Ballast question

[DrkPhnyx]

I did a search, found many incidental mentions, but no breakdowns. Any tuning experts out there have a formula and/or breakdown about how it works?

For example, if I'm trying to replicate a real world mod of taking a hundred pounds off the nose of a car through parts changes (certainly possible in some cases). I can then see what the new front and rear weight would be, as well as the total weight, and the percentages.

In GT, I would then run stage 1 weight reduction and add ballast to reach the needed total weight. But with it at 0, it's still displaying the stock distribution. Now, if I know that I need 54.24/45.76 f/r for example, how would I set that?

If I count the clicks, I came up with a best guess of '22', but, a nagging suspicion/doubt leaves me wondering if this is accurate. I'm thinking there must be a better way using math and the total weight pre-ballast, ballast amounts and the slide range of 100 steps, but then accounting for starting point gets tricky (especially considering the extreme ends of the scale do not have the same number of clicks as each other, or the ones in between - and one of the middle ones has 14 where all the rest have 15. Definitely confusing).

 

[Thorin Cain]

I haven't seen anything like what you're looking for around here. I would think your best bet for help in this department would be @Ridox2JZGTE or perhaps the guys in here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-third-483-tunes-peugeot-rcz-r-bimoto.291116/

Anytime I've tried this I'd just use the weight reduction and ballast amounts to get the correct weight then move Ballast position to suit the desired weight distribution. Not very scientific, I know. But it works. Provided PD didn't mess up the weight distribution and weight up too much to begin with that is.

Sorry I couldn't be any more help, but keep the faith, there may be someone else who will pop by with the answer your looking for.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

Thanks for the reply.

I guess if I knew how the steps/clicks in each number related to fractions, and/or which direction they went, I could do it that way without math.

Let's say you are using 122kg of ballast on a car with a total weight (counting ballast of 1566). If you move the slider right, over to where it JUST flips over to 54/46, is that 45.5? 45.6? or actually the start of 46? Because I found inconsistent numbers of steps in each % range, it makes it very difficult for me to determine what the extreme points of the range actually are, or what the middle actually is. So it's hard to figure out how far to go from either point. :/

I may just be tired, because it seems it shouldn't be this confusing, yet it is, for some reason.

 

[DolHaus]

Theoretically you could work it out using maths but it would involve a lot of maths for very little reward

 

[Highlandor]

I may just be tired, because it seems it shouldn't be this confusing, yet it is, for some reason.

Welcome to the crazy world of tuning on GT, unfortunately there are many aspects of tuning that do not crossover from real life to GT, with some being the opposite.

Just to add to the confusion even more is that some real life 'tunes' / setups will work 'OK' on GT if accurately carried over.

It's a big can of worms to open up, as different styles/needs of tuning will also give different answers about what 'works'.

Best thing to do is clarify your goal i.e. all round GT tuning knowledge, hot lap setups, understanding one aspect and how that applies to what area - then go from there.

The ballast/weight distribution has always been a bit of a joke, ever since it was introduced to GT it's been a bit FUBAR. Full weight reduction has never changed the weight distribution much, if at all, on a car. I think there might be a handful of cars that change by '1', but can't remember.

When it was introduced, there was a 'glitch' that you could leave ballast at 0, but move the slider to max fr or rear and it would change the balance of the car, so if you were tuning an MR car and you had 0 ballast, moving the slider all the way to the fr (left) would help balance out the car.

If you're knowledgable about real world tuning/setups, you'll probably want to search about what aspects of GT tuning reflect real world technique and what doesn't, it will save you alot of headaches/head scratching..

Best of luck 👍

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I did a search, found many incidental mentions, but no breakdowns. Any tuning experts out there have a formula and/or breakdown about how it works?

For example, if I'm trying to replicate a real world mod of taking a hundred pounds off the nose of a car through parts changes (certainly possible in some cases). I can then see what the new front and rear weight would be, as well as the total weight, and the percentages.

In GT, I would then run stage 1 weight reduction and add ballast to reach the needed total weight. But with it at 0, it's still displaying the stock distribution. Now, if I know that I need 54.24/45.76 f/r for example, how would I set that?

If I count the clicks, I came up with a best guess of '22', but, a nagging suspicion/doubt leaves me wondering if this is accurate. I'm thinking there must be a better way using math and the total weight pre-ballast, ballast amounts and the slide range of 100 steps, but then accounting for starting point gets tricky (especially considering the extreme ends of the scale do not have the same number of clicks as each other, or the ones in between - and one of the middle ones has 14 where all the rest have 15. Definitely confusing).

