Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[Stotty]

So, with the same camber, you will need CS to match the real lap on the HKS evo X Will the lap be similar to the real lap video ? Shift points, braking, exit throttle, speed ?

It will be amazing if there can be 2 lap in GT6 with SM and CS yielding same lap time and they look identical

Not 100% sure; on SM with camber, the time difference was c.1.8s, and I don't think changing to SH would shed that much time... maybe moving to SH and no ABS might (depends how rubbish I am with no ABS ).

With no camber and ABS 1 I'd have to lose c.2.7s, and I think I'd need to move to CM to lose that amount of time.

But the lap should hopefully still look similar to the original... if you are matching the real time and I am quicker than you, that means I am braking later, carrying more mid corner speed and getting on the throttle earlier (one or all of those). If I use less grippy tyres, all those gains will be reduced. Hopefully reducing the tyre grade gives a consistent change across the different parameters that determine the lap time... but one thing I am confident of is given how much understeer the car had on SM, it will feel pretty terrible to drive on a lesser tyre

I'll give it a go tonight if i get out of work at a decent time 👍

 

[F1Racer68]

This thought has been brought up very early in the GT6 days already. I believed it prior to the 1.09 update, but not anymore.

One thing I am wondering is if people are taking into account the new physics model? I get the feeling that many are comparing to how camber worked in GT5 and are expecting to use the same or similar numbers in GT6. That would be a mistake right off the bat since GT6 now includes tire sidewall flex, which GT5 never had.

Camber is supposed to work in the game the same as it does in real life, I don't dispute that and am not arguing that. This does not mean however that the numbers used will work the same. My findings and personal impressions are that when comparing to GT5, I am using numbers that are roughly half of what I used in GT5.

For example, in GT5 my basic starting point was always around 2.4 front and 2.0 rear. I find I am now ending up somewhere around 1.2 front and 0.8 rear for most cars (give or take a few decimals).

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, as I found early on that the same was true for spring rates. I found out very quickly that GT6 used different spring rates from what I would have used on the same car in GT5. My cars in GT6 felt better on "softer" spring settings, meaning lower numbers than what I had in GT5.

I think the first thing everyone needs to do is essentially forget about GT5 and look at this as a completely different game. I wouldn't expect a setup from GTR2 to feel exactly the same on the same car in Project Cars, so why should we expect it when moving from GT5 to GT6? One of the main pieces of promotional material from PD about GT6 was the "All new physics model".

I am not claiming to be right, and I am not claiming that anything is proven. More data and more testing will confirm or refute any and all theories. I am only stating that based on my personal findings ( as posted yesterday) and very subjective "feel" of the cars, I am starting to believe that camber does work as it should. I think what we are now dealing with is more an issue of expectations and preconceptions.

Purely one man's opinion......

I posted the above as a reply in the Camber Expriment thread in the tuning forum. I thought I would ask the same question here.

I am in complete agreement that camber does not work as I would expect it to, but I do believe it works as a result of my recent tests and results. I am not using the numbers I would expect, but I am seeing the results I would expect to see.

My current working theory is that because of the introduction of the sidewall flex, the "normal" camber numbers are causing an over-deformation of the tires resulting in an overloaded tire causing reduced grip. Lower numbers seem to work as camber should, but there seems to be a fine line between positive and negative results. It is very easy to go over that limit.

Once again, only an opinion based on my recent tests. I am by no means saying it is a fact, and I am open to discussion and to being proven wrong. I'm just hoping to contribute some input that helps guide us to a formal conclusion.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I posted the above as a reply in the Camber Expriment thread in the tuning forum. I thought I would ask the same question here.

I am in complete agreement that camber does not work as I would expect it to, but I do believe it works as a result of my recent tests and results. I am not using the numbers I would expect, but I am seeing the results I would expect to see.

My current working theory is that because of the introduction of the sidewall flex, the "normal" camber numbers are causing an over-deformation of the tires resulting in an overloaded tire causing reduced grip. Lower numbers seem to work as camber should, but there seems to be a fine line between positive and negative results. It is very easy to go over that limit.

Once again, only an opinion based on my recent tests. I am by no means saying it is a fact, and I am open to discussion and to being proven wrong. I'm just hoping to contribute some input that helps guide us to a formal conclusion.

