all 500pp MR cars ovetster or understeer?

[Ceolix]

guys i am having a problem because i already bought a several MR cars and all of them oversteer if i try to adapt my driving style from my FR BRZ to them, i went into races and they would understeer or oversteer, no matter how much i changed the tune. the most stable MR car must be NSX. do you know any car that has a good stability?
cars i tried and failed to drive with them(even with changing tune):

-toyota MR2
-opel speedster
-lancia stratos
-berlinette coupe
-lotus elise

 

[DolHaus]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...accepting-requests.301978/page-3#post-9440987
Try that on your Stratos.
Most MRs are slightly unstable due to the nature of the beast (easy to rotate and rear heavy), you need to adapt your driving style to be a lot smoother so you can use these factor to your advantage. They don't really take well to aggressive driving and are less forgiving at the limit, in an FR you drift when the limit of grip is crossed, in an MR you spin. You also have very little weight over the front wheels so in order to gain grip you will need to either lift off the throttle or brake to transfer weight forwards when you want to turn in otherwise you will get understeer.

 

[Thorin Cain]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...accepting-requests.301978/page-3#post-9440987
Try that on your Stratos.
Most MRs are slightly unstable due to the nature of the beast (easy to rotate and rear heavy), you need to adapt your driving style to be a lot smoother so you can use these factor to your advantage. They don't really take well to aggressive driving and are less forgiving at the limit, in an FR you drift when the limit of grip is crossed, in an MR you spin. You also have very little weight over the front wheels so in order to gain grip you will need to either lift off the throttle or brake to transfer weight forwards when you want to turn in otherwise you will get understeer.

I love the MR cars, even the wild ones and I second the advice with what changes in style suit these cars.

Lifting off the throttle a little on approach to corners settles the car a lot better for me especially for slower corners after a high speed zone. I find anything rearwards of a 45:55 requires just that little more care, where as more weight on the front wheels will allow a bit more of an aggresive style.

Try also using your ride height and springs rather than ballast to balance the car if you feel the back end is too loose, but don't be afraid to use ballast some times it makes a huge difference.

 

[Ceolix]

the problem is that NSX stabilizes better all other MR cars
Is there a way to transfer weight like in 4WD like 40:50?

 

[Shift2GriP]

Ballast moves weight, but most MR dont need it. They are wild without being tuned, but easy to handle and drive fast when they are tuned right. Look over the Tune database you should find a few Tunes for whatever MR your looking for.

 

[rams1de]

I also find MR cars tricky to drive consistently and quick, so can understand your problem. Of the cars you've listed the Elise is the easiest to drive stock and should take the least radical tuning to make it very stable. It is possibly the only car in your list that can challenge the NSX at 500pp.

For the others, ballast and rake will be very effective in helping to produce neutral handling. Add ballast towards the front of the car until you get something like 48:52 weight distribution. If it's still too wild, move it until you get 50:50 weight distribution.

Alternatively, create some rake with your ride height. Start with front ride height 20mm lower than rear. You can increase the rake to make the car more stable if needed.

There are some good examples of how the two methods improved the handling of the Stratos in the one of the Difficult Car threads here

I drove all the 450pp cars in that thread and found the cars that employed at least one of those techniques to be the easiest to handle and also fastest.

@praiano63 used rake to create a fast and stable 450pp tune on sports hard tyres.

@Jakedog23 used ballast to give his car 50:50 weight distribution and made a fairly stable car on sports soft tyres.

I made my own tune for the car and found ballast most effective - the tune is also listed in the thread. Try them if you have the time along with the tune @DolHaus has suggested, it will give you a great feel for which approach will suit you best.

 

[CSLACR]

guys i am having a problem because i already bought a several MR cars and all of them oversteer if i try to adapt my driving style from my FR BRZ to them, i went into races and they would understeer or oversteer, no matter how much i changed the tune. the most stable MR car must be NSX. do you know any car that has a good stability?
cars i tried and failed to drive with them(even with changing tune):

-toyota MR2
-opel speedster
-lancia stratos
-berlinette coupe
-lotus elise

99.9% of people overdrive MR's, because they're used to using the front tires as a cornering benchmark, meaning you turn until the front loses grip. If you drive an MR the same way, turning on the front tires limits, the rear tires are already cooking, and you're spinning like a top.

