How to handle MR and RR Cars?

[Turbotwin01]

I am having a serious pain trying to handle cars like the deltawing and the BTR, which have MR and RR layouts. I try and give the car some throttle to prevent oversteer but it doesn't really help as I just end up spinning out anyway. I use a ds3. Any tips are appreciated.

 

[suv139]

For MR cars https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/how-do-you-use-fr-and-mr-cars-correctly.295263/

 

[550]

I allways say that skills is something that you get only with pratice. You can't just read "how to drive" and learn from there. Keep praticing!

 

[Ice0l8ed]

The btr is my favorite car just because it's hard to drive. I like to drive it stock, but however you tune it, it will always be a handful (as it is known for in real life). All I can say is get it around the track once without spinning, then you've figured something out. Sport hards are what I usually run (rarely cs) but if you can figure it out with sh tires you can drive it with anything. This probably wasn't that helpful but it's something lol.

 

[550]

btr is my favorite car just because it's hard to drive.

Then try the Yellow Bird. It's a step up.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Brake only in a straight line, do NOT lift throttle abruptly mid-corner, try to keep VERY LIGHTLY on the throttle through the corner, and then roll onto the throttle gently as you unwind the steering on corner exit.

It is very important with these cars to avoid entering corners too fast. With FF and even many FR cars you can bleed off a little excess corner entry speed by cranking the wheel hard and forcing some understeer. That's not possible with MR or RR cars because of where the mass is so it's imperative that you get all the braking done before the corner with these cars.

Once you're used to that and can drive it cleanly, then you can start experimenting and seeing which cars will tolerate a small bit of braking at corner entry and which don't. None will ever let you just jump off the throttle suddenly mid corner like you can do with most FR and all FF cars though.

 

[ironman44321]

I just finished by Beetle ('66) tune...Zenmervolt is dead on though. Just keep it clean and steady and you'll be ok.


P.S. When trying to tune a RR car without a ballast, prepare for pain and suffering.

 

[tazmanuk]

I use a DS3. Practice is the key, as with anything.
I find lowering the LSD for acceleration and deceleration to minimum, 5 and 5 helps a bit. You can then increase it as you become more use to the effect.

Hope this helps.

 

[ukmadmax]

I can handle a few MR cars, MG, Vauxhall Turbo, Ferrari Dino, but for the life of me I can't control a Lotus.
I also don't use them much in online racing as I'm fine on an empty track, but if I can't get my usual line, or get a slight nudge I'm off the track.

 

[Ice0l8ed]

Then try the Yellow Bird. It's a step up.

You know I actually meant the yellow bird. I mix them up all the time

 

[Johnnypenso]

Brake only in a straight line, do NOT lift throttle abruptly mid-corner, try to keep VERY LIGHTLY on the throttle through the corner, and then roll onto the throttle gently as you unwind the steering on corner exit.

These are the most important things to remember IMO when driving the MR's and RR's. Each track and each corner also accentuates what happens with the car a little differently. Some corners make the car oversteer a bit more and you have to be wary of that as well and compensate accordingly. I'd suggest starting with some of the milder MR's like the NSX and working your way up to the RGT, BTR and Yellowbird. Principles are the same, they are just less intense with the NSX, Elise etc.

 

[chunder27]

It has nothing to do with skills OP

The mid engined cars in GT6 are utterly flawed, I ahve played every version of this game, and for some reason in this cversion they have made the MR cars utterly twitchy, maybe because they had a clear advantage in terms of handling on the older games.

Dont worry, just use something not MR, you will get on much better as they suck totally for normal players.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

It has nothing to do with skills OP

The mid engined cars in GT6 are utterly flawed, I ahve played every version of this game, and for some reason in this cversion they have made the MR cars utterly twitchy, maybe because they had a clear advantage in terms of handling on the older games.

Dont worry, just use something not MR, you will get on much better as they suck totally for normal players.

Can't disagree with you more. The 'give up if you can't do it' mentality is no good either. That's not solving a problem or gaining experience at all.

 

[ukmadmax]

It has nothing to do with skills OP

The mid engined cars in GT6 are utterly flawed, I ahve played every version of this game, and for some reason in this cversion they have made the MR cars utterly twitchy, maybe because they had a clear advantage in terms of handling on the older games.

Dont worry, just use something not MR, you will get on much better as they suck totally for normal players.

