Suspension Backwards?

  • Thread starter betrob
  • 179 comments
  • 19,413 views
Highlandor
Glad it works for you and you enjoy it - many thanks for mentioning it 👍
.
Click to expand...

Works for me too.. pretty good (actually great) starting point.

I even went the long way and figured out, using math and a vehicle with known motio ratio/wheel rate, spring rates for a race style suspension frequency (I thnk I used 2.5CPS) and came up with values that were within .1 kg/mm of your 'shortcut' method. 👍

OP, in short, my vote is for no.. not backwards. :)
 
Highlandor's tuning theories/setups work very well, we should all be thankful and respectful of what correct information has done to help us in tuning our cars for the better. All credit should go to him in my belief as he has brung us forward from all the debating and actually came with results as it were... And Highlandor's race series is particularly good.
 
esoxhntr
Works for me too.. pretty good (actually great) starting point.
I even went the long way and figured out, using math and a vehicle with known motio ratio/wheel rate, spring rates for a race style suspension frequency (I thnk I used 2.5CPS) and came up with values that were within .1 kg/mm of your 'shortcut' method. 👍
Click to expand...

Cool - many thanks ESOX :D

Appreciated....

madden14
Highlandor's tuning theories/setups work very well, we should all be thankful and respectful of what correct information has done to help us in tuning our cars for the better. All credit should go to him in my belief as he has brung us forward from all the debating and actually came with results as it were... And Highlandor's race series is particularly good.
Click to expand...

Haaa, brown noser (and great racer too)....!!!

Cool, always appreciated ;)

(until I remember you're half my age and have a 600bhp R3.6 Golf... grrrr..!!!!!)..

If my GT5 Pink Fiat Panda was real it'd kick your ass though.....

:lol:

(not)...
 
From what I've seen, ride height is the only part truly "backwards". It's worth noting that it's backwards in not just corners but in a straight line as well; the drag guys go tail-up, nose-down for strongest launch when it should be the reverse.

The other bits do what they say on the tin, though FWD suspension can get a bit funny.
 
Rotary Junkie
From what I've seen, ride height is the only part truly "backwards". It's worth noting that it's backwards in not just corners but in a straight line as well; the drag guys go tail-up, nose-down for strongest launch when it should be the reverse.

The other bits do what they say on the tin, though FWD suspension can get a bit funny.
Click to expand...
Drag racers running a high rear, low front ride height matches with real world setups quite well. You don't notice it as much on modern drag cars but they still run a somewhat higher rear end than front.
Back in the late '60s to early '80s the so called "Highjacker" look was very popular amongst hot rodders. This wasn't just a fashion statement but a reflection of the pro street drag cars of that time. The high rear end allowed for the rearward weight transfer and gave room for the car to "squat" under the hard acceleration of a launch, helping to plant the rear end and somewhat reducing wheel spin. Better tire compounds and improvements in suspension technology and geometry mean the modern drag cars don't use as extreme looking a setup but they still have a higher rear end with much greater suspension travel.
 
I have been thinking about this. but the way uneven ride heights affects your grip Is because of the change in weight distribution.

high front low rear is reduced understeer an increased oversteer. because you shift the center of gravity more to the rear.

low front high rear is increased understeer an reduced oversteer. because you shift the center of gravity more to the front.

this is cornering behavior.
I don't know how power oversteer comes in

But in cornering the lighter you are the more grip
so the heaviest end will brake loose first

weight does increase grip on accelerating and meaby even helps against power oversteer
but not in cornering at a constant pace.

Also weight helps against strong sidewinds but gt doesn't have that

weight induced by aerodynamics works different. My english is too crap too explain why

Also aerodynamic effects by different stance in body work might not be implemented

So it seems to work according to the normal laws of physics
 
Gik69
All Sus settings are back to normal and that's a fact!!
Click to expand...

Really..??

So how come the ride height is "still the same" as it was before V2.0 update??

If my car is loose at the rear, one way to give more stability is to have the rear end higher than the front. Likewise, on alot of 4WD's, if the rear is is very planted and stable by having the rear lower than the front it loosens it (on lift off) and the car turns more.