Slow down on entry, and focus on maintaining a higher speed through the corner, most MR's understeer on exit unless you break the tires loose with throttle, so if you enter properly you can jump on the gas early.

Laymen translation - Slow in, fast out.

Damn the tune. Learn the cars and the methods, and then start tuning. 👍

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

guys i am having a problem because i already bought a several MR cars and all of them oversteer if i try to adapt my driving style from my FR BRZ to them, i went into races and they would understeer or oversteer, no matter how much i changed the tune. the most stable MR car must be NSX. do you know any car that has a good stability?
cars i tried and failed to drive with them(even with changing tune):

-toyota MR2
-opel speedster
-lancia stratos
-berlinette coupe
-lotus elise

Tuning MR is not complicated if you use real world approach, the most important thing is spring rate tuning. There's no need to use ballast to alter weight distribution or use the ride height exploit quick fix.

The ride height exploit uses the reversed ride height glitch in GT6, it's been there since 1.00. A carry over from GT5, but back in GT5 it was patched, but not really fixed, just nullified.

So, in short, low front/high rear induce understeer/reduce oversteer/reduce rotation, while high front/low rear induce oversteer/reduce understeer/increase rotation. -- the opposite of real life.

The effect can be felt from as low as 3 mm difference. Some tuners uses extreme difference as quick way to alter car balance/handling, there are some side effects to this, and usually toe or damper is used to patch it up, the result is not always good and unpredictable behavior on the limit ( usually mid corner to exit )


For all of those car, I would recommend to start with equal ride height and spring rate front and back, with all other suspension values at 1 ( damper, arb ) and neutral/zero ( toe and camber ). Lower the rear spring rate by 0.10-0.25kg/mm until you find the balance is good enough ( no sudden understeer/oversteer ) or increase the rear 0.10-0.25kg/mm if you find equal spring rate made the rear end too slow to rotate.

Lower spring rate at the rear on MR cars are common in real world, stock factory NSX springs are lower at the rear on midlife model changes up until the end of life ( NSX-R 2002 ), KW V3 Coilover for NSX uses same spring rate front and back, while most other coilover maker like BC Racing, Ground Control, Comptech Pro uses lower rear. NSX owners said that Honda lower the rear spring rate to reduce oversteer and increase more rear grip. The same is true in GT6.

Another example is Ferrari 458 GT3, the real race car uses Eibach ERS Springs package with lower rear spring rate, and Toyota MR2 AW11 tuned for AutoX IRL usually uses lower spring rate at the rear for improved balance in cornering.

What sort of tires you are using on those MR cars listed ? I would recommend to start with 8/8 or 10/10 spring rate, usually lower rear with spring ratio of 1.05 to 1.45 are the result just like IRL.

Here is a link to recent difficult car ( MR ), there's a wealth of information there, tunes and @DolHaus reviews, read through page 3 to find why using ride height as a quick fix is not favorable IMO. Lower rear spring also works best with replicated real life weight distribution ( check out my latest NSX replica and Cizeta V16T tune on my garage if you are interested)

Honda NSX Type R '92 ( Real World Setup version ) Ayrton Senna Tribute 284HP 463PP Comfort Soft to Sports Medium

ACURA NSX '91 Replica ( Real World Setup version ) Ayrton Senna Tribute 266HP 433PP Comfort Hard to Sports Medium

CIZETA-MORODER V16T '94 550PP Track Monster 521HP 550PP Comfort Soft to Racing Hard


https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/difficult-car-spotlight-oullim-motors-spirra.306298/page-3

 

[Thorin Cain]

Superb advice! I use the softer rear springs on a lot of the tricky ones, I found it the best way to deal with the huge amount of lift-off oversteer some the problem MRs display. I thought this was a bit of a no-no based on how some of my tunes differ from a lot of others but guess not.

I don't think the "Ride height glitch" is as simple as has been stated above though. And the reason for the side effects mostly stem from the fact that I don't think this issue has been fully understood by some of the people who are using it. It is not as simple as, PD got things backwards. I have found from playing about with this idea that you get the effects I would expect from a real-world physics point of view. In nose heavy understeering cars, you do get less understeer with a higher front than rear, why!? Because PD can't get it right or because you have just removed some of the load from the overworked front tyres which is now allowing them to turn easier.... Same goes in reverse, I recently removed a 25-30 mm rake from a car which did have a higher rear and it started to display more understeer. To me this is what should happen, unless everything I have ever read is wrong.

