Suspension settings backwards or not --- Common test

[Sail IC]

Yes, there has been previous threads on the subject and it has been heavily debated. But the forum is fairly divided if the suspension settings are backwards or not. In the debate, people have in many cases done findings on very different cars and setups, making any conclusion impossible.

Proposal.

I think the only way to make any progress and hopefully conclusion is to elect one common car and then share our findings, set-up and cars behaviour. To avoid extreme set-ups where strange things can happen, I think the car must be well balanced with default settings and then only change one setting, observe change in handling, and then share findings on this thread.

Note: The settings to investigate are Springs, Dampers, and ARB. To make any progress, we should strictly reframe ourselves for tests of other paramaters.

In summary, to make any progress we need to have one common test environment:
- Same car, power, tire
- Run all test either on or offline
- The car must have neutral handling with all tunes set to default

One member has previously suggested the Viper ACR to be a good car. I tried it, and for me it has strong understeer at default settings on both sports hard and racing hard. Not sure this is a good car.

I then tried a GT500 Calsonic GTR, and I find it to be much more balanced with stock settings both offline and online. So I propose that car to be a good choice, but I'm very open to other suggestions.

So my propsal:
- GT500 GT-R (Calsonic, Yellowhat, Xanavi. Same car in my opinion
- Stock 518hp power
- Racing medium tires (maybe optional)
- Test done offline

I'm completely open for changes in my proposal, but again, to make progress we all need to test in the same environment.

When testing, ideally only one setting should be changed. Lets say tune the springs softer front and harder rear and observe change in handling.

What do you guys think. Pls avoid comments like "not again", "we have already debated this to death", because I don't think we have had a common test environment hence its been difficult to make and good conclusions. The best evidence is that still very smart people on this forum has totally opposite opinions.

Anybody up for this?

 

[CSLACR]

To avoid extreme set-ups where strange things can happen

But you're already putting the "extreme settings" theory into full force.
I don't subscribe to that theory. I think it's just that the changes are that much more obvious when you get to extremes.

 

[Sail IC]

But you're already putting the "extreme settings" theory into full force.
I don't subscribe to that theory. I think it's just that the changes are that much more obvious when you get to extremes.

Good point. I agree that if useful, if extreme settings of springs/dampers/ARB makes the findings more obvious, then its all good.

What I wanted to aviod is by using a car where firstly some of the "powertunes" (LSD, ridehight, rear toe) has to be used to make the car have neutral handling, then the result is possibly misleading.

I think we will make best prgress if everything will be left default bar the settings (springs, dampers, ARB) this is targetted to test.

 

[CSLACR]

Good point. I agree that if useful, if extreme settings of springs/dampers/ARB makes the findings more obvious, then its all good.

What I wanted to aviod is by using a car where firstly some of the "powertunes" (LSD, ridehight, rear toe) has to be used to make the car have neutral handling, then the result is possibly misleading.

I think we will make best prgress if everything will be left default bar the settings (springs, dampers, ARB) this is targetted to test.

Mostly yes, though the lsd will hold back over-steer at default setting, the diff should be completely open to first aim for neutral with the suspension.
Also at least 1.0 0.5 camber, as those numbers are guaranteed to improve grip. And will also help start the a car at neutral, usually combined with some toe loss, meaning less positive toe. This will all make it easier to see the differences in the other settings.
Have you tried a Silvia 240 Spec-R Aero on SS yet? Should work with the above basic settings to be fairly neutral.

But then someone may debate these things I've just said.

 

[Sail IC]

Mostly yes, though the lsd will hold back over-steer at default setting, the diff should be completely open to first aim for neutral with the suspension.
Also at least 1.0 0.5 camber, as those numbers are guaranteed to improve grip. And will also help start the a car at neutral, usually combined with some toe loss, meaning less positive toe. This will all make it easier to see the differences in the other settings.
Have you tried a Silvia 240 Spec-R Aero on SS yet? Should work with the above basic settings to be fairly neutral.

But then someone may debate these things I've just said.

