Little ride height test

[Greyout]

Hello all,

So, my other thread about FF tunes not making sense is still droning on, but it inspired me to check into the ride height settings.

It seems many thought that setting the ride height to "+/- 0mm" adjustment was the same as stock. I was hoping that was not the case, because, like in the case of the Euro R accord, that means the lowest you can go is only about an inch lower then stock (25mm).

Well, it would seem that "0mm" is actually the default setting for the lowered suspension, which is lower then stock.

I equiped the Accord with stock suspension, and nosed it into the wall to the right of the front straight, and took a pic. Notice the edge of the wall in relation to the tire load indicators.

I then swapped out the suspension for the fully adjustable, and set front and rear to "0"

That looks lower to me! So, I then raised it up to +20mm

Looks pretty close! Maybe 23 or 27mm would do the trick.

What does this mean? Well, it means that when lowered to -25mm, its actually a little over 2" lower from stock, not 1".

Thats still not very low.... the reason I did this test was to see if, maybe, the suspension is bottoming out with a soft front FF car, causing some serious understeer.

My new tuning technique will be to raise the car to +25, tune it the best I can, then lower it slowly as much as I can until the balance begins to change.... indicating that its bottoming out.

We'll see....

 

[JackWilson]

I dont think them pictures are very accurate, but to me I dont thiink there is any difference in load according to them pictures.

Also what are you trying to prove? I dont quite understand, thanks.

From what I believe, Fixed Sports Suspension is slightly lower than stock, then Height Adjustable slightly lower than Fixed Sports, and Fully Customisable is slightly lower than the Height Adjustable.

I also belive that when you install the Fully Customisable suspension at it has the value's 0/0 Front/Rear, that 0/0 is the same height for every car. Thats why all the car's have different maximum and minimum ride heights.

 

[praiano63]

I dont think them pictures are very accurate, but to me I dont thiink there is any difference in load according to them pictures.

Also what are you trying to prove? I dont quite understand, thanks.

Check the horizon and the 2 black rising suns.... So???

 

[JackWilson]

Check the horizon and the 2 black rising suns.... So???

I understand that but to me it looks like the car is in a different position in each photo.

And i'm still not sure I understand what he is trying to prove with the photos, to me, judging by these photos, the tire load indicators are showing the same amount of load in all 3 photos.

Also the top of the rising suns are at different heights from the horizon.

Another thing All 3 photos have been taking with different zooms, if that makes sence.

 

[DaDog]

to the OP

Ok no offence mate , but those pictures are worthless as far as trying to make a point .
Basicly what we see here is a "scoped" view only problem with them is that they are taken from different angles .
With that said i can only see reference points wich look simular on picture 1 and 3 . looking at the scale of the reference points i can say you we're not standing on the same spot .
Taking for example there is a little raise in the tarmac , bump in the road you're front tires we're standing on etc.... taking a distance of 1 mile / 1.6 km you're endview would be totally different .

I am not sure if i am making my point clear as i find explaining this particular point very hard in english .

But the main thing i am trying to say if you wanna prove a point of the riding height it can only be made when standing on a set point , and the pictice taken for the same point with the same angle .

 

[Greyout]

but to me I dont thiink there is any difference in load according to them pictures.

The load is the same. What is different is the height of the wall in relation to a fixed point in the field of view, the tire load circles.

Based on this, I am saying that "0MM" is not stock height, it is lower then stock height.

to the OP

Ok no offence mate , but those pictures are worthless as far as trying to make a point .
Basicly what we see here is a "scoped" view only problem with them is that they are taken from different angles .
With that said i can only see reference points wich look simular on picture 1 and 3 . looking at the scale of the reference points i can say you we're not standing on the same spot .
Taking for example there is a little raise in the tarmac , bump in the road you're front tires we're standing on etc.... taking a distance of 1 mile / 1.6 km you're endview would be totally different .

I am not sure if i am making my point clear as i find explaining this particular point very hard in english .

But the main thing i am trying to say if you wanna prove a point of the riding height it can only be made when standing on a set point , and the pictice taken for the same point with the same angle .

