Observations on suspension settings

[Mudd]

I think that last paragraph sums it up well, and ends the discussion for me

 

[No_OBsT33R]

No offense dude but you sound like some kind of stooge or plant for Polyphony...lol. Your vehemence in the negative here, without actually making some test runs as Stotty and others have makes it's it look like you're on the GT5 payroll...lol.

Regardless of the reasons why...game engine flaws..a guy who hit "f" instead of hitting "r"...the fact remains, at least on a few of the cars I tested, keeping all my tune settings the same which I thought were great tunes, raising the front height of the car increases or creates oversteer. This does not always mean lower lap times because there are a lot more factors in total lap times than just front end grip but it does work. You need only try it on a couple of cars to see that.

I don't believe it's a question anymore of whether a higher front/lower rear creates some front end grip and, has been proven on this thread, higher top end speed, I believe those are foregone conclusions at this point. I think it's now just an academic discussion of why and of course we'll never really know why unless we get access to the game engine itself.

I agree with the last paragraph. I have to say I've done my own testing, just not enough to come to any conclusive results just assumptions of things I don't and probably won't know for sure. so I won't act like they are proven fact .

I believe the aero effects are flawed, as I've clearly stated already, this much I believe has been proven. That tosses your PD payroll theory out the window (if they offer, I'm taking it though ). I just don't buy they are reversed because some anonymous guy on the internet says so.

Hey let's twitter Kaz and tell him to fix it.

 

[phil_75]

I get what you're saying Stotty, I just have a hard time believing they got the front and rear ride height effects reversed. 1000 monkeys at 1000 typewriters for 1000 years and one of them will come up with the software for GT5 (I am starting to think 3 or 4 monkeys and 3 or 4 cases of beer on a long weekend....) but can't 100 guys sitting around in an office, trying to produce the greatest driving simulator the world has ever seen, figure out where the front and rear of a car is?...lol. I just find that incredible which is why I tend to look for other solutions that make sense in light of how the game may have been programmed and unintended effects from things like simplifying downforce to perpendicular to the car and not the ground.

But you're right, the simplest solution is usually the right one....lol.

Yeah it would never happen

That tiny company called EA and NFS Shift understeer/Oversteer slider says hi

 

[No_OBsT33R]

Yeah it would never happen

That tiny company called EA and NFS Shift understeer/Oversteer slider says hi

I could see how EA's colossal blunder could have people readily suspicious. Doesn't mean that's the case whenever a car doesn't behave the way you expect it to in GT5. Even with the sliders fixed Tuning, Driving, Hell everything sucked in NFS, I had to hack the game to get it driving more like GT & stop the stupid bobble head. Even then it was a waist of time.

 

[Stotty]

Morning luddities

Assertition not based on one car...

I've posted settings for 4 cars so far (NASCAR, Enzo, MP12-4C and Speed 12). And unlike the majority of tunes I see in this forum, mine aren't built on race softs that cover up all the handling inadequacies. The Enzo and Speed 12 tunes are on sports hards, and the MP12 is sports softs.

I don't want to turn myself in to a tuning shop for the forum, but as I said I'd be happy to put a tune up against any of the tuning houses then call on one of the D1G WRS to give them a run.

Or maybe ask Kev to set up a 'tuners' week on WRS... so we all put tunes up and we see what the WRS community think of them from a handling perspective.

I have yet to develop a nose up tune myself, but what I noticed with your tunes both for the Speed12 and the MP4-12C is the rear toe. Those values produce a lot of oversteer and I don't know yet why exactly that is needed. The downside is how hard it gets to control the rear out of slow corners. As you said yourself, your Speed12 is very difficult to handle, which is imho not "good" handling.

As a sidenote: Do you get those tunes to have close to equal tyre wear front and rear? That's quite important if tyre wear is on.

Anyway, before I have to go to sleep: It might very well be that nose up benefits most cars, but each time for very different reasons. Nose up has a lot of different implications for the suspension and discussing each of them will get too far. My point is only that nose up does not generally and for all cars help with handling, but I bet it will be quicker even then.

Yes, I run -ve rear toe on the vast majority of my cars...

