Tuning to reduce lift-off oversteer

  • Thread starter peterjford
  • 100 comments
  • 26,164 views
/sigh.

The dampers will control the rate at which the expansion/contraction happens but the springs themselves will dictate how far they can expand and still apply force.

There's a reason drag racers use very, very soft front springs. ;)

i don't think we are talking about drag racing here
 
The same weight will be transferred you really need to learn this its a matter of PHYSICS. It doesn't matter what you think is going on, what your saying is physically impossible, your argument is about after the fact, you think AFTER the weight is in motion that the stiff springs are going to slow it down, again impossible. The stiff springs will not stop the forward weight transfer (or reduce the amount in any way) Its as simple as that.

You are amazing me.

Very, VERY much so.


I give up seeing as you're simply looking straight past what I'm saying and going on and on about what the springs are doing. It's a matter of the suspension travel itself, not the bloody springs.

Edit:

i don't think we are talking about drag racing here

No, really?

It was an example.


I give up. Just... *sigh*
 
How many times do I have to tell you, your talking about the RATE the weight is transferred not the amount, but stiffening the springs on paper shouldn't do what you suggest, however maybe this specific car it helps due to maybe a stock setting that is simply too soft (Balance remember), Ill give you that.
 
How many times do I have to tell you, your talking about the RATE the weight is transferred not the amount, but stiffening the springs on paper shouldn't do what you suggest, however maybe this specific car it helps, Ill give you that.

How many times do I have to tell you I'm not talking about the rate weight is transferred at?

That would apply IF I was another one of the idiots saying stiffer front springs will help (which coincidentally they will, but only by shocking the fronts into sliding as well thereby reducing cornering limits). I'm not. I'm saying that stiffening the rears has the side effect of reducing rear expansion/droop travel and thereby reduces forward weight transfer by way of keeping the CoG from moving upward and forward.
 
You are amazing me.

Very, VERY much so.


I give up seeing as you're simply looking straight past what I'm saying and going on and on about what the springs are doing. It's a matter of the suspension travel itself, not the bloody springs.

What your not getting, is that travel is only AFTER the weight has gone into motion, and the stiff springs in the rear and rear springs travel rate are incapable of impacting the AMOUNT of weight being transferred AFTER the weight has gone into motion............................ It can only impact the rate that the weight is transferred.....

What your FEELING when tuning is a difference in transfer rate, but your incapable of distinguishing the difference. So I keep telling you TRANSFER RATE, NOT AMOUNT, but you don't listen......

Your amazing Me!
 
Last edited:
What your not getting, is that travel is only AFTER the weight has gone into motion, and the stiff springs in the rear and rear springs travel rate are incapable of impacting the AMOUNT of weight being transferred AFTER the weight has gone in motion............................

Your amazing Me!

Ugh.

The travel is indeed only happening after the weight is already in motion, however, the longer the travel lasts, the more weight is allowed to transfer...
 
ok so on any vehicle, lets say a bicycle. lets say one that has front springs and dampers but NO rear spring or damper(example of your logic). if you brake just as hard as a another bicycle that has springs and dampers all around but the fronts are stiffer than the rear going the same speed...which one will have exhibit more forward weight transfer?
 
ok so on any vehicle, lets say a bicycle. lets say one that has front springs and dampers but NO rear spring or damper(example of your logic). if you brake just as hard as a another bicycle that has springs and dampers all around but the fronts are stiffer than the rear going the same speed...which one will have exhibit more forward weight transfer?

The same considering bikes are generally light enough to lift the rear tire completely off the ground ;)
 
if you are calling me an idiot because i questioned your logic then you are simply not listening. i took your logic into consideration before i said anything to offend you and i still don't think i have.
 
Ugh.

The travel is indeed only happening after the weight is already in motion, however, the longer the travel lasts, the more weight is allowed to transfer...

Now your tossing crap at the wall, its too late AFTER the fact, once the weight is in motion that's it. Physics.
 
if you are calling me an idiot because i questioned your logic then you are simply not listening. i took your logic into consideration before i said anything to offend you and i still don't think i have.

