pro's and cons to aerodynamics?

[DSUjoeDirte9]

I have found myself lowing my back aero lately, which is making me faster in mediam/high speed turns were aero kicks in but i seem to still be getting same lap times.

Whats the pro's and cons of having a higher or lower back aerodynamic setting compared to the other.

Example: Rear aero 50-85
-Pro's/Cons of having at 85
-pro's/cons of having at 80 insted

how much is braking effected when you change rear areo, because all my bro's cars seem to brake better but idk if its the cars hes driving of our tune differences in term of aero's

 

[DSUjoeDirte9]

-.- really no comments. i would think with everyone tuning aerodynamics on gt5 that someone would actually know why they did it. -.-

 

[MrGrado]

higher rear aero means higher rear grip. lower aero will increase top speed.

 

[Adrenaline]

Pro: Downforce, Grip, Tire Wear
Con: PP, Top Speed

 

[DSUjoeDirte9]

do u by chance know if it will affect braking?

 

[gamerdog6482]

All right, time for a black and white answer.

Pros: More grip, better acceleration (to an extent), better braking, better stability at high speed
Cons: lower top speed, each gear has a lower top speed as well


As you can see, the pros outweigh the cons unless you are on a top speed track.

 

[Adrenaline]

do u by chance know if it will affect braking?

Any time I'm going to be braking, it means I'm going to be turning, which means I want maxed Aero. So... no clue, because it's irrelevant to my driving/tuning style.

 

[rosckolove]

You can also get rid of a little bit of understeer by lowering rear downforce, but if understeer is that much of a problem just switch cars (if your trying to be competitive online)

 

[gamerdog6482]

And 99.7% of the time understeer can be fixed using the suspension and/or differential.

 

[DSUjoeDirte9]

hmm, ive just been lowering aero lately because i can still take turns without losing enough grip to make me spin. It has seemed effective as my and my bro recieve same times but he runs max aero.. guess ill try max aero again.

like i mean i pretty much run the same times i used to depending on track which ofc would be a top speed track depending on drag, mabey ill just have to make 2 tunes 1 for top speed and 1 for well not top speed... always kinda just done 1 tune for all and worked fine.

is a 905/787b both getting same times are le sarthe normal or should 1 be beating the other by a lot?

Any time I'm going to be braking, it means I'm going to be turning, which means I want maxed Aero. So... no clue, because it's irrelevant to my driving/tuning style.

yeah i tend to brake hard into turns and gt on gas asap for my driving style, so all my tunes require nothing slipping or anything, needs to go were and when i want with me knowing confidently that it wont do anything i dont want.

I did finally get a DFGT which allows more more control of my car though so my tunes are starting to get a bit loser... pescarolo hybrid is still oversteer crazy though -.-

 

[Master_gamer438]

I prefer no wing at all up to 600PP+, As for race cars I minimize aero and run the car, add some front and rear. Balance the car using minimal aero and you will get a fast, great cornering car. But thats for sprint running. More aero if its a endurance race. I particularly run Nurburg.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

DSU, my general rule is:



If your car's not reaching its rev-limiter, at the end of the fastest straightaway, take a bit of downforce out. If the car's hard to drive, add downforce.


But, since that's a tricky game of trial and error, I'll give you a concrete, specific example.


Take a DTM car (Opel Astra Touring, Mercedes CLK Touring, Vauxhall Astra touring, Audi A4 Touring, Audi TT-R Touring... and so forth) to Grand Valley Speedway.



Then, follow these steps:

• Consider Turns 2 and 3
• Can you make it flat-out?
• If you can't make it through the corner without lifting off of the throttle, you need more downforce.
• But, if you're not hitting a good lap time, or a speed of about 270-280 km/h, remove downforce.

Downforce will cost you speed on the straights, while allowing you speed in the corners. Finding the balance is key.


Watch this video:



The black and gold car of Kimi Raikkönen has a lot of downforce; even with KERS and draft, he doesn't gain an advantage on the straightaways. But, he maintains the gap/gains in the corners, against the silver car of Michael Schumacher.


The fastest speed Kimi reaches is 319 km/h, with KERS, DRS, and draft; every advantage possible to gain speed on the straight. He's only able to maintain the gap, with every assist available. However, in the following lap, Kimi closes the gap, and gets close enough to make the pass.


On the following lap, Michael Schumacher is able to pass Kimi Raikkönnen, on the straight, without a fight; because Kimi had too much downforce. However, Kimi stayed close enough behind Schumacher, to be able to make the pass, at the beginning of the third lap.

 

[nomis3613]

In my experience, rear downforce is rarely worth the PP hit, unless the car is really unstable. So I use the minimum possible (using suspension/ballast if high speed oversteer is a problem) and save the PP for other areas.

 

[DEEZNUTZ388]

A pro to aerodynamics is that when you're in a corner, your car will have more grip, thus making your turn faster

A con is, that in a straight line, you will not have the top end you want, because the aero is holding you back

It's best to have more aero when you're in a more corner filled track, say a track like cotê de azur. But when you're not on a track like that, like daytona, it's better to have less aero.

I hope I cleared things out for you (:

 

[D1gitaL]

DSU, my general rule is:



If your car's not reaching its rev-limiter, at the end of the fastest straightaway, take a bit of downforce out. If the car's hard to drive, add downforce.