You're certainly right about them handling wildly in GT6 compared to GT5.
As I said above I can't get to grips at all with the Lotus in GT6 and have actually sold it, but in GT5 I had an Elise and didn't have too much trouble using it.

 

[super_gt]

It has nothing to do with skills OP

The mid engined cars in GT6 are utterly flawed, I ahve played every version of this game, and for some reason in this cversion they have made the MR cars utterly twitchy, maybe because they had a clear advantage in terms of handling on the older games.

Dont worry, just use something not MR, you will get on much better as they suck totally for normal players.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

^^^ Thank you.

A difficult to drive car does not mean the game is broken, the game has many flaws, but this is not something that pops up to me, the cars handle how I would expect a car with most of it's weight over the rear axle to handle. You can see and hear in the Ferrari video that he is being gentle with his pedal inputs and still the car wants to over rotate.

If you are having problems, it's that style of driving that you need to adapt to, gradual inputs with the throttle and brake, and always try and have a small amount of throttle throughout a corner to balance the car.

Also in that Xbow video, perhaps the AI in Gran Turismo is realistic after all

 

[550]

You know I actually meant the yellow bird. I mix them up all the time
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/attachments/image-jpg.153372/

This one is the BTR but both are awesome. YellowBird is powerfull but I feel the BTR better balanced for cornering.

 

[Ice0l8ed]

This one is the BTR but both are awesome. YellowBird is powerfull but I feel the BTR better balanced for cornering. [/quote

Again I **** them up all the time

 

[550]

Again I 🤬 them up all the time

 

[Zenmervolt]

The mid engined cars in GT6 are utterly flawed, I have played every version of this game, and for some reason in this version they have made the MR cars utterly twitchy, maybe because they had a clear advantage in terms of handling on the older games.

If by "utterly flawed" you mean "vastly more realistic" then yes.

MR cars have always been notorious for snap-oversteer because they have all their mass centered in the car (this is NOT the same as having 50/50 weight distribution). Imagine a single large ball at the center of a long stick (MR car) as opposed to two balls at each end of a long stick, like a barbell (FR car). Both have 50/50 weight distribution, but the first has all its mass centered while the second has its mass pushed out to the ends.

This centralized mass means that MR cars have very low polar moments of inertia. The benefit of this is that it makes the cars more willing to change direction. The drawback is that this makes the car VERY sensitive to throttle inputs and weight transfer and therefore MUCH more prone to sudden spins at the limit.

People assume that because supercars and race cars are generally MR that this layout must be "better" and that the "betterness" must mean more benign handling. This is simply not true. While the ability to change direction more quickly does improve the maximum potential for the car's handling, it also makes the car much more tricky at the limit. Since most people don't drive at the limit, they don't realize that a car that is benign at 8/10ths can be a widow-maker at 10/10ths.

There is a reason that early first-generation NSXs were known for snap-spins (Honda made changes to the suspension and to alignment specs to ameliorate this in later models). There's a reason why the Lotus Elise is widely known for snap-spins. There's a reason why Toyota hastily modified the W20 MR2's rear suspension for the 1993 model year to reduce the snap-spin tendency for which the '91 and '92 models were widely known. For all of these cars, the reason is the same: Many drivers do not know how to handle the quirks of MR cars at the limit.

In GT5, MR cars simply did not behave as they do at the limit in real life. GT6 does a vastly better job; it's not perfect, but it's worlds more accurate than GT5 was.

 

[Sarkazmo]

With the Deltawing your driving camera really affects how this one appears to be handling. If you use the nose cam you'll get a totally different experience than if you use the cockpit or other views because with the nose cam it's like the camera is on the end of a pendulum.

In my experience Zenmervolt has the right of this. Brake in a straight line, setting up for the turn earlier than you would with other layouts, then powering through the turn without drastic changes in throttle and brake. Using both the brake and throttle at the same time helps transitioning between throttle to brake and brake to throttle as well.

MR and RR cars are finesse layouts typically because of where the mass of the vehicle is located. These are not cars one can just pitch into a turn and hope for the best. One can get amazing times with these layouts but it takes a lot more work and you have to be more precise with your inputs to get the most out of them.

Sark

 

[Ice0l8ed]

I've always thought the Yb was easier to drive than the btr. The Yb is faster but a but more stable.

