Observations on suspension settings

[Hermanvongerman]

I'm surprised I only just noted this topic now..... away we go to test.....

sounds like a glitch that was in the release version of forza 3 where alll of (not just ride height) the settings were backwards, and I'm telling you now, I set up the car like forza 2 , it was horrible, then reversed settings was amazing.... literally would have never noticed this on GT5 as run pretty neutral ride heights generally, thank you for the observation

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I'll make a post soley to ask why I guess.

Here goes, "Why?"

Oh, I dunno...

An RX-7 TC is a RWD car.

Weight transfers rearward under acceleration.

The higher you make the center of gravity, the more weight transfer there will be at any given level of acceleration in any direction.

Hmmm... I wonder how increasing rearward weight transfer affects traction in a RWD car....

If you can't figure out why increasing ride height would do what you said it does beyond saying (incorrectly) "IT INCREASES GRIP BY THIS MUCH HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR", I don't think you should speak on the matter.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh, I dunno...

An RX-7 TC is a RWD car.

Weight transfers rearward under acceleration.

The higher you make the center of gravity, the more weight transfer there will be at any given level of acceleration in any direction.

Hmmm... I wonder how increasing rearward weight transfer affects traction in a RWD car....

If you can't figure out why increasing ride height would do what you said it does beyond saying (incorrectly) "IT INCREASES GRIP BY THIS MUCH HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR", I don't think you should speak on the matter.

The fact that it works this way in real life is completely irrelevant to GT5. You don't seriously believe that PD went to that level of detail in programming that it would increase acceleration G's through increased ride height, higher centre of gravity and more weight transfer to the rear do you?

If that were the case then the effect of raised ride height on cornering would be to reduce the number of G's of lateral acceleration and likely result in much lower cornering speeds and higher lap times and I have not found that to be the case. I've tuned cars with maxed ride heights like +40/+40 and can run the same lap times on the 'Ring as the same car tuned at 0/0 or -20/-20.

Something else is at play here and it's not real life physics. PD has obviously and unsurprisingly taken shortcuts to mimic certain aspects of tuning and it's resulted in perhaps unintended effects. I'm open to anything that I think will improve tuning whether it's "real" or made up...if it works it works:tup:

 

[OwensRacing]

As well more suspension travel will absorb more torque being applied. When a force is applied something has to happen. Either the car accelerates, tires spin, suspension reacts.


Anyway on GT5 no way To tell for sure. I don't think they went deep enough on handling for us to even consider suspension geometry relative to ride ht.


Some food for thought-

Drag cars with 4 link suspensions have loads of adjustability. If your car is leaving the line and front tires go up pulling a wheelie then that is wasted motion going up when the finish is straight out in front. So these guys will find the CG and then adjust suspension from it. When done right the car should only lift the tires a few inches and be making its way down the track instead tire rotation used to lift front wheels.


Anyway plenty of articles about this on the web. They make for a great read and truly you have to know CG and it's relativity with suspension to even think about being a good suspeion tuner.

Then there is roll center. Again relative to CG.

I wish I had a reason to learn this stuff better. Since I don't. I know enough to know when dealing with a pro or not. LoL


Why they don't tell us more about physics and let us know what does what realative to this game.

Obviously many have learned real world tuning doesn't work so well on GT5.

 

[CSLACR]

Oh, I dunno...

An RX-7 TC is a RWD car.

Weight transfers rearward under acceleration.

The higher you make the center of gravity, the more weight transfer there will be at any given level of acceleration in any direction.

Hmmm... I wonder how increasing rearward weight transfer affects traction in a RWD car....

If you can't figure out why increasing ride height would do what you said it does beyond saying (incorrectly) "IT INCREASES GRIP BY THIS MUCH HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR", I don't think you should speak on the matter.

First off, I love the cocky arrogant way to respond, top notch.
Second off, I love the misquoting asinine ALL CAPS DEEERRRRRR. Seem the tuner group is still filled with jackals looking for a fight.

So let me guess, Camaro/Trans-Am suspension kits lower the rear because they want wheel spin and extra over steer, right?