I like them to be as 'pointy' as possible on the way in to a corner. It's difficult to comment on this without sounding arrogant, but I guess a lot of people won't be good enough drivers to manage them, particularly if they are using DS3's. And even with a wheel, only a few will be able to manage the TVR on sports hards... but I did post that it was lovely on sports softs too, and everyone with a bit of skill will be able to cope on those tyres.

IME, rear toe settings only seem to effect the way a car handles, not how much traction it has... so -ve rear toe doesn't compromise exit speed with oversteer... though might be difficult for me to tell as I'm usually driving cars with waaaay more power than grip.

No on-line, so no chance to test tyre wear... I would think wear would be excellent though as the cars all feel really well balanced front to rear.... though I doubt a set of sports hards on the Speed 12 would last a lap with anyone's settings

 

[Adrenaline]

IME, rear toe settings only seem to effect the way a car handles, not how much traction it has... so -ve rear toe doesn't compromise exit speed with oversteer... though might be difficult for me to tell as I'm usually driving cars with waaaay more power than grip.

No on-line, so no chance to test tyre wear... I would think wear would be excellent though as the cars all feel really well balanced front to rear.... though I doubt a set of sports hards on the Speed 12 would last a lap with anyone's settings

Practice > 1 make race > Tire/fuel consumption: On

 

[Mike Rotch]

Just a reminder to ALL, to respect each others views, even if you disagree with them. The point of this thread is to enlighten the GTP community as to the implications of a 'bug', not downplay any other's talent. 👍

 

[Stotty]

Practice > 1 make race > Tire/fuel consumption: On

OK, I'll give it a go 👍

I've never run anything other than hop laps in practice, so I wasn't aware you could run with tyre wear on.

 

[psavi]

I've read all the pages in this thread and I would like to share my thoughts on the subject.

Someone has said that maybe the programmers knew nothing about tuning and thought it was right. That can't be right as it's written on the help text of the tuning menu and I quote: "Generally, a low front end and a high rear end will increase the tendency to oversteer, while the opposite will increase the tendency to understeer." It's not written with the exact same words, but it's something like that.

I'm inclined to say that the physics algorithm is inverting the numbers of front and rear.
Although I do think the aerodynamics of GT5 are seriously flawed, I don't think they play so big of a role on the car's handling to explain alone something like this. On the end of the day, the largest forces acting on a car come from the four contact areas with the ground.

I did some tests with a AE86 on TGTT and the car seemed to understeer less with the front high and rear low. On the other side, I did another test with the Motul Civic on Nordschleife. I tried to increase the cornering speed on the first right hand corner, just by messing only with the ride height. I tried max height, min height and front pointing the sky/rear scratching ground. I could not see any improvement from any setting.

The problem is that I'm playing on my cousin's PS3 with a Sixaxis, and I think I could feel the changes much better on my G27. I'll make some tests on the weekend with it.

 

[nomis3613]

^ I've also noticed recently that how much effect it has varies greatly between cars. I am now more inclined to believe it's related to static weight distribution somehow (which others have been saying for a while).



Although...just thinking aloud...maybe some test that could compare the whether the handling effect is greater at low speed or high speed could be useful. Accurate, repeatable tests of cornering speed are hard work, so I'm open to ideas for a test method.

 

[Johnnypenso]

^ I've also noticed recently that how much effect it has varies greatly between cars. I am now more inclined to believe it's related to static weight distribution somehow (which others have been saying for a while).



Although...just thinking aloud...maybe some test that could compare the whether the handling effect is greater at low speed or high speed could be useful. Accurate, repeatable tests of cornering speed are hard work, so I'm open to ideas for a test method.

Although it isn't 100% reliable, to me, lap times are the one and only test that really counts. Understeer, oversteer, higher top speed, good brakes, bad brakes whatever...if it leads to better lap times then it's good, if not, it's a waste of time. I've only tried it on a few cars, raising the front that is, and it's helped with lap times on some and not others. Most of them, if not all, "felt" better, but it didn't always translate into better times. A couple of times I went too far and it ruined the handling of the car quite dramatically.

