The definition/meaning of over and under steer

[DigitalBaka]

I can't remove a driver from his car in GT5, but I can alter his tuning settings to help with his specific issue.

This seems to be the crux of the disagreement. I will make some "educated guesses" to see if I can lay this out, let me know if I am incorrect.

CSL seems to be saying that a given setup on a given car will behave in X manner, whether that is to oversteer or understeer or drive neutrally (is that a word? The Internet seems to think so. ). The driver is irrelevant in the equation. Their skill determines whether they experience the proper/expected behavior. The driver's perception of the behavior can be incorrect because their skill level or driving habits may not allow them to realize the potential of the given settings.

Adrenaline, RJ and others have the opinion that the driver is a part of the tune/behavior of the car. The same car with the same setup will behave differently based on the driver. What the driver perceives is correct no matter the "expected" behavior.

Am I OK so far?

If a car understeers in a given situation then damn straight it understeers in that situation. If it oversteers in another, it oversteers. Different drivers will find different problems depending on how they drive, it doesn't make any one person's feedback any more or less valuable than the next. What adds value is knowing what that person is doing when the car steps out or pushes wide, so that the situation can be replicated and the tuner can figure out if they can fix it without hurting the car otherwise.

This, to me, offers the most value to the discussion. I agree that the driver is a part of the tune. If the driver were irrelevant there would be one "perfect" tune for every car on a given track and I believe we can all agree this is untrue. Bringing back CSL's D1G drivers, I have seen many of them run within thousandths on the same track with the same car and with different setups. If I take one driver's setup and give it to the other, he almost assuredly will not run the same time unless his driving habits are near exact. I also agree that input method (controller vs various wheels) does not have as great an effect as is generally thought. Comfort level and skill can make it seem like there is a gap. I know that I, unconsciously, will drive a car differently with a DS3 than with my DFGT. I can correct throttle oversteer a hundred times better with a DS3 so I will drive a 1000hp Viper more aggressively than if I use my DFGT because I am more comfortable with my ability to keep it on the track facing the right way. As I gain a familiarity with the DFGT I am changing the way I drive that same Viper.

Getting back to over and under steer... To get faster there are only two options: change the car or change the driver.

To change the car, you must understand how the driver drives and adapt the settings to compensate for late braking, heavy right foot, violent steering, etc. This can be done to make a car faster for a particular driver but only to a point. In the example of "Joe the Stubborn", one could tune the Pescarolo for more grip under acceleration but not to the point of eliminating it when he puts his foot through the firewall in first gear.

To do that you need to change the driver. Instead of changing the settings of the car, teach a driving behavior that mitigates the situation. Back to Joe, explain that the car responds better when throttle is applied gently and the settings do not have to change to lessen or eliminate the throttle oversteer.

Forming my opinion, I believe the driver is a part of the car, the tune, the settings. When the driver says "it oversteers" the car oversteers. When the driver says "it understeers" the car understeers. Perception is reality but it is meaningless. The only time under and oversteer have any meaning is when you attach and understand how it is being driven. I believe it is impossible to say setting X will cause the car to oversteer and setting Y will cause it to understeer without knowing how it will be put to use. To change the under or oversteer behavior you can either tell the driver how to use the car or change the car to fit the driver. Changing settings is a short term "quick fix" while altering the behavior and processes of the driver will, presumably, yield better results but over a greater amount of time invested.

As a side note, the WRS allows for both with a concentration on the latter...since it was brought up. In my view, of course.

Since it's getting a bit chippy, I feel I should say I am not trying to put words into anybody's mouth or offend or such. This is simply how I understand the situation and my opinion of it.

 

[Motor City Hami]

The title of this thread is, "The definition/meaning of over and under steer."

I don't think CSLACR has successfully convinced anyone that we need to redefine the meaning.

All I can make of this is that there is a reality (who's reality I'm not sure? CSLACRS?) where the car will be perfectly balanced, but only if you have enough skill. And if the car isn't perfectly balanced for you, then the driver is flawed and not the tune.

All over racing of any kind, different drivers require slightly different setups to achieve almost identical lap times. That's what makes tuning so challenging. The end result IS personal and SHOULD fit the driver in the seat.

