Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[LeoStrop]

Can you do one for -0.3 camber? I usually do between .2-.4, but rarely at the same value from front vs rear.

Yes i can, maybe tomorrow.

Yeah, i rarely use the same value front and rear as well, but it was only for testing reasons.

 

[Lionheart2113]

@LeoStrop excellent testing sir!

 

[Imari]

Am I right in thinking that what is labelled as "eclectic" on these charts is the best possible lap time by taking all the best possible sectors of a run?

That's quite useful. It's a good measure of how consistent your runs are. I use it in other sims to judge when I'm ready for longer races, I like to have my general laptimes within 3-5 tenths of my optimal/eclectic.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes i can, maybe tomorrow.

Yeah, i rarely use the same value front and rear as well, but it was only for testing reasons.

Thanks for the testing:tup: Just so you know, VR is now banned although I suspect he'll be back with a different hat on quite soon.

 

[LeoStrop]

Am I right in thinking that what is labelled as "eclectic" on these charts is the best possible lap time by taking all the best possible sectors of a run?

That's quite useful. It's a good measure of how consistent your runs are. I use it in other sims to judge when I'm ready for longer races, I like to have my general laptimes within 3-5 tenths of my optimal/eclectic.

You are right, and it's a good indicator of your consistency. But for make it better i had to remark all the sections parts of the track, and transform it into sectors, i wish they load the exact sectors of the game. The eclectic time, is not the best way to try to make the best lap time, because it's impossible to have your fastest entry and your fastest exit on the same corner, i mean we sacrifice one thing to gain another, and the eclectic shows the absolute best.

But, the rolling minimum is the fastest continuous run through all sections, that are related to eachother and that makes it more suitable to find the fastest lap time. The red stripe shows which sector times were included in the rolling minimum time.

Edit: You can see that my rolling minimum, with 0.0, was also my best lap:






Edit again:

I tried to match the sectors of the game, on motec. Watching the replay for the sectors time, they came out pretty close, with insignificant difference. But they are only 3 sectors on the game, for that track, i think that is too little to have a good read, for camber purposes. Here is how it looks like:



0.0:





0.6:





1.0:





Closer times for less sectors , logically, but still not ideal. But anyone can get the data and play with it, it's actually pretty simple to work with the track editor, on motec.


Maybe you already know that, but i'm just pointing out for someone who doesn't.

Thanks for the testing:tup: Just so you know, VR is now banned although I suspect he'll be back with a different hat on quite soon.

You're welcome! Yeah i was going to test with -0.4, but i don't think i am going to make it today. I did more than 30laps with 0.0 camber, and only 7 with 0.6 and 1.0, just to make sure it was right.

Let's wait and see if someone with a wheel can do the same test, i know camber helps me, but i steer with buttons(D-Pad). So it may not have the same effect on a wheel(which we already suspect).

👍

 

[PJTierney]

With camber it's difficult to judge if there is a difference because it all relies on how the car "feels" as you don't have live telemetry data, or any telemetry data at all to reference that shows you how warm the in/outside of a tyre is.

The basic function of camber is to help create the largest contact patch between the tyre and the road (thus resulting in more grip), and the best way to see that is if you notice an even temperature gap from the outside of a tyre to the inside.

The tuning guide I used to use for Forza Motorsport 4 is no longer available, but here is an alternative with a quick description:


As there is no way to measure temperature ranges across a tyre in Gran Turismo 6, there is no way to objectively prove that camber adjustments are affecting the handling of a car. Therefore it will always come down to "feel". Unless somebody tells me otherwise, I'm going to keep Camber at 0/0 on any car I tune as I don't see any point in testing something I can't measure

While doing some research into GT6 physics, I came across this post in response to mine above.

It does raise an interesting point, and probably highlights something that I may have gotten wrong when thinking of the Forza mentality of tuning (tuning by laptime and tyre temps and not by race performance).

The next time I'm doing some tyre wear testing (probably for an upcoming race series) I'll have to keep this in mind and see if I can use the camber settings to improve/balance out my wear rates.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

While doing some research into GT6 physics, -- removed --- in response to mine above.

It does raise an interesting point, and probably highlights something that I may have gotten wrong when thinking of the Forza mentality of tuning (tuning by laptime and tyre temps and not by race performance).

The next time I'm doing some tyre wear testing (probably for an upcoming race series) I'll have to keep this in mind and see if I can use the camber settings to improve/balance out my wear rates.