I called you an idiot? Where?

When?

Your bicycle example was indeed trash because to achieve optimum braking on a bike you generally will lift the rear tire. Hell, motorbikes as well.
 
Now your tossing crap at the wall, its too late AFTER the fact, once the weight is in motion that's it. Physics.

Ugh. Really?

Really? Your understanding of physics is apparently fatally flawed if you can't see this.

If the car stays level under braking then it will transfer x amount of its weight. If the suspension is allowed to let the rear expand then AFTER THE WEIGHT BEGINS TO TRANSFER the center of gravity will begin to move and allow further weight to transfer.

Edit: Crap, double post. Merge please mods?
 
How many times do I have to tell you I'm not talking about the rate weight is transferred at?

That would apply IF I was another one of the idiots saying stiffer front springs will help (which coincidentally they will, but only by shocking the fronts into sliding as well thereby reducing cornering limits). I'm not. I'm saying that stiffening the rears has the side effect of reducing rear expansion/droop travel and thereby reduces forward weight transfer by way of keeping the CoG from moving upward and forward.

right here.

and my example was not trash bc i said the second bike had stiffer front springs and dampers.
 
Ugh. Really?

Really? Your understanding of physics is apparently fatally flawed if you can't see this.

If the car stays level under braking then it will transfer x amount of its weight. If the suspension is allowed to let the rear expand then AFTER THE WEIGHT BEGINS TO TRANSFER the center of gravity will begin to move and allow further weight to transfer.

Edit: Crap, double post. Merge please mods?

It your lack of understanding that surprises me

When something is set in motion what does it take to stop it?

Do you think the springs being Stiff achieves this?

No it doesn't, Physics
 
This is a very common error for tuning newbs, usually to gaming tuners.

Only the ride height can impact the Amount of weight being transferred, its been argued by newbs over and over and over and over again, but in the end Physics doesn't change,and neither does the amount of weight transferred after the fact.
 
This is a very common error for tuning newbs, usually to gaming tuners.

Ach-hmm? Excuse me?

I could've sworn I've been doing GT4 tuning for over 2 years now. I also thought I did fairly well in pretty much every tuning challenge. I guess that was all an illusion and I'm a noob. :rolleyes:
 
http://phors.locost7.info/phors01.htm

The Physics of Racing,
Part 1: Weight Transfer
Brian Beckman

physicist and member of
No Bucks Racing Club

P.O. Box 662
Burbank, CA 91503

©Copyright 1991

Most autocrossers and race drivers learn early in their careers the importance of balancing a car. Learning to do it consistently and automatically is one essential part of becoming a truly good driver. While the skills for balancing a car are commonly taught in drivers' schools, the rationale behind them is not usually adequately explained. That rationale comes from simple physics. Understanding the physics of driving not only helps one be a better driver, but increases one's enjoyment of driving as well. If you know the deep reasons why you ought to do certain things you will remember the things better and move faster toward complete internalisation of the skills.

Balancing a car is controlling weight transfer using throttle, brakes, and steering. This article explains the physics of weight transfer. You will often hear instructors and drivers say that applying the brakes shifts weight to the front of a car and can induce oversteer. Likewise, accelerating shifts weight to the rear, inducing understeer, and cornering shifts weight to the opposite side, unloading the inside tyres. But why does weight shift during these manoeuvres? How can weight shift when everything is in the car bolted in and strapped down? Briefly, the reason is that inertia acts through the centre of gravity (CG) of the car, which is above the ground, but adhesive forces act at ground level through the tyre contact patches. The effects of weight transfer are proportional to the height of the CG off the ground. A flatter car, one with a lower CG, handles better and quicker because weight transfer is not so drastic as it is in a high car.

The rest of this article explains how inertia and adhesive forces give rise to weight transfer through Newton's laws. The article begins with the elements and works up to some simple equations that you can use to calculate weight transfer in any car knowing only the wheelbase, the height of the CG, the static weight distribution, and the track, or distance between the tyres across the car. These numbers are reported in shop manuals and most journalistic reviews of cars.