 

[bread82]

Forming my opinion, I believe the driver is a part of the car, the tune, the settings. When the driver says "it oversteers" the car oversteers. When the driver says "it understeers" the car understeers. Perception is reality but it is meaningless. The only time under and oversteer have any meaning is when you attach and understand how it is being driven. I believe it is impossible to say setting X will cause the car to oversteer and setting Y will cause it to understeer without knowing how it will be put to use. To change the under or oversteer behavior you can either tell the driver how to use the car or change the car to fit the driver.

+1

The difference in peoples' driving styles, at some point, will make judgement of a car's handling subjective. In an extreme example which was stated above, a car which during "normal" or "proper" cornering understeers, but is forced into oversteer by someone mashing the throttle and losing the back end could be judged by the vast majority as "the car understeers naturally, but bad driving made it oversteer". The trouble arises where you try to define "normal", "proper" and "natural" in more subtle situations - you can't. Ultimately people will have different opinions on a vehicle due to their different habits.

 

[Adrenaline]

CSL seems to be saying that a given setup on a given car will behave in X manner, whether that is to oversteer or understeer or drive neutrally (is that a word? The Internet seems to think so. ). The driver is irrelevant in the equation. Their skill determines whether they experience the proper/expected behavior. The driver's perception of the behavior can be incorrect because their skill level or driving habits may not allow them to realize the potential of the given settings.

As far as I can tell, yes. My counter argument, is that even if we were to agree with CSL's standpoint about X tune behaving Y manner, who or how do we decide that? We can't ask any driver, because that defeats the purpose of the point being made, that the driver is a non factor. So now we're left with... tuning settings? In which case, who gets to decide what settings cause under/oversteer, even if we did all agree on settings and their outcome, how do we unbiased-ly decide how much is enough to create oversteer? Without driving the car, or using our personal experience as a driver to make that determination?

 

[CSLACR]

In short, DB pretty much has it, however I don't feel the driver can be "completely" removed.
However, defining the rear breaking loose as "the car" (which is the mindset personal preference puts you in) you should (not MUST, do whatever you want) try to differentiate between the car actually being loose, and yourself making it become loose.
Does it break loose every time I enter this corner, or randomly? If it's random, the car isn't loose is it? You're probably making mistakes intermittently, etc. It's really a question for yourself, not I, as to whether you want to build tunes around errors or search for the faster way, much as DB also said.

I honestly can't judge how much skill plays a factor, as I've never played the game with someone else's skill sets... Obviously I, for whatever reason, feel that I can discern easily between the cars flaws and my own, perhaps that's my own arrogance, perhaps it's my skill, or perhaps more people are capable of doing it than realize.(so far in life the answer is usually that more people are capable than realize)

I don't think CSLACR has successfully convinced anyone that we need to redefine the meaning.

If you read closely the "meaning" you speak of that you think I want to "change" (of oversteer), is universally classified as over-rotation, which is the same as the rear coming out.

It's defining the cause that might be getting in your way, not the meaning of the term itself. It's how the cause is defined that we've spent the last 3 pages, not about the actual definition.

Of course the textbook definition could imply there's a difference due to different wording, but the actual difference between the two is simply how you define the cause.

 

[Adrenaline]

That being the case CSL, then 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'.

In which case, I feel we've wasted 4 pages of bandwidth because of a poor choice of words in the OP.

 

[CSLACR]

Yes and no.
It's a totally different manner of looking at it, obviously, based on the last 4 pages.

I read you continually arguing not that "oversteer is oversteer, how could it be anything but oversteer", you just didn't read when I said "that's not what I said" the first 5 times.
Oversteer is oversteer, unless the driver causes it. To what extent you personally consider "acceptable" is probably different for most of us.
We seem to pretty much all agree there was no tuning that would fix joe's problem, until he fixed the problem between the seat and the wheel, so we pretty much all agree to some extent.

That's ok, I was told elsewhere that "no", you have to decrease steering angle to maintain a radius on both, under and over steer.

 

[Adrenaline]

you just didn't read when I said "that's not what I said" the first 5 times.