Just use simple percentage, say you have 50/50 with minimum weight with position at 0. Add 50 kg and it changed to 51/49, now move the position click by click in both direction. Make a note of the position where it changes to 52/48 and 50/50. How many clicks did it took to change the distribution from 52/48 to 51/49, then 51/49 to 50/50.
Now divide that number by ten to get accurate distribution in ten percent increment so you can dial 51.5/48.5 for example. Always remember when a position is set and distribution changed to less in front, that is the full figure marker, say you are at position -2 at 52/48, then when you move to -1 it shifted to 51/49, then -1 is 51.0 / 49.0. The -2 would be 51.1/48.9 if it took 10 position points to change to 53/37 when you move it to the left ( negative number position )

 

[DrkPhnyx]

Just use simple percentage, say you have 50/50 with minimum weight with position at 0. Add 50 kg and it changed to 51/49, now move the position click by click in both direction. Make a note of the position where it changes to 52/48 and 50/50. How many clicks did it took to change the distribution from 52/48 to 51/49, then 51/49 to 50/50.
Now divide that number by ten to get accurate distribution in ten percent increment so you can dial 51.5/48.5 for example. Always remember when a position is set and distribution changed to less in front, that is the full figure marker, say you are at position -2 at 52/48, then when you move to -1 it shifted to 51/49, then -1 is 51.0 / 49.0. The -2 would be 51.1/48.9 if it took 10 position points to change to 53/37 when you move it to the left ( negative number position )

So it shows 48.9 as 48 and doesn't round? If so that could be very helpful. If it also is best to start from the front.

When I dropped to WR1, hood and glass, I went from 1640kg to 1444. Distribution was 56/44. I added 122kg of ballast. This brought weight to 1566. This was simulating swapping a pair of iron heads for aluminum, iron exhaust manifolds for headers, iron intake manifold for aluminum, and a pair of lower control arms and a K-Member for lighter units, plus the glass and hood swap aswell, plus a lightweight battery (and if needed, a smog delete to explain it all). All told, the drop was about 163lbs, which seems reasonable. (I looked up part swap weight savings to ensure I was in the right area)

Of the 74kg drop, 64 of that would be off the nose. (glass was 10kg, and that's middle of the car basically)

One thing I could not find was factory w/r. Weight itself was basically accurate at 1640. From what I was able to find, the GT listing of 56/44 seemed reasonable, so I went with that. And based on that, plus what I removed from the nose, I know I would end up at 54.24/45.76

Now, with 122kg of ballast making the 1566kg total, sitting at 0, it was still 56/44.

I then counted. -50 topped out at 59/41. 50 ended at 52/48. What confused me most of all was that, 59/41 has 8 steps within it (9th turns over to 58/42). And the other end, 52/48 has only 4 steps in it (but I can see that being just where the scale ends and not such a big deal). Every other % had 15 steps with in it, except for the stock setting, 56/44 had only 14 before it turned over to 55/45.

The inconsistency of 56/44 throws me off.

But if I read your comment right, if I go to position -42, the point at which the display changes to read 58/42, that would be 58.0/42.0? And -43 would be @59.1/41.9? (of course the fact that there are more than 10 steps makes this even worse, I think it's like 1.75 steps per tenth of a percent)

Complicating things is the fact that in thinking about it, were I to own the car, I'd add subs, sound deadening, etc, so I figured it to be more like 3500lbs or 1588kg, which upped my ballast to 144kg, which now renders the 56/44 as 12 steps instead of the 15 I counted at 122kg of ballast.

The good news is that 12 is easier to divide, since I'm basically looking for x.75, so it's looking like I would want to go right (rear/positive) to the point where it just changes to 53/47, which would be 47.0% dead, and is +26, and back in 1/4 of the steps, or 3, to +23, and I'll have 54.25/45.75?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

It would be a lot easier if you have the actual reduced weight distribution of the real car, that way you won't have to do a lot of calculation From my experience, the lower the weight / more weight lost, the less clicks you have to move to shift 1 percent of distribution. It also depend on how heavy the car is originally.

Lightweight cars tend to be very responsive to ballast position changes.

The good news is that 12 is easier to divide, since I'm basically looking for x.75, so it's looking like I would want to go right (rear/positive) to the point where it just changes to 53/47, which would be 47.0% dead, and is +26, and back in 1/4 of the steps, or 3, to +23, and I'll have 54.25/45.75?

I think that's about what I usually do , the closest you can ever get in GT6. The weight reduction system is too basic IMO, and not accurately simulate car diet I often complained to myself, why I can't reach certain weight distribution as GT6 cars often got messed up stats - most FF cars are wrong

 

[DrkPhnyx]

It would be a lot easier if you have the actual reduced weight distribution of the real car, that way you won't have to do a lot of calculation From my experience, the lower the weight / more weight lost, the less clicks you have to move to shift 1 percent of distribution. It also depend on how heavy the car is originally.

