Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[StirlingMoose]

I'm pretty agnostic about this subject. I've done a few basic tests, just running a car stock then removing the camber then putting it back, and sometimes it seems much better with 0 camber, but then on other occasions I've been able to match my best times with the stock settings. The main impression I've had is that 0 camber gives better traction on exits. But there are some pretty entrenched views here and, however neutral and fair people think they're being, confirmation bias is real and very powerful so if your tests are not blinded I'm afraid they're worth nothing. If anyone can run tests using different set-ups which are chosen randomly by someone else and consistently do better lap times with camber applied I'll be convinced.

 

[Aussie_HSV]

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?

Trolling and flame baiting ... get a grip.
To suggest that those 2 forumers were in 'completely disagree with each other' and that one of them should withdraw their statement because they are suffering from a placebo effect is more trolling than my response.
2 guys report they have seen benefit from adding camber, and your response is that because they haven't used exactly the same amount, therefore one of them is wrong.
Ridiculous.

I've put some MoTec results in this thread, thanks for asking.
How's yours coming along?

I also tackled the Tsukuba seasonal in a Volkswagen W12 Nardo.
Low 53's with zero camber.
I ended up with a 52.56.
I would tell you that I did that by adding camber, but no doubt you'ld tell me it's all just a placebo and the stopwatch and leaderboard are lying to me.

I'm not a strong advocate for either side of this debate.
But I'm growing tired of seeing people being told they are 'wrong' simply because they report finding benefit from adding some camber.

 

[Stotty]

This ‘camber adds grip’ stuff is starting to get silly

For those who are simply looking for an increase in grip compared to 0/0, keeping it under 1.0 will achieve that.

I’ve quoted you @Voodoovaj, but I could do the same of any number of other posters in the thread; nothing personal, yours was just the 1st post I came across to quote.

Anyone saying camber adds grip is claiming that they are capable of consistently reaching the ABSOLUTE grip limit of a particular car/tyre combination and not exceeding it, before adding any camber. Then by adding camber they are further increasing the absolute grip limit.

If you’re not fast enough to do the above, all you’re doing by adding camber is changing the grip characteristics within the tyres existing grip threshold.

For example:

If I can do a lap in a car with zero camber in 60s, and you take 61s in the same car, but with some camber you can do a lap in 60s, you have not ‘added’ any grip.

Given there are plenty of drivers faster than I am, so I’m not using 100% of the grip capacity with zero camber, someone proportionally slower than me will be using proportionally less of that capacity.

You are not increasing grip, you are simply changing the way the grip feels to you.

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 lap times unfortunately, even though in reality it should.

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.

#1 rule in racing… exit speed is king 👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trolling and flame baiting ... get a grip.

To suggest that those 2 forumers were in 'completely disagree with each other' and that one of them should withdraw their statement because they are suffering from a placebo effect is more trolling than my response.
2 guys report they have seen benefit from adding camber, and your response is that because they haven't used exactly the same amount, therefore one of them is wrong.
Ridiculous.

I've put some MoTec results in this thread, thanks for asking.
How's yours coming along?

I also tackled the Tsukuba seasonal in a Volkswagen W12 Nardo.
Low 53's with zero camber.
I ended up with a 52.56.
I would tell you that I did that by adding camber, but no doubt you'ld tell me it's all just a placebo and the stopwatch and leaderboard are lying to me.

I'm not a strong advocate for either side of this debate.
But I'm growing tired of seeing people being told they are 'wrong' simply because they report finding benefit from adding some camber.

You completely misrepresent my comments as usual and it's getting boring. Person A and Person B are absolutely adamant that camber works and that they have figured out how it works.

Person A says:

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.

That reinforced this point they made earlier:

In my test, cars with some degree of camber set a faster lap 100% of the time compared to no camber. It never ever varies. Is the grip improved? Lateral grip is.How much camber? Not much.

They further doubled down on it with this:

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.

Someone else who believes it works also said this:

- Rear camber allowed for more rotation so it can be used on cars with plentiful rear grip.

Person B has posted a tune that they are convinced shows the positive effect of camber and says:

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.

So here you go, you figure it out. They all think they are right.

