The Great Camber Experiment: Stage 1 "High Speed Ring" (closed/finished/ended)

[ALB123]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, I didn't want to skim through 6 pages of posts again...

I know you guys are measuring G Force load through the corners, and that's great, but MoTeC i2 also tracks your speed through a corner. Wouldn't this be as important, if not even more important than just G load around a corner? For instance, we've already seen a big anomaly in one turn on a lap (probably just a shaky turn of the wheel that put a big G load for a second) by measuring just the G forces. I contend that we translate "better grip" into an overall "faster" drive through a turn/corner and therefore the test should be plotting that data as well. Like I said, it's already going to be there when you load your log file(s) into MoTeC.

Just a note for those of you using MoTeC i2. Double check and see if you're using the Standard version or the Pro version. Both are free, but I think we were originally pointed to the Standard version. If you have the Standard version, uninstall it and download/install the Pro version immediately. It allows for unlimited lap overlays instead of only one and you can do much more customization with the software.

 

[DolHaus]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, I didn't want to skim through 6 pages of posts again...

I know you guys are measuring G Force load through the corners, and that's great, but MoTeC i2 also tracks your speed through a corner. Wouldn't this be as important, if not even more important than just G load around a corner? For instance, we've already seen a big anomaly in one turn on a lap (probably just a shaky turn of the wheel that put a big G load for a second) by measuring just the G forces. I contend that we translate "better grip" into an overall "faster" drive through a turn/corner and therefore the test should be plotting that data as well. Like I said, it's already going to be there when you load your log file(s) into MoTeC.

Just a note for those of you using MoTeC i2. Double check and see if you're using the Standard version or the Pro version. Both are free, but I think we were originally pointed to the Standard version. If you have the Standard version, uninstall it and download/install the Pro version immediately. It allows for unlimited lap overlays instead of only one and you can do much more customization with the software.

I have the speed data from the tests, I just haven't had the chance to put it into graphs yet 👍

 

[Otaliema]

@DolHaus I'd recommend The Stowe @ Silverstone it's a simple track with flat turns so it will be good for flat testing time variance will happen based on line through turns 1 & 2 and 4.
As for progressive banking TRM Oval is ok, it's a tear drop so can't flat out the track. Have you tested Daytona oval I would think most cars can flat out or near flat out the entire track.

 

[DolHaus]

@DolHaus I'd recommend The Stowe @ Silverstone it's a simple track with flat turns so it will be good for flat testing time variance will happen based on line through turns 1 & 2 and 4.
As for progressive banking TRM Oval is ok, it's a tear drop so can't flat out the track. Have you tested Daytona oval I would think most cars can flat out or near flat out the entire track.

Stowe isn't quite fast enough to get much load into the tyres, the National circuit has a better range of corners for testing and is also completely flat. I was trying to avoid Daytona because of the banking and same with Motegi, Daytona would be the more productive one out of the two though because the corners are more or less equal in shape and speed. I had hoped the corners at Indy would be equal as they look on the map but there are two distinct pairs, one fast and one slower, you either have lift off the throttle and disregard the data for the two slower corners or limit the car which will make the data from the faster corners useless.

(Dear santa, this would be a real nice time for track creator to show up so I can build a proper oval, yours sincerely GTP )

 

[demonchilde]

DolHaus, about what you were saying about the pro's and con's of judgment based on lap-times;

This was the issue that led me to ask how people felt their drive "felt", lol, and you know where that convo ended up
But as I am reading everyone's comments I get reminded of what we all know all to well, none of us drive the exact same. I know, I know, thats why all the talk about set tunes and many many replys about whos testing track is the best. But everyones preferred track is going to highlight thier own abilitys, lol.
What we need is GT5. We need a specific track built that noone has driven yet. Three simple corners with lots of track before and after. The 3 corners simply are 20degrees, 45degrees, and like 80degrees.
I do agree with the base tune. Either have noone tune the chosen car, or everyone agree on certain changes. Brakes and braking LSD need to be 'working' though. Because if those 2 parts of your test car are not spot on, then any feedback from what you think is camber, will be isconsistant braking ability instead. So stock is fine, as long as stock on those 2 things are already in good shape. I'm sure you get what I'm saying on that.
power, now theres another major no-no. Going stock or set speed tranny, is fine and a good idea, but thats not going to make everyone put the exact amount of pedal down at the exact times during the preturn and mid. Timing and % of pedal pressure is nearly impossible to duplicate exact with the same driver everytime, let alone more then one.
I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm trying to help actually, but I'm a bit of a scientist myself on a lot of things and trying real hard to think of how in the world an actual "control" is possible. Any testing done without a 'method'-control is hard to trust the results. 0.0 camber isnt a control, its part of the tools for the experiment, lol.
I have been racking my brain trying to find the best experiment corner in the game. Well, in between trying REALLY hard not to throw my controller at the wall trying to Gold the Stratos seasonal. Im still stuck at Silver, and have been 0:51:200 for a week now. That last 0:00:700 is going to kill me. . .

