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

[DolHaus]

 

[DolHaus]

 

[demonchilde]

I don't know if I'm reading this all correctly, but it seems as if the theory I previously mentioned about Camber being useful from 0.1-up-to-1.5 has use, but after 1.5 its a dead drop in usefulness, seems to hold water.
So am I correct about me being correct lol? Or am I reading this off-kilter a bit?

 

[DolHaus]

I don't know if I'm reading this all correctly, but it seems as if the theory I previously mentioned about Camber being useful from 0.1-up-to-1.5 has use, but after 1.5 its a dead drop in usefulness, seems to hold water.
So am I correct about me being correct lol? Or am I reading this off-kilter a bit?

Based on the results of this test and the data displayed so far I would say that 0.0-1.0 potentially has benefits in terms of lateral grip, anything above this will cause a decline in the cars ability to resist lateral load.

However, this data will need to be compared with data from subsequent tests to see if this trend holds true or whether the scenario/testing methodology is causing any unforeseen bias or irregularities

👍

 

[TurnLeft]

Just an idea, I've been using the civic '97 for different tests, with stock set up it is very stable, and could be useful to test for FF drivetrains with camber. It's easy to keep your driving line with it thus great for repeating tests and getting more precise data. And you told me numbers gave you indigestion .

 

[Lionheart2113]

Based on the results of this test and the data displayed so far I would say that 0.0-1.0 potentially has benefits in terms of lateral grip, anything above this will cause a decline in the cars ability to resist lateral load.

However, this data will need to be compared with data from subsequent tests to see if this trend holds true or whether the scenario/testing methodology is causing any unforeseen bias or irregularities

👍

It looks like through turns 1-3, driving line/style might be causing some irregularities. Turn 4 looks pretty rock solid and conclusive, not sure what happened to @TurnLeft on Turn 5 though...dodging a moose perhaps? Great job with the graphs and good job testers!👍
I hope you have enough colors for the next one, I think there will be more people able/willing to get involved with testing. I know I'm one.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I was looking at the charts and thinking about them in the context of corner type.

Turn 1 is banked and wide open and a wide range of camber worked. I would think that with the banking, the car never reaches its full grip level, therefore no difference in gs through most camber ranges.

Turns 2 and 3 have a braking zone followed by somewhat sharp turns. Zero camber seems to win the day there.

Turns 4 and 5 are both more open, sweeping turns where you can carry speed. 1.0 camber seemed to win there.

There may be a deeper story that just using zero to one degrees?

 

[LeoStrop]

Great work DolHaus! Like you said, still needs more data to become more conclusive, but its on the right way.

Looking forward to test number 2, i am thinking on more options for this test, so i will do some unofficial testing on my own. I am also planning on doing the same test, but online, so i can see the effects that camber have on tyre wear.

 

[DolHaus]

It looks like through turns 1-3, driving line/style might be causing some irregularities. Turn 4 looks pretty rock solid and conclusive, not sure what happened to @TurnLeft on Turn 5 though...dodging a moose perhaps? Great job with the graphs and good job testers!👍
I hope you have enough colors for the next one, I think there will be more people able/willing to get involved with testing. I know I'm one.

There are certainly a few irregularities that throw some of the results but the majority are within an acceptable margin, hopefully some revisions to the testing and data acquisition will iron these out. A larger amount of results would of course give a more accurate picture so the more we can get involved the better our results will be 👍

I was looking at the charts and thinking about them in the context of corner type.

Turn 1 is banked and wide open and a wide range of camber worked. I would think that with the banking, the car never reaches its full grip level, therefore no difference in gs through most camber ranges.

Turns 2 and 3 have a braking zone followed by somewhat sharp turns. Zero camber seems to win the day there.

Turns 4 and 5 are both more open, sweeping turns where you can carry speed. 1.0 camber seemed to win there.

There may be a deeper story that just using zero to one degrees?

I'll put that there to address your observations about turns 4/5 to make sure we're discussing the same corners 👍

The data collection point for turn 1 was fairly consistent, if you give the car a try you'll find it can go flat out through the bend but only just, it forces you to take a certain line and feels very much on the grip limit of the tyres. We won't know what effect the cambered surface had on the results until we compare with flat track data.

