Anti-Roll bars/sway bars , how do they work in GT5?

Christian_C

Premium
1,499
United Kingdom
Stoke, UK
GTP_Christian_C
Do I have a complete lack of understand in this area or is it that GT5 simulates ARB's badly.

For example, I did some reading and from what I could understand the simple rules of ARB's is this:

-To reduce understeer- soften front ARB / stiffen rear ARB
-To reduce oversteer- stiffen front ARB / soften rear ARB

Yet in practice whenever I soften the front ARB to reduce mid-corner understeer I get the opposite effect and get yet more understeer. However when I stiffen the front ARB the car seems to become more responsive and results in less understeer.

For example, before noticing this odd 'phenomenon' (if that's what it is and not just me being stupid) I'd go to the complete max of adjustment is desperation to rid myself of understeer and seem to end up with more :(

The reason I post this is that I've just taken a Z4 I had built but not touched tune wise at all and driven it with front ARB settings of 1,3 & 7 respectively and observed the following results:

ARB setting at 3 (default start position) for the sake of the argument I'm putting across I'll just presume this state to be 'neutral handling'

ARB setting at 1 (to test the soften front bar to increase oversteer theory) I suffered from absolutely horrendous understeer through the corners and direction change became simply abominably bad.

ARB setting at 7 (to test the soften front bar to increase understeer theory) I found this set up to provide a much more rigid feel and I suffered from no understeer at all, in fact the opposite happened and I suffered from an increase in oversteer and the limiting element to the handling was the other suspension settings.

Now this makes... NO SENSE to me whatsoever and flies completely in the face of everything I've ever read about ARB's. So am I either stupid, inept or experiencing something that no one else seems to? :odd:
 
The entire left side of suspension settings works backwards in GT5.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135268
I know there's stuff on in there, not sure where it all is, but it's been tested pretty thoroughly, and your findings are correct for GT5, and GT5 is at least somewhat backwards from real life in this area. :(

Weird, I knew I was experiencing something that I shouldn't be (RL experience was screaming the opposite to the effect I was receiving from the game)

Does the same thing apply for all settings on the left side then including spring rates and dampers? :(

If so it explains why when I've been trying to tune out understeer I've just ended up tuning even more in :lol:
 
Weird, I knew I was experiencing something that I shouldn't be (RL experience was screaming the opposite to the effect I was receiving from the game)

Does the same thing apply for all settings on the left side then including spring rates and dampers? :(

If so it explains why when I've been trying to tune out understeer I've just ended up tuning even more in :lol:
Yup. A lower rear oversteers, stiffer rear understeers, etc, for the left side.
Camber and toe are proper though.
 
Yup. A lower rear oversteers, stiffer rear understeers, etc, for the left side.
Camber and toe are proper though.

bizareeee, well at least I know what I was doing wrong now (least some good comes from 3am tantrums about why my car's not working :lol: )

So the general rule of thumb is to take RL know-how, reverse it and then it will work as it should?
 
bizareeee, well at least I know what I was doing wrong now (least some good comes from 3am tantrums about why my car's not working :lol: )

So the general rule of thumb is to take RL know-how, reverse it and then it will work as it should?
Yes. I should mention ride height is the strongest single factor for under-steer or over-steer, though at extremes they all have pretty drastic effects.
 
Yes. I should mention ride height is the strongest single factor for under-steer or over-steer, though at extremes they all have pretty drastic effects.

So if I'm looking for more oversteer I should raise the front ride height slightly?

So, more front ARB means more oversteer and lower ARB or towards the rear means more understeer?

In GT5: lower the front ARB and raise the rear ARB to increase understeer.
Increase the front ARB and lower the rear ARB to increase oversteer.

In RL though these settings work completely the other way round :lol:
 
Tiddy
So if I'm looking for more oversteer I should raise the front ride height slightly?

In GT5: lower the front ARB and raise the rear ARB to increase understeer.
Increase the front ARB and lower the rear ARB to increase oversteer.

In RL though these settings work completely the other way round :lol:

Ahhh, thanks :)
 
So if I'm looking for more oversteer I should raise the front ride height slightly?
It's the easier way, but not always the best way, in particular I found the RM Subaru got very twitchy with only 5mm lower rear than front, so I used springs, etc instead.
 
It's the easier way, but not always the best way, in particular I found the RM Subaru got very twitchy with only 5mm lower rear than front, so I used springs, etc instead.

