Ride Height Glitch Returns in GT6

[DolHaus]

The more I hear about the idea of the ride height affecting weight distribution the more it seems to make sense, the results I've found on some cars feels very similar to a strong rear weight balance, gives very similar results - lots of rotation and a tendency towards over steer and instability at speed. Good going guys

 

[Otaliema]

@MrGrado certenly good sir.
G37
Betty Blue
Silver Dragon Racing
Doodlemonoply
Boone
Narrie82
JujiroMatsuda
GTP_CargoRatt

Jaguar XKR-S
Hospiton (unknown my wifi is crap atm getting new gateway later this week, it's a you tube)
CRANK_U1 and here
GTP_CargoRat
LLOYDZELITE69
Silver Dragon Racing
TRL_SAMURAI
Rethima

86 GT
Banditkarter22
GTP_CargoRatt
Eclipsee
nowcontrol

Just about any FR/4WD challenge if the top tunes are posted they have a higher front than rear. the number of tunes with this get smaller the older you go as fewer people knew about the glitch.

 

[donpost]

The more I hear about the idea of the ride height affecting weight distribution the more it seems to make sense, the results I've found on some cars feels very similar to a strong rear weight balance, gives very similar results - lots of rotation and a tendency towards over steer and instability at speed. Good going guys

Can I just be sure I understand this theory? Is it "Changing the balance of ride heights changes the weight distribution of the car" (in the same way that ballast would)? If so that should be easy to test objectively.

 

[DolHaus]

Can I just be sure I understand this theory? Is it "Changing the balance of ride heights changes the weight distribution of the car" (in the same way that ballast would)? If so that should be easy to test objectively.

I think it changes the centre of mass and point of rotation rather than the actual weight distribution but the effects are very similar when in motion.
Basically if you imagine a car with 50:50 weight distribition with identical spring/toe settings on both ends, this makes the point of rotation in the in the entire of the car because of the way forces are acting and resisting equally, if you lower the rear of the car it makes the rear mass more stable and harder to act upon which pulls the point of rotation closer to the rear wheels.
Does that make sense? I will explain better when I get back from work

 

[jules283]

Can I just be sure I understand this theory? Is it "Changing the balance of ride heights changes the weight distribution of the car" (in the same way that ballast would)? If so that should be easy to test objectively.

Yes
And you would then regain your required under/oversteer balance using spring rates just as when adding ballast.

 

[donpost]

I think it changes the centre of mass and point of rotation rather than the actual weight distribution but the effects are very similar when in motion.
Basically if you imagine a car with 50:50 weight distribition with identical spring/toe settings on both ends, this makes the point of rotation in the in the entire of the car because of the way forces are acting and resisting equally, if you lower the rear of the car it makes the rear mass more stable and harder to act upon which pulls the point of rotation closer to the rear wheels.
Does that make sense? I will explain better when I get back from work

I've never really thought about the point of rotation before. So playing with the ride height moves this point? I wonder if "point of rotation" and balance are linked - oversteer = rotation point near front of car and understeer = rotation point near back of car? Not sure.

I did a quick calculation: On a car with a 50/50 weight distribution, a wheel base of 2m and a CoG height of 75cm, raising the rear ride height by 100mm would only move the CoG forward by 37mm. This would change the weight distribution to 50.85F/49.15R.

I actually wrote that paragraph above expecting it to show that ride height doesn't really affect the CoG much but actually it has (although both the adjustment of 100mm and a CoG height of 75cm are large, possible overestimates)

So raising rear ride height = move CoG forward = more understeer/less oversteer and raising front ride hide does the opposite. So maybe things are not back to front after all, and its just a CoG moving thing - is that what you have been getting at all along and I've only just twigged on?


I have an objective test that I can use to measure traction at the driven wheels, I'll break that out tonight and see if it can support this idea...

 

[DolHaus]

I've never really thought about the point of rotation before. So playing with the ride height moves this point? I wonder if "point of rotation" and balance are linked - oversteer = rotation point near front of car and understeer = rotation point near back of car? Not sure.

I did a quick calculation: On a car with a 50/50 weight distribution, a wheel base of 2m and a CoG height of 75cm, raising the rear ride height by 100mm would only move the CoG forward by 37mm. This would change the weight distribution to 50.85F/49.15R.

