Is Brake Bias Faked?

[Earth]

I've had this suspicion for a while that changing the brake bias makes your car understeer or overseer more even in turns that don't require brakes.

The GTR at Tokyo yesterday was a good example. In the race this guy seemed to have so much more grip then me in the corners and I was just plowing through them. Turns out my brake bias was -2. Switched it to +2 and the car suddenly was and felt much faster, but oddly enough even in turns that required me to just lift or feather the throttle I felt like much of the understeer was gone.

Anyone else notice this? Or is this some kind of placebo effect?

 

[stevenhiggster]

Not played around with it enough, I usually just set it to -2 and forget about it.

 

[syntex123]

I’ve noticed it.. to some extent. Never looked more into it though

 

[Randombeef]

Always set my brake balance to 5 on the rear for 4WD cars the only reason being when you brake it helps the car turn the corner due to the back end coming out more. Took these tips from a great racer on gts!

 

[BSDShoes]

Moving it to front makes for bizarre behavior, so I always move it to the rear, yet the front still locks up more often than the rear even at rear bias...

 

[FerrellJ]

I don't think it's faked but I also don't think the values mean much by themselves. In GT5 & 6, the 5/5 default split seemed to actually represent a 50/50 split which is ridiculous and only masked by the ABS.

In Sport, I think they've at least adjusted the default distribution to be more reasonable but the adjustment values don't mean much on their own. They're just for reference. If you turn ABS off, though, you can clearly tell the adjustment has a very real effect.

 

[AshenGraey]

I don't think the effect is faked as I've noticed the difference in the braking points, braking distance and front end behaviors (as in ease of turn in). I've noticed it helps a lot when you set it +5 on 4WD cars like the GTR in Gr3 or Hurracan in Gr4. I set it at -2 with the 911 and it drives like a completely different car than the stock settings. All in all, I'd say play around with it on the different type of cars and you will notice a big difference

 

[Marcus Garvey]

I wouldn't use the term faked, but yes the brake bias does and always has affected the car balance even when the brakes aren't applied. See also; ABS.

 

[eran0004]

I don't think it's faked but I also don't think the values mean much by themselves. In GT5 & 6, the 5/5 default split seemed to actually represent a 50/50 split which is ridiculous and only masked by the ABS.

In GT5 it did. In GT6 it didn't.

 

[Ghoa$t]

I've noticed it too. Though adjusting the bb gives somewhat of the desired effect if you know what you want the car to do in the corners, it seems like it also affects the car's turning when not under braking.

There are all sorts of wonky things going on with GT physics at any given time, and it seems no matter the hardware, this will remain true.

 

[Griffith500]

The bias does work as expected with ABS off, but it's different per car: some need lots of rear bias to avoid excessive ploughing, some need it a smidgen forward. I've not noticed much difference with ABS on, but I can believe it makes a small difference with the changes PD have made to the ABS' operation and settings.

I can't begin to imagine what it does with the brakes themselves entirely off, though, and I honestly can't say I've noticed it. Might have to look into it.

The adjustment itself is still not fine-grained enough, I find that the ideal setting (when braking...) is usually somewhere between two of the numbers. Just show the percentage bias, PD, we're not afraid.

 

[Aphelion]

The adjustment itself is still not fine-grained enough, I find that the ideal setting (when braking...) is usually somewhere between two of the numbers. Just show the percentage bias, PD, we're not afraid.

I think the problem with that is making adjustments to the brake bias on the fly would be way more fiddly and annoying if there was 100 points of difference instead of 10.

 

[Griffith500]

I think the problem with that is making adjustments to the brake bias on the fly would be way more fiddly and annoying if there was 100 points of difference instead of 10.

But you will never need to move it 100 points, because brake biases are never set that wide, except with things like line locks or stunt work - 65-55% is a useful ten-point range, for instance. The way it's currently set up, it varies per car, and goes far more forward than 65% and more rearward usually, as well. So, at the moment, the useful range is something like 5 points but it covers way more than 5 percentage points of actual bias, and really illustrates the issue.