 

[DolHaus]

DolHaus, about what you were saying about the pro's and con's of judgment based on lap-times;

This was the issue that led me to ask how people felt their drive "felt", lol, and you know where that convo ended up
But as I am reading everyone's comments I get reminded of what we all know all to well, none of us drive the exact same. I know, I know, thats why all the talk about set tunes and many many replys about whos testing track is the best. But everyones preferred track is going to highlight thier own abilitys, lol.
What we need is GT5. We need a specific track built that noone has driven yet. Three simple corners with lots of track before and after. The 3 corners simply are 20degrees, 45degrees, and like 80degrees.
I do agree with the base tune. Either have noone tune the chosen car, or everyone agree on certain changes. Brakes and braking LSD need to be 'working' though. Because if those 2 parts of your test car are not spot on, then any feedback from what you think is camber, will be isconsistant braking ability instead. So stock is fine, as long as stock on those 2 things are already in good shape. I'm sure you get what I'm saying on that.
power, now theres another major no-no. Going stock or set speed tranny, is fine and a good idea, but thats not going to make everyone put the exact amount of pedal down at the exact times during the preturn and mid. Timing and % of pedal pressure is nearly impossible to duplicate exact with the same driver everytime, let alone more then one.
I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm trying to help actually, but I'm a bit of a scientist myself on a lot of things and trying real hard to think of how in the world an actual "control" is possible. Any testing done without a 'method'-control is hard to trust the results. 0.0 camber isnt a control, its part of the tools for the experiment, lol.
I have been racking my brain trying to find the best experiment corner in the game. Well, in between trying REALLY hard not to throw my controller at the wall trying to Gold the Stratos seasonal. Im still stuck at Silver, and have been 0:51:200 for a week now. That last 0:00:700 is going to kill me. . .

So what are you suggesting? (Please break it down into bullet points or something for easy reading )

I'm open to suggestions as far as testing methodology is concerned, its the only way we can arrive at a fair conclusion 👍

To be considered a positive tuning aspect the outcome has to be conclusively better for the majority, if isolated to one persons opinion the results cannot be considered conclusive. The trend that has been noticed when multiple tuners are tuning the same car during FITT contests is that cars running camber are noticeably slower when the testing times are averaged out, when tuning your own personal cars with no direct competition or objective testing you have no frame of reference and I think this is where a lot of the arguments are generated.
We will never have a perfect experiment, that's just a fact, we can only make it as fair and objective as possible with the tools we have at our disposal. 👍

 

[demonchilde]

Im working on it, lol.
The only actual suggestion I have isnt really a suggestion as much as it is a vital key to keeping 'everyone's' testing as close to control as possible. And that I stated above (after rereading my last post, this is possibly the only real useful thing in the entire book I wrote, lol), and that is to keep/make a serious effort to control braking LSD and braking settings on everyones test car.
Wether that be by everyone agreeing on the 'perfect' settings for them, and agreeing to all use them, or by another method. No data or opinion is worth squat if those settings arent tuned perfect for the situation.
Sorry about the novels that I post here and there. I type as fast as I think and that tends to get on the long side pretty fast. I cant afford to have an editor follow me everywhere I go, so you might see this happen again, lol. I appologize in advance

 

[Highlandor]