That link was pointing to NGU - and the user is SINIST3R, that is Jack Napier, a well known, keep on coming back banned member here ( must be more than 30 times now )

Let's hope he's not coming back here and cause a mess again

EDIT : Removed the link.

 

[PJTierney]

I'm relatively new to GTP (only really signed up to go racing), so forgive me for not knowing who people are

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I'm relatively new to GTP (only really signed up to go racing), so forgive me for not knowing who people are

Better remove the link, the last few pages of that thread is very offensive in nature to some here in GTP ( including this thread OP )

 

[Lionheart2113]

That link was pointing to NGU - and the user is SINIST3R, that is Jack Napier, a well known, keep on coming back banned member here ( must be more than 30 times now )

Let's hope he's not coming back here and cause a mess again

One of the reasons why I had to change my garage name, I didn't want any confusion/association!
But wow...not much to say really except Sounds like a very angry person, 1 of which I won't give any more attention by following that link (no offense @PJTierney i know you didn't mean any harm)

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Thanks for the testing:tup: Just so you know, VR is now banned although I suspect he'll be back with a different hat on quite soon.

You do realize that, that wasn't "Jack" like you kept insinuating, right? Perhaps it was some other banned member returning, but I can tell you it wasn't Jack.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Probably 332i ? He got banned right ?

 

[Johnnypenso]

You do realize that, that wasn't "Jack" like you kept insinuating, right? Perhaps it was some other banned member returning, but I can tell you it wasn't Jack.

Probably 332i ? He got banned right ?

I did realize that after I saw him posting negative things about GT in another thread, something Jack would never do. I also thought it might be 332i but he was pretty pro-GT as well IIRC. Hard to say, but I'm pretty sure he'll be back soon. Good thing is it's not hard to spot these guys.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Just want to say that after several car build and testing, I have confirmed that the toe value in GT6 is per side ( not total like I have been using ), just like camber Gotta say that the guy who pointed me to the right direction was jack a few weeks ago Now I have to make some fixes and make sure they all calculated properly

Has anyone tried my HKS CZ20S car for camber test ? I recommend to drop camber proportionally, 0.1 or 0.2 step both axle, as the replica alignment has higher front camber and the suspension was tuned to work with it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just want to say that after several car build and testing, I have confirmed that the toe value in GT6 is per side ( not total like I have been using ), just like camber Gotta say that the guy who pointed me to the right direction was jack a few weeks ago Now I have to make some fixes and make sure they all calculated properly

Has anyone tried my HKS CZ20S car for camber test ? I recommend to drop camber proportionally, 0.1 or 0.2 step both axle, as the replica alignment has higher front camber and the suspension was tuned to work with it.

"Per side" meaning that a value of say 0.10 on the rear for example, means that each wheel is 0.10 for a total toe of 0.20 combined for both wheels, as opposed to 0.10 total toe for both wheels as you previously assumed. How do you know this to be true at this point?

Is someone with a belief that camber really works (or anyone for that matter) according to real life principles, willing to post up a tune or two that is specifically tailored to work with camber, with all the appropriate suspension adjustments? It seems to me that using a stock setup and adding or removing camber is producing only infinitesimally small changes to lap times either way and appears inconclusive to me. If as it has been suggested, you need to make major suspension changes for camber to work properly, perhaps using stock suspension is giving results that are skewed in favour of 0.0/0.0 camber. I'd like to see some cambered tunes designed to minimize lap times be subject to testing. The key thing of course is to make a tune designed to go as fast as possible with camber, not simply replicate feel or real world results, I think we know already that camber changes the feel of a car and that some like that feeling. We are really trying to determine here if camber has a positive effect on lap times first and foremost and the stock suspension approach doesn't seem to work well at least from what I can see.

I'd like to see someone take their favourite car, with their absolute best tune that they believe really shows that camber works, and throw it out there for testing. Others can drive the car as is, then reduce the camber to 0.0/0.0 and see what happens. They could also post a tune designed for the same car, with 0.0/0.0 camber as the base, and post those results too.

