The Great Camber Experiment: Stage 1 "High Speed Ring" (closed/finished/ended)

  • Thread starter DolHaus
  • 389 comments
  • 24,027 views
Otaliema
To put a couple things out there I will back up @praiano63 camber has no noticeable effect on dry pavement above and beyond what we already know. I think some wet, dirt and snow tests are in order to see if there is any effect there as the reports of improved response is coming from the wet 10 lap enduro race seasonal.

Second Motegi oval still has banked corners like HSR does just not as steeply banked, about 10 degrees I think, so for anyone screaming for flat pavement tests with camber this track will not due. Silverstone the stowe has 1 semi banked more like dipped corner to it the rest are flat as it's built on a airstrip.
Click to expand...
Dry track is what 99,9% of the GTplayers including myself are racing all the time.
 
praiano63
Dry track is what 99,9% of the GTplayers including myself are racing all the time.
Click to expand...
agreed but if there is merit to the camber for wet then it will be good to know for future use and practice for if they actually fix the camber on dry pavement. The only reason I'm putting it out there is @nowcontrol expressed that he saw an improvement in a wet race with camber. I've not seen him jump on a handling change ban wagon in the past with out due cause to do so. I will say this in my wet races I've had a harder time keeping the car in check compared to prior, even taking a wet tuned car it was harder than I remember it being. I didn't put any camber on the car as I'm of the thought process that camber needs to adjusted during the tuning process and other settings need to be adjusted for the camber so simply slapping camber on a 0.0 tune will have negative or no results.
 
Otaliema
agreed but if there is merit to the camber for wet then it will be good to know for future use and practice for if they actually fix the camber on dry pavement. The only reason I'm putting it out there is @nowcontrol expressed that he saw an improvement in a wet race with camber. I've not seen him jump on a handling change ban wagon in the past with out due cause to do so. I will say this in my wet races I've had a harder time keeping the car in check compared to prior, even taking a wet tuned car it was harder than I remember it being. I didn't put any camber on the car as I'm of the thought process that camber needs to adjusted during the tuning process and other settings need to be adjusted for the camber so simply slapping camber on a 0.0 tune will have negative or no results.
Click to expand...
I just hope PD will fix this before Cristmas .......................... 2051. It´s a lot of time to test a lot of things.:lol:
 
Otaliema
To put a couple things out there I will back up @praiano63 camber has no noticeable effect on dry pavement above and beyond what we already know. I think some wet, dirt and snow tests are in order to see if there is any effect there as the reports of improved response is coming from the wet 10 lap enduro race seasonal.

Second Motegi oval still has banked corners like HSR does just not as steeply banked, about 10 degrees I think, so for anyone screaming for flat pavement tests with camber this track will not due. Silverstone the stowe has 1 semi banked more like dipped corner to it the rest are flat as it's built on a airstrip.
Click to expand...
It's not banked corners, it's progressive banking. Motegi is banked at the same angle low to high, HSR is nearly flat on the low lane and progresses to ~30° at the high lane, changing lateral grip based on slight change in the line you run.
 
Bhowe83
It's not banked corners, it's progressive banking. Motegi is banked at the same angle low to high, HSR is nearly flat on the low lane and progresses to ~30° at the high lane, changing lateral grip based on slight change in the line you run.
Click to expand...
That is true but it's still the fact that the turns are not flat, one of the chief complaints about round one of the camber testing was banked corners. So progressive or non progressive banked turns are still banked turns and allow for a higher lateral G load than flat turns.

Camber still seems to have a *IMO* negative impact on corner grip when applied to the car, Front cambers seems to affect mid-ext grip while rear camber affects entry-mid corner grip, the higher the values the greater the impact. So small values can improve the car, if you have it 95% tuned you can than use it to fine tune the car for improved rotation or slip based on what is needed to get a even rotation trough out the turn.
*The above statement is my observations only no actual testing has been conducted*
 
Otaliema
That is true but it's still the fact that the turns are not flat, one of the chief complaints about round one of the camber testing was banked corners. So progressive or non progressive banked turns are still banked turns and allow for a higher lateral G load than flat turns.