Better yet, let's raise the front of a FWD car, shall we? I'd love to hear your theory on how raising the front of a FWD should add grip off the line too. Maybe it's extra forward weight transfer, by being having less weight on the front to start?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

The fact that it works this way in real life is completely irrelevant to GT5. You don't seriously believe that PD went to that level of detail in programming that it would increase acceleration G's through increased ride height, higher centre of gravity and more weight transfer to the rear do you?

You know, it's kinda difficult to make a physics model out of BS.

You don't seriously believe that PD went out of their way to fake weight transfer, CoG, and its effects, do you?

If that were the case then the effect of raised ride height on cornering would be to reduce the number of G's of lateral acceleration and likely result in much lower cornering speeds and higher lap times and I have not found that to be the case. I've tuned cars with maxed ride heights like +40/+40 and can run the same lap times on the 'Ring as the same car tuned at 0/0 or -20/-20.

Didn't say it was right. I will say, however, that most of these issues are based on problems with the tire model and its handling of load vs grip... Mainly that it's too close to 1:1.

Something else is at play here and it's not real life physics. PD has obviously and unsurprisingly taken shortcuts to mimic certain aspects of tuning and it's resulted in perhaps unintended effects. I'm open to anything that I think will improve tuning whether it's "real" or made up...if it works it works:tup:

Oh I'm not saying they haven't taken shortcuts, but half of this conjecture is based on what people on the internet THINK happens in real life vs what they THINK happens in the game.

First off, I love the cocky arrogant way to respond, top notch.

No problem. 👍

Second off, I love the misquoting asinine ALL CAPS DEEERRRRRR. Seem the tuner group is still filled with jackals looking for a fight.

Always has been, always will be. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

So let me guess, Camaro/Trans-Am suspension kits lower the rear because they want wheel spin and extra over steer, right?

I LOVE YOU MAN, I REALLY DO. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH.

Better yet, let's raise the front of a FWD car, shall we? I'd love to hear your theory on how raising the front of a FWD should add grip off the line too. Maybe it's extra forward weight transfer, by being having less weight on the front to start?

Raising the front doesn't help traction on a FWD car at all. Dropping it does, as does raising the rear.

I've done enough drag testing to know what does what. The only truly screwy part is how AWD reacts to tuning in some areas, and how it doesn't react in others. Oh and how alignment changes things, that's a long way off too.

 

[CSLACR]

Always has been, always will be. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

If you can't beat 'em, try to run 'em out, right?

I LOVE YOU MAN, I REALLY DO. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH.

You're good at hiding your face most of the time, strange.
cough *highlandor* cough

Raising the front doesn't help traction on a FWD car at all. Dropping it does, as does raising the rear.

Care to make a wager on that of some type?
I have an idea in mind, and it's linked to one of your sentences here.

I've done enough drag testing to know what does what. The only truly screwy part is how AWD reacts to tuning in some areas, and how it doesn't react in others. Oh and how alignment changes things, that's a long way off too.

Sooo, this whole post, is it about real life or GT5?
I'm going to assume GT5, since this is a forum about that, and you haven't said "in real life".

 

[Scaff]

This part of the AUP....

You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

....needs a good re-read by a number of you.

I will be clear on this, the next one of you to forget it and jump to a personal attack rather than discussing the topic of the thread will be given a temp ban.

No further warning will be given.


Scaff

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Care to make a wager on that of some type?
I have an idea in mind, and it's linked to one of your sentences here.

Sure, I'll take that bet (and ignore the rest of the post so I don't go and say something stupid).

Sooo, this whole post, is it about real life or GT5?
I'm going to assume GT5, since this is a forum about that, and you haven't said "in real life".

GT5, clearly.

 

[nomis3613]

The lower car with the same springs has more compression at neutral and therefore tighter springing since springs are non-linear. (If I remember my Hooke's law and elasticity mechanics correctly)

I am assuming that the springs are linear and when you drop the ride height, they are replaced with shorter springs of the same stiffness (k value) rather than chopping the springs.

The way the settings are labelled does not imply that spring rate changes with ride height (because you set springs rates directly). However, Z1-AV69's theory (linking spring rates with ride height), seems to work well...

To me that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, independent of all other factors and adjustments, raising front ride height raises front grip and turn in. I don't honestly see how anyone can disagree with that...lol..