 

[Stotty]

Is someone with a belief that camber really works (or anyone for that matter) according to real life principles, willing to post up a tune or two that is specifically tailored to work with camber, with all the appropriate suspension adjustments? It seems to me that using a stock setup and adding or removing camber is producing only infinitesimally small changes to lap times either way and appears inconclusive to me. If as it has been suggested, you need to make major suspension changes for camber to work properly, perhaps using stock suspension is giving results that are skewed in favour of 0.0/0.0 camber. I'd like to see some cambered tunes designed to minimize lap times be subject to testing. The key thing of course is to make a tune designed to go as fast as possible with camber, not simply replicate feel or real world results, I think we know already that camber changes the feel of a car and that some like that feeling. We are really trying to determine here if camber has a positive effect on lap times first and foremost and the stock suspension approach doesn't seem to work well at least from what I can see.

I'd like to see someone take their favourite car, with their absolute best tune that they believe really shows that camber works, and throw it out there for testing. Others can drive the car as is, then reduce the camber to 0.0/0.0 and see what happens.

Exactly this 👍

I've heard 'the whole tune has to be built around camber for it to work' numerous times from the people who believe camber works.

If this is the case, post your best tune, fully built to take advantage of camber, and let's test it.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

"Per side" meaning that a value of say 0.10 on the rear for example, means that each wheel is 0.10 for a total toe of 0.20 combined for both wheels, as opposed to 0.10 total toe for both wheels as you previously assumed. How do you know this to be true at this point?

Is someone with a belief that camber really works (or anyone for that matter) according to real life principles, willing to post up a tune or two that is specifically tailored to work with camber, with all the appropriate suspension adjustments? It seems to me that using a stock setup and adding or removing camber is producing only infinitesimally small changes to lap times either way and appears inconclusive to me. If as it has been suggested, you need to make major suspension changes for camber to work properly, perhaps using stock suspension is giving results that are skewed in favour of 0.0/0.0 camber. I'd like to see some cambered tunes designed to minimize lap times be subject to testing. The key thing of course is to make a tune designed to go as fast as possible with camber, not simply replicate feel or real world results, I think we know already that camber changes the feel of a car and that some like that feeling. We are really trying to determine here if camber has a positive effect on lap times first and foremost and the stock suspension approach doesn't seem to work well at least from what I can see.

I'd like to see someone take their favourite car, with their absolute best tune that they believe really shows that camber works, and throw it out there for testing. Others can drive the car as is, then reduce the camber to 0.0/0.0 and see what happens. They could also post a tune designed for the same car, with 0.0/0.0 camber as the base, and post those results too.

I realized on some of my cars that I made mistake converting from minutes/degree to degree for toe, then I saw the values do not make sense when the total toe used with the correction, the value gets too high and the handling is not as it should I noticed this on cars with high rear toe in factory range alignment ( 4mm to 6mm )

I think the HKSCZ200S is good for testing camber, as it has quite some camber and tuned with camber in mind ( alignment from HKS as constraints ), if camber do not work, using zero would easily yield better grip and lap times at Tsukuba, I also have the replay file ( of the real life vs GT6 HKS video ) if anyone wanted to export it to Motec format and do comparison with lower camber ( it was driven with real life pace, not full on GT6 style TT driving - might not be good )

I would do some tests if only I'm not stuck on 1.09

 

[super_gt]

Silverstone National Circuit
Mazda Roadster RS(NC)'07
No AIDS,No ABS,Real grip,no oil change.
Front sports hard rear sports hard tires.

Camber front 1.0 rear 0.0
Toe front 0.00 rear 0.00
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:10.850

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
Toe front 0.00 rear 0.00
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:10.816

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
Toe front 0.00 rear 0.00
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Front sports medium rear sports hard tires!!!!
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:10.066

This test is made offline with DFGT steering wheel

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I updated my HKS with corrected toe in value for Mitsubishi factory range alignment. The replica which shown on the video uses 12/9.77 Spring + HKS Visual Ride Height and HKS Technical Factory Test Car Alignment ( base )

HKS Technical Factory CZ200S Time Attack
Tsukuba Street Car / Tire 2009 Record Holder for Under 1 Minute Lap

Tuned to replicate HKS CZ200S Time Attack Street Car
Advan Neova AD07 vs AD08 Tsukuba Time Attack Hot Version/Best Motoring Feature

Comfort Soft to Sports Medium​

View attachment 256092
View attachment 257965
​

CAR : Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X GSR Premium Package '07
Tire : Comfort Soft to Sports Medium