Camber still seems to have a *IMO* negative impact on corner grip when applied to the car, Front cambers seems to affect mid-ext grip while rear camber affects entry-mid corner grip, the higher the values the greater the impact. So small values can improve the car, if you have it 95% tuned you can than use it to fine tune the car for improved rotation or slip based on what is needed to get a even rotation trough out the turn.
*The above statement is my observations only no actual testing has been conducted*
Click to expand...

The degrees of banking is a variable in the test, any variable that doesn't remain constant (other than the one being tested i.e. camber) invalidates a test.

Doesn't matter if you're in a laboratory or on a video game, the ethical code remains the same. The only variable that should be changed is the one being tested, all others need to remain the same.

As the banking on High speed Ring has variable degrees, unless every lap recorded by every tester used the exact same degrees of banking for each corner, this impacts the validity of the results. Using a track that has a constant degrees of banking gives more credibility to the results as this changing variable won't exist.

As this test is about camber, and camber is (supposed) to alter the degrees of the wheel (and subsequently tyre), it's even more imperative that the banking degrees should remain constant.

If 'X' amount of camber gives the wheel (and tyres) a 15 degrees angle, but the banking on the track changes between 5, 15 or 25 degrees, then the camber is varying between positive and negative camber, depending on which part of the banking you're using.

With 'X' amount of camber (15 degrees) applied, the test is supposed to be for negative camber, but the banking angle means positive camber is in effect if the steepest part of the banking is being used.

With all the different opinions on what camber in GT6 is doing, then the test is not going to help confirm or dismiss any opinion if there is a variable in place that adds to confusion, rather than giving some kind of valid results.

Comparing a banked turn to a flat track is an excellent idea, but only if the results being used are taken from test where the only variable being changed is the camber being applied to the car's setup, not something that directly impacts this i.e. a varying angle of banked corners.

👍

Again, this is not a criticism, it's helping DOLHAUS create a set of results that have validity. Learning, adapting and evolving is a natural process, when people are helping someone achieve this it's not criticism.
 
The next test will be at Indianapolis to remove the cambered road surface variable, the test will concentrate purely on lateral load.

HSR was used to gather multiple sources of data and has sufficed so far on most counts, it has highlighted a few things that could be approached more clinically but the data will still serve as adequate reference material for comparing future test data. The varying angle of the first corner never really bothered me because although the angle changes you can only run certain lines at that speed and the apex (where the peak data was being collected) is only approachable in a certain way.
 
Motor City Hami
@DolHaus sorry that I have not taken part in this yet. I have been really sick his whole week. I will get more involved between now and the end of the year. You are trying to do a good thing here.
Click to expand...
Thank you, no worries there, take all the time you need and get well soon 👍

There are plans for a new test after the start of the new year but this test will remain ongoing indefinitely to continue gathering data. When I find the time I will get the current data sets represented in graph form so they can be analysed and discussed :cheers:
 
May I suggest using Tsukaba as a test track,? Very little banking if any. Take a 400 PP car test it stock on SM Everyone runs the same base tune.
Don't add any suspension, tranny,lsd changes just camber.
Stock car other than camber.
Start at 0/0 camber run 10 laps.
Then go to 0.1 etc etc etc.
Keep everything the same, except camber changes.
Use auto tranny abs 1 only.
Take results from DS3 users and wheel users. As both will be different.
Should be pretty simple.
 
Easily repeatable tests is what we are looking for so Tsukaba while a great short track has some technical corners that will cause some variance in the data we are trying to keep consistent. I vote Indy speedway, it still has some camber to the road but its not as high as other tracks.