If you had constructed a clear and concise thought, people wouldn't have had to spend 4 pages trying to decipher what it was you were actually saying. 👍

 

[kleefton]

This thread shows why handling is such a subjective thing both in real life and in the game. How many times have i read a review of a particular car's handling behavior in one car magazine and it totally differs from what another car magazine said? It happens all the time. And the reason is that all drivers regardless of level have a different style. That is why everyone will never agree on the same thing; even a seemingly simple topic such as understeer vs oversteer.

 

[CSLACR]

If you had constructed a clear and concise thought, people wouldn't have had to spend 4 pages trying to decipher what it was you were actually saying. 👍

Yet we know by now Im terrible at non-verbal communication, so...
I still think there is merit to discussing it. There is a difference between the perspectives, obviously.

 

[CSLACR]

This thread shows why handling is such a subjective thing both in real life and in the game. How many times have i read a review of a particular car's handling behavior in one car magazine and it totally differs from what another car magazine said? It happens all the time. And the reason is that all drivers regardless of level have a different style. That is why everyone will never agree on the same thing; even a seemingly simple topic such as understeer vs oversteer.

Which is why my preferred method is removing the driver from the equation as much as possible.

Obviously you can never remove the driver, but how the driver interprets or translates the feedback can be changed from the common method.

 

[brianwong]

Without a driver how could the car be controlled?

Also, quick Google search, Oversteer: Verb (of a motor vehicle) Have a tendency to turn more sharply than was intended.

 

[rosckolove]

Without a driver how could the car be controlled?

He obviously meant removing driver error.

 

[CSLACR]

Without a driver how could the car be controlled?

Also, quick Google search, Oversteer: Verb (of a motor vehicle) Have a tendency to turn more sharply than was intended.

If you want the smart-assed answer...

 

[Adrenaline]

If you want the smart-assed answer...

Rocks, glass houses. This is a GT5 forum.

 

[rosckolove]

Rocks, glass houses. This is a GT5 forum.

I feel your snide remarks would be better suited answering things like this...

Without a driver how could the car be controlled

 

[Adrenaline]

I feel your snide remarks would be better suited answering things like this...

Not sure I follow?

 

[Motor City Hami]

I can't wait for real world Google robot race cars (obviously not a slow, ugly Prius). Let's say F1. That would really improve F1 racing if all of the cars were robots.

So, where to start. What driving style should I program my robot to have? Who should the robot drive like? Senna, Schuey, Stig, Clarkson? Wait. If in order to program a car, I need to pick a driving style, but each human has their own flaws. Senna was over aggressive at times (sorry Praiano). Michael only works if in a Ferarri. The Stig has occasional indentity issues. Clarkson's problem... POWERRRRRR! Damn, they all have flaws that I am going to have to either tune around, or dumb down the good parts of their driving so far that they'll actually be slower.

To be honest, what a rediculous premise to say that somehow the driver is the issue with the definition of oversteer/understeer. You've give one example of a guy with a stupid foot. Tuning has and alway will be the art of fitting a car's ability with a driver's ability to find the fastest setting combination between the two. Do you think that Massa's car is set up identical to Alonzo's? Both in the highest form of racing, so both have some talent yet slightly different setings needed to perform at their best (their best, including both car and driver).

 

[kleefton]

I can't wait for real world Google robot race cars (obviously not a slow, ugly Prius). Let's say F1. That would really improve F1 racing if all of the cars were robots.

So, where to start. What driving style should I program my robot to have? Who should the robot drive like? Senna, Schuey, Stig, Clarkson? Wait. If in order to program a car, I need to pick a driving style, but each human has their own flaws. Senna was over aggressive at times (sorry Praiano). Michael only works if in a Ferarri. The Stig has occasional indentity issues. Clarkson's problem... POWERRRRRR! Damn, they all have flaws that I am going to have to either tune around, or dumb down the good parts of their driving so far that they'll actually be slower.

To be honest, what a rediculous premise to say that somehow the driver is the issue with the definition of oversteer/understeer. You've give one example of a guy with a stupid foot. Tuning has and alway will be the art of fitting a car's ability with a driver's ability to find the fastest setting combination between the two. Do you think that Massa's car is set up identical to Alonzo's? Both in the highest form of racing, so both have some talent yet slightly different setings needed to perform at their best (their best, including both car and driver).

loved the f1 reference...but a few things.

schuey also won championships with benetton, so he wasn't only good at ferrari
senna was overagressive only in the beginning of his career, in his last three years while he didn't always have the best car on the grid he was definitely the best driver out there and absolutely untouchable in the rain

and massa is not quite in alonso's league, but yes their cars are set up very differently.

