Ride Height

[budious]

Regarding in game settings(obviously not reality): I have been wondering what is the point of putting the optional positive setting on many cars.

For taking it off sweet jumps, duh. Course creator, Mt. Also (or w/e) and make one with a sweet jump, see how well it goes on bottomed out suspension.

 

[budious]

you know your ride height is too low when...

Chassis Maintenance costs $20,000K from a single drag 1/4 mile portion of the track.

Thought it always cost the same, 1/3 of cost of car new for Chassis Maintenance and 1/4 cost of car new for Engine Overhaul, why the price varies per vehicle but is constant for each visit. Doesn't mean you need it.

 

[chuyler1]

My take on ride height and why people are slamming cars...

Lets assume for the moment that most of the tuners are running sports cars or race cars on road courses. I will exclude rally and nascar in this conclusion.

1) Lower height reduces suspension travel and most GT5 tracks don't require a lot of travel.
The only two extreme places where I have had trouble with a slammed suspension on a road car is the cork screw at Laguna Seca and the Carousel at Nürburgring Nordschleife. Both of these turns I have done instant 180s with slammed suspensions while not even being on the gas or brake. The back end just popped off the track. Occasionally you may find a rumble strip that can't be crossed but tweaking the spring rates and dampers can usually resolve it.

2) Lower height reduces body roll.
Swapping out sport hard tires for racing soft tires on a road car will dramatically increase the g forces while cornering which in turn increases body roll. Simply increasing the spring rates isn't enough to compensate for this. You have two options, increase anti-roll bars or lower the height. When you increase anti roll bars you are more likely to upset the inside tire when driving over apex rumble strips so lowering the height is a safer way to reduce body roll.

3) Lower height reduces weight transfer
Under hard braking a lower suspension will keep more weight on the rear tires allowing you to use their grip for stopping, reducing understeer, and improving turn in. You may be able to run a higher rear brake balance as a result.

4) Lower height is more aerodynamic and reduces lift / lowers drag
This is the only item I am not sure the game models correctly. I have yet to see someone prove that height alone can increase top speed or acceleration...but in theory it should be true.

5) Road cars vs. Race Cars
I believe a 0 height setting is a factory setting. Race cars are lower from the factory and already tuned for racing tires while road cars are higher from the factory and tuned for comfort or sport tires. Slamming a road car puts its height closer to that of a factory race car and therefore more suitable for upgraded racing tires. Slightly lowering a race car when upgrading from racing hard to racing soft is also suitable.

Conclusion
Many people slam their cars because they are turning sports cars into race cars with upgraded tires.

 

[JCaliber]

Are there any good guides to tuning your cars? Maybe the apex book with the game?

 

[chuyler1]

Yes, check the sticky threads...
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135268

 

[shirakawaa]

To me it doesn't seem that in GT5 the negative effects of bottoming out the car, the suspension travel or scratching the inside of wheel arches or parts of the chassis due to a low ride height are very well simulated. Also there's no aural indication of when this happens. In real life it would be possible to even destroy the front end of a low car when colliding with a relatively high curb at a wrong angle.

Serious improvements are needed for this aspect of GT5 driving physics as soon as possible.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I never slam RH. Usually lower half of the available negative number, just becasue it feels right. No other science behind it.

I do raise RH back to zero for Trail Mountain.

For Nurburgh long course, I raise RH to +10 or +15 and soften dampers/springs.

For dirt and snow I raise RH +30 or more and soften springs, plus add damper split between compression and rebound.

Motor City Tunes

 

[superdan]

I usually run mine as high as it will go on the front, then on the rear i keep decreasing the ride height till it is nearly undriveable.

 

[dajudge]

Can anyone give me the info on the bound and rebound. If a modified car with somewhat good grip pushes into a turn, what's the best method or should I say setting for correction.

 

[Stotty]

I usually run mine as high as it will go on the front, then on the rear i keep decreasing the ride height till it is nearly undriveable.

Someone told me that they think front and rear ride heights are the wrong way round on GT5... which would make some sense as historically, you'd always lower the front as much as possible in GT games to reduce understeer.

Max front ride makes absolutely zero sense in reality!

 

[chuyler1]

Can anyone give me the info on the bound and rebound. If a modified car with somewhat good grip pushes into a turn, what's the best method or should I say setting for correction.

Why would you post this question in a thread about ride height? Check the stickies in the tuning forum for a tuning guide.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Someone told me that they think front and rear ride heights are the wrong way round on GT5... which would make some sense as historically, you'd always lower the front as much as possible in GT games to reduce understeer.

Max front ride makes absolutely zero sense in reality!

Some people believe that by raising the front full high and dropping the rear as low as possible will trick the downforce in the game and push the car forward. Big in Forza too. I have not seen increased lap times from this, but some do fully believe it.

