some thoughts on tuning philosophy

  • Thread starter nomis3613
  • 14 comments
  • 2,689 views

nomis3613

Premium
831
There are many ways to skin a cat, and even more ways to tune a car in GT4! Here's my thoughts on how to use each setting, all discussion welcomed. This isn't meant to compete with the excellent guides of Scaff, etc (in fact, I used these guides myself) but just throw up some food for thought about the art of tuning...

Spring Rates
I've changed my mind on the best way to use these many times in the past, and reserve the right to change my mind again! These days, I don't use them to reduce under/oversteer in their own right, but rather to balance any other changes. Such as stiffer springs for lower ride height or to keep the balance of spring vs damper vs roll bar strengths similar.

Only adjust in steps of 0.5 or 1.0, and don't go too extreme.

Ride Height
Just used for how a car feels as it moves around on its suspension. Basically if I'm getting sea-sick in a car, down comes the ride height evenly at both ends. Sometime I raise it on bumpy tracks, but just based on a wild guess, nothing scientific.

Can be used to adjust weight balance (hence steady-state under/oversteer), but only where the car has a weight balance problem or normal tuning methods aren't enough.

Damper Bound / Rebound

Start with all settings at 4. Increase front bound or rear rebound to reduce dive under brakes and also oversteer when braking. Increase front rebound or rear bound to reduce squat during and understeer when accelerating.

Like springs, dampers can be used to reduce under/oversteer but given the side-effects I tend to adjust them as a complimentry modification (same as spring rate) to other changes.

Camber

I did acceleration, braking and cornering testing of camber and now I believe that all types of grip are have the same optimum camber angle (unlike reality where you would expect that increasing camber would help cornering but reduce braking and powerdown). I also found multiple peaks on the camber curve (see below- the grip numbers aren't anything real, just used to show relative levels).


The first peak is always slightly lower than the second, but the 2nd peak is really narrow- so if you're a tiny bit off the 2nd peak, you've got less grip than if you'd missed the 1st peak by the same amount. There are more peaks after the 2nd, but they are smaller and even narrower, so not worth worrying about.

A racing car needs less (static) camber than a road car (about 3.0 degrees vs 1.5). Increasing camber increases tyre wear.

So I take a conservative approach and aim for the first camber peak. If tyres at one end are wearing too slowly (and ruining the cars handling balance as the other tyres wear), then increase the camber, even perhaps to values that might normally seem silly.

Camber can be used to adjust over/understeer, but tuning this way is just reducing the overall grip potential of your car, so I only do it in extreme cases.

Toe Angle
Here is the golden secret of tuning: front toe!!! Negative front toe reduces mid- and late-corner understeer. The trade-off is less turn-in, so start with 0 and only use it if you need it, but when the ugly understeer beast raises it's head, ask yourself if it's late in the corner and try 1-2mm of negative front toe.

Negative rear toe can be used to reduce overall understeer. But you will lose a lot of rear grip, so only do it when normal tuning methods aren't enough, and just use 1-2mm.

Stabiliser

Here is where I tune out overall under or oversteer. More stabiliser means less more grip lost over bumps, so start at 3. Then soften the end without enough grip, or stiffen the opposite end.

Stiffen both front and rear stabilisers to reduce body roll, but ask yourself if you've got too much diving under brakes and squat under acceleration, in which case you're best off looking at ride height/spring rates first.

Brake Balance

Don't go below 2 or above 6 at either end. More front brake tames a car that wants to spin under brakes and also reduces stopping distances slightly, more rear brakes makes it easier to turn while braking. Increasing brake setting increases tyre wear slightly, but not enough to matter IMHO.

LSD

More LSD initial or accel reduces wheelspin UP TO A POINT. More LSD initial or decel makes the car harder to turn while braking. Increasing any diff setting reduces agility, so only use as much as you need to.

Start with 0 for everything. Increase accel if you suspect that the INSIDE WHEEL is spinning. Increase decel if the car tries to spin out while braking. Use the initial setting to minimise the difference between accel and decel (otherwise the handling will become unpredictable).

I strongly suspect people use too much diff strength in an attempt to reduce wheelspin. If there is enough power to spin both wheels, then there is nothing the diff can do. So using high diff settings on your high powered car will do nothing to reduce wheelspin, it only makes your car less agile (worse at quick direction changes).

Downforce

Unless you're on an oval track or Circue de Sarthe, I reckon use as much downforce as you can. Who cares if your top speed is a bit slower, you will be exiting the corners faster so you will be quicker for the 1st half of the straight.

