Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[GTP_CargoRatt]

reading @trustjab 's post, it sounds like in his case, it worked

This seasonal event sure seems like a great test bed for everyone in this thread.



It isn't linear. In the case of my vette, removing camber created less grip.

I found that the optimal camber angle correlated to weight and weight distribution. So, a heavier car gained from a tenth or two more camber, and the heavy end benefited from more camber than the light end.[/QUOTE]



Disregard.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

reading @trustjab 's post, it sounds like in his case, it worked

This seasonal event sure seems like a great test bed for everyone in this thread.



It isn't linear. In the case of my vette, removing camber created less grip.

I found that the optimal camber angle correlated to weight and weight distribution. So, a heavier car gained from a tenth or two more camber, and the heavy end benefited from more camber than the light end.

Spot on, that is exactly how I tune with camber also. My current tune for this Seasonal uses a setting of 0.6/0.3. The car has a 50/50 weight balance but I have a softer front spring and damper setting which benefits from the greater camber setting in the front. I have about 60 tunes cars in my garage and they all follow that same tuning theory. [/

 

[trustjab]

Sounds like you've got quite a garage full of camber working tunes. We look forward to seeing some of them.
We look forward to seeing this tune.

Ok, Ill put it up in a couple minutes.

Edit- heres the tune, needs a bit better throttle control, you have to correct a bit much for me. I added +1" wheels, not sure if that makes any difference...

600pp Honda NSX R LM road car
689hp (engine and turbo stage 3 @79.7%) 1237kg (weight reduction stage 3 +94kg @-32% 47:53 distribution) and racing brakes (no rigidity improvement, no oil change).

Ride height; 55/68
Spring rate; 9.52/6.61
Dampers comp; 3/6
Dampers ext; 5/7
Roll bars; 3/5
Camber angle; 0.0/1.0
Toe angle; 0.00/0.00
Brake balance; 7/5

LSD; 6/10/25

DOWNFORCE; 330/560

I have a lot of room for improvement on the tune. But I just know I added 1.0 to rear camber and it tightened up the rear of the car. I dont want to say it took away grip, because it was even more loose before, but the car still wants to drift on the left turn after the bridge.

 

[GTsail]

Since we just got a new Seasonal Time Trial at Tsukuba I thought that I would try some camber testing runs there.

I have four GT6 games in various states of completion, so I can run four different camber settings between them and see how they stack up.

Now since I don't want to displace any high ranked drivers, I decided that I will run a slow car at Tsukuba that won't displace too many drivers no matter how fast I might get.

So I have looked thru my garage and decided that the Infiniti Coupe Concept '06 might fit the bill.

After purchasing a bunch of parts for the Infiniti Coupe Concept and after giving it a quick tune, I set off to Tsukuba and ran four laps. My best lap so far is a 57.065 which ranks me at 28248th place on the Leaderboard with a nice Silver trophy. This lap was run with the camber at 1.5/1.5

So I think that the Coupe Concept will work for my test, so I now need to buy three more in my other games!!

My initial results:
-----------------------
Camber........ Lap time

0.0/0.0......... 57.042
0.5/0.5......... 57.037
1.0/1.0......... 57.049
1.5/1.5......... 57.065

So far, I've run the most laps with the camber at 1.5/1.5 and I seem to have pretty much hit the wall with my current tune with the camber at that setting. The Infiniti Coupe wants to slide its front tires when I want to accelerate out of the tight corners, and this is especially noticeable with the camber setting at 1.5/1.5.

See you at Tsukuba!
GTsail

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok, Ill put it up in a couple minutes.

Edit- heres the tune, needs a bit better throttle control, you have to correct a bit much for me. I added +1" wheels, not sure if that makes any difference...

600pp
689hp (engine and turbo stage 3 @79.7%) 1237kg (weight reduction stage 3 +94kg @-32% 47:53 distribution) and racing brakes (no rigidity improvement, no oil change).

Ride height; 55/68
Spring rate; 9.52/6.61
Dampers comp; 3/6
Dampers ext; 5/7
Roll bars; 3/5
Camber angle; 0.0/1.0
Toe angle; 0.00/0.00
Brake balance; 7/5

LSD; 6/10/25

DOWNFORCE; 330/560

I have a lot of room for improvement on the tune. But I just know I added 1.0 to rear camber and it tightened up the rear of the car. I dont want to say it took away grip, because it was even more loose before, but the car still wants to drift on the left turn after the bridge.

