The definition/meaning of over and under steer

[Adrenaline]

Oh, and 131KG's @ 30.
It kinda looks like negative(-) rear toe too... (I thought you said the winner used your tune?)

I think LSD's with an initial of 5 work fine. I've raced with as low as 5/5/5, it depends on a lot of things.

First part, Adding ballast to the rear, because I felt the car understeered, and because of the weight distribution. That alone defies your comparison to the Yellowbird, so not sure I follow your wink there.

I use negative toe, because based on all my tests, I've always thought it was best. But I am a driver, a flawed driver and NOT a top 5 time trialer. I never said the winner was using my tune, I said the tune that he was using could be found in my sig. (For the record at the time of that quote the leader was BanditKarter who actively posts in the seasonals and shared his tune with the forum, but he ended up finishing #2. His tune, as well as most all tunes on GTP, can be found in my sig.) Bandit and Stotty both used +.15 rear toe, and said that it was the best they could find, despite both testing options closer to 0.00 and even into the negatives. Me personally using - rear toe, is a self-fulfilling prophecy as I mentioned above. I always start at 0.00, and I almost always go negative unless the car is spinning out. It's just how I tune. I tried Stotty and Bandits tune on the '06 (I was one of very few using the '00) and while I was able to run comparable laps, I never beat my personal tune. I ran a 1:18.4xx but never lower than my initial .406 with my own tune.

I know an initial of 5 works fine, that's not the question.
The question was, is it best, and if you're going to use TT's and WRS D1G drivers as the end all of what's best based on results, I'm simply asking why you're picking and choosing, and how you decide to do so?

@ Dampers... I simply can't feel them as well as I could previously. I feel like they have less of an impact now than they did at 2.08 and prior. Front Extension at 10, was something I found to work on a certain car, and a certain track, and I started applying it to a few more tunes for the hell of it, and when it didn't cause any negative effects I just ran with it.

@ Springs... I also feel like they make less of a difference, and I'm unsure that I feel their relation to one another is consistent to what I previously thought.

@ Camber... I've never personally seen it effect tire wear. In long NASCAR races, I actually tend to recommend using more rear camber on the rear, because it makes the car more controllable under low grip situations. (Those last few laps before a pit). But I do not see a decrease in total laps per pit by using more rear camber.

@ My 1000 hours of tuning... You're right, and I have actually decided to loosen my standards on my own tunes. And by decided, I mean, GT5's constant physic changes have rendered my hours wasted, so I'll no longer put as much time and effort into a car/tune, that could be completely useless next week.

I have adopted CSLACR's transmission method trying to get the final drive as low as possible and narrowing the gears. He posted irrefutable evidence that lower final is faster with his test and video.

I can prove the reverse. So... define irrefutable evidence.

 

[CSLACR]

First part, Adding ballast to the rear, because I felt the car understeered, and because of the weight distribution. That alone defies your comparison to the Yellowbird, so not sure I follow your wink there.

I use negative toe, because based on all my tests, I've always thought it was best. But I am a driver, a flawed driver and NOT a top 5 time trialer. I never said the winner was using my tune, I said the tune that he was using could be found in my sig. (For the record at the time of that quote the leader was BanditKarter who actively posts in the seasonals and shared his tune with the forum, but he ended up finishing #2. His tune, as well as most all tunes on GTP, can be found in my sig.) Bandit and Stotty both used +.15 rear toe, and said that it was the best they could find, despite both testing options closer to 0.00 and even into the negatives. Me personally using - rear toe, is a self-fulfilling prophecy as I mentioned above. I always start at 0.00, and I almost always go negative unless the car is spinning out. It's just how I tune. I tried Stotty and Bandits tune on the '06 (I was one of very few using the '00) and while I was able to run comparable laps, I never beat my personal tune. I ran a 1:18.4xx but never lower than my initial .406 with my own tune.

I know an initial of 5 works fine, that's not the question.
The question was, is it best, and if you're going to use TT's and WRS D1G drivers as the end all of what's best based on results, I'm simply asking why you're picking and choosing, and how you decide to do so?