I see :)

I think the best thing to do here is to just swap the headings for front and rear round, would make more sense and would mean the setting would align with their real world counterparts.

To be honest knowing this now I'm surprised PD haven't done anything about it, it's a pretty serious flaw.
 
Just saying, my settings are not backwards. Stiffening the rear does induce oversteer...

I agree. The only setting that I feel truly works "backwards" is ride height. In general, I think people are forgetting how all these settings are interconnected. For instance, running the front swaybar at 1 will obviously require more front camber than when running it at 7. If you don't up the camber I can see how you might lose front grip. And for any given camber angle and tire combination there is likely an ideal amount of body roll which will maximize the contact patch when cornering. Think of it as a bell curve. If your suspension is currently softer than the ideal then stiffening it will increase grip to a point, after which it will likely decrease. I also notice people running ridiculously soft rear suspension (like front dampers at 9 and rear at 2 :odd:) to get the rear to rotate. In my opinion this just creates very fast and sloppy lateral weight transfer which simply overloads the outside rear tire and causes it to slide. Sure, it "works", but it's not what I would consider sound tuning strategy, nor do I feel it qualifies as evidence of "backwards" tuning.
 
Last edited:
I agree. The only setting that I feel truly works "backwards" is ride height. In general, I think people are forgetting how all these settings are interconnected. For instance, running the front swaybar at 1 will obviously require more front camber than when running it at 7. If you don't up the camber I can see how you might lose front grip. And for any given camber angle and tire combination there is likely an ideal amount of body roll which will maximize the contact patch when cornering. Think of it as a bell curve. If your suspension is currently softer than the ideal then stiffening it will increase grip to a point, after which it will likely decrease. I also notice people running ridiculously soft rear suspension (like front dampers at 9 and rear at 2 :odd:) to get the rear to rotate. In my opinion this just creates very fast and sloppy lateral weight transfer which simply overloads the outside rear tire and causes it to slide. Sure, it "works", but it's not what I would consider sound tuning strategy, nor do I feel it qualifies as evidence of "backwards" tuning.
Well you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it right.
If I take a stock Petronas SC430 for example, it starts like this:
0 / 0
13.8 / 14.8
8/8
8/8
6/6

If I switch that to this:
0/0
14.8/13.8
8/8
8/8
6/6

It under-steers less. It seems you assumed from the beginning since people used extremes to exaggerate the differences there must be a logical reason.
There isn't.
It works on every car, at every camber angle, on every damper, spring, and arb rate. Stiffen the front, goodbye understeer, soften the rear, goodbye understeer, increase front camber and not rear, goodbye understeer, tuck rear toe in instead of out, goodbye understeer.
They're all slightly different, and obviously the camber and toe work as they're supposed to, but you cannot show me an instance where a stiff rear/soft front makes a car oversteer more, unless you have some screwed up camber/toe settings, which would obviously be the camber/toe causing the oversteer, and not the springs/dampers/arb settings..

If you think that's wrong, I would love to see an example, just post the settings and fairly easily obtained car, preferably premium, since it's apparently the norm for you.
 
Well you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it right.
If I take a stock Petronas SC430 for example, it starts like this:
0 / 0
13.8 / 14.8
8/8
8/8
6/6

If I switch that to this:
0/0
14.8/13.8
8/8
8/8
6/6

It under-steers less. It seems you assumed from the beginning since people used extremes to exaggerate the differences there must be a logical reason.
There isn't.
It works on every car, at every camber angle, on every damper, spring, and arb rate. Stiffen the front, goodbye understeer, soften the rear, goodbye understeer, increase front camber and not rear, goodbye understeer, tuck rear toe in instead of out, goodbye understeer.
They're all slightly different, and obviously the camber and toe work as they're supposed to, but you cannot show me an instance where a stiff rear/soft front makes a car oversteer more, unless you have some screwed up camber/toe settings, which would obviously be the camber/toe causing the oversteer, and not the springs/dampers/arb settings..

If you think that's wrong, I would love to see an example, just post the settings and fairly easily obtained car, preferably premium, since it's apparently the norm for you.