GT5 tuning seems to be make the car comfortable for you to drive consistently.

 

[ATTESA_MAN]

I buy fully custom suspension and put it half way other wise the springs have no room to move and increase everything else by a little bit. I did that with my EK type R. But I went into more nitty gritty with my S13 and did camber adjustment and toe adjustment and tuned it on the top gear and the nurburgring

 

[chuyler1]

I've seen some NASCAR tunes posted here that seem to be doing just that. The car might not be very stable but it can be very quick. It seems stupid to me but I guess its just a game.

 

[killerjimbag]

I've seen some NASCAR tunes posted here that seem to be doing just that. The car might not be very stable but it can be very quick. It seems stupid to me but I guess its just a game.

Well Nascar is a different beast,you want more ride height,spring rate, less down force at Daytona because of the banking and bumps in the track.Indy is the opposite as it is flat and is pretty smooth and you require less ride height,spring rate and more down force.

 

[nomis3613]

Hi all, a couple of quick questions followed by a long-winded post!
1) Does anyone have evidence of overall ride height (ie raising/lowering both the front and rear by the same amount) changing grip levels in GT5?
2) Has anyone seen sparks as their car bottoms out in GT5?
Thanks!



Now the long-winded bit...

I've done some testing of ride height and the results are...ahem... interesting...

Poor handling because car bottoming out
Running an RM Honda Integra* around Deep Forest, I couldn't notice any difference- either on the stopwatch or in driving feel- between these ride heights:
+20 / +20
0 / 0
-10 / -10
-25 / -25
*using these settings (except spring rates at 1/4 of max, also minimal dampers and stabilisers)

Which suggests that there's no modelling of cars bottoming out, or of increased weight transfer due to ride height. Or is there something I'm missing here? Has anyone else done any testing?

Reduced grip with increased ride height
At the other end of the scale, I took the same settings to the downward spiral at Cape Ring North (thanks, Adrenaline!) to see if the extra weight transfer when raising the car would reduce cornering speeds. Again, no difference between any of the above heights.

I realise this isn't an ideal test- it's high speed so aero might be dominating, also it's cambered. So if anyone can suggest a tight constant-radius sweeping corner (or a hidden skidpad), I'll re-test there.

Sparks- or lack thereof
Even with the Integra dumped to -25 on the soft suspension I could not get any sparks to appear; not on landing the big jump, nor when jumping across kerbs. I'd have thought these would be the ideal settings for getting sparks, so I'm wondering if they exist in GT5.

And searching this sub-forum for "spark" only turned up this post. I hate to cry "fake", but the 2nd pic has me very suspicious...

End of long-winded bit. Thanks for reading!

 

[Gyro1780]

When i tune suspension i always start with the ride height +10 from the lowest it can be set at. Then i adjust the setting up or down depending on the feel of the car.

 

[budious]

I see sparks when bottoming out the rear end on a soft set suspension on some parts of the ring. I'm not so sure it was a bottom out as much as it was the rear bumper dragged against the ground, but there were sparks none the less.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=149309#post4771830

Think that was the one where it was very noticeable bottom/rear bumper drags and sparks on the ring.

As for ride height itself; raising it has the effect of multiplying the effective spring rate to values greater than stock; lowering it has the opposite effect by multiplying by a factor less than one and making it progressively softer. Think coil length, travel, and available compression.

As for your testing, I'm not so sure "1/4 of max" is a good case study because you have unbalanced the natural ratio. If you wanted to test a car then you should use the default spring rate or some combination which retains the stock ratio for those tests. (ie. 4:3 spring ratio = 4.0F/3.0R; 6.0F/4.5R; 7.6F/5.7R) Also, FF drivetrain cars make bad test subjects for these sorts of trials regardless of method, get a car that pushes rather than pulls.

 

[050999742]

i just lower my cars all the way cos i like the look

ha

 

[Willfred_1]

all i have learnt from it is people who slam the car then make the rear suspension rock solid are almost canceling out each other.
as lowering the rear decreases over steer
and lowering the front can increase under-steer
for more info have a look at scaffs tuning guide

 

[VQuick]

When I was doing my own tunes in GT4, I left the front around 3mm from the bottom setting, and kept the rear another 5mm higher to get some aero dynamic rake working for me.

I haven't done anything myself in GT5, but the tunes I've been using typically involve full lowering front and rear.

 

[zero_speed]

Ride height is going to vary based on track selection, weight of the car, and tire compound. But for the most part you want to go as low as possible. As for your comment about the tuner not knowing what he is doing is the wrong way to look at it. I look at it like this, a tune is only going to be as fast as the tuner who created it. Meaning fast tuners=fast tunes.

 

[stratotone]

Anybody have anything to say about alot of guys in Time Trial putting the front up and the back down?I've seen this on FWD,AWD and RWD.I first noticed it watching Daveyskills video.I'm guessing it puts more weight distribution on rear among other things.