There is almost certainly a deeper story than 0.0-1.0, this first test and no firm conclusions can or should be drawn based on this information alone. Future tests in different scenarios may present correlating or opposing information which will need to be cross referenced and examined to find the true causes and effects.

I don't think I will be posting the longitudinal data for this test as it is all over the place, I will examine it further to determine if any thing useful can be salvaged or whether the collection method was flawed.

Great work DolHaus! Like you said, still needs more data to become more conclusive, but its on the right way.

Looking forward to test number 2, i am thinking on more options for this test, so i will do some unofficial testing on my own. I am also planning on doing the same test, but online, so i can see the effects that camber have on tyre wear.

Thank you, please feel free to share your findings 👍

 

[Highlandor]

There are certainly a few irregularities that throw some of the results but the majority are within an acceptable margin, hopefully some revisions to the testing and data acquisition will iron these out. A larger amount of results would of course give a more accurate picture so the more we can get involved the better our results will be 👍

If you're worried about irregularities, you could always 'top and tail' the results i.e. taking away the highest and lowest values to remove unnatural peaks and troughs..

There's pro's and cons with this technique, it's controversial for some, sensible for others - it's going to be subjective and a point that could potentially cause conflict.

If there's only a few results submitted, then it's probably better to go with what you'e got, especially/or if there's a number of results that are similiar for the highest and lowest values. But if you have lot of results and a single set of results, or a single value is much greater or lower than any of the others, you might want to consider it....

As always - just a suggestion, keep up the good work and best of luck 👍

 

[DolHaus]

If you're worried about irregularities, you could always 'top and tail' the results i.e. taking away the highest and lowest values to remove unnatural peaks and troughs..

There's pro's and cons with this technique, it's controversial for some, sensible for others - it's going to be subjective and a point that could potentially cause conflict.

If there's only a few results submitted, then it's probably better to go with what you'e got, especially/or if there's a number of results that are similiar for the highest and lowest values. But if you have lot of results and a single set of results, or a single value is much greater or lower than any of the others, you might want to consider it....

As always - just a suggestion, keep up the good work and best of luck 👍

Having analysed two of the data sets myself I know there are some odd spikes in the data, I could remove them but I don't think it is appropriate given the limited resource pool. I think in future it will just have to be played by ear based on the amount of results, the next test will be more simple in structure and should help wipe out some of these irregularities.

I feel as a first test this has gone well enough, there are certainly improvements to be made but the data collected so far is more than satisfactory for future comparison and contrasting purposes. Well done to everyone who has contributed

 

[ALB123]

Bravo! to @DolHaus and those who submitted your lap data. I am following this thread with great interest. Clearly, "camber" has been a highly debated subject for most of the 1st year of Gran Turismo 6 and while I'm sure it will remain a controversial subject, even after The Great Camber Experiment, I am certain that we will at least have a proven reason why we will choose to use or not use Camber on our tunes in the future. What a great start gentlemen. Well done!

 

[Otaliema]

I know it will behind schedule @DolHaus but I will get the remains tests to you as soon as I can. After a two week break some mindless driving will help me get my gt6 legs back. And any new test you post I will run as well. Things just got crazy on me here last few weeks.

 

[Lionheart2113]

I was looking at the charts and thinking about them in the context of corner type.

Turn 1 is banked and wide open and a wide range of camber worked. I would think that with the banking, the car never reaches its full grip level, therefore no difference in gs through most camber ranges.

Turns 2 and 3 have a braking zone followed by somewhat sharp turns. Zero camber seems to win the day there.

Turns 4 and 5 are both more open, sweeping turns where you can carry speed. 1.0 camber seemed to win there.

There may be a deeper story that just using zero to one degrees?

There are certainly a few irregularities that throw some of the results but the majority are within an acceptable margin, hopefully some revisions to the testing and data acquisition will iron these out. A larger amount of results would of course give a more accurate picture so the more we can get involved the better our results will be 👍

The data collection point for turn 1 was fairly consistent, if you give the car a try you'll find it can go flat out through the bend but only just, it forces you to take a certain line and feels very much on the grip limit of the tyres. We won't know what effect the cambered surface had on the results until we compare with flat track data.

