Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Ah yes... I remember building this car @Ridox2JZGTE. I hate to say it, but I despise these cars with the AYC Controller. Give me a regular ole LSD any day of the week! Now, before anyone starts jumping up and down... Yes, I know the car CAN take a Customizable LSD. Ridox's replica tune calls for the use of the stock AYC Controller.

The decreased rear toe-in is very welcome for this tune, in my opinion. Previously, the rear toe was slightly high and it almost seemed like you had to fight the rear end a little bit while cornering and any stability improvements were never felt by me on Tsukuba.

My preferred suspension setups were the first two listed. (Have you ever thought of labelling them? A, B, C, etc? Might be helpful when people have questions, in the future.) The stiffer spring rate feels much nicer on a track like Tsukuba, I think. I did try the 10.0/8.0 springs when I first built this car, but I didn't really put it to work on terribly bumpy sections of any tracks, so I can't really give an honest opinion of that spring rate & setup.

I most certainly preferred the car with the recommended camber settings rather than 0.0 which really felt strange to me after running about 25 laps with either 1.0/1.0 or 2.2/1.2 for camber settings. The car just rolls into the corner with rather than sliding into the corner without. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course... My fastest laps were with the 1.0/1.0 setup, though I wonder if it had more to do with me "warming up" with the 2.2/1.2 setup. If that were the case, however, then you'd expect my 0.0/0.0 to be the best, but they weren't. It was very, very close. 0.2s separated the two setups. BUT! I found both of the setups with camber were much more consistent in line, feel and lap time compared to the 0.0/0.0 laps.

I'm sorry I didn't MoTeC the data for anyone who doesn't believe me. I can assure you I am a man of my word and if you would like any of the Replay files or MoTeC Logs of mine from The Great Camber Experiment, feel free to ask and I will get you the files ASAP. I've posted screenshots of my MoTeC data in that thread, but if you'd still prefer the actual files, just let me know and Ill throw them out on the web somewhere...

The rear toe in only applies to Mitsubishi OEM range alignment, HKS test car do not use toe in ( zero toe all around ). I already put the 1st suspension setup ( top most ) as base - recommended as used on the video The rest are optional.

For AYC, with 88 base value, the car should be more versatile than with LSD, there's a reason the real HKS car maintains the AYC. The only drawback as far as I can feel when driving it is the front wheel do not like being overloaded on exit. It can spin the inner or outer wheels due to the nature of the AYC reacting to throttle demand. Increasing the AYC value to 96 might help, maybe on some driver above 96 can do good too. Beware of the oversteer though when it gets higher than 100.

 

[ALB123]

The rear toe in only applies to Mitsubishi OEM range alignment, HKS test car do not use toe in ( zero toe all around ). I already put the 1st suspension setup ( top most ) as base - recommended as used on the video The rest are optional.

For AYC, with 88 base value, the car should be more versatile than with LSD, there's a reason the real HKS car maintains the AYC. The only drawback as far as I can feel when driving it is the front wheel do not like being overloaded on exit. It can spin the inner or outer wheels due to the nature of the AYC reacting to throttle demand. Increasing the AYC value to 96 might help, maybe on some driver above 96 can do good too. Beware of the oversteer though when it gets higher than 100.

Yes...There were times I was asking myself "Am I driving a FF car?" But...That's my foot on the throttle making those tires spin. It's up to me to learn how to control it. I appreciate you telling me how to possibly get rid of that, but when I build a replica I want to drive the car warts and all. If the real deal HKS is setup like this, then that's how my ride is going to be setup and I'm going to have to deal with it. Otherwise I'd be in @Highlandor's garage (HaB-Racing) or @shaunm80's garage (Exeter GT Tuning) looking for non-replica tunes. 👍

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Yes...There were times I was asking myself "Am I driving a FF car?" But...That's my foot on the throttle making those tires spin. It's up to me to learn how to control it. I appreciate you telling me how to possibly get rid of that, but when I build a replica I want to drive the car warts and all. If the real deal HKS is setup like this, then that's how my ride is going to be setup and I'm going to have to deal with it. Otherwise I'd be in @Highlandor's garage (HaB-Racing) or @shaunm80's garage (Exeter GT Tuning) looking for non-replica tunes. 👍

Improving is a good thing to have Driving cars that forces you to be smooth is never a bad thing, it makes you more consistent and accurate with car control.

For the evo behaving like FF :
Nobuteru Taniguchi himself said the car has understeer when he tested the first set of tire ( AD07 ). He had to be smooth even on the AD08 tire set If you look carefully on the video ( GT vs RL ), the 1st corner entry and last corner of Tsukuba in particular, the car has some understeer, where Taniguchi-san had to apply a bit more steering and modulate the brake + throttle on mid corner. The last hairpin entry and the esses ( dunlop ) also shows slight under.

While my run on the vs video, you can see on 1st turn, I overshoot by miliseconds my braking point, and I have to modulate the brake gently as I pushed a bit wide on entry. The same thing happened on the next hairpin Surprisingly, both run were almost identical I still watch the video, never got bored

 

[Johnnypenso]

@DrEmmettBrown thanks for the test, can you also add the track report to your post please?

 

[super_gt]

SiNiST3R

Twin Ring Motegi Oval
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
No AIDS,No ABS,Real grip,no oil change.
Sports hard tires front and rear.
First two corners fifth gear lifting ONLY, no brakes at all
Second two corners brake fourth gear

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
Toe front -0.30 rear 0.60
Everything else Stock
Best lap time: 0:39.116 seconds

This test is made offline with DFGT steering wheel

 

[Voodoovaj]

As always, the biggest issue with this discussion is the relative acceptance of "fixed".

Like Cargo Rat stated, testing shows it works for me. Two important points though, I see gains only in tenths (0.1,0.2,0.3) so I expect to see 1.5 and more to have less grip.

The second thing is that DS3 controllers have progressive steering relative to speed, where as the wheels are more directly connected. I believe this allows the wheels to negate the gains of camber (given the minmal angles).

 

[Aussie_HSV]

Is there a tune for this car somewhere and can you post the Track Report in your post?

Oops, my bad.
It's just from the camber experiment with Dolhaus. 👍

 

[RyanRacer]

.