Specs
Horsepower: 567 HP / 574.5 PS at 6400 RPM
Torque : 482.2 ft-lb / 66.7 kgfm at 5500 RPM
Power Limiter at : 96.0%
Weight: 1581 kg
Ballast : 41 kg
Ballast Position : 44
Weight Distribution : 58 / 42 as the real car spec.
Performance Points: 545



GT AUTO
OIL Change
Improve Body Rigidity ( NOT INSTALLED )
Wheels : Standard Size Volk RAYS CE28N in Dark Gray / Black
Car Paint : White Solid
Aero Kits Type A ( Optional )
Custom Rear Wing :
Wing Mount Standard Type C
Wing Large Type C
Winglets Large Type A
Wing size Height +0
Wing size Width +15


Tuning Parts Installed :
Engine Tuning Stage 3
Sports Computer
Racing Exhaust
Isometric Exhaust Manifold
Intake Tuning
Catalytic Converter Sports
High RPM Range Turbo Kit
Twin Plate Clutch
Fully Customizable Suspension
Racing Brakes Kit


Base Replica Setup based on 12/10 Hipermax II Sport Spring Rate

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with HKS Technical Factory Test Car Alignment Range
HKS Visual Ride Height Setup - Used on the replica video ( Recommended )
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 70 80
Spring Rate: 12.00 9.77
Dampers (Compression): 2 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 2.2 1.2
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.00

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with Mitsubishi OEM Alignment Range
HKS Visual Ride Height Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 70 80
Spring Rate: 12.00 9.77
Dampers (Compression): 2 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 1.0 1.0
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.19

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with HKS Technical Factory Test Car Alignment Range
HKS Test Car Ride Height Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 89 116
Spring Rate: 12.00 9.77
Dampers (Compression): 2 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 2.2 1.2
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.00

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with Mitsubishi OEM Alignment Range
HKS Test Car Ride Height Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 89 116
Spring Rate: 12.00 9.77
Dampers (Compression): 2 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 1.0 1.0
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.19

View attachment 257963​

OPTIONAL Lower Spring Rate Package 10/8 :

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with HKS Technical Factory Test Car Alignment Range
HKS Visual Ride Height Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 70 80
Spring Rate: 10.00 8.00
Dampers (Compression): 6 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 2.2 1.2
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.00

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with Mitsubishi OEM Alignment Range
HKS Visual Ride Height Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 70 80
Spring Rate: 10.00 8.00
Dampers (Compression): 6 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 1.0 1.0
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.19

View attachment 257987​

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with HKS Technical Factory Test Car Alignment Range
HKS Test Car Ride Height Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 89 116
Spring Rate: 10.00 8.00
Dampers (Compression): 6 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 2.2 1.2
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.00

Suspension - HKS HIPERMAX SPORTS III '09 Edition with Mitsubishi OEM Alignment Range
HKS Test Car Ride Height Setup
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 89 116
Spring Rate: 10.00 8.00
Dampers (Compression): 2 8
Dampers (Extension): 7 3
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 5
Camber Angle: 1.0 1.0
Toe Angle: 0.00 0.19



Mitsubishi OEM Alignment Reference data used by HKS :

Camber Angle : Front Range 1.00 +- 0.50, Rear Range 1.00 +- 0.50
Toe Angle : Front Range ( Zero Toe ) 0.00 +- 0.12, Rear Range ( Toe In ) 0.19 +- 0.12

View attachment 257966​

AYC
AYC Controller : 88 ( Recommended Range 86 to 96 )


AERO
Rear : 20 ( Max )


Brake Balance:
4/4 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 2/2, for ABS 1 - feel free to use your preferred brake balance.

Recommended setting for DS3 user :

Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 4/4 brake balance as starting point.

Notes :

This is one of my most fun replica that I ever built The car is HKS CZ200S, a sleeper street car build which can double as time attack car at the track The car used is Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X CZ4A with a generous helping of HP increase. The specs of the real car :

Engine Modifications
HKS 4B11 forged pistons, HKS 4B11 H-section connecting rods (prototype), HKS GT3240 54T A/R0.73 full turbine kit, HKS GTII external wastegate, HKS turbine adapter, HKS stainless steel downpipe, HKS Silent Hyper one-off exhaust system, HKS Valcon Plus V Cam Kit Pro (256º IN, 248º EX); HKS 1.2 mm metal head gasket. HKS bypass pipe, HKS chamber pipe (polished), HKS polished suction pipe, HKS Racing Suction Reloaded foam filter, HKS R-Type Intercooler, HKS polished intercooler piping, upgraded fuel pump, HKS fuel rail, HKS 1000cc/min injectors, HKS cam covers with carbon spark plug cover
Power Rated at 575 PS and 67.5 Kgf-m of torque with the boost set at 1.95kgf/sqcm

Engine Management
HKS F-Con V Pro ECU

Drivetrain
HKS Racing 6-speed strengthened gears transmission (prototype) - uses 6 speed OEM ratio, HKS LA-type twin plate clutch w/ lightweight flywheel.