About the only other thing that would matter to me would be how the car feels. Is it predictable, is it twitchy, is it easy to be consistent, how much grip does it have??...etc. I will sometimes use a tune that is tenth's slower simply because it's more predictable and consistent when racing online although faster is usually better, because if you qualify first and take a lead into the first corner, it's awfully hard for someone to get by most of the time.

 

[watermelon punch]

Someone pointed out to me (in private - thank you!) how it's not really logical to assume the same tuning approaches (no matter how real life knowledgeable, or how game related knowledgeable), would work with every car type. So it probably is impossible to judge the game's mechanics that way.

I have to admit that sometimes things work and sometimes they don't, depending on the car.
So then I wonder if it's not so much a simple error in the game, as that the game might be more complex than most give it credit.

I'm totally convinced that the game does NOT work exactly like real life... in all sorts of ways. But I think the answer of HOW it's not exactly like real life, is not always simple. The tire wear problem is a more isolated thing. Ride heights, it seems to me, to be potentially more tangled up with other things.

This:

^ I've also noticed recently that how much effect it has varies greatly between cars. I am now more inclined to believe it's related to static weight distribution somehow (which others have been saying for a while).

This sounds very logical to me. As do some of the other comments about varying aerodynamics or whatever.
I don't know how GT5 handles weight distribution, aerodynamics, etc, varying between cars. Etc. Etc.
And I don't know how much anyone here understands how GT5 handles these things. Therefore, I'm not sure how much of the explanations here can be taken at face value in any sweeping way that could apply across the board.
I'm not saying anyone's wrong or that anyone's clueless... It's just that I don't know if someone is or isn't knowledgeable, or how much they really know. So it's hard to judge how right someone might be, when taking these things into account.

Anyway, a video game probably can't ever be, exactly like real life, if only because very few people would buy a game with the consequences of real life. hahaha.

But in all seriousness... I don't think this, or any other issue/problem, should be a reason to become disillusioned with the game, in total.

(Except if you were counting on being good at this game makes you exactly like a real race driver. Which IMHO, is a foolish idea in any case. )

Although...just thinking aloud...maybe some test that could compare the whether the handling effect is greater at low speed or high speed could be useful. Accurate, repeatable tests of cornering speed are hard work, so I'm open to ideas for a test method.

I wish I had an idea. But I think this is on the right track... I'm just not sure how one would go about it.

I will sometimes use a tune that is a tenth's slower simply because it's more predictable and consistent when racing online although faster is usually better, because if you qualify first and take a lead into the first corner, it's awfully hard for someone to get by most of the time.

I struggle between these 2 angles of tuning for mulitiplayer online racing.
Being pretty much a newbie to racing online with other real people operating the cars... I do tend to favour the side of tuning to be more "stable" for an online race. I'd rather lose without drama & have a good fun time, than lose big time with errors & mishaps, that make the experience NOT-fun. haha
Frankly I think a lot of people probably struggle with this to some degree, whether they admit it or not. Because otherwise you would see more people in online games using lightweight cars or more wild cars, when given a choice. You don't.

 

[The Outlaw]

spring length is fixed, so raising the ride height does not affect the suspension travel.

Actually, that is incorrect as almost all vehicles suspension travel is dependent on shock absorber/damper travel and not spring travel/bound. That's why the bump stop (which limits travel) is often placed on the actual shocker absorber shaft itself.

And again, this is why I believe that raising the front suspension (or stiffening it) helps to prevent the front shock absorber from bottoming out in GT5 (although I don't think it is a universal problem from my experience - some cars do not have this issue), which would hinder weight transfer to the front axle....thus causing more understeer of course.

 

[KoAStR]

Hey Guys. I've read 95% of this thread and subsequently registered on GTP forums to comment especially on this....

It is an interesting issue.

I was first concerned by ride height settings when I installed a height adjustable kit in a lightly modified VW Samba bus (Combi van).
For some sh**ts and giggles in an online lounge with friends, I raised the back right up and lowered the front right down (for the aesthetic), expecting a handful of oversteer. I was confused to get quite the opposite.
Being very slow, aerodynamics are not a factor in the handling consideration.
--but prior to this rather extreme tuning I hadn't noticed an issue. I tend to make minor adjustments and tune on the feel rather than tune based on preconceptions.