Agreed, but I think the discussion has moved on to why this occurs

sounds like a glitch that was in the release version of forza 3 where alll of (not just ride height) the settings were backwards

Yikes! What is is with racing games in recent years doing the opposite of what one would expect?!!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Yikes! What is is with racing games in recent years doing the opposite of what one would expect?!!

I blame EA. Carbon's understeer/oversteer slider worked backwards.

 

[OwensRacing]

I think PD took a simple approach and didn't apply any "real world physics" beyond common sense.

Think about it. If a person that knows enough to talk smart about subject but truly lacks the knowledge to be a professional in that area was to make the physics side. Then well it all makes sense.


Basically
Cars reactions and physics are subjective to one persons theory. Not based on reality or facts. Just what the person thought happened.

Or suspension was forgotten about and they basically looked at weights. hence that tire load feature.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I think PD took a simple approach and didn't apply any "real world physics" beyond common sense.

Think about it. If a person that knows enough to talk smart about subject but truly lacks the knowledge to be a professional in that area was to make the physics side. Then well it all makes sense.


Basically
Cars reactions and physics are subjective to one persons theory. Not based on reality or facts. Just what the person thought happened.

Or suspension was forgotten about and they basically looked at weights. hence that tire load feature.

While that could be the case, I think a large part of it is down to how close to GT4 GT5 actually is.

GT4 couldn't do terribly in-depth physics because it was already pushing the PS2 for all it had on the graphics rendering side of things... GT5 is, largely, an extension of GT4 aside from the tire model and possibly a few smaller things in the physics model.

So it might not be someone talking out of their arse as far as physics go, but someone trying to make physics that feel as close as possible to real within rather limited hardware constraints.

They can't have changed much from GT4's underlying physics, otherwise the standard/premium gap wouldn't exist and we would have GT3 all over again. I really, truly doubt they would've gone through 700+ cars to create "new" physics models for them.

 

[nomis3613]

You don't seriously believe that PD went to that level of detail in programming that it would increase acceleration G's through increased ride height, higher centre of gravity and more weight transfer to the rear do you?

If that were the case then the effect of raised ride height on cornering would be to reduce the number of G's of lateral acceleration and likely result in much lower cornering speeds and higher lap times and I have not found that to be the case.

It is possible that traction and cornering grip are handled separately by the physics engine. I agree with you that raising the car doesn't reduce mid-corner lateral grip in GT5.

Something else is at play here and it's not real life physics. PD has obviously and unsurprisingly taken shortcuts to mimic certain aspects of tuning and it's resulted in perhaps unintended effects. I'm open to anything that I think will improve tuning whether it's "real" or made up...if it works it works:tup:

Yes, it's just a simulation, so there will always be shortcomings. Even the PC sims have unrealistic effects sometimes, and GT5 physics is much more dumbed down than them.

I blame EA. Carbon's understeer/oversteer slider worked backwards.

Haha! Wouldn't the slider have been called "lame drift -> sik drift"

 

[OwensRacing]

We just need more info from PD. till then we can speculate and discuss all we want. No way to know what is really going unless they offer up info.

Having read the "hand book" in my Collector kit. Someone knows a thing or two about cars that's for sure.

 

[VTiRoj]

Having read the "hand book" in my Collector kit. Someone knows a thing or two about cars that's for sure.

I had the pleasure of reading that entire book during a very long flight. It's obviously based on real life techniques and tips, as none of it is actually applicable to GT5.

PD won't give information out about their physics calculations though. How many companies outside of the PC sim market actually talk about that? Certainly not EA or Turn10, so I wouldn't expect PD to either.

 

[Z1-AV69]

The amount of travel in a suspension DOES matter if you're not bottoming out. The lower car with the same springs has more compression at neutral and therefore tighter springing since springs are non-linear. (If I remember my Hooke's law and elasticity mechanics correctly)

In short, when you lower the ride height and reduce travel you're increasing the effective spring rate. Whether it bottoms out or not, lowering the car without changing the springs will increase the force required to compress the springs farther, thus, effectively stiffer springs.

If ride height change works like that (the springs stay the same but the travel changes), I'd say GT5 physics would actually make sense...