That is the very same thing I said way back when the "camber update" was released. Glad to see someone else finally figuring this out. 👍

 

[Voodoovaj]

I also gave a quick run on the evo, and had similar results.

Stock(BB 4/4 and AYC 88)

2.2 - 1.2 - 58.6xx
1.8 - 0.8 - 58.3xx
0.0 - 0.0 - 58.066

I still have to run the complete test and lower levels of camber to see if i have any gain.

@Stotty , if you have the time, can you please try this test online, and see if you find it better with 0.6 or not. Just give a few laps, she is fun to drive.

I've stated this many, many times, but it seems like it needs to be stated again. Anything over 1.0 camber will lose grip. So, in the cases stated above (2.2/1.2, 1.8/0.8) both of these setups SHOULD be slower than 0/0.

Try starting at 0.5/0.5 and slowly increasing toward 1.0. IF there is a gain to be found in camber, I am very confident that this is where it will be found.

This is the range I work in and where I have found lap time gains on every car I have tested. It's either complete coincidence OR it's the range that people are actually looking for. I've spent the entire year working on my wizard. I've got nearly 100,000 km of driving in the game. I'd hate to think that my findings are completely delusional.

Why would this be the case? Well, KAZ is an artist first and foremost, not a game designer or an engineer. GT is about the visual prowess...it always has been. MANY of the cars should have camber to make them match their real world counterparts VISUALLY, but if camber worked as many would wish it to, those cars would not drive similar to their real world counterparts. This is why some cars have the camber adjustment locked out (it preserves the driving experience)

 

[Stotty]

@Ridox2JZGTE

More times for the Evo..

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 1 + Brakes 5,7 + camber 0,0 + SH Tyres : 57.875
Exactly 1s slower than with SM! Easy to drive, just less grip.

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 1 + Brakes 5,7 + camber 0,0 + CS Tyres : 59.746
Surprised the lap time dropped as much as 2s, but car loses so much on the exits as there's a lot less grip and you have to wait much longer to get on the gas... and when you do it lights the front tyres up. I think I could match the real time with this, but would need more laps, and to be honest, it's not very nice to drive.

Next 2 are with camber back at 2.3/1.3...

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 0 + Brakes 3, 1 + SM Tyres : 58.102
Took me a good amount of time to even start to get used to ABS 0 an still losing 0.6 to ABS 1 Braking is completely rubbish with no ABS - shame neither ABS 1 or ABS 0 are anything like realistic

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 0 + Brakes 3, 1 + SH Tyres : 59.282
Slightly bigger loss vs SM than the zero camber with ABS 1 difference, but harder to get the braking right with less grip

Couple of replays...

1. Zero camber SM lap 56.875 (from yesterday)
2. Zero camber CS lap 59.746 (sorry, forgot to save best lap, so this is lap 5 within the replay)

If there's a specific combination you want on a replay just let me know and I'll re-run it 👍

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I've stated this many, many times, but it seems like it needs to be stated again. Anything over 1.0 camber will lose grip. So, in the cases stated above (2.2/1.2, 1.8/0.8) both of these setups SHOULD be slower than 0/0.

Try starting at 0.5/0.5 and slowly increasing toward 1.0. IF there is a gain to be found in camber, I am very confident that this is where it will be found.

This is the range I work in and where I have found lap time gains on every car I have tested. It's either complete coincidence OR it's the range that people are actually looking for. I've spent the entire year working on my wizard. I've got nearly 100,000 km of driving in the game. I'd hate to think that my findings are completely delusional.

Why would this be the case? Well, KAZ is an artist first and foremost, not a game designer or an engineer. GT is about the visual prowess...it always has been. MANY of the cars should have camber to make them match their real world counterparts VISUALLY, but if camber worked as many would wish it to, those cars would not drive similar to their real world counterparts. This is why some cars have the camber adjustment locked out (it preserves the driving experience)

If I could like your post 1,000 times, I would. 👍 Absolutely spot on. Again, great to see someone else coming to the same conclusions I have through their independent testing. 👍 Also, I commend you on all your work and your dedication to testing, well done.

 

[LeoStrop]

I've stated this many, many times, but it seems like it needs to be stated again. Anything over 1.0 camber will lose grip. So, in the cases stated above (2.2/1.2, 1.8/0.8) both of these setups SHOULD be slower than 0/0.