 

[Motor City Hami]

loved the f1 reference...but a few things.

schuey also won championships with benetton, so he wasn't only good at ferrari
senna was overagressive only in the beginning of his career, in his last three years while he didn't always have the best car on the grid he was definitely the best driver out there and absolutely untouchable in the rain

and massa is not quite in alonso's league, but yes their cars are set up very differently.

Really? Entirely missed the whole point of my post and want to school me on your F1 knowledge.

 

[DigitalBaka]

So what we are really trying to accomplish here is not to redefine understeer and oversteer but rather to define a standard method for people to explain what they are experiencing. Presumably somewhere between "it oversteers" and "the rear swings out 22 degrees upon application of half throttle immediately after lifting full brake into turn 5"...

 

[CSLACR]

I can't wait for real world Google robot race cars (obviously not a slow, ugly Prius). Let's say F1. That would really improve F1 racing if all of the cars were robots.

So, where to start. What driving style should I program my robot to have? Who should the robot drive like? Senna, Schuey, Stig, Clarkson? Wait. If in order to program a car, I need to pick a driving style, but each human has their own flaws. Senna was over aggressive at times (sorry Praiano). Michael only works if in a Ferarri. The Stig has occasional indentity issues. Clarkson's problem... POWERRRRRR! Damn, they all have flaws that I am going to have to either tune around, or dumb down the good parts of their driving so far that they'll actually be slower.

To be honest, what a rediculous premise to say that somehow the driver is the issue with the definition of oversteer/understeer. You've give one example of a guy with a stupid foot. Tuning has and alway will be the art of fitting a car's ability with a driver's ability to find the fastest setting combination between the two. Do you think that Massa's car is set up identical to Alonzo's? Both in the highest form of racing, so both have some talent yet slightly different setings needed to perform at their best (their best, including both car and driver).

To a large degree you're right, there are differences however.
Most namely that those drivers didn't go around testing the same setups on the same car through hundreds of laps. They tested there own setups and ideas in different cars through hundreds of laps. I wouldn't expect identical setups that way, would you?

And in regard to Adrenaline's response of this being a GT5 forum, we should remember all those top TT cars with the high front and low rear, loads of oversteer setups, that all the fastest drivers used.

So if we're talking real life, it's never been tested.
If we're talking GT5, it has been tested (through natural gameplay) and a general pattern of tuning did emerge.
Post 2.08, the setups aren't as obviously the same, and probably less similar than before, though one could easily argue how little the tuning changes can make since 2.08. The trend of lots of - rear toe has continued, along with the general preference of setup overall. Aka loads of turn-in, and oversteer as much as possible.

I would argue there's a clear-cut "fastest" way to tune in GT5 actually, based on that.

 

[Adrenaline]

And in regard to Adrenaline's response of this being a GT5 forum, we should remember all those top TT cars with the high front and low rear, loads of oversteer setups, that all the fastest drivers used.

So if we're talking real life, it's never been tested.
If we're talking GT5, it has been tested (through natural gameplay) and a general pattern of tuning did emerge.
Post 2.08, the setups aren't as obviously the same, and probably less similar than before, though one could easily argue how little the tuning changes can make since 2.08. The trend of lots of - rear toe has continued, along with the general preference of setup overall. Aka loads of turn-in, and oversteer as much as possible.

I would argue there's a clear-cut "fastest" way to tune in GT5 actually, based on that.

My point was more along the lines of a smartass response, to the fact your smartassed response had nothing to do with gt5.

Even so, your point is still based on drivers. So all tests and natural game play are again biased to driver preference and defeat the purpose of your standpoint.

That rear toe trend... Not this time trial. Positive Toe was used. I've only recently been keeping track of the Seasonal Forum, but No.54 was definitely not a part of this trend you mention.

 

[CSLACR]

My point was more along the lines of a smartass response, to the fact your smartassed response had nothing to do with gt5.

Even so, your point is still based on drivers. So all tests and natural game play are again biased to driver preference and defeat the purpose of your standpoint.

