Suspension Backwards?

[CSLACR]

I think some people are that dedicated to this game that they just cant face the truth that PD made a mistake

Hit. Nail. Head. Hammer.

I noticed that when the rear was raised the rear would grip better when accelerating hard out of slow speed turns, when the front was raised the rear wouldn't grip so good.

You can't get worlds top time with less grip

It's one or the other.
You're saying with a high rear there is more grip, yet the fast times are being run with a low rear.
It's an anomaly in appearance.

What it actually is, is offline physics have so much rear grip that you need to lower the amount of rear grip to make the car rotate better, or increase the front grip.
Since you can't really "increase" grip in any way other then raising ride height and increasing camber in GT5, this leaves lowering rear grip after you've maxed the amount of front grip available.
Even though you have less rear grip, the extra rotation it allows essentially means the front tires have more grip.

You see, when the rear won't slide, it puts more stress and weight on the front, which leaves the front with even less grip, so by taking grip away from the rear, you essentially add front grip, because they aren't the sole tires holding the cornering load anymore.
By releasing the load on the front, you turn faster lap times overall, at least if you can handle the car. Everyone has their own lines for what they can/can't handle, so it's only natural slower drivers prefer more and more under-steer, because it's so much easier for them to drive.
But the fastest guys, like the ones at the top of this TT, can handle the maximum, which means they're running the same setup I posted..
Max/Min
Max/Min
Max/Min
Max/Min
Max/Min
Max/Min

Because it's faster, for the reasons I stated above.

 

[Johnnypenso]

One other thing to take into account is that just because a higher ride height on one end or the other provides more grip to that end, just like anything else, there is a probably a sweet spot. I tried the Schultze Seasonal with various ride height differentials and didn't really see any benefit beyond about +20 on the front. I went as far as +60 but it wasn't any different to me than +20. Also, I'm sure the effect of raising the ride height is also tempered by your front and rear suspension settings. Keeping the same settings and raising the front has always moved the car towards oversteer for me, but the result can be mitigated or enhanced by altering the front and rear suspension.

So taking a Tamora or any other car and raising it by 30 may not be the answer or a relevant example. I do my best to tune cars with equal ride height and most end up there too. But if I can't get it to work I begin raising one end or the other by 2 or 3 notches at a time, not 30 or 40. You'd never do an experiment on springs and go from 10.0 to 20.0 to prove a point or camber from 1.0 to 6.0. We all know extreme settings often take us beyond the sweet spot and move us backwards sometimes further back than we started.

To properly test this it must be done in small increments, not large. Of course that is just to convince the doubters and since I'm already convinced I'm not up for experimenting...lol.

 

[JackWilson]

Did you get that PM I sent you johhny?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I did Jack and thanks for sending it, but I haven't had time to drive the car sorry. Probably later tonight after I do some Christmas shopping..lol. I'm already convinced that grip is affected by ride height in a way that doesn't jibe with reality but I'm not about to say that a certain theory works in a certain way all of the time every time. I'm sure anyone can find exceptions to any "rule" in GT5 but a handful of exceptions don't change a general trend in my opinion.

So when I tune, mostly for my own purposes, I first use the general guidelines I believe to be true about GT5 then when I want to go further for a car, maybe for a Shootout for example, I begin experimenting with odd combinations and wacky settings. Normally I end up back close to where I started and with even ride heights because although I believe that raising the front moves you towards oversteer, I find I don't need it if I get the suspension right to begin with, and also that it often makes the car feel "unnatural" when driving.

I did have a +10 higher front on my Audi for the Ton's of Fun Shootout for the first round and +5 for the second round but that was for a specific purpose, to counteract the high rear downforce which normally I wouldn't have on the car. If I were running it at 600 pp for example, the rear wing would be minimized and the ride heights likely level, but as it was an unlimited tuning competition, I maxed out the wing and raised the front to compensate for the understeer it brought on at speed.