I would do that... If my PS3 is working >.<
 
So the general rule of thumb is to take RL know-how, reverse it and then it will work as it should?
Hi Tiddy,
Here's my 2 cents
- the simple theory of "stiffer front = understeer, stiffer rear = oversteer" does not work in GT5. While it's not exactly "backwards", sometimes it appears that way
- stiffer front springs/anti-roll improve turn-in
- stiffer rear springs/anti-roll increase wheelspin, this can make it seem like they increase oversteer. But a stiffer rear can make the front end lose grip especially for turn-in and mid-corner.
- treat the ride height settings as if front and rear are switched and they will make sense
- damper effects are very subtle, often people find it hard to notice any difference
- camber and toe are not backwards
- for a RWD, LSD settings have the biggest effect on how the car handles exiting the corner

Hope this helps,
Simon
 
The entire left side of suspension settings works backwards in GT5.

This is a great statement. Simple yet so powerful.

I know there been tons of discussions on this, but in your opinion, how are they backwards.

Example: In my opinion, a harder sprung car has less grip but is more predictable handling where a softer sprung car has more grip but is harder to control.

When you tune the left side of the suspension setting do you think:

1, Higher number is softer spring/ARB/Dampers
2, Swap Front/Rear (higher number is harder, but Front affects Rear, and Rear affects Front)

I might be oversimplifying, but as suspension tune is tremendously complex, simplifying what the backwards settings mean is very useful and important.
 
Last edited:
Here's my 2 cents
- the simple theory of "stiffer front = understeer, stiffer rear = oversteer" does not work in GT5. While it's not exactly "backwards", sometimes it appears that way
- stiffer front springs/anti-roll improve turn-in
- stiffer rear springs/anti-roll increase wheelspin, this can make it seem like they increase oversteer. But a stiffer rear can make the front end lose grip especially for turn-in and mid-corner.
Simon

I wanted to keep this simple, but I now running the risk of getting a bit more complex. In the two "backwards" options:

1, Higher number is softer spring/ARB/Dampers
2, Swap Front/Rear (higher number is harder, but Front affects Rear, and Rear affects Front)

So far I've been thinking #1 of above, but if I look at your points I think they support #2 instead.

"stiffer rear springs/anti-roll increase wheelspin". I think this is correct. That's what should happen.

When tuning for balance, soften the front spring/ARB improves turn-in. But if you do that in GT5 it has the opposite effect. But if you stiffen the rear spring/ARB it would also improve turn-in. Its the realtionship front/rear that matters. If you now pick #2 above, when putting in a higher number on front spring/ARB what GT5 is doing is to increase stiffness of rear spring ARB. Again it supports the #2 option.

What do you think. Its great if we can keep it simple, but its very hard to do just that.
 
Last edited:
Yeah what I've observed in GT5 is that when you stiffen the rear anti-roll bar and soften the front which should make the car more prone to oversteer it does the opposite and makes it understeer more.

Yet I think it may be worth defining what is classed as genuine corner under/oversteer and 'responsiveness' I've plenty of cars that do feel quite darty but lose midcorner grip and understeer out.

The LSD argument is also a good one and most certainly true, I've found these settings do make a massive difference to a RWD cars handling.
 
Oh no. The backwards conspirators are back. I still don't buy it. PD spent much of its development time on the driving engine. I just don't believe that they could have "accidentely" programmed settings backward. I don't experience the backward feel that people are describing. So either I am the ultimate tuner (which I doubt) or there is something else in the backward cospiracy tunes that is over powering the effect of the front settings.

What car are you testing with and what are your other settings... expecially LSD settings?
 
Oh no. The backwards conspirators are back. I still don't buy it. PD spent much of its development time on the driving engine. I just don't believe that they could have "accidentely" programmed settings backward. I don't experience the backward feel that people are describing. So either I am the ultimate tuner (which I doubt) or there is something else in the backward cospiracy tunes that is over powering the effect of the front settings.

What car are you testing with and what are your other settings... expecially LSD settings?

Right, I know you're saying you don't buy it and I myself are somewhat skeptical of it I admit. Yet the evidence I've seen outright proves it, I took a standard set up without touching it apart from the front ARB setting and observed an outcome which was totally backwards of what I expected to happen, now maybe this only occurs when using mad values like I did to get an exaggerated effect but it lines up with what I've experienced when tuning other cars and been left scratching my head as to why I just can't get the 🤬 to stop understeering.
 
I also agree that with all the development time, that PD got the suspension settings backwards is absolutely absurd. But when tuning the suspension settings, its the only thing that seems to work for me.