Is this a generic tune or did you have a specific car in mind?

 

[trustjab]

Is this a generic tune or did you have a specific car in mind?

I thought I said in my previous post I used the nsx-r lm road car? Shoulda clarified, sorry. My bro is down to a 52.866 with the same car but he changed a few things. He used 0.5 camber f/r. With 0/0 his tune was 53.299. I can post that tune...?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I thought I said in my previous post I used the nsx-r lm road car? Shoulda clarified, sorry. My bro is down to a 52.866 with the same car but he changed a few things. He used 0.5 camber f/r. With 0/0 his tune was 53.299. I can post that tune...?

Post whatever you like. If you include the car and all relevant parameters in a single post it's more likely to get tested by someone.

 

[Thorin Cain]

Hey @Ridox2JZGTE. Here are the fastest lap times from my little Tsukuba trip I encountered another issue with MOTEC, some of the times were missing from the middle of my runs. everything was ok then apparently I did a 15.2 second lap which threw out all the eclectic time section, then back to normal after that ( It said my eclectic time was 3.xxx seconds slower than my rolling minimum of 53.429 seconds ). So fastest laps will have to do.

I ran the tests from 2.2/1.2 all the way down to 0.0/0.0 as you asked and did it again from 0.0/0.0 up to 2.2/1.2. I figured that way I would have been warmed up and the results wouldn't depend so much on me having more track time as I went through the sets, I took the fastest of each set between the two run-throughs.

All setting on the car remain exactly as published. Aids used: only ABS=1, CSS=2 and I decided to go with BB at 4/4 after trying the SM tyres.

Track:Tsukuba

Car: HKS CZ20S Replica. (Based on Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X GSR P.P '07)

Camber @ 0.0/0.0 = 57.577s

Camber @ 1.0/0.0 = 57.528s

Camber @ 1.2/0.2 = 57.826s

Camber @ 1.4/0.4 = 57.733s

Camber @ 1.6/0/6 = 57.897s

Camber @ 1.8/0.8 = 58.082s

Camber @ 2.0/1.0 = 58.035s

Camber @ 2.2/1.2 = 58.126s

I will get Motec loaded up and get the Maximum G loads and corrected speed data posted as soon as time permits.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Tsukuba Seasonal - 52.692 with the ZZII.

I used what my wizard spit out at first and was in the high 53's (camber was 0.4/0.4 btw). Tweaked the transmission around and got it down to the low 53's, but my friends list had a pair of 52.9's at the top. I just couldn't get there.

So...what's a guy to do? I kept adding front camber a tenth at a time. I ended with 1.0 camber on the front and bumped the rear to 0.5.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Hey @Ridox2JZGTE. Here are the fastest lap times from my little Tsukuba trip I encountered another issue with MOTEC, some of the times were missing from the middle of my runs. everything was ok then apparently I did a 15.2 second lap which threw out all the eclectic time section, then back to normal after that ( It said my eclectic time was 3.xxx seconds slower than my rolling minimum of 53.429 seconds ). So fastest laps will have to do.

I ran the tests from 2.2/1.2 all the way down to 0.0/0.0 as you asked and did it again from 0.0/0.0 up to 2.2/1.2. I figured that way I would have been warmed up and the results wouldn't depend so much on me having more track time as I went through the sets, I took the fastest of each set between the two run-throughs.

All setting on the car remain exactly as published. Aids used: only ABS=1, CSS=2 and I decided to go with BB at 4/4 after trying the SM tyres.

Track:Tsukuba

Car: HKS CZ20S Replica. (Based on Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X GSR P.P '07)

Camber @ 0.0/0.0 = 57.577s

Camber @ 1.0/0.0 = 57.528s

Camber @ 1.2/0.2 = 57.826s

Camber @ 1.4/0.4 = 57.733s

Camber @ 1.6/0/6 = 57.897s

Camber @ 1.8/0.8 = 58.082s

Camber @ 2.0/1.0 = 58.035s

Camber @ 2.2/1.2 = 58.126s

I will get Motec loaded up and get the Maximum G loads and corrected speed data posted as soon as time permits.

Thank you for the thorough camber values being tested It seems 1.0/0.0 yield the best time, but that's very close to zero camber. Looking forward to see the Motec data

 

[MrGrado]

Camber is working. As for being fixed.... that implies it was broken. It could give an advantage in performance/lap speed right from the start, so it was never broken, it's just that now there is overwhelming evidence that it works. I could link the thread but it seems to be... completely erased...