There is almost certainly a deeper story than 0.0-1.0, this first test and no firm conclusions can or should be drawn based on this information alone. Future tests in different scenarios may present correlating or opposing information which will need to be cross referenced and examined to find the true causes and effects.

I don't think I will be posting the longitudinal data for this test as it is all over the place, I will examine it further to determine if any thing useful can be salvaged or whether the collection method was flawed.


Thank you, please feel free to share your findings 👍

Great way of looking at it. So with what Hami is saying, should the next track be either flat (near as) or a real world track where we could guess-timate the angle of the turns taking those angles into consideration? Unless someone has a formula for calculating the angle of the "Original" tracks. I just park the car on the outside of the turn and let it coast down to the inside. The less time it takes to hit the inside wall = more banking. Very crude I know!

 

[DolHaus]

Great way of looking at it. So with what Hami is saying, should the next track be either flat (near as) or a real world track where we could guess-timate the angle of the turns taking those angles into consideration? Unless someone has a formula for calculating the angle of the "Original" tracks. I just park the car on the outside of the turn and let it coast down to the inside. The less time it takes to hit the inside wall = more banking. Very crude I know!

The current plan is to use Indianapolis, its as close to flat as we can get 👍
I don't believe that knowing the actual angle of the banking is necessary at this stage, but if we do identify a clear difference in future in terms of results we may need to further examine these elements so its good to be thinking ahead.

 

[Motor City Hami]

The current plan is to use Indianapolis, its as close to flat as we can get 👍
I don't believe that knowing the actual angle of the banking is necessary at this stage, but if we do identify a clear difference in future in terms of results we may need to further examine these elements so its good to be thinking ahead.

Indy road course or Indy oval? The road course sounds interesting. A super high speed banked corner. Two stand on the brakes 2nd gear corners. A super slow S curve. A few medium speed, scrub some brakes sections.

The other track that I really like is Silverstone. I know the track very well and has a good mix of different types of turns.

 

[Weider]

We find, with the Lotus F1, 0 at the front at all times, and up to 1.0 at the rear is good at places like Suzuka and Autumn Ring, etc. No graphs of course, but we'd not use camber at Silverstone or Indy or on oval tracks.

 

[DolHaus]

Indy road course or Indy oval? The road course sounds interesting. A super high speed banked corner. Two stand on the brakes 2nd gear corners. A super slow S curve. A few medium speed, scrub some brakes sections.

The other track that I really like is Silverstone. I know the track very well and has a good mix of different types of turns.

The oval course will be used to further identify trends in the lateral load side of things 👍

The Silverstone courses (Stowe perhaps?) are on the short list for future tests when we will be looking at more practical applications but they are a long way off at the moment as we first need to clinically identify the basic effects before moving on to the more useful bits

 

[demonchilde]

Based on the results of this test and the data displayed so far I would say that 0.0-1.0 potentially has benefits in terms of lateral grip, anything above this will cause a decline in the cars ability to resist lateral load.

However, this data will need to be compared with data from subsequent tests to see if this trend holds true or whether the scenario/testing methodology is causing any unforeseen bias or irregularities

👍

Thank you for that clarification.
Just to add another side note;
One thing I have been utilizing is the effects of the front-rear variant. Here is a partial quote from MC's GT5 guide;
" --For more front grip than rear, run higher front camber settings than rear.--For more rear grip than front, run lower front camber settings than rear.--"
However in GT5 you started at MotorCity's "sweet spot" for the tires your using, and lowered the side you were going to according to the above formula, until you have stabilized the cars rotation.
But in GT6, I have been flipping the formula inside-out. Starting at 0.0/0.0, and adding to the other side until I noticed my lap times/feel-of-the-corners being better/smoother. This is all fine and dandy, except that the "better/smoother" isn't anywhere remotely close to as easy to see/feel as it was in GT5. Camber overall is like 75% less effective no matter what you do compared to gt5, so increasing until you hit your goal isn't as easy to know exactly when that is.
Because of the above, I believe the developers aren't done messing with Camber yet. If they actually "fixed it" as what was thought to be the case, you would notice a ton easier any differences at all. So I am really hoping all of us (especially those involved with testing in this post), aren't going to go through all this, spend all this time, on something they are just going to patch in a month and make all data and conclusions completely useless.
Thank you again by the way, MotorCity, as without you I personally would be years behind on being able to figure things like this out or even tune in general for that matter.