Less than 1.0 camber is best.
How much camber is best? Not much.
Add more rear camber to increase rotation for cars with plenty of rear grip.

Surely the Yellowbird, perhaps the easiest car in the game to rotate, doesn't need 2.3 camber to rotate even more does it? Surely it of all cars would benefit from a more stable setting of less than 1.0?

Why don't you reconcile what appear to be conflicting statements so we can all understand and benefit from your wisdom?

Here are some resources for you to consider so we don't have to talk about our feelings and can talk about some data instead:

OdeFinn's high rear camber Yellowbird is tested at Motegi with a wheel and 2/10ths faster with 0/0 camber
OdeFinn's high rear camber Yellowbird is tested at Tsukuba with a wheel and laptimes are identical with 0/0 camber - Motec data included
Sinisters high camber Yellowbird tune tested at Motegi and lap times identical with 0/0 camber

 

[Voodoovaj]

Anyone saying camber adds grip is claiming that they are capable of consistently reaching the ABSOLUTE grip limit of a particular car/tyre combination and not exceeding it, before adding any camber. Then by adding camber they are further increasing the absolute grip limit.

If you’re not fast enough to do the above, all you’re doing by adding camber is changing the grip characteristics within the tyres existing grip threshold.

Agreed. I wholeheartedly agree.

The best case would be to have a simulation run on the camber algorithm. The next best thing would be to have the best drivers in the world take on the challenge.

I got involved in the whole debate because the tests where skipping over that 0 to 1.0 zone. If we could get one of the best drivers in the game to go bang out the laps slowly increase by tenths on ONE end of the car at a time, I think that would be a definitive test.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I'm pretty agnostic about this subject. I've done a few basic tests, just running a car stock then removing the camber then putting it back, and sometimes it seems much better with 0 camber, but then on other occasions I've been able to match my best times with the stock settings. The main impression I've had is that 0 camber gives better traction on exits. But there are some pretty entrenched views here and, however neutral and fair people think they're being, confirmation bias is real and very powerful so if your tests are not blinded I'm afraid they're worth nothing. If anyone can run tests using different set-ups which are chosen randomly by someone else and consistently do better lap times with camber applied I'll be convinced.

Perhaps you missed it, but I have already done this very thing here: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/is-camber-fixed-discuss-it-here.321270/page-6#post-10330977

Read the last paragraph. I had my daughter plug in the numbers so I had no idea what I was driving. I have also done other tests in the same manner with the same results, camber being faster for me. I may be pretty entrenched in my beliefs and that is why. Pretty sure I was being as neutral and fair as I could be. Now, there is no need to come back at me with how wrong/right the test was or anything else of the nature, I've already heard it all and don't feel like rehashing it all over again. I simply replied here to show you that I have already thought of and done the procedure you mentioned.

 

[OdeFinn]

Here are some resources for you to consider so we don't have to talk about our feelings and can talk about some data instead:

OdeFinn's high rear camber Yellowbird is tested at Motegi with a wheel and 2/10ths faster with 0/0 camber
OdeFinn's high rear camber Yellowbird is tested at Tsukuba with a wheel and laptimes are identical with 0/0

Those links are NOT for tuned car, those are just reference camber values, would like to see what are differences with that real tune.

 

[Aussie_HSV]

You completely misrepresent my comments as usual and it's getting boring.

Ha, this coming from the king of cherry picking one word from someones post and running with it to the earths end.
Pot kettle black.

'Person A and Person B'.
I have no issue with different people finding different results.
Horses for courses.

Did Vettel and Ricciardo always have exactly the same camber for every race last season?
Same car on same track, so if not, why not?
And if not, who was wrong?
They cant both be right, right?

Why get hooked up on the numeric value individuals are using?
By doing so are you saying you believe camber works, and it's just the finer details that need to be discussed?
Or is it just something you feel you can use to argue with to discredit people?

If someone with their way of setting up up a car, and their driving style, and their driving ability, finds a way to use camber that's more suited to them, it doesn't mean that if someone else does it differently then one of them has to be 'wrong'.

I had 0.8/1.6 on the Nardo.
Where does that put me?
I changed other settings to suit the adjusted camber setting, as any reasonable person would.
But of course you can't do that and have 'valid testing' because too many variables have changed, according to the standards set here anyway.

