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

[praiano63]

The relationship between speed and load is not what is being looked at here, we are purely looking at the relationship between camber and peak load. There are always going to be small variances in the data, this cannot be avoided, this is why the data is being collected from multiple sources and averaged out to create a picture of how camber is affecting grip.

The important data is G-load, everything else (speed/time) is just bonus data that may or may not be of use in future experiments

Ok, i don´t understand very well your point and where you want to come to have a result that speak clearly and saythis camber have more grip than this one.
In my opinion, the max g-force running over the perfect driving line only will tell the max grip camber. Wrong Driving inputs will make those datas unusables.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[DolHaus]

Ok, i don´t understand very well your point and where you want to come to have a result that speak clearly and saythis camber have more grip than this one.
In my opinion, the max g-force running over the perfect driving line only will tell the max grip camber. Wrong Driving inputs will make those datas unusables.
Just my 2 cents.

Yes that is always going to be a problem, I can't control how people drive and I can't exclude peoples data based on my opinion of their driving ability/style because very few people are willing to help. I'm doing the best I can with the resources at my disposal, if I can gather enough data then I will be able to cherry pick results and exclude what appears to be erroneous data.

 

[F1Racer68]

One option to eliminate the variables is to have all testers turn on the driving line and follow it. Yes, I know..... this is not necessarily the best line around the track, but it would provide a level of consistency within the results. It still won't address other driving style differences such as braking technique and throttle control though, which can all play a factor.

Any approach taken will have variables that individuals will criticize as "flaws". This is why researchers gather huge amounts of data, eliminate a percentage of the top and bottom redults and take an average, or more correctly, a median of the remaining results. Unless the entire community jumps in and helps out @DolHaus will never have that luxury. All he can do is do the best with the results he gets. I for one applaud the effort. We all know the results will be debated and argued adnausioum, but at least there is an attempt, and a logical process.

P.S. My own results have been delayed due to a crazy work load. I will post as soon as I can.

 

[Bhowe83]

It's not a bad test, we just need a tweaked setup and different track.

Also, one variable that I haven't seen addressed though is ∆tempurature from session to session. Have you guys looked at the temps in each session you ran? Because track/ambient temperature change will effect grip/G-load significantly.

I think we'd be better off testing this at Indianapolis or Twin Ring Motegi where we have long sweeping high speed turns that are almost flat and have equal banking low-high.

 

[DolHaus]

One option to eliminate the variables is to have all testers turn on the driving line and follow it. Yes, I know..... this is not necessarily the best line around the track, but it would provide a level of consistency within the results. It still won't address other driving style differences such as braking technique and throttle control though, which can all play a factor.

Any approach taken will have variables that individuals will criticize as "flaws". This is why researchers gather huge amounts of data, eliminate a percentage of the top and bottom redults and take an average, or more correctly, a median of the remaining results. Unless the entire community jumps in and helps out @DolHaus will never have that luxury. All he can do is do the best with the results he gets. I for one applaud the effort. We all know the results will be debated and argued adnausioum, but at least there is an attempt, and a logical process.

P.S. My own results have been delayed due to a crazy work load. I will post as soon as I can.

Thank you, you've explained it much more eloquently than I did 👍
That driving line suggestion is a good idea, I might add it to the OP

It's not a bad test, we just need a tweaked setup and different track.

Also, one variable that I haven't seen addressed though is ∆tempurature from session to session. Have you guys looked at the temps in each session you ran? Because track/ambient temperature change will effect grip/G-load significantly.

I think we'd be better off testing this at Indianapolis or Twin Ring Motegi where we have long sweeping high speed turns that are almost flat and have equal banking low-high.

If you read the instructions then you will see that the track is the one without time variation, this is intentional to remove variables such as ambient temperature. The track choice is also intentional because it has a lot of high load corners and is very easy to drive consistently. The corners are all traditional in design and help minimise the variation in driving lines, moving to a longer and more complex circuit would throw up many more variables. The inclusion of cambered turns is of little concern at this point as the data can be cross referenced with later tests to identify the differences.