Im working on it, lol.
The only actual suggestion I have isnt really a suggestion as much as it is a vital key to keeping 'everyone's' testing as close to control as possible. And that I stated above (after rereading my last post, this is possibly the only real useful thing in the entire book I wrote, lol), and that is to keep/make a serious effort to control braking LSD and braking settings on everyones test car.
Wether that be by everyone agreeing on the 'perfect' settings for them, and agreeing to all use them, or by another method. No data or opinion is worth squat if those settings arent tuned perfect for the situation.
Sorry about the novels that I post here and there. I type as fast as I think and that tends to get on the long side pretty fast. I cant afford to have an editor follow me everywhere I go, so you might see this happen again, lol. I appologize in advance

If you're saying that then does that mean the entire first test needs to be scrapped as the car being used was built specifically for Silverstone, or at least not specifically for the High Speed Ring?

 

[demonchilde]

If you're saying that then does that mean the entire first test needs to be scrapped as the car being used was built specifically for Silverstone, not High Speed Ring?

If I meant that, then I would have said that, lol. I can dig my own holes bro, don't put words in my mouth
No. Well, maybe? I didnt personally drive it on that, you would be the better judge on that then me. But I can say this, I don't consider any car built 'only' for one track. I mean, the track has turns right? Strieghts? Is that not true for most tracks?
You missed the whole point. Its got nothing to do with track specific tunes. My point was exactly how I wrote it. No matter what track your on, is the cars stock/new brake lsd and brake settings semiperfect for all around occasions/tracks? More cars sure as heck dont come stock like that. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Highlandor]

If I meant that, then I would have said that, lol. I can dig my own holes bro, don't put words in my mouth
No. Well, maybe? I didnt personally drive it on that, you would be the better judge on that then me. But I can say this, I don't consider any car built 'only' for one track. I mean, the track has turns right? Strieghts? Is that not true for most tracks?
You missed the whole point. Its got nothing to do with track specific tunes. My point was exactly how I wrote it. No matter what track your on, is the cars stock/new brake lsd and brake settings semiperfect for all around occasions/tracks? More cars sure as heck dont come stock like that. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries 👍

 

[TurnLeft]

@DolHaus

This was delivered to me by mistake, it had your name on it but I only saw it after opening it up, sorry , so here it is, i think it was from Santa to help you in your camber experiments.

Merry Christmas to you, your family and all the participants of the Great Camber Experiment.

 

[DolHaus]

@DolHaus

This was delivered to me by mistake, it had your name on it but I only saw it after opening it up, sorry , so here it is, i think it was from Santa to help in in your camber experiments.
View attachment 279784

Merry Christmas to you, your family and all the participants of the Great Camber Experiment.
View attachment 279785

Ahh I was wondering where the Cambertron 3 Million was

Merry Christmas to you and yours, hope you have a wonderful festive period

Im working on it, lol.
The only actual suggestion I have isnt really a suggestion as much as it is a vital key to keeping 'everyone's' testing as close to control as possible. And that I stated above (after rereading my last post, this is possibly the only real useful thing in the entire book I wrote, lol), and that is to keep/make a serious effort to control braking LSD and braking settings on everyones test car.
Wether that be by everyone agreeing on the 'perfect' settings for them, and agreeing to all use them, or by another method. No data or opinion is worth squat if those settings arent tuned perfect for the situation.
Sorry about the novels that I post here and there. I type as fast as I think and that tends to get on the long side pretty fast. I cant afford to have an editor follow me everywhere I go, so you might see this happen again, lol. I appologize in advance

Its ok, I appreciate a good ramble as much as the next man
I'm still not entirely sure what the issue with the brakes/LSD decel is? The car is a decent all rounder, its not too specialized and suited to one track, might not be ideal for a really tight and twisty circuit such as Eiger Nordwand but for everywhere else the car will perform adequately.
Braking points are almost impossible to police, I can ask people to follow the driving line when testing but if I ask them to use the braking points as displayed then the car will come to a halt about 50 yards before the turn in point I have decided to scrap the longitudinal data from the last test because of this irregularity and will exclude it from future circuit tests, I feel that the only way we can gain that data is by performing a separate test looking purely at the effects during accelerating and braking (simple drag racing style test at SSRX - Accelerate from a standstill at the start line up to a defined point and then slam on the brakes and bring it back to 0)



Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and a joyous Ramadan to everyone, thank you all so much for your input and patience during this experiment

 

[demonchilde]

I like the holiday tree Praiano found last week. When I find it again I will link it

And yes, I think or rather agree with what you said in the above post.
(OMG, a small post from Demon, lol)

 

[demonchilde]

I was wrong, it wasTCL_McQUEEN71, posted on Praiano's page.