 

[Thorin Cain]

@Ridox2JZGTE Sorry about the delay. I've built the car and put in some practice laps (about 20). It's quite a fun car, once you get use to it But I want to wait till I'm more alert before I run the tests. I'll get on to them later today, just off night-shift and I'm pretty tired now

Are there any particular fields you want data from or do you just want the lap-times board uploaded?

All test will be run in Arcade Mode Time Trial on Sports Hard tyres (Why spend the money?). Controller= DS3 (X & [ ]), ABS=1, SS=2, For Brake Balance I went for 3/3 (Well, that's a coincidence.) All other aids off. Track conditions set to real.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

@Ridox2JZGTE Sorry about the delay. I've built the car and put in some practice laps (about 20). It's quite a fun car, once you get use to it But I want to wait till I'm more alert before I run the tests. I'll get on to them later today, just off night-shift and I'm pretty tired now

Are there any particular fields you want data from or do you just want the lap-times board uploaded?

All test will be run in Arcade Mode Time Trial on Sports Hard tyres (Why spend the money?). Controller= DS3 (X & [ ]), ABS=1, SS=2, For Brake Balance I went for 3/3 (Well, that's a coincidence.) All other aids off. Track conditions set to real.

I would be grateful if you run it on SM tire like it was intended built with the top base setup ( HKS TF alignment + visual ride height ) - zero toe all around, 2.2 / 1.2 camber. Then reduce camber by 0.2 front and rear, all else the same : 2.0/1.0, 1.8/0.8, 1.6/0.6, 1.4/0.4, 1.2/0.2, 1.0/0.0, then 0.0/0.0. You can skip some if you want

The reason for the proportional camber reduction is I built the setup around the camber ( fixed at 2.2/1.2 ) and zero toe, so an optimized setup will easily highlight the effect of reduction in camber by maintaining the same setup balance on all camber reduction. If you reverse the camber value to 1.2/2.2 or use same value like 2.0/2.0, it will only cause inconsistency and unreliable data due to changed balance of a specific setup.

For data, an average G ( lateral and longitudinal ), peak G, min/max corner speed, sector times and maybe eclectic time like @LeoStrop did :

You are right, and it's a good indicator of your consistency. But for make it better i had to remark all the sections parts of the track, and transform it into sectors, i wish they load the exact sectors of the game. The eclectic time, is not the best way to try to make the best lap time, because it's impossible to have your fastest entry and your fastest exit on the same corner, i mean we sacrifice one thing to gain another, and the eclectic shows the absolute best.

But, the rolling minimum is the fastest continuous run through all sections, that are related to eachother and that makes it more suitable to find the fastest lap time. The red stripe shows which sector times were included in the rolling minimum time.

Edit: You can see that my rolling minimum, with 0.0, was also my best lap:






Edit again:

I tried to match the sectors of the game, on motec. Watching the replay for the sectors time, they came out pretty close, with insignificant difference. But they are only 3 sectors on the game, for that track, i think that is too little to have a good read, for camber purposes. Here is how it looks like:



0.0:





0.6:





1.0:





Closer times for less sectors , logically, but still not ideal. But anyone can get the data and play with it, it's actually pretty simple to work with the track editor, on motec.


Maybe you already know that, but i'm just pointing out for someone who doesn't.



You're welcome! Yeah i was going to test with -0.4, but i don't think i am going to make it today. I did more than 30laps with 0.0 camber, and only 7 with 0.6 and 1.0, just to make sure it was right.

Let's wait and see if someone with a wheel can do the same test, i know camber helps me, but i steer with buttons(D-Pad). So it may not have the same effect on a wheel(which we already suspect).

👍

Thanks a lot for doing this

 

[Thorin Cain]

I would be grateful if you run it on SM tire like it was intended built with the top base setup ( HKS TF alignment + visual ride height ) - zero toe all around, 2.2 / 1.2 camber. Then reduce camber by 0.2 front and rear, all else the same : 2.0/1.0, 1.8/0.8, 1.6/0.6, 1.4/0.4, 1.2/0.2, 1.0/0.0, then 0.0/0.0. You can skip some if you want

The reason for the proportional camber reduction is I built the setup around the camber ( fixed at 2.2/1.2 ) and zero toe, so an optimized setup will easily highlight the effect of reduction in camber while maintaining the difference between the setup balance. If you reverse the camber value to 1.2/2.2 or use same value like 2.0/2.0, it will only cause inconsistency and unreliable data due to changed balance of a specific setup.

For data, an average G ( lateral and longitudinal ), peak G, min/max corner speed, sector times and maybe eclectic time like @LeoStrop did :




Thanks a lot for doing this

Ok, I'll fork out the 7,800 credits for some SM rubber. I have the HKS TF alignment + visual ride height all set-up and ready to go and the SH felt pretty good, so I'm looking forward to a bit more grip

I can see the logic in the balanced reduction of camber you're looking for and it's a little more thorough than just 2.2/1.2 vs 0.0/0.0 👍 I'm happy to oblige and also interested in how noticeable the differences are.

I'm going to have to watch that training video now aren't I @LeoStrop

And may I just say Mr Ridox Sir, I know you love what you do, and you do do it well. But that was quite possibly the longest post for a tune I've ever seen in my life. I'm going to have to buy another car or two just to try all the variations you have for this one. Should keep me going for a while ...And nice lap BTW:tup:

 

[LeoStrop]

@Ridox2JZGTE , Thanks for the tune! I will test it as soon as i can, i already have a Club race today, so i don't think i will have much time. Do you think i should test it on Tsukuba? Maybe i will go watch some old Best Motoring to get inspired.

@Thorin Cain , you are damn right you will have to watch the video, and try to convince @ALB123 to do the same.

But, really, the video will help you have a better read of your data, for the information we need here, it's not really that important to watch. The only thing i will start doing, is using the track editor to make custom sectors.(part 116/151, if you don't want to watch it all)

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

@Ridox2JZGTE , Thanks for the tune! I will test it as soon as i can, i already have a Club race today, so i don't think i will have much time. Do you think i should test it on Tsukuba? Maybe i will go watch some old Best Motoring to get inspired.

@Thorin Cain , you are damn right you will have to watch the video, and try to convince @ALB123 to do the same.