I'm sure this issue will never be settled amongst the diehards, without a full detailed explaination from PD as to why this effect seems to be taking place. Although it's frustrating, part of the charm of this game, like a good woman, is mystery. I don't want to know every single part of the program in detail because then anyone can tune and tuning will be unnecessary and much of the games quirks and personality would be gone. Once you can come up with the perfect set up, boredom sets in and you move on to something else. I've been playing for a year now, the game still intrigues me and I like that, although it's a bit frustrating at times...lol.

 

[calan_svc]

FWIW, I think people on both sides of the debate are correct, as weird as that sounds. I can initially set up a car so that making "backwards" adjustments improve the handling, and I can set up the same car so that "normal" adjustments will make an improvement.

With about 350 cars and literally countless hours of testing and tuning, I've come to the conclusion that if you eliminate all of the interacting factors in the way PD has modeled suspension behavior, the suspension settings work pretty much as expected compared to real life.

I think Hami hit it on the head with this:

The LSD effects way more than that. It can effect braking zone, turn in, mid corner and exit. I brought it up in this thread (and not really just directing this at you) because I firmly believe that the "backwards" feel that people describe is really them having to tune around the effects of the LSD. In spec 2.0, it continues to have super powers as compared to the other tuning tool. Just encouring people to try solving more issues with the LSD first, then all the other settings seem to work as described in the game. That's all.

Nothing seems to affect suspension response in GT5 as much as LSD settings; in fact, nothing even comes close IMO. If you really want to tune the suspension for balance first (which is what I prefer to do), you need to coast through several corners at different speeds using a clutch so that the LSD is out of the equation as much as possible. Doing that, the suspension settings do what I expect, assuming the car is somewhat balanced to begin with. As you get closer to getting it dialed in balance-wise, the changes make more and more sense compared to real-world expected results.

The one caveat to this is with damper rebound. The documentation states that the values represent the amount of resistance to either compression or extension, so a higher extension value would mean that the shock is less prone to extending. But in most (not all) cases it seems to me that shock rebound works opposite of that; a higher setting seems to make the shock stronger in rebound, and transfers more weight to the opposite end of the car. Like everything else in GT5 though, damper settings are highly variable from car to car, and can have a big effect in one case and be barely noticeable in others.

I truly believe that there is a lot of black magic going on "under the hood" of various cars so to speak, that causes suspension tuning to be even more complicated than it is in real life. But in general, things work mostly as I would expect, except in a few oddball cases.

EDIT: If you want a good example of that ^, buy a vanilla BMW M3 and try to set up the suspension to handle identically to an M3 CSL. If you adjust the weight and power band to match the CSL and apply the chassis rigidity upgrade, you should in effect have a CSL, since that is pretty much what BMW did when they created it. But with everything mostly identical on the two cars (including weight distribution and all suspension settings), they still handle quite differently. You can get the vanilla M3 to handle pretty nicely, but it will never be as planted as the CSL.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So the suspension isn't backwards but the extension dampers are?...lol...I cannot help but laugh at the irony in that post

 

[Motor City Hami]

Since the other thread died, I'm going to repost this here. Let's see if this kills this thread too...

HugeGremlins - "So do the tuning groups in this forum use backwards settings?"

I don't use ride height glitches in my tunes, nor do I see many of the other tuning garages enter tuning competitions with funky ride heights. Not sure if the tuning garages are affraid to put their money where their mouth is or if maybe they've found ways around the glitch that actually make the cars faster than just slamming the rear.

I won't debate that slamming the rear of the car can reduce understeer and increase oversteer. We can all feel that. So what we are all arguing about is whether that feel is backwards from what people think real world tuning should be. It's a game. If it works for you, use it. If you know you're faster doing this, then why do you want it changed? Will it be better for you if they edit the programming so that you can slam the nose instead and still go the same speed?

Stop trying to get PD to change something that may not really be broken. This subject has been debated now for almost a year and seems to have equal numbers who believe in "backwards" and who think "backwards is bogus." PD reads these boards. If they really thought it was a problem, don't you think it would have ranked high on their list of patches in a year's worth of updates.