 

[budious]

Depends on how the physics engine processes downforce and weight shift on rake to determine what the real benefit of the high front to low rear is really doing; some may call it a bug, but it might just be an expected behavior resulting from the system in place that exhibits unexpected behavior under extreme conditions, a fluke of sorts. I've heard others say in addition to this negative rake, they also raise front aero to maximum and lower rear aero to minimum. I'm guessing the front weight is shifted to the rear by the rake, and the aero reapplies additional downforce at the front, and produces something unique in the process. I haven't tried it so I'm not an expert on the subject.

 

[zero_speed]

helps keep the back end planted under heavy corning.

 

[zero_speed]

Depends on how the physics engine processes downforce and weight shift on rake to determine what the real benefit of the high front to low rear is really doing; some may call it a bug, but it might just be an expected behavior resulting from the system in place that exhibits unexpected behavior under extreme conditions, a fluke of sorts. I've heard others say in addition to this negative rake, they also raise front aero to maximum and lower rear aero to minimum. I'm guessing the front weight is shifted to the rear by the rake, and the aero reapplies additional downforce at the front, and produces something unique in the process. I haven't tried it so I'm not an expert on the subject.

This works in Forza as well. It something has worked in both games for both consoles. It is basically a "fluke" as you put it. What we have to remember is at the end of the day it is still a game. So real world theory and application only go so far.

 

[sanmusa]

On very smooth circuits I find it beneficial to lower the car past -10, it makes the car more stable and you can gain some top speed. But generally lowering a car too much can make it too skittish and not handle well in most conditions.

 

[nomis3613]

I see sparks when bottoming out the rear end on a soft set suspension on some parts of the ring....

Thanks heaps for the specific example, also by coincidence I have an E-type so I'll give it a shot.

As for your testing, I'm not so sure "1/4 of max" is a good case study because you have unbalanced the natural ratio...

...FF drivetrain cars make bad test subjects for these sorts of trials regardless of method, get a car that pushes rather than pulls.

Cool, I'll re-test with your suggestions. I totally agree that unbalanced spring rates do nasty things, I should have paid more attention to that.

On very smooth circuits I find it beneficial to lower the car past -10, it makes the car more stable and you can gain some top speed. But generally lowering a car too much can make it too skittish and not handle well in most conditions.

Interesting tips, especially about the top speed. Thanks, I'll look out for the things you mention.

 

[nomis3613]

Ok, I've done some more testing...here we go...

Sparks
Using the E-Type settings Budious suggested for the E-Type, yep sparks were a flyin' at the Nurburgring. They always occurred on straights, though (and strangely not after any of the jumps), so I couldn't tell if they caused a loss of grip.

Testing at High Speed Ring
This time the testing was done with a 447bhp BMW Z4M on Sports Softs. Suspension was default settings- except spring rates at 70% of default values and no toe. Here are the times for each ride height and comments:
-20 / -20 1:10.0 as per -10 / -10, but better body control (eg less roll)
-10 / -10 1:10.2 less lateral grip than 0 / 0 and worse stopping distances, but more responsive at low speed
+00 / +00 1:10.3 (baseline run)
+20 / +20 1:09.8 better late-corner front grip, worse body control, better turn-in especially while braking
+40 / +40 1:10.5 poor body control (very "floaty"), hard to place car accurately especially at turn-in

Deep Forest
Same car, same settings- this time a bumpier and more complex track
-20 / -20 1:19.4 as per -10 / -10 but worse late-corner front grip
-10 / -10 1:19.3 better mid-corner body control and more consistent grip throughout corner, less traction (good in this case), worse lift-off turn-in
+00 / +00 1:19.6 (baseline run)
+20 / +20 1:19.5 very little difference to 0 / 0
+40 / +40 1:19.7 harder to control, actually feels like stiffer suspension

Thoughts
So the smooth track was best with higher ride height and the bumpy track was best with it lowered. What's going on???

My theory is that increasing ride height means more longitudinal weight transfer, giving the Z4M better traction and more oversteer under brakes. Also, more ride height slightly reduced late-corner understeer. Lower ride height gave more consistent grip levels (because of less grip loss caused by body roll) and the car settled into each corner quicker.

At High Speed ring, sudden direction changes are not required, so I think the better turn-in, traction and late-corner front grip of the +10 / +10 gave it the advantage. At Deep Forest, I noticed that the reduced traction actually helped lap times by compensating for exit understeer. Combine this with the better response to direction changes and I think this is why the -10 / -10 setting worked best, despite the bumpy track.

But these are just my theories, I'm keen to hear yours!

 

[chuyler1]

Great analysis nomis. I'm curious, did you make proper adjustments to spring rates and dampers when you changed the ride height? Typically the lower you go the stiffer you want to be.