That's exactly the same as it was before..

So, can you explain what you mean by they are "back" - where did they "go" then..??

I now there has been some changes as some of the tuners have been revisiting their tunes and amending them (since V2.0).. But as far as I know, nothing has changed and then been reverted back...unless you can show otherwise, which'll be greatly appreciated.

👍
 
Go to your garage and select your car now go settings and put front low(max) and rear high (max) then come out where your car spins round and see for yourself!! You can clearly see the front is down and rear is high!!
 
Gik69
Go to your garage and select your car now go settings and put front low(max) and rear high (max) then come out where your car spins round and see for yourself!! You can clearly see the front is down and rear is high!!
Click to expand...

I don't think the visual element of ride height has ever be contested. The effects, however, are...

{Cy}
 
Gik69
Go to your garage and select your car now go settings and put front low(max) and rear high (max) then come out where your car spins round and see for yourself!! You can clearly see the front is down and rear is high!!
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I take it you haven't been keeping tabs on this subject here on GTP over the past 6 months have you..??

That's absolutely no different to what it was before, it's exactly the same.

Read the first page of this thread and then look at all the other threads on "reverse" theories.

It has always been this way - as Cykosis says (and many others - for the past 6 months), it's the affect (as in understeer or oversteer) of having a difference between the front and rear ride height that is opposite of real life, the "visual" affects of lowering front and raising rear have ALWAYS been correct.
 
XDesperado67
Drag racers running a high rear, low front ride height matches with real world setups quite well. You don't notice it as much on modern drag cars but they still run a somewhat higher rear end than front.
Back in the late '60s to early '80s the so called "Highjacker" look was very popular amongst hot rodders. This wasn't just a fashion statement but a reflection of the pro street drag cars of that time. The high rear end allowed for the rearward weight transfer and gave room for the car to "squat" under the hard acceleration of a launch, helping to plant the rear end and somewhat reducing wheel spin. Better tire compounds and improvements in suspension technology and geometry mean the modern drag cars don't use as extreme looking a setup but they still have a higher rear end with much greater suspension travel.
Click to expand...

sucp_0612_07_z+1955_chevrolet_gasser+passenger_side_view.jpg


Definitely rear-high.

Wait...

Anyway, raising the car in general was for weight transfer. Raising the rear alone is actually rather bad for traction, but was often done for tire clearance before tubbing became common.

Also, if you knew what you think you do about drag suspension set-up, you'd know that squat is very, very bad, and the opposite (anti-squat geometry) is very, very good. Drag guys like the rear suspension to react with torque and push down on the tires.

Modern power and tire technology has seen the cars get lower to the ground (do you really want to be behind the helm of a car sitting higher than the average off-roader with a solid front axle, no anti-roll bar, skinny front tires, rears with squishy sidewalls, and so on at 170mph? Me neither) for safety and aerodynamics, not to mention that the "hook" isn't necessary any more, as a slammed car can still pull the fronts off the ground (at which point more transfer cannot be had).

However, GT forces us onto road-race slicks. This means we need all the traction we can get and then some... Couple that with not being able to get any sort of anti-squat geometry and the need arises to simply get as much weight over the rear as possible.

Which means roughly what it did in the 60s, though since we don't worry about tire clearance a slammed rear works (or rather, worked) most of the time, though some cars wanted the rear up there as well with very stiff rear springs (RX-7 says hello).

Now in GT5, it's the reverse. Rear-down, nose-up still helps top end for the same unknown reasons it did in GT4 but it harms traction massively (whereas today's setups would never hook in GT4), while the inverse (in comparison) hurts top-end but gives a ton of hook.
 
Rotary Junkie
while the inverse (in comparison) hurts top-end but gives a ton of hook.
Click to expand...

agreed with what you said (squat=bad). you want energy used to propel the car forward not wasted on compressing the rear suspension - although some squat *may* be desired in really powerful cars.

perhaps the nose down rear up works because (like you said) weight transfer (to rear) keeps happening as long as the nose is rising, this, with a well tuned front extension damper/spring can maximize that effect.
 
