honda cr-x '90 SiR settings.

  • Thread starter dudejo
  • 21 comments
  • 3,929 views
parts equipped:
-sports exhaust
-NA stage 1
-S2/S3
-racing brakes (no controller)
-base tranny
-LSD custom
-no TCS/ASM
-triple-plate clutch
-racing flywheel (would a heavier one benefit this car?)

the car makes 194 hp.

i "tried" to make a car with agressive maneuvering and as little low-speed wheelspin as possible.

on midfield raceway i can score ~1:27.500


spring rate 10/5

ride height 99/99

bound 4/6

rebound 8/8

camber 4/1.5

toe 0/-2

stabilizer 7/4

downforce 20/10

for the most part i feel the setup does what i want but i will gladly take suggestions.

thx

note : i put up another bundle of settings farther ahead.
 
well, u made a nice stab at this car. this car initself is not bad.

im thiking that u may need an explanation for ur SR, stab, and ur DF. get back to us


djaft3rb3ats
 
the springs are that way because i was thinking any tighter would be pointless. the rear is half as tight because i found that a tighter front induces oversteer.

stabilizers are softer in front to try and induce oversteer.

downforce is both low and higher in front to try to give the front more grip at speed and not lose too much top speed.

basically, i tried to rig the whole thing into oversteer


btw, do common FWD designs use TCS?

because the power i set the car up for is the absolute limit i found so that full-throttle in 2nd gear didn't overload the tires.
 
a lower ride height theoretically could increase tire wear because theres less air pushing up on the bottom of the car so that theres always a lot of traction between the tires and the floor. its not a signifigant difference, but it still is one. higher ride height means that when ur going high speeds the car gets a slight lift and thers not as much traction as witht lower




djaft3rb3ats
 
Hello dudejo, welcome to the Settings and Tuning forum. Your first posted tune is an excellent attempt but I feel I must share my observations to help you, so you can help others. You have made several statements that run contrary to current GT4 theory, it isn't to say you are not right, you just would have to back these points with test results if you want to be in agreement with the other tuners here.
First and most glaring point, raising front spring tension in relation to rear almost ALWAYS induces understeer. To understand the concept, imagine the stiffer spring is tilting the cars weight onto the set of tires that are sprung more softly. The actual reason is more complex, but the illustration serves in simplicity. The only real reason raising front springs will make the car turn better would be because the overall suspension is so soft as to loose traction through bounce unweighting. In this scenario, more stiffly sprung turning wheels would probably grip better, hence the sensation of induced oversteer.
Secondly, ride height never affects tire wear unless the ride is so low the chassis is contacting the ground. On high powered cars (like the Minolta 88CV) the drive wheels will start to burn under reduced traction, this usually happens only at speeds above 180mph. You can see the evidence of this if you have your B-Spec driver drive the car on the Sarthe course with the long straight. When you set your view to the rear, you will see sparks trail away from the car. Those are representive of pieces of chassis, and if the simulation were complete, your car would be getting lighter.
Additionally, have you tested your theory about downforce? I have tuned approximately 200 GT4 cars, and although every one of them has been a learning experience, I have not found a single instance where lower downforce translated to reduced lap times, and the time lost skidding onto the grass can be maddening. That is not to say it isn't so, I just recommend you test.
Also, most tuners agree that the damper settings are relative to the car, which is to say bound 8 on a Aston Martin Vantage is much stiffer (or as Duke might put it "less inclined to move") than bound 8 on a Toyota Vitz, which is a much lighter car.
I could suggest your damper settings are too low, but, by all means, use what works for you.
In terms of LSD, I have seen in my own experience that the removal of LSD on the front of 4WD cars and FF cars actually increases turning radius, usually not a good thing. I will concede that these powertrains need little LSD, but to eliminate it entirely could hurt you.
Finally I recommend you read some of the technical related threads in this forum. Many tuners, engineers and race car mechanics have contributed to our store of knowlege and ideas. I will run a search and include links of those I think are most helpful. You should start with the stickied ones by //M-Spec, Greyout and Scaff. If you want to tune competetively, they are definately worth the time spent.

Is suspension Tuning Backwards

noob question about ride height

sukerkins guide
 
afaik, only the shocks affect handling where a soft front induces oversteer.

springs and stabilizers have it where a stiff front induces oversteer.

maybe it's just me who can't tune worth crap but so far it works for me.


the opposite worked for my lotus elise '99. i put a stiffer back and the car wasn't as oversteer prone as before.

what do you usually put for downforce? with my settings, i was trying to avoid excessive drag.
 
dudejo
afaik, only the shocks affect handling where a soft front induces oversteer.

springs and stabilizers have it where a stiff front induces oversteer.



what do you usually put for downforce? with my settings, i was trying to avoid excessive drag.
Well you clearly haven't read the threads I took all the time to post for you. It's irrelevant what your sources are, I'm talking about GT4 physics, and spring adjustment is my #1 was to control steering bias, you can check my history and see the reviews of my posted tunes for confirmation. I always max downforce, wing and chassis (ground effect), because I want maximum traction, although recently I am experementing with chassis angles that neglect downforce in favor of weight positioning.
 
