whenever I see high +ve rear toe numbers (and high LSD decel settings) in a tune, I equate this with either 1) a very unstable car, or 2) unskilled drivers.

With regards to your 'replica' tunes... Older cars will have much higher positive toe numbers IRL due to poor geometry control that results in fairly large changes in camber as load changes during cornering. Modern cars have moved on enormously in this regard; multilink suspension and massive improvements in bushing design and material quality mean that the suspension geometry is much more accurately managed though the extremes of the suspensions range.

Not sure how much real life driving experience you have, but negative front toe on street cars is generally a horrible thing. You won't feel it in the game, and it might be OK on a flat/smooth track, but even a small amount of -ve front toe makes for a car that tramlines all over the place on normal roads.

Toes are in degrees, I have chart that converts mm to degree based on wheel size

The bolded part That is not really the case for me. High LSD decel usually used for 2 way LSD, IRL 2 way LSD are often used for competition and usually have high locking rate ( Cusco, Kaaz and ATS LSD are famous for this ) High values served it's purpose, even some 1.5 way LSD IRL do have high locking rate when braking or coasting ( 45 cam angle ), you might want to drive my Lotus Europa Special 500PP tune on comfort soft

The TMG GT86 CS V3 Cup car runs -2mm front toe ( out ) and 3mm rear toe in on 17 inch OZ wheels ( base setup from factory ) - I have TMG docs to aid in replicating some of the settings, I am currently building the replica, and so far it perform quite well. I normally use 2mm toe out on the front ( rarely use 3mm ) I have a conversion chart, and weirdly it's different than yours : +0.53 on 18 inch gives roughly 7mm toe

I don't tune to exploit GT6 physics in order to post fastest possible time, I tune ( replicas ) to get as close as possible to the real car, so it does not matter at all if the car becomes slower, as long as it's fun to drive. You should check my latest replicas, the 86GT APEXI N1 and BRZ TEIN SRC are great to drive, oh and the Lotus Europa, that car is insane fun at Brands Hatch on CS tire.

What makes me sad is camber do not work, so some of my replicas are suffering The GT86 CS V3 Cup will suffer as well as it has quite camber front and back

 

[Stotty]

Toes are in degrees, I have chart that converts mm to degree based on wheel size

The bolded part That is not really the case for me. High LSD decel usually used for 2 way LSD, IRL 2 way LSD are often used for competition and usually have high locking rate ( Cusco, Kaaz and ATS LSD are famous for this ) High values served it's purpose, even some 1.5 way LSD IRL do have high locking rate when braking or coasting ( 45 cam angle ), you might want to drive my Lotus Europa Special 500PP tune on comfort soft

The TMG GT86 CS V3 Cup car runs -2mm front toe ( out ) and 3mm rear toe in on 17 inch OZ wheels ( base setup from factory ) - I have TMG docs to aid in replicating some of the settings, I am currently building the replica, and so far it perform quite well. I normally use 2mm toe out on the front ( rarely use 3mm ) I have a conversion chart, and weirdly it's different than yours : +0.53 on 18 inch gives roughly 7mm toe

I don't tune to exploit GT6 physics in order to post fastest possible time, I tune ( replicas ) to get as close as possible to the real car, so it does not matter at all if the car becomes slower, as long as it's fun to drive. You should check my latest replicas, the 86GT APEXI N1 and BRZ TEIN SRC are great to drive, oh and the Lotus Europa, that car is insane fun at Brands Hatch on CS tire.

What makes me sad is camber do not work, so some of my replicas are suffering The GT86 CS V3 Cup will suffer as well as it has quite camber front and back

Yeah, I know that's how you play the game 👍

I only really do 2 things in GT6 - run stock cars at the 'Ring and run seasonal TT's. For the 'Ring, if I don't like how a car handles stock, I'll runa lap and then leave it. For Seasonals with tuning, fast = fun to drive. The more manageable rotation a car has the faster it will be AND the more fun it will be to drive.

It's not about exploiting the physics - afterall, replica tunes are only replicas if the settings you apply are interpreted by the game exactly as they would be in real life

 

[Jack Napier]

I'd like to point out that while the GTP crowd is trying to smoke the proof camber works correctly in GT6.

I have proved it.

It was said to prove it I needed to produce a car that the camber would make faster and better driving. I've done so,

While those upset will try to add the wheel angles off the DEMO car to their set up and say it's slower, they miss the point. The setting given were for the DEMO CAR and it has stock ride height and springs, those wheel angles tuned to that.

The TEST is

Drive DEMO CAR no angles, un-drivable oversteer

Add wheel angle to DEMO CAR and the oversteer is changed to controllable understeer...