How does everyone else 'feel' on their testing of the front-rear variants? (not data, but the feel of the actual drive)

 

[DolHaus]

Thank you for that clarification.
Just to add another side note;
One thing I have been utilizing is the effects of the front-rear variant. Here is a partial quote from MC's GT5 guide;
" --For more front grip than rear, run higher front camber settings than rear.--For more rear grip than front, run lower front camber settings than rear.--"
However in GT5 you started at MotorCity's "sweet spot" for the tires your using, and lowered the side you were going to according to the above formula, until you have stabilized the cars rotation.
But in GT6, I have been flipping the formula inside-out. Starting at 0.0/0.0, and adding to the other side until I noticed my lap times/feel-of-the-corners being better/smoother. This is all fine and dandy, except that the "better/smoother" isn't anywhere remotely close to as easy to see/feel as it was in GT5. Camber overall is like 75% less effective no matter what you do compared to gt5, so increasing until you hit your goal isn't as easy to know exactly when that is.
Because of the above, I believe the developers aren't done messing with Camber yet. If they actually "fixed it" as what was thought to be the case, you would notice a ton easier any differences at all. So I am really hoping all of us (especially those involved with testing in this post), aren't going to go through all this, spend all this time, on something they are just going to patch in a month and make all data and conclusions completely useless.
Thank you again by the way, MotorCity, as without you I personally would be years behind on being able to figure things like this out or even tune in general for that matter.

How does everyone else 'feel' on their testing of the front-rear variants? (not data, but the feel of the actual drive)

If I'm reading this correctly you are saying that instead of adding camber to the end that you want more grip at you should add camber to the opposite end (adding rear camber to increase front grip)?

If this is correct then I have experienced this a few times but my first thought would be that you are in fact not adding grip but instead altering the balance of grip by removing it from one end or the other. (i.e adding camber to the rear tyres is reducing the rear grip and making front end grip feel better). To actually add grip you would almost certainly do better by adjusting f/r spring balance

I do not want to get too heavily into discussing the "feel" side of the topic in this thread as this is the cause of a lot of arguments on the forum. 👍

 

[LeoStrop]

Hello people, i did some tests today for 5 different sets of camber(0.0/0.5/1.0/1.5/2.0) equal front and rear, here are the results:

Track: Silverstone International / 13:00 / Arcade mode
Grip: Real
Car: Honda S2000 type V' 03
PP: 454
Tyres: SH
Laps: 10
Controller: DS3

• Camber 0.0:

Best Lap: 1:13.684

Best Combined Lap: 1:12.560

• Camber 0.5:

Best Lap: 1:13.983

Best Combined Lap: 1:13.071

• Camber 1.0:

Best Lap: 1:13.967

Best Combined Lap: 1:13.219

• Camber 1.5:

Best Lap: 1:13.517

Best Combined Lap: 1:12.920

• Camber 2.0:

Best Lap: 1:14.050

Best Combined Lap: 1:13.159

• Comparisson of all camber sets, for G-Force and Cornering Speed:

Max Value: -1.85 for camber at 0.5

Location: First Turn

• Histogram comparison of G-Force and Cornering Speed for all 10 Laps, betwen the 2 fastest camber sets (0.0 and 1.5):

0.0 > Red Line
1.5 > Gray Line

• Conclusion:

This test was done just to add a bit of debate, until we start the second official test.

The car felt the best with camber at 0.5, even if it was not the fastest time(but the highest G-Force), it had the best overall balance and front grip, achieving the closest times. Going higher with the camber settings, i felt that i was gaining rear traction but losing at front. As you can see by the time, i did the 0.0 test at the end, because i felt that i did get better with time on that track, so i decided to run the first test again. From my first time with 0.0 , my best time was 1:14.517.
By the Histogram, we can see that the G-Force with 1.5 camber was smoother, with less spikes.

Anyway, take your conclusion!