Afterwards I put camber back to zeros.
Sure, I could now put my foot down harder on corner exit, and I could hit the brakes with a bit more confidence, but still couldn't match the camber lap. Perhaps I could have re-adjusted some settings again to suit 0/0 better, but I'd had enough, and this isn't my crusade.

Why don't you reconcile what appear to be conflicting statements so we can all understand and benefit from your wisdom?

Typical and unnecessary condescending remark.

 

[Imari]

Afterwards I put camber back to zeros.
Sure, I could now put my foot down harder on corner exit, and I could hit the brakes with a bit more confidence, but still couldn't match the camber lap. Perhaps I could have re-adjusted some settings again to suit 0/0 better, but I'd had enough, and this isn't my crusade.

And maybe that's just your driving style, and that's fine.

The thing is, some of us do seem to be able to match the cambered lap on zero camber. Maybe that's just our driving style.

Which would be fine, were we talking about the difference between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees of camber. Different strokes for different folks.

But zero camber should by all rights be unequivocally worse than a decent cambered setup, for any driver. I've never heard of anyone running zero camber on a track, not intentionally.

 

[Mike_grpA]

I've tried testing camber, hoping for it to be fixed. Unfortunately, for me, it does nothing but make me slower.

Tried using a car I had raced a fair bit, which has a tendency to understeer on big open corners. Front camber, on other sims, would correct this mid corner understeer. Camber was my favourite thing to mess about with on gt5.

I only tested applying gradually increasing amounts to the front, to get more front grip mid corner. I did this at motegi oval, so as to only have a very easy lap, with two big, continuous radius bends, which I could easily lap consistently. I did at least ten laps with every click of negative camber I added to the setup.

I know a lot of people on here are saying they find "time" or "grip" using small amounts of camber, and I couldn't tell you why that is, maybe changing the grip balance between front and rear has something to do with it. What I can tell you is, on a car in which understeer is it's limiting factor, on big, constant radius corners, doing literally hundreds of laps, I couldn't match my 0/0 times with any other camber settings. every single click gave less mid corner grip, and made the car's understeer more and more pronounced.

Even if I could have found some mid corner grip with minute amounts of camber, it wouldn't be realistic. ALL race cars use a considerable amount of front camber to maximise tyre contact with the road during hard cornering. GT6 just doesn't model camber correctly, which REALLY annoys me, as I miss using camber in my tunes.

You would think they would have fixed the issue by now. It shouldn't be up for debate, if it worked, it would be glaringly obvious.

 

[super_gt]

I've tried testing camber, hoping for it to be fixed. Unfortunately, for me, it does nothing but make me slower.

Tried using a car I had raced a fair bit, which has a tendency to understeer on big open corners. Front camber, on other sims, would correct this mid corner understeer. Camber was my favourite thing to mess about with on gt5.

I only tested applying gradually increasing amounts to the front, to get more front grip mid corner. I did this at motegi oval, so as to only have a very easy lap, with two big, continuous radius bends, which I could easily lap consistently. I did at least ten laps with every click of negative camber I added to the setup.

I know a lot of people on here are saying they find "time" or "grip" using small amounts of camber, and I couldn't tell you why that is, maybe changing the grip balance between front and rear has something to do with it. What I can tell you is, on a car in which understeer is it's limiting factor, on big, constant radius corners, doing literally hundreds of laps, I couldn't match my 0/0 times with any other camber settings. every single click gave less mid corner grip, and made the car's understeer more and more pronounced.

Even if I could have found some mid corner grip with minute amounts of camber, it wouldn't be realistic. ALL race cars use a considerable amount of front camber to maximise tyre contact with the road during hard cornering. GT6 just doesn't model camber correctly, which REALLY annoys me, as I miss using camber in my tunes.

You would think they would have fixed the issue by now. It shouldn't be up for debate, if it worked, it would be glaringly obvious.

Try to put tires with more grip only in front(I am not crazy )it is not perfect but works.
Here's an example:

Twin Ring Motegi Oval
Mazda Roadster RS(NC)'07

No oil change,no AIDS no ABS
Stock except toe angle front 0.00 rear 0.00 and six speed gearbox.
Both corners flat out(full throttle) in sixth gear.
Front sports hard rear sports hard tires.