I am in no way trying to tell everyone else they are wrong, I just don't think that this issue is as simple as it seems and if you treat RH as one of the many small components of what changes a cars behaviour you should find you will get what you should from any adjustments you make. This has been my experience at least.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

If you read a lot of car enthusiast and car club forums, you will know that GT6 is reversed They will always said the opposite of GT6 when it comes to ride height effect on cars. Lowering the rear causes understeer, and increasing the rear causes oversteer - with the front at static. I have spent countless hours in discussion on many car forums when researching for replicas, from Honda Civic/Integra, Nissan Skyline R32/33/34, Toyota MR2, Ferrari forums, Porsche, corvette and some auto x forums, they all when I told them about GT6 ride height exploit even more so when seeing an FF car with nose up ass down actually drive with better rotation - showed them one of GT6 FF car with such tune

 

[Thorin Cain]

I agree with you, it is crazy and it does appear backwards but I am not convinced it is as simple as saying that that ride height is backwards so high front/ low rear = oversteer and low front/high rear = understeer.

I know that the way it should work is that you will get more rotation from the rear by raising the ride height, shifting a little more weight to the front and the longer levers at the rear will induce oversteer. And the inverse would be obvious. But this is not what I see happening in GT6, especially with the FF cars.

How I see and feel this issue manifest itself in GT6 is not quite the same. On any of the tunes which I have tried since people started using this exploit it is a little harder to notice because I think they start with the rake and then adjusted the suspension to account for it. But I have tried playing about with it myself and I don't think it feels right. When I tried this it feels and looks like the higher front end is just turning in circles around the rear if you know what I mean.
It is as if you are just driving round the corners with the front of the car and the rear is just being dragged along behind so this is not really what I would call oversteer. To me oversteer would imply that the rear of the car was trying to go further round than it should do, where as I find that this exploit is rotating better but the rear is almost always planted perfectly, not trying to oversteer, why?

In FR cars it looks and feels like the front end is too light, but it will turn in very quickly and will rarely display any understeer with a high front but now the oversteer at the rear feels more pronounced. So how do you get a light front end and oversteer at the same time?

Using rake is a great asset but it has it's limits. Think of it as a spirit level (I'm sure I've seen this analogy before. But I can't remember who it was to give the appropriate credit).
If you have the level dead centre there is a certain amount of tilt which will keep the bubble in the centre zone but slightly too far one way or the other and the bubble goes right to the end of the level.
This is how I have found that using rake works in GT6, keep the level of rake low enough and I have found that a low front/high rear does give you oversteer(or better rotation) and high front/ low rear will have the opposite effect. However if you go too far you have changed the balance of the car beyond the point where the rest of your settings are effective and you need to make some changes to other settings to account for this.

In previous GT games there was no option for ballast and the advice given in the game was to alter the weight distribution by raising or lowering ride height. High Front/ Low Rear= Move weight to rear(giving better rotation), Low Front/ High Rear= Move weight to front(giving better stability). This is how I have perceived this glitch/exploit since I first heard of it, and until now I have yet to see some evidence to this not still being the case. This is the explanation I find to make the most sense about this subject based on the relevance to real physics and it also helps explain to me what I was seeing/feeling when I tried this out.

As tuners we are all trying to do the same thing and the main part of that is managing the weight transfer in the car. This use of rake is just that, the bigger the difference between the two ends of the car the more weight has been moved to the lower end. To me it is as easy as that. No glitch, no exploit just weight management with a few advantages and drawbacks.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

There's a limit of how much weight being shifted with ride height difference, and I don't think GT6 simulate this well, there's something wrong when FF replica that I tuned without ride height difference suddenly can rotate much more than it would be in real life with extreme difference in ride height ( high front ), while the weight distribution is at 62/38, a 50mm difference won't send a lot of weight to back, even if it did, it won't instantly give rotation without touching springs, damper, toe and arb. In GT6, regardless of spring rate used or damper setup, using the ride height will always give the same effect, more rotation or less rotation. I experimented early back in 1.00 when making replicas, I was like this when I found out about it.