 

[Stotty]

I ran another 4 hours of testing with the @Ridox2JZGTE EVO at Tsukuba across Tuesday and Wednesday evenings (over of 200 laps, testing camber from 0 to 1.0 in 0.2 increments). I was going to post the full results, but clearly there are 2 entrenched camps here, and as neither is going to change their opinion, there seems little point.

So rather than post more data, I’ll post some interpretation of what I see from my own testing and from looking at the piles of data here and in the camber experiment thread.

As I’ve said previously, I believe from my testing that adding camber can make a car easier to drive as it makes grip loss more progressive. But from everything I have experienced, it doesn’t increase the ultimate lateral grip limit at all…

The best way I can explain it is this;

In simplified terms, the physic engine models lateral grip in 3 phases..

1. Full grip
2. Transition between grip and slip
3. Slip

The difference between zero camber and increasing amounts of camber is the transition phase becomes increasingly progressive as you add camber… so the car slides more progressively and slowly with camber. But the point at which usable grip disappears is never any higher than with no camber… in fact the more camber you add, the earlier the transition phase starts and the lower the ultimate grip limit becomes.

So some people will/might get better lap times from using camber because the car becomes easier to drive at the limit and suits their ‘style’ or ‘ability’.

But from an ultimate performance perspective, this gain is offset by a proportional reduction in braking performance and exit traction... the more camber you use, the longer braking zones becomes and the less traction you have on the exits.

I’ve had this experience myself on pretty much every test I’ve run – run with zero camber to set a base time, add camber, start to drive the car, think ‘it feels better’, but then not be able to beat my 0 camber ghost despite huge effort – and I’m not so proud that I wouldn’t take even a tiny (LEGAL!) performance advantage for TT’ing if I could!

I would expect that if we tracked 'driving ability' against the amount of camber that person benefits from, we would see a close correlation… the less skilled a driver (be that due to pure ability or simply control method), the less grip or stability a car has, the more camber they would ‘like’ or benefit from, and vice versa.

You can begin to see this in the dramatic variances across the testing results – even amongst the ‘camber works’ side, there are significant differences in what level of camber delivers the best results. People talk about a ‘sweet spot’… but everyone’s sweet spot is different

In my opinion, reality remains the least camber you can use and still find the limit consistently, the faster you will be. Yes, the car will be harder to drive on entry and mid-corner, but the reward will be better braking and better exit traction.

And before people start seeing this as a criticism of their ability and get hurt/defensive, this isn’t really any different to how most settings work; take the LSD for example…

Higher LSD accel settings give a faster exit, but only if you have the least possible amount of steering lock applied, and your throttle control is good enough to find the absolute traction limit. Absolute grip doesn’t increase as you decrease LSD accel, but it feels like it does as the car becomes easier to drive as it has less oversteer. However, if you’re at the apex with no understeer (and therefore minimal steering lock), you can get on the throttle earlier/harder, use a higher LSD accel and be faster as a result.

For LSD Decel: As you increase LSD decel you make the car more stable and easier to drive, but this reduces rotation and you’ll be slower as a consequence. The more rotation you can manage, the lower you can set this and the faster you will be.

We can argue about camber all day long, but no one argues (at least I hope they don’t!!) that the lowest LSD decel manageable will result in the fastest lap times

So IMO, neither side is right or wrong as such, just down to what you need/like.

 

[rams1de]

So IMO, neither side is right or wrong as such, just down to what you need/like.

Indeed. Much like toe, the super fast rarely use it but mortals find it very useful for gaining better lap times.

If the calibration of the GUI for camber was altered so that 1 degree in the algorithm equated to something like 2.5 on the slider, I doubt there'd be a need for this discussion.

Mind you, I'm not sure I agree about the correlation between the need to use camber and driver ability. Not that I'm butt hurt about my level of mediocrity just I can generally drive faster without it.

Out of interest, would you set up without camber if entering a two hour enduro?

 

[OdeFinn]

There is a car with camber 0.7/2.3 toe 0.00/+0.02, and all numbers are really meaningful, there is practically zero values what you can alter without breaking suspension frequency.

And yes it grips like a hell even with really high rear camber.

...soon funny RUF yellow Bird..
It goes constant laps on Nordschleife under 7.30 on sports hard and without ABS on default gearbox and power.. its tuned on SH, but behaves well on sports and comfort compounds, racing hard and medium are handled too.. tuned also up 550pp..