Try starting at 0.5/0.5 and slowly increasing toward 1.0. IF there is a gain to be found in camber, I am very confident that this is where it will be found.

This is the range I work in and where I have found lap time gains on every car I have tested. It's either complete coincidence OR it's the range that people are actually looking for. I've spent the entire year working on my wizard. I've got nearly 100,000 km of driving in the game. I'd hate to think that my findings are completely delusional.

Why would this be the case? Well, KAZ is an artist first and foremost, not a game designer or an engineer. GT is about the visual prowess...it always has been. MANY of the cars should have camber to make them match their real world counterparts VISUALLY, but if camber worked as many would wish it to, those cars would not drive similar to their real world counterparts. This is why some cars have the camber adjustment locked out (it preserves the driving experience)

Thanks, but i already know that. This test was done only because Ridox ask me to do it, it is his HKS Replica car, so these values are only for realistic purposes. And yes, i will try it again with lower levels , like i stated in the post.

If you look at my test with the Subaru, you will notice that i stopped having gain at exactly 1.0.👍

 

[nickg07]

My personal (bad) tunes are always faster with and more consistent using like 0.2-1.0 degrees of camber .

 

[Imari]

So basically, camber still doesn't work anything like reality, but the way it's not working like reality now is different the the way it used to not work like reality.

Sometimes this game does my head in.

 

[Mr P510]

Well...if camber is still not correct PD should give us "vanity" settings.
2.5-3.0 Degrees of negative looks cool on certain cars.

Disclaimer This post is with a small degree of tongue in cheek..

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

So basically, camber still doesn't work anything like reality, but the way it's not working like reality now is different the the way it used to not work like reality.

Sometimes this game does my head in.

Yeaaa, something like that. The best way I can explain it from my point of view is this way: It doesn't work in the game 100% of the way that it does in real life (for that reason I guess you could say it is broken), but the basic principle is the same. Also, less is more. It can however be used in the game to help create a better handling car, thus making for slightly better lap times. (for this reason, you could say it works) Camber, again in my opinion and from everything I have seen from my testing, is not detrimental to lap times unless you use too much of it, then your lap times will begin to suffer. My range of camber that I use on my tunes is between .3 - 1.0, maybe even 1.3 in a few cases but definitely nothing higher as far as I'm concerned. From everything I have seen from my testing, camber is a very precise adjustment. Meaning, adjust in small increments, I do 2 clicks at a time, otherwise you may totally miss the sweet spot. And yes, in my opinion again, every car that I have tuned has a camber "sweet spot." I actually believe all suspension settings have a sweet spot, or optimal setting, if you will. Anyways, just my beliefs and opinions....certainly don't expect the masses to believe any of it. Look at what you've done now Imari, you got me rambling on about something I said I was going to stay out of , good job. I'd better leave now as I can feel my blood pressure start to rise. Nice chatting with you.

 

[Imari]

The best way I can explain it from my point of view is this way: It doesn't work in the game 100% of the way that it does in real life (for that reason I guess you could say it is broken), but the basic principle is the same. Also, less is more. It can however be used in the game to help create a better handling car, thus making for slightly better lap times. (for this reason, you could say it works).

Short version: it does something that is sometimes useful, but it doesn't do what camber does.

Out of interest, do you think that the adjustment that you make with camber is unique, or do you think that you could replicate it by fiddling the other settings if you had to?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

@Ridox2JZGTE

More times for the Evo..

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 1 + Brakes 5,7 + camber 0,0 + SH Tyres : 57.875
Exactly 1s slower than with SM! Easy to drive, just less grip.

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 1 + Brakes 5,7 + camber 0,0 + CS Tyres : 59.746
Surprised the lap time dropped as much as 2s, but car loses so much on the exits as there's a lot less grip and you have to wait much longer to get on the gas... and when you do it lights the front tyres up. I think I could match the real time with this, but would need more laps, and to be honest, it's not very nice to drive.

Next 2 are with camber back at 2.3/1.3...

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 0 + Brakes 3, 1 + SM Tyres : 58.102
Took me a good amount of time to even start to get used to ABS 0 an still losing 0.6 to ABS 1 Braking is completely rubbish with no ABS - shame neither ABS 1 or ABS 0 are anything like realistic

Stock + AYC 100 + ABS 0 + Brakes 3, 1 + SH Tyres : 59.282
Slightly bigger loss vs SM than the zero camber with ABS 1 difference, but harder to get the braking right with less grip

Couple of replays...