What I was trying to get across was this : Don't depend too much on using ride height to fix a car handling problem as the 1st step, I would suggest to use it as last resort when all else fails, consider it as a final touch to complete a tune.
Most of the time, a good spring rate tuning will do a lot to help a car drive better, and most of the time works better than using ride height. I always use equal ride height value when tuning, tune the best I can with spring rate, damper, arb and toe, I even use some camber to purposely reduce grip slightly. This forces me to tune even better and pick up certain handling traits not visible with zero camber.
Once done, if I still have rotation issue, I increase or lower ride height, usually I only use 1-10mm difference on PP tunes - with a well tuned car, 3mm can be really felt and 10mm difference is more than enough most of the time.
While on replica, I use whatever value to replicate real life car visually Then I go from there, fine tuning some more, there are cars in GT6 with lower/higher front setting on ride height that actually gives level height on the car visually. The Clio RS for example.

 

[Thorin Cain]

There's a limit of how much weight being shifted with ride height difference, and I don't think GT6 simulate this well, there's something wrong when FF replica that I tuned without ride height difference suddenly can rotate much more than it would be in real life with extreme difference in ride height ( high front ), while the weight distribution is at 62/38, a 50mm difference won't send a lot of weight to back, even if it did, it won't instantly give rotation without touching springs, damper, toe and arb. In GT6, regardless of spring rate used or damper setup, using the ride height will always give the same effect, more rotation or less rotation. I experimented early back in 1.00 when making replicas, I was like this when I found out about it.

What I was trying to get across was this : Don't depend too much on using ride height to fix a car handling problem as the 1st step, I would suggest to use it as last resort when all else fails, consider it as a final touch to complete a tune.
Most of the time, a good spring rate tuning will do a lot to help a car drive better, and most of the time works better than using ride height. I always use equal ride height value when tuning, tune the best I can with spring rate, damper, arb and toe, I even use some camber to purposely reduce grip slightly. This forces me to tune even better and pick up certain handling traits not visible with zero camber.
Once done, if I still have rotation issue, I increase or lower ride height, usually I only use 1-10mm difference on PP tunes - with a well tuned car, 3mm can be really felt and 10mm difference is more than enough most of the time.
While on replica, I use whatever value to replicate real life car visually Then I go from there, fine tuning some more, there are cars in GT6 with lower/higher front setting on ride height that actually gives level height on the car visually. The Clio RS for example.

Couldn't agree more!
Undoubtedly the effects are over-exaggerated. I believe using it first will create more problems due to all of the things which will be effected.

I always start the same way. Equal ride height and concentrate on the springs, it's the best way to go!

It was actually my tuning partner @Dirty_Duck that suggested to me that once I thought the rest of my tune was right and it was just missing something, to adjust the ride height for a little rake. It has made a huge difference to my more recent tunes and I don't think I've used more than 6mm.

EDIT: Sorry fixing dodgy grammar.

 

[Ceolix]

so, will i get better grip if i put my car's nose up?
that doesn't make too much sense, the tires won't be touching the ground
so why would be turning better.

anyway, how i can distribute weight in MR cars?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

so, will i get better grip if i put my car's nose up?
that doesn't make too much sense, the tires won't be touching the ground
so why would be turning better.

anyway, how i can distribute weight in MR cars?

You won't get any better grip just by increasing ride height at the nose, it will only add more rotation if it's higher than the rear, but the effect is not really beneficial if other part of the suspension is not well tuned. You might get undesired effect in mid corner and exit that has to be fixed. As for why it doesn't make sense, it's PD being PD They put the physics effect on reverse and over exaggerated the effect for every few mm difference. A better reasonable effect would be 25% of what PD gives now on ride height difference.

Distributing weight is up to you, I have always used stock or real life weight distribution, and it works so well in GT6 if the suspension is tuned accordingly, or you shift the weight towards the front by 1% until you find the spot that you like.

Here is an example, one of recent real world setup replica ( tune of this week ) :

Honda NSX Type R '92 ( Real World Setup version ) Ayrton Senna Tribute 284HP 463PP Comfort Soft to Sports Medium

 

[Ceolix]

more rotation you mean
for example

MR car use rear tyres to accel. so if i lower the rear.
will i get more rotation on both rear wells?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

more rotation you mean
for example

MR car use rear tyres to accel. so if i lower the rear.
will i get more rotation on both rear wells?