 

[ALB123]

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what was suggested, but I don't see much reason to panic, or question the legitimacy of the collected data as long as, A) The drivers are driving the same track, B) The drivers are using the same exact car/tune, C) The drivers are relatively similar in skill level (lap time).

I don't think that the testers should be worried about applying the exact same amount of throttle at the exact same spots on the track and braking at the exact same marker while following an identical driving line. Otherwise, why have more than one driver? If they do every single thing exactly the same way, all of their data should be exactly the same. We talk a lot about "driving styles" on this website and of course there are many varying driving styles out there, but they're also very similar in most regards when dealing with a handful of drivers who all post lap times within a couple of tenths of a second from each other.

I think the beautiful part of this experiment IS the fact that @DolHaus is going to take a slightly different line than @TurnLeft which is going to put slightly different forces on his outside tires which will translate into milliseconds of difference through the particular corner. This way, when the experiment is finished, you will be able to conclusively say "Camber does/doesn't work...". Otherwise, if everyone drove 100% identical to each other, the conclusion would be "Camber does/doesn't work if you drive exactly like I do." What is really needed, in my opinion, is more testers to submit data. Again, I would think that you would want those additional testers to be roughly in the same skill level as the three of you who are currently collecting data. A second or two difference per lap isn't the end of the world, but if someone were 4-5 seconds off the current pace, chances are they're not really a consistent driver either, and I think that would possibly skew things too much.

Or maybe I'm completely off...I don't know. I'm not trying to muddy things and if I am, I apologize. I'm just so interested in this particular experiment and I can't help myself from opening up my big mouth.

 

[F1Racer68]

@ALB123, I completely agree with you.

 

[TurnLeft]

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what was suggested, but I don't see much reason to panic, or question the legitimacy of the collected data as long as, A) The drivers are driving the same track, B) The drivers are using the same exact car/tune, C) The drivers are relatively similar in skill level (lap time).

I don't think that the testers should be worried about applying the exact same amount of throttle at the exact same spots on the track and braking at the exact same marker while following an identical driving line. Otherwise, why have more than one driver? If they do every single thing exactly the same way, all of their data should be exactly the same. We talk a lot about "driving styles" on this website and of course there are many varying driving styles out there, but they're also very similar in most regards when dealing with a handful of drivers who all post lap times within a couple of tenths of a second from each other.

I think the beautiful part of this experiment IS the fact that @DolHaus is going to take a slightly different line than @TurnLeft which is going to put slightly different forces on his outside tires which will translate into milliseconds of difference through the particular corner. This way, when the experiment is finished, you will be able to conclusively say "Camber does/doesn't work...". Otherwise, if everyone drove 100% identical to each other, the conclusion would be "Camber does/doesn't work if you drive exactly like I do." What is really needed, in my opinion, is more testers to submit data. Again, I would think that you would want those additional testers to be roughly in the same skill level as the three of you who are currently collecting data. A second or two difference per lap isn't the end of the world, but if someone were 4-5 seconds off the current pace, chances are they're not really a consistent driver either, and I think that would possibly skew things too much.

Or maybe I'm completely off...I don't know. I'm not trying to muddy things and if I am, I apologize. I'm just so interested in this particular experiment and I can't help myself from opening up my big mouth.

@ALB123, I completely agree with you.

Hey, how about joining in the tests 👍, I can't speak for others but in my opinion having more input data should contribute greatly, also a hands down in the dirt experience makes you understand better than just analyzing a bunch of numbers, it gives you the feel for what's going on. BTW camber 10/10 = changing the car wheels for bicycle wheels, if you don't believe me ask @Thorin Cain, you can't ask @DolHaus though, he's supposed to be impartial at least until the end of the results .

 

[Thorin Cain]

Firstly. To my fellow testers, analysts, our esteemed Project Leader and all interested observers. Also to anyone who may just stop by.
Merry Christmas! Hope you all have a great day with your family and friends. Best wishes to all from sunny (Yeah right!) Scotland.