My thoery (and just like the backwards crowd, it's just a thoery) is that slamming the rear shortens suspension travel and causes the rear tires to lose contact with the road - producing less grip. Why do I think this way and why did I use those exact words? Well, because it is written into the in-game manual, which was written based off programmer notes.

 

[CSLACR]

One other thing to take into account is that just because a higher ride height on one end or the other provides more grip to that end, just like anything else, there is a probably a sweet spot. I tried the Schultze Seasonal with various ride height differentials and didn't really see any benefit beyond about +20 on the front. I went as far as +60 but it wasn't any different to me than +20. Also, I'm sure the effect of raising the ride height is also tempered by your front and rear suspension settings. Keeping the same settings and raising the front has always moved the car towards oversteer for me, but the result can be mitigated or enhanced by altering the front and rear suspension.

So taking a Tamora or any other car and raising it by 30 may not be the answer or a relevant example. I do my best to tune cars with equal ride height and most end up there too. But if I can't get it to work I begin raising one end or the other by 2 or 3 notches at a time, not 30 or 40. You'd never do an experiment on springs and go from 10.0 to 20.0 to prove a point or camber from 1.0 to 6.0. We all know extreme settings often take us beyond the sweet spot and move us backwards sometimes further back than we started.

To properly test this it must be done in small increments, not large. Of course that is just to convince the doubters and since I'm already convinced I'm not up for experimenting...lol.

You should know I tried front ride height at +10, 20, 30, 40, and then 60.
There really just isn't a "sweet spot", it continually and gradually works more and more. There can always be theories to "debate" it, but in the end, the fastest guys in the world run what I tell people to run.
Where do you think I learned it?

Tuning week right now in WRS, and I can guarantee you what the guys are doing to reduce understeer without even looking. The faster the driver, the looser they run (in general), and looser means more rake and ride height.

It is what it is, as they say.

Since the other thread died, I'm going to repost this here. Let's see if this kills this thread too...

HugeGremlins - "So do the tuning groups in this forum use backwards settings?"

The entire crew that runs the WRS does.
The tuning forum itself is very divided on it. I personally side with speed, whatever brings it to me, and that happens to be backwards ride height.

I don't use ride height glitches in my tunes, nor do I see many of the other tuning garages enter tuning competitions with funky ride heights. Not sure if the tuning garages are affraid to put their money where their mouth is or if maybe they've found ways around the glitch that actually make the cars faster than just slamming the rear.

It depends on the car, and also remember many people, especially in shootouts are catering their cars to be easy to drive, rather then as fast as possible.

I won't debate that slamming the rear of the car can reduce understeer and increase oversteer. We can all feel that. So what we are all arguing about is whether that feel is backwards from what people think real world tuning should be. It's a game. If it works for you, use it. If you know you're faster doing this, then why do you want it changed? Will it be better for you if they edit the programming so that you can slam the nose instead and still go the same speed?

Yes, because then my car wouldn't look so stupid with the nose jacked up towards space just to handle well.
It's simply irritating, among other inconsistencies.

Maybe nobody believes me and that's why I get no responses, but this really is a decade old tuning "system" we're working with. On the scale of anything close to a "simulator" it's a joke.

Stop trying to get PD to change something that may not really be broken. This subject has been debated now for almost a year and seems to have equal numbers who believe in "backwards" and who think "backwards is bogus." PD reads these boards. If they really thought it was a problem, don't you think it would have ranked high on their list of patches in a year's worth of updates.

It is broken, why would I not want it fixed?
Have you considered that PD can't fix it with a patch?

Do you know what would happen to all stock cars handling if PD suddenly reversed the tuning method in the game?

My thoery (and just like the backwards crowd, it's just a thoery) is that slamming the rear shortens suspension travel and causes the rear tires to lose contact with the road - producing less grip. Why do I think this way and why did I use those exact words? Well, because it is written into the in-game manual, which was written based off programmer notes.

Ok so then it doesn't happen if you change from +60/+60 to +60/+55 right?

But it does.

It shows up much easier online, due to the extra rotation of cars, but it's there in any part of the game, in any increment. The only difference is how much it will affect the car.