Lightweight cars tend to be very responsive to ballast position changes.



I think that's about what I usually do , the closest you can ever get in GT6. The weight reduction system is too basic IMO, and not accurately simulate car diet I often complained to myself, why I can't reach certain weight distribution as GT6 cars often got messed up stats - most FF cars are wrong

Yeah, I was really disappointed that nobody ever put these things on the scales. Seems to just be most of the same figures tossed around for total weight (some outrageous), but overall I think PD got it right at 1640. But aside from total weight, I'd think that balance would be important too, but it often feels like I'm the only one looking for that info. lol Best I was able to manage was to find weight savings for the switch to aluminum for those parts, etc and pieced it together from there.



I think what I was worried about was if PD rounded, or just hid the tenths. If they hide it, it's easy. if they round it up/down, it becomes much more confusing. But this'll work. And I like the resulting feel too. With my tune it's now a little loose and only pushes sometimes. I think the weight off the nose helped cure a lot of the push. I could tighten up the rear a bit, but I fear I'll get the push back more often. Better to be a little slower and more fun. haha (...but I digress...)


Out of curiosity, when you do your replica tunes, do you go by real world specs and plug them in, or do you work to achieve some performance test result?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Out of curiosity, when you do your replica tunes, do you go by real world specs and plug them in, or do you work to achieve some performance test result?

I use both I set them up as close as possible to the real world car ( much datas as I can gather ), then drive them at the track ( vs real life lap time if available ), fine tune the car behavior along the way, so it drives more realistically.

 

[PJTierney]

When it was introduced, there was a 'glitch' that you could leave ballast at 0, but move the slider to max fr or rear and it would change the balance of the car, so if you were tuning an MR car and you had 0 ballast, moving the slider all the way to the fr (left) would help balance out the car.

First I've heard of this, was it a GT5 issue that got fixed in GT6?

 

[Highlandor]

First I've heard of this, was it a GT5 issue that got fixed in GT6?

It was fixed pretty soon after it (weight distribution/ballast) was introduced, probably within around 3-6 months.. not sure exactly, there were so many issues with the game back then..

The weight distribution figures were introduced around 6-8 months after GT5 was released, again, can't remember exactly, but it was around 6 months...

 

[CSLACR]

The game rounds off, 48.4 would display as 48, 48.5 as 49, etc.
Everything is mathematical, if there are 4 clicks between 48 and 49, it is 48.25, .50 .75 .00 etc.
All ballast removed is considered to be removed from every part of the car. For example, the carbon hood will not take weight off only the front, but the rear also. Everything is static.
Annnnnd all of this is for effectively nothing. the 1 click or 0.3 difference isn't going to have anywhere near the effect you seem to expect from it, in real world or digital.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

1 or 2 click do have great effect in certain circumstances I recently build online a few cars for CRAP GTP club racing event, and one of the car ( Megan Trophy Base Model ), with -2 vs 0 ballast position has slightly different handling balance, which can be felt easily when entering and exiting a corner. The car has 205HP max on RH tire at SSR5 Clubman with very fast tire wear. The Megane 48/52 with 1000kg, 45kg ballast, at -2 has slight push / less rotation, move it to 0 gives more neutral handling, easily felt. Raced it at current intermediate A spec seasonal at Madrid, tried -2 and 0, both has distinct balance on the round curves.

One other car ( Clio V6 ), driven by @danbojte during online test with very fast tire wear, originally tuned with ballast position at -31 with mere 7kg ballast. Distribution at 48/52 weight 1100kg. Simply moving the ballast to 50 ( rearward ) still at 48/52, he immediately noticed the difference ( better ).

I have built many replicas with real life distribution, and built them to the point that one click damper or ARB can be felt. Depending on the car weight ( reduction applied ), amount of ballast, the position can be very influential, even more so with well tuned suspension and certain drivetrain - FF, RR and MR.

Lighter cars are more responsive to changes.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

Exactly. When making it what it should be, it matters. Saying it doesn't make a difference comes across as a typical onliner who plays it more like a game than a sim. And as Ridox said, it can indeed make a noticeable difference anyway. I certainly feel a difference in behavior now. Would it be so if I moved it +/- one? Well, it'd bug me for not being representative, so in that sense yes, but it all adds up. 10 steps can't make a difference if each single one truly had zero effect. (how much each one is felt comes down to stuff Ridox mentioned, plus control type used, skill/sensitivity, etc)

 

[CSLACR]

No it doesn't, and no it can't. It's called the placebo effect.
It makes a mathematical, equal in proportion change to the equation. The difference between -2 and 0 is same as the difference between -12 and -10. The difference between +44 and +42 is also the same. The difference between -30 and -26 is twice as much. So is the difference between +4 and +8.
There are no magical zones, only in your head.