 

[20832]

Slow in, fast out. You want to treat these cars (especially the RUF's) with respect and really show patience with the throttle, but that also applies for powerful FR cars.
What I usually like to do is to "test" if the car can handle the full power, and I feel it just losing a little bit of grip I back off immediatly, and after some time you will definitely get an idea of when the car can handle full throttle and when not, so there's a learning curve.

Another thing that seemed to help me a little bit is to soften up the rear, so even if the back steps out, that gives you a little more control over the slide, at least from my experience.

 

[TexRex]

If by "utterly flawed" you mean "vastly more realistic" then yes.

MR cars have always been notorious for snap-oversteer because they have all their mass centered in the car (this is NOT the same as having 50/50 weight distribution). Imagine a single large ball at the center of a long stick (MR car) as opposed to two balls at each end of a long stick, like a barbell (FR car). Both have 50/50 weight distribution, but the first has all its mass centered while the second has its mass pushed out to the ends.

This centralized mass means that MR cars have very low polar moments of inertia. The benefit of this is that it makes the cars more willing to change direction. The drawback is that this makes the car VERY sensitive to throttle inputs and weight transfer and therefore MUCH more prone to sudden spins at the limit.

People assume that because supercars and race cars are generally MR that this layout must be "better" and that the "betterness" must mean more benign handling. This is simply not true. While the ability to change direction more quickly does improve the maximum potential for the car's handling, it also makes the car much more tricky at the limit. Since most people don't drive at the limit, they don't realize that a car that is benign at 8/10ths can be a widow-maker at 10/10ths.

There is a reason that early first-generation NSXs were known for snap-spins (Honda made changes to the suspension and to alignment specs to ameliorate this in later models). There's a reason why the Lotus Elise is widely known for snap-spins. There's a reason why Toyota hastily modified the W20 MR2's rear suspension for the 1993 model year to reduce the snap-spin tendency for which the '91 and '92 models were widely known. For all of these cars, the reason is the same: Many drivers do not know how to handle the quirks of MR cars at the limit.

In GT5, MR cars simply did not behave as they do at the limit in real life. GT6 does a vastly better job; it's not perfect, but it's worlds more accurate than GT5 was.

Fantastic post; I particularly liked the ball/stick analogy and the real-world examples.
Frankly, the drivetrain of supercars isn't what I pinpoint as their "super" characteristic solely for its placement of mass, but instead the reduced frontal area made possible by relocating the engine. Reduced frontal area allows for a lower coefficient of drag and that lower coefficient of drag drastically increases the possible vmax with the given powertrain. Add in the typically spectacular nature of said powertrain and you've got the makings of a supercar.

 

[DaBomm4]

MR and RR cars are finesse layouts typically because of where the mass of the vehicle is located. These are not cars one can just pitch into a turn and hope for the best. One can get amazing times with these layouts but it takes a lot more work and you have to be more precise with your inputs to get the most out of them.

Sark

So, if someone wanted to improve their driving capabilities, it would be better to try and use an MR or RR car for practicing compared to just FR cars?

 

[Sarkazmo]

So, if someone wanted to improve their driving capabilities, it would be better to try and use an MR or RR car for practicing compared to just FR cars?

MR are far more common than RR but they both require one to use proper driving technique to get the most out of them. If you apply what you learn from driving MR and RR cars while driving FR cars then you turn much more consistent times lap after lap. There are going to be combinations of car and track when you really have to flog the car and break somewhat from proper technique to get the fastest lap times but for the most part using proper technique will see you turn the best times.

If you take the advice mentioned by multiple people above where you brake and set up for the turn so that end up powering through and accelerating from the apex out, unwinding the turn, you'll end up with faster lap times than when braking wrecklessly late, oversteeriing to apex. More time is gained from powering through and out than braking late and fighting the car and track and this shows especially when there's a long straight after that turn as you'll hit the braking point for the next turn at a higher rate of speed.

Look, I'm no alien/robot, I don't claim to be an awesome driver, and I don't set the fastest times in TT's though I try my best, but I've improved significantly by forcing myself to use proper technique. When I'm stressed and push hard into the braking zones I start losing time and making more mistakes. I just keep practicing and the more I practice tried and true driving technique the more I lose the old, bad habits and adopt new, better habits and the faster I become no matter the car.