That rear toe trend... Not this time trial. Positive Toe was used. I've only recently been keeping track of the Seasonal Forum, but No.54 was definitely not a part of this trend you mention.

I fully understand the smart-assedness of your post.

You realize it was MCH who suggested that drivers "should" use the same setups by what he I guess would call "my theory", and not me, right?
However if what he said were true, GT5 would actually confirm it, not disprove it.

We're not really gonna act like a single TT or even a small percentage defies a trend of 90% or greater though are we?
I bet nobody (that's TT'ing) runs negative rear toe on Yellowbirds either.


But now I'll agree, because all the drivers using almost identical tunes does prove there can be a "best" way to do it.
That's been denied in this tuning forum for years now, and this tuning forum is the only place it is denied. (At least in a reasonable amount of searching)

You know just this past week, someone finally tried a lower final gear "tranny trick", after I've been telling them about it for 1.5 years. He still raced well, drove well, and competed well the past 1.5 years. One could have argued subjectively, as you are, that he was doing "great" and that "his tunes must be working perfectly for him", yet somehow, it still made the car faster for him.
Same thing happened to most every single fast driver with the ride height glitch that didn't exist too.

Yeah, you want more scenarios of drivers not knowing what's going on with their car, I've got some. I've actually got quite a lot.
But you'd do well to understand that's it's not about drivers who don't know what's going on with their car, it's about drivers knowing what's causing what's going on with their car.
Like I said, the only difference is mindset. In one method everything gets blamed on the car, in the other the driver at least attempts to distinguish the difference.

 

[Motor City Hami]

You realize it was MCH who suggested that drivers "should" use the same setups by what he I guess would call "my theory", and not me, right?
However if what he said were true, GT5 would actually confirm it, not disprove it.

Now I am even more lost. You're trying to put words in my mouth and I can't make any sense out of this post.

Let me be clear. I think this whole thread is a waste of time. You're dancing around something yet it's still not clear what your point is. Maybe just struggling a bit to get a handle on things since the ride height glitch was removed? Who knows.

2.09 is starting to make alot of sense to me now after testing over the last couple of months. I can see the in-game levers to pull to improve front or rear grip at corner entry, apex and track out. The game adjustments don't always mirror real world thoeries, but at least in the game they are now more consistent than before. Move the lever one way and all cars seem to react in that direction... well... with differing degrees of power depending on the drive train.

 

[Adrenaline]

We're not really gonna act like a single TT or even a small percentage defies a trend of 90% or greater though are we?
I bet nobody (that's TT'ing) runs negative rear toe on Yellowbirds either.

A: I ignore anything that happened pre- 2.09 as it is no longer relevant to me in a tuning aspect. B: I specifically stated I've only been tracking seasonals for a few weeks. C: Are you categorizing the Corvette in the same tuning situation as the YellowBird when it comes to oversteer? If you are, then this whole thread is about to take a turn for the worst.

But now I'll agree, because all the drivers using almost identical tunes does prove there can be a "best" way to do it.
That's been denied in this tuning forum for years now, and this tuning forum is the only place it is denied. (At least in a reasonable amount of searching)

I agree to a point. But we have to discern self fulfilling prophecies from 'best' tuning options. How much work have we all put in the LSD, only to see the fastest TT's use a 5/x/x option? We, the tuning forum, almost always advise against an initial setting of 5. Are you saying we've been wrong, and can I expect all of your tunes to adapt this new 'best' tuning strategy?

You know just this past week, someone finally tried a lower final gear "tranny trick", after I've been telling them about it for 1.5 years. He still raced well, drove well, and competed well the past 1.5 years. One could have argued subjectively, as you are, that he was doing "great" and that "his tunes must be working perfectly for him", yet somehow, it still made the car faster for him.
Same thing happened to most every single fast driver with the ride height glitch that didn't exist too.

And just 2 weeks ago, you adapted my theories on Front Toe, a theory I've used for at least a year now. So are you admitting all your previous tunes were wrong? Doesn't that lead us to question your ability to discern the difference of alternate tuning settings, or definitions, such as under/oversteer that you've stated so far in this thread? And personally, I'm not a blind believer in the tranny trick. It seems like NASCAR transmissions would have been extremely simple and mainstreamed by now, if everyone bought into the Tranny Trick theory. Or the Final Drive Theory. Yet even on the second most simple platform (A circle, second to a Line/drag racing) we can't find or agree on a 'best' option, like the 'tranny trick'.