The pictures are all taken from the same angle - with the car perpendicular against a wall, on a very level track. Any tilt or perspective changes in these pictures is from the angle of me holding the camera, which would not affect the image.

I understand that but to me it looks like the car is in a different position in each photo.

The front bumper is against the wall in each photo

The background tree line is different because the car may have been 20 feet to the left or the right on each shot, but the top of the wall is parallel to the smooth, flat track.

The changes in position are due to ride height. If you raise or lower the car, the perspective changes, this has already been shown in previous threads.

My purpose for doing this was, hopefully, to see that going to -25mm was actually slamming the car four inches, and the car was bottoming out, and thats why our suspension settings don't cause the car to behave as it should.

As it turns out though, -25mm is actually lowering the car only about 50mm from stock, which isn't much, so no we're back to square one - that PD didn't program the suspension settings to behave as one would expect.

 

[SolidSnake7735]

I regularly use the tire load indicator when tuning for spring and dampening rates. And im sorry to say but those pictures do absolutely no justice to whatever point it is you're trying to make. for you to even bring the tire load indicators into question regarding ride-height you have to have video of it so you can see it working while cornering seeing the actual tire load.

and ride height does affect this, just as much as dampening, spring rates and anti-roll bars. even wheel alignment has a minimal effect on this.

 

[DigitalBaka]

As far as I can tell, the only point he is trying to make here is that the ride height of each suspension is different even though all say 0/0. Example here is that 0/0 stock is higher up than 0/0 on the FC suspension. What Jack said about relative height of each suspension option is probably true and this seems to prove such. The load indicators are only there as a reference point as they show on the same position on the HUD regardless of ride height.

 

[Greyout]

I regularly use the tire load indicator when tuning for spring and dampening rates. And im sorry to say but those pictures do absolutely no justice to whatever point it is you're trying to make. for you to even bring the tire load indicators into question regarding ride-height you have to have video of it so you can see it working while cornering seeing the actual tire load.

and ride height does affect this, just as much as dampening, spring rates and anti-roll bars. even wheel alignment has a minimal effect on this.

I'm not using the tire load indicator to be another other then a spot on the windshield to use as a visual reference point.

nevermind...

 

[JackWilson]

I regularly use the tire load indicator when tuning for spring and dampening rates. And im sorry to say but those pictures do absolutely no justice to whatever point it is you're trying to make. for you to even bring the tire load indicators into question regarding ride-height you have to have video of it so you can see it working while cornering seeing the actual tire load.

and ride height does affect this, just as much as dampening, spring rates and anti-roll bars. even wheel alignment has a minimal effect on this.

This has nothing to do with what the op is pointing out.
Its got nothing to do with tire load he's just using the white circles to see the difference in ride height between stock suspension & fully customisable suspension.
As you can clearly see by the pictures after installing the new suspension the ride IS lower than stock settings.

@ Greyout yeah I understand now was just a lil confused at first

My purpose for doing this was, hopefully, to see that going to -25mm was actually slamming the car four inches, and the car was bottoming out, and thats why our suspension settings don't cause the car to behave as it should.

I have tested this before and can confirm that the behaviour is not from the car bottoming out.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not using the tire load indicator to be another other then a spot on the windshield to use as a visual reference point.

nevermind...

Maybe it's just me but I understood what you were trying to do from the beginning...lol. I did this same test months ago with the same results. The absolute height of the car from the ground with 0/0 and stock suspension is not the same as 0/0 with fully customizable suspension. By exercising the customizing option, GT5 lowers the car for you, and your new 0/0 setting is 0/0 from the new, already lowered setting. So going to +25/+25 for example might get you back to something close to stock ride height, whereas -25/-25 will be perhaps 50mm give or take from stock.

Solving the mystery of ride heights, both front and rear, and the absolute overall ride height and their effects on handling, now that's a different story..👍

 

[JackWilson]

I came to a conclusion that the 0/0 you have after installing the fully cusomisable suspension is equal around all cars.

Maybe I'm wrong but you could take two or more different cars, install the FC Suspension, then do the same test as the OP, with each car to see if they are the same height after installing the FC Suspension.

You get me??

 

[CSLACR]

My purpose for doing this was, hopefully, to see that going to -25mm was actually slamming the car four inches, and the car was bottoming out, and thats why our suspension settings don't cause the car to behave as it should.