 

[DolHaus]

Hello people, i did some tests today for 5 different sets of camber(0.0/0.5/1.0/1.5/2.0) equal front and rear, here are the results:

Track: Silverstone International / 13:00 / Arcade mode
Grip: Real
Car: Honda S2000 type V' 03
PP: 454
Tyres: SH
Laps: 10

• Camber 0.0:

Best Lap: 1:13.684

Best Combined Lap: 1:12.560

• Camber 0.5:

Best Lap: 1:13.983

Best Combined Lap: 1:13.071

• Camber 1.0:

Best Lap: 1:13.967

Best Combined Lap: 1:13.219

• Camber 1.5:

Best Lap: 1:13.517

Best Combined Lap: 1:12.920

• Camber 2.0:

Best Lap: 1:14.050

Best Combined Lap: 1:13.159

• Comparisson of all camber sets, for G-Force and Cornering Speed:

Max Value: -1.85 for camber at 0.5

Location: First Turn

• Histogram comparison of G-Force and Cornering Speed for all 10 Laps, betwen the 2 fastest camber sets (0.0 and 1.5):

0.0 > Red Line
1.5 > Gray Line

• Conclusion:

This test was done just to add a bit of debate, until we start the second official test.

The car felt the best with camber at 0.5, even if it was not the fastest time(but the highest G-Force), it had the best overall balance and front grip, achieving the closest times. Going higher with the camber settings, i felt that i was gaining rear traction but losing at front. As you can see by the time, i did the 0.0 test at the end, because i felt that i did get better with time on that track, so i decided to run the first test again. From my first time with 0.0 , my best time was 1:14.517. By the Histogram, we can see that the G_Force for the 1.5 camber setting, was more smooth, with less spikes.

Anyway, take your conclusion!

Interesting reading, thank you for sharing 👍

My interpretation of your data:-
Seems that load is increasing at the peaks with camber but speed is decreasing equally. When they "fixed" camber back in 1.09 they said something about decreasing the tyre pressures, I believe this would fit with the pattern -more tyre deformation and ability to sustain load but increased rolling resistance resulting in decreased speed.
To me it highlights that the fix didn't adequately address the original issue, the pros and cons don't really balance effectively

 

[Highlandor]

If this is correct then I have experienced this a few times but my first thought would be that you are in fact not adding grip but instead altering the balance of grip by removing it from one end or the other. (i.e adding camber to the rear tyres is reducing the rear grip and making front end grip feel better). To actually add grip you would almost certainly do better by adjusting f/r spring balance

Agreed. Same principle as indirect tuning, whereby the rear is adjusted to directly impact the front.

Using high grip tyres (for the PP) increases the chances of this occuring as they could be giving so much grip it's stopping the car from rotating, going with lower grip tyres would help give better natural balance and reduce the possibility of this interfering with useful info from the data.

 

[DolHaus]

Agreed. Same principle as indirect tuning, whereby the rear is adjusted to directly impact the front.

Using high grip tyres (for the PP) increases the chances of this occuring as they could be giving so much grip it's stopping the car from rotating, going with lower grip tyres would help give better natural balance and reduce the possibility of this interfering with useful info from the data.

Sport Medium will most likely be the next tyre on the test vehicle 👍

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I know this is off-topic from the thread, but it does have to do with camber and my beliefs so I would just like to copy this post I made from the other thread if I may. It has my test results, from my own personal way of testing, from today. If its going to cause a problem, let me know and I will happily delete the post. I just wanted to make sure you guys seen my test results and why I believe camber to be working.