I think your last point "But then someone may debate these things I've just said" is what I wanted to avoid becasue it would immediately get us nowhere. That's why I think it would be the best to start with a car that is fairly neutral with all settings strictly at default. If we start making exceptions its a slippery slope of getting nowhere.

I'll test the Silvia. I already tried you other suggestion, the Viper ACR, and in my opinion it has rather strong understeer at default.

But I think the Super GT500 Nissan GT-R (Calsonic, Yellowhat, Xanavi) is indeed a neutral car at default settings, and would make a great choice. I'm sure most people have it in their garage too.

 

[CSLACR]

You can try it but with lower lsd it will be more natural.
In that case I'd start looking at an S2000, the Silvia will be understeer untouched.

 

[CyKosis1973]

Ramp the base car down a bit. I can't think of a particular car at the moment, the only one I know that is very balanced out of the box is the Clio V6*.

A GT500 car may display undesirable traits due to light weight and high power. Try to find something mid-range so as to de-risk your test platform a bit more.

What's the name of that black and white Corolla thing?? Isn't that 50/50 weight distribution out of the box?? Low enough power to not exhibit the aforementioned traits and neither a Super Model nor a Big Bertha...

{Cy}
* - There are undoubtedly tens if not hundreds of cars that are well balanced; I just haven't driven them yet.

 

[nomis3613]

Great idea. I'll help with the testing.

- GT500 GT-R (Calsonic, Yellowhat, Xanavi. Same car in my opinion
- Stock 518hp power
- Racing medium tires (maybe optional)
- Test done offline

I don't think the car choice is that very critical, but all that sounds fine. Give some thought to starting with an FF test car. The "super LSD" effects are less and the certainty of power understeer makes things easier. If necessary to get the car balanced, I don't think it's a problem to run say Racing Medium tyres up front and Racing Hards for the rear.
Totally agree about offline.

When testing, ideally only one setting should be changed. Lets say tune the springs softer front and harder rear and observe change in handling.

Cool

Mostly yes, though the lsd will hold back over-steer at default setting, the diff should be completely open to first aim for neutral with the suspension.
Also at least 1.0 0.5 camber, as those numbers are guaranteed to improve grip. And will also help start the a car at neutral, usually combined with some toe loss, meaning less positive toe. This will all make it easier to see the differences in the other settings.

LSD open: agree. But after the initial test in this controlled (yet abstract) environment, we should go back and check with a sensible racing setup
Camber: agree

 

[sprplay]

Hi,

after I've seen a few quite successfull 'tuner shootouts', perhaps this competition format might serve the test as well. Built up perhaps 20 car-variations for a single model on share, define a test track and find a set of testers who share their impessions & fastest lap-times for each 'tune'.

 

[Sail IC]

Good inputs.

Personally I have no experiance in tuning or driving an FF car. Have no clue what to expect or how to effectively drive it. If its OK by the majority, I would really like to use an FR or MR car.

I'll try the S2000, and hope its reasonably neutral in stock settings. Perhaps it would be OK to do some very moderate tuning, but I do think the spring/dampers/ARD should be left stock in the "reference car" so to say. I do think ridehight should be level, and the rear toe should be positive (toe in). I also the the LSD should be close to stock. As an example, a low accel LSD I think could mask an oversteer.

The Lotus Elise might be another good car. I did a few races in the RM model and it was a blast to drive. At least, its not understeer heaven but I only driven it online.

The idea of several test drivers trying the different tunes is a great one !!!!

 

[sprplay]

The idea of several test drivers trying the different tunes is a great one !!!!

Well, every dog has its day

 

[Lambob]

Perhaps include testing on said track: on the actual rumble strip, and in grass, at low and moderate speed to take note of car's bounce and handling. This is something I always wanted to test out, but was too lazy to do it: Take a Truck, and ride it on the grass with RH up and down, SR strong and hard, etc.

 

[CSLACR]

I will say the idea of the Yellowhat GTR is a pretty good choice for neutral, but the power will have people second guess the results.