Isn't that what the last 5 threads about ride height have tried to prove?
We have the tire load indicators, and it's pretty clear now when the car is or isn't bottoming out. Like I said before, if it were from bottoming out, running a very high ride height would work perfectly fine.

I also think this ride height you took pictures of has been tested before, I recall seeing it somewhere.
In any case, I think your pictures do an excellent job of displaying that the car is in fact lower.👍

I came to a conclusion that the 0/0 you have after installing the fully cusomisable suspension is equal around all cars.

Maybe I'm wrong but you could take two or more different cars, install the FC Suspension, then do the same test as the OP, with each car to see if they are the same height after installing the FC Suspension.

You get me??

So, you're saying the Dodge Ram has the same ride height as an F1 car?

 

[Adrenaline]

I also think this ride height you took pictures of has been tested before, I recall seeing it somewhere.

As mentioned above, it has been tested, proven with pictures, and even further agreed upon by logic. Have you ever bought aftermarket suspension for your car, and had it be the same height as stock? I haven't.

Far more importantly is the point this same discussion was met with months ago... who cares?

What benefit do these differences serve to anyone?
Ride height of '0' is only relevant to the suspension it's being measured on.
I see absolutely no way to benefit, from knowing that 0 on sports is higher than 0 on custom. If I'm missing something, by all means, explain it to me. I am genuinely interested.

Edit: I knew it was noobster, but thought it was a Camaro. My memory is failing me, but regardless, page 13: Observations on Suspension Settings

 

[CSLACR]

It's at least something genuinely realistic about the suspension portion of the game.
Of course it's blown away by the ever lovely "0" setting.

 

[Greyout]

What benefit do these differences serve to anyone?
Ride height of '0' is only relevant to the suspension it's being measured on.
I see absolutely no way to benefit, from knowing that 0 on sports is higher than 0 on custom. If I'm missing something, by all means, explain it to me. I am genuinely interested.

I was hoping to discover that what could be mistaken as lowering the car only 1", was in fact lowering it 4 or 5 inches from stock, and therefore our screwy under/oversteer results were being caused by suspension bottoming out.

However, it is not that severe. 0" on FC is only about 1" lower then stock. so nevermind

 

[Adrenaline]

I was hoping to discover that what could be mistaken as lowering the car only 1", was in fact lowering it 4 or 5 inches from stock, and therefore our screwy under/oversteer results were being caused by suspension bottoming out.

However, it is not that severe. 0" on FC is only about 1" lower then stock. so nevermind

In order for that scenario to make any sense, someone would have to be doing something extremely odd. When would someone ever use the 'Sport suspension' as a baseline, to lower the car on a separate suspension installed? Even more so, when the sport suspension actually already has adjustable height.
Or in the second scenario, you would have to assume people are tuning ride heights, off of real world settings, with complete disregard for in game suspension geometry and track results. Lower is not always better, regardless of which suspension you install.

I have numerous tunes that use positive ride heights, and if memory serves, I believe CSLACR does the same with some of his tunes as well. It's the tunes that blindly use absolute minimum ride heights that I would warn people to be weary of.

 

[CyKosis1973]

I have numerous tunes that use positive ride heights, and if memory serves, I believe CSLACR does the same with some of his tunes as well. It's the tunes that blindly use absolute minimum ride heights that I would warn people to be weary of.

I've used positive ride height on at least one car too, but that was designed for off road use. I've recently put together another car that uses positive ride height, based on some of CSLACR's ramblings, to great effect. So much so in fact, that I don't think there's anything wrong or back to front with ride height. (Sorry for potentially opening that can of worms ... again) I'm beginning to think it's just been poorly/strangely implemented. I've still got to test my thoughts out on some other cars, as one is not enough to confirm or deny...

{Cy}

 

[JackWilson]

So, you're saying the Dodge Ram has the same ride height as an F1 car?

Yeah!!!

Obviously!!



Nah didnt think about that, like I said I'm probably wrong but it was just a though lol

Lower is not always better, regardless of which suspension you install.