But, since that's a tricky game of trial and error, I'll give you a concrete, specific example.


Take a DTM car (Opel Astra Touring, Mercedes CLK Touring, Vauxhall Astra touring, Audi A4 Touring, Audi TT-R Touring... and so forth) to Grand Valley Speedway.



Then, follow these steps:

• Consider Turns 2 and 3
• Can you make it flat-out?
• If you can't make it through the corner without lifting off of the throttle, you need more downforce.
• But, if you're not hitting a good lap time, or a speed of about 270-280 km/h, remove downforce.

Downforce will cost you speed on the straights, while allowing you speed in the corners. Finding the balance is key.


Watch this video:



The black and gold car of Kimi Raikkönen has a lot of downforce; even with KERS and draft, he doesn't gain an advantage on the straightaways. But, he maintains the gap/gains in the corners, against the silver car of Michael Schumacher.


The fastest speed Kimi reaches is 319 km/h, with KERS, DRS, and draft; every advantage possible to gain speed on the straight. He's only able to maintain the gap, with every assist available. However, in the following lap, Kimi closes the gap, and gets close enough to make the pass.


On the following lap, Michael Schumacher is able to pass Kimi Raikkönnen, on the straight, without a fight; because Kimi had too much downforce. However, Kimi stayed close enough behind Schumacher, to be able to make the pass, at the beginning of the third lap.

Good vid.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Good vid.

You're welcome.


If you know enough about the downforce, you can definitely see its effects. Even at 100 km/h, in a street car, in real life, I noticed a difference (behind a large lorry)

 

[HortusIX]

As I can't find any specific thread dedicated to the change in aero since a recent update and this thread is dedicated to aero, I thought I'd ask my question here. (Apologies to the Mods if there is a thread for this already):

Can somebody please tell me the difference (using a numerical example) between the old style aero and the more recent aero which was made more sensitive via 2.08?

I'd just like to know what new aero figures should be substituted for the older figures i.e. if a GT500 GT-R was set to F30 / R50 pre-2.08, what figures should be used now to achieve the same/similar results?

An approximate ratio between the two or a comparitive percentage figure would be even more helpful though as this could be used to calculate post-2.08 aero more accurately.

Thanks in advance

 

[dr_slump]

As I can't find any specific thread dedicated to the change in aero since a recent update and this thread is dedicated to aero, I thought I'd ask my question here. (Apologies to the Mods if there is a thread for this already):

Can somebody please tell me the difference (using a numerical example) between the old style aero and the more recent aero which was made more sensitive via 2.08?

I'd just like to know what new aero figures should be substituted for the older figures i.e. if a GT500 GT-R was set to F30 / R50 pre-2.08, what figures should be used now to achieve the same/similar results?

An approximate ratio between the two or a comparitive percentage figure would be even more helpful though as this could be used to calculate post-2.08 aero more accurately.

Thanks in advance

You mean to achieve the same topspeeds?

 

[SolidSnake7735]

Ok, so i read the OP and a few other posts but not all, regardless... here's my two cents:

First off, it depends on the track. That's the single, most important thing to take into account when adjusting downforce. For example, the Nurburgring will require aggressive downforce settings because of how many corners there are and how frequent they come up. At Monza you wont need so much because there are merely 12 corners and the course is mostly high-speed.

Also, high front downforce may slow you down more so than high rear downforce because the front of the car hits the air first. Like MrMelancholy said, it's mostly trial and error. Just take your time tuning your car, and since you can have 3 setups for your whip then you should have one for low speed, technical courses, one for high speed courses, and a dedicated setup for the Nurburgring. At least... that's what I do for my race cars.

why? because... race car.

 

[CSLACR]

Are we talking removing aero and staying at the same PP? (adding power or lowering weight in it's place)
Or are we talking about just lowering aero?

If we're replacing the aero to keep PP, there's to many variables for a straight answer.

If we're just lowering aero, it will slow you down, everywhere except *maybe* Sarthe. I did quite a bit of testing to have results close enough I couldn't tell them apart.(between low and high aero)

 

[jucksmanBR]

Are we talking removing aero and staying at the same PP? (adding power or lowering weight in it's place)
Or are we talking about just lowering aero?

If we're replacing the aero to keep PP, there's to many variables for a straight answer.

If we're just lowering aero, it will slow you down, everywhere except *maybe* Sarthe. I did quite a bit of testing to have results close enough I couldn't tell them apart.(between low and high aero)

I agree. Even at Monza or Daytona road course, I always use full downforce for my online league races. I get better lap times and lower tyre wear with full aero so it makes up for the marginally slower top speeds..

 

[HortusIX]

You mean to achieve the same topspeeds?

I was thinking more in-line with the grip levels offered when everything else but the aero (chassis, LSD etc) is unchanged. I know less aero (in most cases) means higher top-end speed due to reduction in drag (DRS in F1 highlights this).
But what I'd like to know is by what factor (in %) the effects of the aerodynamics in the game have changed since the 2.08 update.
Unfortunately, PD have been slightly vague about this, but I know there are a lot of people here at GTP who are up on this sort of thing, either by way of trial-and-error or by having messy, pie-strewn fingers.

Cheers.