Suspension
HKS Hipermax III Sport prototype version ( '09 Spec )

Wheels, Tires and Brakes
Yokohama Advan Racing RS 18x10 +25 front, +35 rear, Yokohama Advan Neova AD08 ( Soft Compound - possibly an early phase of the "R" Orange Oil Rubber Compound ) 265/35R18 tires, Endless monoblock forged 6-pot calipers (f), 2-piece mini 6-pot calipers (r), Endless 2-piece E-slotted rotors (f/r), Endless brake pads all around

Exterior
Ralliart front brake ducts, HKS carbon canards, HKS carbon front under spoiler, Esprit dry carbon rear GT wing/HKS dry carbon rear wing (now fitted)

Interior
Bride Zeta III carbon-Kevlar racing bucket seats, Takata racing harnesses, Nardi leather steering wheel, HKS shift knob, HKS EVC 5 boost controller, HKS Circuit Attack Counter lap timer, HKS A/F Knock Amp meter, data logger

The car was featured in Hot Version / Best Motoring ( not sure which one ) Advan Neova AD07 vs AD08 Time Attack. This replica is based on the very same car that broke the street car/tire lap record at Tsukuba ( under 1 minute ). Driven by the drift master / HKS Test Driver Nobuteru Taniguchi, the HKS CZ200S posted 59.495 time on lap 8. A testament of the excellent performance, consistency and durability of the tire. The tire used was Advan Neova AD08 ( there's a possibility the tire uses early phase "R" Orange Oil Compound which later become AD08R ) The equivalent is slightly below SM tire in GT6, as the SH tire severely lacks in straight line grip, but SM has a bit too high lateral grip, so I have to make do with SM tire and it works great.

The weight and distribution data uses HKS own test car data for the Hipermax III Sport '09 Spec. Test car weight at 1581kg with 58.1 / 41.9 distribution, reflected in the ballast position. Power set at 567HP / 575 PS with all power upgrades installed and oil change. Torque is highest possible at 482.2 ft-lb / 66.7 kgfm, slightly lower than the real car 67.5 kgfm.

Suspension uses HKS Hipermax III Sport '09 Spec, with 12/10 spring rate. The rear spring rate is not possible in GT6 , so I have to use slightly lower rate at 9.77 kg/mm. I have tuned the damper and ARB to help the car easier to rotate. With the visual ride height and test car ride height being front lower, the understeer effect needs to be reduced/controlled. I have provided a variety of ride height and alignment to choose from. The recommended setup is 12/9.77 + Visual Ride Height ( 70/80 ) and HTF Test Car Alignment, this is the setup that I used for the GT6 vs Real Life video

There is also a second set of suspension setup which uses lower spring rate package at 10/8. This is suited better for bumpy tracks. It comes with the same variety of ride height and alignment as 12/9.77

AYC has been tuned as well with base value of 88 used on the replica ( recommended range 86 - 96 ). Feel free to adjust it to your liking / driving style.

The transmission remain stock as the real car uses 6 speed manual H pattern with HKS own prototype gears ( strengthened to endure the torque/power ) and uses 6 speed SST Getrag ratio and final. The base car used might be originally a manual 5 speed Evo X or SST 6 speed Evo X and HKS did a Manual H pattern conversion. A twin plate clutch also fitted ( HKS LA Type )

Racing Brakes kit has been installed to replicate the braking power / distance of the real car which have upgraded Endless Brake Kit : Monoblock forged 6-pot calipers (f), 2-piece mini 6-pot calipers (r), Endless 2-piece E-slotted rotors (f/r), Endless brake pads all around. Brake balance set at 4/4 for good stable braking power.

I have installed a rear wing, recreating as close as possible the real car Esprit GT Carbon Wing ( fitted on the real life lap record ) The Esprit GT wing was replaced after wards with HKS own GT wing.