So of the people who use backwards suspension tuning, do you think:

1, Higher number is softer spring/ARB/Dampers
2, Swap Front/Rear (higher number is harder, but Front affects Rear, and Rear affects Front)
 
I also agree that with all the development time, that PD got the suspension settings backwards is absolutely absurd. But when tuning the suspension settings, its the only thing that seems to work for me.

So of the people who use backwards suspension tuning, do you think:

1, Higher number is softer spring/ARB/Dampers
2, Swap Front/Rear (higher number is harder, but Front affects Rear, and Rear affects Front)

2 seems a more likely option since if you run minimum spring rate you'll notice the car drives like a boat yet with max spring rate it's like the car has no suspension at all :lol:
 

Count me in for no 3.

I agree. The only setting that I feel truly works "backwards" is ride height. In general, I think people are forgetting how all these settings are interconnected.

Finally - someone talking some sense 👍

This "whole left side" is backwards is complete rubbish.

Also, there's already a thread that details anti roll bars very well and raises a point that is IMPERATIVE when tuning rolls bars, which no-one seems to have brought to light on this thread.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=198591&page=2

The rolls bars are massively linked to your springs and dampers - if these are not 'matched' then you can do what you like, the car won't feel right.

Everyone knows:
hard / stiff springs and dampers = soft roll bars.
soft / stiff springs and dampers = hard roll bars
medium springs and dampers = medium roll bars

Goto Settings>Body & Chassis>ballast and check the front rear weight distrubtion.

Now tune your springs and dampers according to this (I usually add 10-20% stiffness, I find this helps with alot of cars, apart from the Evora) then REVERSE the roll bars according to the stiffness of the springs and dampers.

Just do the maths, calculate your springs according to the % of weight front and rear, match your dampers to this and reverse the roll bars.

Then 'tweak' the roll bars (and possibly dampers) + or - 1 click front or rear to fine tune and soon your car will be doing things you never thought possible. Add to this effective LSD tuning and the camber and toe almost becomes obsolete, but not quite though. That will need tweaking for each car, but it's no way as important as 'matching' your springs, dampers and roll bars to work together (or the LSD or ride height).

Try doing this the opposite way round, see if your car will feel so good or do anywhere near the laptimes times it can do if tuned according to 'front IS front' scenario (which is what it is).

The only thing which is reversed in settings is the ride height, everyone knows this.

Lower front (compared to back) induces rear stability and front understeer, lower rear induces lift off oversteer (on GT5 - but it's the opposite in real life).

This is a £40 VIDEO game, not a multi thousand pound F1 simulator. People who play FPS's or sports sims don't start moaning and groaning that the game isn't perfectly representative of real life, they accept they're playing a cheap GAME, but because this is GT, so many people will research or look at real life and then apply it to the game. Why??

You have to deal with what works in the game - period, forget real life. Why should GT be any different from any other VIDEO GAME??

This has been covered so many times on this forum already.... it should be common knowledge by now.
 

I don't know, I just expected that you know, since it's trying to replicate real life that real life settings would transfer across? :odd:

Apart from the rather 'hatey' nature of your post the information you provide is invaluable and is something I had thought of but not yet applied to the situation.

However if you treat the settings to be flipped front and rear then you do start to see results that resemble those of real life and that's undeniable.

The reason it's not common knowledge to me is a simple one, I don't visit this part of the forum very often, I was asking a question hoping someone could enlighten me with the answer, you know, trying to learn :sly:
 
Fair enough, my post was blunt, and for that I apologise.

But look at it from our point of view - most people know this left side reverse is not true, on a bigger point, this website has started to get a detrimental reputation for the poor infomation and difficulty of accessing quality infomation, recently. When before, this is what made this website just so good.

Seeing people dig up 'conspiracy' theories that are detrimental to this once awesome site, is for me, like a red rag to a bull...

So, I hold my hands up and admit, I do kinda throw my toys out of the pram when I see things like this yet again, and I apologise.
 
I don't want to open a can of worms, and most threads on this subject has generated quite strong long discussions and its difficult to see any conclusions.

But its great to keep things simple. I think its obvious that ride hight is backwards. If one setting is backwards, its possible that there are more. These are all also in the same tuning menu.

I don't view this as a conspiracy but a simple mistake. It wouldn't be the first time a company has done it.
 
Back