Spring Settings - How to set them up.

[USF1 Lateral]

If you are a 'smooth' driver like I am, then you do not want to set up your front springs softer than your rear.

Softer springs up front than the rear, causes an imbalance that makes the car want to 'slide' more.

Take a setting of:

Front Springs: 12.5
Rear Springs: 16.0

In this situation, the body of the front will 'roll' earlier than the rear. In which case in a right hand turn, the right front tire does not want to be 'planted'. The rears will stay planted, but since the car starts to roll on the front, the rear tires will skid across the pavement and cause the car to slide.

Let's take a different scenario.

Front Springs: 16.4
Rear Springs: 15.5

In this scenario, the spring rates are 'balanced' but with slightly stiffer springs in the rear. What this creates is that the rear will 'roll' slightly before the front does, in which case the front tires will keep planted, the right rear will only 'not want to be planted' slightly, and will put more weight down on the left rear during a right turn.

In the above scenario, with an Limited Slip I/A/D of 5/5/5, the right rear will 'slip' while the left rear is planted, and you will get smooth very controllable oversteer, without sliding the car.

EDIT....

This was posted in the wrong forum by accident.

 

[Greycap]

Now, please tell me and others what his is doing in the Tourist Trophy forum as TT is a motorbike game and you're talking about cars?

Some comment on the settings too... they're way too hard for anything but a LM racer on a silk smooth track, harder front springs will cause understeer and the open diff will cause most of the power being lost in a cloud of smoke as one wheel spins and the other is just hanging around when all the power goes to the spinning one.

 

[USF1 Lateral]

Now, please tell me and others what his is doing in the Tourist Trophy forum as TT is a motorbike game and you're talking about cars?

Some comment on the settings too... they're way too hard for anything but a LM racer on a silk smooth track, harder front springs will cause understeer and the open diff will cause most of the power being lost in a cloud of smoke as one wheel spins and the other is just hanging around when all the power goes to the spinning one.

Harder front springs only cause understeer in a condition if you brake early and lift. If you brake hard, late, and keep 'load' on the rears to cause an inital 'push' and snap the wheel further and faster, you get a smooth entry with snap controllable oversteer.

I happen to know that one of the old GT3 guys that was insanely fast used this technique.

 

[mthielen]

good point, what the hell is this doing here :s
Close it please, this has no use

 

[daan]

good point, what the hell is this doing here :s
Close it please, this has no use

Thanks for your input, but I think I'll just move it.

 

[Orion]

The suspension should be much softer, and the front should be softer than the rear, due to GT4's understeer physics.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

I've always been a believer that wherever the engine sits, the suspension under it should be stiffer than where it doesnt'

So in other words, in a front-engine car, i'll have the front springs stiffer than the rear. In a mid or rear-engine car, i'll usually have the rear springs stiffer.

All this is subject to change, however. It's not set in stone. i just drove an RUF Yellowbird yesterday and that guy had such a habit of swinging its rear around (when brakng & turning) that i finally made the front springs stiffer.

 

[Hugo Boss]

I happen to know that one of the old GT3 guys that was insanely fast used this technique.

You just joined here yesterday, but you happen to know a really fast GT3 guy?? So what's your alter ego then?

Regarding your theory, I don't agree. The higher front springs let you brake into the corner at a higher speed and the softer rear gives you more traction when you exit the corner at full throttle. But I describe an agressive driving style here.
When you're a smooth driver, you'll brake earlier and drive rounder turns. With the use of the right damping, camber and lsd, you'll create the turn-in you like, but you want a higher rear spring rate to dose a light amount of oversteer with your throttle to get a high exit speed.
I'll ignore the 5/5/5 LSD settings, because that only counts when your car has 10 hp or superglueysticking tyres fitted...