Personally I have no experiance in tuning or driving an FF car. Have no clue what to expect or how to effectively drive it. If its OK by the majority, I would really like to use an FR or MR car.

I'll try the S2000, and hope its reasonably neutral in stock settings. Perhaps it would be OK to do some very moderate tuning, but I do think the spring/dampers/ARD should be left stock in the "reference car" so to say. I do think ridehight should be level, and the rear toe should be positive (toe in). I also the the LSD should be close to stock. As an example, a low accel LSD I think could mask an oversteer.

Low lsd can't mask anything, that's my point. High lsd can keep the car from turning properly, I've "proven" it as much as I can already, take a browse of the lsd settings I race/tune with.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=216152

 

[FishHunters]

Look forward to your results. I for one am voting for "backwards". Have just seriously gotten into tuning last few weeks. Camaro SS '10 RM serious understeer and Opel Calibra serious oversteer. In both cases I made the adjustments to make them do the opposite. The results were much more of the same. I did the opposite of what you're supposed to do today on the Opel and it seemed to correct the problem. Instead of increasing the front springs and dampers I lessened the rears.

 

[XDesperado67]

Here is a candidate for a balanced test car...the RX-7 Spirit R.
In stock form it has decent handling and is well balanced with a 50/50 weight distribution. Sporty but not super fast unmodified. Fully modified it can hit 600PP and run like a Supercar.

 

[Getsum]

Could we not just ask PD?

 

[phil bell]

My Corvette Z06 also exhibited similar symptoms...

 

[phil bell]

Here is a candidate for a balanced test car...the RX-7 Spirit R.

Thats a good suggestion,or maybe a Honda NSX or S2000.

 

[BOSS Mustang]

Look forward to your results. I for one am voting for "backwards". Have just seriously gotten into tuning last few weeks. Camaro SS '10 RM serious understeer and Opel Calibra serious oversteer. In both cases I made the adjustments to make them do the opposite. The results were much more of the same. I did the opposite of what you're supposed to do today on the Opel and it seemed to correct the problem. Instead of increasing the front springs and dampers I lessened the rears.

dropping the rears will have the same effect as increasing the front. the only difference is increasing front will give you less grip at the front while decreasing rear will give you more grip at the rear. Both should in reality cancel out oversteer. Usually you should try to go as soft with the springs and dampers as you can to get the most grip possible, without bottoming out(too soft spring or too low ride height) or having uncontrolled wheel movement(too loose dampers). So by softening the rear, you "actually" did do the logical thing and I don't see how you think this is backward.

 

[Sail IC]

I'm preparing for a league race tonight, so I didn't get much time to test different cars.

But I quickly had a go with hte S200. I'm not used to drive these low performance cars, but it seemed to display pretty neutral handling. I felt both understeer and oversteer as I was driving in, but again, I'm not used to this level of performance. It also have 50/50 weight distribution which I think is a good thing for the test car.

Personally I wouldn't mind a tad more performance and grip. If at GT500 GT-R is too high performance as a test vehicle, perhaps the S2000 is too low. Maybe the RX-7 Sprit R fits in somewhere in the middle and would be the best choice, again as long as it has reasonably neutral handling in stock configuration.

Thanks for the suggestions

 

[Highlandor]

Testing offline is pointless.

Many different types of 'tune' or setup works offline, but 'online' is completely different, you have to tune or setup your car in a specific way to get good or best results. Offline you can run settings backwards, upside down or inside out and they'll all work, eventually, with a bit of tweaking and adjustment, try this online and you'll see a massive difference.

As shown in the 525pp Laguna challenge thread, how many cars were great oflfline but useless online?? An online setup will always work offline, an offline setup doesn't always work online.

You need to do this 'test' online.

Balance cars - try things like some Mazda's or BMW's, alot of them are 50/50 weight distribution.

But this is pointless. If a car has a 50/50 distribution in weight then it's very common for the front and rear springs, dampers and roll bars to be exactly the same - because they HAVE to be in order to keep the car balanced.