It's been suggested a thousand times but I'll say it again. Take any car that's well tuned by you or someone else online, neutral in character preferably to accentuate the effect, and raise the front end 5-10 points, change nothing else, and what happens? Turn in is sharper, more front grip. Sometime so much extra front grip a car can become undrivable with a 10 point rise in the front end.

To me that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, independent of all other factors and adjustments, raising front ride height raises front grip and turn in. I don't honestly see how anyone can disagree with that...lol..

Indeed, raising the front increases grip. Now if you lift the front by 10 ticks, try stiffening the front springs by 10 ticks and you will get roughly the same balance as before. This way you can do nose up tunes which keep the original handling. Rear traction will still suck if you slam the rear though. Often the springs cannot be soft enough for minimal ride height.

It is possible that traction and cornering grip are handled separately by the physics engine. I agree with you that raising the car doesn't reduce mid-corner lateral grip in GT5.

I'm not so sure regarding the lateral grip mid-corner. If you raise the car a lot, at some point you will again lose some cornering ability and it's especially noticeable mid-corner.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Agreed, but I think the discussion has moved on to why this occurs

Because PD programmed it that way, intentionally or unintentionally. I thought that was the most obvious part of the discussion...

 

[CSLACR]

Sure, I'll take that bet (and ignore the rest of the post so I don't go and say something stupid).




GT5, clearly.

Well, somewhere in the updates some things have changed slightly.
Fortunately, raising the front doesn't add grip on FWD off the line anymore, but it still adds cornering grip, and the difference on the Civic I tested between 45/-25 and -25/45, along with max or min front spring rate makes a total difference of about 1 car length.
1 car length between what should be optimal, and what should be the worst possible setup. Better than backwards, but still terrible, and clearly not working properly.

Now, raising the front still clearly adds cornering grip to the front on any car, and we should still probably discuss why racing cars never jack the rear for better acceleration grip.
I'd really like to hear the physics on how, with the same spring rate, etc, taking weight off the rear (by raising it) is going to increase weight transfer, especially considering the spring rates are the same. Where does this "increase" of weight transfer come from, exactly?

I'd also like to hear why increasing the rear spring rate to maximum adds traction for RWD as well, if you've created a theory for that too.

I'm not so sure regarding the lateral grip mid-corner. If you raise the car a lot, at some point you will again lose some cornering ability and it's especially noticeable mid-corner.

There is no car that I've tested in GT5 that doesn't increase rotation by raising the front to maximum.
There is no point at which they lose some cornering ability mid-corner because the ride height is too high.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Now, raising the front still clearly adds cornering grip to the front on any car, and we should still probably discuss why racing cars never jack the rear for better acceleration grip.

Does it? Or have you just not played with front spring rate enough?

I'd really like to hear the physics on how, with the same spring rate, etc, taking weight off the rear (by raising it) is going to increase weight transfer, especially considering the spring rates are the same. Where does this "increase" of weight transfer come from, exactly?

Raising the rear alone shouldn't in most cases (there are some where it would work). It does in GT5 for unknown/unexplained reasons... But if it's magic grip you're looking for, go test an AWD. min/max ride height provides the most traction possible, so it must provide magic grip hax.

I'd also like to hear why increasing the rear spring rate to maximum adds traction for RWD as well, if you've created a theory for that too.

Uhh, it doesn't. Actually reduces it slightly. Helps combat oversteer if you're undersprung in the rear though.

There is no car that I've tested in GT5 that doesn't increase rotation by raising the front to maximum.

Funny, every time I've tried it the car has wound up feeling absolutely wrong. Push on entry and loose on exit, exactly the way I don't want to drive a car. Then again, the other way around does the same thing but worse because there's no on-throttle rotation either.

There is no point at which they lose some cornering ability mid-corner because the ride height is too high.

Sambabus!

 

[CSLACR]

Does it? Or have you just not played with front spring rate enough?

It does.

Raising the rear alone shouldn't in most cases (there are some where it would work). It does in GT5 for unknown/unexplained reasons... But if it's magic grip you're looking for, go test an AWD. min/max ride height provides the most traction possible, so it must provide magic grip hax.

That sure makes this:

Oh, I dunno...