I actually wrote that paragraph above expecting it to show that ride height doesn't really affect the CoG much but actually it has (although both the adjustment of 100mm and a CoG height of 75cm are large, possible overestimates)

So raising rear ride height = move CoG forward = more understeer/less oversteer and raising front ride hide does the opposite. So maybe things are not back to front after all, and its just a CoG moving thing - is that what you have been getting at all along and I've only just twigged on?


I have an objective test that I can use to measure traction at the driven wheels, I'll break that out tonight and see if it can support this idea...

That's the way I think its working based on what other people have said, makes sense from a physics point of view and from a programming point of view (can work off a general frame rather than having to specify the highest/lowest point on every car). Its not moving the static weight distribution but it does change the way those forces act during rotation. If your sums make this same conclussion then this must be the way its applied.
I just mused it further while having a cigarette and a brew and I'm fairly prepared to say case closed, mystery solved. The ride height moves the centre of rotation forward if the rear is higher and backwards if the front is higher based on an equation.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Can I just be sure I understand this theory? Is it "Changing the balance of ride heights changes the weight distribution of the car" (in the same way that ballast would)? If so that should be easy to test objectively.

Not sure that I care what the theory is. In racing, if I find something that makes me faster, should I ponder all day on why or should I just get in the car and go faster? This is a video game with code, not real life. I doubt that PD put as much thought into the theory as you guys already have.

 

[esoxhntr]

cliff notes / results?

 

[DolHaus]

Not sure that I care what the theory is. In racing, if I find something that makes me faster, should I ponder all day on why or should I just get in the car and go faster? This is a video game with code, not real life. I doubt that PD put as much thought into the theory as you guys already have.

Knowledge is power, the more we know the faster we go!
For me, understanding the principal helps me to be able to better tune my cars, I don't need to know the algebra or anything but if I can understand the changes in various forces then I can better work out how to utilise them.

 

[donpost]

Not sure that I care what the theory is. In racing, if I find something that makes me faster, should I ponder all day on why or should I just get in the car and go faster? This is a video game with code, not real life. I doubt that PD put as much thought into the theory as you guys already have.

Normally I'd agree with you on that, BUT in this case the two theories have an important difference. One says we can actually move the car's weight back/forward using ride height, and one says no you can't it's just the settings that are swapped. I'd like to know if you can move the weight or not. As an example of why this is useful to know, last month's difficult car challenge was the Option Stream Z car. Many of us put as much ballast in the back as possible so we could make the most of the monstrous amount of power the car has. If I knew I could have moved even more weight back using ride height I would have. It would have made the car faster and lap time is king. IMHO of course.

Hopefully I'll have the time to perform some practical testing the evening.

 

[DolHaus]

Normally I'd agree with you on that, BUT in this case the two theories have an important difference. One says we can actually move the car's weight back/forward using ride height, and one says no you can't it's just the settings that are swapped. I'd like to know if you can move the weight or not. As an example of why this is useful to know, last month's difficult car challenge was the Option Stream Z car. Many of us put as much ballast in the back as possible so we could make the most of the monstrous amount of power the car has. If I knew I could have moved even more weight back using ride height I would have. It would have made the car faster and lap time in king. IMHO of course.

Hopefully I'll have the time to perform some practical testing the evening.

Speaking of that, did you try Praiano's Option Z? That used a high/low ride height and was completely different to everyone else's, didn't even feel like the same car

 

[jules283]

I've never really thought about the point of rotation before. So playing with the ride height moves this point? I wonder if "point of rotation" and balance are linked - oversteer = rotation point near front of car and understeer = rotation point near back of car? Not sure.

I did a quick calculation: On a car with a 50/50 weight distribution, a wheel base of 2m and a CoG height of 75cm, raising the rear ride height by 100mm would only move the CoG forward by 37mm. This would change the weight distribution to 50.85F/49.15R.

I actually wrote that paragraph above expecting it to show that ride height doesn't really affect the CoG much but actually it has (although both the adjustment of 100mm and a CoG height of 75cm are large, possible overestimates)

So raising rear ride height = move CoG forward = more understeer/less oversteer and raising front ride hide does the opposite. So maybe things are not back to front after all, and its just a CoG moving thing - is that what you have been getting at all along and I've only just twigged on?