@Hami... 2.10 Damper/Extensions are really frustrating to me. Curious as to your current theories on these... 'levers'.

 

[Motor City Hami]

@Hami... 2.10 Damper/Extensions are really frustrating to me. Curious as to your current theories on these... 'levers'.

That's weird. Because I stumbled on what's working for me with dampers by testing out some of your tunes (and Praiano) head to head against mine. Planning a big update to my garage for 2.09 physics, probably just in time for the next big physics change.

Would love to discuss this more with you, but let's do that in a different thread.

 

[CSLACR]

Now I am even more lost. You're trying to put words in my mouth and I can't make any sense out of this post.

Let me be clear. I think this whole thread is a waste of time. You're dancing around something yet it's still not clear what your point is. Maybe just struggling a bit to get a handle on things since the ride height glitch was removed? Who knows.

2.09 is starting to make alot of sense to me now after testing over the last couple of months. I can see the in-game levers to pull to improve front or rear grip at corner entry, apex and track out. The game adjustments don't always mirror real world thoeries, but at least in the game they are now more consistent than before. Move the lever one way and all cars seem to react in that direction... well... with differing degrees of power depending on the drive train.

Other than being unable to really make cars rotate more mid-corner without ballast or aero, I actually really enjoy tuning since the fix.
It's 10x more involving, and you get to set up the car a lot more based on feel, instead of simply choosing how awkward/fast you want to go.

A: I ignore anything that happened pre- 2.09 as it is no longer relevant to me in a tuning aspect. B: I specifically stated I've only been tracking seasonals for a few weeks. C: Are you categorizing the Corvette in the same tuning situation as the YellowBird when it comes to oversteer? If you are, then this whole thread is about to take a turn for the worst.

No. The reasons we shouldn't ignore pre 2.09 is because it was a clear cut pattern, designed for more rotation. The extra speed was an obvious help, but the desire and intent for the setups was the same.

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

I agree to a point. But we have to discern self fulfilling prophecies from 'best' tuning options. How much work have we all put in the LSD, only to see the fastest TT's use a 5/x/x option? We, the tuning forum, almost always advise against an initial setting of 5. Are you saying we've been wrong, and can I expect all of your tunes to adapt this new 'best' tuning strategy?

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.

I haven't posted a true "my" tune since the WRS that I can recall. I've posted some looser qualifying setups that didn't make it to my garage, but in general I don't makes tunes as fast as possible, I make them with a pre-designated amount of under-steer, as much as the car/tuning settings permit.
When I build cars for shootouts, 70% of the work is deciding "where" to put the car, regarding tuning. (For testers) 20% is what method feels best, as in which method or approach to arrive at the end result in balance. The final 10 is car choice and exact build/spec.

And just 2 weeks ago, you adapted my theories on Front Toe, a theory I've used for at least a year now. So are you admitting all your previous tunes were wrong? Doesn't that lead us to question your ability to discern the difference of alternate tuning settings, or definitions, such as under/oversteer that you've stated so far in this thread? And personally, I'm not a blind believer in the tranny trick. It seems like NASCAR transmissions would have been extremely simple and mainstreamed by now, if everyone bought into the Tranny Trick theory. Or the Final Drive Theory. Yet even on the second most simple platform (A circle, second to a Line/drag racing) we can't find or agree on a 'best' option, like the 'tranny trick'.

I would gladly admit if I were wrong, but I was not, I was simply ignorant to the effect.
It doesn't make the tunes "flawed", so to speak, but it certainly would have made them easier to make at times. I believe ride height and spring rate also had similar effects, which clashed with the fact that it created over and under steer on some cars. For example the premium GT500 NSX, under steers on turn in and over steers like hell on exit, but the need for ride height/spring rate to stop the mid-corner over steer made the problem, not the car.
Running a more normal tune since 2.09, the car is much more balance from the start.(the understeer from 2.08 doesn't hurt, but I mean the entry/exit discrepancies)

As for people not adapting the tranny trick or lower final drives, etc, I think the reactions from everyone that does when they finally do it tells the tale. It doesn't have to be mainstreamed or even accepted to be true, and things like this tell that tale better than anyone.