Running different spring, damper and roll bars on a 50/50 car is useless as you are now destroying the natural balance of the car.

Sometimes, tweaking the roll bar by + or - 1 will actually help the 'setup' on a few cars, this usually happens on powerful cars with lower grip tyres. But fundamentally, this isn't destroying the balance as the springs and dampers will still be reflecting the weight distribution of the car, the tweaking of the roll bars is just the 'icing on the cake' to finalise the cars handling according to driver preference and equiptment sensitivity settings.

You want to prove this ridiculous 'backwards' "thing", then take a car which has BAD weight distribution, this should be the ONLY way to prove your theory.

If a car has a 40/60 or 60/40 weight distribution then the only way this car can feel balanced (according to all the backwards people) is to reverse the springs and dampers - right??

Impossibe. Why??

A car with 40/60 weight distribution =

Because weight is factor in setups (at the moment with the current GT5 physics engiine/programme in place - since the last update). So all the backwards guys you'll need to have HARD front and SOFT rear, so when this is reversed it then matches the 40/60 weight distribution of the car.

BUT, this will mean the car is now fundamentally out of balance, and the settings are not working together, instead they are now working against each other, so minor changes are having minimal effect and you'll be going round and round in circles. As 'anything' can happen in this scenario - because none of it is really 'working', you're lost in a sea of counter affect and guestimation - there is no consistency.

This is proved on the other thread where it as mentioned many WRS guys have hard front and soft rear, but a variety of settings in between. As mentioned, oversteer is harder to control than understeer, so tune the rear end to be controllable and this will then induce understeer at the front (INdirect tuning).

The only way of curing the understeer at the front is by tightening the front end. This now leaves you with a fundamnetally UNBalanced car where the rear end is INdirectly tuned and the front end is directly tuned. Resulting in most of the other settings working against each other rather than working WITH each other to maximise their potential, so anything can happen and there is no consistency - as described in the other thread.

Which is obvious, because everyone is starting with a fundamentally UNbalanced car.

What I mean by this is not the natural weight distribution BUT the natural weight distribution COMBINED with the springs, dampers and roll bar settings.

These all have to be set TOGETHER in order for the car to be naturally balanced, if they aren't, then even a 50/50 weight distribution car will NOT be balanced, as you have LOST the balance by not adjusting the springs, dampers and roll bars of the car to match the weight distribution.

A stock car with stock suspension will be balanced at 50/50 aslong as you don't do anything to the suspension, as soon a you add custom suspension and start tinkering witht he spring and damper settings, unless you dial them in right you'll be changing the 50/50 natural balanced of the car.

Alternatively, you take take a naturally unbalanced car with a 40/60 weight distribution and make it balanced by setting the springs and dampers to equate to the weight distribution. Balance works both ways - you can have it naturally or you can MAKE it happen.

Take a car with poor weight distribution i.e. 40/60 and set the springs, dampers and roll bars according to the weight distribution - this car is now balanced. Keep doing this on as many cars as you can and you will start to see consistency and 'patterns' emerging, whilst also noticing consistent increased impact on the handing of the car from certain individual settings i.e. roll bars.

Reverse the springs and dampers - see what happens... There is no consistency and patterns emerging, other than generally hard front and soft rear with anything goes in between. Things like the roll bars have far less impact on the handling and often will be set 'all over the place' for different people with the dame car(s). All because they are not 'working' properly and the car is fundamentally out of balance - so nothing you're going to do will make sense and this is proven by the lack of consistency throughout car(s) and drivers.

As mentioned on the other thread by that guy with the Super GT car - he tweaked the roll bars to his driving style as 'felt' the affects and it worked for him. How on earth can that happen when I don't know what car he's driving, or what his driving style is yet what I told him to do worked for him?? It's because I know it will happen because I've seen these consistencies regularly happen and I know they're there - all because of the natural balance of the car and tuning a car accordingly.

You all need to understand this:

Weight - why this is important.

Pretty simple really.