Secondly, Glad to see you're out of hospital and recovering @GTP_CargoRatt. And taking it easy I see, 5 hours testing, that's dedication!👍 And some interesting test results too. I also like the self-imposed "Blind testing" procedure.

@ALB123, I completely agree with you.

Me too! In fact, I've just went and deleted most of this post which was going to say just that. Well, differently worded but the same points.👍

Hey, how about joining in the tests 👍, I can't speak for others but in my opinion having more input data should contribute greatly, also a hands down in the dirt experience makes you understand better than just analyzing a bunch of numbers, it gives you the feel for what's going on. BTW camber 10/10 = changing the car wheels for bicycle wheels, if you don't believe me ask @Thorin Cain, you can't ask @DolHaus though, he's supposed to be impartial at least until the end of the results .

Oh, You would 🤬 ! (As he goes to delete the rest of the post....) Ok, I'll just not bother then.

Wasn't going to mention the bicycle tyres though bud. I didn't want to put them off.

Don't worry guys, they're not that bad....honest

 

[TurnLeft]

Stowe isn't quite fast enough to get much load into the tyres, the National circuit has a better range of corners for testing and is also completely flat. I was trying to avoid Daytona because of the banking and same with Motegi, Daytona would be the more productive one out of the two though because the corners are more or less equal in shape and speed. I had hoped the corners at Indy would be equal as they look on the map but there are two distinct pairs, one fast and one slower, you either have lift off the throttle and disregard the data for the two slower corners or limit the car which will make the data from the faster corners useless.

(Dear santa, this would be a real nice time for track creator to show up so I can build a proper oval, yours sincerely GTP )

Another track you may consider is Special Stage Route 5 - Clubman, easy to drive, nice fast curves, and not totally flat like a pancake but no banked curves.👍

 

[ALB123]

I've got some free time coming up. I'll go ahead and re-run the 1st Stage of the experiment, I believe it was on High Speed Ring, using the car/tune you guys all used. I'm just a little worried that I might not be able to post lap times similar to the three of you. Like I said in my last post, while I do believe more people should get involved with this, I don't know how beneficial it would be to the overall study if there are three guys posting 1m20s laps and then there is a fourth guy posting 1m25s laps. I just made those numbers up. I don't know if you guys are THAT faster than me, but I know I am very average skilled. I can have some nice moments and some stinkers. I'm a little worried about my ability to be consistent. THAT is of utmost importance...especially since DolHaus is also calculating 'averages'.

But give me a little time and I will run Stage 1 again, just to see how I stack up against you three. And it's not about being embarrassed or anything. I regularly post my times in the Seasonal Event threads. It only has to do with me not wanting to skew anything if I start throwing off averages and such.

 

[Otaliema]

@DolHaus I understand on the shortness of Stowe we can improve loading by reducing the tire level a bit from RH to SM would cause significant loading on the tires with the XKR.
This is your test so it's ultimately your call on the track and car combo.
So Santa was good to me this year and gave me a DFGT so plenty of mindless driving is order for me to learn how to use it so I'll be getting you all the camber data with out fail.

 

[Thorin Cain]

@DolHaus I understand on the shortness of Stowe we can improve loading by reducing the tire level a bit from RH to SM would cause significant loading on the tires with the XKR.
This is your test so it's ultimately your call on the track and car combo.
So Santa was good to me this year and gave me a DFGT so plenty of mindless driving is order for me to learn how to use it so I'll be getting you all the camber data with out fail.

Oooh, very nice of Santa indeed! Someone's going to need to learn to drive again Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be fine:tup:

I've got some free time coming up. I'll go ahead and re-run the 1st Stage of the experiment, I believe it was on High Speed Ring, using the car/tune you guys all used. I'm just a little worried that I might not be able to post lap times similar to the three of you. Like I said in my last post, while I do believe more people should get involved with this, I don't know how beneficial it would be to the overall study if there are three guys posting 1m20s laps and then there is a fourth guy posting 1m25s laps. I just made those numbers up. I don't know if you guys are THAT faster than me, but I know I am very average skilled. I can have some nice moments and some stinkers. I'm a little worried about my ability to be consistent. THAT is of utmost importance...especially since DolHaus is also calculating 'averages'.