But, really, the video will help you have a better read of your data, for the information we need here, it's not really that important to watch. The only thing i will start doing, is using the track editor to make custom sectors.(part 116/151, if you don't want to watch it all)

It's best to include Tsukuba Maybe we can see if yours and @Thorin Cain will have similar result Of course, you are free to choose other track if you want.

I also happen to test the car at Twin Ring Motegi Road Course when I built it. If you check the original replica post on my garage, there are 2 replay files uploaded , one for Tsukuba ( the one on the video ) and another for Motegi Road. You can include both my replay as comparison in the data output if you wish.

HKS Technical Factory CZ200S Time Attack Lancer Evolution X GSR PP '07 CZ4A Real World Setup - 567HP/575PS 545PP Comfort Soft to Sports Medium

For inspiration, you can watch my GT6 vs Real video of the said replica The real lap done by Nobuteru Taniguchi.



EDIT : The twin ring motegi road replay was done on CS tire, so its not really useful

 

[Stotty]

@Ridox2JZGTE... Gave your EVO tune a go.

I'm assuming it's the 1st one (noted as 'recommended') of the multiple tunes?

Stock: 57.654
As @ALB123 says, like this, it feels like a FF car with a load of traction. It understeers everywhere - on entry, mid corner, and more frustratingly, when you get on the gas from the apex, where the front won't hold the line at all.

I don't think I've driven a car with AYC since GT5P, so don't have any experience tuning it. But increased it to 100 as a guess and also set brakes at 5,7 in an attempt to allow more trail braking and try and get the nose to the apex.

Stock + AYC 100 + Brakes 5,7: 57.450
Still understeers on the way in, but slightly less from the apex, where all the time gain comes from.

Stock + AYC 100 + Brakes 5,7 + camber 0,0: 56.875
Ran a 58.235 1st lap and kept getting faster. It's like a completely different car and immediately feels so much better - much easier to get to the apex, holds its line better mid corner and can get on the gas harder and earlier at the apex.

More importantly, it just feels so much more enjoyable to drive with 0 camber (as much as 4WD cars on super sticky tyres can do!) - you're not constantly waiting for the front end to grip and the car will actually regain its line when you ease off to try and kill the understeer.

I'm interested if you've driven it with 0 camber and if you feel the same difference?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

@Ridox2JZGTE... Gave your EVO tune a go.

I'm assuming it's the 1st one (noted as 'recommended') of the multiple tunes?

Stock: 57.654
As @ALB123 says, like this, it feels like a FF car with a load of traction. It understeers everywhere - on entry, mid corner, and more frustratingly, when you get on the gas from the apex, where the front won't hold the line at all.

I don't think I've driven a car with AYC since GT5P, so don't have any experience tuning it. But increased it to 100 as a guess and also set brakes at 5,7 in an attempt to allow more trail braking and try and get the nose to the apex.

Stock + AYC 100 + Brakes 5,7: 57.450
Still understeers on the way in, but slightly less from the apex, where all the time gain comes from.

Stock + AYC 100 + Brakes 5,7 + camber 0,0: 56.875
Ran a 58.235 1st lap and kept getting faster. It's like a completely different car and immediately feels so much better - much easier to get to the apex, holds its line better mid corner and can get on the gas harder and earlier at the apex.

More importantly, it just feels so much more enjoyable to drive with 0 camber (as much as 4WD cars on super sticky tyres can do!) - you're not constantly waiting for the front end to grip and the car will actually regain its line when you ease off to try and kill the understeer.

I'm interested if you've driven it with 0 camber and if you feel the same difference?

Mmm, I don't recall that much understeer ( there's slight understeer only when I brake too late or too hot on entry ), and tried 100 AYC then higher when testing, it became too loose for me If I use that 5/7 BB, the rear will easily step out under heavy braking and mess the entry line too.

Have you watched my video driving the car ? 4/4 BB allows effective trail braking and I can get the nose in with controlled entry, you can notice this on my video - 1st turn entry, I went slightly wide then made slight correction to exit closer from the apex. I don't even encounter issue with the front not holding the line. You can see that the handling of the real car is similar to the replica when driven with the same pace, although this is not really relevant.

The replica has better cornering on the exit of the Dunlop esses leading to the last hairpin as I can stay more to the left, while the real car have to use almost full width of the road. The braking entry to the last hairpin also easily controlled, where I can move from left to right ( to hit the apex ) with no trouble. For me, it doesn't feel like FF car at all.

I am curious of how much different is your run with zero camber, where you said easy to get to apex, hold line better mid corner and on gas harder earlier. Any chance of replay file or a video ?

You mentioned stock there, does this mean the car is stock apart from AYC and BB ?

I haven't driven the car on zero camber, as I built it from scratch with those alignment ( camber 2.2/1.2 )

 

[Stotty]

Mmm, I don't recall that much understeer ( there's slight understeer only when I brake too late or too hot on entry ), and tried 100 AYC then higher when testing, it became too loose for me If I use that 5/7 BB, the rear will easily step out under heavy braking and mess the entry line too.

Have you watched my video driving the car ? 4/4 BB allows effective trail braking and I can get the nose in with controlled entry, you can notice this on my video - 1st turn entry, I went slightly wide then made slight correction to exit closer from the apex. I don't even encounter issue with the front not holding the line. You can see that the handling of the real car is similar to the replica when driven with the same pace, although this is not really relevant.

The replica has better cornering on the exit of the Dunlop esses leading to the last hairpin as I can stay more to the left, while the real car have to use almost full width of the road. The braking entry to the last hairpin also easily controlled, where I can move from left to right ( to hit the apex ) with no trouble. For me, it doesn't feel like FF car at all.

I am curious of how much different is your run with zero camber, where you said easy to get to apex, hold line better mid corner and on gas harder earlier. Any chance of replay file or a video ?

You mentioned stock there, does this mean the car is stock apart from AYC and BB ?

I haven't driven the car on zero camber, as I built it from scratch with those alignment ( camber 2.2/1.2 )

Stock = exactly as your 'recommended' tune 👍

I started with 5,5 brakes, but there's so much entry understeer I tried 5,7 in an attempt to reduce this (though it didn't really feel that much better). More AYC does reduce exit understeer though, and if I had more time to test I would have gradually increased this by increments of 10 until (if) I got a better balance.

I was c.2 seconds faster than the real life time with the replica tune, so if I was trying to match the real time with that tune I'd need to run at least 1 less grade of tyre (maybe 2), and probably 2 (maybe 3) less with zero camber.