At first I was perplexed by the results of ride height tuning like you guys. But thinking "surely PD couldn't let such a gross error go unchecked in their 5th installation of such a high profile game series, and after several update patches" so, as I'm not an authority on everything, I looked for another plausible explaination.

I tend to agree that it's most likely related to suspension bottom out.

It (bottom out) can have a massive effect on handling when lowering a car too much, and the result will be the opposite of the intended effect. i.e.Front too low and bottoms out = understeer. Rear too low and bottoms out = oversteer.
Many cars in GT5 are quite low already, so lowering them could quickly cause a bottom out condition and ruin the handling as some people have reported here.

Even at 'level' ride height, the front and rear don't necessarily have the same amount of suspension travel available before reaching bottom out.
If you set suspension too low, when you load it up it will bottom out, effectively becoming an infinitely stiff shock, and then inducing a sudden loss of grip resulting in a tendancy to slide. Often cars do not have the same bump stop lengths (or supension linkage confirguration for that matter) from front to rear. At a 'level' front/rear right height, the front suspension often has less available travel as there is less room with all the engine and steering components.

I can see in my 4WD clearly the bump stops are nearly twice as long in the front as they are in the back (and they employ different linkage systems). Although the car body is level, the spring lenghts are not the same either, So at 'level' ride height settings, the front has less travel available.

Add to this that you've already transfered weight to the front with the difference in ride height, and further weight transfer occurs under braking and turn in, pushing the front down even more towards bottoming out. This could explain the understeer seen from lowering front ride height (unless you have also increased the front spring rate).
Conversely, if you wish to run a softer front spring to reduce understeer, raising the front suspension may be necessary to avoid bottom out.
Bottom out in the rear could be beneficial where you can't increase your spring rate enough to overcome inherent understeer.

Differences in the exaggeration of this perceived effect from one vehicle to the next could also be explained when considering bottom characteristics will vary across the range of vehicles.

Also, remember in older versions of GT, if you lowered a car the wheels could be seen passing up through the body panels in the front with no adverse handling effects? Perhaps PD had not modelled suspension bottom out then, and now that they've included it in GT5 it's catching people out?

However I must admit that I'm not totally convinced either way...

I recall some of the PD vehicle garage descriptions state "the rear suspension was lowered by 5mm to increase stability in high speed corners".. however whenever I have employed this tuning method I have often been faced with the opposite result, i.e. decreased stability and oversteer. Assuming it was a bottom out problem I would increase the spring rate by 0.5kg/mm to offset the -5mm height adjustment. Spring adjustment would help, but is generally working against the effect I am trying to achieve by lowering the rear in the first place, and it still seems odd that only a -5mm height adjustment would cause bottom out....

In the end, as long as you don't rush into extreme tunes based in preconceived ideals, then you'll end up with good handling based on feel and minor adjustments.

 

[Sm0k3:D]

Although it isn't 100% reliable, to me, lap times are the one and only test that really counts. Understeer, oversteer, higher top speed, good brakes, bad brakes whatever...if it leads to better lap times then it's good, if not, it's a waste of time. I've only tried it on a few cars, raising the front that is, and it's helped with lap times on some and not others. Most of them, if not all, "felt" better, but it didn't always translate into better times. A couple of times I went too far and it ruined the handling of the car quite dramatically.

About the only other thing that would matter to me would be how the car feels. Is it predictable, is it twitchy, is it easy to be consistent, how much grip does it have??...etc. I will sometimes use a tune that is a tenth's slower simply because it's more predictable and consistent when racing online although faster is usually better, because if you qualify first and take a lead into the first corner, it's awfully hard for someone to get by most of the time.

👍

I think there's two main styles on tuning: Looking for the handling (race setup), or looking for the best lap time (time trial setup). Sometimes a fast setup is not the better for handling, and viceversa.
Usually a fast setup requires a smooth driving, and this setup doesn't forgive a mistake, and becames a more dificult-to-drive setup. In race we can't always draw the perfect line, and often we have to do unexpected and sudden corrections on our speed or in our line to avoid crashing with other drivers, to do some overtakings, or to fight our position.