I now taking back what I said earlier if we want a road course I vote for GT Arena to be honest its very small and easy to drive around. This is also IMO the flattest track in the game and will help with low speed corner effects. Obviously we can test this track with Low PP cars and try both FR/FF car combinations.
 
adeadsnipermatt
Easily repeatable tests is what we are looking for so Tsukaba while a great short track has some technical corners that will cause some variance in the data we are trying to keep consistent. I vote Indy speedway, it still has some camber to the road but its not as high as other tracks.

I now taking back what I said earlier if we want a road course I vote for GT Arena to be honest its very small and easy to drive around. This is also IMO the flattest track in the game and will help with low speed corner effects. Obviously we can test this track with Low PP cars and try both FR/FF car combinations.
Click to expand...
A 400 PP car at Tsukuba is hardly what should be beyond the realm of %90 of the people who have responded. Indy is probably the last track you want to use as the degrees of banking vary and it is designed for high speed not low speed. To get positive results, turning left is the last thing you want to do as right side of the car overloads more than the left. Using a stock car will prove that. Also it will provide us with PD's suspension and tire models that they implemented in their modelling or programming.
 
When I was tuning/playing with the '71 Ferrari recently, I ended up having 0.2/0.7 camber settings when I was done.
My approach to this was very last thing, and I'm not saying that the possibility that I'm nuts, crazy, or just happened to drive better after (and every time after that) out of pure luck, isn't the case. . . .nor am I saying my tune is the best of the best either. (It just happens to work just the way I need it to)
That said;

After the rest of my tune process was done, I took plenty more laps just to get an average time for my own reasons. Apricot Hill btw.
I decided to continue some old testing I had done with camber, just for the hell of it. Started with front at 1, back 0. Then opposite. Then tried some old theories I remember MoterCity talking about awhile back. Mainly testing laps with various differences between front and rear.
Anyway, short story made shorter, with 0.2/0.7 I improved my lap times. Some small amounts, some over a full second. So I did a large number of more laps to be sure, then went back to 0/0. And surprise-surprise I started gaining back those half seconds I took off.
Was it pure luck? Driving inconsistent? Maybe. But after redoing the laps many times and coming to the same conclusions. . . . Sorry, but camber improved it. At least, improved it when I was driving it, lol.
 
demonchilde
When I was tuning/playing with the '71 Ferrari recently, I ended up having 0.2/0.7 camber settings when I was done.
My approach to this was very last thing, and I'm not saying that the possibility that I'm nuts, crazy, or just happened to drive better after (and every time after that) out of pure luck, isn't the case. . . .nor am I saying my tune is the best of the best either. (It just happens to work just the way I need it to)
That said;

After the rest of my tune process was done, I took plenty more laps just to get an average time for my own reasons. Apricot Hill btw.
I decided to continue some old testing I had done with camber, just for the hell of it. Started with front at 1, back 0. Then opposite. Then tried some old theories I remember MoterCity talking about awhile back. Mainly testing laps with various differences between front and rear.
Anyway, short story made shorter, with 0.2/0.7 I improved my lap times. Some small amounts, some over a full second. So I did a large number of more laps to be sure, then went back to 0/0. And surprise-surprise I started gaining back those half seconds I took off.
Was it pure luck? Driving inconsistent? Maybe. But after redoing the laps many times and coming to the same conclusions. . . . Sorry, but camber improved it. At least, improved it when I was driving it, lol.
Click to expand...
How many beers did you consume during testing?
Just kidding!
Well I do a bit of NASCAR racing and I have noticed minimal increments in camber can give positive results.
Then again,maybe it was my beer goggles.
Yes there is some theories and suggestions that camber has changed.
Is it dramatic,well I think not,I could be wrong.
Testing a stock car as PD programmed it,is probably the only true way to see if there is a change.
 