Imho, of course, as same for those whom disagree.

 

[OdeFinn]

All ballast removed is considered to be removed from every part of the car. For example, the carbon hood will not take weight off only the front, but the rear also. Everything is static.
Annnnnd all of this is for effectively nothing. the 1 click or 0.3 difference isn't going to have anywhere near the effect you seem to expect from it, in real world or digital.

Weird if this is what happens, then weight reduction on i.e. RUF CTR works wrong, weight distribution changes after reduction is installed. And if you put that reduced weight back on "0"-position it messes distribution even more, if you restore weight by adding ballast on position 7 towards rear it restores car original weight distribution (43/57).
In real world as on GT6 some ones are blessed with senses to feel smaller differences. I.e. 1/4 1/3 1/2 2/3 3/4 1/1 of fuel tank are giving totally different balance IRL casual sedan/wagon, handling changes too. Those fuel differences are just under 10kg weight changes.

 

[AstarsProDrvr]

Theoretically you could work it out using maths but it would involve a lot of maths for very little reward

I have learned that using a simple spreadsheet program that uses formulas can be a big help in making it easier to figure out numbers for different cars in your garage. Although it may take some time to figure out the formulas, once you have them set you can just plug in the numbers from your vehicle and figure out what you need to input back into Gran Turismo. I have done this for transmission gear ratios to finer tune towards my driving style on specific tracks, therefore optimizing the car I am using to that specific race

 

[PJTierney]

Can you show an example?

 

[wedjim]

If you scroll left and right you can see when the balance changes and get an "idea," of where your at for precise ballast. But in reality what matters is the handling. Move it around and see what works a little at a time.

In the real world, more rear weight means better entry steering and more rear traction on exit. More front weight means less entry and more exit steering. So far it seems to transfer well in GT6 for me. But I have not tried it on all of my cars only the ones I feel needed it's help.

 

[CSLACR]

Weird if this is what happens, then weight reduction on i.e. RUF CTR works wrong, weight distribution changes after reduction is installed. And if you put that reduced weight back on "0"-position it messes distribution even more, if you restore weight by adding ballast on position 7 towards rear it restores car original weight distribution (43/57).
In real world as on GT6 some ones are blessed with senses to feel smaller differences. I.e. 1/4 1/3 1/2 2/3 3/4 1/1 of fuel tank are giving totally different balance IRL casual sedan/wagon, handling changes too. Those fuel differences are just under 10kg weight changes.

I agree, better drivers feel smaller differences, also meaning if top-level drivers say there is no difference, there isn't.

My CTR has 41/59 weight distribution stock. 42/58 after weight reduction, but even then, a basic mathematical test reveals it's inaccurate at best. My personal opinion is that it's "hogwash trickery" made by PD to help people believe it's significantly more realistic than it actually is.

Evidence? Basic Math is PD's real enemy here.
RUF Yellowbird CTR
Stock: 41/59
Stage 3 Wt: 42/58
Now adding ballast
22Kg @ F50(front) makes 43/57. 22Kg @ F49 makes 42/58.
Remove hood:
22Kg @ F49(front) makes 43/57. 22Kg @ F48 makes 42/58.

That's right, removing weight from the front, makes the front "heavier".

So while PD has added a few tricks to make everything look better, at best it's still inaccurate enough that it doesn't work properly, and as I mentioned before, I personally believe it stops on paper, and the tiny differences the eye can see don't even play out in the game.

 

[OdeFinn]

@CSLACR, uups, my mistake about stock weight distro, so do my on 41/59 default.

 

[CSLACR]

@CSLACR, uups, my mistake about stock weight distro, so do my on 41/59 default.

I kinda figured.


One shining example I can think that is different is unsprung weight, where 2 lbs equals 16 of unsprung weight. But GT6 doesn't touch on unsprung weight, so 2 pounds is 2 pounds. A driver could literally take a dump before the race and shave 2 pounds. Anyone thinking a 2 pound difference is going to be felt in a car is feeling a placebo. Akin to people that put air filters on their car and run a 1/4 mile .1 quicker. They can "feel it", but the human body can't feel it, so they're wrong.

 

[CSLACR]

I keep tripping myself up.
So at stock weight, with 2kg added to +50(front) the car sits at 41/59. Drop the carbon hood and take 5kg off what should be the front, and the front weigt bias increases from 41/59 to 42/58.
It is backwards. Ahhhh good ol GT and backwards stuff...