So, now in topic, best way to test the optimum setup is driving and comparing results. You can compare your time in hot laps for fast setups, or you can compare your regularly in times.
I did a test with diferent cars, in diferent rides height (0/0, -10/10, 10/-10, -10/-10 and 10/10). I don't like the Min/max or max/min height, because going to extrems can give you strange results.
In some cars the 10/-10 worked better than others in my driving style (for example in Audi R8 5.2 FSI Quattro '09). Now i'm trying to push this gradually to the limit, in order to find my desired setup (i'm trying to do a time trial setup), increasing the height diference betwen front/rear. The max diference (ride heigt set to max/min) doesn't worked nice for me.

I'm still confused with all this stuff. I'm not convinced on front/rear are backwards... But I can't tell for sure they aren't...

 

[Highlandor]

Although it isn't 100% reliable, to me, lap times are the one and only test that really counts. Understeer, oversteer, higher top speed, good brakes, bad brakes whatever...if it leads to better lap times then it's good, if not, it's a waste of time.

About the only other thing that would matter to me would be how the car feels. Is it predictable, is it twitchy, is it easy to be consistent, how much grip does it have??...etc. I will sometimes use a tune that is a tenth's slower simply because it's more predictable and consistent when racing online.

Agree with this, but I'd take it one step further - look at tyre wear and race distance 'times' (for online races), not just individual laps times.

Sometimes making a car faster over an individual lap might possibly result in more tyre wear over race distance, doing practice runs of race distance will help give you a understanding of where to find the balance between grip and trye wear.

As for the 'bug' / 'glitch' etc etc - the ride height is definately affected i.e. it doesn't work as the guide says it should. Lower rear (than front) loosens the rear and can either help cure understeer at the front or create oversteer. Having the rear higher than the front increases rear stability (and sometimes grip) but has a tendancy to sometimes cause understeer at the front.

My friends that have the guide that comes with the game says the guide tells you to do the opposite.

My friend and I have tested well over 100 cars for our race series and the above seems to apply generally to pretty much all of the cars we've tried.

Springs, dampers and roll bars - no, if you change the front then it affects the front. The only time this might not apply is if you have a rear spring, damper and roll bar setting that makes the rear of the car very stable, this (like the ride height) stability at the rear can sometimes cause the front to understeer a little.

But, you're not changing the front settings, you're only affecting the handling of the front of the car by adjusting the rear settings - they are not 'reversed' in my opinion. The theory that in order to change the rear springs, dampers or roll bars you're supposed to adjust the front in settings - this is not the case offline or online in my experience or the people I race with.

If you want to adjust the front then change the front, the rear then change the rear. This has always been the case since day 1 on GT5 in my opinion.

Find a balance between having stability at the rear, but not so much it stops the front from turning. Have enough grip and stability to keep the back end from 'snapping', breaking away or swapping ends, but don't over do it to the point it's affecting the front.

However, this can also apply to the toe and camber figures aswell - it's a process of elimination and is also determined by your driving style / technique, and relationship between the car's power / torque and what tyres you're using.

Admittingly, there are other factors too i.e. offline and online physics / 'grip' levels, gear ratio's for different tracks, tyre wear for race distance and LSD settings that might also need to be taken into consideration.

 

[GTP_FastM3]

I tried raising the front slightly on a few of the cars I was driving yesterday. I didn't raise it to the max, but did raise it 10-15 points above the rear. I didn't do back to back testing, but overall I do believe the cars lost the understeer tendency that they had before. It seemed like I could enter corners 5-10mph faster then I could before. I had gotten so used to every car understeering a little that it began to feel neutral. Now I think I can feel what neutral really is.

 

[friedi]

well tested @ deepforest with fully tuned bmw m3

(without riding heigh 1.14.39x min)
(with my standart riding heigh -13 -9 > 1.14.19x)
(this riding heigh here 10 -15 lap time went to 1.13.5xx) over half a second

thought WTF

 

[Stotty]

Only works on some cars... I've been tuning a Caterham 7 for someone and ended up with -10 -10 on that car.