In reality it only really affects non-ABS drivers (claims that it affects handling elsewhere notwithstanding), since the ABS covers up most of the bias' effect. So your typical non-ABS driver will drive the car with the stock bias for probably zero distance, having already set a bias in the tuning menu that they expect will be closer to ideal for track work. It was mad in Shuffle racing, trying to find a balance on the fly and guessing before the first corner!

From there they will probably tweak it a point or two at a time, corner by corner, lap by lap until they get it where it needs to be. Some drivers will continue to tweak the bias back-and-forth during a lap for each corner in turn.

For me the adjustment is so coarse that I would only do it for a hairpin here or there - having a finer adjustment opens up the possibility to better tune per corner for those that like that sort of thing. I'm much more set and forget, generally.

 

[Ian Fairbanks]

You can onk

Moving it to front makes for bizarre behavior, so I always move it to the rear, yet the front still locks up more often than the rear even at rear bias...

you can only ask the front tires to do two things. So brake, accelerate, and turn. Pick two.

 

[Famine]

you can only ask the front tires to do two things. So brake, accelerate, and turn. Pick two.

I pick brake and accelerate.

 

[polizei]

I've noticed it too. Though adjusting the bb gives somewhat of the desired effect if you know what you want the car to do in the corners, it seems like it also affects the car's turning when not under braking.

There are all sorts of wonky things going on with GT physics at any given time, and it seems no matter the hardware, this will remain true.

I wish they would be more transparent with what is going on. I believe this game is simpler than others, but it's tough to tell because there are some very odd things going on at times.

 

[BLACKNESS78]

Just used +1 rear brake bias last night for the first time - such a big difference turning the car into corners! Made me quicker immediately. Can’t believe I hadn’t used it till now.

 

[Griffith500]

I tried changing the brake bias, with ABS set to Standard and then Off, and it made no discernible difference to feel or lap times at Northern Isle (the half mile oval) in a standard Group N Mustang in either case.

This with the DS4. I started at setting 0, then tried -5, back to 0 then +5. I never touched the brakes.

 

[Tecticles]

I've had this suspicion for a while that changing the brake bias makes your car understeer or overseer more even in turns that don't require brakes.

The GTR at Tokyo yesterday was a good example. In the race this guy seemed to have so much more grip then me in the corners and I was just plowing through them. Turns out my brake bias was -2. Switched it to +2 and the car suddenly was and felt much faster, but oddly enough even in turns that required me to just lift or feather the throttle I felt like much of the understeer was gone.

Anyone else notice this? Or is this some kind of placebo effect?

I have thought I felt that to be the case and just dismissed it as my mind playing tricks on me.

 

[Ian Fairbanks]

I pick brake and accelerate.

I kid you not, there is a reason to actually do that. Staying lightly on throttle and braking towards the end of a long straight will stabilize a loose car at speed.
So if you are in a powerful vehicle without much aero, do that.

Also, I should clarify on my comment that in a fwd you can, theoretically, left foot brake. Which would mean you are braking, accelerating (kind of), and turning at the same time.

 

[Griffith500]

I kid you not, there is a reason to actually do that. Staying lightly on throttle and braking towards the end of a long straight will stabilize a loose car at speed.
So if you are in a powerful vehicle without much aero, do that.

Also, I should clarify on my comment that in a fwd you can, theoretically, left foot brake. Which would mean you are braking, accelerating (kind of), and turning at the same time.

Yeah, it can adjust the brake bias proportionally to your throttle input on FWD and 4WD cars, it also has the effect of putting the LSD(s) into accel instead of decel, if that matters.

Bikers do it, too, because of the effect of the final drive stiffening the rear suspension, effectively shifting the weight distribution slightly and changing the steering geometry - stability and front-end feel mid-corner are the goals.