Sorry, also meant to say... I have both my fastest lap with 0 camber and the replay of the 8 laps I ran at zero camber too, if you want either of them 👍

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Another nice test result with comprehensive data and interesting method :

OK folks. Bear with me please as I post a rather lengthy test result.

I have an upcoming league event this weekend at Trial Mountain. Now I have always struggled at this track for some reason. It's just not one of my better venues. As a result, I am looking for any edge I can get, which means I am spending a LOT of time tweaking my setup. I decided that this would be an ideal situation for me to test the effects of Camber and see if it could possibly improve my performance. Here are the details and results.

Test Vehicle = Subaru BRZ GT300 Base Model '12
330HP, 1150KG, Racing Medium Tires

Test Track = Trial Mountain
Wet/Track Edge Grip level = Real
View attachment 285359

Driving Aids
ABS = 1, All other Aids = off/0

Testing Methodology
Since I know that I am not the most consistent driver on this track, I decided to approach it a little differently. Rather than just focusing on the "Fastest" lap for any given camber level, I decided to run a set number of laps for each Camber level and then use an average value from the total set for each measurement.

I decided to look at 2 key measurements: Maximum Lateral Gs in each corner and Minimum MPH in each corner. This was based on my initial hypothesis that if I am able to hold a higher Maximum G in any given corner then the corresponding Apex speed should also be higher.

I ran 8 laps on each Camber setting and recorded the Max Lateral G and Minimum Speed for each corner. I then had the spreadsheet calculate an average value for each corner based on the 8 laps. Front and Rear Camber settings were identical for each test.

Resulting Data

Camber = 0.0
View attachment 285360

Camber = 0.5
View attachment 285361

Camber = 1.0
View attachment 285363

Camber = 1.5
View attachment 285364

Camber = 2.0
View attachment 285365

Camber = 2.5
View attachment 285366


Conclusions

View attachment 285367
View attachment 285370

So what conclusions have I made from this? There are several, but the key conclusions are:

• Lower Camber seems to work better for high speed, sweeping style corners
• Higher Camber seems to work better for lower speed and medium speed corners
• Camber does have an affect, and it does appear to follow real world expectations. There is a noticeable difference in the handling of the car.
  • As Camber increases, straight line grip decreases (as it should)
  • Decreased straight line grip affects both braking and acceleration
    
  • Higher camber definitely felt better mid-corner, but corner entry and exit felt more difficult
• I still need more practice at Trial Mountain (sorry, had to include that one)

These results are far from conclusive. For one thing, they were done using the same Camber level on both Front and Rear. That would most likely not be the case on a fully tuned, race ready car. A setup that combines a higher camber on one end of the car and a lower camber on the other may allow the car to take advantage of the apparent corner style benefits of each setting.

So that's it for now. I guess I will just sit back and get my flame retardant suit on. I am sure some of this (if not most) is going to get picked apart.

At some point, I may try the same test on a track that I am more consistent on. As I mentioned at the start, this was killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the test was done using a Logitech G27 Steering Wheel.

Car

 

[Stotty]

Operator error

 

[F1Racer68]

Another nice test result with comprehensive data and interesting method :

I hope the results are useful. I intentionally left the car setup info out of the post as I do have 7 races left this season. Don't want to give too much away

I can say that under this season's technical Regulations the car is running stock motor (no upgrades, no turbos, Oil Change permitted) Power limiter is at 91.3% so that HP = 330, ft-lb = 342, Base weight is 1150KG with 53/47 balance (507PP). Chassis Reinforcement is installed.

I will be the first to admit that the test is not conclusive, as my laps were not consistent enough. It did however show some trends, which I think would only be more obvious if the laps were more consistent.

I am sure some may be asking"Why 8 laps?" since that seems like a strange number. The truth is, I had planned to do 10 laps per run, but on the first test I spun the car on lap 9.

 

[LeoStrop]

I also gave a quick run on the evo, and had similar results.

Stock(BB 4/4 and AYC 88)

2.2 - 1.2 - 58.6xx
1.8 - 0.8 - 58.3xx
0.0 - 0.0 - 58.066

I still have to run the complete test and lower levels of camber to see if i have any gain.

@Stotty , if you have the time, can you please try this test online, and see if you find it better with 0.6 or not. Just give a few laps, she is fun to drive.

 

[Stotty]

@Stotty , if you have the time, can you please try this test online, and see if you find it better with 0.6 or not. Just give a few laps, she is fun to drive.

I did have a look at that test and considered running it, but being honest, I don't think Monza is a good choice of track... it's too long, and lap times are so determined by your exit from a few corners, that even a tiny variations in driver consistency can produce relatively large time differences due to those differences being magnified by the massive straights.

Your own test data is pretty impressive - particularly the consistency in run 3 (1* camber), where the lap times are really consistent. Compared to your 1st run (0 camber) - which is not very consistent.

When I get results like that I always go back to the 1st run to make sure the better run was because I'd dialed in to the track better with more laps. Don't usually go much faster, but just to see if the consistency is there.

I think shorter, more technical tracks are better test venues, like Tsukuba or Suzuka East.

 

[LeoStrop]

I did have a look at that test and considered running it, but being honest, I don't think Monza is a good choice of track... it's too long, and lap times are so determined by your exit from a few corners, that even a tiny variations in driver consistency can produce relatively large time differences due to those differences being magnified by the massive straights.

I think shorter, more technical tracks are better test venues, like Tsukuba or Suzuka East.

Yeah i know it's not ideal,but i was curious to try some corners there.

But you can run it in another track, if you want. I just want to know your feeling about the car with and without camber. It's supposed to work on Suzuka East too.

 

[Stotty]

Yeah i know it's not ideal,but i was curious to try some corners there.

But you can run it in another track, if you want. I just want to know your feeling about the car with and without camber. It's supposed to work on Suzuka East too.

Cool... If I get home in time, I'll give it a go tomorrow 👍

 

[GTsail]

I just ran 40 laps at Tsukuba with @Ridox2JZGTE 's:tup: EVO:

20 laps "stock" (camber at 2.2/1.2)
20 laps with zero camber
All laps with AYC at 88

Best four laps for each set were as follows:

Stock....Zero Camber

58.460......58.028
58.487......58.083
58.441......57.894
58.311......57.989

The EVO exhibits more under-steer than I would like with both tune settings but its still quite nice to drive.👍

I didn't notice much difference in the car's handling between the two different camber settings (but then I'm not as fast a driver as @Stotty ) but I was certainly faster with zero camber.