Most people remember Newton's laws from school physics. These are fundamental laws that apply to all large things in the universe, such as cars. In the context of our racing application, they are:

The first law: a car in straight-line motion at a constant speed will keep such motion until acted on by an external force. The only reason a car in neutral will not coast forever is that friction, an external force, gradually slows the car down. Friction comes from the tyres on the ground and the air flowing over the car. The tendency of a car to keep moving the way it is moving is the inertia of the car, and this tendency is concentrated at the CG point.

The second law: When a force is applied to a car, the change in motion is proportional to the force divided by the mass of the car. This law is expressed by the famous equation F = ma, where F is a force, m is the mass of the car, and a is the acceleration, or change in motion, of the car. A larger force causes quicker changes in motion, and a heavier car reacts more slowly to forces. Newton's second law explains why quick cars are powerful and lightweight. The more F and the less m you have, the more a you can get.

The third law: Every force on a car by another object, such as the ground, is matched by an equal and opposite force on the object by the car. When you apply the brakes, you cause the tyres to push forward against the ground, and the ground pushes back. As long as the tyres stay on the car, the ground pushing on them slows the car down.

Let us continue analysing braking. Weight transfer during accelerating and cornering are mere variations on the theme. We won't consider subtleties such as suspension and tyre deflection yet. These effects are very important, but secondary. The figure shows a car and the forces on it during a "one g" braking manoeuvre. One g means that the total braking force equals the weight of the car, say, in pounds.

In this figure, the black and white "pie plate" in the centre is the CG. G is the force of gravity that pulls the car toward the centre of the Earth. This is the weight of the car; weight is just another word for the force of gravity. It is a fact of Nature, only fully explained by Albert Einstein, that gravitational forces act through the CG of an object, just like inertia. This fact can be explained at deeper levels, but such an explanation would take us too far off the subject of weight transfer.

Lf is the lift force exerted by the ground on the front tyre, and Lr is the lift force on the rear tyre. These lift forces are as real as the ones that keep an airplane in the air, and they keep the car from falling through the ground to the centre of the Earth.

We don't often notice the forces that the ground exerts on objects because they are so ordinary, but they are at the essence of car dynamics. The reason is that the magnitude of these forces determine the ability of a tyre to stick, and imbalances between the front and rear lift forces account for understeer and oversteer. The figure only shows forces on the car, not forces on the ground and the CG of the Earth. Newton's third law requires that these equal and opposite forces exist, but we are only concerned about how the ground and the Earth's gravity affect the car.

If the car were standing still or coasting, and its weight distribution were 50-50, then Lf would be the same as Lr. It is always the case that Lf plus Lr equals G, the weight of the car. Why? Because of Newton's first law. The car is not changing its motion in the vertical direction, at least as long as it doesn't get airborne, so the total sum of all forces in the vertical direction must be zero. G points down and counteracts the sum of Lf and Lr, which point up.

Braking causes Lf to be greater than Lr. Literally, the "rear end gets light," as one often hears racers say. Consider the front and rear braking forces, Bf and Br, in the diagram. They push backwards on the tyres, which push on the wheels, which push on the suspension parts, which push on the rest of the car, slowing it down. But these forces are acting at ground level, not at the level of the CG. The braking forces are indirectly slowing down the car by pushing at ground level, while the inertia of the car is 'trying' to keep it moving forward as a unit at the CG level.

The braking forces create a rotating tendency, or torque, about the CG. Imagine pulling a table cloth out from under some glasses and candelabra. These objects would have a tendency to tip or rotate over, and the tendency is greater for taller objects and is greater the harder you pull on the cloth. The rotational tendency of a car under braking is due to identical physics.

The braking torque acts in such a way as to put the car up on its nose. Since the car does not actually go up on its nose (we hope), some other forces must be counteracting that tendency, by Newton's first law. G cannot be doing it since it passes right through the centre of gravity. The only forces that can counteract that tendency are the lift forces, and the only way they can do so is for Lf to become greater than Lr. Literally, the ground pushes up harder on the front tyres during braking to try to keep the car from tipping forward.