The Caterham was quite a nice little project... fully tuned running mid 1'11's a Deep Forest on race softs.

 

[HKS racer]

I've tested a couple of Supercars (Ferraris Lambo, Corvettes, Aston) and it really seems the ride height could be reversed. My lap times improved while useing rear low setups, and the feeling is much better, it feels like it should but.. reversed. Jordan when you'll have the chance to interview KY again please ask if he is aware of that. The problem is, supercars looks awful with the nose up and it's not realistic at all. If it's a bug please fix it PD! If not, well honestly... your physics sucks!!! but I think it's a bug now, so please investigate.

 

[phil_75]

Is it same with Online physics?

 

[adeadsnipermatt]

I trying a Viper ACR nose up, it understeers worst on Nurbergring and the jump is horrible with the nose up no traction at all.

 

[HKS racer]

I trying a Viper ACR nose up, it understeers worst on Nurbergring and the jump is horrible with the nose up no traction at all.

Extreme settings can work sometimes NOT everytime. Try to find a good setup in the traditional way, then start adjusting the ride height, you should feel the difference with, -5 front -15 rear or -10 / -20 or something like that. Don't go too extreme IF the car doesn't respond properly. The Viper is a bit understeery by its own, try with Ferraris.

 

[adeadsnipermatt]

I'm running 0 front and -5 rear. I tried -20 its really bad. -5 and 0 feels great for me tho.

 

[Lambob]

Just an input to the discussion, I am enjoying most of my cars by simply setting my heights to +5/+5. I am not fond of any settings in the negatives, they induce to much instability for my likes.

 

[ElijahCraig18]

I was just fiddling around with my DC5 Type R Integra started out with an extreme setting +50 -25, the car handled as if I was running Racing tires on the front and Comforts on the back. I was using racing soft tires. Tried a much milder setup of 0 -20, and while much more stable the car was still to unpredictable to drive. Settled on a setting of -12 -20. Oversteer could be predictably induced.

 

[budious]

I was just fiddling around with my DC5 Type R Integra started out with an extreme setting +50 -25, the car handled as if I was running Racing tires on the front and Comforts on the back. I was using racing soft tires. Tried a much milder setup of 0 -20, and while much more stable the car was still to unpredictable to drive. Settled on a setting of -12 -20. Oversteer could be predictably induced.

Try the same car at 0 / 0 ride height but put the front spring rate at maximum and the rear spring rate at minimum and watch it set new lap times, at least those were my results with the car. 15.0/3.0 if I recall correctly...

 

[Merquise]

These are my findings. I drove a Mini Cooper S '02 around London.

Theoretical setup of a stock car:
Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height -20 +20 Understeer
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height +20 -20 Oversteer
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 5 15 Understeer
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 15 5 Oversteer
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 8 1 Understeer
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 1 8 Oversteer
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 8 1 Understeer
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 1 8 Oversteer
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 8 1 Understeer

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 1 8 Oversteer

 

[Schadenfreude13]

These are my findings. I drove a Mini Cooper S '02 around London.

Theoretical setup of a stock car:
Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height -20 +20 Understeer
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height +20 -20 Oversteer
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 5 15 Understeer
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 15 5 Oversteer
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 8 1 Understeer
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 1 8 Oversteer
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 8 1 Understeer
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 1 8 Oversteer
Stabilizers 4 4

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 8 1 Understeer

Ride Height 0 0
Spring Rate 10 10
Shock Bound 4 4
Shock Rebound 4 4
Stabilizers 1 8 Oversteer

Solid test there.

A quick look at your results, and I'd say the way the handling of the car changes with each adjustment is in line (in the general sense) with real world/'conventional'/past versions of GT, EXCEPT for ride height, which seems reversed, as the OP suggests.

Is there some way to share this with PD/Sony to find out if there is in fact a glitch? I've heard of people using Twitter to point these things out to Kaz, but surely there's something better...

 

[-raVer-]

This would be optimum then?

Ride Height -20 +20
Spring Rate 15 5
Shock Bound 1 8
Shock Rebound 8 1
Stabilizers 4 4


raVer