@Hami... 2.10 Damper/Extensions are really frustrating to me. Curious as to your current theories on these... 'levers'.

Not that you asked me, but my 2c is that the dampers haven't changed a bit, they're just muffled like everything else.
Assuming you had dampers figure out before, you still do, it's just a lot harder to tell something that wasn't easy in the first place.

I've come to the conclusion they best serve me with a higher...(I mix them up) bottom one (I think compression) actually feels best. The over/under effect is still there too, also muffled though.

That's weird. Because I stumbled on what's working for me with dampers by testing out some of your tunes (and Praiano) head to head against mine. Planning a big update to my garage for 2.09 physics, probably just in time for the next big physics change.

Would love to discuss this more with you, but let's do that in a different thread.

That sounds right, assuming he had dampers nailed down before, he still does if he's doing the same thing. (imo of course)


Look guys, I get that it's a small difference, and this thread probably has been a waste of time, but I see a difference, and thought I'd share it.
Agree or disagree, it's a different way of looking at it, that's all. I'm not asking everyone describe cars in a different manner, but look at the situation and consider it differently.

I've been avoiding using different people as examples, as it's not my intent to trample feelings or offend, insult, or attack anyone.
I guess I can use Ridox's BB as an example, where he has even Mike telling him the car can probably be quicker if he adapts to a low BB, because really high BB's are overly-difficult to manage. Now, given that Mike is one of the masters of this game, being D1G, and he can't make the most of it, it's fairly safe to say that Ridox is probably impairing his speed with his brake setups.

This, to me, is a textbook case where the driver can go faster by considering the handling from the perspective I suggest, instead of continuing to tune the car this way.(to the driver)



It's a racing game, I presume we all want to be as fast as we can, maybe sometime thinking like this will make you (the reader) faster too.

 

[Motor City Hami]

@CLACR - too much to quote from, so just some random thoughts on 2.09.

Just to let you know where my head has been at over the last two months, I have been trying to figure out truly what my value is as a tuner on this site. I was trying to determine if it was worth continuing a GTPlanet garage for GT5 or if I should step out for a while until GT6. I was beginning to wonder where I was at as a tuner; no longer a beginner, somewhere above average, but not convinced that I was among the elite yet. Praiano gets the tune of the week every week and has a garage full of amazing tunes. Adrenaline doesn't post a tune until he has spent 1000 hours (exageration) with it. Every CSLACR tune that I had driven has this rediculous smoothness to it. My tunes fit me, but I always thought they could be slightly better.

So I have been testing; trying to improve as a tuner. I won a number of FITT Challenges so I knew that I was getting there. I learned alot from working with RJ on his Mazda Alteeza FITT tune. I also started testing my tunes back to back against the three tuners I respect the most; Adrenaline, Praiano and CSLACR where they had tunes for the same car. I learned that none of their tunes were a perfect fit for my driving style, but I was also able to see where their approaches differed from mine so I was able to test. Some things I like and other areas I felt that my method was still better.

From RJ I learned a bit about springs. With springs I had refused to test ranges as far apart as he used for that FF car. That inspired me to test wider ranges and I stumbled upon better settings that worked for me on FF cars. I then tried those wider spring rates beyond FF cars and was surprised to see that the same method now worked on all drive trains. That was not the case pre 2.09.

From CSLACR and Adrenaline, they were doing things with dampers that I just hadn't tested, again being affraid to go outside of a pre-conceived effective range in my mind. Front extension at 10 and compression at 4 with mid to softish spring rates isn't something that I would have thought to try.

Praiano and I actually tune very similarly. He seems to like a little less agressive car at turn in/mid corner, but his cars have a similar feel.

We all use very similar LSD methods so all even there.

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 am slightly different on 2nd and 3rd gears, but essentially using his thoery.

For two settings, I think the three of you are caught in the same mental block that I had for springs/dampers. I think that you have been affraid to test wider ranges of camber and toe. I have seen posted on GTP a number of times (not necessarily by you) that camber and toe increase tire wear so the belief is that lower settings are better. Can anyone point me to the actual, valid tests? I tend to run higher camber amounts than you. Plus I seem to be more willing to wander into higher toe settings, at least for the tunes I tested back to back. -0.08 front toe in really isn't that far from 0.00 when using a scale the goes all the way to 1.00. I don't see much difference until I get to 14, 17, 20, 25, 35, etc.