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
44.905 seconds

Camber front 1.0 rear 0.0
44.967 seconds

Camber front 2.0 rear 0.0
45.061 seconds

Camber front 1.0 rear 0.5
44.978 seconds

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.00
Front sports medium rear sports hard tires
44.560 seconds

DFGT user
This test is made offline

 

[Voodoovaj]

Try to put tires with more grip only in front(I am not crazy )it is not perfect but works.
Here's an example:

Hmmm. I did the same test, Same car. COMPLETELY STOCK, with the exception of adjustable suspension (obviously), SH tires and 0 camber and 0 toe all around (as stated above) and I did not upgrade from the stock gearbox (which will probably account for the few tenths difference and I will concede that @super_gt is better than I am )

0/0 camber 45.437

0.5/0 45.317

0.3/0 45.246

So, I guess the conclusion that must be drawn here is that camber is "fixed" (or effective, or working, or whatever descriptor you would prefer to choose) for a lucky few

This is a test that is easily replicated by all, so I encourage everyone to give it a try.


Update - I felt a little uneasy that I didn't do EXACTLY what @super_gt did, so I went back and fitted the six speed gear box.

0/0 45.117 .... sad panda, Super_GT is still faster than I am. I would lose this race.

0.3/0 44.890 ...woohooo

I love my "broken" camber

 

[0ldman279]

I haven't tested yet, though I've been reading this thread.

Anyone here actually work on cars?

Camber is related to the suspension characteristics. Stiff suspension doesn't need as much camber, soft suspension with monster stabilizers doesn't need as much camber. Stock suspension would need more camber, though the suspension is generally soggy enough that you won't get full benefit from it anyway.

It is the same as upgrading the camshaft in an engine without modifying the rest to match. It is quite easy to put a big whomping cam in a stock motor. The big cam will not have low end power and without other mods to compliment the cam it won't have top end power either. Going by a hard line of "only one variable" to test this isn't going to work in the extremes, barely in the baseline.

Increasing the stabilizer while decreasing the camber would improve handling, as would increasing camber and decreasing the stabilizer, both within reason of course.

I realize we're talking about whether PD corrected camber, not real world physics, however, they are creating a simulation of real world physic. Basic suspension rules still apply.

Kudos to those contributing to this test, good information here.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hmmm. I did the same test, Same car. COMPLETELY STOCK, with the exception of adjustable suspension (obviously), SH tires and 0 camber and 0 toe all around (as stated above) and I did not upgrade from the stock gearbox (which will probably account for the few tenths difference and I will concede that @super_gt is better than I am )

0/0 camber 45.437

0.5/0 45.317

0.3/0 45.246

So, I guess the conclusion that must be drawn here is that camber is "fixed" (or effective, or working, or whatever descriptor you would prefer to choose) for a lucky few

This is a test that is easily replicated by all, so I encourage everyone to give it a try.


Update - I felt a little uneasy that I didn't do EXACTLY what @super_gt did, so I went back and fitted the six speed gear box.

0/0 45.117 .... sad panda, Super_GT is still faster than I am. I would lose this race.

0.3/0 44.890 ...woohooo

I love my "broken" camber

Congratulations, you've proven that with some additional camber, if you and super_gt ran a race and there was no draft and every lap was perfect, you with your settings and him with 0/0, over 70 laps you'd win by 1 second. 15/1000ths of a second in one lap is more than enough to conclude that camber is not broken. I don't know how we missed this.

/sarcasm

I haven't tested yet, though I've been reading this thread.

Anyone here actually work on cars?

Camber is related to the suspension characteristics. Stiff suspension doesn't need as much camber, soft suspension with monster stabilizers doesn't need as much camber. Stock suspension would need more camber, though the suspension is generally soggy enough that you won't get full benefit from it anyway.

It is the same as upgrading the camshaft in an engine without modifying the rest to match. It is quite easy to put a big whomping cam in a stock motor. The big cam will not have low end power and without other mods to compliment the cam it won't have top end power either. Going by a hard line of "only one variable" to test this isn't going to work in the extremes, barely in the baseline.