1. Zero camber SM lap 56.875 (from yesterday)
2. Zero camber CS lap 59.746 (sorry, forgot to save best lap, so this is lap 5 within the replay)

If there's a specific combination you want on a replay just let me know and I'll re-run it 👍

Thanks for giving time to drive the car more and for the replays


To you all

I have a theory, we all know caster affect dynamic camber changes when turning. Caster is hidden in GT6, the only way to see it is to use CFW PS3 and read the data with special method, these folks can even tune dampers in more details ( 4 way - fast & slow in both direction ) . In game, we can only access simplified damper values.
I have seen some specdb data of cars and track in GT6. There are a lot variables being used, even for the track.

I have also seen different caster values for cars in GT6 from specdb data dump, so naturally these cars with higher caster would not like higher camber
This lead to varied sweet spot for camber as some says between zero to 1.0.
I think camber works in limited way then, due to the wrong value range or too high dynamic camber being applied Come on PD, read this thread and do some work Someone should post this thread on the PD blog comment and call out Kaz.

I have suspicion that we may be able to access more parameter for tuning in GT7 with improved suspension physics ( GT6 seems to have simplified generic model for all cars, don't know why the restriction - maybe because it's still not perfect in some areas )

 

[ALB123]

Somehow I stumbled across this video a couple of days ago. For me, this would be a migraine headache. For tuners, like @Ridox2JZGTE, I think this would be heaven. The video shows what I'm assuming is a seminar on iRacing tuning. The amount of tuneable parameters is incredible to me. Because of the reputation iRacing has and their associations with NASCAR and other racing sanctioning bodies, I'm guessing that things probably also work the way they're supposed to.

[Video Link Here]

P.S. I started the link at 4:30 in just so you can see the driver and tuner chat for a few seconds and then they start adjusting the setup. It's a long two-part video, so if you want to watch the entire thing you'll have to restart it from the beginning. Sorry.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@yadeeg

Somehow I stumbled across this video a couple of days ago. For me, this would be a migraine headache. For tuners, like @Ridox2JZGTE, I think this would be heaven. The video shows what I'm assuming is a seminar on iRacing tuning. The amount of tuneable parameters is incredible to me. Because of the reputation iRacing has and their associations with NASCAR and other racing sanctioning bodies, I'm guessing that things probably also work the way they're supposed to.

[Video Link Here]

P.S. I started the link at 4:30 in just so you can see the driver and tuner chat for a few seconds and then they start adjusting the setup. It's a long two-part video, so if you want to watch the entire thing you'll have to restart it from the beginning. Sorry.

Nice find:tup:👍 I watched that video a few months ago while doing some "research"
Believe it or not, the speaker is David Cater, a well known iRacing tuner and the driver is David Alfalla, a multiple Nascar champion on iRacing. They work together as a team to set up cars to compete in iRacing When you step out of the GT world and into the world of racing sims, you'll find that these kind of tuning options are the norm, not the exception. The soon to be released (fingers crossed) Project Cars will bring this kind of tuning to console for the very first time. Even things like radiator openings, brake duct openings, steering ratios, fast bump/rebound, slow bump/rebound, caster angle, tire pressure, brake mapping and a lot more. Assymetrical tuning will also be available, especially useful in oval racing.

And yes, @Ridox2JZGTE is crazy if he doesn't jump on the PCars bandwagon

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Disregard.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Thanks for giving time to drive the car more and for the replays


To you all

I have a theory, we all know caster affect dynamic camber changes when turning. Caster is hidden in GT6, the only way to see it is to use CFW PS3 and read the data with special method, these folks can even tune dampers in more details ( 4 way - fast & slow in both direction ) . In game, we can only access simplified damper values.
I have seen some specdb data of cars and track in GT6. There are a lot variables being used, even for the track.

I have also seen different caster values for cars in GT6 from specdb data dump, so naturally these cars with higher caster would not like higher camber
This lead to varied sweet spot for camber as some says between zero to 1.0.
I think camber works in limited way then, due to the wrong value range or too high dynamic camber being applied Come on PD, read this thread and do some work Someone should post this thread on the PD blog comment and call out Kaz.