Not a tuned car at all, it's demonstrating wheel angles doing what they should.

Do some corner speed test with the DEMO CAR not your tune D-A

lol you don't understand stock Ride Height and Stock springs??

You can't even perform a simple test yet think you have figured out camber is broken??? What?!? Where have you shown anything but crap that can be chalked up to setting of all other car settings and driver.... Not one shrewd of proof, just BS theories that don't make sense and don't Cary any weight.

Even if you top a time I post, that means squat. It's still faster then many in the same cars driving with zero camb. If the camber hurt me so much I would not even get close to as fast as I am, but this all has no real relevance aside from pointing out to you and all that your point is moot.... Top my time? Big Hairy Deal, you have clearly more free time... Point being Im NOT Slower then anybody driving camber zero...

Next picture of the wheel up YB, this pic CLEARLY SHOWS me riding a front camber angle OVER 6 (near 7) degrees, if camber was really acting like positive camber, with that lean, and near 7 degrees camber, IF that camber were visually negative but broken acting positive, the car would be rolling over instead of riding the angle.. Think about that near 14 degrees pos camber from position in the pic your theory suggest, I'd be rolling on the lip of the rim rolling over, but noooooooo, rides the camber just like IRL D-A's look just like some IRL pics posted eh...

Oh and if adding minuscule amounts of camb duh should help any car as some would like to point out, what's broken??? Would that not suggest it works as should??? lol you seem not to even realize when the crap you guys post supports the apposing side, you guys just copy past before even getting through the article your stealing opinions from, and it's interpretations you post...


What is clear is GTP refuses to acknowledge any of the facts proving the consensus wrong don't even have the stones to address them directly can't dispute the evidence disproving how they theorize it's broke, and they have yet to put up any facts at all let alone prove the consensus...

One of you even says camber is in positive value as a fact because it's not marked negative, he must be confused by "Camber(-)" so the "facts" posted by you guys are not FACTS at all, it's a joke...

I'm like Mike Tyson in the early 90's fighting Mike Tyson 2014, not a fair fight. It's a group of you Trolls agains lil-O-me, even still, 10second Knock-out

I see more proving camber works, I don't see ANYTHING proving it's broken.....

Time for the Trolls pointing calling the kettle black to Troll up the thread & bury the facts in BS......

Joker Laughs

 

[Jack Napier]

I'd like to point out that while the GTP crowd is trying to smoke the proof camber works correctly in GT6.

I have proved it.

It was said to prove it I needed to produce a car that the camber would make faster and better driving. I've done so,

While those upset will try to add the wheel angles off the DEMO car to their set up and say it's slower, they miss the point. The setting given were for the DEMO CAR and it has stock ride height and springs, those wheel angles tuned to that.

The TEST is

Drive DEMO CAR no angles, un-drivable oversteer

Add wheel angle to DEMO CAR and the oversteer is changed to controllable understeer...

Not a tuned car at all, it's demonstrating wheel angles doing what they should.

Do some corner speed test with the DEMO CAR not your tune D-A

lol you don't understand stock Ride Height and Stock springs??

You can't even perform a simple test yet think you have figured out camber is broken??? What?!? Where have you shown anything but crap that can be chalked up to setting of all other car settings and driver.... Not one shrewd of proof, just BS theories that don't make sense and don't Cary any weight.

Even if you top a time I post, that means squat. It's still faster then many in the same cars driving with zero camb. If the camber hurt me so much I would not even get close to as fast as I am, but this all has no real relevance aside from pointing out to you and all that your point is moot.... Top my time? Big Hairy Deal, you have clearly more free time... Point being Im NOT Slower then anybody driving camber zero...

Next picture of the wheel up YB, this pic CLEARLY SHOWS me riding a front camber angle OVER 6 (near 7) degrees, if camber was really acting like positive camber, with that lean, and near 7 degrees camber, IF that camber were visually negative but broken acting positive, the car would be rolling over instead of riding the angle.. Think about that near 14 degrees pos camber from position in the pic your theory suggest, I'd be rolling on the lip of the rim rolling over, but noooooooo, rides the camber just like IRL D-A's look just like some IRL pics posted eh...

Oh and if adding minuscule amounts of camb duh should help any car as some would like to point out, what's broken??? Would that not suggest it works as should??? lol you seem not to even realize when the crap you guys post supports the apposing side, you guys just copy past before even getting through the article your stealing opinions from, and it's interpretations you post...


What is clear is GTP refuses to acknowledge any of the facts proving the consensus wrong don't even have the stones to address them directly can't dispute the evidence disproving how they theorize it's broke, and they have yet to put up any facts at all let alone prove the consensus...