I have an objective test that I can use to measure traction at the driven wheels, I'll break that out tonight and see if it can support this idea...

Raise rear ride height=move c of g forward=more understeer when you adjust spring rates to support/match new weight distribution.
If you raise rear ride height and decide not to adjust springs then you will shift handling toward oversteer.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Wow, this is a lot to read through.

I didn't know that the ride height "glitch" ever went away. I have had it built into my wizard from the start. It was more exaggerated at first. I found it was toned down, but not eliminated in 1.02?/1.03?

I did the calculations based on assumption of what the physics code could be doing to determine how weight affects handling. Where you guys are debating ride height as a means to encourage oversteer/understeer and the realism of the GT6 system, I assumed ride height was a component of overall CoG.

This might need a diagram, but bear with me. Imagine the CoG like a pinball on a ruler, viewed from the side. With a RR car for instance, that ball is WAY at the back. To move that ball towards the middle, and achieve more neutral handling, you have to lift the rear so that the "ball" rolls forward.

Same goes for a car that is very nose heavy, raise the front and the ball rolls backward toward the middle.

I chose this approach because I saw it implemented somewhere before and I went on a hunch. Remember, this is optimised game physics that replicate real world physics.

 

[donpost]

Raise rear ride height=move c of g forward=more understeer when you adjust spring rates to support/match new weight distribution.
If you raise rear ride height and decide not to adjust springs then you will shift handling toward oversteer.

The thing is this is not true in the game. On post #45 I tested this with a range of cars with varying power trains, and raising the rear ride height without adjusting springs shifted handling towards understeer.

Wow, this is a lot to read through.

I didn't know that the ride height "glitch" ever went away. I have had it built into my wizard from the start. It was more exaggerated at first. I found it was toned down, but not eliminated in 1.02?/1.03?

I did the calculations based on assumption of what the physics code could be doing to determine how weight affects handling. Where you guys are debating ride height as a means to encourage oversteer/understeer and the realism of the GT6 system, I assumed ride height was a component of overall CoG.

This might need a diagram, but bear with me. Imagine the CoG like a pinball on a ruler, viewed from the side. With a RR car for instance, that ball is WAY at the back. To move that ball towards the middle, and achieve more neutral handling, you have to lift the rear so that the "ball" rolls forward.

Same goes for a car that is very nose heavy, raise the front and the ball rolls backward toward the middle.

I chose this approach because I saw it implemented somewhere before and I went on a hunch. Remember, this is optimised game physics that replicate real world physics.

What I'd like to find out is: does GT6 simulate the fact that adjusting ride height moves the CoG like this? Or is it just back to front?


EDIT: I just ran a quick test. I took a RWD car to Special Stage X and run it at full throttle from 2,000rpm to the limiter in 2nd gear. I tweaked the final drive setting until I found the shortest setting that allowed me to do that run without getting wheelspin. Wheelspin was defined as anything powerful enough to activate the rumble in the DS3 pad. This gives us a way of measuring traction. The shorter you can go the more traction you have.

Test 1: 140F/140R
FD: 2.675

Test 2: 195F/140R
FD: 2.725

Test 3: 140F/195R
FD: 2.725

Test 4: 195F/195R
FD: 2.825

I reckon this means that GT6 I doesn't simulate the CoG moving when you lift one end of the car. If it was then I should have had more traction with the front lifted compared to having the rear lifted but they both came out the same.

I dunno lol

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Like I told you before Keith, this reversed RH thing has been around since the launch of the game, it is nothing new. It however, is not the same for all cars across the board. From my own personal testing, it does hold true for about 80-85% of the cars I have tested so far. Like we discussed earlier, I can take just about any car tuned by you, Praiano, or any other tuner and simply reverse the RH and immediately be able to lay down faster lap times. This of course is if the car doesn't already have reversed RH settings. I agree that the tuning in GT6 is pretty messed up but as for myself, I have just learned to think outside the box when tuning cars in this game. I believe at some point PD might actually fix some of these tuning oddities (RH, camber) which is the reason why I haven't started my own garage yet.

If it is indeed true, I am very sorry to hear Praiano is leaving the game, I can't say I blame him though as I am just about to that point myself. The only thing that is keeping me is the Seasonal TT's and the Academy when it starts. Other than that, I have pretty much focused my attention to NASCAR 2014 for now. Anyway, good luck with the testing and discussion, hopefully it doesn't get too far out of hand. Peace Hami.