Glad to have more people involved 👍

The greatest consideration when choosing a track for testing has to be consistency of data, Tsukuba was amongst my early selections but got ruled out because of the tendency for curb cutting/clipping on turn 5 (Dunlop Bridge?) and a fair few of the Indy RC corners face the same problems in terms of collecting data. When we are using load data as a resource it is important to try and minimise load spikes caused by circumstances such as going over or hitting curbs because they corrupt and potentially invalidate the data.
Its tricky to find a suitable track for testing the compound effects of wheel camber but we have plenty of time to discuss the details as these tests will not be performed until basic patterns are established. We first need to isolate the primary effects, once this is done then we can progress to the more practical stages and derive if and what uses there may be.

The current data that I have observed while inputting it seems to suggest that in this situation there are no obvious downsides to using camber between 0.0 - 1.0, whether there are actual gains to be found remains to be established.

killerjimbag
Testing a stock car as PD programmed it,is probably the only true way to see if there is a change.
Click to expand...

People have mentioned this and I'm not entirely clear on the reasoning behind this line of thought?
Please try to explain why a stock car be more suitable than a sensibly modified one?
 
@DolHaus every time that I have taken on a testing problem this big, I have lost interest. There are just far too many variables to test and people will find that one situation where you did not test and cast doubt on your results. Pick the wrong car, pick the wrong track, pick the wrong tires, tune it, not tune it, DS3 vs. Wheel. Just way too much stuff to create one, all encompassing test.

I think we need to do the opposite. I think we need to let people tune and test what they want on the track that they want, but come up with a standardized way for them to share their Motec data. Maybe some sort of average corner speed and average lateral G. This way, the test driving does not get boring. Simply play the game and do your tests. Use the newest seasonal time trial. Use the next FITT competition. Join the difficult car of the month. Whatever. It is the only way to gather large amounts of data across the spectrum of cars, controllers and track.
 
This is a very interesting thread. Thank you to all who have contributed to the testing and to @DolHaus for taking on this difficult task of organizing all of the data. I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been said except for one observation - and maybe I am way off base and if so, please let me know and I will quietly shut my mouth.

I understand the reason for testing 0/0, 1.0/1.0, 2.0/2.0 ... camber settings. Personally, I have always found a better "feel" when using more front camber than rear. For instance, I have noticed that with 1.0/1.0 camber all three testers posted a faster lap time around High Speed Ring than with 0/0 camber and only @TurnLeft ran a slower 2.0/2.0 lap time than 0/0.

I know it would be impractical to have testers run every possible permutation of camber, but I almost wonder if it would be more beneficial to eliminate the 6.0/6.0, 7.0/7.0 ... 10.0/10.0 camber tests and instead run some half values like 1.5/1.5 or perhaps mixed camber values like 1.0/0.5 or 1.5/1.0 or something along those lines. I think we could all conceded at this point that extremely high (at least "high" for Gran Turismo) camber values are NOT going to produce faster lap times. Instead of wasting the testers time running laps with 6.0/6.0 camber, exporting data in MoTeC format and opening up the MoTeC tool for the data, couldn't there possibly be more practical camber settings being tested? Perhaps even 0.5/0.0 would be more beneficial to the community to see than 10.0/10.0?

Anyway, those were just some thoughts. I meant no offense to this experiment. If I were a faster, more consistent driver I would be happy to participate and contribute my own lap data. Unfortunately, I don't believe I am a consistent enough driver to provide "good" data to this experiment. I would hate to skew any averages because I drove some laps well and others all over the driving line.

Thank you, all of you, for your continued quest to find the truth behind Gran Turismo tuning options. The service you people provide the GT community is invaluable! 👍 :bowdown:
 
Motor City Hami
@DolHaus every time that I have taken on a testing problem this big, I have lost interest. There are just far too many variables to test and people will find that one situation where you did not test and cast doubt on your results. Pick the wrong car, pick the wrong track, pick the wrong tires, tune it, not tune it, DS3 vs. Wheel. Just way too much stuff to create one, all encompassing test.