Rear ends do bottom out in GT5 and cause handling quirks, but that shows on the tire load indicator doesn't it?

The tire load indicator destroyed these theories to be perfectly honest. Even though the fact that it happens at high ride height had already ruined it, the tire load indicator was the icing on the cake.

 

[praiano63]

You should know I tried front ride height at +10, 20, 30, 40, and then 60.
There really just isn't a "sweet spot", it continually and gradually works more and more. There can always be theories to "debate" it, but in the end, the fastest guys in the world run what I tell people to run.
Where do you think I learned it?

Tuning week right now in WRS, and I can guarantee you what the guys are doing to reduce understeer without even looking. The faster the driver, the looser they run (in general), and looser means more rake and ride height.

It is what it is, as they say.
The entire crew that runs the WRS does.
The tuning forum itself is very divided on it. I personally side with speed, whatever brings it to me, and that happens to be backwards ride height.

It depends on the car, and also remember many people, especially in shootouts are catering their cars to be easy to drive, rather then as fast as possible.

Yes, because then my car wouldn't look so stupid with the nose jacked up towards space just to handle well.
It's simply irritating, among other inconsistencies.

Maybe nobody believes me and that's why I get no responses, but this really is a decade old tuning "system" we're working with. On the scale of anything close to a "simulator" it's a joke.

It is broken, why would I not want it fixed?
Have you considered that PD can't fix it with a patch?

Do you know what would happen to all stock cars handling if PD suddenly reversed the tuning method in the game?


Ok so then it doesn't happen if you change from +60/+60 to +60/+55 right?

But it does.

It shows up much easier online, due to the extra rotation of cars, but it's there in any part of the game, in any increment. The only difference is how much it will affect the car.

Rear ends do bottom out in GT5 and cause handling quirks, but that shows on the tire load indicator doesn't it?

The tire load indicator destroyed these theories to be perfectly honest. Even though the fact that it happens at high ride height had already ruined it, the tire load indicator was the icing on the cake.

I agree 1000% with madame CSLACR Lovato and i suggest to add 200 kg ballast position +50 on the Pope's car. 👍

><((((°> °°°°°°°°°°°°°°/

 

[yanaran]

Since the other thread died, I'm going to repost this here. Let's see if this kills this thread too...

HugeGremlins - "So do the tuning groups in this forum use backwards settings?"

I don't use ride height glitches in my tunes, nor do I see many of the other tuning garages enter tuning competitions with funky ride heights. Not sure if the tuning garages are affraid to put their money where their mouth is or if maybe they've found ways around the glitch that actually make the cars faster than just slamming the rear.

Back when there was the tuner challenge championship (or something like that) I was a test driver for a couple of rounds...

In the Xanavi Z I got my fastest times using RJ's tune on Suzuka. After the challenge was done I tried 5 laps with max front ride height and beat my previous best by half a second.

At Tokyo in the MP4-12C I had fairly close times between the different tunes. After the event I ran 3 laps with max/min ride heigh and beat my best times by well over a second.

I wasn't a test driver, but I tried a couple of cars in CSL's challenge a while back and in all but one I was significantly faster with jacked up fronts.

In every WRS event except 2 or 3 that allowed tuning I've been faster with max/min tunes.

Off-line there are very few exceptions to max/min being the fastest way around a track (The Audi R10 I used in the LeMans 24H seems to be one). And it's always because of the same effect - it reduces UNDERSTEER!

 

[Motor City Hami]

Rear ends do bottom out in GT5 and cause handling quirks, but that shows on the tire load indicator doesn't it?

The tire load indicator destroyed these theories to be perfectly honest. Even though the fact that it happens at high ride height had already ruined it, the tire load indicator was the icing on the cake.