 

[Scaff]

While what is written by the OP is in a very simplistic form correct it has been covered here in numerous threads in much greater detail, both in terms of the physics involved and how it effects tuning. I would suggest taking a look at the stickied tuning guides (either mine or Greyout's guide to spring stiffness and load transfer), for a much more detailed look at this area.

PB - In regard to setting the stiffer end to the engine location, its a good basic starting point, but as you have pointed out not always an idea finishing point. I would personally always start with the front/rear weight distribution as my starting point as many car can throw you out in regard to the engine location (prime example is the M3, it may have the engine at the front but its got a 50/50 distribution).

What you are finding with Ruf is however that static load distribution is one thing, what happens when the load starts to move is quite another, which is what Greyout and my guides cover.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Parnelli Bone]

While what is written by the OP is in a very simplistic form correct it has been covered here in numerous threads in much greater detail, both in terms of the physics involved and how it effects tuning. I would suggest taking a look at the stickied tuning guides (either mine or Greyout's guide to spring stiffness and load transfer), for a much more detailed look at this area.

PB - In regard to setting the stiffer end to the engine location, its a good basic starting point, but as you have pointed out not always an idea finishing point. I would personally always start with the front/rear weight distribution as my starting point as many car can throw you out in regard to the engine location (prime example is the M3, it may have the engine at the front but its got a 50/50 distribution).

What you are finding with Ruf is however that static load distribution is one thing, what happens when the load starts to move is quite another, which is what Greyout and my guides cover.


Regards

Scaff

Ah, i knew this thread would attract your attention. Well here's one for ya.

Yesterday i was doing the All American Championship. I bought an Oreca Dodge Viper, but this turned out to be overkill, so i went and bought a "regular" SRT-10, gave it full weight reductions, and then put a wing kit on. Suprisingly, the SRT-10 weighs about 250 pounds more than an Oreca yet handles and manuvers quite well. I was no longer overkilling the Ai and had 5 great races.

So i decide to enter my SRT-10 Viper in the Grand Valley 300KM. This will be my first endurance race in gT4. Whenever i've done the GV300 in other games, i like getting in the habit of trail-braking into an occasional slide. I dont' ordinarily practice this in ordinary sprint races, but in enduros (where you can get into a groove) I want a bit of unstability with certain cars like the Viper. It's just more fun and makes for a great replay.

Anyways, long story longer, i got a bit frustrated. I couldn't get the car to trail-brake reliably. There's so much damn understeer in gT4. I took my Viper to the empty GV practice track, and wound up on an hour-long mission trying to get handling i could rely on in previous GT games. I realized i wasn't going to get any drift action since this is GT4, so i'd accept trail-braking.

I remembered the real-life Viper SRT-10 has a rear-heavy weight distribution (the engine is somewhat behind the front axle and the tranny is located mid-ship). So the distribution is 48/52 front to rear. I switched my springs around...something like 9.5 front and 11.2 rear. matter of fact here goes:

Springs: 9.5 / 11.2
Ride Ht: 99 / 123 mm
Camber 4.5 / 4.0
B. Damps: 4/6
R. Damps: 2/8
Toe: none
Stabilizers: 4/6

Brakes: 9/16

Tires: R2/R1 (this actually didnt' work...the front tires wear out too fast so i am going to try the race again today on all R1's perhaps).

TCS/ASM: None

Note the extreme rear camber! Anyways, the combo of tires & settings finally got me able to pivot in some corners on demand like i want, but it's still not GT1/2/3 cornering

 

[sucahyo]

Take a setting of:
Front Springs: 12.5
Rear Springs: 16.0

In this situation, the body of the front will 'roll' earlier than the rear. In which case in a right hand turn, the right front tire does not want to be 'planted'. The rears will stay planted, but since the car starts to roll on the front, the rear tires will skid across the pavement and cause the car to slide.

agree, but also because of the rear refused to roll more.

refused to roll = faster to loose traction = tend to slide faster than front

Let's take a different scenario.
Front Springs: 16.4
Rear Springs: 15.5

In this scenario, the spring rates are 'balanced' but with slightly stiffer springs in the rear. What this creates is that the rear will 'roll' slightly before the front does, in which case the front tires will keep planted, the right rear will only 'not want to be planted' slightly, and will put more weight down on the left rear during a right turn.

also because you make the front refuse to roll more. you balance the car by made the front end slide at the same rate as the rear.