By how much does Lf exceed Lr? The braking torque is proportional to the sum of the braking forces and to the height of the CG. Let's say that height is 20 inches. The counterbalancing torque resisting the braking torque is proportional to Lf and half the wheelbase (in a car with 50-50 weight distribution), minus Lr times half the wheelbase since Lr is helping the braking forces upend the car. Lf has a lot of work to do: it must resist the torques of both the braking forces and the lift on the rear tyres. Let's say the wheelbase is 100 inches. Since we are braking at one g, the braking forces equal G, say, 3200 pounds. All this is summarized in the following equations:

3200 lbs times 20 inches = Lf times 50 inches - Lr times 50 inches

Lf + Lr = 3200 lbs (this is always true)

With the help of a little algebra, we can find out that

Lf = 1600 + 3200 / 5 = 2240 lbs, Lr = 1600 - 3200 / 5 = 960 lbs

Thus, by braking at one g in our example car, we add 640 pounds of load to the front tyres and take 640 pounds off the rears! This is very pronounced weight transfer.

By doing a similar analysis for a more general car with CG height of h, wheelbase w, weight G, static weight distribution d expressed as a fraction of weight in the front, and braking with force B, we can show that

Lf = dG + Bh / w, Lr = (1 - d)G - Bh / w

These equations can be used to calculate weight transfer during acceleration by treating acceleration force as negative braking force. If you have acceleration figures in gees, say from a G-analyst or other device, just multiply them by the weight of the car to get acceleration forces (Newton's second law!). Weight transfer during cornering can be analysed in a similar way, where the track of the car replaces the wheelbase and d is always 50% (unless you account for the weight of the driver). Those of you with science or engineering backgrounds may enjoy deriving these equations for yourselves. The equations for a car doing a combination of braking and cornering, as in a trail braking manoeuvre, are much more complicated and require some mathematical tricks to derive.

Tuning in GT4 for 2 years doesn't qualify you for much.
 
Did you actually read that or just use it as copypasta?

Let us continue analysing braking. Weight transfer during accelerating and cornering are mere variations on the theme. We won't consider subtleties such as suspension and tyre deflection yet. These effects are very important, but secondary.
 
Did you actually read that or just use it as copypasta?


YOU are the one who needs to read it, this is stuff you should already know. With your arguments being so wrong, then having the nerve to insult My understanding, HA.

We won't consider subtleties such as suspension and tyre deflection yet. These effects are very important, but secondary.
Don't get confused, it seams you may be already. Mixing up something that is important (like I said) but secondary (like rate of transfer ;) ) Stop tossing Crap at the wall...

Get to learning Boy! Read up!
 
Last edited:
YOU are the one who needs to read it, this is stuff you should already know especially with your arguments being so wrong, then having the nerve to insult My understanding, HA.

Get to learning Boy!

Seriously? You're now calling me "boy"?

Seriously? Just because I don't agree with you?

If you can't see how the center of gravity moving around affects weight transfer then I can't help you. And because of that, I'm going to sleep. Think of something better than insults and idiocy to use on me by morning (actually you've got roughly 3 hours).
 
Seriously? You're now calling me "boy"?

Seriously? Just because I don't agree with you?

If you can't see how the center of gravity moving around affects weight transfer then I can't help you. And because of that, I'm going to sleep. Think of something better than insults and idiocy to use on me by morning (actually you've got roughly 3 hours).

You need to realize is the Weight is always rotating around the CG, and that NEVER changes. What you keep talking about would only manipulating said weight, not increasing or decrease it.

Your Thick, It does have an effect (I never said it didn't) However it doesn't INCREASE the amount of weight being transferred because its after the fact, Boy.

Why do you think that travel is left OUT of the equation, and not accounted for ANYWHERE when applying the formula to the car traveling around the track. SURELY if what you say had any weight to it (did you see what I did right there, "weight" to it, get it, get it?) it should be taken into account shouldn't it?

Now get to bed, its past your bed time.
 
Last edited:
I saw in earlier posts people referring to +0.20 rear toe in GTPSP as toe-out... For GT PSP this is incorrect....