"Alright guys, as painful as it was for me to do this due to the fact that I am fresh out of the hospital and all stitched up , I just sat through 5 hours of testing to bring some numbers to the table. First, let me say that when PD announced some updates ago that they fixed the camber issue, I was one of the few people who believed that it was indeed fixed...to an extent. I still believe that. I did loads of testing back then to come to my conclusion, I did not just take PD's word that it was fixed. With this most recent update in regards to camber further being tweaked, I have not felt any difference compared to the update where they fixed it, everything feels and works the same as it did after that update, in my opinion. I would further like to say that I am not claiming my findings here to be fact, only how I see things from my point of view after all the testing I have done in the game in regards to this issue. After the "camber" update, if you will, I tested 3 cars of each drivetrain of various power levels. I cannot begin to tell you how thorough I was in my testing after that update. I feel that I left no stone unturned in coming to my conclusion. I say this because this time around, I have only had time to do this one in depth test with this one car so far, but that's enough for me to come to the same conclusion I came to back at the original "camber" update. Like I said earlier, I believe that camber is indeed fixed for the most part. I more less just did this test so I would have some numbers to bring to the table. Ok, about the test.
I wanted to take out as many variables as I could, so this is how I went about it. I had my daughter help me with this test. Her job was to punch in the camber numbers into the suspension setting without me knowing which ones I was driving in each session. This was done in order to take out the element of me knowing which settings I was driving and when, just trying to take out as much of the human "mind over matter" element that I could. She filled in the chart that I had made as we went. I used a low powered car at a short track to minimized as much of the drivers input as I could: minimal throttle/brake/steering input and the like. With this, I was able to pretty much replicate each lap exactly in regards to inputs and driving line, I was very constant with my inputs in this test. Here are the rest of the parameters. Each session was 6 laps.
Car: Honda S500 '63
Tires: Stock (CM)
Parts added: Suspension (stock except for camber settings) Trans (Stock)
No oil change
Track: Tsukuba
Time: 15:30
Temp. 73 degrees F
Grip Reduction: Real
Test Results

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 4.0/0.0 1'24.822
• 3.0/0.0 1'24.783
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 0.0/4.0 1'24.633
• 0.0/3.0 1'24.364
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233
• 3.0/3.0 1'24.516
• 4.0/4.0 1'24.997

So, now knowing where my possible sweet spot for front and rear camber was, I further tweaked the camber values and ended up with 0.6/2.2 with a time of 1'24.129. To further validate this and while I was still in the groove, I went and re-ran 0.0/0.0 camber again ending up with a time of 1'24.407. So, as you can see, my numbers here back up my beliefs, camber works and is not broken. Knowing these numbers, I can now apply them, with a few adjustments, into a stable, fast, and competitive tune.
In closing, I would just like to once again say that I am in no way claiming my findings to be fact, but only what I believe to be true through my own testing. Now, its been a long day, I'm off to rest now. Happy Holidays everyone."

 

[LeoStrop]

I know this is off-topic from the thread, but it does have to do with camber and my beliefs so I would just like to copy this post I made from the other thread if I may. It has my test results, from my own personal way of testing, from today. If its going to cause a problem, let me know and I will happily delete the post. I just wanted to make sure you guys seen my test results and why I believe camber to be working.


"Alright guys, as painful as it was for me to do this due to the fact that I am fresh out of the hospital and all stitched up , I just sat through 5 hours of testing to bring some numbers to the table. First, let me say that when PD announced some updates ago that they fixed the camber issue, I was one of the few people who believed that it was indeed fixed...to an extent. I still believe that. I did loads of testing back then to come to my conclusion, I did not just take PD's word that it was fixed. With this most recent update in regards to camber further being tweaked, I have not felt any difference compared to the update where they fixed it, everything feels and works the same as it did after that update, in my opinion. I would further like to say that I am not claiming my findings here to be fact, only how I see things from my point of view after all the testing I have done in the game in regards to this issue. After the "camber" update, if you will, I tested 3 cars of each drivetrain of various power levels. I cannot begin to tell you how thorough I was in my testing after that update. I feel that I left no stone unturned in coming to my conclusion. I say this because this time around, I have only had time to do this one in depth test with this one car so far, but that's enough for me to come to the same conclusion I came to back at the original "camber" update. Like I said earlier, I believe that camber is indeed fixed for the most part. I more less just did this test so I would have some numbers to bring to the table. Ok, about the test.
I wanted to take out as many variables as I could, so this is how I went about it. I had my daughter help me with this test. Her job was to punch in the camber numbers into the suspension setting without me knowing which ones I was driving in each session. This was done in order to take out the element of me knowing which settings I was driving and when, just trying to take out as much of the human "mind over matter" element that I could. She filled in the chart that I had made as we went. I used a low powered car at a short track to minimized as much of the drivers input as I could: minimal throttle/brake/steering input and the like. With this, I was able to pretty much replicate each lap exactly in regards to inputs and driving line, I was very constant with my inputs in this test. Here are the rest of the parameters. Each session was 6 laps.
Car: Honda S500 '63
Tires: Stock (CM)
Parts added: Suspension (stock except for camber settings) Trans (Stock)
No oil change
Track: Tsukuba
Time: 15:30
Temp. 73 degrees F
Grip Reduction: Real
Test Results