The HKS CZ200S replica was tuned and tested at Willow Springs, Twin Ring Motegi Road and Tsukuba ( on comfort tire and sports tire ). At Twin Ring Motegi Road and Comfort Soft ( 12/9.77 + Visual+Test Alignment ), it managed a 2:06s lap time in 1st lap, quicker than the Gallardo SL LP570-4 and Nissan GTR '07 replica on same CS tire A replay of the Motegi lap has been included.


I also have included below a replay of the lap replicating the real life record at Tsukuba. The lap in GT6 is 59.484 against real life 59.495. I drive with similar pace to real life ( I watched the real life lap and used what I saw as a reference on how Taniguchi-san attack the track + how hard he pushed the car ), and you can see that the braking, steering, shift actions are very similar. A Youtube video has also been made, credits goes to @Lewis_Hamilton_, who helped created/edited/uploaded the video on his account, view it and leave a comment or like

Enjoy the car and the video ( a must watch )

The real HKS CZ200S
View attachment 257970 View attachment 257971 View attachment 257979 View attachment 257980 View attachment 257973 View attachment 257972 View attachment 257968 View attachment 257974 View attachment 257975 View attachment 257977 View attachment 257978​

UPDATE : Corrected toe values for toe in

@LeoStrop, @Thorin Cain, @ALB123, if any of you interested to try the car with camber 2.2/1.2 then lower it up to zero at Tsukuba on SM tire or lower.

 

[Thorin Cain]

I updated my HKS with corrected toe in value for Mitsubishi factory range alignment. The replica which shown on the video uses 12/9.77 Spring + HKS Visual Ride Height and HKS Technical Factory Test Car Alignment ( base )


@LeoStrop, @Thorin Cain, @ALB123, if any of you interested to try the car with camber 2.2/1.2 then lower it up to zero at Tsukuba on SM tire or lower.

I'm getting ready to head out to work just now, but I'll be happy to give it a go in the morning when I get back in:tup:

 

[Highlandor]

You do realize that, that wasn't "Jack" like you kept insinuating, right? Perhaps it was some other banned member returning, but I can tell you it wasn't Jack.

I don't know who he is but I like him(!)..

I'd buy him a beer, but I don't drink..... still, I'd make him a cuppa...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't know who he is but I like him(!)..

I'd buy him a beer, but I don't drink..... still, I'd make him a cuppa...

If you track him down, maybe the two of you could collaborate on this idea. The results should be indisputable no?

 

[Stotty]

If you track him down, maybe the two of you could collaborate on this idea. The results should be indisputable no?

Unfortunately, your chances are slim to non-existent of that happening

 

[Tornado]

That link was pointing to NGU - and the user is SINIST3R, that is Jack Napier, a well known, keep on coming back banned member here ( must be more than 30 times now )

Let's hope he's not coming back here and cause a mess again

EDIT : Removed the link.

Wow. If SiNiSt3r is Jack Napier... That means he's been making alt accounts to get around his original GTP ban for nearly a decade.

Probably 332i ? He got banned right ?

VR managed to go more than two posts without mentioning how not worth his time the argument was because of "teenagers" (before posting half a dozen more times afterwards), so it couldn't have been 332i.

 

[Highlandor]

If you track him down, maybe the two of you could collaborate on this idea. The results should be indisputable no?

What's the point, haven't you been paying attention? What's best for the fastest people in the game is best for everything, at all times, for all cars in all situations etc...

No need to test anymore

 

[Aussie_HSV]

I've always been happy to use camber up to 1.0.
I may have used it higher, but it's rare, so I don't have much success when it's heading past 1.5 or more.
But I certainly think there's gains to be found with camber in the 0.x's
All the time on every car? Maybe not.
Fixed? I don't know, but it's worth tuning for because more often than not there's time to be found.

This testing was done for the camber experiment being held by Dolhaus.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...tage-1-high-speed-test-drivers-wanted.320272/

Camber 0/0
Time 1:04.6 (most laps .8's or .9's)

Camber 1.0/1.0
Time 1:04.434 (most laps .5's or .6's)
(also a tired driver who couldn't keep it together - the eclectic time shows I perhaps should have hit at least one .2)

 

[ALB123]

I've been following this thread since post #1 and I've even jumped in to contribute data to DolHaus's Camber Experiment over in the Tuning thread. I think there are 5 of us submitting full data now. So far, after only 1 Round of testing, it looks like Camber 0.0 is not going to be the fastest lap times from our handful of testers. Since v1.09 (or whenever it was) you could "feel" an improvement in Camber and I've made sure to use some whenever I can. I'm far from the fastest driver, but I always get a better overall feel from my car and better overall lap time with negative camber applied. I know I am not a "tuner". I don't even try, to be honest, because I'm lazy in that regard. But, there isn't a car in my Garage that doesn't have some level of negative camber applied.