But give me a little time and I will run Stage 1 again, just to see how I stack up against you three. And it's not about being embarrassed or anything. I regularly post my times in the Seasonal Event threads. It only has to do with me not wanting to skew anything if I start throwing off averages and such.

I've seen some of your lap-times in the Seasonal forum and @Ridox2JZGTE Replica Garage. No need to fret ALB, your nowhere near as far away as you think. You might even surprise yourself and I'm sure @DolHaus will be more than happy to have you on-board.

 

[LeoStrop]

Hello guys, after my tests at Silverstone International, i could see that the track was not ideal for me, as i don't have too much experience there, so the driver variables were affecting the tests.

So i decide to go back to High Speed Ring, i found the track very good for this type of testing, since it's easy to maintain a certain pace.

So here it's:

Date: 25/12/2014 (after the update)
Car: BMW 135i coupé '07
PP : 500
Tires: Sport Hard
Track: High Speed Ring
Laps: 9
Camber sets(equal front and rear): 0.0 , 0.6* , 1.0 , 1.5 , 2.0
Controller: DS3 , "X" for accel, "[]" for brakes, "L2, R2" for gears and D-pad for steering.


Edit: Arcade Mode , Grip: Real




Camber @ 0.0:








*Camber @ 0.6:

Someone forgot to save the data of this one..

Best Lap: 1:13.075


Camber @ 1.0:







Camber 1.5:







Camber 2.0:








Comparison of all sets:








I have the tune used for the test, and all the data if anyone want's to do a deeper analysis. I found the Results very linear, i could possibly post a better time with camber @ 2.0, you can see that it had the best eclectic time, that is because it was harder to do a perfect lap, since you had to run on the groove the whole time.

 

[DolHaus]

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what was suggested, but I don't see much reason to panic, or question the legitimacy of the collected data as long as, A) The drivers are driving the same track, B) The drivers are using the same exact car/tune, C) The drivers are relatively similar in skill level (lap time).

I don't think that the testers should be worried about applying the exact same amount of throttle at the exact same spots on the track and braking at the exact same marker while following an identical driving line. Otherwise, why have more than one driver? If they do every single thing exactly the same way, all of their data should be exactly the same. We talk a lot about "driving styles" on this website and of course there are many varying driving styles out there, but they're also very similar in most regards when dealing with a handful of drivers who all post lap times within a couple of tenths of a second from each other.

I think the beautiful part of this experiment IS the fact that @DolHaus is going to take a slightly different line than @TurnLeft which is going to put slightly different forces on his outside tires which will translate into milliseconds of difference through the particular corner. This way, when the experiment is finished, you will be able to conclusively say "Camber does/doesn't work...". Otherwise, if everyone drove 100% identical to each other, the conclusion would be "Camber does/doesn't work if you drive exactly like I do." What is really needed, in my opinion, is more testers to submit data. Again, I would think that you would want those additional testers to be roughly in the same skill level as the three of you who are currently collecting data. A second or two difference per lap isn't the end of the world, but if someone were 4-5 seconds off the current pace, chances are they're not really a consistent driver either, and I think that would possibly skew things too much.

Or maybe I'm completely off...I don't know. I'm not trying to muddy things and if I am, I apologize. I'm just so interested in this particular experiment and I can't help myself from opening up my big mouth.

No need to be concerned, I feel that the first test has been reasonably successful in terms of data acquisition. The results have highlighted that the braking data was just too sporadic to be of use and hence why I have chosen to scrap that side of the test. I am fully satisfied with the lateral data though, I don't see a need to drastically alter the testing procedure at this stage. 👍

Don't worry about your lap times, I only ask that you put some practice in on the track so you get to know the layout and can run reasonably consistent laps. All data is welcome, none will be excluded (within reason), the point of this is to let the data tell the story rather than cherry picking results to make it fit a particular belief or theory

@DolHaus I understand on the shortness of Stowe we can improve loading by reducing the tire level a bit from RH to SM would cause significant loading on the tires with the XKR.
This is your test so it's ultimately your call on the track and car combo.
So Santa was good to me this year and gave me a DFGT so plenty of mindless driving is order for me to learn how to use it so I'll be getting you all the camber data with out fail.