Take any car, now add 50-100-150kgs of ballast and stick it either front or rear - doesn't matter which car or what end. The car now 'feels' different to what it did with no ballast.

So this tells everyone than 'weight' is recognised by the code or programme (or whatever you want to call it) in this GAME (GAME ok - NOT real life, this is a computer CODE, NOT real life phyisics, it's just a 'code' or programme with variables and defining factors).

Another test:

Take two cars weighing the same but one car with 40/60 weight distribution the other with 45/55 split.

See how many Kgs of ballast are required for the 40/60 car to be balanced, then see how many Kgs of ballast are required for the 45/55 car to be balanced (i.e. made to equal 50/50).

Are the amounts the same - NO.

Well, there's you're answer - PROOF that weight and weight distribution IS recognised by the physics, code, programme or "little green man inside your PS3" - or whatever it is that is calculating the figures involved and then adjusting the handling of your car accordingly.

If not - why does it take a different amount to 'even up' the weight distribution of two cars, differently balanced, that weigh exactly the same??

Also, why on earth would Polyphony be showing us the weight distribution figures if there was no relevance to them??

Why would Polyphony have ballast and ballast positioning in the game and why is it that cars feel different when you play around with these figures and these figures alone??

Finally - why is it, that so many people had cars affected by the last update? I've been running my race series for 6 months, same cars, regulations, tracks and people. So many said that some of their cars 'changed' after the last update, cars that felt great and balanced we're now 'all over the place'.

The very same cars we've been driving for the last 5 months before the update, cars we knew inside out, had the setups memorised in our heads - our favourite cars, beautiful to drive - became a pile of turds AFTER the last update. These cars were setup months ago before this weight distribution theory was being used, they were so well balanced, until those % figures arrived, then they were shot down in flames.

What was one of the things introduced in the last update - the % figures for front / rear weight distribution in settings>body/chassis>ballast. This is why so many cars felt different after the last update, Polyphony changed the [hysics / code / prgramme/ engine whatever you want to call it to make these numbers have relevance, whereas before, they didn't.

Finally - consistency and impact.

Take any experiments or tests in the world, with regard to anything.

What results are always deemed to be usable, accurate and helpful - CONSISTENT results and these have an impact.

What results are deemed to be useless, no good or means that something is wrong with the test - INconsistent results and these have little impact.

Try tuning an unbalanced car, you'll always have inconsistency and this crazy backwards theory will be with us from here to eternity, set your car up according to weight distribution i.e. balanced and you'll have consistency and impact.

As proved by the other thread.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is anyone here familiar with the scientific method? You take an environment, change one variable and one only, note the effect. In other words, you can take any car with a good tune, one that handles really well, fast but neutral, regardless of tires or modifications, and so long as you only change one variable and note the results, the test is valid. That can be stock, fully modded, SS, RS etc. so long as you only change one variable and the tune is solid to begin with.

Do the same thing with 5-10 cars and you should see a pattern, one way or the other. A true representative sample would be 30 or more, but 5-10 should point you in the right direction. If the results turn out to be one way or another, you can conclude the settings are backwards, or not. If they are random, then it varies from car to car.

Of course all this is assuming constants like track conditions (lag), driving skill, and consistent methods in test results. For example the best time on 5 laps runs for every car, same track, as opposed to 7 laps with one car, and 3 with another.

Once you do this you then have a test that can be repeated for all testers and you can compare results.

 

[Highlandor]

Is anyone here familiar with the scientific method? You take an environment, change one variable and one only, note the effect. In other words, you can take any car with a good tune, one that handles really well, fast but neutral, regardless of tires or modifications, and so long as you only change one variable and note the results, the test is valid. That can be stock, fully modded, SS, RS etc. so long as you only change one variable and the tune is solid to begin with.

Yep, I'm aware of ethics etc in testing and what makes test 'results' either legitimate or not.

Agreed that, in principle, changing one variable is a good idea, but it depends. If you're dong the test offline, then this won't work, as mentioned before, backwards, upside down and inside out setups will all work (eventually - after a bit of tweaking) offline, online is a different matter.