I have suspicion that we may be able to access more parameter for tuning in GT7 with improved suspension physics ( GT6 seems to have simplified generic model for all cars, don't know why the restriction - maybe because it's still not perfect in some areas )

I know exactly what you are talking about here and can confirm what you say is true. Totally agree with your post. 👍

 

[super_gt]

Come on PD, read this thread and do some work Someone should post this thread on the PD blog comment and call out Kaz.

Here's the bad boy comes

Done 👍

 

[Stotty]

Come on PD, read this thread and do some work Someone should post this thread on the PD blog comment and call out Kaz.

I think there are a number of bigger issues in the GT6 physics engine than camber not working

 

[Highlandor]

Somehow I stumbled across this video a couple of days ago. For me, this would be a migraine headache. For tuners, like @Ridox2JZGTE, I think this would be heaven. The video shows what I'm assuming is a seminar on iRacing tuning. The amount of tuneable parameters is incredible to me. Because of the reputation iRacing has and their associations with NASCAR and other racing sanctioning bodies, I'm guessing that things probably also work the way they're supposed to.

[Video Link Here]

P.S. I started the link at 4:30 in just so you can see the driver and tuner chat for a few seconds and then they start adjusting the setup. It's a long two-part video, so if you want to watch the entire thing you'll have to restart it from the beginning. Sorry.

It's not just the tuning that has so many options on iRacing, the game itself i.e. graphics (being able to have different things on screen at different resolution), replays, the ability to create your own custom livery via photoshop or Gimp, wheel settings, the list goes on and on...

Then there's options for the options too, so you can have some 'changes' being automatic i.e. different cars can be better for some drivers with different rotation settings on your wheel, there's an option for your settings to automatically change each time you change cars or you can do it manually..

It's quite mind boggling when you start playing it..

 

[LeoStrop]

And here we are, waiting for PD to fix the Ride Height....

 

[Highlandor]

And here we are, waiting for PD to fix the Ride Height....

iRacing has far less cars, the tyre 'type' are fixed to each car, you cant change them, whereas GT has over 1,000 cars and 9 different tyres. Thats about 50, maybe 75 combinations on iRacing and over 9,000 combinations on GT, without taking into consideration other factors that can impact GT that iRacing doesn't have i.e. grip reduction, tyre wear being on/off etc etc..

There's so many various possibilities on GT that can have a impact on a setup before you even start putting one together, whereas with iRacing, there are far less.

This is why I always talk about context/putting things into perspective, as this is far more relevant on GT than iRacing, but alot of people seem to look at setups in the same way for GT as iRacing, i.e. what 'works' and what 'doesn't', but it's like comparing chalk and cheese..

Some factors might be shared between the two i.e. driving style/skill level, but there's alot that can't be which is why I feel a different 'philosophy' for being a 'tuner' on GT is required i.e. micro analysing one aspect isn't as important as seeing 'the bigger picture' is, whereas iRacing would be more like the opposite..

 

[F1Racer68]

@ALB123 The level of realism in tuning on PC based sims is the primary reason I will be going back to the PC for Project Cars. I began my sim racing career on the PC with the original Papyrus NASCAR and Indy 500 games. The last PC based sim I played (and still play) is SimBin's GTR2. The SimBin games were the first (in 2004) to have a license to use MoTeC i2 Pro. The size of the online community in GT5 and GT6 is what has kept me in these games.

The lack of support for Logitech wheels on the PS4 and the add-ons available for Project Cars on the PC side is what is pushing me back that way

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok fellas, my mistake for taking the conversation off on a tangent by commenting on the iRacing video. Let's not get sidetracked. Back to the discussion on camber in GT6 please:tup:👍

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I was wondering where Paul Blart was??

 

[Voodoovaj]

Short version: it does something that is sometimes useful, but it doesn't do what camber does.

Out of interest, do you think that the adjustment that you make with camber is unique, or do you think that you could replicate it by fiddling the other settings if you had to?

Your short version is incorrect. It does EXACTLY what camber does, it simply does it with far less adjustment compared to the real world. Why? Because this simulation simply requires less camber angle to achieve similar results.

As to your question, you can usually achieve an isolated result through multiple channels, but you won't be able to achieve the same cumulative result. So, for instance, let's say you are trying to find 1/10th of a second. There is a myriad of changes that could get you that tenth. Now, let's say you are looking for 1 second. There will most likely need to be many changes needed and who's sum input gets you that full second.