The most noticeable feeling is that the zero camber EVO "holds" onto the track and allows the car to continue around a turn maintaining your speed. Not that the car is driving on "rails" but as if the car can hold its speed thru a turn better. So you don't get just that little bit more understeer and have to lift the throttle.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Im gonna give my 2 cents on this, how I drive which is hard & fast (a bit like another hobby of mine ) I'm personally faster with no camber.
I can brake later with a bit more stability & hammer the throttle out the other side with a bit more stability aswell.
I'm between 1-2 seconds faster ( give or take ) on any reasonable length track, ie brands, spa, suzuka etc. But at the same time im not 100% consistent.
Not exactly scientific data but.... hey ho

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Stock = exactly as your 'recommended' tune 👍

I started with 5,5 brakes, but there's so much entry understeer I tried 5,7 in an attempt to reduce this (though it didn't really feel that much better). More AYC does reduce exit understeer though, and if I had more time to test I would have gradually increased this by increments of 10 until (if) I got a better balance.

I was c.2 seconds faster than the real life time with the replica tune, so if I was trying to match the real time with that tune I'd need to run at least 1 less grade of tyre (maybe 2), and probably 2 (maybe 3) less with zero camber.

Sorry, also meant to say... I have both my fastest lap with 0 camber and the replay of the 8 laps I ran at zero camber too, if you want either of them 👍

I also gave a quick run on the evo, and had similar results.

Stock(BB 4/4 and AYC 88)

2.2 - 1.2 - 58.6xx
1.8 - 0.8 - 58.3xx
0.0 - 0.0 - 58.066

I still have to run the complete test and lower levels of camber to see if i have any gain.

@Stotty , if you have the time, can you please try this test online, and see if you find it better with 0.6 or not. Just give a few laps, she is fun to drive.

I just ran 40 laps at Tsukuba with @Ridox2JZGTE 's:tup: EVO:

20 laps "stock" (camber at 2.2/1.2)
20 laps with zero camber
All laps with AYC at 88

Best four laps for each set were as follows:

Stock....Zero Camber

58.460......58.028
58.487......58.083
58.441......57.894
58.311......57.989

The EVO exhibits more under-steer than I would like with both tune settings but its still quite nice to drive.👍

I didn't notice much difference in the car's handling between the two different camber settings (but then I'm not as fast a driver as @Stotty ) but I was certainly faster with zero camber.

The most noticeable feeling is that the zero camber EVO "holds" onto the track and allows the car to continue around a turn maintaining your speed. Not that the car is driving on "rails" but as if the car can hold its speed thru a turn better. So you don't get just that little bit more understeer and have to lift the throttle.

Respectfully,
GTsail

I sort of have expected this result If you read my notes on the replica post - I wanted to use tire between SH and SM when driven in similar pace to the real life lap - SH lack the traction in straight line and SM have too much lateral grip when running 2.2/1.2 camber. If you see the video, my pace and the real lap pace are exactly the same, I chose SM with this in consideration. You can also see on replica post that I listed CS to SM tire, as the car can be enjoyed on these range of tires. I bet HKS won't fit sticky tires all the time, maybe only when on track day session.

When I tested the car on SM, I think I may have run high 57s with warmer tires with higher pace. So a quick driver can use SH tire to hit the same time or beat the time of the real car, but when you compare the run, it won't be similar ( realistic ) due to the pace of driving ( brake earlier, throttle out earlier, different lines or cornering speed ). This is the freedom that virtual driver have, unlike a real driver where the real physics has the last word , disobey and you spun, crashed or off track.

So, I just wanted to say that when I built replica and run a lap, I also replicated the real life pace to be accurate, as in game, a driver can easily push a car much more than a real life driver would. This goes to all car sim, even on PC With the 2.2/1.2 camber and similar pace, SM is the best tire to go as lower tire would be inaccurate. The result are great and valuable, as it shows how GT6 physics needs refinement, especially tire and suspension model.

For your finding on zero camber, looks like PD still needs more work to fix camber, a properly working camber would result in lower average G's and slower lap times with zero camber, although I have been thinking about how a driver in GT6 can drive in pace unlike a real driver could do and still get away with it ( the well known physics in GT Academy ), which can attributes to larger time difference between camber and no camber setup. I'm waiting for @LeoStrop and @Thorin Cain tests, when we see average G's, corner speed and sector times at Tsukuba, tit will provide much clearer understanding of how camber and less camber affects grip. @Stotty : If you can upload the replay on SM tire, maybe it can be included as comparison data for zero camber on @LeoStrop and @Thorin Cain test If they include my lap replay, then we can see broader view of variety driver and pace for closer look.

There are subtle differences when I drove a car with camber back in 1.08 and now at 1.09 ( I'm stuck on 1.09 ) A slight grip increase where I can feel the tires holding, I notice this first on my Advox Supra RZ when I drove it again after I got 1.09 on CM at Tsukuba and Willow Springs. The Supra has higher rear camber (0.3/1.3) which would lead to easy to oversteer back before 1.09 and slightly less on 1.09. Not enough IMO, I would have expected with higher rear camber at 1.3, the Supra would have hold the rear tighter and stronger.

I felt that the dynamic camber and the range of grip ( valley from increase to drop in grip ) might have been too narrow and too close to zero camber. With zero camber, you can see the car will still have dynamic camber - negative when compressed, might be up to -1.0 and +1.0. Which gives good grip, and when static camber increased to -2.2 like my replica, the dynamic camber goes from -3.2 to -1.2 - just my approximation, but you get the idea.

PD might have the calculation wrong, which leads lower camber changes have the most grip, while the higher camber changes IRL that should have given good grip is lower in GT6. An RR car like Porsche IRL when setup with high rear camber on slick or semi slick would still have quite large camber and toe changes when loaded in a corner ( entry, mid and exit ), if PD shifted the grip curve from lower camber to higher camber, we won't be having these kind of tests and heated drama and RUF CTR would be much more realistic to drive and maybe we can feel the bite when running camber.