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 4.0/0.0 1'24.822
• 3.0/0.0 1'24.783
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 0.0/4.0 1'24.633
• 0.0/3.0 1'24.364
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233
• 3.0/3.0 1'24.516
• 4.0/4.0 1'24.997

So, now knowing where my possible sweet spot for front and rear camber was, I further tweaked the camber values and ended up with 0.6/2.2 with a time of 1'24.129. To further validate this and while I was still in the groove, I went and re-ran 0.0/0.0 camber again ending up with a time of 1'24.407. So, as you can see, my numbers here back up my beliefs, camber works and is not broken. Knowing these numbers, I can now apply them, with a few adjustments, into a stable, fast, and competitive tune.
In closing, I would just like to once again say that I am in no way claiming my findings to be fact, but only what I believe to be true through my own testing. Now, its been a long day, I'm off to rest now. Happy Holidays everyone."

Great read CargoRatt, well done! I hope you get better and throw that pain away man.

I liked how you did your tests, letting your daughter change the values was a smart move. Reading it through, i can identify a lot with my test and results, at the end i could identify the sweet spot, like yourself, but i will run more tests today.

Be careful to say that camber is working, you can attract that "Real-Life" comment, i would rather say, it's resulting in positive feedback for values diffrent than 0.0.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your findings! Happy Holidays for you too!

 

[DolHaus]

I know this is off-topic from the thread, but it does have to do with camber and my beliefs so I would just like to copy this post I made from the other thread if I may. It has my test results, from my own personal way of testing, from today. If its going to cause a problem, let me know and I will happily delete the post. I just wanted to make sure you guys seen my test results and why I believe camber to be working.


"Alright guys, as painful as it was for me to do this due to the fact that I am fresh out of the hospital and all stitched up , I just sat through 5 hours of testing to bring some numbers to the table. First, let me say that when PD announced some updates ago that they fixed the camber issue, I was one of the few people who believed that it was indeed fixed...to an extent. I still believe that. I did loads of testing back then to come to my conclusion, I did not just take PD's word that it was fixed. With this most recent update in regards to camber further being tweaked, I have not felt any difference compared to the update where they fixed it, everything feels and works the same as it did after that update, in my opinion. I would further like to say that I am not claiming my findings here to be fact, only how I see things from my point of view after all the testing I have done in the game in regards to this issue. After the "camber" update, if you will, I tested 3 cars of each drivetrain of various power levels. I cannot begin to tell you how thorough I was in my testing after that update. I feel that I left no stone unturned in coming to my conclusion. I say this because this time around, I have only had time to do this one in depth test with this one car so far, but that's enough for me to come to the same conclusion I came to back at the original "camber" update. Like I said earlier, I believe that camber is indeed fixed for the most part. I more less just did this test so I would have some numbers to bring to the table. Ok, about the test.
I wanted to take out as many variables as I could, so this is how I went about it. I had my daughter help me with this test. Her job was to punch in the camber numbers into the suspension setting without me knowing which ones I was driving in each session. This was done in order to take out the element of me knowing which settings I was driving and when, just trying to take out as much of the human "mind over matter" element that I could. She filled in the chart that I had made as we went. I used a low powered car at a short track to minimized as much of the drivers input as I could: minimal throttle/brake/steering input and the like. With this, I was able to pretty much replicate each lap exactly in regards to inputs and driving line, I was very constant with my inputs in this test. Here are the rest of the parameters. Each session was 6 laps.
Car: Honda S500 '63
Tires: Stock (CM)
Parts added: Suspension (stock except for camber settings) Trans (Stock)
No oil change
Track: Tsukuba
Time: 15:30
Temp. 73 degrees F
Grip Reduction: Real
Test Results