View attachment 287006

RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
534pp & 550pp​

Suspension (Full Custom)
Ride Height (mm): 108 / 108
Spring Rate (kgf/mm): 6.34 / 8.91
Dampers (Compression): 7 / 7
Dampers (Extension): 7 / 6
Anti-Roll Bars: 5 / 5
Camber Angle (-): 0.7 / 2.3
Toe Angle: 0.00 / +0.02
Brake Balance Controller
Racing Brakes
Brake Balance: 1 / 1

Gearbox (Stock)

Drivetrain
Initial Torque: 11
Acceleration Sensitivity: 32
Braking Sensitivity: 12
Twin-Plate Clutch

Power for xxxBHP/---Nm/534pp (xxxBHP/---Nm/550pp)
(STOCK)
Limiter - 100% (100%)
Turbo - Normal (Low)

Body weight 1150kg
Weight Reduction - Stage 0 (1)
Ballast weight - 0kg (36kg)
Ballast position - 0 (+9)


So easy to go fast, at sometimes it's just hard to remember what car you're driving, and then you just realize it. But you are lucky and car is tuned in a way what will save you.

Remember to fix your car body, and if you smash it you'll need to do it again.

 

[Stotty]

Out of interest, would you set up without camber if entering a two hour enduro?

Can't say for sure as I don't do those sort of races. But I would expect to need a much more stable tune for racing, and an even more stable tune if I needed to run longer stints with tyre wear.

Unlikely I'd use camber, and I also avoid using toe if at all possible. If I was setting a car up for racing I'd run a tune with less ride height differential (to reduce the risk of over-rotation), less rear brake bias (to reduce the effect of brake release oversteer) and less LSD accel (to reduce the risk of exit oversteer).

 

[Imari]

Camber is working.

When you say working, do you mean that it has an effect, or do you mean that it does what real camber does?

So some people will/might get better lap times from using camber because the car becomes easier to drive at the limit and suits their ‘style’ or ‘ability’.

This is also my current working model for camber, based on my own testing and what information we have of other people's testing.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, as soon as someone finds a test that doesn't vary massively from driver to driver.

If the calibration of the GUI for camber was altered so that 1 degree in the algorithm equated to something like 2.5 on the slider, I doubt there'd be a need for this discussion.

No, you'd probably still have people finding very low and no camber just as fast, but you'd have the people who like camber being happier because their numbers would tend to be more in line with a realistic number.

And the slider would still have to go down to zero. We don't know what happens when it goes into positive camber, or even if the model that PD is using is capable of that.

Out of interest, would you set up without camber if entering a two hour enduro?

What differences do you see running long stints with and without camber? Maybe someone else can verify.

 

[GTsail]

****
But from an performance perspective, this gain is offset by a proportional reduction in braking performance and exit traction... the more camber you use, the longer braking zones becomes and the less traction you have on the exits.

^^^^^^This is exactly what I'm seeing/feeling when I have the camber at 1.5/1.5 with my most recent test with the Infiniti Coupe. The Infiniti feels fine to drive, but I'm getting slightly longer braking zones and a little less traction thru the tight corners at Tsukuba, so I can't seem to match the speed of my own ghosts (that have less camber) thru the turns.

I haven't driven my 1.0/1.0 camber Infiniti enough yet, so I'm not sure if I can feel or will see this effect at this camber setting as well. So its back to Tsukuba for me!

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here's a different approach. Both of you are adamant beyond doubt that camber works. @Voodoovaj is absolutely convinced camber works but only 1.0 and down shows a gain in grip, what he refers to as the "already determined limit"

@OdeFinn is also absolutely convinced the camber works and so he's posted a tune with 2.3 rear camber and he's absolutely convinced that he's right and it's the best possible tune for that car.

You can't both be right. Why don't the two of you who seem to be on the same side but actually completely disagree with each other, get together and work out this contradiction? Either @OdeFinn convinces @Voodoovaj that more than 1.0 camber does work well and @Voodoovaj can withdraw his statement about the agreed upon limit, or @Voodoovaj can convince @OdeFinn that the YB works better under 1.0, in which case @OdeFinn can tell us that his conclusions about the Yellowbird tune were all placebo and he was wrong all along.