What happen if you do this experiment on overall low spring rate value?

I've always been a believer that wherever the engine sits, the suspension under it should be stiffer than where it doesn't

Hello . What do you think IF there is possibility that Polyphony Digital programmer already made the actual spring value stiffer on where the engine sits? so, for example, RUF CTR with spring rate of 10/10 actually have in game spring value of 150/250?

What make me think like that:
In GT4 a rear heavy car with 10/10 spring rate, look like to have an equal front and rear up and down swing.
In LFS a rear heavy car with 20/20 spring rate, the rear part will swing up and down slower than front.

Note the extreme rear camber! Anyways, the combo of tires & settings finally got me able to pivot in some corners on demand like i want, but it's still not GT1/2/3 cornering

If it was me, I will try to switch the damper around too, halving front camber or use an even lower front stabilizer, depend on which point at the corner the car need to be pivoted more.

 

[Scaff]

Ah, i knew this thread would attract your attention. Well here's one for ya.

Yesterday i was doing the All American Championship. I bought an Oreca Dodge Viper, but this turned out to be overkill, so i went and bought a "regular" SRT-10, gave it full weight reductions, and then put a wing kit on. Suprisingly, the SRT-10 weighs about 250 pounds more than an Oreca yet handles and manuvers quite well. I was no longer overkilling the Ai and had 5 great races.

So i decide to enter my SRT-10 Viper in the Grand Valley 300KM. This will be my first endurance race in gT4. Whenever i've done the GV300 in other games, i like getting in the habit of trail-braking into an occasional slide. I dont' ordinarily practice this in ordinary sprint races, but in enduros (where you can get into a groove) I want a bit of unstability with certain cars like the Viper. It's just more fun and makes for a great replay.

Anyways, long story longer, i got a bit frustrated. I couldn't get the car to trail-brake reliably. There's so much damn understeer in gT4. I took my Viper to the empty GV practice track, and wound up on an hour-long mission trying to get handling i could rely on in previous GT games. I realized i wasn't going to get any drift action since this is GT4, so i'd accept trail-braking.

I remembered the real-life Viper SRT-10 has a rear-heavy weight distribution (the engine is somewhat behind the front axle and the tranny is located mid-ship). So the distribution is 48/52 front to rear. I switched my springs around...something like 9.5 front and 11.2 rear. matter of fact here goes:

Springs: 9.5 / 11.2
Ride Ht: 99 / 123 mm
Camber 4.5 / 4.0
B. Damps: 4/6
R. Damps: 2/8
Toe: none
Stabilizers: 4/6

Brakes: 9/16

Tires: R2/R1 (this actually didnt' work...the front tires wear out too fast so i am going to try the race again today on all R1's perhaps).

TCS/ASM: None

Note the extreme rear camber! Anyways, the combo of tires & settings finally got me able to pivot in some corners on demand like i want, but it's still not GT1/2/3 cornering

An excellent example of what I am talking about 👍 , the generally stiffer rear set-up is doing exactly what one expect it to do moving the general balance of the car to-wards oversteer.

agree, but also because of the rear refused to roll more.

refused to roll = faster to loose traction = tend to slide faster than front

also because you make the front refuse to roll more. you balance the car by made the front end slide at the same rate as the rear.

Sorry suchayo that's not always true, roll is simply the visible sign of load transfer. The transfer occurs regardless of the degree of visible roll we see (the two are generally connected but you cant use roll to always indicate the degree of load transfer), take an F1 car, almost zero visible roll but you can be sure that load transfer is occurring.