 

[bread82]

A couple of thoughts.

i) as well as slightly moving the CoG backwards/forwards by changing the ride heights, there will obviously be vertical movement. For a 50/50 wt dist car, whether you raise the back or front by x amount will have the same effect on the CoG height (as it is in the middle of the wheelbase). But for something like a stereotypical FR with 60/40 distribution, the CoG height will be much more sensitive to moving the end of the car nearest the CoG. In this case, the front. I wonder if the front ride height is more sensitive in GT6 in these circumstances?

ii) I have a gut feeling that the bug has something to do with how the roll centres are modelled, but I can't quite rationalise exactly how this would work yet. What I do know is that you'd need to know the suspension geometry to locate these roll centres, and that sounds like a lot of work to model for 1200 cars. IRL they move as the suspension moves, so you'd need to code a model along the lines of www.vsusp.com (cool site by the way!). Or at the least use one in development to come up with some approximations or rules to code into GT6. I reckon that there are shortcomings in the suspension geometry in GT6, and some fudge factors have been put in as a placeholder.

My reasons for this are: a) Camber porked, b) No telemetry yet (this would draw attention to the shortcomings)
Against this a) camber worked in GT5, and the RH bug was still there. b) They might have the telemetry working, but just not had time to put the front end and bells and whistles on it.

By the way, has anyone ever heard the reasons why IRL a low front/high rear is expected to give oversteer? I have not heard a complete explanation in one place yet, but one thing I have heard is:
When you lower a car at one end (say the front), that end's roll centre often lowers faster than the car's CoG. Therefore, you get a longer distance between the CoG and the roll centre, which means a larger roll couple (basically a longer lever, which would make it easier for the car to roll). This is similar to softening the springs at that end, hence more grip at the front = less understeer/more oversteer. This is what got me thinking that the GT6 roll centres are bodged.

It's also one reason why lowering cars too much can be bad, since lowering both ends you can get MORE body roll (even though the lower CoG gives less weight transfer, the overrriding effect is that the car's roll stiffness is lower = more roll) http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArtic...in-the-Geometry-Part-One-The-Roll-Center.aspx

More brain fodder: http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105392


Cheers,

Bread

 

[donpost]

I think i agree with you on all the roll centre stuff. I guess we'll never know but for now I'm just gonna assume they're backwards (until the next patch when everything changes and comfort tyres become the grippiest or something)

 

[FussyFez]

That vsusp site is excellent!

 

[praiano63]

If it is indeed true, I am very sorry to hear Praiano is leaving the game, I can't say I blame him though as I am just about to that point myself. .

What??? i did´t knew this. I´m leaving the game?? Not at all my friend, just playing Asseto Corsa unfinished game at the same time. Perhaps when the full game will be released , who knows.
I don´t even have a good computer to play it, but the driving sensation and the physics are already superior to GT6, a very good feeling. But i´m still driving and tuning for GT6. 80% of the time
👍

EDIT: Also you can´t apply the RH glitch to all the crs, only the Lazy ones. Of course.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

What??? i did´t knew this. I´m leaving the game?? Not at all my friend, just playing Asseto Corsa unfinished game at the same time. Perhaps when the full game will be released , who knows.
I don´t even have a good computer to play it, but the driving sensation and the physics are already superior to GT6, a very good feeling. But i´m still driving and tuning for GT6. 80% of the time
👍

EDIT: Also you can´t apply the RH glitch to all the crs, only the Lazy ones. Of course.

Sorry, I was only going by the conversation initiated by @killerjimbag indicating that you were leaving GT to play AC.