I never said anything about bottoming out. Re-read my post. You obviously haven't raced an off road car or dirt car where this effect is really exagerated. Lower rear than front, wherever it is along the settings will set a shorter rear suspension stroke and a longer front. You're allowing the front to lift and dive more and limiting the ability of the rear to do the same. Another way to look at it is that you'd be allowing the inside front tire more travel and better contact with the road. And, by shortening the rear, the inside rear tire would have a more difficult time keeping to the road and may even lift off the pavement under load. When I raced dirt cars, we played alot with short and long shock travel.

 

[CSLACR]

I never said anything about bottoming out. Re-read my post. You obviously haven't raced an off road car or dirt car where this effect is really exagerated. Lower rear than front, wherever it is along the settings will set a shorter rear suspension stroke and a longer front. You're allowing the front to lift and dive more and limiting the ability of the rear to do the same. Another way to look at it is that you'd be allowing the inside front tire more travel and better contact with the road. And, by shortening the rear, the inside rear tire would have a more difficult time keeping to the road and may even lift off the pavement under load. When I raced dirt cars, we played alot with short and long shock travel.

Now we're talking about dirt racing? Or just a clever way to try to bring up "real life experience" as a "I know better then you" card? If it's that you'll be unhappy with my next post.

And you missed this point -

Ok so then it doesn't happen if you change from +60/+60 to +60/+55 right?

Or is a highly raised rear (almost to maximum) still not able to travel far enough?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that on a flat, smooth road, a fully raised car is having suspension travel issues that effect the handling? That's ridiculous, I'd expect someone that races in real life to know better.

Honestly I think you just don't want to believe GT5 is fallible. You can make as many theories as you want, but it happens even in 1mm increments at maximum ride height.
If it were what you claim, that would not be the case. End of.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Wow. Sorry to disagree with the all knowing CSLACR.

 

[CSLACR]

Wow. Sorry to disagree with the all knowing CSLACR.

Whatever.
You're disagreeing with more then just me, a lot more.

The point is, if it were any of these things you suggest, it wouldn't still happen on a flat smooth surface now would it?
But it does. It happens in every scenario, and the lap times prove it. I don't have to say anything.

 

[Motor City Hami]

For a guy who doesn't have anything more to say it's odd that you are almost every other post in this thread. Keep pushing your thoery.

 

[CSLACR]

For a guy who doesn't have anything more to say it's odd that you are almost every other post in this thread. Keep pushing your thoery.

So answer the question already.

Why does it happen..nevermind, you're avoiding that question.


Until you can answer that question your theory has zero merit, I'm sorry if that offends you. It doesn't matter if I make 1 or 1,000 posts about it. Cars need next to zero suspension travel on very smooth flat surfaces and you know it, that's why you dodged this question every time I asked it.

Sorry if GT5 not being perfect upsets you, it is what it is, and it is flawed.

 

[Motor City Hami]

CSLACR - I just find it interesting that you spit all this venom against anyone who disagrees with your view of the subject, yet most of the tunes that you have posted in your tuning garage DO NOT use the backward ride height glitch. If it's always faster as you've stated above, then why aren't you using it more.

Sorry if it upsets you, but I think that puts into question your credibility on the subject. You're barely using the thoery that you're so strongly defending in this thread.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Now we're talking about dirt racing? Or just a clever way to try to bring up "real life experience" as a "I know better then you" card? If it's that you'll be unhappy with my next post.

I'd love to see this "next post".

 

[MrGrado]

If PD has tuning messed up then they either did it on purpose (not logical) or it ended up being messed up inadvertently (possible) but it went unnoticed/unchanged before release (not logical).

The only thing that is known for certain is that there is confusion about tuning with GT5. This is no real surprise when RL tuning is also confusing. The Ultimate GT5 link Collection shows a flow chart for tuning suspension, it is likely for a real world application with notes for changing springs etc that would not be necessary if it was created specifically for GT5. Assuming it is correct, one solution for oversteer includes stiffer rear spring rate while another solution includes softer rear spring rate.

I would like to find as much good information as I can get about suspension tuning and I would like to understand it as best I can too because I don't have real life experience with racing cars or racing suspension.

I wouldn't mind admitting that suspension is in fact all backwards if I see some real evidence and I'm truly convinced of it. But if people have come up with wild theories based on bad examples, wrong assumptions etc I am not going to be convinced.

