Ride height

[DJBLITZKRIEG]

Does anyone know why for certain types of cars, particularly the Le Mans ones the ride height is quiet perculiar. With the front being higher than the rear?

Is that to encourage understeer?

 

[danvodka]

Lower front equals higher grip on the front and vice versa...

 

[Ecchi-BANZAII!!]

Lower front equals higher grip on the front and vice versa...

Which should be completely wrong.
Low back height/high front height should catapult the car into the air at speed.
C60 Hybride has -40 on the rear which should make it into a Mercedes CLK-GTR...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rJjVaoJjLM

 

[Sohvakettu]

Race cars often have lower front to enhance the aerodynamics so i'm bit surprised too.

 

[danvodka]

Which should be completely wrong.
Low back height/high front height should catapult the car into the air at speed.
C60 Hybride has -40 on the rear which should make it into a Mercedes CLK-GTR...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rJjVaoJjLM

Yes, that is true... of course. It is just a question of how much high or low we are talking about here. My real car for example is a bit higher at the back (stock) for a very good reason. When the car accelerates the back of the car lowers itself, that's just logical. In racing a higher back is usually used to make the car oversteer slightly, often used on frontwheel driven cars as they tend to understeer.

 

[hst12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rJjVaoJjLM

Wow. If I saw that happen in a racing game, I would have thought that the physics were totally messed up.

 

[10,500RPM]

Does anyone know why for certain types of cars, particularly the Le Mans ones the ride height is quiet perculiar. With the front being higher than the rear?

Is that to encourage understeer?

More weight on the rear= more grip and less wheelspin

 

[iamjajo]

Race cars often have lower front to enhance the aerodynamics so i'm bit surprised too.

True. Real race cars have the front lower because the car acts like a wing--relative to airflow. With the lower front end, the cars get some downforce from the angle (with no increase in drag).

But, the game uses a drag formula not CFD (which would plot the wind over, under, and around the car). So, the rake isn't used for aero.

In the game, differing front and rear ride height can affect weight transfer during maneuvers and change the car's C/B. Which can have a positive, or negative affect on handling.

 

[IceMan PJN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rJjVaoJjLM

I've seen that before, but... I'm watching it and figuring the driver must be carrying a full load in the back of his fire suit after that, and maybe a bunch of vomit sloshing around in his helmet.

 

[Mic_Col]

The aero in the game is highly simplified . . . likely for a reason. If we look at just one part of it, ground effect, imagine the complexity of calculating how ground effect cars are affected by an adjustment to ride height, or when say the nose gets lifted and the back end doesn't.

Not that there are many ground effect cars in the game LeMans Prototype and the X1 / X2010. I guess the FGT car has a rear diffuser, which is a localised ground effect element.

That reminds me of the good old ground effect cars of the '80s that would run along on skid plates and shower sparks on all the straights. I was watching a promo clip for the Senna movie just the other day showing that footage.

The OP is right though, it gives you an odd mental image when you run a LeMans car with the nose 40mm higher than the rear

 

[Raven_WET01]

I believe it's my Audi R10 that has a maximum ride height of -10 in the rear in my settings. Also consider that a lot of street cars can only be lowered approximately 25mm, which is roughly an inch, which is almost a full inch higher than even the cheapest sport springs will lower your car, let alone racing springs. Same can be found with the spring rates: I did the conversion from psi to kgf/mm and found that even sport springs for a Miata are stiffer than GT5 allows. That's usually why I don't use other people's tunes on here... they don't even bother thinking about the measurements. Lowering a car 3/4" of an inch is not "too low" for any street car. I often wish I could double the drop.

As for race cars, especially LMPx or Group C, the rear has to be higher than the front in real life. The aerodynamic physics are far from complete in GT5 so it doesn't matter. I can turn the downforce down all the way in front, all the way up in rear, jack the front up, lower the rear, and nothing bad besides poor handling will become of it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The in game adjustment is not the absolute ride height, but an adjustment value to the already stock settings. So having a -10 adjustment in the front available, and a -20 in the rear, is the adjustment from stock, not the absolute height. Meaning you can lower the front 10 mm from a stock value which may already be lower than the rear at the stock settings.

 

[Jaywalker]

Does anyone know why for certain types of cars, particularly the Le Mans ones the ride height is quiet perculiar. With the front being higher than the rear?

Is that to encourage understeer?

Maybe it's to encourage us to set our cars up properly?

 

[PureLogic]

The in game adjustment is not the absolute ride height, but an adjustment value to the already stock settings. So having a -10 adjustment in the front available, and a -20 in the rear, is the adjustment from stock, not the absolute height. Meaning you can lower the front 10 mm from a stock value which may already be lower than the rear at the stock settings.

👍 +1

 

[DJBLITZKRIEG]

The in game adjustment is not the absolute ride height, but an adjustment value to the already stock settings. So having a -10 adjustment in the front available, and a -20 in the rear, is the adjustment from stock, not the absolute height. Meaning you can lower the front 10 mm from a stock value which may already be lower than the rear at the stock settings.

Very well said. I never thought of it that way!! Thanks

 

[Exorcet]

But, the game uses a drag formula not CFD (which would plot the wind over, under, and around the car). So, the rake isn't used for aero.

You don't need CFD to account for rake. Just give some reasonable downforce increase with angle.

 

[Raven_WET01]

The in game adjustment is not the absolute ride height, but an adjustment value to the already stock settings. So having a -10 adjustment in the front available, and a -20 in the rear, is the adjustment from stock, not the absolute height. Meaning you can lower the front 10 mm from a stock value which may already be lower than the rear at the stock settings.

That's not the point I was trying to make. I know it's an adjustment off the stock setting, in fact I compared GT settings to aftermarket lowering springs which lower the car a certain amount front and rear. My point was that it doesn't allow nearly enough lowering (or stiffening) to allow for realistic tuning.

I just ran the aerodynamic test I was talking about in my post (CLK-LM and everything) and like I said: nothing bad became of it besides poor handling.

 

[kilttraeger]

That's not the point I was trying to make. I know it's an adjustment off the stock setting, in fact I compared GT settings to aftermarket lowering springs which lower the car a certain amount front and rear. My point was that it doesn't allow nearly enough lowering (or stiffening) to allow for realistic tuning.

I just ran the aerodynamic test I was talking about in my post (CLK-LM and everything) and like I said: nothing bad became of it besides poor handling.

Have a look at this post; apparently the fully adjustable suspension already lowers the car significantly.

Just my $0.02 - for my taste stiffness, damping and ride height can be adjusted that high (or low) to make the car handle like a cart, i.e. almost undrivable on rough tracks (Nordschleife anyone?).