Increasing the stabilizer while decreasing the camber would improve handling, as would increasing camber and decreasing the stabilizer, both within reason of course.

I realize we're talking about whether PD corrected camber, not real world physics, however, they are creating a simulation of real world physic. Basic suspension rules still apply.

Kudos to those contributing to this test, good information here.

With all due respect, tuning in GT rarely, if ever, mimics real life and it's been shown over and over that real life settings are not the way to be uber fast in the game. Note I am not saying that game settings don't alter the feel of the car, just that to reach the upper echelons of speed, you tune primarily for one thing and that's exit speed, not cornering speed. One need only wander over to the TT Forum and look at some of the wacky tunes that actually work in TT's and allow you to lead the world, and bear no resemblence to what you would do in real life given the same car/tire/track combination.

Other games, notably PC sims, do a much better job. I ran some 10 lap sprints last night and just by adding small amounts of camber to the rear of a an Exige I gained a half second or more a lap consistently at Imola and more grip on the rear of the car whenever I was cornering. Just for laughs I did a test session without camber and the car was horrible and completely different. The effect was blatant and obvious. Additionally I was able to check tire temperatures across the carcass to ensure that the effect wasn't placebo, to verify that the tires were heating properly. I hope that GT7 brings this level of sophistication to tuning.

 

[killerjimbag]

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:
View attachment 287631

Without Camber:
View attachment 287632

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.

Johnny,Johnny,Johnny,your first line,if camber works as it does in real life.
This "game" is the worst example of real life. It isn't even marginally close.
This debate will go on and on and on again. As it has with the last camber post.There are 2 sides that have proven nothing,blah blah blah.
Everyone should spend more time doing something constructive and move on.

 

[Imari]

So, I guess the conclusion that must be drawn here is that camber is "fixed" (or effective, or working, or whatever descriptor you would prefer to choose) for a lucky few

Or you could just say that the test is incapable of determining whether camber works or not.

If two people can't get the same results, whatever those results are, either there's a fault in the test or a fault in the testers.

I realize we're talking about whether PD corrected camber, not real world physics, however, they are creating a simulation of real world physic. Basic suspension rules still apply.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. It depends entirely on what simplifications PD have applied to get their physics model running on PS3 hardware.

I don't think that the assumption that basic suspension rules apply is valid. You'd need to test it first.

 

[0ldman279]

I chose the word "basic" specifically.

If basic suspension rules didn't apply then the entire tuning system would be fiction. It may not be the best out there, but it is based on reality.

I've always felt the friction/traction set up on the GT series was a bit humorous. GT1 it is like you're on rails. GT2 was a little more realistic, GT3 & 4 seemed to have made improvements, GT5 feels like wet roads with a heavy load in the trunk, constant understeer. GT6 is pretty decent, though a bit unpredictable at the ragged edge.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Congratulations, you've proven that with some additional camber, if you and super_gt ran a race and there was no draft and every lap was perfect, you with your settings and him with 0/0, over 70 laps you'd win by 1 second. 15/1000ths of a second in one lap is more than enough to conclude that camber is not broken. I don't know how we missed this.

Other games, notably PC sims, do a much better job. I ran some 10 lap sprints last night and just by adding small amounts of camber to the rear of a an Exige I gained a half second or more a lap consistently at Imola and more grip on the rear of the car whenever I was cornering. Just for laughs I did a test session without camber and the car was horrible and completely different. The effect was blatant and obvious. Additionally I was able to check tire temperatures across the carcass to ensure that the effect wasn't placebo, to verify that the tires were heating properly. I hope that GT7 brings this level of sophistication to tuning.

In the immortal words of Al Davis, 'just win baby"

I am actually starting to enjoy poking you guys with a stick on this.

So, let me get this straight, you have played PC sims and because in those games camber=better lap time, that in your mind MUST mean that they have implemented camber correctly.

However, because others (who are not you) have seen the camber=better lap time in Gran Turismo, that MUST mean it is implemented incorrectly.

THEN @0ldman279 goes on to explain that a properly implemented camber model would not be a simple camber=more grip on it's own, and he's wrong too.