As far as the Camber Experiment run by DolHaus, I will happily continue to contribute data and I suggest others join in if you have the spare time. As I've stated in that thread, I think we should also be testing mixed Camber values like 2.0 Front 1.0 Rear instead of ONLY equal values front and back, but I don't mind doing it the way DolHaus has asked either.

I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter much to anyone but I thought I would throw it out there anyway...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Camber 0/0
Time 1:04.6 (most laps .8's or .9's)
Camber 1.0/1.0
Time 1:04.434 (most laps .5's or .6's)
(also a tired driver who couldn't keep it together - the eclectic time shows I perhaps should have hit at least one .2)

Is there a tune for this car somewhere and can you post the Track Report in your post?

 

[DrEmmettBrown]

Marty and I did some testing at the Twin Pines Mall. Here are the results of three hours of test driving using differing camber settings. Marty ran each setting for ten clean laps, driving at 90 to 95 percent, looking more for consistency than for time trial like single flying laps. I am showing the eccentric lap time against my own, custom time segments at Silverstone. The idea is to compare from one braking zone to the next to minimize the effect of a freak previous or following time segment. Also, using the eccentric (best time) for each segment is the best way to measure which settings were truly faster in each area of the track, after ten clean laps. So I thought. The results did not come back as pure as I had predicted, so I am looking for help to find additional insights from the data. All comments, positive and scrutinous are welcome.

First, I decided to test front and rear camber independently to see if a story developed. It did. What did Marty feel?
· It was easier and easier to lock the brakes with more and more front camber added
· Turn in felt better and better with more and more front camber added
· Exit understeer increased with each addition of front camber
· Rear camber seemed to loosen the car a little more with each addition, but nothing drastic; just slight difference in feel

Tune:
BMW M4 Coupe
Sport Soft Tires
Full Suspension Kit Installed
@Stotty Super Starter Setup (mentioned earlier in this camber thread)
Ride Height 100/100 stock
Spring Rate 4.53/6.28 stock
Dampers (Compression) 3/3 stock
Dampers (Extension) 3/3 stock
Camber Angle (Various)
Toe Angle 0.00/0.00 @Stotty
Brake Balance 5/5
Full Transmission (reset to default after power upgrades)
Full LSD 10/11/10 (to eliminate the possibility of exit wheel spin)
Triple Clutch
Carbon Drive Shaft
Power Limiter 97.6%
Engine Tuning Stage 1
Sports Computer
Sports Exhaust
Sports Catalytic Converter
Rear Aero Installed
Downforce 0/5
Ballast 23 kg
Ballast Position 0%
Weight Reduction Stage 3
Carbon Hood
Window Weight Reduction
550 PP
511 HP
1,250 kg
Weight Distribution 52:48

The Time Sectors:
#1 - Start, Abby, Farm - Abby high speed, turn in is important. Farm is high speed.
#2 - Village thru Wellington - Village is hard braking, sharp turn in, Loop, sharpest corner on track, Aintree high speed.
#3 - Brooklands thru Woodcote - Brooklands decreasing radius medium speed, Luffield long sweeping slow to med speed.
#4 - Copse & Maggots - High speed, turn in is important.
#5 - Becketts thru Hanger Straight - Right, left, right decreasing speed that sets up for long straight.
#6 - Speed Trap, Stowe - Sweeping medium speed
#7 - Vale, Club, Finish - Hard braking, sharp turn in, increasing radius to medium speed exit.

Data (purple equals fastest time of each sector):

#Overall - More front camber = easier to lock brakes, more turn in but more exit understeer.
#Sector 1 - 3.0 fastest with zero close behind. Theory; turn in for Abby felt better with 3.0, but had understeer through Farm Curve.
#Sector 2 - Mid range camber worked best. Theory; this section calls for sharp turn in on two corners and medium to high speed exit grip through Aintree.
#Sector 3 - 1.0 wins the section by a small margin. Very little difference in lap time through this sector.
#Sector 4 - 3.0 fastest with zero close behind. Theory; Copse is such a long corner that both turn in and exit are important.
#Sector 5 - 2.0 fastest. I did get only one lap this low, but ran three laps in the 23.6's so just as fast as zero camber.
#Sector 6 - Zero and 1.0 the clear winners at Stowe. Long sweeping corner where exit understeer would kill the lap.
#Sector 7 - Zero and 2.0 are best. Theory; another section with a sharp turn in and a long, sweeping exit.
#Full Lap - 2.0 was fastest by only 0.067 over zero.