@ Dampers... I simply can't feel them as well as I could previously. I feel like they have less of an impact now than they did at 2.08 and prior. Front Extension at 10, was something I found to work on a certain car, and a certain track, and I started applying it to a few more tunes for the hell of it, and when it didn't cause any negative effects I just ran with it.

@ Springs... I also feel like they make less of a difference, and I'm unsure that I feel their relation to one another is consistent to what I previously thought.

@ Camber... I've never personally seen it effect tire wear. In long NASCAR races, I actually tend to recommend using more rear camber on the rear, because it makes the car more controllable under low grip situations. (Those last few laps before a pit). But I do not see a decrease in total laps per pit by using more rear camber.

@ My 1000 hours of tuning... You're right, and I have actually decided to loosen my standards on my own tunes. And by decided, I mean, GT5's constant physic changes have rendered my hours wasted, so I'll no longer put as much time and effort into a car/tune, that could be completely useless next week.


I can prove the reverse. So... define irrefutable evidence.

The general point was that with being able to throw ballast on the rear, the "need" for using rear toe for rotation is much less.
Blown away as to why you're talking about the Yellowbird, I guess no matter what I type, you'll only read bits and pieces. Maybe go back and read the part where I clearly explained it for you again:

And no, I was clearly pointing out that different cars take different tunes, a single combo that benefits from positive rear toe doesn't negate hundreds of time trials.

You understand now?

Regarding the LSD, looser cars require looser LSD's to function the same. Meaning "5" on an oversteering car could be the same as "10" on a tighter car, in respect to which wheel breaks loose first, turns red first, etc.

And I'd really like to see that video. 👍
Just to see the very first car I'll have found it "untrue" on.

@ My 1000 hours of tuning... You're right, and I have actually decided to loosen my standards on my own tunes. And by decided, I mean, GT5's constant physic changes have rendered my hours wasted, so I'll no longer put as much time and effort into a car/tune, that could be completely useless next week.

Based on everything you've said in here, it was a stupid stupid stupid plan in the first place.

Why? Because like you said, there is no "best" way, riiiiiight?
1000 hours for mediocrity vs 1 hour for mediocrity....I'd have to lean towards 1 myself.

Also amazing how the tuning forum can line up for competitions, considering, you know, how no tune can really be "better" than another, yada yada yada...

 

[Motor City Hami]

I can prove the reverse. So... define irrefutable evidence.

Show your work.

 

[Adrenaline]

Can't tell if CSL has gone off the deep end, but I won't be dignifying that post with a response.

@ Hami I'm going to assume you're referring specifically to the Drag Strip?
My question would then be, where do you stand on using Drag standards to circuit matters? This is a sincere question, do you personally feel that the fastest 'final' at the strip, equates to the fastest car in a turn? The reason I ask, and the reason I won't be arguing either side, is that my 'findings' were based on Daytona Lap times. (Which was obvious when I used NASCAR transmissions as the outlier in my initial questioning of the tranny trick to CSL)

Furthermore, allow me to say, that I was(mostly still am) a believer in the 2.000 final gear for a long time now, and until 2 weeks ago never even questioned it. In fact, you can tell by looking at the tunes in my Garage that I've been using the Min Final for quite some time. I've always equated it to less driveshaft rotation, and if the game can simulate measurable results of a lighter driveshaft, then why not the amount of rotations?

Logically I would like to assume that based on the theory above, less is always better. But due to my quest to break that offline Lap Record at Daytona, I went through quite a bit of trans testing, and unfortunately my fastest lap came when I ditched my previous transmission that used the 2.000 final. Maybe it had more to do with the spacing between 3rd and 4th, maybe it was just a lucky lap, and if I go back to the 2.000 I'll beat it.
I had an interesting theory last week that I just disproved today, but still have 1 theory I need to find a way to test, but I'm having a hard time finding the right values to make it work.

 

[Motor City Hami]

@ Hami I'm going to assume you're referring specifically to the Drag Strip?
My question would then be, where do you stand on using Drag standards to circuit matters?

Good question. I am most concerned about 2nd and 3rd gear for road racing. Gear 2 needs to help reduce wheel spin but still have the right amount of launch for the car. I will give up the small "drag strip" gain for a spot on 2nd and 3rd gear. In the past, I had just done the easy transmission flip of final gear full right, top speed full left, 6th full right, 2nd nearly full left then fairly even spacing from there. Now I have been playing with getting the final drive as low as possible without getting 2nd gear away from its sweet spot.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Nuff said.