Rotary Junkie
From what I've seen, ride height is the only part truly "backwards". It's worth noting that it's backwards in not just corners but in a straight line as well; the drag guys go tail-up, nose-down for strongest launch when it should be the reverse.

The other bits do what they say on the tin, though FWD suspension can get a bit funny.
Click to expand...
Didn't you say something about the damper extension?
 
Johnnypenso
Ha ha...the dreaded reversed ride height debate..I thought it was dead and buried but...lol..

In short, I agree with the statement that the visual effects of ride height are correct, but the effect on the handling of the car is reversed compared to real life. The bigger question is how to use this effect, if at all, in tuning a car.

For me, it is the very last thing I use to tune. I'd say probably 80% of the cars in my garage have equal ride heights. A few months back Highlandor had a discussion about bascic tuning set up. That is the exact same method I've been using for months but I'll refer to it as the "Highlandor Method"...lol. Perhaps Highlandor recalls the thread and can post a link, I don't have it.

The Highlandor Method, which concurs with the way you'd set up a suspension in real life, basically asserts that you begin tuning a car by setting up the springs, dampers and ARB's relative to the weight distribution of the particular car and each other. In very brief, if a car is 60/40 you'd set the front springs at 60% of their max and the rears at 40%, dampers on the same relative scale, and ARB's in reverse relation to this. If you do this when setting up a car, most of the time you'll find it's well balanced or fairly close to being so. Then use the toe, camber, LSD etc. to fine tune the cars behaviour to suit your driving style. You can also adjust the springs/shocks/ARB to achieve more grip, more suspension travel etc. but do so while maintaining the relative balance between the elements.

You should find that about 80% of cars are very balanced with this basic set up. Cars that don't respond as well to it for me are cars with extreme weights and extreme weight distributions and tuner cars. You should also find that most of the extreme cars can be well tuned by adjusting the springs/shocks/ARB's in small increments, and the LSD/toe/camber to arrive at a balanced, fast, ride.

For me, the other 20% require more extreme suspension settings and/or need ride height adjustments to achieve balance. I would never start with ride height as an adjustment, always end with it, as a kind of last resort, because even a car that is set up to be balanced but requires ride height adjustment to make it so, will handle better relative to using ride height to begin with for tuning, if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...
Could someone post a link to this write up. I searched but can't seem to find it. Thanks and much appreciated.
 
KB18FAN
Could someone post a link to this write up. I searched but can't seem to find it. Thanks and much appreciated.
Click to expand...

PM me your email address and I'll send you a email with it all detailed in.. 👍

Haven't a clue what thread it was in, there's been so many threads about suspension settings it'll take such a long time to go through them all (many are very, very long aswell).

It's just alot easier to send you the email.

I'll PM you back once it's been sent and from what address it's coming from..

Remember, it's a starter setup that you can use, or build from, for pretty much all cars, and it works online too because that's where all the testing for the theory was done.

It's not going to give you results as good as specialist tuners on certain cars (especially those as good as RKM etc), but if you're in a lobby and need to drive a car you haven't setup, or you're having problems with the setup (i.e. you can't cure understeer or oversteer) or igf you need to setup alot of cars, or don't know how to setup a car - then this can really help.

H
 
KB18FAN
Could someone post a link to this write up. I searched but can't seem to find it. Thanks and much appreciated.
Click to expand...

If I had the link KB, I would have posted it on your Nascar Thread, but I didn't have it, couldn't remember the name of the thread, so I wrote that little synopsis of it in my response to you. Highlandor will email it to you and yes, that was the starting point for my Nascar Tune and if you use it for yours, you'll be successful. If you compare the settings that are generated by this method to yours, I think it'll become obvious why I did the review I did because to me that car just did not seem balanced.
 
Rotary Junkie
sucp_0612_07_z+1955_chevrolet_gasser+passenger_side_view.jpg


Definitely rear-high.
Click to expand...