When I mean work, I mean make the car balanced and have at least average or above average tyre wear, grip and balance that different people can equate into consistent good lap times over a reasonable race distance.

However, people still don't understand the affects of an unbalanced setup, possibly the only way to know about this is to directly compare a fundamentally unbalanced setup with a balanced one.

Want example - well, to be honest, I don't need to, all you have to do is speak to guys like:

(from GTP)
Corse
Nomis3613

Randoms (not previously my friends, no allegience to me whatsoever), just send a PSN message to:

Civil_Defiance
MaxDonner

All of these guys are 'new' to me, but they've all experienced the difference between a fundamentally unbalanced setup and a balanced one.

Ask them about the differences in how the car feels and also, more importantly, the impact of changing a single part of the setup (i.e. roll bars + or - 1) on a balanced setup compared to an unblanced one.

Once you understand this, you'll realize that certain setups will just have you chasing your tail and banging your head against a wall, because one thing is having a counter affect on another.

If you are using an unbalanced setup as the starting point for the experiment then this will mean changing one variable will ultimately mean nothing.

A far better experiment would be the same car, exactly the same power, weight, tuning parts, tyres etc then one having a balanced setup and the other not.

Then start to change the same individual variable on both and compare that.

Feel free to contact any of the above guys, just give them my name, ask them am I talking **** or does it really work. Pretty simple really. They all know the difference between the two type of setups, they have no allegiance to me so are not biased and at least three of them are very good drivers who can put in very consistent and fast laps.

Alternatively, send me a PSN friend's request, explain you're from GTP (and want to see this theory), come into my lobby and I'll show you in person and you can see, and feel, for yourself.

Then you'll understand alot better about the difference between balanced and unbalanced.

Open invite to y'all.....

H

(my friends list is nearly full, if you can't send FR send just message me..)

If you need a car, no problem I'll send you a car, I've been doing this daily to all my friends for the past 3-4 months, one more isn't going to bother me.

(Nomis3613 got an) Evora, 530pp sports soft tyres, no driving aids.

This is a good example car, at the above spec it's a nightmare, add custom suspension it's still a nightmare, but tune it right and et voila..... The fact it's got an awful weight distribution figure also helps, as in theory, cars like this should blow my idea out of the water.

Especially as after this we can do something like the HPA TT Audi, which is completely the opposite of the Evora, engine in other end, weight distribution completely reversed and 4WD drive instead of RWD...

Doesn't matter what track either... Every cars needs to be tweaked to suit the driver and track it's about to be used by and on, but this won't affect the fundamental difference between balance and unbalanced.

Like I say, don't believe me, pop in, chill out and I'll show you and you can feel it for yourself.

PSN same as GTP ID.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The purpose of empirical testing is not to "believe" or not believe anything. The purpose is to take out belief and start with a standard reference point and test from there. If you want to start with an unbalanced tune and test and compare the results to a balanced tune go nuts. It's not a question of whether I believe a certain tuning philosophy or not it's creating a set of repeatable test parameters.

The key will be finding a balanced car(s). If anyone is serious about the test and proving or disproving any theory, then post a tune you consider balanced, let others drive it and provide some feedback, and proceed from there. You may or not get agreement on whether a tune is balanced because that is subjective. I suspect you won't get beyond that point...lol. If you can't get people to believe your tune is balanced then you're shot in the foot to begin with.

Talking about it and providing examples that cannot be tested independently won't prove anything.

 

[Highlandor]

The key will be finding a balanced car(s). If anyone is serious about the test and proving or disproving any theory, then post a tune you consider balanced, let others drive it and provide some feedback, and proceed from there. You may or not get agreement on whether a tune is balanced because that is subjective. I suspect you won't get beyond that point...lol. If you can't get people to believe your tune is balanced then you're shot in the foot to begin with.

Talking about it and providing examples that cannot be tested independently won't prove anything.

Wrong, totally....

Having a balanced car to start off with will prove nothing.