An RX-7 TC is a RWD car.

Weight transfers rearward under acceleration.

The higher you make the center of gravity, the more weight transfer there will be at any given level of acceleration in any direction.

Hmmm... I wonder how increasing rearward weight transfer affects traction in a RWD car....

If you can't figure out why increasing ride height would do what you said it does beyond saying (incorrectly) "IT INCREASES GRIP BY THIS MUCH HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR", I don't think you should speak on the matter.

Sound a bit foolish doesn't it?

Uhh, it doesn't. Actually reduces it slightly. Helps combat oversteer if you're undersprung in the rear though.

It very much did. It took the RX7 from .95G to .96G. It's possible they changed it since, but I doubt it.

Funny, every time I've tried it the car has wound up feeling absolutely wrong. Push on entry and loose on exit, exactly the way I don't want to drive a car. Then again, the other way around does the same thing but worse because there's no on-throttle rotation either.

Well, people drive the fastest times with those setups, so they can't be too wrong, can they?

Sambabus!

If that's true, it's hilarious.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

It does.

Okay.

That sure makes this:
Sound a bit foolish doesn't it?

Not really. It'll depend a lot on the car and where the static CoG is.

It very much did. It took the RX7 from .95G to .96G. It's possible they changed it since, but I doubt it.

That's funny, my RX-7 always, ALWAYS launched quickest with as soft of rear springs as possible. Then again, I've seen a gain of 0.03G result in a net loss of 0-60 and ET (2012 GT-R), so it isn't "god". It's simply the highest acceleration force hit at any point of the run. If you have a moment of higher traction, it'll go up, but it doesn't mean you've got higher traction for the full run.

Well, people drive the fastest times with those setups, so they can't be too wrong, can they?

There's a separate reason for nose up/tail down for lap times that has absolutely nothing to do with handling ability.

If that's true, it's hilarious.

Well, considering if you go too high it will try to roll over... It's true.

 

[CSLACR]

Not really. It'll depend a lot on the car and where the static CoG is.

O really? I thought blatantly contradicting yourself from one or two posts to the next was an admission.

So, let's clear this up:
Raising the rear increases rearward weight transfer, and should increase straight line accelerating grip, as said by you, very, very, very clearly.

Oh, I dunno...

An RX-7 TC is a RWD car.

Weight transfers rearward under acceleration.

The higher you make the center of gravity, the more weight transfer there will be at any given level of acceleration in any direction.

Hmmm... I wonder how increasing rearward weight transfer affects traction in a RWD car....

If you can't figure out why increasing ride height would do what you said it does beyond saying (incorrectly) "IT INCREASES GRIP BY THIS MUCH HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR", I don't think you should speak on the matter.

Got it, it should improve traction, thanks for explaining it.

Raising the rear alone shouldn't in most cases (there are some where it would work). It does in GT5 for unknown/unexplained reasons... But if it's magic grip you're looking for, go test an AWD. min/max ride height provides the most traction possible, so it must provide magic grip hax.

What? You just screamed out that it absolutely does.
Now it only does in some cases, but usually doesn't?

Which is it?

That's funny, my RX-7 always, ALWAYS launched quickest with as soft of rear springs as possible. Then again, I've seen a gain of 0.03G result in a net loss of 0-60 and ET (2012 GT-R), so it isn't "god". It's simply the highest acceleration force hit at any point of the run. If you have a moment of higher traction, it'll go up, but it doesn't mean you've got higher traction for the full run.

Ok, and different runs yield different times, do you have any numbers, or was it an insignificant change?

There's a separate reason for nose up/tail down for lap times that has absolutely nothing to do with handling ability.

As you wish it to be.
Irony is all the idiot driving with those setups don't know what you know, those guys actually believe the car is rotating more, and handling better.

You should join something and show them how it's done, definitely. Educate them, so they can go even faster.💡

Well, considering if you go too high it will try to roll over... It's true.

And just as with every point you've ever made on this subject, you start by stating a fallacy, then retract it without ever admitting being wrong, and start using one-time examples or rare instances as the rule, instead of the exception like they are.