#Overall - More rear camber = a slightly looser feeling car. The story here is that 3.0 rear camber or zero camber worked best everywhere except for Becketts.
#Full Lap - 3.0 camber was clearly the fastest, but not by adding grip to the car. Rear camber reduced rear grip. I wonder what 3.5 and 4.0 would look like - are we at the top of the bell curve at 3.0?

#Full Lap - 0.0 front / 3.0 rear clearly won the test, but there are some purple sectors for each of the camber settings, which I did not expect to see when I designed this test.


Final thoughts:

Camber worked and it did not work. This test shows that you can be almost as fast with camber as without. What really needs to be taken away from this test is how and when to use camber. Camber must be thought about separately between front and rear. Use front camber on a car that already has oversteer on exit and problems turning in. If your car already understeers on exit, adding front camber will make it slower on corner exit. Front camber also makes it easier to lock the front tires under braking so lowering the front brake balance may help or you will need to be easier on the brake pedal. Rear camber allowed for more rotation so it can be used on cars with plentiful rear grip. The final takeaway that I have from this one test is that being fast with camber may be track dependent. Silverstone had a pretty equal amount of hard braking zone/low speed corners versus medium speed to high speed corners. Maybe more camber would be faster at Tsukuba and less camber would be faster at Monza? Who knows? There is easily a year’s worth of testing that could be done around camber alone, but by the time that testing is finished, game version 2.0 with “improved” physics will be here and force everyone to start testing all over again.

Did I miss anything useful in the data?

 

[ALB123]

I updated my HKS with corrected toe in value for Mitsubishi factory range alignment. The replica which shown on the video uses 12/9.77 Spring + HKS Visual Ride Height and HKS Technical Factory Test Car Alignment ( base )


@LeoStrop, @Thorin Cain, @ALB123, if any of you interested to try the car with camber 2.2/1.2 then lower it up to zero at Tsukuba on SM tire or lower.

Ah yes... I remember building this car @Ridox2JZGTE. I hate to say it, but I despise these cars with the AYC Controller. Give me a regular ole LSD any day of the week! Now, before anyone starts jumping up and down... Yes, I know the car CAN take a Customizable LSD. Ridox's replica tune calls for the use of the stock AYC Controller.

The decreased rear toe-in is very welcome for this tune, in my opinion. Previously, the rear toe was slightly high and it almost seemed like you had to fight the rear end a little bit while cornering and any stability improvements were never felt by me on Tsukuba.

My preferred suspension setups were the first two listed. (Have you ever thought of labelling them? A, B, C, etc? Might be helpful when people have questions, in the future.) The stiffer spring rate feels much nicer on a track like Tsukuba, I think. I did try the 10.0/8.0 springs when I first built this car, but I didn't really put it to work on terribly bumpy sections of any tracks, so I can't really give an honest opinion of that spring rate & setup.

I most certainly preferred the car with the recommended camber settings rather than 0.0 which really felt strange to me after running about 25 laps with either 1.0/1.0 or 2.2/1.2 for camber settings. The car just rolls into the corner with rather than sliding into the corner without. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course... My fastest laps were with the 1.0/1.0 setup, though I wonder if it had more to do with me "warming up" with the 2.2/1.2 setup. If that were the case, however, then you'd expect my 0.0/0.0 to be the best, but they weren't. It was very, very close. 0.2s separated the two setups. BUT! I found both of the setups with camber were much more consistent in line, feel and lap time compared to the 0.0/0.0 laps.

I'm sorry I didn't MoTeC the data for anyone who doesn't believe me. I can assure you I am a man of my word and if you would like any of the Replay files or MoTeC Logs of mine from The Great Camber Experiment, feel free to ask and I will get you the files ASAP. I've posted screenshots of my MoTeC data in that thread, but if you'd still prefer the actual files, just let me know and Ill throw them out on the web somewhere...