Positive toe in GT PSP = toe-in

Negative toe in GT PSP = toe-out.....

So all cars come stock with +0.20 toe-in... not toe-out....
 
Last edited:
Why do you think that travel is left OUT of the equation, and not accounted for ANYWHERE when applying the formula to the car traveling around the track. SURELY if what you say had any weight to it (did you see what I did right there, "weight" to it, get it, get it?) it should be taken into account shouldn't it?

*coughs*

Simplicity. Obviously. It's an entry-level attempt at letting people understand the physics behind it rather than an exact model.

I'm done here. You know what they say, don't you? Never argue with idiots, they'll only drag you down to their level. Seems I made that mistake last night.

Edit: Aaand Blitz, the toe is most definitely toe in, thanks for the first sensible post in a page and a half. Although, it's 0.20", not "20".
 
Edit: Aaand Blitz, the toe is most definitely toe in, thanks for the first sensible post in a page and a half. Although, it's 0.20", not "20".

LOL... thanks, I'm going to fix that little typo, just for the sake of being precise ;)
 
Wow this all happened in one night? Take a scale that uses springs and take an electronic scale that doesn't use springs. Put objects with the same amount of weight on each. Which appears to have more displacement? Which gets a heavier reading? Now apply that newly learned knowledge to the concept of weight transfer in cars :) Of course one can argue that the CG is above the wheels so if the car angles more to the front under lift-off, more weight would be transferred to the front, but the affects of this is minimal when talking about weight transfer under speed changes.
 
Last edited:
Wow this all happened in one night? Take a scale that uses springs and take an electronic scale that doesn't use springs. Put objects with the same amount of weight on each. Which appears to have more displacement? Which gets a heavier reading? Now apply that newly learned knowledge to the concept of weight transfer in cars :) Of course one can argue that the CG is above the wheels so if the car angles more to the front under lift-off, more weight would be transferred to the front, but the affects of this is minimal when talking about weight transfer under speed changes.


Forget it, his argument was trashed when I explained the sus travel was after the W/T has been set in motion. Anything after that fact unless its a equally powerful force acting against the weight, doesn't change the amount in motion. Any SLIGHT variation of ride height due to the W/T doesn't matter. The weight is already rotating around the CG of the car.

Now hes trying to save face, by playing a victim, and calling people idiots at the same time.

Boy, don't make me take off my belt!
 
Now hes trying to save face, by playing a victim, and calling people idiots at the same time.

There's nothing for him to save. Believe it or not, he's right. You're not. As it is, a stiffer spring compresses less when force is applied on it, no? That's why the logic of stiff front springs sounds good.

Oh well, your own quotes to the rescue. They're the easiest way to explain this.

You can reduce the weight transfer a bit by lowering the ride height, this will lower your center of gravity and reduce the amount of weight transferred. Not by much but it does reduce the W/T & adds to lateral grip.

First you admit that lowering the centre of gravity reduces the amount of weight transferred - which is exactly what it does. But then you turn the coat entirely and say:

In-fact Stiffening the spring will have the opposite effect, making the weight (same amount) transfer faster...

When in fact RJ is indeed lowering the CoG during the weight transfer during braking by, yes, stiffening the rear springs. While the stiffer spring will compress less with force X than a softer one it will also expand less, keeping the rear lower which leads to the CoG staying lower and thus the amount of weight transferred being reduced when compared to the softer spring.

With stiff front springs and soft rear springs the pivot point for the weight transfer would be somewhere behind the front wheels and slightly above the front axle level. The front would squat slightly and the rear would go up, raising the CoG, putting some more weight on the front and noticably lightening the rear wheels. With soft front and stiff rear springs the pivot point would be somewhere in front of the rear axle and slightly below the rear axle level. The front would squat severely and the rear would go up a bit, lowering the CoG, compressing the front suspension and lightening the rear a bit. You can guess which version produces more overall grip.

RJ knows fully well what he's doing when it comes to GT tuning. And this is coming from one of his "mortal enemies", not one of his best pat-my-back buddies.
 

Latest Posts

Back