 

[CSLACR]

Except for the fundamental flaw categorizing horsepower and torque seperately.

Since you didn't catch the unanswerable, what happens if one driver hits the wall nose first, and another the rear first?
How can we tell how this car really handles?

 

[XDesperado67]

Except for the fundamental flaw categorizing horsepower and torque seperately.

Since you didn't catch the unanswerable, what happens if one driver hits the wall nose first, and another the rear first?
How can we tell how this car really handles?

That's easy...it doesn't handle!

Also you seem to be using some sort of circular logic here.
As has been stated many times earlier a cars tendency to understeer or oversteer is dictated by the amount of lateral grip it has on front and rear. If the front loses grip at a given speed and wheel angle before the rear you get understeer. If the rear loses grip before the front you'll get oversteer.
Driver input can affect how a car handles but even taking the driver out of the equation you will generally have a basic tendency towards one or the other.
A variety of things can affect a cars basic tendencies and make it easier or harder to control, but even the best setup for a car can't make up for driver error or incompetence.

 

[CSLACR]

Can't tell if CSL has gone off the deep end, but I won't be dignifying that post with a response.

@ Hami I'm going to assume you're referring specifically to the Drag Strip?
My question would then be, where do you stand on using Drag standards to circuit matters? This is a sincere question, do you personally feel that the fastest 'final' at the strip, equates to the fastest car in a turn? The reason I ask, and the reason I won't be arguing either side, is that my 'findings' were based on Daytona Lap times. (Which was obvious when I used NASCAR transmissions as the outlier in my initial questioning of the tranny trick to CSL)

Furthermore, allow me to say, that I was(mostly still am) a believer in the 2.000 final gear for a long time now, and until 2 weeks ago never even questioned it. In fact, you can tell by looking at the tunes in my Garage that I've been using the Min Final for quite some time. I've always equated it to less driveshaft rotation, and if the game can simulate measurable results of a lighter driveshaft, then why not the amount of rotations?

Logically I would like to assume that based on the theory above, less is always better. But due to my quest to break that offline Lap Record at Daytona, I went through quite a bit of trans testing, and unfortunately my fastest lap came when I ditched my previous transmission that used the 2.000 final. Maybe it had more to do with the spacing between 3rd and 4th, maybe it was just a lucky lap, and if I go back to the 2.000 I'll beat it.
I had an interesting theory last week that I just disproved today, but still have 1 theory I need to find a way to test, but I'm having a hard time finding the right values to make it work.

Case in point, someone so meticulous, that only makes around 10 tunes in over 2 years, that tests every tune available, etc, etc, has absolutely no ground to say they don't think there is a "best tune".
Basically anyone but you, you are dead last on this planet to have ground to say such a thing.

Maybe that's just my opinion, maybe not.

 

[CSLACR]

That's easy...it doesn't handle!

Also you seem to be using some sort of circular logic here.
As has been stated many times earlier a cars tendency to understeer or oversteer is dictated by the amount of lateral grip it has on front and rear. If the front loses grip at a given speed and wheel angle before the rear you get understeer. If the rear loses grip before the front you'll get oversteer.
Driver input can affect how a car handles but even taking the driver out of the equation you will generally have a basic tendency towards one or the other.
A variety of things can affect a cars basic tendencies and make it easier or harder to control, but even the best setup for a car can't make up for driver error or incompetence.

I don't know where you got the idea I don't think any given car isn't flawed.
There are 2 basic causes of oversteer, drivers and cars.

Ah, the phone dp'd me again :/

 

[XDesperado67]

I don't know where you got the idea I don't think any given car isn't flawed.
There are 2 basic causes of oversteer, drivers and cars.

Ah, the phone dp'd me again :/

So bottom line was this thread about the textbook definition of oversteer and understeer and the ways both conditions are arrived at or is it a giant rant about lousy drivers and their inadequacies both in driving and being able to diagnose the real issues with a car/tune.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Except for the fundamental flaw categorizing horsepower and torque seperately.