It is important to remember that this test is not intended to answer all the questions in one go, all we are looking for is identifiable patterns in the data under specific circumstances. These patterns will be evaluated against the results of future tests to see if they hold true, this is the only way we can arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion

 

[Bhowe83]

I meant to test them at the ovals where you have almost no variation in driving line and a car that is easy to drive on an oval so the differences we see in time or grip can almost certainly be due to camber changes

 

[DolHaus]

Believe me, these elements were all considered and the car and track were both chosen because they present the minimum amount of potential variables and the largest amount of usable data per test.

 

[Highlandor]

Just a suggestion, not a criticism....

Racing hard tyres and grip set to real are not as good for consistency as say sports softs and grip on low.

Racing hard tyres can be affected by driving styles and in some situations (i.e. depending on power to tyre (grip) + driver) vary in grip levels from cold to warm. Sometimes, even with tyre wear on fast / very fast, best lap times can occur after 5 / 6 / 7 laps, even on longish (3 mile) tracks. If you're measuring data like 'G', there's a possibility the tyres will accidentally impact this. Sports soft tend to give more balanced grip straight away.

Grip on real concentrates more grip in one area of the track (racing line), again, this can impact the results as not everyone can maximise this affect. Having grip on low gives a more even spread of grip over the track, subsequently reducing the impact of this variable.

You don't have to write off what you've done so far, all data is useful in one way or another, but some moreso than others.

Possibly think about a more apt car, the car you're using has alot of changes and alot of grip, something like a balanced FR car with only custom suspension being used. Bmw M3 / M5, Vette C6 or C7, stock with sports medium tyres. Just change dampers to 2 / 2, 2 / 2 and roll bars to 5 / 5 as this corrects 'faults' with default suspension and helps eliminate those variables too..

Like I say, not a criticism, just suggestions to help validate the test by reducing variables that can impact results...

 

[DolHaus]

Just a suggestion, not a criticism....

Racing hard tyres and grip set to real are not as good for consistency as say sports softs and grip on low.

Racing hard tyres can be affected by driving styles and in some situations (i.e. depending on power to tyre (grip) + driver) vary in grip levels from cold to warm. Sometimes, even with tyre wear on fast / very fast, best lap times can occur after 5 / 6 / 7 laps, even on longish (3 mile) tracks. If you're measuring data like 'G', there's a possibility the tyres will accidentally impact this. Sports soft tend to give more balanced grip straight away.

Grip on real concentrates more grip in one area of the track (racing line), again, this can impact the results as not everyone can maximise this affect. Having grip on low gives a more even spread of grip over the track, subsequently reducing the impact of this variable.

You don't have to write off what you've done so far, all data is useful in one way or another, but some moreso than others.

Possibly think about a more apt car, the car you're using has alot of changes and alot of grip, something like a balanced FR car with only custom suspension being used. Bmw M3 / M5, Vette C6 or C7, stock with sports medium tyres. Just change dampers to 2 / 2, 2 / 2 and roll bars to 5 / 5 as this corrects 'faults' with default suspension and helps eliminate those variables too..

Like I say, not a criticism, just suggestions to help validate the test by reducing variables that can impact results...

These variables will be addressed in future tests, again we are not looking to answer all the questions in one shot, just acquiring specific data from specific circumstances to be analysed and cross referenced with future data to show discernible trends and patterns 👍

 

[praiano63]

I´ve made a test with several of my most neutral balanced cars on Twin ring Motegi Super speedway. This is really an ideal track to test camber x grip.
Ghost and laptime speak by themselves. All my results are in favor to the 0.0/0.0 camber. max grip, stay more steady at the inside of the turn when camber slide out of it, laptime also is gradually worst adding camber.
It´s very easy to maintain the line and the limit of grip. No need in my opinion to check any datas for this. It´s very clear for me.

 

[DolHaus]

I´ve made a test with several of my most neutral balanced cars on Twin ring Motegi Super speedway. This is really an ideal track to test camber x grip.
Ghost and laptime speak by themselves. All my results are in favor to the 0.0/0.0 camber. max grip, stay more steady at the inside of the turn when camber slide out of it, laptime also is gradually worst adding camber.
It´s very easy to maintain the line and the limit of grip. No need in my opinion to check any datas for this. It´s very clear for me.