More rotation means that you can turn in easier, and in mid corner you can rotate the car much better to point the car for exit, too much rotation will easily cause oversteer on any rear wheel driven car ( FR, MR, RR )

 

[Thorin Cain]

so, will i get better grip if i put my car's nose up?
that doesn't make too much sense, the tires won't be touching the ground
so why would be turning better.

anyway, how i can distribute weight in MR cars?

Hi again. There are basically 3 ways to distribute the weight, these are:

1: Use the Spring rate settings to alter the distribution of the weight transfer. Harder springs at the front than the rear will slow down the weight transfer to the front during braking but will increase weight transfer on to the rear during acceleration. Softer springs at the front than the rear will have the opposite effect. Always start with this one, follow @Ridox2JZGTE's advice above on a good starting point and adjust from there. The only way to know if it is right is to take it to the track and try it. But be patient this will take some time until you get use to it.

2: Use ballast and change it's position in the car until you feel it is what you want. A few tuners use this with full weight reduction to keep the total weight close to stock and have the option to use the weight to change the standing weight distribution of the car, thereby altering the handling characteristics.
This is also very useful in some of the cars which seem to have the opposite Weight Distribution than they should,(RUF 3400S, Spyker C8 etc.).

3: Use the Ride Height difference to move more weight to the lower end of the car. This should be an if all else fails solution, It alters the actual stance of the car on the road if you go to far with it so use it in small amounts (1-2mm at a time as Ridox said)

If you are still confused I would really advise you to go and check out the General Tuning Guide. @DolHaus has done a great job putting this together and it is really easy to follow. Most of the key points are easy to find and they should help you a lot.

Hope this helps

 

[brianwong]

All people complaining about MR cars either can't drive or tune.

 

[Thorin Cain]

All people complaining about MR cars either can't drive or tune.

Anyone who decides to post their 2 cents worth by offering nothing but irrelevant nonsense and condescension in a thread where people are trying to help each other out, is either stupid on an 🤬.

There are a combined 0 people who are complaining about MR cars in this thread, Sure, one is frustrated and asking for some help and there's a few of GTPlanet's finest trying to offer advice with regards to changes in driving technique and tuning options to aid the original poster with their query. I can see only one post in the entire thread which is even remotely negative in any way. Guess which one!

 

[CSLACR]

We need a dislike button...

 

[unityrules1]

Depends on the setup of the car, really. I would recommend the NSX as it feels more stable at any speed than the others.

 

[Ceolix]

wait a minute, i dont get the ride height thing.

so for example:

front/rear:

80/160

i will get understeer with this, right?
so if i put it like

160/80 ill get oversteer.

does this means if i put

max/max

the car won't oversteer but it won't understeer too.
+
if i tight up the front dampers it will turn as i want?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

wait a minute, i dont get the ride height thing.

so for example:

front/rear:

80/160

i will get understeer with this, right?
so if i put it like

160/80 ill get oversteer.

does this means if i put

max/max

the car won't oversteer but it won't understeer too.
+
if i tight up the front dampers it will turn as i want?

If the car has tendency to oversteer, certain range of difference will reduce the oversteer ( you can feel the effect from as little as 3mm difference ), but there will be side effects, you will still need to tune the damper, arb, toe and camber. - Equal ride height will give the car original handling traits, this is why I always tune cars with equal ride height. If the car has massive understeer with equal ride height, I will tune spring rate, damper, arb, toe and camber to make it more neutral, it works and will requires real world tuning knowledge and testing methods, but ride height exploit is always there as an easy way out

You can try Ruf Yellowbird for example, there's a 550PP tune from a well known tuner - Praiano, he uses ride height difference exploit to make the car easier to drive ( most of his tunes uses it ), try that tune, then try again with equal ride height with everything else the same. You can use lowest and highest both front and rear ride height. Make a note of how the car handling changed with highest and lowest equal ride height, then try with the front lower/rear higher Praiano tune. Knowing how every mm difference changed the handling will give you more insight on how to tackle a problem car

You can make front damper stiffer for better turn in, but there's a limit, you will need to fine tune spring rates first

 

[Ceolix]

If the car has tendency to oversteer, certain range of difference will reduce the oversteer ( you can feel the effect from as little as 3mm difference ), but there will be side effects, you will still need to tune the damper, arb, toe and camber. - Equal ride height will give the car original handling traits, this is why I always tune cars with equal ride height. If the car has massive understeer with equal ride height, I will tune spring rate, damper, arb, toe and camber to make it more neutral, it works and will requires real world tuning knowledge and testing methods, but ride height exploit is always there as an easy way out