Also, the prominent understeer on entry / braking might have been largely from the use of ABS 1, as I only drive with ABS 0.

I hope the results are useful. I intentionally left the car setup info out of the post as I do have 7 races left this season. Don't want to give too much away

I can say that under this season's technical Regulations the car is running stock motor (no upgrades, no turbos, Oil Change permitted) Power limiter is at 91.3% so that HP = 330, ft-lb = 342, Base weight is 1150KG with 53/47 balance (507PP). Chassis Reinforcement is installed.

I will be the first to admit that the test is not conclusive, as my laps were not consistent enough. It did however show some trends, which I think would only be more obvious if the laps were more consistent.

I am sure some may be asking"Why 8 laps?" since that seems like a strange number. The truth is, I had planned to do 10 laps per run, but on the first test I spun the car on lap 9.

Don't worry about giving you setup The results are more important IMO, the more tests being done, the better we can make judgment on camber

 

[Stotty]

I sort of have expected this result If you read my notes on the replica post - I wanted to use tire between SH and SM when driven in similar pace to the real life lap - SH lack the traction in straight line and SM have too much lateral grip when running 2.2/1.2 camber. If you see the video, my pace and the real lap pace are exactly the same, I chose SM with this in consideration. You can also see on replica post that I listed CS to SM tire, as the car can be enjoyed on these range of tires. I bet HKS won't fit sticky tires all the time, maybe only when on track day session.

When I tested the car on SM, I think I may have run high 57s with warmer tires with higher pace. So a quick driver can use SH tire to hit the same time or beat the time of the real car, but when you compare the run, it won't be similar ( realistic ) due to the pace of driving ( brake earlier, throttle out earlier, different lines or cornering speed ). This is the freedom that virtual driver have, unlike a real driver where the real physics has the last word , disobey and you spun, crashed or off track.

So, I just wanted to say that when I built replica and run a lap, I also replicated the real life pace to be accurate, as in game, a driver can easily push a car much more than a real life driver would. This goes to all car sim, even on PC With the 2.2/1.2 camber and similar pace, SM is the best tire to go as lower tire would be inaccurate. The result are great and valuable, as it shows how GT6 physics needs refinement, especially tire and suspension model.

For your finding on zero camber, looks like PD still needs more work to fix camber, a properly working camber would result in lower average G's and slower lap times with zero camber, although I have been thinking about how a driver in GT6 can drive in pace unlike a real driver could do and still get away with it ( the well known physics in GT Academy ), which can attributes to larger time difference between camber and no camber setup. I'm waiting for @LeoStrop and @Thorin Cain tests, when we see average G's, corner speed and sector times at Tsukuba, tit will provide much clearer understanding of how camber and less camber affects grip. @Stotty : If you can upload the replay on SM tire, maybe it can be included as comparison data for zero camber on @LeoStrop and @Thorin Cain test If they include my lap replay, then we can see broader view of variety driver and pace for closer look.

There are subtle differences when I drove a car with camber back in 1.08 and now at 1.09 ( I'm stuck on 1.09 ) A slight grip increase where I can feel the tires holding, I notice this first on my Advox Supra RZ when I drove it again after I got 1.09 on CM at Tsukuba and Willow Springs. The Supra has higher rear camber (0.3/1.3) which would lead to easy to oversteer back before 1.09 and slightly less on 1.09. Not enough IMO, I would have expected with higher rear camber at 1.3, the Supra would have hold the rear tighter and stronger.

I felt that the dynamic camber and the range of grip ( valley from increase to drop in grip ) might have been too narrow and too close to zero camber. With zero camber, you can see the car will still have dynamic camber - negative when compressed, might be up to -1.0 and +1.0. Which gives good grip, and when static camber increased to -2.2 like my replica, the dynamic camber goes from -3.2 to -1.2 - just my approximation, but you get the idea.

PD might have the calculation wrong, which leads lower camber changes have the most grip, while the higher camber changes IRL that should have given good grip is lower in GT6. An RR car like Porsche IRL when setup with high rear camber on slick or semi slick would still have quite large camber and toe changes when loaded in a corner ( entry, mid and exit ), if PD shifted the grip curve from lower camber to higher camber, we won't be having these kind of tests and heated drama and RUF CTR would be much more realistic to drive and maybe we can feel the bite when running camber.

Also, the prominent understeer on entry / braking might have been largely from the use of ABS 1, as I only drive with ABS 0.

I know you're tuning with a different objective to most of us, so wouldn't expect your tunes to be optimised for ultimate speed 👍

Plus I'm using a wheel (which is generally faster) and also I ran with ABS 1... I haven't driven with ABS 0 for some time, but I'll give it a go and see what difference it makes (I wouldn't think I'd be as fast without ABS, but not sure just how much time I'll lose).

I'm skeptical when it comes to the static/dynamic camber discussion in regards to GT6 (I'm skeptical of most real life parallels when it comes to the game), and even more skeptical of how this affects other elements, such as toe! I understand the real life aspect, I'm just not convinced GT6 models this and therefore think it's confusing and misleading to use it as an assumption when tuning... better IMO to forget real life and focus on what you feel (and the speed changes) when you make an adjustment.

And it's been shown on many occasions that cars are just faster in GT6 than in real life - you only need to look at the Nurburgring Lap Times Leaderboard (linked in my sig) to see how much faster the game is - A 100% stock McLaren MP4 will run sub 6'50 on SH tyres for example. When I compared @Sutuki MP12 lap to the one run by Horst Von Saurma for Autosport, both cornering speeds and terminal speed on the straights were much higher than real life - so tyre grip is obviously much higher than real life AND the cars are faster than their real life versions, ie; they accelerate faster and reach a higher top speed... most likely because drag isn't modeled properly.

But most cars feel immediately more realistic when you put at least 1 grade less tyre on them (and remove the stupid amounts of toe and camber PD stick on stock). When I want a change from TTing, I take a stock car, fit cust suspension, remove the toe and camber, fit comfort tyres and go have a play at Tsukuba or Suzi East... a 458 or MP12 on comfort mediums or softs is a fantastic thing to drive as you constantly have to manage grip as you would in the real thing

I'll post my 8 lap replay from Tsukuba when I get home tonight - It's a pretty consistent run; a 57.235, followed by a couple of 57.3/4's where I'm pushing a bit harder to feel where the grip is, then 3 57.1's, a 56'9 and finally a 56.8... I haven't used the MoTeC tool yet, so someone else would need to upload it etc.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I know you're tuning with a different objective to most of us, so wouldn't expect your tunes to be optimised for ultimate speed 👍

Plus I'm using a wheel (which is generally faster) and also I ran with ABS 1... I haven't driven with ABS 0 for some time, but I'll give it a go and see what difference it makes (I wouldn't think I'd be as fast without ABS, but not sure just how much time I'll lose).