This isn't about saying whether it works or not, I'm neutral on the subject in that regard. One source of data doesn't make for conclusive evidence, we need to look at multiple sources and identify what is going on in terms of the games physics, only then can we say anything for certain.
If you wish to participate then you are more than welcome, the data will hold the truth and the more of it we have the better. I am only here to collect numbers and identify what those numbers mean, I don't want the thread to be drawn into speculation and opinion like so many threads before

 

[Otaliema]

The general thing I'm seeing is everyone is tossing out criticism on test one of many, @DolHaus has many tests planed for this so it would be good imo to hold the criticism till its done and not say this or that is broken about the testing so far.

 

[Highlandor]

The general thing I'm seeing is everyone is tossing out criticism on test one of many, @DolHaus has many tests planed for this so it would be good imo to hold the criticism till its done and not say this or that is broken about the testing so far.

If someone is trying to avoid hearsay and obtain valid results, then suggestions or comments that help achieve that is not criticisms. It'd be far worse to carry on with any test that has issues of validity or area's that could potentially be improved, and then write off the whole test (both in terms of research and results), compared to amending a test at an early stage to ensure the rest of the research and results are valid.

Genuine 'criticisms' (much like genuine complaints in real life) might seem negative at face value, but dig a little deeper and they can often be utilized in a positive way i.e. highlighting where something is not right.

There is also a big difference between people making suggestions to help with the validity of the research, and those who jump to overall conclusions with no supporting evidence, especially when one aspect of the test is to avoid a 'hearsay' scenario.

Apologies to DOLHAUS if my suggestions seemed negative, was just trying to help you obtain data that'd be less open to criticism.

Good luck with the test 👍

 

[DolHaus]

If someone is trying to avoid hearsay and obtain valid results, then suggestions or comments that help achieve that is not criticisms. It'd be far worse to carry on with any test that has issues of validity or area's that could potentially be improved, and then write off the whole test (both in terms of research and results), compared to amending a test at an early stage to ensure the rest of the research and results are valid.

Genuine 'criticisms' (much like genuine complaints in real life) might seem negative at face value, but dig a little deeper and they can often be utilized in a positive way i.e. highlighting where something is not right.

There is also a big difference between people making suggestions to help with the validity of the research, and those who jump to overall conclusions with no supporting evidence, especially when one aspect of the test is to avoid a 'hearsay' scenario.

Apologies to DOLHAUS if my suggestions seemed negative, was just trying to help you obtain data that'd be less open to criticism.

Good luck with the test 👍

No worries at all, every suggestion is being noted and considered for future experiments 👍
We won't know if the experiment will work until we've compiled some data to see if it shows any promise, the experiments will be constantly evolved until they are watertight but I cannot alter an experiment while it is in process unless the data suggests serious flaws are present. So far the data I have received has been encouraging and comparable, there are a few odd results here and there but this is to be expected

Test
Evaluate
Repeat
Compare

👍

 

[praiano63]

This isn't about saying whether it works or not, I'm neutral on the subject in that regard. One source of data doesn't make for conclusive evidence, we need to look at multiple sources and identify what is going on in terms of the games physics, only then can we say anything for certain.
If you wish to participate then you are more than welcome, the data will hold the truth and the more of it we have the better. I am only here to collect numbers and identify what those numbers mean, I don't want the thread to be drawn into speculation and opinion like so many threads before

Sorry but i just wanted to point as did before me Bhowe83 , the track Twin ring Motegi Super speedway that is the perfect place for your experience, much more than HSR. I´m sure the results will speak clearly there, no matter the test driver skills.
Good luck with the test.

 

[DolHaus]

Ok then gentlemen, lets turn this into something useful by helping me design the next test

The current one will continue unchanged for the sake of data continuity

 

[rams1de]

@DolHaus I don't know if my previous testing experience will help or not because I was using lap times as a measure and therefore combining straight line grip and cornering grip.

I was concerned that inconsistent braking and varying degrees of steering angle would muddy the results. So chose Indianapolis speedway and turned on the driving line in an attempt to reduce variables as much as possible.

I also picked a car that required a small amount of lift to take the first bend while remaining on the line but could be driven flat out everywhere else when stock. When I got better grip I was able to take the bend fiat out without moving off the driving line.

 

[DolHaus]

@DolHaus I don't know if my previous testing experience will help or not because I was using lap times as a measure and therefore combining straight line grip and cornering grip.

I was concerned that inconsistent braking and varying degrees of steering angle would muddy the results. So chose Indianapolis speedway and turned on the driving line in an attempt to reduce variables as much as possible.