One of you even says camber is in positive value as a fact because it's not marked negative, he must be confused by "Camber(-)" so the "facts" posted by you guys are not FACTS at all, it's a joke...

I'm like Mike Tyson in the early 90's fighting Mike Tyson 2014, not a fair fight. It's a group of you Trolls agains lil-O-me, even still, 10second Knock-out

I see more proving camber works, I don't see ANYTHING proving it's broken.....

Time for the Trolls pointing calling the kettle black to Troll up the thread & bury the facts in BS......

Joker Laughs

 

[Johnnypenso]

So far, most of my replica works fine using real world settings. I always use real world values when tuning in GT6 whenever possible, the result speak for themselves

Getting cars to "work fine" with camber isn't an issue, so long as you balance it out. If I have a little oversteer and add more camber to the front the car will still feel "fine", but won't be as fast as it can possibly be at 0.0/0.0 along with tuning out the oversteer through other tools. We're looking for ultimate speed here, not just balance.

If I'm to assume that you've tuned your yellow bird to be quick to the fullest extent that you can, and that 1:25 for your yellow bird is a quick lap at Brands Hatch GP, then I must say that your yellow bird is... well... slow.

I have no experience with RUF's or RR cars for that matter. I bought a new yellow bird, tuned it to 600pp, racing mediums, no aids, etc etc, with the completely fixed stock suspension (which, by the way has no camber) and ran a quite sloppy 1:22.689

This took me roughly 10 minutes of tuning and 5 minutes of track practice.

I think you have other tuning issues besides camber you may want to look into, Jack...

I suspected there was at least that potential in the YB, well done I can run high 29's there with Sport Mediums at 550PP so I knew 600PP with race mediums and only 1:25's was nowhere close to the potential of the car even with stock suspension. 👍👍

I'd like to point out that while the GTP crowd is trying to smoke the proof camber works correctly in GT6.

I have proved it.

It was said to prove it I needed to produce a car that the camber would make faster and better driving. I've done so,

While those upset will try to add the wheel angles off the DEMO car to their set up and say it's slower, they miss the point. The setting given were for the DEMO CAR and it has stock ride height and springs, those wheel angles tuned to that.

The TEST is

Drive DEMO CAR no angles, un-drivable oversteer

Add wheel angle to DEMO CAR and the oversteer is changed to controllable understeer...

Not a tuned car at all, it's demonstrating wheel angles doing what they should.

Do some corner speed test with the DEMO CAR not your tune D-A

lol you don't understand stock Ride Height and Stock springs??

You can't even perform a simple test yet think you have figured out camber is broken??? What?!? Where have you shown anything but crap that can be chalked up to setting of all other car settings and driver.... Not one shrewd of proof, just BS theories that don't make sense and don't Cary any weight.

Even if you top a time I post, that means squat. It's still faster then many in the same cars driving with zero camb. If the camber hurt me so much I would not even get close to as fast as I am, but this all has no real relevance aside from pointing out to you and all that your point is moot.... Top my time? Big Hairy Deal, you have clearly more free time... Point being Im NOT Slower then anybody driving camber zero...

Next picture of the wheel up YB, this pic CLEARLY SHOWS me riding a front camber angle OVER 6 (near 7) degrees, if camber was really acting like positive camber, with that lean, and near 7 degrees camber, IF that camber were visually negative but broken acting positive, the car would be rolling over instead of riding the angle.. Think about that near 14 degrees pos camber from position in the pic your theory suggest, I'd be rolling on the lip of the rim rolling over, but noooooooo, rides the camber just like IRL D-A's look just like some IRL pics posted eh...

Oh and if adding minuscule amounts of camb duh should help any car as some would like to point out, what's broken??? Would that not suggest it works as should??? lol you seem not to even realize when the crap you guys post supports the apposing side, you guys just copy past before even getting through the article your stealing opinions from, and it's interpretations you post...


What is clear is GTP refuses to acknowledge any of the facts proving the consensus wrong don't even have the stones to address them directly can't dispute the evidence disproving how they theorize it's broke, and they have yet to put up any facts at all let alone prove the consensus...

One of you even says camber is in positive value as a fact because it's not marked negative, he must be confused by "Camber(-)" so the "facts" posted by you guys are not FACTS at all, it's a joke...

I'm like Mike Tyson in the early 90's fighting Mike Tyson 2014, not a fair fight. It's a group of you Trolls agains lil-O-me, even still, 10second Knock-out

I see more proving camber works, I don't see ANYTHING proving it's broken.....

Time for the Trolls pointing calling the kettle black to Troll up the thread & bury the facts in BS......

Joker Laughs

"It's Deja Vu all over again" - Yogi Berra

 

[FRoSTeD]

Drive DEMO CAR

What?