Since you didn't catch the unanswerable, what happens if one driver hits the wall nose first, and another the rear first?
How can we tell how this car really handles?

Easy. The one going to wall rear first is driving a RUF. In conclusion, we can say that it handles terribly.

 

[Adrenaline]

Case in point, someone so meticulous, that only makes around 10 tunes in over 2 years, that tests every tune available, etc, etc, has absolutely no ground to say they don't think there is a "best tune".
Basically anyone but you, you are dead last on this planet to have ground to say such a thing.

Maybe that's just my opinion, maybe not.

Because you think my tunes are the best?

 

[Motor City Hami]

Because you think my tunes are the best?

There is no best tuner. Your tunes are good, but they fit you most perfectly. I can make little tweaks to your tunes to make them work better for me. I can make your tunes faster for me. I can make Praiano and CSLACRs tunes better for me.

In CSLACRs world, he would say that I need to improve my driving and not adjust the tune. The driver must learn to be faster... don't change the tune, right? So don't take the immediate extra quickness of a tune adustment that makes a car more predictable, building confidence and allowing me to be more competitive and drive more aggressively?

A rookie driver can't start out in the loosest setup. They have to work up to it. I was a sponsored, national champion in remote controlled car racing. When newbies at the club would ask for setup advice, I didn't give them my loose is fast razor's edge settings. I would start them out with a little less aggressive and help them grow and improve into using the razor's edge. You can't learn if you just spin out every corner. People progress and should be adjusting their tunes to be a little more loose than their ability, not one set fastest tune for all.

Spec Miata is no different. If a new racer asks what my setup is I tell them, but also give them the knowledge of how to calm it down a little if it is too loose for them. In the real world, if they can't drive my setup, they could crash a $20,000 car or hurt themselves or take others out in the process. Raise ride heights by 3mm to keep the car off the bump stops, add up to 3mm of rear toe, soften the rear swaybar one link, drop rear tire pressures by a pound or two, etc. Tunes need to match driver skill and progressively get more loose with their talent.

 

[Taz69]

This seems so easy.. If a car pushes while on the breaks turning in or pushes while on the gas exiting understeer.. If the rear wants to come around while breaking turning in and the rear wants to step out while on the gas oversteer.. Simple right?

 

[Stotty]

@ Dampers... I simply can't feel them as well as I could previously. I feel like they have less of an impact now than they did at 2.08 and prior.

@ Springs... I also feel like they make less of a difference

I'm not going to get involved in the wider discussion as I'm a bit late to the party, but I do to agree with the above 2 comments...

Having put a bit of time in to tuning over the past few seasonals, I don't find that there is that much benefit in spending loads of time on fine tuning springs and dampers unless the car has a serious balance issue.

For me, toe and camber are a much more effective way of managing balance and grip, along with the LSD... that's where I spend the vast majority of my time when fine tuning.

Anyhow, interesting discussion I'm enjoying following 👍

 

[trackripper123]

There are 2 basic causes of oversteer, drivers and cars.

I've not been following this very closely, however, I'd like to call you up on that statement.

There is only one cause of oversteer IMO: lack of grip at the rear.

 

[CSLACR]

I've not been following this very closely, however, I'd like to call you up on that statement.

There is only one cause of oversteer IMO: lack of grip at the rear.

Thanks, my case needed this reinforcement. 👍

Everyone else, there you go.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

He isn't wrong.

 

[Adrenaline]

Thanks, my case needed this reinforcement. 👍

Everyone else, there you go.

Technically he's right.
The point you tried to make, that I had to actually make for you, is that there are multiple causes for 'lack of grip at the rear'.

Don't gloss over my question though CSL, I've been waiting all day for your response!

 

[CSLACR]

Technically he's right.
The point you tried to make, that I had to actually make for you, is that there are multiple causes for 'lack of grip at the rear'.

Don't gloss over my question though CSL, I've been waiting all day for your response!

So how can a car have a lack of grip at the rear, if it doesn't?

You guys gonna dodge that one forever?


And yes, your only limitation is skill/speed, which is still good enough to derive at least 98% of most cars speed from tuning.
Imo of course.