Yes really. Most of the "evidence" in this thread is gained by using amounts over the already determined limit. So, any thing from 1.0 and down has shown gains in grip. Small gains can be had by small adjustments. For instance, adjust from 0.2 to 0.3. or vice versa. Now, in real life, you can add some camber (technically, remove camber) and you will see gains in grip. Also, as in real life, in a straight line there is less tire contact patch so you get a little less braking and little less acceleration. This reduced contact patch COULD provide less wear, but if you are spinning the tires on exit or locking them on entry, that wear gain is negated.

Also, as stated, camber is independent front and rear and must be treated as such. Just because 0.1 increments show gains, that doesn't mean that 0.1/0.1 will show double the gains. My FF cars for instance, especially the very front heavy ones, rarely see gains by rear camber settings above 0.2.

So, in that case, having a 0.5 on the rear will most likely cause a reduction in lap time. It might also cause on increase in rear tire wear if they start to slide around.

Everyone wants to see camber work like a light switch (X camber=X grip=X laptime=X tire wear for every car, in all cases) but that's not going to happen, nor should it.

From car to car, track to track, tire temperature, tire wear, and time of day, different settings will show gains or losses...just like reality. There is no magic bullet.

I had more...but these walls of text are just getting out of hand.




UPDATE - CASE IN POINT - 600PP Tsukuba Seasonal.

I used my (FLAT FLOORED) z06 for this challenge. I am currently at 54.524. I NORMALLY run the car with a 0.6/0.5 camber setup. However, in this case, I reduced my rear camber value to 0.4. This allowed me to turn more (by virtue of less resistance to turning from the rear). This has come at the cost of exit stability. On a 0.5 rear camber I can be more aggressive on the throttle. On a 0.4, I get wheel spin unless I am more careful.

So, here is a case where I reduced the camber value (notice that I am approaching 0), I LOST rear grip, but gained agility. So, if 0/0 were ALWAYS the "best", why did I lose grip as I approached 0?

As I said, no magic bullet.

There is a car with camber 0.7/2.3 toe 0.00/+0.02, and all numbers are really meaningful, there is practically zero values what you can alter without breaking suspension frequency.

And yes it grips like a hell even with really high rear camber.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Interesting I ran my YB at Grand Valley Speedway arcade pro race quite a while ago, on CM tire and stock power ( replica ), high lock LSD, and with 1.5/2.5 camber and -0.10/0.05 toe, it was a tactical race that demands full concentration, pass each car one by one with Enzo, Saleen S7 and Nissan GTR Black Ed at the front pack on sports tires. One of the hardest aspect was to maintain tire heat level at reasonable level. Each mistake or pushing too hard will severely hit the grip on the tire although it was offline race with no tire wear. Then I moved on to Bathurst race, the usual recipe, rain 100% weather, 30-40% water on track, CM, easier drive IMO, the rain soaked road was more forgiving to the rear tires. The YB still grip better than in 1.08 or older, although not much improved except for the slip progression.

 

[Aussie_HSV]

Here's a different approach. Both of you are adamant beyond doubt that camber works. @Voodoovaj is absolutely convinced camber works but only 1.0 and down shows a gain in grip, what he refers to as the "already determined limit"

@OdeFinn is also absolutely convinced the camber works and so he's posted a tune with 2.3 rear camber and he's absolutely convinced that he's right and it's the best possible tune for that car.

You can't both be right. Why don't the two of you who seem to be on the same side but actually completely disagree with each other, get together and work out this contradiction? Either @OdeFinn convinces @Voodoovaj that more than 1.0 camber does work well and @Voodoovaj can withdraw his statement about the agreed upon limit, or @Voodoovaj can convince @OdeFinn that the YB works better under 1.0, in which case @OdeFinn can tell us that his conclusions about the Yellowbird tune were all placebo and he was wrong all along.

Here's a different approach.
How about you stop trying to convince people who find lap time advantage by using camber that they are wrong.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Here's a different approach. Both of you are adamant beyond doubt that camber works. @Voodoovaj is absolutely convinced camber works but only 1.0 and down shows a gain in grip, what he refers to as the "already determined limit"

@OdeFinn is also absolutely convinced the camber works and so he's posted a tune with 2.3 rear camber and he's absolutely convinced that he's right and it's the best possible tune for that car.