DolHaus said
It would only affect the tunes that exploit the glitch (massive difference between F/R ride height), if your tunes are at fairly normal ride height then the effects would be minimal if any at all
Click to expand...
Your assuming that this is not a broken game? Look, when you get one of the best tuners leaving to play something else, I need not say more. If this was Toyota or GM there would be a recall.

killerjimbag said
Your assuming that this is not a broken game? Look, when you get one of the best tuners leaving to play something else, I need not say more. If this was Toyota or GM there would be a recall.
Click to expand...
I'm not assuming anything, the games not broken. There are a few errors here and there and its not the greatest GT game there has ever been but I would hardly describe it as broken.
Who left the game to play something else?
Why are you directing this at me anyway? All I said was that if they fixed the ride height issue then it would only affect cars that exploit it, the tunes that use more normal ride height would stay the same as it was or simply require switching the f/r settings

The game is not broken? A few errors?
This was supposed to be better than GT5 , is it? Praiano has moved to AC because of the same issues you say are not broken.Look on the back of the box and tell me what was advertised is actually in the game. I shouldn't have to switch or revert back anything that was supposed to be there when I purchased this or let's someone exploit their failure to code a game.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I know that IRL ride height difference actually influence static weight distribution, saw this many times when cars with nose down are corner weighted compared to level height or rear down. I have a mate who had his car corner weighted in the past and the garage owner fiddled with each corner ride heights, 5mm or so height changes actually resulted in 38kg differences in weight balance out of close to 1550+kg car ( more than 2 percent ) Imagine running 140/70

 

[DigitalBaka]

What??? i did´t knew this. I´m leaving the game?? Not at all my friend, just playing Asseto Corsa unfinished game at the same time. Perhaps when the full game will be released , who knows.
I don´t even have a good computer to play it, but the driving sensation and the physics are already superior to GT6, a very good feeling. But i´m still driving and tuning for GT6. 80% of the time
👍

EDIT: Also you can´t apply the RH glitch to all the crs, only the Lazy ones. Of course.

Rumors of your demise are greatly exaggerated!

In certainly glad about that.

 

[DigitalBaka]

I know that IRL ride height difference actually influence static weight distribution, saw this many times when cars with nose down are corner weighted compared to level height. I have a mate who had the his car corner weighted in the past and the garage owner fiddled with each corner ride heights, 5mm or so height changes actually resulted in 38kg differences in weight balance out of close to 1550+kg car ( more than 2 percent ) Imagine running 140/70

Perhaps that's what it is doing (backwards?) but it doesn't show up in the displayed weight distribution.

Can someone do the calculations for the S4 so I can guess at how much ballast to use? Sounds like a test worth trying.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Perhaps that's what it is doing (backwards?) but it doesn't show up in the displayed weight distribution.

Can someone do the calculations for the S4 so I can guess at how much ballast to use? Sounds like a test worth trying.

Please use the edit button next time as double posting is frowned upon in these forums. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. No, I'm not a Mod, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Just messing with you my friend..just pay me no nevermind.

 

[DigitalBaka]

Please use the edit button next time as double posting is frowned upon in these forums. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. No, I'm not a Mod, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Just messing with you my friend..just pay me no nevermind.

I totally thought I was in a different thread. Good grief.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Perhaps that's what it is doing (backwards?) but it doesn't show up in the displayed weight distribution.

Can someone do the calculations for the S4 so I can guess at how much ballast to use? Sounds like a test worth trying.

I don't think I can accurately calculate that , but here are the details of the weighs and ride height of the real car : Track tuned R32 GTR Vspec II with driver and fuel at full tank ( no weight reduction yet - except stereo and spare tire removal )

Final setup reading :
Weight :
FL 433kg, FR 471kg, RL 307kg, RR 346kg

Diagonal cross weights of 779.5/780.5

Ride height setup :

FL 570, FR 575, RL 565, RR 567

The R32 GTR weight setup is focused on cross weight balance, and adjusting overall balance ( front and back ) by adjusting ride height on each corner instead moving things inside around or adding/removing stuff.

The front to rear distribution final setup = 904kg/653kg = 58/42, from originally 60/40.

Maybe based on this, you can make rough formula ? Looks like even in real life, slightly lower rear gives significant changes.

 

[BlueShift]

My good friend and fellow tuner @praiano63 alerted me that the ride height glitch has returned to GT6. If @praiano63 says anything about tuning, I listen... then I test. I have only spent two hours playing with the ride height glitch, but I expect to do much, much more in the next couple of weeks and will post results, lap times and videos.

Ride Height Glitch Defined:
High front/low rear increases turning ability/oversteer and reduces understeer.

In my short time testing, ride height numbers like 90/80 do not produce very noticeable results. A wider split like 125/80 or 140/60 are needed to see the full effects. I really hate that PD has made this return after blocking it in GT5. It puts into question their ability to program real world physics.