I'm skeptical when it comes to the static/dynamic camber discussion in regards to GT6 (I'm skeptical of most real life parallels when it comes to the game), and even more skeptical of how this affects other elements, such as toe! I understand the real life aspect, I'm just not convinced GT6 models this and therefore think it's confusing and misleading to use it as an assumption when tuning... better IMO to forget real life and focus on what you feel (and the speed changes) when you make an adjustment.

And it's been shown on many occasions that cars are just faster in GT6 than in real life - you only need to look at the Nurburgring Lap Times Leaderboard (linked in my sig) to see how much faster the game is - A 100% stock McLaren MP4 will run sub 6'50 on SH tyres for example. When I compared @Sutuki MP12 lap to the one run by Horst Von Saurma for Autosport, both cornering speeds and terminal speed on the straights were much higher than real life - so tyre grip is obviously much higher than real life AND the cars are faster than their real life versions, ie; they accelerate faster and reach a higher top speed... most likely because drag isn't modeled properly.

But most cars feel immediately more realistic when you put at least 1 grade less tyre on them (and remove the stupid amounts of toe and camber PD stick on stock). When I want a change from TTing, I take a stock car, fit cust suspension, remove the toe and camber, fit comfort tyres and go have a play at Tsukuba or Suzi East... a 458 or MP12 on comfort mediums or softs is a fantastic thing to drive as you constantly have to manage grip as you would in the real thing

I'll post my 8 lap replay from Tsukuba when I get home tonight - It's a pretty consistent run; a 57.235, followed by a couple of 57.3/4's where I'm pushing a bit harder to feel where the grip is, then 3 57.1's, a 56'9 and finally a 56.8... I haven't used the MoTeC tool yet, so someone else would need to upload it etc.

GT6 calculate toe and camber changes, I got this from one of the prominent GT5/6 expert in getting into the data of the game, he can see the data when running simulation ( in game driving ). This is also the man who made hybrid tool. From the code, he mentioned about Yokohama Tire simulator parameter being used.

UseCar
rideheightMINF
rideheightMAXF
rideheightDFF
rideheightMINR
rideheightMAXR
rideheightDFR
targetFrequencyFMin
targetFrequencyFMax
targetFrequencyFDF
targetFrequencyRMin
targetFrequencyRMax
targetFrequencyRDF
category
camberMINF
camberMAXF
camberDFF
camberMINR
camberMAXR
camberDFR
strokecamberF
strokecamberR
cmbgripFx1
cmbgripFx2
cmbgripFx3
cmbgripFx4
cmbgripFy1
cmbgripFy2
cmbgripFy3
cmbgripFy4
cmbgripRx1
cmbgripRx2
cmbgripRx3
cmbgripRx4
cmbgripRy1
cmbgripRy2
cmbgripRy3
cmbgripRy4
toeMINF
toeMAXF
toeDFF
toeMINR
toeMAXR
toeDFR
brmarginF
brmarginR
brtouchF
brtouchR
limrF
limrR
springratevol
springrateMINF
springrateMAXF
springrateDFF
springrateMINR
springrateMAXR
springrateDFR
leverratioDFF
leverratioDFR
bumprubberF
bumprubberR
bumprubberDMF
bumprubberDMR
dampV1BF
dampV1BR
dampV2BF
dampV2BR
dampV1RF
dampV1RR
dampV2RF
dampV2RR
damplevelBF
dampF1BMINF
dampF1BMAXF
dampF1BDFF
dampF2BMINF
dampF2BMAXF
dampF2BDFF
damplevelRF
dampF1RMINF
dampF1RMAXF
dampF1RDFF
dampF2RMINF
dampF2RMAXF
dampF2RDFF
damplevelBR
dampF1BMINR
dampF1BMAXR
dampF1BDFR
dampF2BMINR
dampF2BMAXR
dampF2BDFR
damplevelRR
dampF1RMINR
dampF1RMAXR
dampF1RDFR
dampF2RMINR
dampF2RMAXR
dampF2RDFR
unsprungmassF
unsprungmassR
stabilizerFlevel
stabilizerMINF
stabilizerMAXF
stabilizerDFF
stabilizerRlevel
stabilizerMINR
stabilizerMAXR
stabilizerDFR
ActiveSuspensionType
springratelevelF
springratelevelR
rideheightlevelF
rideheightlevelR
AutoDampingForce
DampingRatioFBLevel
DampingRatioFBDF
DampingRatioFBMin
DampingRatioFBMax
DampingRatioFRLevel
DampingRatioFRDF
DampingRatioFRMin
DampingRatioFRMax
DampingRatioRBLevel
DampingRatioRBDF
DampingRatioRBMin
DampingRatioRBMax
DampingRatioRRLevel
DampingRatioRRDF
DampingRatioRRMin
DampingRatioRRMax
Caster
targetFrequencyFLv
targetFrequencyRLv