 

[super_gt]

0.3/0 44.890 ...woohooo

I love my "broken" camber

I did only 10 laps,but if you insist I can make another 10 laps and beat your time

This is a test that is easily replicated by all, so I encourage everyone to give it a try.

Me too 👍

 

[Aussie_HSV]

And maybe that's just your driving style, and that's fine.

The thing is, some of us do seem to be able to match the cambered lap on zero camber. Maybe that's just our driving style.

Which would be fine, were we talking about the difference between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees of camber. Different strokes for different folks.

But zero camber should by all rights be unequivocally worse than a decent cambered setup, for any driver. I've never heard of anyone running zero camber on a track, not intentionally.

Sure, and I've run slightly faster lap times with certain cars on certain tracks using 0/0 camber as well.
But all that tells me is that I haven't cracked the setup up for that car yet to find any advantage from using camber.
If I can find lap time advantage using camber for some cars, there's every chance I can find the same with all cars.

It's fair to say that I would have more ticks in the 0/0 column than the camber setup column.
But it's also fair to say I've undoubtedly found time using camber.
So all I can conclude from that is that I've succeeded in some setups, and been too lazy with others.

 

[Imari]

I chose the word "basic" specifically.

If basic suspension rules didn't apply then the entire tuning system would be fiction. It may not be the best out there, but it is based on reality.

Then it depends on what you mean by basic. How can I evaluate such a vague comment?

I seem to recall that in GT5 the effects of rake were reversed for a time. Is that a basic suspension rule?

First rule of good testing is not to assume anything.

I am actually starting to enjoy poking you guys with a stick on this.

This is remarkably close to an admission of trolling.

So, let me get this straight, you have played PC sims and because in those games camber=better lap time, that in your mind MUST mean that they have implemented camber correctly.

For myself, I believe that other games have implemented camber correctly because the behaviours in those games tend to be very similar to what I see described in real life tuning guides. Also, people who have displayed knowledge about real world tuning have pointed out which aspects are and are not similar to real life in these games, and shared their insight. That, and most other games have a whole lot more information from which to judge how suspensions and camber are working.

On the whole, I judge those games to be a reasonable representation of real world camber based on my own experience and that of people whose experience and explanations I trust.

However, because others (who are not you) have seen the camber=better lap time in Gran Turismo, that MUST mean it is implemented incorrectly.

No.

Because the results of using camber in GT6 seem to be inconsistent depending on the driver, it seems to me that there is something not quite right about the implementation of camber. It does not seem to me to be a reasonable representation of real world camber when judged by the same criteria as I judge other games.

Is that somehow confusing? Is that irrational?

Is there some reason why I should accept the word of one group of people in this thread over another group? Or should I trust my own experience, and stick with an explanation that covers all the observed evidence?

Sure, and I've run slightly faster lap times with certain cars on certain tracks using 0/0 camber as well.
But all that tells me is that I haven't cracked the setup up for that car yet to find any advantage from using camber.
If I can find lap time advantage using camber for some cars, there's every chance I can find the same with all cars.

It's fair to say that I would have more ticks in the 0/0 column than the camber setup column.
But it's also fair to say I've undoubtedly found time using camber.
So all I can conclude from that is that I've succeeded in some setups, and been too lazy with others.

Which is fine, but coming back to the realism thing, zero camber should never be faster. It shouldn't be possible, to my knowledge, to have a setup where 0/0 is faster than some camber. I can't think of one without having really wacky suspension geometry or being on a drag strip.

That there are some setups where camber works and others where it doesn't suggests strongly to me that the system isn't entirely working. It's not that you can't get an advantage with camber, clearly some people can and do and that's as it should be. It's that sometimes people can be as fast without it. That's a big anomaly, and shouldn't be happening (according to real world camber theory).

For me, that's the oddity where my attention is focussed, and where I think any major understanding of the GT6 camber system is likely to arise. Generally, I find I'm more likely to figure stuff out by getting into the parts that aren't working as expected and fiddling around with them than I am by tweaking stuff that already works as I think it should.

I may be wrong, but there's plenty of people fiddling around with cambered setups so one less person there isn't likely to make a difference.

TL;DR: I don't think that fast cambered setups existing are the problem, I think fast 0/0 setups are.