I also picked a car that required a small amount of lift to take the first bend while remaining on the line but could be driven flat out everywhere else when stock. When I got better grip I was able to take the bend fiat out without moving off the driving line.

Its a good basic premise 👍
A few things I could question would concern you having to lift entering the corner, this would imply some element of driver influence and therefore make the results questionable. If repeated would driver B have to lift in order to make the same turn because of a physical grip limitation or because they didn't think they could make the corner without doing so.

In an ideal experiment the car would be entering the corner flat out at the same speed every time and be able to make the turn holding a constant line, this would help make a grip increase/reduction easier to identify and reduce testing variables. We could possibly achieve this by speed limiting a car but I would not want to do this by using a short transmission because bouncing off the rev limiter could mess with the cars balance and the load data as a result.

 

[faceman557]

Camber still doesn't work, there I saved you a ton of time. your welcome

 

[Otaliema]

Camber still doesn't work, there I saved you a ton of time. your welcome

It works but not the way we expect it too.

If someone is trying to avoid hearsay and obtain valid results, then suggestions or comments that help achieve that is not criticisms. It'd be far worse to carry on with any test that has issues of validity or area's that could potentially be improved, and then write off the whole test (both in terms of research and results), compared to amending a test at an early stage to ensure the rest of the research and results are valid.

Genuine 'criticisms' (much like genuine complaints in real life) might seem negative at face value, but dig a little deeper and they can often be utilized in a positive way i.e. highlighting where something is not right.

There is also a big difference between people making suggestions to help with the validity of the research, and those who jump to overall conclusions with no supporting evidence, especially when one aspect of the test is to avoid a 'hearsay' scenario.

Apologies to DOLHAUS if my suggestions seemed negative, was just trying to help you obtain data that'd be less open to criticism.

Good luck with the test 👍

This I understand but everyone for the most part was going on about the same things car is wrong track is wrong data won't be good first one or two posts of an item ok @DolHaus acknowledged them and then that should be that.

 

[Lionheart2113]

Camber still doesn't work, there I saved you a ton of time. your welcome

That's helpful. We could ask for proof or testing results, but...
Like @Otaliema has stated, @DolHaus has explained that these tests might not be 100% accurate out of the gate. And sorry to tell the haters but nothing ever is, maybe in their world. Camber DOES work, but something isn't quite right. But atleast there are some people putting forth their time testing these scenarios, and I applaud that. (Not really that much to do in GT6 anymore except testing)
@praiano63 , @rams1de , & @Highlandor have put forth concerns and/or constructive critism that I know Dolhaus will take on board. And they have brought up a few excellent points, I like the Indy idea, but what would happen if a lower pp car is used where you don't have to lift, just follow the line? I don't know because I haven't started testing. No matter what, you are always going to have variables, but it is what it is and you work around those as best as you can.
At the end of the day it is a test, if it works that would be great...if not atleast there was an attempt and possibly a learning experience that might help in future tests. Keep up the good work guys!

 

[Highlandor]

Ok then gentlemen, lets turn this into something useful by helping me design the next test

The current one will continue unchanged for the sake of data continuity

Suggestions re above:

More driver details would help i.e.:

View: Bumper / bonnet / roof / cockpit / exterior (there are differences here, I use both cockpit and exterior view and can feel a difference when switching mid race, especially with cars with low grip ((i.e. tyre to power ratio))
Controller: Pad / wheel
Controller settings - steerings: (analogue stick / 'buttons')
Controller settings - brake / acc: (analogue stick / buttons (either 'X' or '[]', L1/2 R1/2)
Controller (PAD) settings - sensitivity - steering:
Controller (PAD) settings - sensitivity - 'feedback' i.e. vibration:
Controller (WHEEL) settings - Rotation:
Controller (WHEEL) settings - Max torque:
Controller (WHEEL) settings - Sensitivity:
Driving style - brakes: (aggressive = 100% on/off, passive = 'trail braking', 'left foot braking' = when brakes and throttle applied at same time i.e. 10/20% throttle, 'heel and toe' = throttle 'blipped' when braking)
Driving style - throttle: (aggressive = 100% on/off, passive = 'feathering' throttle)
Driving style - steering: (aggressive = 'throwing' car into corner, passive 'progressive/smoother' turning
ABS preference: (On / Off)
Brake strength preference: even / stronger fr / stronger rr / various according to car, setup, track etc
Gears: (manual / auto)
Clutch for manual: (Y / N)

Might seem a bit over the top, but it'd help explain differences sometimes experienced between testers, subsequently helping with validation of data and results. It'd also help people understand how variables other than the norm i.e. track, setup, tyres, online/offline, grip reduction etc can have an impact on what someone experiences.