 

[Tou2istTrophy]

Is there any difference at all in straight line speed (assuming traction is not an issue) between -5, 0, or 5? I saw one of the fastest drivers do this on a long straight (either -5, or 5 can't remember).

 

[JulesDennis]

Is there any difference at all in straight line speed (assuming traction is not an issue) between -5, 0, or 5? I saw one of the fastest drivers do this on a long straight (either -5, or 5 can't remember).

It should not.
Brake bias do not effect in anyway anything other than:
a.Car balance under braking
b.Tire wear and stability.

Front Bias:In correct %,that would increace the car's stability under braking and also create more indersteer in corner entries.Too much front bias,would compromise the overall braking effeciansy and also cause more tire wear.
More rear Bias:In correct % again would increace the car's stability under braking and also make the car oversteer in corner entry.Too much and the car will become unstabe and hard to control due to the rear tires locking up.
So if the bias % is at the right amount it should make the braking into corners more stable and either make the car understeer (more front bias) or oversteer (more rear bias).In theory the perfect bias -max performance- would happen when both front and reat tires are at max performance aka both front and rear brakes lock up at the same time.
In practice that could cause a "slow" spin.In case of more rear bias -locking more the rear tires- the car will get into a more rapid spin.Since we dont want either front or rear (only) lockups that could cause either a sudden rear lockup and a spin or a front lockup and bad entry (push) we try to balance the bias.Always a more "front bias" is prefered because of the stability under braking.
Now in game,I dont find it that brake bias is 100% accurate but it does have an effect mainly to the understeer/oversteer effect.And thats why (depending the car) people in GTS either use +/- 5 in their settings.

 

[ThionER]

Wow many it does effect the car even when no brakes are applied what so ever. It would not surprise me. I've had the same suspicion but i haven't tested it enough.

 

[Sander 001]

I've noticed this too. Especially with FF cars it reduces understeer a lot, even when you're not braking!

 

[11Parsecs]

I kid you not, there is a reason to actually do that. Staying lightly on throttle and braking towards the end of a long straight will stabilize a loose car at speed.

I think the aliens on two wheels do this as well, the two together, to help 'back it in' to fast corners. I'm 3 years late getting my hands on GTS, plz forgive ancient thread resurrections.

 

[BloodRaven]

I kid you not, there is a reason to actually do that. Staying lightly on throttle and braking towards the end of a long straight will stabilize a loose car at speed.
So if you are in a powerful vehicle without much aero, do that.

Also, I should clarify on my comment that in a fwd you can, theoretically, left foot brake. Which would mean you are braking, accelerating (kind of), and turning at the same time.

Watched a video by Kie, earlier, and he was talking about that exact thing while commenting on one of his races at Bathurst. He said it helps to keep the car more stable during the downhill section while you're trying to take those turns at as high a speed as possible.

 

[bread82]

I have never noticed a non-braking effect.... but I've never looked for it! This is interesting.

I drive ABS off, and find under braking the balance adjustments work as expected.

However, when tuning some race cars (different drivetrains, racing tyres) for recent time trial events, I found that a rearward brake balance could give horrific brake release oversteer. As in brake = OK, trail brake = OK with a little rotation, finish trail braking and release pedal = almost spin. This was done without wheel lockup (no red tyres or smoke).

One thing I would say is that tuning handling for, say, mid corner, is heavily influenced by corner entry tuning (which could include brake balance). Whatever you are trying to tune is affected by the previous phase, because that is what sets you up for the current corner phase. For a car which understeers, I have been able to stop using a stiffer rear ARB (to generate mid corner oversteer) when I used a rear brake balance (corner entry oversteer), simply because my car was turned in nicely and was continuing to slide a little bit. The car behaviour was different but also my line was different so the whole corner geometry was changed a little.

Suzuka East "esses" might be a good place to test non-braking effects. Often those consecutive corners are taken at part-throttle, no brakes for the whole section.