You can't both be right. Why don't the two of you who seem to be on the same side but actually completely disagree with each other, get together and work out this contradiction? Either @OdeFinn convinces @Voodoovaj that more than 1.0 camber does work well and @Voodoovaj can withdraw his statement about the agreed upon limit, or @Voodoovaj can convince @OdeFinn that the YB works better under 1.0, in which case @OdeFinn can tell us that his conclusions about the Yellowbird tune were all placebo and he was wrong all along.

Actually, I completely agree with @OdeFinn. When I say the limit is 1.0, this is the limit for those searching specifically for grip. I am not saying that anything over 1.0 is pointless, just that adding values over 1.0 to both ends of the car at the same time will not gain you grip and/or lap time.

However, in the case stated here, @OdeFinn has less than 1.0 on the front, so this SHOULD be giving more grip and front end response in almost all conditions. He has 2.3 on the rear which (and I am just guessing from what I know, because I haven't driven it) gives more grip at very high loads and provides rotation without being too tight on low speed corners.

The Yellow Bird is also a rear heavy car, so a low front camber/high rear camber makes sense as well.

As Robert Duvall said in Days of Thunder, "Loose is fast"

My position in this debate is that "fixed" is being equated to a linear increase in grip, but that isn't how camber is supposed to work. Various camber values provide alteration of grip under different conditions. For those who are simply looking for an increase in grip compared to 0/0, keeping it under 1.0 will achieve that. Going over 1.0 MAY achieve gains (either grip or lap time), but those gains will be more focused on specific conditions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here's a different approach.
How about you stop trying to convince people who find lap time advantage by using camber that they are wrong.

I have a better idea. Why don't you explain the apparent contradiction you quoted above with some facts or testing instead of your feelings? Or help Voodoo and Ode work out the contradiction? Or would you rather continue trolling and flamebaiting?

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Here's a different approach.
How about you stop trying to convince people who find lap time advantage by using camber that they are wrong.

That's what I'm saying. 👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

Actually, I completely agree with @OdeFinn. When I say the limit is 1.0, this is the limit for those searching specifically for grip. I am not saying that anything over 1.0 is pointless, just that adding values over 1.0 to both ends of the car at the same time will not gain you grip and/or lap time.

However, in the case stated here, @OdeFinn has less than 1.0 on the front, so this SHOULD be giving more grip and front end response in almost all conditions. He has 2.3 on the rear which (and I am just guessing from what I know, because I haven't driven it) gives more grip at very high loads and provides rotation without being too tight on low speed corners.

The Yellow Bird is also a rear heavy car, so a low front camber/high rear camber makes sense as well.

As Robert Duvall said in Days of Thunder, "Loose is fast"

My position in this debate is that "fixed" is being equated to a linear increase in grip, but that isn't how camber is supposed to work. Various camber values provide alteration of grip under different conditions. For those who are simply looking for an increase in grip compared to 0/0, keeping it under 1.0 will achieve that. Going over 1.0 MAY achieve gains (either grip or lap time), but those gains will be more focused on specific conditions.

So if I understand this correctly, you're saying you didn't really mean it when you said that 1.0 was the known limit of effective camber and that numbers as high as 2.3 or perhaps higher can also be effective? You seemed awfully certain earlier that 1.0 was the limit so I'd just like to be clear on the subject.

I think you, Cargo, Ode, HSV and others should put your heads together and come up with 2 or 3 definitive camber tunes, tunes that you believe provide definitive decreases in laptimes vs. Zero camber. My suggestion would be a middle of the road car, 450-500 PP, FR, the type of car most common in the game. One or two tunes to rule them all, that everyone can test rather than the shotgun approach.

 

[trustjab]

Why does it matter where the 'limit' is at? If any camber makes people faster, then by definition camber works. There seems to be a barrier for different cars and drivers. I think .5-1.0 is the most I would go. But for other cars, other drivers, maybe its 2.0 or greater. Personally I think its best to experiment for yourself individually. How a car feels or how fast it is can be two different things. So do the testing and decide how YOU feel camber affects the car. No one person or even a majority should be the authority on the matter. Thats up to you- the driver.

 

[Voodoovaj]

So if I understand this correctly, you're saying you didn't really mean it when you said that 1.0 was the known limit of effective camber and that numbers as high as 2.3 or perhaps higher can also be effective? You seemed awfully certain earlier that 1.0 was the limit so I'd just like to be clear on the subject.

And there is the issue with this debate. The limits of effective camber vs. the limits of grip. I, at no point said that camber is completely ineffective above 1.0. I said, you will not find grip above 1.0 as it is defined by the game, so lateral and longitudinal grip. If someone is looking for more grip as the game uses the term, then it will most likely be between 0 and 1.0. Something very heavy might find it above the 1.0 mark, but likely not far.