For camber to be "fixed" in the minds of the masses, they'll have to break it and create some type of strange abstraction of the real values....and STILL people will complain because some dude runs 2.7 degrees on his real car while his virtual car runs 2.4!

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Your short version is incorrect. It does EXACTLY what camber does, it simply does it with far less adjustment compared to the real world. Why? Because this simulation simply requires less camber angle to achieve similar results.

As to your question, you can usually achieve an isolated result through multiple channels, but you won't be able to achieve the same cumulative result. So, for instance, let's say you are trying to find 1/10th of a second. There is a myriad of changes that could get you that tenth. Now, let's say you are looking for 1 second. There will most likely need to be many changes needed and who's sum input gets you that full second.

For camber to be "fixed" in the minds of the masses, they'll have to break it and create some type of strange abstraction of the real values....and STILL people will complain because some dude runs 2.7 degrees on his real car while his virtual car runs 2.4!

Thank you for the explanation and subsequently answering the question that was posed to me, great answer. 👍 I had been trying to think of a way to explain things but quite frankly, I have just gotten tired of trying to explain things here. We all know I'm not very good with words anyway, especially when it comes to explaining what I mean, so again, thank you very much for your explanation. 👍 It is very much spot on as to how I think of/view it, just unable to convey my thoughts into understandable text. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Imari]

Your short version is incorrect. It does EXACTLY what camber does, it simply does it with far less adjustment compared to the real world. Why? Because this simulation simply requires less camber angle to achieve similar results.

Not really. I'm not seeing any consistent evidence of it providing improved tyre wear, nor any consistent evidence of it providing improved grip.

People are using it to tune balance which is resulting in minor lap time improvements. That is exactly not what camber is used for in real life anyway, that's what suspension and ride height tuning is for. Every tuning guide I've ever read says you adjust cambers and pressures to fit a temperature profile and achieve wear targets, and you make the car drive the way you want with everything else. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I've been taught, and that's the way that's worked in every other sim I play.

If that's not the correct way to set up a real car, then please explain to me why and I'll be happy to take the information on board and adjust my methods.

Then again, GT6 doesn't really give us the tools necessary to set up camber correctly so it was always going to be a shot in the dark anyway. It's not much good trying to measure wear with a ten point numerical scale, and the heat information available is largely useless for this purpose.

As to your question, you can usually achieve an isolated result through multiple channels, but you won't be able to achieve the same cumulative result. So, for instance, let's say you are trying to find 1/10th of a second. There is a myriad of changes that could get you that tenth. Now, let's say you are looking for 1 second. There will most likely need to be many changes needed and who's sum input gets you that full second.

Is that a yes or a no?

What is it that you can do with GT6 camber that you cannot achieve through other means? Let's be specific so that I and others can understand what's actually happening.

For camber to be "fixed" in the minds of the masses, they'll have to break it and create some type of strange abstraction of the real values....and STILL people will complain because some dude runs 2.7 degrees on his real car while his virtual car runs 2.4!

No. Minor differences between the real world and the simulation are to be expected. If the difference was 2.7 vs. 2.4 and everything else was the same, I'd label that as a pretty good success.

For camber to be "fixed" it simply needs to work roughly as it does in the real world, not as another glorified anti-roll bar.

 

[ALB123]

The only thing that I'm convinced of, after 13 pages of responses, is that people who feel like camber provides a benefit still believe that and people who feel camber only hurts a setup still believe that. Is there a single person following this thread that has changed opinions on the subject since reading this thread? Please, let me know if you have changed your opinion. I would be very interested in hearing what it was that changed your opinion.

 

[Imari]

The only thing that I'm convinced of, after 13 pages of responses, is that people who feel like camber provides a benefit still believe that and people who feel camber only hurts a setup still believe that.

Does a damper provide a benefit or does it hurt a setup? Tuned poorly, it unarguably hurts a setup. Tuned well, it unarguably provides a benefit.

So why would you try to say that camber only provides one or the other? If done right, camber can provide both. Regardless of the arguments over whether camber works as it should, the implementation in GT6 right now can provide both as well. Too much camber is unquestionably bad, anyone can see this by testing for themselves at high levels of camber. If your car needs to be balanced, camber can be a tool to amend that if used in a certain fashion, which many of the tuners in this thread have done.