Sark

 

[Zenmervolt]

Fantastic post; I particularly liked the ball/stick analogy and the real-world examples.
Frankly, the drivetrain of supercars isn't what I pinpoint as their "super" characteristic solely for its placement of mass, but instead the reduced frontal area made possible by relocating the engine. Reduced frontal area allows for a lower coefficient of drag and that lower coefficient of drag drastically increases the possible vmax with the given powertrain. Add in the typically spectacular nature of said powertrain and you've got the makings of a supercar.

Thanks.

Just wanted to clarify a few things about drag though...

A mid-engine design doesn't actually inherently reduce a car's frontal area. There's no reason why a front-engine car would have to have greater frontal area than a mid-engine car. An AW10 MR2, for example, has more frontal area than a CRX-Si.

People have a misconception that "frontal area" only refers to the leading edge of the very front of a car, but that's not true. For example, on an F1 car the rear wing (and rear tires) contribute to the car's overall frontal area. Imagine someone taking a life-size photograph of a car from perfectly, dead-on straight ahead, cutting out the car from the photo, and sticking that cut-out onto an identically sized bit of cardboard (like those cardboard cut-out movie star things they have at movie theaters sometimes). The total area of that piece of cardboard is the car's frontal area. It includes the windshield, wing mirrors, fender flares, etc.

Also, frontal area does not change a car's drag coefficient. An object's total drag is a product of its drag coefficient multiplied by the frontal area. A drag coefficient only tells you about the relative efficiency of a shape, not the total drag. For example, a Dodge Durango (SUV) and a Ford Fusion both have the same drag coefficient (0.33) but the Fusion still has less total drag due to a smaller frontal area.

An interesting note is that the drag coefficient remains constant as a shape is scaled up or down. If you shrunk a car down to HotWheels size, it would still have the exact same drag coefficient as its "life size" equivalent. However, total drag would be much less because the HotWheels size car would have maybe one square inch of frontal area while the "life size" car would have several square feet (1 square foot = 144 square inches) of frontal area.

The biggest benefit of the mid-engine design is the centralization of mass; by making the car "twitchier" it makes it faster in the hands of a professional and can help with keeping good steering feel. This sacrifices some safety at the limit but the reality is that street cars are never driven at the limit (OK, technically some are, I'm sure, but those instances usually show up on the news as high-speed car chases). Even people doing crazy things on the street like the Cannonball Run or the guy who set the cross-country speed record weren't running at the limits of the car.

 

[TexRex]

Thanks.

A mid-engine design doesn't actually inherently reduce a car's frontal area.

No argument there whatsoever, I was stating (or maybe just thinking, if it didn't come out in what I said) that the packaging constraints of front-engined cars generally lend to a larger frontal area as well as its overall frontal shape and not having it there may allow for more optimal flow of air over the car's body. Take the Koenigsegg--if the car had been designed from the start with the engine located at the front, doesn't it stand to reason that its drag coefficient may well be higher due in part to that fact?
Thanks for clearing up the drag coefficient versus frontal area issue for me, though. I'm not as versed in the subject as I'd like to be and I often use the terms interchangeably, and that fact alone may be cause enough to disregard my views on the subject entirely.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Take the Koenigsegg--if the car had been designed from the start with the engine located at the front, doesn't it stand to reason that its drag coefficient may well be higher due in part to that fact?

Not really.

Which of these two cars do you think has the lower drag coefficient:

The answer is the first one. The older Legend sedan had a drag coefficient of 0.32. The newer one below it had a drag coefficient of 0.34. But the newer car sure looks like it would have less drag, doesn't it.

Interestingly, both of those cars have lower drag coefficients than the Koenigsegg Agera, which has a drag coefficient of 0.35. That's also a higher drag coefficient than my Volvo S70 (0.32).

The biggest determinant of frontal area is the passenger compartment; no matter how low you make the cowl, there still needs to be a windshield and generally that's what limits the overall height and width of a car. The engine placement has only very minor effects on that. Given the general tendency of mid-engine cars to be wider (due to air intake scoops on the sides to feed the engine and its radiators), the layout may actually slightly increase frontal area.

The most efficient shapes from an aerodynamic standpoint tend to be like raindrops. Blunt leading edges with a long tapering rear. That's why cars like the Prius have that distinctive tapering rear and rather pug-nosed front-end.

 

[TexRex]

Well there ya go. And just because I have the need to say something that I know is correct:

Your knowledge on the subject [more than slightly] exceeds mine, so I thank you for the insights and apologize to anyone and everyone for dragging the conversation so far from the original topic.