Above 1.0 you could find increase lateral grip, but at the cost of longitudinal grip. Above 1.0, you might find more top speed. Above 1.0, you might find a car that is more suited to your particular style. Above 1.0, you might find more turn in. Actually, you might even find more grip above 1.0 depending on the track, corner angle, weight of the car, and which end you chose to venture above that limit.

Now, the limit of effective camber, well...what would you term effective? Could a particular car set faster lap times with more consistency employing a high camber angle (above 1.0)? Absolutely. In fact, adding grip may hinder a lap time, so in that case would you say camber is effective? I would. It obviously has an effect, so by definition, it would be effective.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

I've been watching this camber debate ever since it started. I've tested myself with a few cars I have tuned and regularly race with, from no camber, to miniscule to large amounts. I agree with Stotty's post earlier, for me, my best lap times always come from zero camber, I just find there to be more grip, particularly as mentioned, on corner exit.

This is probably down to my personal driving style, as corner exit speed is everything for me. I'm just not convinced adding camber adds grip or improves laptimes unfotunately, even though in reality it should.

 

[GTsail]

If camber increases lateral grip and decreases longitudinal grip (even if within a limited range of say 0.0 to 1.5)(why this range? Who knows, its just what PD decided to give to us), shouldn't we be able to test the lateral grip component?

What about using the skidpad on the Streets of Willow?

Couldn't we run a car with a variety of of camber settings and see what speed can be achieved around the skidpad?

And if we saw the following table, wouldn't this be evidence of camber affecting lateral grip?

Camber......Speed

0.0/0.0.......50mph
0.4/.04.......51mph
0.8/.08.......52mph
1.2/1.2.......53mph
1.6/1.6.......53mph
2.0/2.0.......52mph
2.4/2.4.......51mph
2.8/2.8.......50mph

If we saw the above results wouldn't this would mean that camber increases lateral grip up to some PD determined point, and then the additional camber negatively affects lateral grip?

Perhaps one circumference of the skidpad wouldn't be conclusive, so instead, perhaps it would be better to run 10 skidpad laps and record the 10 lap time to try to eliminate minor variances.

Camber......10 lap time

0.0/0.0.......3:20.xxx
0.4/.04.......3:15.xxx
0.8/.08.......3:10.xxx
1.2/1.2.......3:05.xxx
1.6/1.6.......3:05.xxx
2.0/2.0.......3:10.xxx
2.4/2.4.......3:15.xxx
2.8/2.8.......3:20.xxx

Has anyone tried something like this?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Johnnypenso]

If camber increases lateral grip and decreases longitudinal grip (even if within a limited range of say 0.0 to 1.5)(why this range? Who knows, its just what PD decided to give to us), shouldn't we be able to test the lateral grip component?

What about using the skidpad on the Streets of Willow?

Couldn't we run a car with a variety of of camber settings and see what speed can be achieved around the skidpad?

And if we saw the following table, wouldn't this be evidence of camber affecting lateral grip?

Camber......Speed

0.0/0.0.......50mph
0.4/.04.......51mph
0.8/.08.......52mph
1.2/1.2.......53mph
1.6/1.6.......53mph
2.0/2.0.......52mph
2.4/2.4.......51mph
2.8/2.8.......50mph

If we saw the above results wouldn't this would mean that camber increases lateral grip up to some PD determined point, and then the additional camber negatively affects lateral grip?

Perhaps one circumference of the skidpad wouldn't be conclusive, so instead, perhaps it would be better to run 10 skidpad laps and record the 10 lap time to try to eliminate minor variances.

Camber......10 lap time

0.0/0.0.......3:20.xxx
0.4/.04.......3:15.xxx
0.8/.08.......3:10.xxx
1.2/1.2.......3:05.xxx
1.6/1.6.......3:05.xxx
2.0/2.0.......3:10.xxx
2.4/2.4.......3:15.xxx
2.8/2.8.......3:20.xxx

Has anyone tried something like this?