This isn't new, it's what has happened in this thread since the beginning. You're particularly doing it now to justify trying to make an ass out of me over the ride height adding traction, even though it's clear someone has pulled you aside and turned the light bulb on.
You grab on to exceptions to defend beliefs once you realize your belief is wrong, plain and simple.

Simplified:

"You'd have to be a moron to believe raising the rear should not add grip off the line" (polite version )
"Raising the rear usually should not add grip to the rear, but it does sometimes."
"No, they don't contradict each other."

Well yes, yes they do.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Raise the rear end, alone, on a vehicle with a center of gravity forward of or at center (most front engine cars), CoG effectively moves further forward, and only marginally upward.

My initial statement was aimed at why launch traction was better when you raised the entire car. In this case, the CoG goes straight UP.

See the difference?

Now then, as for the "different runs yield different times"... No, no they do not, so long as I'm using a DS3, automatic trans, and hold the throttle down from the second I hit the button to start the test. Car will run the same exact time, every time, unless I change something in the setup. When testing suspension, this is exactly how I do it, without that repeatability it's kinda difficult to chip for thousandths.

As for the "join them and show them how it's done"... Nah, I'll pass on that. I've never claimed to be a god at driving... But I will point out the separate advantage to those setups.

Straight line speed. From my testing, it isn't difficult to see a full tenth's variance in acceleration down every straight from running max/min ride height instead of, say, min/min.

Lastly, please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[nomis3613]

CSLACR, you are not understanding that they are 2 different situations that RJ is describing:
1) raising the whole car: raises CG > more weight transfer > more weight on rear tyres when accelerating
2 raise the rear only: CG moves forward > less static weight on rear tyres
(for the record, I believe that the shift forward is negligable because we are talking about tiny angles here. But I don't know much about drag tuning so maybe there's some other reason that rake is bad for traction IRL)

EDIT: woops, beaten by RJ's post. Ummm... what he said

 

[CSLACR]

Raise the rear end, alone, on a vehicle with a center of gravity forward of or at center (most front engine cars), CoG effectively moves further forward, and only marginally upward.

My initial statement was aimed at why launch traction was better when you raised the entire car. In this case, the CoG goes straight UP.

See the difference?

Now then, as for the "different runs yield different times"... No, no they do not, so long as I'm using a DS3, automatic trans, and hold the throttle down from the second I hit the button to start the test. Car will run the same exact time, every time, unless I change something in the setup. When testing suspension, this is exactly how I do it, without that repeatability it's kinda difficult to chip for thousandths.

As for the "join them and show them how it's done"... Nah, I'll pass on that. I've never claimed to be a god at driving... But I will point out the separate advantage to those setups.

Straight line speed. From my testing, it isn't difficult to see a full tenth's variance in acceleration down every straight from running max/min ride height instead of, say, min/min.

Lastly, please stop putting words in my mouth.

Ironic, that you're now claiming it was a response to something I didn't even say, followed by "please stop putting words in my mouth."

Please do tell where I put words in your mouth.
Quote it, and then I'll quote where you said exactly it, or the equivalent.

You don't have to be a god of driving, you simply have to give people tips that they see work. I'm sure you can find plenty of people that gain more than the few tenths of straight line speed from these setups, I know I sure have.
The speed gain from running max/min setups is minor enough you can't tell it's happening while racing.

Ironically again, the RWD acceleration grip gains from a high ride height you tried to blast me over, are much, much, much more obvious, so obvious you can see them while racing.

CSLACR, you are not understanding that they are 2 different situations that RJ is describing:
1) raising the whole car: raises CG > more weight transfer > more weight on rear tyres when accelerating
2 raise the rear only: CG moves forward > less static weight on rear tyres
(for the record, I believe that the shift forward is negligable because we are talking about tiny angles here. But I don't know much about drag tuning so maybe there's some other reason that rake is bad for traction IRL)

EDIT: woops, beaten by RJ's post. Ummm... what he said

It's called "backtracking".
I never said "raise the whole car", people carry on, make obnoxious posts, and then say 3 days later when they finally grasped what I've told them "I thought you meant this."