Tire Compound Data :


tirewear
Mu
weightgripx1
weightgripx2
weightgripx3
weightgripx4
weightgripy1
weightgripy2
weightgripy3
weightgripy4
sideforceprecision
sideforcex1
sideforcex2
sideforcex3
sideforcex4
sideforcex5
sideforcex6
sideforcex7
sideforcex8
sideforcey1
sideforcey2
sideforcey3
sideforcey4
sideforcey5
sideforcey6
sideforcey7
sideforcey8
corneringdragx1
corneringdragx2
corneringdragx3
corneringdragx4
corneringdragx5
corneringdragx6
corneringdragy1
corneringdragy2
corneringdragy3
corneringdragy4
corneringdragy5
corneringdragy6
slipmuAx1
slipmuAx2
slipmuAx3
slipmuAx4
slipmuAx5
slipmuAx6
slipmuAy1
slipmuAy2
slipmuAy3
slipmuAy4
slipmuAy5
slipmuAy6
sidemuAx1
sidemuAx2
sidemuAx3
sidemuAx4
sidemuAx5
sidemuAx6
sidemuAy1
sidemuAy2
sidemuAy3
sidemuAy4
sidemuAy5
sidemuAy6
slipmuBx1
slipmuBx2
slipmuBx3
slipmuBx4
slipmuBx5
slipmuBx6
slipmuBy1
slipmuBy2
slipmuBy3
slipmuBy4
slipmuBy5
slipmuBy6
sidemuBx1
sidemuBx2
sidemuBx3
sidemuBx4
sidemuBx5
sidemuBx6
sidemuBy1
sidemuBy2
sidemuBy3
sidemuBy4
sidemuBy5
sidemuBy6
lslide
cslide
sideforce
sildedir
sslideAx1
sslideAx2
sslideAx3
sslideAx4
sslideAx5
sslideAx6
sslideAx7
sslideAx8
sslideAy1
sslideAy2
sslideAy3
sslideAy4
sslideAy5
sslideAy6
sslideAy7
sslideAy8
sslideBx1
sslideBx2
sslideBx3
sslideBx4
sslideBx5
sslideBx6
sslideBx7
sslideBx8
sslideBy1
sslideBy2
sslideBy3
sslideBy4
sslideBy5
sslideBy6
sslideBy7
sslideBy8
FrictionOvalSide
FrictionOvalDir

If dynamic camber/toe/suspension changes not calculated in physics engine, we would drive soap boxes, sort of arcade racer like Sega Rally or Ridge Racer and those data parameter would be a waste.

Faster in a simulator is old news for me In order to be close to real life lap, at least we must make sure the car replicating the actual car stats and setup, then we have to drive in similar pace It's very easy in a game / sim to drive at much higher pace, push harder because of no risk and more forgiving physics.

One of my old replica - Subaru Impreza STI Spec C GRB at Tsukuba - need to post this, I had to use actual car weight when driven at over 1500kg (1 kg lighter at max ballast ) with weight distribution at over 58% front, reduce power to actual car HP at 304, but torque is higher in GT6 by about 2 kgfm ( can't fix ), OEM alignment with some camber, corrected LSD ( front helical / rear clutch LSD ) and corrected spring rate. Then I have to drive like I would with clutch, I had to lift throttle on upshift, then blip on downshift with my stick I am still about 4kmh faster on the back straight and about 1 tenth quicker on comfort tire. I ran with similar pace to the real video, with the unique 3rd gear on 1st hairpin entry to exit ( don't know why Tsuchiya-san did it ).

The Subaru STI Spec C GRB is another car that is a mess in GT6 , only the gear ratio is correct ( with some minor 0.001 differences ). Even the engine peak HP and torque RPM are off by 100rpm.

This is very close for a console game. So, in short we have to make an effort, as all cars in GT6 are inaccurate This is off topic, I had to stop.

 

[Stotty]

GT6 calculate toe and camber changes, I got this from one of the prominent GT5/6 expert in getting into the data of the game, he can see the data when running simulation ( in game driving ). This is also the man who made hybrid tool. From the code, he mentioned about Yokohama Tire simulator parameter being used.

If dynamic camber/toe/suspension changes not calculated in physics engine, we would drive soap boxes, sort of arcade racer like Sega Rally or Ridge Racer and those data parameter would be a waste.

That's interesting and might explain why zero camber is quicker... if the physics engine is modelling too much camber gain between static and dynamic.

Faster in a simulator is old news for me In order to be close to real life lap, at least we must make sure the car replicating the actual car stats and setup, then we have to drive in similar pace It's very easy in a game / sim to drive at much higher pace, push harder because of no risk and more forgiving physics.

This is very close for a console game. So, in short we have to make an effort, as all cars in GT6 are inaccurate This is off topic, I had to stop.

I can't agree with the point of 'driving to a similar pace to real life'.

For me, the important thing when playing the game is driving the car 'feels' like driving in real life. For example, if I was to try and match my Evo lap to the real one I would have to lose c.2s of lap time, and 2s slower for me would mean it would feel like I wasn't pushing the car at all and I was simply cruising round... which I'm sure isn't how it felt to the guy who set the original time.

In this car, on this track, I don't think there's anywhere near the 'bravery' difference (c.f. real life) of driving a high powered car on lower grip tyres on a track with BIG commitment corners (somewhere like the 'Ring)... Tsukuba is a low speed track, with no fast corners, so there's relatively small risk in real life of a BIG off.

For me to match the 'feeling', I'd need to use tyres with less grip, which would force me to brake earlier, and be more circumspect on the throttle on exits... I'm not even sure if CS tyres would give me a similar lap time as 2s is an lot to lose!

Maybe this is becoming a bit of physics discussion, but not OT IMO as camber is (or should be) a major part of the physics... unfortunately it's a major part in the wrong way

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

That's interesting and might explain why zero camber is quicker... if the physics engine is modelling too much camber gain between static and dynamic.



I can't agree with the point of 'driving to a similar pace to real life'.

For me, the important thing when playing the game is driving the car 'feels' like driving in real life. For example, if I was to try and match my Evo lap to the real one I would have to lose c.2s of lap time, and 2s slower for me would mean it would feel like I wasn't pushing the car at all and I was simply cruising round... which I'm sure isn't how it felt to the guy who set the original time.

In this car, on this track, I don't think there's anywhere near the 'bravery' difference (c.f. real life) of driving a high powered car on lower grip tyres on a track with BIG commitment corners (somewhere like the 'Ring)... Tsukuba is a low speed track, with no fast corners, so there's relatively small risk in real life of a BIG off.

For me to match the 'feeling', I'd need to use tyres with less grip, which would force me to brake earlier, and be more circumspect on the throttle on exits... I'm not even sure if CS tyres would give me a similar lap time as 2s is an lot to lose!

Maybe this is becoming a bit of physics discussion, but not OT IMO as camber is (or should be) a major part of the physics... unfortunately it's a major part in the wrong way

So, with the same camber, you will need CS to match the real lap on the HKS evo X Will the lap be similar to the real lap video ? Shift points, braking, exit throttle, speed ?

It will be amazing if there can be 2 lap in GT6 with SM and CS yielding same lap time and they look identical