Oh, I would also like to test out some of the examples mentioned recently for myself but I will not have access to a PS3 over Xmas, so maybe I can in a week or so.

 

[CSLACR]

CSLACR - I just find it interesting that you spit all this venom against anyone who disagrees with your view of the subject, yet most of the tunes that you have posted in your tuning garage DO NOT use the backward ride height glitch. If it's always faster as you've stated above, then why aren't you using it more.

Sorry if it upsets you, but I think that puts into question your credibility on the subject. You're barely using the thoery that you're so strongly defending in this thread.

What venom did I spit?
I fail to understand why you take what I say as so overbearing.

My tunes online or offline? Tunes designed for what tracks, before or after spec II, and designed for myself or others?
This one?
Or the one at Le Sarthe where I ran max/min on everything but didn't bother posting in the garage?
How about the tune that is visibly max/min for the fastest time in the GTR TT? Does that count?

The tunes I make for others and/or shootouts have very little to do with what's actually fastest, I'd thought that was obvious.
I use spring rate to an extent first, but there hasn't been a single race in Pure where I haven't ran at least 5mm lower rear ride height for extra rotation. Not one.

You see, higher ride height simply equals more grip in GT5, so I aim now to keep both as high as possible, so it's faster to keep the rear high online, so long as the car doesn't still under-steer.
Since I only learned exactly how bass-ackwards the ride height is in GT5 about a month ago, none of my tunes made 4 months ago reflect that.


Still awaiting that answer though....Do you remember the question you've avoided 4 posts in a row?

To be perfectly honest now, this is the last I'll bother you with this. If somebody faster then me gives advice, I listen to them, but maybe that's helped me get to the level I'm at. Maybe it's something for people to think about before saying I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground.

Maybe that's why fast drivers are so hard to find in the tuning forums, because they get tired of being told even though they're better, everything that they "think" makes them faster is stupid or incorrect?

You want to talk about dirt racing possibilities and relate them to flat smooth track driving, have at it.
Suspension travel is not an issue on flat smooth surfaces and you know it, that's why you won't answer.

I don't know what it is that compels me to try to help people with knowledge of this game when they utterly refuse it, I really don't.
You want to argue semantics to try and rationalize the tuning system (it's a joke to call it that) in GT5, that's fine.
Backwards ride height is the fastest in GT5, until you can show a bunch of real world race cars on paved roads running with their nose 2-3 inches higher, you don't have a leg to stand on, and you're simply kidding yourself.

Sorry if all that is considered "venom". I call it "truth".

 

[nomis3613]

higher ride height simply equals more grip in GT5, so I aim now to keep both as high as possible

I assume you mean that 20 / 20 is quicker than -20 / -20? Interesting. Are there any complimentary tweaks you need to do to make this work (eg springs/dampers)?

A while ago I did some testing of ride height alone (and without using rake) and found no measurable benefit of lowering, can't say I noticed that lower was any slower though. Just an observation.



Also, just throwing it out there in case anyone has any comments on this: nose-up improves traction and top speed

 

[CSLACR]

I assume you mean that 20 / 20 is quicker than -20 / -20? Interesting. Are there any complimentary tweaks you need to do to make this work (eg springs/dampers)?

A while ago I did some testing of ride height alone (and without using rake) and found no measurable benefit of lowering, can't say I noticed that lower was any slower though. Just an observation.



Also, just throwing it out there in case anyone has any comments on this: nose-up improves traction and top speed

I usually run as stiff as the track allows, because I like crisp sharp steering, but as far as I know it doesn't matter really, it depends on driving style.

I ran equal lap times with minimum ride height, maximum ride height, and each combination of soft and stiff with ride height. But it took 5 or more laps of slippery sliding to get the lap times with low ride height, compared to 1 or 2 with maximum ride height. The only catch was that with soft or stiff suspension you have to drive differently to maximize the available grip.