I think we need to do the opposite. I think we need to let people tune and test what they want on the track that they want, but come up with a standardized way for them to share their Motec data. Maybe some sort of average corner speed and average lateral G. This way, the test driving does not get boring. Simply play the game and do your tests. Use the newest seasonal time trial. Use the next FITT competition. Join the difficult car of the month. Whatever. It is the only way to gather large amounts of data across the spectrum of cars, controllers and track.
Click to expand...
I am aware that the tests are dull and monotonous but unfortunately thats the way they have to be, if we perform the test in the way you have suggested then all we end up with is a pile of numbers with no frame of reference. In order to identify and evaluate cause and effect the testing conditions need to be fixed, we stand no chance of finding any conclusive evidence unless we control the variables as much as possible.

ALB123
This is a very interesting thread. Thank you to all who have contributed to the testing and to @DolHaus for taking on this difficult task of organizing all of the data. I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been said except for one observation - and maybe I am way off base and if so, please let me know and I will quietly shut my mouth.

I understand the reason for testing 0/0, 1.0/1.0, 2.0/2.0 ... camber settings. Personally, I have always found a better "feel" when using more front camber than rear. For instance, I have noticed that with 1.0/1.0 camber all three testers posted a faster lap time around High Speed Ring than with 0/0 camber and only @TurnLeft ran a slower 2.0/2.0 lap time than 0/0.

I know it would be impractical to have testers run every possible permutation of camber, but I almost wonder if it would be more beneficial to eliminate the 6.0/6.0, 7.0/7.0 ... 10.0/10.0 camber tests and instead run some half values like 1.5/1.5 or perhaps mixed camber values like 1.0/0.5 or 1.5/1.0 or something along those lines. I think we could all conceded at this point that extremely high (at least "high" for Gran Turismo) camber values are NOT going to produce faster lap times. Instead of wasting the testers time running laps with 6.0/6.0 camber, exporting data in MoTeC format and opening up the MoTeC tool for the data, couldn't there possibly be more practical camber settings being tested? Perhaps even 0.5/0.0 would be more beneficial to the community to see than 10.0/10.0?

Anyway, those were just some thoughts. I meant no offense to this experiment. If I were a faster, more consistent driver I would be happy to participate and contribute my own lap data. Unfortunately, I don't believe I am a consistent enough driver to provide "good" data to this experiment. I would hate to skew any averages because I drove some laps well and others all over the driving line.

Thank you, all of you, for your continued quest to find the truth behind Gran Turismo tuning options. The service you people provide the GT community is invaluable! 👍 :bowdown:
Click to expand...
These elements will be looked at in future but we can't get ahead of ourselves. These initial tests are to establish basic trends, once a trend is established then the effects can be experimented with and further explored. 👍


I'm sorry folks but this is the way it has to be for the time being, this is as close to a scientific approach as we can take and it is the only approach that will yield conclusive and repeatable results. There is no short cut to the finish line, every step must be considered in order to find the reasoning behind what is going on.
 
I know I will get yelled at and cursed at, but I still believe that in order to ensure the most accurate results for this tes we need to all agree to use and follow the driving line regardless of which track we test at. Yes, I know it is not the fastest way around the track, but that is not the purpose of the test. The purpose of the test is to determine what effect (if any) camber has. The only way to ensure consistent results is to ensure all drivers run the same line, and that every driver runs that line every lap.

If for example we decide to use Indy, and @DolHaus runs the low line and I run the high line then we will have very different results in both Laptime and G forces. The track itself matters less than the consistency of the testing. The things that are critical are:

  • All drivers using the same car
  • All drivers using the same tune
  • All drivers following the same line
As long as all testers agree to abide by those rules then the tests will have value regardless of the track. In fact, if we do multiple tracks we will end up with very valuable data as we will not only see a trend for the camber values, but also how the camber is affected by different levels of banking and corner types.

I hope to begin my testing this week now that I have some time off work.

As an FYI, since the 1.09 (?) update where they claimed to have fixed camber, I have noticed improvements in feel of the car when using values below 1.0. Anything above that is just terrible. I haven't gained much in laptime but feel of the car and therefore confidence and consistency has improved, at least for me.
 