Posting a single tune for a single car will prove nothing either - people's driving styles, skill levels and equiptment sensitivty settings can make a huge difference, what is a brilliant tune for one person, give someone else the exact same car and tune on the same track with same regulations, it'll be useless.

The fact you, and so many don't understand this speaks volumes.

As I've already mentioned on other threads, I've already tested with variables far greater than most peope can even think of, let alone actually put their setups through. I've already posted enough infomation for guys to test this, I've already posted enough infomation to prove that I know what I'm talking about.

I'm still getting consistent results with more guys, more cars, it just doesn't stop - how come...??

Because it works, because I understand, but so many others don't and are judging me by their incorect assumptions. As their sassumptions are incorrect in the first place, this means they simply can't understand what I'm trying to explain. Whereas the people who I've quoted have actually experienced this in person and can tell you first hand the results, they are unbiased 3rd party observers - independant testers.

I haven't quoted all my mates, I've quoted guys I hardly know or have only known for a few days, and have no allegiance to me, not my friends who are going to blindly back me up.

As for "...suspecting you won't get beyond that point..."



LMFAO

I take it you haven't been keeping up with current affairs then....??

I'm so far beyond that point I'm a spec in the distance dissappearing into the horizon, whilst people like you are stuck in the same spot going round and round in circles burying your head in the ground like an emu.

Like I say - think I'm talking crap, think I making this up, think this is complete rubbish...then speak to those independant guys or come to my lobby.

Of course you won't though will you...because that means you'll have to eat humble pie, something so many guys on this forum can't stand the taste of. You'll be just like everyone else, mock, ridicule and scoff, yet haven't got the balls or intellectual ability to either face up to it or understand it, or you're too busy polishing that ego of yours to take notice or care.

No problem though, this theory is now spreading fast and wide - PureGT, GTRP etc ....sooner or later it'll come here to GTP aswell.

And on that day my friend..................



Better get you're taste buds ready for some of momma's good ol' humble.....'cos like it or not, your going have to eat it in double portions.

(I've got a spoon and a dish here waiting - just for you)...

 

[CSLACR]

The purpose of empirical testing is not to "believe" or not believe anything. The purpose is to take out belief and start with a standard reference point and test from there. If you want to start with an unbalanced tune and test and compare the results to a balanced tune go nuts. It's not a question of whether I believe a certain tuning philosophy or not it's creating a set of repeatable test parameters.

The key will be finding a balanced car(s). If anyone is serious about the test and proving or disproving any theory, then post a tune you consider balanced, let others drive it and provide some feedback, and proceed from there. You may or not get agreement on whether a tune is balanced because that is subjective. I suspect you won't get beyond that point...lol. If you can't get people to believe your tune is balanced then you're shot in the foot to begin with.

Talking about it and providing examples that cannot be tested independently won't prove anything.

Absolutely.

Wrong, totally....

Having a balanced car to start off with will prove nothing.

Posting a single tune for a single car will prove nothing either - people's driving styles, skill levels and equiptment sensitivty settings can make a huge difference, what is a brilliant tune for one person, give someone else the exact same car and tune on the same track with same regulations, it'll be useless.

The fact you, and so many don't understand this speaks volumes.

As I've already mentioned on other threads, I've already tested with variables far greater than most peope can even think of, let alone actually put their setups through. I've already posted enough infomation for guys to test this, I've already posted enough infomation to prove that I know what I'm talking about.

I'm still getting consistent results with more guys, more cars, it just doesn't stop - how come...??

Because it works, because I understand, but so many others don't and are judging me by their incorect assumptions. As their sassumptions are incorrect in the first place, this means they simply can't understand what I'm trying to explain. Whereas the people who I've quoted have actually experienced this in person and can tell you first hand the results, they are unbiased 3rd party observers - independant testers.

I haven't quoted all my mates, I've quoted guys I hardly know or have only known for a few days, and have no allegiance to me, not my friends who are going to blindly back me up.

As for "...suspecting you won't get beyond that point..."