 

[StirlingMoose]

TL;DR: I don't think that fast cambered setups existing are the problem, I think fast 0/0 setups are.

Spot on.

 

[Aussie_HSV]

Which is fine, but coming back to the realism thing, zero camber should never be faster. It shouldn't be possible, to my knowledge, to have a setup where 0/0 is faster than some camber. I can't think of one without having really wacky suspension geometry or being on a drag strip.

That there are some setups where camber works and others where it doesn't suggests strongly to me that the system isn't entirely working. It's not that you can't get an advantage with camber, clearly some people can and do and that's as it should be. It's that sometimes people can be as fast without it. That's a big anomaly, and shouldn't be happening (according to real world camber theory).

For me, that's the oddity where my attention is focussed, and where I think any major understanding of the GT6 camber system is likely to arise. Generally, I find I'm more likely to figure stuff out by getting into the parts that aren't working as expected and fiddling around with them than I am by tweaking stuff that already works as I think it should.

I may be wrong, but there's plenty of people fiddling around with cambered setups so one less person there isn't likely to make a difference.

TL;DR: I don't think that fast cambered setups existing are the problem, I think fast 0/0 setups are.

Yep, I can understand that.
But I'm under the impression the lap times are from other influences.
Any tenths gained around the corners using camber are being negated and even trumped by being able to stomp on the brakes entering and stomp on the throttle leaving corners using a 0/0 setup.
Chasing my 0/0 ghost around Tsukuba on a camber setup I was clearing winning around corners.
The challenge was to brake as well and hit full throttle as well as I could on the 0/0 setup.
Once I tweaked some extra settings, I could almost do that, plus also have the advantage around the corners, and so of course my lap time improved.
Being faster around the corners told me I was in an area where camber was being effective.
All I had to do was overcome the negatives that camber brings to the party to be able to beat my 0/0 time.

I'm not suggesting I can do this for all cars on all tracks, and I wouldn't be surprised if I fail to find that next time and resort to a 0/0 setup. But in this instance camber was clearly the winning strategy, provided I come overcome it's downfalls.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I seem to recall that in GT5 the effects of rake were reversed for a time. Is that a basic suspension rule?

I haven't driven the ZZ in GT6 but I remember in GT5 it was notoriously understeery. There are 6 Seasonal tunes for it from a recent TT and I think you'll find 5/6 have one thing in common - ride height settings in the range of f95/r50 to f95/r60. The reverse ride height bug is still present in GT6, basically unchanged in 4 years. Other settings are just as wacky. Praiano's springs are set to F5.88 R14.66. Combine that with the high front/low rear and the car should be all but undrivable at the limit and nowhere near competitive.

600PP 4WD Non-Racing Car Super Lap: Suzuka Circuit 2014

 

[Stotty]

I hate to tell you what my ZZII settings are. They include...

Max front/min rear ride, +0.50 front toe, -0.75 rear toe and, some rear ballast, and same rear downforce as front.

Gt6 is nothing like real life

 

[Voodoovaj]

First rule of good testing is not to not to assume anything

...

This is remarkably close to an admission of trolling.

I'm curious if you have tried Super_gt's test as I have.

I know @Johnnypenso has not

Camber theory? It isn't a theory. It's part of the gyroscopic effect. Camber thrust is how motorcycles turn corners. As a rider for a decade, mostly at track days, I know exactly what camber thrust does. There is nothing theoretical about it.

A spinning wheel will want to "thrust" in the direction of the top of the wheel. Point it right, it goes right (and vice versa). The more you point it, the more it "thrusts".

On a car, it works in corners when the inside tire lifts pressure and the outside tire increases pressure. Now that the two thrusting forces no longer offset each other, that out side tire will want to thrust toward the corner (unless you have positive camber, then it will want to thrust the other way).

If you have too much camber, you will reduce the contact patch too much and there will not be enough friction or thrust to overcome the momentum of the car. On a motorcycle, this is what happens when you lose the front.

THAT people is what the camber in the game should do. This is EXACTLY what I have found that it does.

Now, are the numbers the same as real life? I don't think so, but I also don't care.

 

[daan]

Any more petty sniping at others and this thread goes the same way as the many other threads we've had on camber.