F1racer, thats pretty much the exact conclusions I have come to also.
In GT5, I think (from my experience only) camber had a slow incline in usefulness going up in .5's but DROPPED at 3.0, where anything from 3.1 on up was pointless and harmful. Again, just my opinion.
But after the last patch, as you said F1Racer, in GT6 that sudden drop zone TO ME seems to be like 1.5 now, instead of 3.0. But in exchange for the less usefulness, the increments that showed ME effect seems to be .2 instead of .5's.
( if I lost anyone, all I'm saying is that every .2 in value actualy does something)
But again, I have seen no use 'positive' in anything over 1.5 now.

What kinda SUCKS to realize, is that while you guys spend all that time testing and those of us watching you, testing in our own way, compile our datas, spend time comparing, . . . some complete techno-geek working for the GranTurismo Development Team could EASILY just see this wasted time and BE KIND enough to just give us a single paragraph of explanation?

EDIT; Please? Lol?
 
demonchilde
What kinda SUCKS to realize, is that while you guys spend all that time testing and those of us watching you, testing in our own way, compile our datas, spend time comparing, . . . some complete techno-geek working for the GranTurismo Development Team could EASILY just see this wasted time and BE KIND enough to just give us a single paragraph of explanation?

EDIT; Please? Lol?
Click to expand...

You mean like what they did for ride height in GT5? :rolleyes:
 
Lets not start this conversation again, ok? :lol:

I need to look at Indianapolis when I get some game time, theoretically it should be possible to have a car run constantly at a speed that makes line choice more limited. That is my current line of thought on the next stage, if this is not possible then we shall look at the driving line option to ensure consistency of data 👍
 
DolHaus
Lets not start this conversation again, ok? :lol:

I need to look at Indianapolis when I get some game time, theoretically it should be possible to have a car run constantly at a speed that makes line choice more limited. That is my current line of thought on the next stage, if this is not possible then we shall look at the driving line option to ensure consistency of data 👍
Click to expand...
I'm running a Miata/350pp at Indy on CM tires,(figured I'd be able to just keep the throttle down and run consistent lines) and I've learned 2 things...I need more practice reading MoTeC, and it might be worth taking a 400pp car to reach the grip level of the tires to try and accomplish the same things.:confused:
 
Camber is as camber does...or something like that. The camber has a patch of the tire that id indirectly contacted to the road, herby giving the tiresa a chance to spin and slide, albeit not all the trime. It cam be fast but not all the time. Ok, gotta go cause they are taking my laptop away....to much morphine I think...or something like that. They told me I could press the button when I needed some, so I did, lololol. Gotto go, love ya.
 
@DolHaus , i gave the XKR-S a go at High Speed Ring, it's a great solid car for this type of testing!

I was going all in for the tests, but i realized that the tune had no oil change, so i decided to do some tests with the same car, to get used with the motec i2, but i had SS and about 690hp.

Just a quick info, my fastest lap was with 0.0 camber(1:05.450 / 2.86G), 2nd fastest was with 1.0 (1:05.534 / 2.59G), and 3rd (1:05.700 / 2.55G) was with your setup but stock camber setings.(0.5 1.5)

I will do the right way, at the next test. :embarrassed:
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

DolHaus
The Great Camber Experiment: Stage 2 "Silverstone" (Test Drivers Wanted)
2 3 4
Replies
109
Views
6K
ALB123
ALB123
Skyrocket44
Where is the data logger? No, seriously - where is it?
Replies
0
Views
523
Skyrocket44
Skyrocket44
KAlex122
I'm not a sensible one and still want to learn
Replies
2
Views
977
KAlex122
KAlex122
Raptor013
2022-23 World GT Challenge Season 1 (Season Finished)
7 8 9
Replies
258
Views
31K
Raptor013
Raptor013
IfAndOr
BTCR (Finished)
2 3
Replies
68
Views
8K
half_sourly
half_sourly

Latest Posts

Back