LMFAO

I take it you haven't been keeping up with current affairs then....??

I'm so far beyond that point I'm a spec in the distance dissappearing into the horizon, whilst people like you are stuck in the same spot going round and round in circles burying your head in the ground like an emu.

Like I say - think I'm talking crap, think I making this up, think this is complete rubbish...then speak to those independant guys or come to my lobby.

Of course you won't though will you...because that means you'll have to eat humble pie, something so many guys on this forum can't stand the taste of. You'll be just like everyone else, mock, ridicule and scoff, yet haven't got the balls or intellectual ability to either face up to it or understand it, or you're too busy polishing that ego of yours to take notice or care.

No problem though, this theory is now spreading fast and wide - PureGT, GTRP etc ....sooner or later it'll come here to GTP aswell.

And on that day my friend..................



Better get you're taste buds ready for some of momma's good ol' humble.....'cos like it or not, your going have to eat it in double portions.

(I've got a spoon and a dish here waiting - just for you)...

Sure thing, what's a good time, place, and car for you?

 

[Sail IC]

Lets see if we can moce forward with this test.

First we need to decide on a car. I tested a few cars suggested earlier and some other that I had. No surprised, most cars have strong understeer offline which I think is not suitable for this test. There are only two cars that I tested that display a reasonable neutral handling, the GT500 GT-R and the Honda S2000. It has been voiced that the GT-R is too high power for such a test. I personally think that the S2000 is too sluggish with stock power. I'm not used to drive such slow cars.

Let me make following proposal. We use the Honda S2000 and use the high RPM turbo. Given the higher power, I think we should upgrade the tires to Sports Hard (comfort soft standard). It still handles fairly neutral, and maintain its 50/50 weight distribution

If we can agree on this car, the next step would be to finetune the stock set-up and make it as neutral as possible. All the suspension settings should be as close to the middle setting as possible so there is good room to modify it and create set-up that should over- or under-steer.

The neutral set-up should be the "reference set-up". Then I suggest we should develop two tunes that we by the book tuning should oversteer, and two that should understeer.

We publish the reference tune and the four other tunes, encurrage people to test them and report their findings.

I think we should make the test as simple as possible. That's why I recommend we should only use one car and only five tunes to test.

Make sense ?

I will get going on a neutral reference tune. It would be great if others could have a stab at it too.

 

[CSLACR]

I'll try the stock S2000, I'd say stock with S1's should be fine, I'll try it with stock settings and see then.

 

[-raVer-]

I'll try the stock S2000, I'd say stock with S1's should be fine, I'll try it with stock settings and see then.

Which one of the many S2000´s?

There´s lots of difference between the S2000´s.

List of S2000´s:

Honda S2000 (US) '99

Honda S2000 (US) '01

Honda S2000 (US) '04

Honda S2000 LM Race Car

Honda S2000 Type V '00

Honda S2000 Type V '01

Honda S2000 Type V '03

Honda S2000 Type V (EU) '00

Honda S2000 Type V (EU) '01

Honda S2000 Type V (US) '00

Honda S2000 Type V (US) '01


and some newer I think


raVer

 

[Sail IC]

Its the Honda S2000 '06 available at the new car dealership for 37.800CR. I upgraded it with high rpm turbo giving 288hp after oil change, LSD, fully adjustable suspension, and sports hard tyres.

I just plugged in fullowing tune, basically putting all suspension in the middle and added some camber.

LSD; 10/40/20
Ridehight; 0/0
Springs; 9/9
Damp E; 6/6
Damp C; 6/6
ARB; 4/4
Camb; 1.0/0.5
Toe; 0/0.2
Brakes 5/5

First driving impressions at this stock tune.
Its quite a tricky car to drive well and fun for such a low power car. Initial turn-in has a slight oversteer. If the turn-in doesn't make the rear slide a bit, handling turns into a slight understeer. So pretty balanced.

let's se if we can make it completely neutral through the corner as a first step.

Note; This test is done in offline practice mode.