Technically I think lower ride height does corner faster, but you can get on the power so much easier and sooner with maximum ride height it easily cancels it out, with the added benefit of ease of use.
I've also been told lower ride height has better tire wear, and it might, but at least in the tests I did with SuperGT cars I spent so much extra time sliding my tire wear was the same at best, possibly worse.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think there's an easy way to at least partly resolve this dilemma before we come to virtual blows. A tuning shootout based on the opposing philosophies using perhaps 2 identically equipped cars (maybe high PP on racing slicks and one low pp on sports tires) and a couple of different tracks, one flat and the other undulating but both technical, like Tsukuba and Trial Mountain. Ideally the cars would have at least some understeer in their stock form, which isn't hard to find.

On one side you have the "PD is Right Tuners" whose tunes must have equal ride height or within a very narrow range and also have to conform to the guidelines laid out in the manual and on the other side the "Reverse Ride Heighters" who must tune the car with a certain minimum ride height differential. Test driving would not be open to tuners since this contest would be about proving certain theories and the temptation, even subconciously, to prove your theory might be too great, so we'll leave it to more impartial test drivers, non tuners like myself

I am throwing my hat in the ring as the first test driver and will give each car as thorough a test drive as I did for the Ton's of Fun.

Whattaya say fellas?💡 This will never be resolved here, it must be resolved on the track. Let's see whose got the 🤬 to step up..!!

Edit: Anyone that comes out against this for any reason is heretofore declared a chicken..

Edit2: I'm taking off for a few days...feel free to organize this while I'm gone..: 👍

 

[betrob]

I think there's an easy way to at least partly resolve this dilemma before we come to virtual blows. A tuning shootout based on the opposing philosophies using perhaps 2 identically equipped cars (maybe high PP on racing slicks and one low pp on sports tires) and a couple of different tracks, one flat and the other undulating but both technical, like Tsukuba and Trial Mountain. Ideally the cars would have at least some understeer in their stock form, which isn't hard to find.

On one side you have the "PD is Right Tuners" whose tunes must have equal ride height or within a very narrow range and also have to conform to the guidelines laid out in the manual and on the other side the "Reverse Ride Heighters" who must tune the car with a certain minimum ride height differential. Test driving would not be open to tuners since this contest would be about proving certain theories and the temptation, even subconciously, to prove your theory might be too great, so we'll leave it to more impartial test drivers, non tuners like myself

I am throwing my hat in the ring as the first test driver and will give each car as thorough a test drive as I did for the Ton's of Fun.

Whattaya say fellas?💡 This will never be resolved here, it must be resolved on the track. Let's see whose got the 🤬 to step up..!!

Edit: Anyone that comes out against this for any reason is heretofore declared a chicken..

Edit2: I'm taking off for a few days...feel free to organize this while I'm gone..: 👍

i'm agree 👍

 

[CSLACR]

I see a disagreement about what cars, and what drivers, but it could work.

I wanna go fast! setup
Set transmission final gear to 5200
Set top speed slider to 149mph (minimum)
Set final gear to 2500
2486
1930
1480
1160
925

10 - 15
20.0 - 10.7
10/1
10/1
7/1

2.5 / 1.4
0.00 / +0.10

BB: 10/8
ABS: 2

LSD: 5/9/5

Aero: 60/85

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5894569#post5894569
This is the same or very close to what all of the fastest ran...

So I won't bother, it's as proven as proven gets, I have better things to do TBPH.

 

[nomis3613]

I ran equal lap times with minimum ride height, maximum ride height, and each combination of soft and stiff with ride height. But it took 5 or more laps of slippery sliding to get the lap times with low ride height, compared to 1 or 2 with maximum ride height. The only catch was that with soft or stiff suspension you have to drive differently to maximize the available grip.

Technically I think lower ride height does corner faster, but you can get on the power so much easier and sooner with maximum ride height it easily cancels it out, with the added benefit of ease of use.
I've also been told lower ride height has better tire wear, and it might, but at least in the tests I did with SuperGT cars I spent so much extra time sliding my tire wear was the same at best, possibly worse.