Keep it civil or people get unexpected holidays...

 

[Mike_grpA]

The thing I find odd, is the people saying camber works, are talking about gaining a tenth or so around a race track. I'm sorry but unless you're Jenson Button, you won't be able to lap consistently enough to verify what exactly causes a 1 or 2 tenth difference between laps on 99% of the circuits on GT6.

Also, using a car you aren't familiar with, or which someone else has set up, presumably to suit THEIR driving style, also will not give you any measure of consistency.

I decided, in order to test camber, I needed the most basic circuit. So an oval. It obviously had to be motegi, so as to have as flat a surface as possible (the concave surface of the banking at daytona would give far too many variables depending on line). The corners are both perfect for testing camber, as they are fast, but not flat out in most cars, and they have a continuous radius, which will allow you to load up your outside tyres, and easily find the limit of their grip.

Then I needed a car, so I chose a car I had been testing for weeks for an upcoming online race series. Having done at least a thousand laps with this car, and having found a set up I was happy with, I figured I was familiar enough with the car to be certain I was going to have the required consistency. This car also had understeer as it's limiting factor, so there was no need to test combinations of front and rear camber, if camber worked at all, adding front camber would have produced significantly improved front mid corner grip, as it would prevent the tyre rolling to it's outside shoulder, maintaining it's contact patch with the road mid corner.

I have no bias towards 0/0 tunes, despite believing them to be fastest. I love using camber in tunes on other sims, and really REALLY want it fixed on gt so I can use it again.

There was no improvement in grip with camber, and the more I added, the lower mid corner speeds I was able to achieve, and the harder it became to maintain the inside line.

I ran racing soft tyres, so best front grip possible from the rubber, removing rear grip wouldn't help mid corner grip.
I also don't know where anyone would get the idea that camber works better with softer, standard road car suspension, than with rock solid race car suspension. You guys should probably tell the formula one teams they've got camber all wrong! lol.

Also, saying it works because you found 2 tenths with 0.3 front camber over 0 is ridiculous. Not only for the fact that unless you only ran one or two continuous radius corners with that lap time, not a full technical course, your extra time could be achieved by simply getting one corner a bit better than the last time, but also for the fact that 0/0 camber should always be SIGNIFICANTLY slower EVERYWHERE, than high camber set ups, and if camber worked, the ideal range for race cars with high grip racing tyres would be anywhere between 2.0 to 5.0, not 0.0 to 0.5.

Trust me, I wish I had've come to a different conclusion, it really sucks that it doesn't work. But for me, until I can find a SIGNIFICANT change in the handline, for the positive, using camber, it doesn't work. I am ALWAYS faster with 0/0, and I spend 90% of my time on gt6 tuning.

 

[Voodoovaj]

I don't understand why a tenth gained by camber is not equal to a tenth gained by any other adjustment.

So, people are gaining seconds by running compression dampers at 4 instead of 3? So, by this reasoning, there is 12+ seconds to be gained on every car through suspension tuning alone? (6 categories, front and back).

There is this little things called the Law of diminishing returns. Camber will not gain seconds probably ever, andcertainly not after a big chunk of time has already been gained through other means.

A thenth here, and a tenth there.

And, for the record, an oval is the NOT the best place to test camber. The fastest way around an oval is to have positive camber on the inside, so both tires thrust toward the turn all the time. So, in the game, the fastest way around an oval should be 0,0.

 

[Imari]

Camber theory? It isn't a theory.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Let's ask Wiki, that great repository of information of our age.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Oh cool, that's exactly what I meant.

And, for the record, an oval is the NOT the best place to test camber. The fastest way around an oval is to have positive camber on the inside, so both tires thrust toward the turn all the time. So, in the game, the fastest way around an oval should be 0,0.

On an oval, are the tyres on both sides of the car doing equal amounts of work?

I rather think that the outside tyres are doing a lot more work than the inside ones, and looking at the heat in them tends to confirm this. As such, if you had to run a symmetrical setup you'd have one that was more ideal for the outside tyres, as you're going to see more benefit from that than one that tries to treat both sides of the car as equal.



And no, I haven't tried super_gt's test yet.