But know you owe me an answer. You all three just said the only cause....
So what about when the oversteer doesnt happen for another driver? Did the rear gain grip or are you wrong?

 

[Adrenaline]

But know you owe me an answer. You all three just said the only cause....
So what about when the oversteer doesnt happen for another driver? Did the rear gain grip or are you wrong?

The second driver maximized the cars available grip.
The first driver is causing the oversteer, which is why you can't remove the driver from the equation, which is what we've been saying since we figured out what you were saying.

I believe all you're really asking, is for people to decipher the difference between a 'loose car' and a driver who is causing a 'loose condition'.

Actually, you might have just made me realize a better way to say what you still haven't yet.

Is what you're asking for, to not decipher under or oversteer, but a comparison of front grip and rear grip, tuned into the car, before the driver drives it? Which is still un-testable, but would at least be a coherent thought. In which case, the driver is being judged on efficiency of available grip, front to rear, but the 'mechanical' grip, is there (even if unmeasurable) prior to a driver ever getting in the car.
Is that what you're after?

Again, I think I agree with your standpoint. (As I've already acdmitted) My persisting issue, is that I'm still the one coming up with these theses for you. Unless neither of these is right, in which case we're 6 pages in, and your standpoint still eludes me.

Regardless, thanks for the compliment on my tunes!

 

[CSLACR]

The second driver maximized the cars available grip.
The first driver is causing the oversteer, which is why you can't remove the driver from the equation, which is what we've been saying since we figured out what you were saying.

Actually, you might have just made me realize a better way to say what you still haven't yet.

Is what you're asking for, to not decipher under or oversteer, but a comparison of front grip and rear grip, tuned into the car, before the driver drives it? Which is still un-testable, but would at least be a coherent thought. In which case, the driver is being judged on efficiency of available grip, front to rear, but the 'mechanical' grip, is there (even if unmeasurable) prior to a driver ever getting in the car.
Is that what you're after?

Again, I think I agree with your standpoint. (As I've already acdmitted) My persisting issue, is that I'm still the one coming up with these theses for you. Unless neither of these is right, in which case we're 6 pages in, and your standpoint still eludes me.

Regardless, thanks for the compliment on my tunes!

It's not about being technically correct.
If I were being technical, I'd argue that it could be excessive front grip.

Like I said, I don't know, but for me it seems really easy to tell when the car is over or under steering, and I don't judge it on how much I (i) slide the rear.
I judge it on the balance of the car and steering angles required at differing speeds to maintain it's course.
I consider the difference of epic proportions.

Its not 100% speed/skill related either, Desperado has made arguably "better" cars in most shootouts, according to results than ugabugaz, bar ugabugaz well loved entries recent domination of course.

Not to take from the compliment, but Ive never driven an up to date Stotty, Paulie, or Eclipsee tune. Ive heard only good things about all of their tunes, so not to leave them left out. Praiano simply has a different style than I, so while I respect his ability, I don't always get along with the cars.

 

[Adrenaline]

It's not about being technically correct.
If I were being technical, I'd argue that it could be excessive front grip.

Like I said, I don't know, but for me it seems really easy to tell when the car is over or under steering, and I don't judge it on how much I (i) slide the rear.
I judge it on the balance of the car and steering angles required at differing speeds to maintain it's course.
I consider the difference of epic proportions.

Its not 100% speed/skill related either, Desperado has made arguably "better" cars in most shootouts, according to results than ugabugaz, bar ugabugaz well loved entries recent domination of course.

Not to take from the compliment, but Ive never driven an up to date Stotty, Paulie, or Eclipsee tune. Ive heard only good things about all of their tunes, so not to leave them left out. Praiano simply has a different style than I, so while I respect his ability, I don't always get along with the cars.

Gunna put my foot in my mouth here and potentially offend some people, but I hope they all understand it's in an attempt to further the progression of the tuning world as a whole.

1: You're an exceptional driver and tuner. So clearly you have to logically understand why you, and drivers/tuners like you, can easily discern the difference. You're essentially the input and the output.

2: I haven't been a part of any of these Competitions lately, but... from what I remember, the drivers skill levels, while varying in nature, tend to favor a direction that I would consider... the opposite of yours. So wouldn't it be fair to assume that since... XDes's personal nature/skill/speed/style would fit the drivers that account for the majority of testers field? Not saying that Xdes' tunes aren't good, or that you have to be X fast to get Y tune, just an observation.