I guess the lesson to learn here is that maybe you should fully comprehend what someone is saying before you try to flame them and end up looking foolish.💡


FYI, cars like the Corvette can be jacked almost 4 inches, so I wouldn't call them "tiny angles", necessarily.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

It's the effects of handling and grip that are totally bass-ackwards.
FTW, I've increased acceleration G's in the RX-7 TC by .04 by raising the ride height to maximum, because it has that much more grip.

...

I think that says all of it, really.

 

[CSLACR]

...

I think that says all of it, really.

Yes it does.

I was silly enough to think people would know that meant on the drive wheels, since they are the ones that need traction.

Funny though, if you already knew all of this as you say, why would you bother to argue how raising the whole car is realistic, as a defense for the suspension not being backwards, knowing that just raising the rear still adds traction.

You knew it worked in an unrealistic way, yet still tried to focus on proving it proper in another way.
The problem with all this, is that you know as well as I do, that the reason the rear grip is increased when raising the whole car in GT5, is because the rear is raised, and doesn't actually have anything to do with the front being raised, or the cog you keep mentioning.

So why go so far out of your way, so angrily, to defend something you know doesn't work right, and you also know even at times when it does work right, it's not working right for the right reason?

Funny, every time I've tried it the car has wound up feeling absolutely wrong. Push on entry and loose on exit, exactly the way I don't want to drive a car. Then again, the other way around does the same thing but worse because there's no on-throttle rotation either.

Back to this...
If it pushes on entry, on is too loose on exit, why do the fastest drivers think it makes the car looser at all times?

What is it you believe you can feel that the fastest/best players in the world can't feel?

 

[nomis3613]

CSLACR, do you come here looking for a fight? If didn't react so sensitively to others' posts, we'd be able to concentrate more on GT5 tuning, and without the venom, too.

It's called "backtracking".
I never said "raise the whole car", people carry on, make obnoxious posts, and then say 3 days later when they finally grasped what I've told them "I thought you meant this."

What happened is you said "by raising the ride height to maximum". This is ambiguous, people assumed you meant both ends. It's not anyone's fault, can't you just accept there was a misunderstanding and move on please?

I guess the lesson to learn here is that maybe you should fully comprehend what someone is saying before you try to flame them and end up looking foolish.💡

I wasn't trying to flame you, so why was this in your reply to me?

Chill, dude! If you think everyone is out to put you down (which isn't true), then it seems strange that you would want to keep coming back here...


Anyway...about actual tuning stuff:

FYI, cars like the Corvette can be jacked almost 4 inches, so I wouldn't call them "tiny angles", necessarily.

(note: below is a calm statement of ideas, not an attempt to flame/belittle/anything else)
4 inch raise on a 106 inch chassis gives an angle of 2 degrees
2 degree angle means the CG moves forwards/backwards 0.07%, this is why I believe the effect is negligible.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Anyway...about actual tuning stuff:

(note: below is a calm statement of ideas, not an attempt to flame/belittle/anything else)
4 inch raise on a 106 inch chassis gives an angle of 2 degrees
2 degree angle means the CG moves forwards/backwards 0.07%, this is why I believe the effect is negligible.

Here's the problem with that statement. It has nothing to do with GT5. It's a real life calculation, based on real life figures, not a calculation based on PD's physics model and therefore has absolutely nothing to do with this game and is completely irrelevant. You have no idea how PD modelled the CoG physics of this game if indeed they did at all. This statement is pure guesswork and proves nothing because you have no idea how PD programmed the game.

I'm not saying that to be argumentative, but that's what goes through my head every time I see statements on GTPLanet that "springs do this" and "shocks do this" and "ride height does this" and "aero does this" and "toe does this" . Yeah, in real life it does, this isn't real life, it's a digital approximation made to look and feel like real life. It mimics real life, but we have no idea how they figured out anything in the game.

To me the only thing that matters is making changes in the game and the effects they have and whether they work or not. Some of them are closer to real life than others, some are backwards (IMVHO) and some don't work at all. So using real life examples to prove anything makes no sense at all to me.

If you saw a tree an Oak with orange leaves at Autumn Ring and an Elm with red leaves and know that one loses it's leaves before the other and they never have coloured leaves at the same time in the fall (I"m just making that up for an example) would you begin to explain weather, and climate and where the track is located and different types of oaks and elms and global warming and other real life reasons for why it might happen?