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 4.0/0.0 1'24.822
• 3.0/0.0 1'24.783
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 0.0/4.0 1'24.633
• 0.0/3.0 1'24.364
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233
• 3.0/3.0 1'24.516
• 4.0/4.0 1'24.997

So, now knowing where my possible sweet spot for front and rear camber was, I further tweaked the camber values and ended up with 0.6/2.2 with a time of 1'24.129. To further validate this and while I was still in the groove, I went and re-ran 0.0/0.0 camber again ending up with a time of 1'24.407. So, as you can see, my numbers here back up my beliefs, camber works and is not broken. Knowing these numbers, I can now apply them, with a few adjustments, into a stable, fast, and competitive tune.
In closing, I would just like to once again say that I am in no way claiming my findings to be fact, but only what I believe to be true through my own testing. Now, its been a long day, I'm off to rest now. Happy Holidays everyone."

Thank you for sharing your findings, glad your hospital visit was a swift one 👍

As with @demonchilde 's earlier statement I can only put the gains down to the camber adjusting the overall grip balance and compensating for flaws within the original setup rather than actually improving the car.

While data based purely around lap time seems fairly conclusive it fails to tell us anything about what is going on, the aim of my tests is to find out what effect camber is having on the physics rather than the resulting effect on lap time (straight to the hangover without tasting the beer, if you will ).
If I use spring rates as an example, we can all move the sliders about at random and eventually stumble across something that works but if we take the time to understand the function of the springs and how they affect things we can find the ideal rates much faster and with greater effectiveness 👍

 

[LVracerGT]

Hey guys,

I was doing some testing after being part of the "is camber fixed" thread and was asked to post my findings here as well.

Just put a room up for camber testing.

ROOM CLOSED.

RESULTS:


Ok ladies and gents, here's what I came up with after a short testing period. I did not do any road course testing as my findings at the Motegi oval gave me enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

Car: Honda S2000 '06 (235hp 163ft-lbs) (1250kg)
Tires: Comfort Soft on all four corners
Wheel: G27

The only modification to the car was a full racing suspension. Ride height, spring rates, dampers, and roll bars were all matched to the stock suspension. Toe was set to 0 front and rear for all runs. Runs were 10 or so laps each until the lowest consistent time was achieved. I chose this car and tire combo for the chassis balance and the speed. You can't take turns 3-4 flat. All runs were in 6th gear only, lifting into turn 3 (lifting ONLY, no brakes at all) and then getting back to power as soon as possible for the run out of 4 onto the front straight.

Run 1:
Camber front - 0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 45.1 occasionally dipping into the high 45.2 range.

Turns 1 and 2 are flat, but requires some extra wheel input in the center to keep the car on the white line as the front starts to push a little. In turns 3 and 4 the car starts to slide up the track after getting back to power with the front end wanting to wash away.

Run 2:
Camber front - 1.0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 45.0

Turns 1 and 2 now require less wheel input and the car has far less push in the center of the corner. In turns 3-4 I can now get back to power sooner, and the front end still pushes, but not as bad.

Run 3:
Camber front - 2.0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 44.9

Turns 1 and 2 require even less wheel input, barely leaving center. Turns 3 and 4 I can lift a little later and get back to power even earlier with less push than before through turn 4.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the lap time results and the car handling changes with the camber changes, IMO camber is not broken, and is working properly.

 

[DolHaus]

Hey guys,

I was doing some testing after being part of the "is camber fixed" thread and was asked to post my findings here as well.

Thank you for sharing 👍


I have been doing some trials on the Indianapolis oval and unfortunately I don't think it will be suitable for testing, it is all but impossible to run a consistent speed across the whole lap in a way that gains useful data. I will continue to run tests but compromises may have to be made in certain areas in order to maintain consistency.

The short term options are that we run the same test again at a different circuit (Silverstone National) or we can proceed with collecting longitudinal data in a separate test?

 

[Motor City Hami]

@GTP_CargoRatt good testing. Did you save the replays? If so, I would be willing to put them into the Motec tool and build out some deeper, corner by corner analysis. As @DolHaus has found, there may be differing advantages of higher camber and lower or no camber based upon different sections of the track. Maybe that could explain why lap times are so close across settings?