3: We both agree that in Time Trials, trends can occur that allow the 'majority' to obtain an advantage of X grip allowed in Z car. As you've stated, a looser car is usually the faster car. I won't say best, but faster for the general population. Time Trials are about repetition and a few lucky laps. No offense to the TT guys, I'm probably wrong, but in my personal opinion, they spend an entire week with the goal of that 1 perfect lap. They chases ghost after ghost whether their own, or the leaders and they try to drive a little bit deeper, accelerate a little bit sooner, brake a little bit less, whatever, whatever just to beat the ghost, because if they mess up, oh well, restart! TT's are a lot of restarting. These competitions, are running laps, where you string together 3-5 laps and take the average. People aren't altering their driving lines, their personal styles or learning an entire new entry/exit technique, they aren't testing the extreme over and over again. They're running 5 real laps, to get a genuine feel of how the car handles in real race conditions, in their hands. So, it doesn't surprise me at all, that tunes designed by slower drivers, with a potentially more conservative approach, or the goal of being controlled, safe, consistent etc etc, end up being favored by drivers who are looking for the safe, controlled and consistent car that they can take online.

Someone just recently said, (think it was you?) that half of your time spent tuning for shootouts, is where to put the car. You aren't tuning the car for the track, you're tuning the car to the driver. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's why I don't really enter the shootouts. I design my tunes for one thing and one thing only, and that's to be the fastest that I possibly can for 5 laps back to back to back. I don't enjoy tuning, I don't enjoy Time Trials, I don't enjoy the WRS, I enjoy racing people. I make tunes that may not be as fast as Stotty's, that may not push my limits or help develop my driving skills, but that I can run online, as hard as possible, without a catastrophic wreck, because there is no 'reset' online. And personally, I don't like to lose. I race pretty often with guys that aren't necessarily as fast as me, but fast enough, that 1 mistake and I won't win the race. So while on GTP, the TT or WRS I'm not a name people know well, but it's the exact opposite online.

Sorry, I just rambled for days, and said nothing important. Ignore me.

 

[CSLACR]

Is it possible that the reason faster drivers become fast is their understanding of the physics of what's going on?
Is it possible they assess vehicle behavior and handling dynamics, or process the information differently?
Is it possible changing one's mindset could change how they perform?


On to your post, I largely agree, minus the shootout results. The shootouts are essentially handicapped yes, both in terms of as you said, and i terms of needing to find a fast car.
I would say that Praiano, myself, and ACSR have all shown as good or better success than any other tuners. I haven't checked statistics, maybe just my opinion.

As for the tester speed, there's 3-4 D1 pace drivers for the current. Fast drivers have to test to have fast testers, you know. (hint)

Regarding TT's "vs" racing, the smart money does both. Improve the skills and lines while practicing consistency.

 

[thewheelman83]

I've not been following this very closely, however, I'd like to call you up on that statement.

There is only one cause of oversteer IMO: lack of grip at the rear.

Thanks, my case needed this reinforcement. 👍

Everyone else, there you go.

OR you have a very HEAVY foot....

Spec Miata is no different. If a new racer asks what my setup is I tell them, but also give them the knowledge of how to calm it down a little if it is too loose for them. In the real world, if they can't drive my setup, they could crash a $20,000 car or hurt themselves or take others out in the process. Tunes need to match driver skill and progressively get more loose with their talent.

You aren't tuning the car for the track, you're tuning the car to the driver.

I AGREE 100 percent with Hami and Adrenaline, remember the car works for you, not the track. There's one Japanese phrase, "Jinba ittai" which translates to unity between man, i.e. the driver, and horse, i.e. the car. You have to understand the car's weakness to overcome it before tuning it to suit your style.

I would say that Praiano, myself, and ACSR have all shown as good or better success than any other tuners. I haven't checked statistics, maybe just my opinion.

There is NO best tuner here, i'm afraid. I've always say to myself, To each it's own... Everybody has their own driving style, it's a matter of his or her preferences and I know who my preferences is.