Start at max front and rear downforce and work down. More front downforce cures high-speed understeer, rear downforce fixes high-speed oversteer. Reducing downforce slightly reduces tyre wear.

ASM/TCS

Turn them off while tuning, so you can feel what the car is doing! Don't use ASM at all, it works by applying the brakes so it will only slow you down if you're a good driver. TCS can be necessary with high powered or laggy engines. More TCS also reduces tyre wear (for the driven wheels, of course).

Thanks for reading,

Simon
 
I'll disagree with the results straightaway here, regardless of graph.

First off, A LOT of my cars are tuned with a 2.7 front toe angle which according to your graph would make all of those cars barely better than stock. Now I can say with certainty that used in conjunction with toe angle improves the handling a lot on those cars, my GME Clubsport R8 is a perfect example of it. Some react better than others to this and the camber and toe angles get adjusted accordingly.

I'm actually curious what type of car you used to get the results down for your camber graph. Weight, power & drivetrain of a car can affect your results in so many different ways.

Secondly, your LSD paragraph is incorrect. You CANNOT start at 0 with your FC LSD, full stop. The lowest you can go is 5/5/5 for initial, accel & decel. Also, since it is an LSD, one wheel won't spin, they both will.....doesn't matter if it's inside tyre lifting or not. But yes, I will agree....a weaker setting does benefit a lot of cars. FF's benefit the most from a weaker LSD, where MR/RR's prefer stronger ones to stop the pendulum effect under braking and turning. As for 4WD's and the VCD, the lowest you can get on that is 10 to the front wheels.

Downforce can be detrimental to the feel of the car. Sure, you might be faster over a single lap but there are times that you won't be consistent as you & the car have to adjust to compensate for the downforce. It's great for acceleration 1/4 miles though, you can knock 0.3 off your 1/4 mile time in certain cars with it as the downforce keeps the car more tractable. :cool:

And yes Scaff's guide is great to use as a base, but there's ALWAYS room for improvement on a blueprint. ;)
 
Thanks for your thoughts!
First off, A LOT of my cars are tuned with a 2.7 front toe angle which according to your graph would make all of those cars barely better than stock. Now I can say with certainty that used in conjunction with toe angle improves the handling a lot on those cars, my GME Clubsport R8 is a perfect example of it. Some react better than others to this and the camber and toe angles get adjusted accordingly.

"2.7 front toe"? Do you mean camber? Anyway, perhaps the graph is a bit misleading, I was just trying to use it to illustrate the trend with the 2 peaks, I'm not saying which is the best camber angle for every car (which doesn't exist, they're all different). Here is the new improved version of the graph, sans numbers, to avoid confusion.


It is also possible that the best camber angle for your setup isn't the one that gives maximum grip (because balance is more important than grip usually). And I'll admit the differences are fairly small compared to other tuning factors. Back to your 2.7 degrees, sure it is an improvement on the default setting, but it might not be the best setting.

My tuning method is to find the camber angle that gives the maximum grip and then use other things (mainly stabilisers) to adjust the balance around that.

I'm actually curious what type of car you used to get the results down for your camber graph. Weight, power & drivetrain of a car can affect your results in so many different ways.
Agreed. I found the trends were the same, though. I started with the Konica Minolta, then moved onto other types of cars (eg low powered FR, FF hatchback, 4WD, not sure about RR though). The angles, accel times, braking distances, and cornering lap times were all different- but the pattern was the same.

Secondly, your LSD paragraph is incorrect. You CANNOT start at 0 with your FC LSD, full stop. The lowest you can go is 5/5/5 for initial, accel & decel. Also, since it is an LSD, one wheel won't spin, they both will.....
Woops, yes you're right- the minimum LSD setting is 5. At low LSD settings, it acts like an open diff so it is still possible to spin the inside wheel.

Downforce can be detrimental to the feel of the car. Sure, you might be faster over a single lap but there are times that you won't be consistent as you & the car have to adjust to compensate for the downforce. It's great for acceleration 1/4 miles though, you can knock 0.3 off your 1/4 mile time in certain cars with it as the downforce keeps the car more tractable. :cool:
I haven't personally noticed any inconsistency in lap times due to aero, but I'll keep an eye out for it now. Yeah (up to a point) increasing downforce improves acceleration due to increased traction. Downforce FTW!

How did you base the graph for camber test results? Just curious.
Hi Parnelli, good to hear from ya. The graph is fictional actually! Maybe you realised from this post, but basically I measured braking distances, accel times and handling times at increasing camber angles (using 0.25 degree increments). The best angles for cornering were also the best for braking and acceleration (unlike IRL), so I've just called it "grip" in the graph and given it a relative score to show the trend.