Respectfully,
GTsail

That would be what you would expect yes, but if camber is working properly, that is, as it does in real life, it will not only increase cornering speed, it will also decrease lap times in a significant way along with helping to reduce tire wear and provide more even heating in the carcass (which as far as we know is irrelevant in GT). In real life there is a tradeoff between lateral grip (cornering) and longitudinal grip (acceleration and braking). Starting from zero camber, laptimes should benefit from adding camber in almost all situations in real life, until a balance is reached where either there is no more increase in lateral g's due to excessive camber, or the increase in lateral g's is offset by a loss in longitudinal grip and produces higher lap times.

You can see from the minimum cornering speeds in comparable tests that some cambered tunes indeed produce faster minimum cornering speeds, but lower terminal speeds and either equal or slightly higher lap times. So camber does work to a small degree in terms of lateral acceleration, but it seems to me this increase is either completely or more than completely offset by not being able to get on the throttle soon enough or rotate the car into position to be able to do so, otherwise it would clearly produce lower lap times.

Take this test for example. The tune was provided as a good working tune for camber. Lap times with and without camber are virtually identical for this purpose. But let's look at the minimum cornering speeds.

With Camber:

Without Camber:

This is just one test but other tests show similar results. Clearly camber produces higher minimum cornering speeds, but in this case, the identical lap times. To achieve this, one must be on the throttle earlier without camber, which results in a higher average speed on the following straight. This inference is confirmed by the data, as the terminal speeds without camber are higher than without camber.

In GT5/6 it's known, at least by aliens and a few others that pay attention, minimum cornering speed is far less important than exit speed and how early you can get on the throttle and hold it, the latter IMO being far more important. I know this, I have known it for 4 years, but I don't have the skill to exploit it as well as someone of the skill level of @Stotty or @Sutuki or @super_gt and many, many others. They are far better at taking a car to the limit than I am and pretty much universally, rely on zero camber to get on the throttle as early as possible and perhaps aid in braking and stability in cornering. Note I did not say higher cornering speed.

Now a ham fisted driver like me, unable to drive like they do, I might benefit from camber a little, as others appear to do, not because it is ultimately faster overall, but because my skills are limited in terms of reaching the true potential of the car, but adding camber helps me in a small way to overcome my skill limitation and slightly improve my lap times. But if I was really and truly one with the car like @Stotty is for example or any other consistent TT top performers, I wouldn't have that skill limitation and camber wouldn't benefit me because the handicap it helps to overcome wouldn't be there.

So in short, to me:
camber working as it does in real life = significantly lower lap times for the best drivers, period.
camber not working as it does in real life = tiny benefits to the lesser skilled drivers like myself because it helps to overcome in a small way, our inability to get a car to rotate and get on the throttle early enough.

 

[OdeFinn]

I think you, Cargo, Ode, HSV and others should put your heads together and come up with 2 or 3 definitive camber tunes, tunes that you believe provide definitive decreases in laptimes vs. Zero camber.

There is no obsolete camber value for all cars, or even same type cars.
On that yellow Bird I made few different setups with different cambers, published one is most suitable all around tune.

YB can be tuned for lower camber, but driving character will be different, you need stiffer suspension or lower speed track where it works, so many things on setup is making car behaving well or not.

Breaking few thoughts out from tune, if adding more camber on front (0.8+) it will oversteer from front on high speed cornering (unstable) or cornering while braking, putting lower camber on front and it steers too much and you'll loose rear traction easily. Making some compromise with higher front camber and negative toe can be done, but it makes not wanted grabs on curbs and during breaking more chances to loose rear due oversteer on front, and on slow speeds it's sluggish on steering.
Less camber on rear and you have problems on high speed corners (suspension compress too much and there is not enough camber for it, stiffer suspension etc needed then, still no good..) even rear toe 0.02 is imminent, +/-0.01 and there is no traction, this just keeps tires rolling on optimal angle during cornering and acceleration.

Springs, if you take 0.01 out from front and it will bend under you during cornering, adding 0.01 more and you have no brakes on front.. adding 0.01 to rear and you're skidding, taking out and you will fight on corners.. (+/-0'02 on rear is maybe showing those better).
..tired to explain, but every setting number is glued to other, there is now pretty good harmony on all situations. Tuning for some particular track could be doing totally new packet, not just changing some part, if loosening springs you have to change many other too etc..

So doing some all around tune is always bit compromise, bit softer suspension on this can make it bit faster, BUT it will make it harder to drive and mistakes start to cost, and then there will be those.

Ps. That 550pp is bit loose, due weight reduce.. on above I'm speaking 534pp tune, 550pp needs adjusting, so skip that until I have time to update tune for lighter body too.