If road conditions are good and flat, lower is always better. (Lower centre of gravity)

 

[CyKosis1973]

Lower is always better. (Lower centre of gravity)

Exept on bumpy tracks when you may need to rise the height in order to clear bumps.

Lower is not always better, as you've just illustrated. I know its only semantics, but switching "always" with "usually" makes for a more palatable statement...

{Cy}

 

[JackWilson]

FIXED:
Ok lower is always better providing the road conditions are good and flat.

 

[CyKosis1973]

Thank you, I know I'm a pedant...

{Cy}

 

[CSLACR]

I've used positive ride height on at least one car too, but that was designed for off road use. I've recently put together another car that uses positive ride height, based on some of CSLACR's ramblings, to great effect. So much so in fact, that I don't think there's anything wrong or back to front with ride height. (Sorry for potentially opening that can of worms ... again) I'm beginning to think it's just been poorly/strangely implemented. I've still got to test my thoughts out on some other cars, as one is not enough to confirm or deny...

{Cy}

Wouldn't that be something wrong?

FIXED:
Ok lower is always better providing the road conditions are good and flat.

Sorry, but no dice.
How low can you go? As low as you can still control, and doesn't cause excess wheel spin.
I have yet to confirm that a lower car can actually turn faster laps then a jacked up car. But then I do 99% of my tuning online now, offline has exponentially more grip, so it favors low ride heights better.

Online or offline, since you get quite a bit more acceleration grip by raising your ride height, cars with traction issues are much better off with a higher ride height, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that I'll not be partaking in any serious online races with minimum, or even close to minimum ride height, because that would slow me down.

At best, minimum ride height has given me equal times though, so I'm not convinced that it's ever faster, in any circumstance, until I find one.


If you're not convinced, grab a car that can spin the wheels easily, and take it to the test track (assuming you have it), and set ride height to minimum, and get an accel G reading. Then set it to maximum, and watch it go higher.
All drive trains, and all cars I've tried to date.

 

[CyKosis1973]

Wouldn't that be something wrong?

Technically, yes. Buuuuut it doesn't necessarily mean that everything is completely arse about face, and I'm beginning to suspect you know so. Mostly it's the smug grin on that pretty face of yours

I've got an entire weekend to myself coming up, so I'll be trying some stuff out and if I do convince myself, I'll be back...

{Cy}

 

[praiano63]

Technically, yes. Buuuuut it doesn't necessarily mean that everything is completely arse about face, and I'm beginning to suspect you know so. Mostly it's the smug grin on that pretty face of yours

I've got an entire weekend to myself coming up, so I'll be trying some stuff out and if I do convince myself, I'll be back...

{Cy}

RRRRaaaaaaaaaaaa yes that is it. !!!! This face raise my mind and give me more grip to begin another working day...👍

Have a good day everybody.

 

[CSLACR]

Technically, yes. Buuuuut it doesn't necessarily mean that everything is completely arse about face, and I'm beginning to suspect you know so. Mostly it's the smug grin on that pretty face of yours

I've got an entire weekend to myself coming up, so I'll be trying some stuff out and if I do convince myself, I'll be back...

{Cy}

Actually the more testing I've done, the more I've been lead to believe it's actually 100% backwards.
It's been obvious that raising the front and lowering the rear increases over steer, and now I know why.

Because raising ride height purely adds grip. 💡
So when you jack the front, you give it more grip, when you lower the rear, you give it less grip. Annnnnd - Voila!

RRRRaaaaaaaaaaaa yes that is it. !!!! This face raise my mind and give me more grip to begin another working day...

Have a good day everybody.

 

[Adrenaline]

NASCARS would be another point on our side of the argument CSL.
All the fastest NASCAR tunes I know of, use max ride height. While Daytona and Indy aren't the smoothest tracks in the world, I still file them under 'good and flat'.
*Flat meaning level, not unbanked.

 

[Motor City Hami]

NASCARS would be another point on our side of the argument CSL.
All the fastest NASCAR tunes I know of, use max ride height. While Daytona and Indy aren't the smoothest tracks in the world, I still file them under 'good and flat'.
*Flat meaning level, not unbanked.

The Nascars bottom out like crazy on Daytona. Tire load indicator actually works very well for Nascars.