 

[CSLACR]

@CLACR - too much to quote from, so just some random thoughts on 2.09.

Just to let you know where my head has been at over the last two months, I have been trying to figure out truly what my value is as a tuner on this site. I was trying to determine if it was worth continuing a GTPlanet garage for GT5 or if I should step out for a while until GT6. I was beginning to wonder where I was at as a tuner; no longer a beginner, somewhere above average, but not convinced that I was among the elite yet. Praiano gets the tune of the week every week and has a garage full of amazing tunes. Adrenaline doesn't post a tune until he has spent 1000 hours (exageration) with it. Every CSLACR tune that I had driven has this rediculous smoothness to it. My tunes fit me, but I always thought they could be slightly better.

So I have been testing; trying to improve as a tuner. I won a number of FITT Challenges so I knew that I was getting there. I learned alot from working with RJ on his Mazda Alteeza FITT tune. I also started testing my tunes back to back against the three tuners I respect the most; Adrenaline, Praiano and CSLACR where they had tunes for the same car. I learned that none of their tunes were a perfect fit for my driving style, but I was also able to see where their approaches differed from mine so I was able to test. Some things I like and other areas I felt that my method was still better.

From RJ I learned a bit about springs. With springs I had refused to test ranges as far apart as he used for that FF car. That inspired me to test wider ranges and I stumbled upon better settings that worked for me on FF cars. I then tried those wider spring rates beyond FF cars and was surprised to see that the same method now worked on all drive trains. That was not the case pre 2.09.

From CSLACR and Adrenaline, they were doing things with dampers that I just hadn't tested, again being affraid to go outside of a pre-conceived effective range in my mind. Front extension at 10 and compression at 4 with mid to softish spring rates isn't something that I would have thought to try.

Praiano and I actually tune very similarly. He seems to like a little less agressive car at turn in/mid corner, but his cars have a similar feel.

We all use very similar LSD methods so all even there.

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 am slightly different on 2nd and 3rd gears, but essentially using his thoery.

The only thing I can say is I'm dead-opposite on springs. Used wide ranges before the update, now I see much less purpose in it. Possibly FWD and/or MR's with heavy rears.

The one thing that always irkd(s) me about uneven springs is the uneven bump absorption that comes with. Like when you go over a rumble and the front stays planted and the rear jumps 3 feet, or vice verse.

But now, imagine taking a step back and analyzing how you drive the same way you've analyzed the way you tune. Figure out what you're doing that's causing "x", and see if you don't actually need to tune it away.
You gain more ability to control the uncontrollable by driving it for 20 laps, than you will in a lifetime of driving the easily controlled.

For two settings, I think the three of you are caught in the same mental block that I had for springs/dampers. I think that you have been affraid to test wider ranges of camber and toe. I have seen posted on GTP a number of times (not necessarily by you) that camber and toe increase tire wear so the belief is that lower settings are better. Can anyone point me to the actual, valid tests? I tend to run higher camber amounts than you. Plus I seem to be more willing to wander into higher toe settings, at least for the tunes I tested back to back. -0.08 front toe in really isn't that far from 0.00 when using a scale the goes all the way to 1.00. I don't see much difference until I get to 14, 17, 20, 25, 35, etc.

I've run (on tunes) between -1.00 to +0.45 rear toe, and -0.45 to +0.20 front toe, and camber from 0.0-3.0.
However, over time I've basically limited my setups, as I found that more radical (numerically) setups were 10x more likely to get a thumbs down in shootouts, or any "review".
When I enter tunes in the "safe zones" testers say they love the tunes. To the degree that I've only had 3 (I think) real complaints since I started using conservative settings.
Personally I don't think the car(s) are any better with these conservative settings in any way really, however it seems to me pre-conceived notions have a strong effect on tester feedback, regardless of car performance.

To be clear, what I mean by that, is if two cars enter a shootout, that drive essentially the same regarding balance and handling, one with extreme-looking settings and the other with "normal" settings, the DC ratings will heavily favor the car that is "normal".

Personally I feel there's a reason some cars come stock with 4+ degrees of camber.