You can try Ruf Yellowbird for example, there's a 550PP tune from a well known tuner - Praiano, he uses ride height difference exploit to make the car easier to drive ( most of his tunes uses it ), try that tune, then try again with equal ride height with everything else the same. You can use lowest and highest both front and rear ride height. Make a note of how the car handling changed with highest and lowest equal ride height, then try with the front lower/rear higher Praiano tune. Knowing how every mm difference changed the handling will give you more insight on how to tackle a problem car

You can make front damper stiffer for better turn in, but there's a limit, you will need to fine tune spring rates first

yes but i dont get it why
a higher front lower rear would increase corning
abilities.
wouldn't it oversteer?
due to the low rear ride height, the springs would compress much faster, or not?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

yes but i dont get it why
a higher front lower rear would increase corning
abilities.
wouldn't it oversteer?
due to the low rear ride height, the springs would compress much faster, or not?

It's PD bug - the opposite of real life, so try both ride height differences ( low front/high rear and high front/low rear ) and accept the result

Higher front/lower rear will give more rotation, too much/extreme difference will induce oversteer easily, the amount of effects depend on the car handling traits with equal ride height. Try that on MR2

Spring and ride height in GT6 is simulated rather in basic form, in real life, when you lower a car, you will need to fit appropriate spring ( diameter, type, length and rate ), in GT6, you can only alter the rate, not the diameter, length or type ( progressive, linear etc ) and in real life, with very high spring rate and low ride height, most will fit helper springs - not simulated in GT6.

 

[DolHaus]

yes but i dont get it why
a higher front lower rear would increase corning
abilities.
wouldn't it oversteer?
due to the low rear ride height, the springs would compress much faster, or not?

It moves the cars centre of rotation, if you lift the rear it moves it forwards (closer to the front axle) making the car harder to rotate, if you lift the front it move the point of rotation toward the rear (closer to the rear axle) making it easier to rotate.

As a side note a higher ride height (longer spring) would make it slightly easier to compress, a lower ride height (shorter spring) would make the spring slightly harder to compress.

 

[rams1de]

It moves the cars centre of rotation, if you lift the rear it moves it forwards (closer to the front axle) making the car harder to rotate, if you lift the front it move the point of rotation toward the rear (closer to the rear axle) making it easier to rotate.

As a side note a higher ride height (longer spring) would make it slightly easier to compress, a lower ride height (shorter spring) would make the spring slightly harder to compress.

Or perhaps it's due to the change in centre of gravity affecting slip angle.

There will be more centrifugal force on tyres nearest the CoG. More centrifugal force means tyres have to generate more frictional force by way of a larger slip angle. Where there's a difference between front and rear slip angle you'll get understeer or oversteer. If front slip angle is greater than rear, you'll get understeer and vice versa.

This is a simplified explanation of something I read on the internet about tyre grip and how frictional force alters acceleration, braking and cornering. I've absolutely no idea if this is what PD has programmed into this video game but I thought you might enjoy ruminating on another plausible theory.

 

[DolHaus]

Or perhaps it's due to the change in centre of gravity affecting slip angle.

There will be more centrifugal force on tyres nearest the CoG. More centrifugal force means tyres have to generate more frictional force by way of a larger slip angle. Where there's a difference between front and rear slip angle you'll get understeer or oversteer. If front slip angle is greater than rear, you'll get understeer and vice versa.

This is a simplified explanation of something I read on the internet about tyre grip and how frictional force alters acceleration, braking and cornering. I've absolutely no idea if this is what PD has programmed into this video game but I thought you might enjoy ruminating on another plausible theory.

Interesting theory, I will have to mull it over and see if it fits. If you could find the article then I would love to give it a read.
My current thought is that it works like basic leverage, by moving the point of rotation (pivot point) towards the front then it will take more force to induce rotation which enhances stability. Its very basic physics which would make it easier to programme and apply in a consistent way.

 

[rams1de]

@DolHaus sorry, don't have a link to a specific article. It's from notes I made when trying to get my head round tuning in GT5. I foolishly started out reading articles on real world tuning which ended up with me being totally befuddled when trying to apply the theory to the game.

Google Friction Circle, Slip Angle, Loose & Poosh and you'll find lots of reading.