You don't have to use it, or all of it, it's only a suggestion..

 

[DolHaus]

Suggestions re above:

More driver details would help i.e.:

View: Bumper / bonnet / roof / cockpit / exterior (there are differences here, I use both cockpit and exterior view and can feel a difference when switching mid race, especially with cars with low grip ((i.e. tyre to power ratio))
Controller: Pad / wheel
Controller settings - steerings: (analogue stick / 'buttons')
Controller settings - brake / acc: (analogue stick / buttons (either 'X' or '[]', L1/2 R1/2)
Controller (PAD) settings - sensitivity - steering:
Controller (PAD) settings - sensitivity - 'feedback' i.e. vibration:
Controller (WHEEL) settings - Rotation:
Controller (WHEEL) settings - Max torque:
Controller (WHEEL) settings - Sensitivity:
Driving style - brakes: (aggressive = 100% on/off, passive = 'trail braking', 'left foot braking' = when brakes and throttle applied at same time i.e. 10/20% throttle, 'heel and toe' = throttle 'blipped' when braking)
Driving style - throttle: (aggressive = 100% on/off, passive = 'feathering' throttle)
Driving style - steering: (aggressive = 'throwing' car into corner, passive 'progressive/smoother' turning
ABS preference: (On / Off)
Brake strength preference: even / stronger fr / stronger rr / various according to car, setup, track etc
Gears: (manual / auto)
Clutch for manual: (Y / N)

Might seem a bit over the top, but it'd help explain differences sometimes experienced between testers, subsequently helping with validation of data and results. It'd also help people understand how variables other than the norm i.e. track, setup, tyres, online/offline, grip reduction etc can have an impact on what someone experiences.

You don't have to use it, or all of it, it's only a suggestion..

It could be good to have a reference sheet with these things on them, I'm not sure if the data will be able to show these minor differences but if it does then this will make those differences easier to highlight 👍

I will draw up a Q/A sheet for testers to fill out based on these criteria for the next test

 

[Otaliema]

It could be good to have a reference sheet with these things on them, I'm not sure if the data will be able to show these minor differences but if it does then this will make those differences easier to highlight 👍

I will draw up a Q/A sheet for testers to fill out based on these criteria for the next test

For the most part it won't be hard to get that data incorporated into the first test as it's mostly environmental data so we don't have to go back and retest to get that information.

 

[F1Racer68]

Whatever shape the next set of tests takes all drivers MUST be sure to keep the same setup on the car. Even slight alterations will throw the data out the window. You must be willing and able to adjust yourself to the setup rather than adjust the car to suit you.

Just something that needs to be stated and kept in mind for anyone considering helping out.

 

[MrGrado]

More results providing evidence that camber is faster.

Still no one providing any evidence that 0 camber is faster, just people believing in 0 camber complaining about camber evidence again.

 

[azidahaka]

All very interesting, but i wouldn't have used a track with banked corners for testing camber, it provies skewed results... Still as first test track any is good i guess

Looking forward to next tests!

 

[Thorin Cain]

All very interesting, but i wouldn't have used a track with banked corners for testing camber, it provies skewed results... Still as first test track any is good i guess

Looking forward to next tests!

I would say in order to get a set of results that can give the information we are looking for, we need to test on all types of corners.
It's the only way to see both sides off the coin. 👍

I'm sure @DolHaus has considered this, and has plans for future tests to explore these too. And remember more data gives a better chance to find an answer....usually!

 

[Otaliema]

All very interesting, but i wouldn't have used a track with banked corners for testing camber, it provies skewed results... Still as first test track any is good i guess

Looking forward to next tests!

Jump in throw the car around and help with the data load cause as

And remember more data gives a better chance to find an answer....usually!

said more data is good! the more @DolHaus has the easier it will be to trim the outlairs and get the median data which is the really useful data

 

[azidahaka]

Do not take as a critic guys it's just that some people already jumped out saying "the more camber is better" when results are obviously VERY skewed due to banked corners that favours "weird" cambers