Hello . What do you think IF there is possibility that Polyphony Digital programmer already made the actual spring value stiffer on where the engine sits? so, for example, RUF CTR with spring rate of 10/10 actually have in game spring value of 150/250?

What make me think like that:
In GT4 a rear heavy car with 10/10 spring rate, look like to have an equal front and rear up and down swing.
In LFS a rear heavy car with 20/20 spring rate, the rear part will swing up and down slower than front.

We have been through this before and its simply not true....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81176

...take a read of that thread again. No good reason would exist for PD to do what you suggest and analysis does not back it up either.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Parnelli Bone]

What happen if you do this experiment on overall low spring rate value?

Hello . What do you think IF there is possibility that Polyphony Digital programmer already made the actual spring value stiffer on where the engine sits? so, for example, RUF CTR with spring rate of 10/10 actually have in game spring value of 150/250?

What make me think like that:
In GT4 a rear heavy car with 10/10 spring rate, look like to have an equal front and rear up and down swing.
In LFS a rear heavy car with 20/20 spring rate, the rear part will swing up and down slower than front.

If it was me, I will try to switch the damper around too, halving front camber or use an even lower front stabilizer, depend on which point at the corner the car need to be pivoted more.

Hey haven't seen you for awhile! Yeah, i'll try your suggestions. I'm so sick of not being able to slide and drift reliably in GT4. It's not ruining the game for me or anything like that, but i'll keep searching for that "magic" setup.

So far as the springs go: no, i don't think a spring setup of 10/10 = something like 11/10 or 150/250 when Polyphony programmed the game. I think what you see is what you get.

....hey i still remember "putt putt enter the race"

An excellent example of what I am talking about 👍 , the generally stiffer rear set-up is doing exactly what one expect it to do moving the general balance of the car to-wards oversteer.

Like i said, i wasn't able to get my Viper to handle the way it was in GT1 and 2. But in some of those faster turns (turn 4 just before the hill) i was able to get some high-speed pivots into my game...a bit dangerous but as it turns out i was able to make a bit of time in every lap of the GV300 in this and a couple other turns..

,,,as it turns out, i won the GV300 by "only" 16 seconds. Who knows..if i had driven more safely in that corner, i might not have had that 16 second margin. 👍

 

[Scaff]

Like i said, i wasn't able to get my Viper to handle the way it was in GT1 and 2. But in some of those faster turns (turn 4 just before the hill) i was able to get some high-speed pivots into my game...a bit dangerous but as it turns out i was able to make a bit of time in every lap of the GV300 in this and a couple other turns..

,,,as it turns out, i won the GV300 by "only" 16 seconds. Who knows..if i had driven more safely in that corner, i might not have had that 16 second margin. 👍

Well recreating GT1 or 2 style handling in GT4 is never going to be easy (if its possible) because of a range of factors. From the lack of understeer in the first two games and the slow speed physics issues of GT4.

Nice win however and good to hear you got the car handling well enough.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Well recreating GT1 or 2 style handling in GT4 is never going to be easy (if its possible) because of a range of factors. From the lack of understeer in the first two games and the slow speed physics issues of GT4.

Nice win however and good to hear you got the car handling well enough.


Regards

Scaff

That's true. To get that smooth drifting/ sliding /trail-braking action found in GT1 and 2 (sometimes 3) you'd actually have to go back and play one of those games! But i'm just experimenting with something that is fun but also reliable in GT4...a setup which i can use safely that won't cause me to go off course or otherwise lose the battle.

 

[sucahyo]

Hey haven't seen you for awhile! Yeah, i'll try your suggestions. I'm so sick of not being able to slide and drift reliably in GT4. It's not ruining the game for me or anything like that, but i'll keep searching for that "magic" setup.

Ok, I suggest to not to assume anything when you do that . And separate the test between acceleration/deceleration and constant speed.

....hey i still remember "putt putt enter the race"

.