Cool, thanks for sharing. Yeah, I've noticed that RWD traction greatly improves with ride height, and there was negligable mid-corner difference based on ride height. Maybe the height affects transients and therefore related to damper settings. Woops, sorry, I'm going off topic here.

... A tuning shootout based on the opposing philosophies using perhaps 2 identically equipped cars (maybe high PP on racing slicks and one low pp on sports tires) and a couple of different tracks...

Brilliant idea, I'm in. (It's just for a bit of scientific GT5 fun, though, not to conclusively prove which school of thought is "correct". After all, it's all about driver preference so if you prefer the feel of backwards/non-backwards, then that's all that matters.)

So I won't bother, it's as proven as proven gets, I have better things to do TBPH.

Yeah...that's what they all say...bwark, bwark, brawk!!
(kidding!)

 

[CSLACR]

Cool, thanks for sharing. Yeah, I've noticed that RWD traction greatly improves with ride height, and there was negligable mid-corner difference based on ride height. Maybe the height affects transients and therefore related to damper settings. Woops, sorry, I'm going off topic here.


Brilliant idea, I'm in. (It's just for a bit of scientific GT5 fun, though, not to conclusively prove which school of thought is "correct". After all, it's all about driver preference so if you prefer the feel of backwards/non-backwards, then that's all that matters.)



Yeah...that's what they all say...bwark, bwark, brawk!!
(kidding!)

Well it really depends what the discussion is. If it's "which is fastest" we already know. It's proven in time trails constantly. As a fact, not a theory. Somebody running slower lap times has no ground to say his setup is faster, he'd have to be an idiot to believe that. Whatever setup holds the fastest lap times is the fastest setup.

If it's "is that a realistic tune" we also already know. No, cars don't race in real life with jacked up fronts and slammed-like-a-hoopty rears, with the absolute stiffest everything up front and a mush rear. We all know that they do not.

So we know an unrealistic setup is the fastest in Gran Turismo 5 as a fact after all.
People can say nothing's backwards, and they can say some things are backwards, those details are the only things that have room to be discussed.

In my opinion, in real life, people don't raise the rear end of a properly functioning car that is not having some form of concocted reason to need the chassis raised in order to function properly.
Anybody disagree, honestly? This means don't make up a scenario where it "could" answer this scenario, and I think you'll find we all very much agree on this matter.

The only things people argue in here are semantics. "Oh, well what if your suspension is bottoming out, or doesn't have enough travel, whatever the excuse, then raising it would increase traction". Yes, I know and, I don't care because it's not relevant to this discussion.

I'm not pointing any fingers, the people that do it know exactly who they are. I ask a question, they don't answer it. Instead they make up scenarios where it could happen. We're not talking about scenarios where it could happen.

On a flat, smooth paved road, with a properly functioning car the has absolutely no handling issues or quirks, Will raising the rear end 2 inches increase under-steer in real life?
Amazingly, nobody is answering that. I wonder why...


It's not that I'm against testing it or having a "shootout" over it, it's that there's absolutely no reason to. We already have every single answer.

 

[ut2johnston]

I would really like it if they would change the tire situation back to what it was before the update i mean really GT5 Sport tires lasting longer than Racing tires i thought this was supposed to be a simulater not just another game id rather play need 4 speed or something. Ive been playing this game almost everyday in between my deployments and you idiots took the realism out of it not to mention made it into a joke thanks&#8230;.

 

[CSLACR]

I would really like it if they would change the tire situation back to what it was before the update i mean really GT5 Sport tires lasting longer than Racing tires i thought this was supposed to be a simulater not just another game id rather play need 4 speed or something. Ive been playing this game almost everyday in between my deployments and you idiots took the realism out of it not to mention made it into a joke thanks….

Wow this really couldn't be in a more improper place. What's up bro, you read the title?

 

[JackWilson]

I had that same idea:
A tuner comp using the same car, same restrictions. Some tuners must use lower front than rear and the other must use lower rear than front, whichever side they believe to be quickest.

I will be a part of this but I cant compete untill after new year, I'll organize it then if people want.