I know that this thread has the potential to turn into a back and forth argument about backward settings. In my opinion, the explanation is not relevant. Does this glitch work to increase oversteer/reduce understeer and produce lower lap times or not? That is my challenge to the tuning community. Yes or no. Does this glitch do what I typed above or not?

Now, having been around the forums for as long as I have, I know that the discussion and debate will happen right along side the true test results so I thought I would provide two explanations as to the possible whys. This way when the argument gets out of hand, you can copy/paste these or direct people to them. If someone else comes up with another logical conclusion, I will add it here in the OP.

Ride Height is Backward - PD made a programming error, a typo. Why don't they just get the intern to fix this in the next update. This was not worth my $60 bucks. Rinse and repeat.

Ride Height mimics real world - This is a stretch, but I can come up with one condition where this is close to a real world situation. I may need to build a video to show this using a remote controlled car, but hang with me. The in-game description says that when you lower ride height, you also shorten shock travel. So imagine a car with very long front shocks and very short rear shocks. As the car leans into the corner, the inside rear wheel will eventually reach a point with a short shock where it lifts off of the tarmac, thus leaving only one rear tire with grip. The opposite happens with a long front shock where the inside front wheel is allowed to keep a strong level of grip even with lots of weight transfer.

So, there is a real world condition that can be described, but the thing that I hate about the current programming is that the ride height glitch now becomes the "super tune" that overrides every other tuning adjustment. It is simply too strong.

Thoughts?
Tests?
Opposing views?

Let's discuss.

Test Results
donpost
donpost #2
Otaliema
Motor City Hamilton

No test because I boycott the camber in the game, but by my views on the physics, front > rear would mean more transfer to the front outside wheel because all the front weigth goes higher.
More weigth mean more outside grip until the weigth makes the outside tire slip. In that case understeer.

More weigth on the outside doesn't mean under or oversteer. We would need to tune the caster for that.

The camber is still inacurate, I don't see any reason to study that.

That said, when straigth braking in first phase, all the weigth is shifted from low rear to high front. That would act as catapulting your weigth from low to high position, then unbalancing to the outside, I don't really know how that would work. Driving effects, caster effects and spring strength should be critical there. But with inacurate camber, there's no reason to test.

And remember the ride position changes when braking depending on your initial speed, strength of the braking, strength of the springs, accel of these changes is controled by dampers, so how could we be accurate on this ? That's no only the ride heigth, that's a combinaison of caster (car model)/SR/dampers/RH/driving/speed/strength of braking/innacurate camber that shows all of this. Changing only the RH would work to watch one car, when switching car model you would see opposite effects because the caster is not the same.

-edit- oh, and how could I forgot anti-roll and your current downshifting (motor brake effects) on this. Plus aerodynamics. The whole car is involved.

 

[XS]

I have a fairly good cross section of tunes at the ready. And I can say, through an almost uncountable number of tunes I've tried out, that to me beyond a shadow of a doubt nearly every car in the game will turn in faster with a raised front ride height. Also, some cars benefit more from a raised front ride height than a negative front toe! You simply can't deny something is amiss when raising the ride height to say, 95|90 is more effective than a toe of -0.20|0.00. Two perfect examples are the 86 GT and the OPTION Z.

 

[Motor City Hami]

What??? i did´t knew this. I´m leaving the game?? 1.

If praiano quit, it would probably make headline news in the weekly re-wind.

I know that IRL ride height difference actually influence static weight distribution, saw this many times when cars with nose down are corner weighted compared to level height or rear down. I have a mate who had his car corner weighted in the past and the garage owner fiddled with each corner ride heights, 5mm or so height changes actually resulted in 38kg differences in weight balance out of close to 1550+kg car ( more than 2 percent ) Imagine running 140/70

This /\ Only 2% of weight transfer from one end of the car to the other. This is pretty consistent with my real life scale sessions with the Miata. Ride height is a little adjustment and in RL often more about air flow under the car or trying to keep the car off the bump stops or trying to manage role center. 2% movement isn't very much.

Nothing about the ride height split in GT6 makes sense. The improvement in turning from max/min is far more than a 2% gain. It is worth a full second in the current Miata Challenge.