The handling testing was tricky, for front camber I set the car with really stong understeer so that any increased front grip gave a better lap time. Then did the same with oversteer for the rear camber (wheeee sooo many spins!!!). But in the end, the results are repeatable and I was actually really sceptical about the trend for a while I did heaps, so I did heaps of testing until I convinced myself!
 
Last edited:
Oh hey nomis! I forgot who you were. We were posting back and forth in GT3 awhile back, right? Welcome back. Hope you stick around.
 
Yeah sorry nomis, I did mean 2.7 camber. :embarrassed:

I'm not saying it's a be all and end all of camber angles, as there are plenty of cars that do well without as much camber or more camber....but the point I was trying to make was a lot of it has to do with doing things in conjunction with the toe angle. Sort of a case of you can't have one without the other being adjusted to compliment it.

As for downforce, it can be a two edged sword was what I was getting at. Just for an example, in my GME garage, I have a Solstice race car with the wing fitted but 0/0 downforce to keep the car settled. I noticed when I had it set at 30/30 & even at 15/10, yeah it was quicker but it wasn't as enjoyable to drive so it was brought back to give it a more lively feeling during handling.

Some other cars respond a lot better to it though (the Audi TT is a perfect example) and just go ballistic once the downforce is fitted where they understeered like a boat without it.
 
Nomis remember back in GT3, how we were the only ones discussing car tunes? It's a different story over here. You'll find more than enough discussion here at GT4. :)
 
Nice idea nomis. I considered doing a similar thread after testing 30 or so cars for TCv4.

I'd like to direct the question away from mafs' fixation on toe/camber to the relationship between height/springs/bound/rebound/stabs and extra hp.
Possible methods:
height/springs/bound/extra horses
extra horses/height/springs/bound
extra horses/springs/height/bound
... by testing the car through each stage.

I've noticed the experienced tuners use each of these methods and others as well. Can youse tell me which methods you use and why?
 
PF
....the relationship between height/springs/bound/rebound/stabs and extra hp.
Possible methods:
height/springs/bound/extra horses
extra horses/height/springs/bound
extra horses/springs/height/bound
... by testing the car through each stage.

I've noticed the experienced tuners use each of these methods and others as well. Can youse tell me which methods you use and why?

PF, Sorry I never replied, I didn't get the notification somehow. If you're still around, what do you mean?

I don't understand a relationship between suspension settings and horsepower. Is there some effect of wheels dragging on wheelarches in GT4? I haven't done any testing of straight line accel vs ride height etc, but I'd be keen to if you could point me in the right direction.

Thanks,
Simon
 
Nomis remember back in GT3, how we were the only ones discussing car tunes? It's a different story over here. You'll find more than enough discussion here at GT4. :)

Haha, I hope so! And I'm about to whip up some more discussion now (check out my new thread).
 
PF, Sorry I never replied, I didn't get the notification somehow. If you're still around, what do you mean?
...
Thanks,
Simon

Hi Simon,

I must apologise for the embarrassing gibberish I spewed out a year ago. I must have been 'tired and emotional', as the saying goes.

I was referring to the order in which the various upgrades, modifications and tuning are made. At the time I was trying to develop a 'template' or 'process' for tuning, much like the one you've offered in the other thread, which looks very good. I'm going to print it out and frown at it for a while and come back with some feedback.

This is what I meant to say a year ago:

height then springs then bound then extra horses
extra horses then height then springs then bound
extra horses then springs then height then bound

I hope this makes a bit more sense, but I'm still not sure it does...
 
PF
height then springs then bound then extra horses
extra horses then height then springs then bound
extra horses then springs then height then bound

I hope this makes a bit more sense, but I'm still not sure it does...
Hi PF,

Aha, yeah I think I understand now...

As far as I know, the order of tuning doesn't matter (it would be almost impossible to tune if it did matter!)

It'd be great to hear your thoughts on my guide. One of the controversial things I'm saying is to avoid using springs and ride height to fix under/over steer- discussion is welcomed!!

Simon
 
It'd be great to hear your thoughts on my guide. One of the controversial things I'm saying is to avoid using springs and ride height to fix under/over steer- discussion is welcomed!!

Simon

It's not really controversial to me; it's just your preferred method of tuning IMO. I've used ride height and spring tuning to dial out under or oversteer before, but then there are other cars where merely tweaking a spring or changing height doesn't have as much of an effect, and I'll move on to some other area.
 
Back