Yep...!!!

Well, at least for the air cooled crew it was..

http://www2.cal-look.com/nostalgia/Gallery.htm

Check out the earliest "pioneers" of VW (bug) drag racing, it was all ass end up and front end slammed. But, these cars are obviously massively different to the front engined V8 "gassers" etc. Not just in weight diistribution but also suspension design etc too.

The Bugs (and especially buggies) are notorious for flipping themselves over backwards (at worst - without wheelie bars), or popping insane wheelies (very common). But this had alot to do with the ludicrous weight distribution of them, exceptionally light at the front (stripped, fibreglass wings, bonnets, gas tank only enough to run the 1/4 etc) and engine et all (the weight) way way waaaaay.....out back.

Even something as simple a highly tuned 2.0-2.5 n/a engine withouth NOS can lift the front end. A friend of mine is a member of the current Outlaw Flat four club, his '56 Oval rag (on the street, with road tyres) can lift the front wheels when he gives it a "proper" launch - no turbos, or 'chargers of any kind, no NOS, 4 valves per cyl etc etc.

Just a very highly tuned 2.4 flat four (that's horrendously expensive) and an even more insanely expensive gear box from a bus (Type II) - you could easily buy a perfect RX7 for the cost of this engine & gearbox, and have alot left over to mod it.

The look on people's (next to us) faces when he does this coming away from traffic lights is priceless. His car, albiet still driven on the street and looking like a street bug, is underneath and inside, highly modified and lightened.

But not argueing with you Kyle, just saying that the extreme differences between cars like this (VDubs) and the gassers demanded a different stance.

I agree with you on the front engine cars though, the lifted 'gasser' look was the 'norm', both on the road and 1/4, for many many years though.

H
 
Johnnypenso
If I had the link KB, I would have posted it on your Nascar Thread, but I didn't have it, couldn't remember the name of the thread, so I wrote that little synopsis of it in my response to you. Highlandor will email it to you and yes, that was the starting point for my Nascar Tune and if you use it for yours, you'll be successful. If you compare the settings that are generated by this method to yours, I think it'll become obvious why I did the review I did because to me that car just did not seem balanced.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'll try your approach and see where I end up. Not ready to give up yet. Even tho I know there not the same, I just get frustrated with this road course thing because I can go to Daytona and Indy and can win 90% of the time, but hen with this road course thing, I feel like a complete noob, lol. I know you said it wasn't gonna come right away, but I'm just used to winning. I'm not bragging about my success on the ovals, just stating thats the basis for my frustrations. Thanks again for your help aswell as everyone elses as I take on this endevor.
 
Gabkicks
Has Yamauchi ever said anything about suspension being backwards?
Click to expand...

He's far too busy polishing his car collection, driving his R35gtr racecar around the ring or shoving his nose up Nissan's ass to have time to sort out or comment about the problems with GT5......

:lol:
 
Highlandor
He's far too busy polishing his car collection, driving his R35gtr racecar around the ring or shoving his nose up Nissan's ass to have time to sort out or comment about the problems with GT5......

:lol:
Click to expand...

And I see that you are far too busy being jealous...
 
Quite amused by this whole arguement, lol. Some say yes, some say no, I say I'm lost, lol. How is a beginner like me supposed to tune a friggin' car when nobody knows which end is up, lmao.
 

Similar threads

BlackHGT
Do the „SUSPENSION GEOMETRY“ settings exist in the real world?
Replies
13
Views
5K
Judistrikex
J
NIKOLAUNCH
GT7 suspension still broken.
Replies
12
Views
3K
wheelhp
wheelhp
WolfpackS2k
Post Update 1.49 Suspension Compression Issues - Possible Glitch?
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Rossell2
Rossell2
N
GT7: how to fix RWD oversteer / spinning: the EASY plug & play way..
Replies
15
Views
9K
wheelhp
wheelhp
Daniel55
PP-Tuning system correlation is now ruined
2 3
Replies
79
Views
9K
Quakebass
Quakebass

Latest Posts

Back