rk
First and most glaring point, raising front spring tension in relation to rear almost ALWAYS induces understeer. To understand the concept, imagine the stiffer spring is tilting the cars weight onto the set of tires that are sprung more softly. The actual reason is more complex, but the illustration serves in simplicity. The only real reason raising front springs will make the car turn better would be because the overall suspension is so soft as to loose traction through bounce unweighting. In this scenario, more stiffly sprung turning wheels would probably grip better, hence the sensation of induced oversteer.
Secondly, ride height never affects tire wear unless the ride is so low the chassis is contacting the ground. On high powered cars (like the Minolta 88CV) the drive wheels will start to burn under reduced traction, this usually happens only at speeds above 180mph. You can see the evidence of this if you have your B-Spec driver drive the car on the Sarthe course with the long straight. When you set your view to the rear, you will see sparks trail away from the car. Those are representive of pieces of chassis, and if the simulation were complete, your car would be getting lighter.
Additionally, have you tested your theory about downforce? I have tuned approximately 200 GT4 cars, and although every one of them has been a learning experience, I have not found a single instance where lower downforce translated to reduced lap times, and the time lost skidding onto the grass can be maddening. That is not to say it isn't so, I just recommend you test.
Also, most tuners agree that the damper settings are relative to the car, which is to say bound 8 on a Aston Martin Vantage is much stiffer (or as Duke might put it "less inclined to move") than bound 8 on a Toyota Vitz, which is a much lighter car.
I could suggest your damper settings are too low, but, by all means, use what works for you.
In terms of LSD, I have seen in my own experience that the removal of LSD on the front of 4WD cars and FF cars actually increases turning radius, usually not a good thing. I will concede that these powertrains need little LSD, but to eliminate it entirely could hurt you.
Finally I recommend you read some of the technical related threads in this forum. Many tuners, engineers and race car mechanics have contributed to our store of knowlege and ideas. I will run a search and include links of those I think are most helpful. You should start with the stickied ones by //M-Spec, Greyout and Scaff. If you want to tune competetively, they are definately worth the time spent.


can u at least see where im coming from, does it make any sense because i feel that it would make sense. im no tuning pro, but help me understand and not flame me at the same time :nervous: , i scurred



djaft3rb3ats
 
yes, i did read the topic but no one seems to agree on anything but the fact that the physics engine is fubarred. i personally didn't find it very convincing for any side of the argument.

they also seem to agree on the fact that downforce doesn't produce noticeable drag...but then again most cars don't have the max angles from GT2 and GT3 for which i could notice drag.

and the settings i *did* find for FWD cars all had an understeer tendency which made them slower than my own settings. in fact, some half-baked settings that used the semi-racing suspension was the next best thing to mine.

i'm aware of the theory that a stiff front induces understeer but for some reason it just doesn't work that way with my car.

hell, i even tried a setting of 12/9 and it still didn't understeer even though the back is both stiffer than before and softer than the front...[edit]ok it understeered more than my softer setting but it was still much better than settings with a stiffer back.
 
ugh, i guess well have to tackle this with the help of the pros out there, to name a few, rk, duck, duke, swift, and many more.


please help us sort out this issue


djaft3rb3ats
 
i dont think so because theres more weight on the front tires and im guessing that more weight pushes the tires down more causing more grip, iono how to explain it or even if im correct, can we get rk up in here?


djaft3rb3ats
 
sure, go ahead.

seriously though, i don't know which game has it right.

GT2 has them understeering while GT4 has them oversteering.

if they want to represent car history properly they have to make up their minds

i really wonder why they never add the latest corvette in the latest GT versions.

GT2 didn't have the C5 (while weaker than the ZR-1 C4, it probably would have dominated both it and the grand sport with handling alone)

GT4 doesn't have the C6 (best corvette ever made as of 2005)

are they afraid of the in-game competition with Nissan's skyline?
 
good point. some cars u see in the game u just noe that PD messed it up or made it not as good to clear away from competition, u have to admin, they are a little biased to their cars or the cars they like, i would too, but thats my though on it, correct me if im wrong




djaft3rb3ats
 
then again, the SVT cobra mustangs are probably more evenly matched to a skyline than a corvette is.

i mean, both are in the same weight and overall power range.

except the mustang doesn't have turbo lag.
 
here's something i've been experimenting with.

springs 6.6/4.4

ride height 99/99

shocks front 4/2
shocks rear 4/3

camber 1.5/0.5

toe 0/-2

stabilizers 4/2

downforce 30/30 (i actually tried it and there's no loss of top speed...then again this isn't an extreme downforce angle to the extent of GT2/GT3)

what i'm mostly trying to verify is how beneficial the shock settings are to a FWD car

what gtvault says it does is kill the weight transfer which is supposedly beneficial in this situation.

so far it seems promising.
 
here's something on the hardcore side.

i souped it up all the way to 294 hp. it also has the rigidity upgrade, base tranny and got me 1:21.723 on midfield.

it's also running on S2 tires.

springs 6.6/4.4

ride height 99/104

shocks front 9/7
shocks rear 9/8

camber 2/0

toe 0/0

stabilizers 4/2

brakes 6/8

downforce 30/20

LSD (yep, got the hang of it :) )

initial 20
accel 40
decel 5

no tcs, asm or ballast.

i inspired myself on duck7892's EP type-r civic setup for the same track. i'm not sure how high the EP type-r can be tuned up to but i managed to match duck's claimed time for said car.

edit : since his stickied topic is closed, i'll give my suggestion here. duck, try setting the bound higher than the rebound when you mod FWD cars. i really noticed a difference when i did it myself.
 
you know what? screw the OP and his stupid setup. Here's how you REALLY make a fast car.

springs 3.4/2.3

ride height 100/130

Shocks Bound 2/4
Shocks Rebound 8/4

camber 1.8/1.8

toe 0/0

stabilizers 1/1

WING

downforce 30/30

LSD

initial 5
accel 25
decel 5


Seriously, what a chump
 
Last edited:
Back