Lucky boy, might have to keep my eyes on the 2nd hand market and see if I can pick up a wheel this year

At this stage I am unwilling to alter the car, I would like some direct comparison data before we start looking at variables such as tire type. The next test will just be removing the track camber variable to see if the trends change, this will help us identify elements that potentially alter the effects or applications. 👍

If there is a track that people want to test on then let me know, I'm only using Silverstone as an example because it is short and flat, the presence of curbs and non-penalised runoff areas is a slight concern so I am open to suggestions

 

[Otaliema]

@DolHaus watch Amazon and set aside around $130USD you can get a Good quality used one from Amazon directly for about 100 plus shipping if your prime than its free shipping. Be very very mindful of shipping costs on wheels some sellers will drastically undercut the other sellers but they will have insaine shipping fees. There was one seller that had a brand new factory sealed DFGT for $55 USD but $299.99 shipping

 

[Thorin Cain]

About the tracks, Silverstone works for me but I'd agree the National Circuit would be better as there is more of a chance to get some decent load into the tyres. @TurnLeft's suggestion of SSR5 Clubmans could work:tup:

It also got me thinking, most of the city tracks would work. There are plenty of barriers to stop having to worry about un-penalized run-off areas and also the curbs are usually missed as it means getting too close to the wall to run up on them. There are exeptions of course, but most of the turns on the city tracks are pretty flat even if there are sizeable altitude changes on some of them.

Haven't tried the big cat round any of them yet though, I'll give it a run out around some and see what I think.

 

[Otaliema]

Is think Madrid would be good gas a couple of great straights with heavy breaking sections and a roundabout to really test the mid corner where I think most of the problem with camber is at.
London is good but I think it's going to be the same problem as Stowe not long enough.
SSR-5 is a great track lots of time there so we all should know it pretty well.

 

[DolHaus]

SSR5 Clubman sounds like it should work, I'll give the car a quick spin when I get a chance 👍

 

[Motor City Hami]

I was playing with the MoTec data tonight to find an easier way to compare settings.

A few issues:
1.) Comparing lap times from a full lap is not showing enough of the story. For example, if 0 camber and 1.0 camber produce very similar lap times, what have we learned... that both settings work? Maybe, but there may be a deeper story looking at sector times.

2.) Lateral Gs seems promising, but looking at max Gs is troublesome. A driver could have entered super late and grabbed an extra bit of wheel causing a spike in Gs. Or a super smooth driver hit his marks perfectly and the lateral Gs did not reach the maximum grip of the tire. Maybe average Gs is more comparable?

3.) Steering wheel angle has the same problem as lateral Gs. Maybe looking at average angle is best?

4.) Corrected speed is also difficult to view simply max speed. Maybe average speed is best?

So I was thinking through the issues above and came to a conclusion. Sector lap time is the only thing that truly matters. All of the other measures above are attempts at proving the same thing, but are really surrogates to the most important measure. How fast were you able to get the car through each sector?

So here is how I think we should measure results (more standardized testing):
1.) Run say ten laps with a setting then save the entire replay, not just the fastest lap.
2.) Export the full ten lap replay to the MoTec Pro tool.
3.) Create custom sector splits for the test track (the default settings are too granular for easy comparison).
4.) Use the Eclectic column of time (as @LeoStrop has posted above) for comparison of each setting. This view shows essentially your theoretical fastest lap. We use this data most often with our real world data collection.

In a ten lap run, even non alien drivers should be able to hit each sector with a quick time. This eliminates the worry about blowing one corner and wasting the whole lap. Mess up sector one and you could still collect useful data. I ran a few laps just to collect some source data so please don't scrutinize the lap time inconsistency.

More simple and meaningful comparison? Thoughts?

 

[Motor City Hami]

This is what the @LeoStrop data looks like using the above method.

I wish that I knew what the section map looked like for High Speed Ring. That could help understand which types of corners line up with the data. This test shows that the fastest sectors were achieved when using 1.5 and 2.0 degrees of camber. It is interesting that the sector times are nearly opposite for 1.5 and 2.0, meaning that where 1.5 is strong, 2.0 is not.