Sim Camber Setups - Help (long)

Hi all, This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your take on it. I've raced loads of online sims over the years and usually nick other people's setups and just fiddle with the gearing. For example, Andi Wilke's GPL and N2k3 setups seem to fit me like a glove. More recently, I've tried The Notorious setups for F1C. I thought it was about time I sorted my own setup development skills as I had some time off so I downloaded a few guides and read a few books and set about it. I've come across something which is really confusing. To most of you I'm sure it's clear but it's got me stumped. All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference between the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim being used. I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This was a complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developing a setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and half slower than TN's. I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics behind it all? If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested in your comments though. Regards

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:47:57 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (39 lines)

>Hi all, > >This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your take on >it. > >I've raced loads of online sims over the years and usually nick other >people's setups and just fiddle with the gearing. For example, Andi Wilke's >GPL and N2k3 setups seem to fit me like a glove. More recently, I've tried >The Notorious setups for F1C. > >I thought it was about time I sorted my own setup development skills as I >had some time off so I downloaded a few guides and read a few books and set >about it. I've come across something which is really confusing. To most of >you I'm sure it's clear but it's got me stumped. > >All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to >achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that >this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for >suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to >me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast >definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference between >the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim being used. > >I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and >stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then >changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This was a >complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually >increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developing a >setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with >what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and >half slower than TN's. > >I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone >experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup >rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics >behind it all? > >If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested >in your comments though.

It's raining anyway.... The even temperature theory still goes for GPL, but unlike F1C, GPL doesn't have dynamic camber. So with F1C it matters when you're reading the tyre temperatures. Remco

"Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone > experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup > rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics > behind it all? The only sim I regularly run that shows tyre temps is gpl so alot of this may not be so relevant, but in general if you are using all the available grip in the corners your tyre temps should be fairly even. It depends on what part of the track you measure the temps at though. I set up my own cars in gpl & tend to start off by getting the temps balanced, then go from there. It's a good starting point basically. Once I've got each tyre balanced if the temps are too high I stiffen the shocks, if they are too low I soften them. If there is too much difference between the left & right rear tyres I adjust the diff & anti-roll (sway) bars, although with experience I tend to find that I get that right first time now. If the track has alot of fast curves I'll then add a click or two of negative camber to the relevant side of the car & see if it's any better, it usually is, although it makes the car wander a little more on the straights. This starts to produce uneven inner/outer temps, and because the car is optimised for fast corners it will have less grip in slower corners, making the car less driveable but ultimately faster. If the track has alot of high speed straights, I'll raise the tyre pressures to get a better top speed, but again this is at the expense of grip. What I'm saying is that any setup will be a compromise that depends on your personally driving style & preference. Even tyre temps will mean the car is set up as an all-rounder, it's not perfectly set up for any one corner or straight, but overall it's pretty good. After that the changes you make may make /you/ faster, but may not suit everyone. At the end of the day it's far more important for good lap times that your car is easy & predictable to drive than the ultimate amount of grip at any given point on the track, and even tyre temps should give you a good base setup. One final point, if you use a fast driver's setups you will almost certainly find that the tyre temps aren't even, simply because you aren't pushing the car as hard as they are. When they use that setup the temps probably are more even ;-) Malc.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:47:57 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote: >This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your take on >it. Hi de hi, Neil. :) Camber thrust; http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/camber.htm I'll leave it to the real experts to explain further, but every setup I've ever made has the inner edge of the tyre hotter than the outside on road courses. If you try to even out the temps you just lose a lot of grip like you said.

"Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your takeon > it. > > I've raced loads of online sims over the years and usually nick other > people's setups and just fiddle with the gearing. For example, AndiWilke's > GPL and N2k3 setups seem to fit me like a glove. More recently, I've tried > The Notorious setups for F1C. > > I thought it was about time I sorted my own setup development skills as I > had some time off so I downloaded a few guides and read a few books andset

Quoted text (9 lines)

> about it. I've come across something which is really confusing. To most of > you I'm sure it's clear but it's got me stumped. > > All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to > achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that > this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for > suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to > me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast > definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference

between > the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim beingused. > > I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and > stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then > changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This wasa > complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually > increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developinga

Quoted text (12 lines)

> setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with > what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and > half slower than TN's. > > I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone > experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup > rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics > behind it all? > > If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested > in your comments though. >

Two things come to mind: 1. The truly fast guys the setups are from are pushing harder in the turns, thus evening out the contact patch more, and/or... 2. More likely, the camber is set to maximize contact patch mid-corner, which is where you need the grip, after all. If the tire is flat in the corners, then it'll be tilted on the straights, and your average temps for an optimized camber setup will thus be hotter on the insides (lefts on ovals). Improved grip in the corners will lead to lower temps overall, which also matches what you're seeing. I'd say any sim that models camber thrust in some way would benefit from such unevenness in tire temps. How much is right for you probably depends on your corner speeds. Of course you'll also need to assess the effect on tire wear, and will likely run more camber on qualifying setups than race ones. SB

Don't feel bad, the real car race teams have the same problem...only much worse. At least in the game there is some kind of tire data that is built in, and it's probably consistent over time and operating conditions (the tire physics-model will spit out exactly the same tire forces if you operate the tire exactly the same way). In the real world, understanding/tracking tire performance is a lot more complex than in any game--and much harder to second-guess, or even measure in the lab. The various modeling schemes that you can read about in old physics threads (Pacejka, our Nondimensional tire data, etc) are all simplifications and approximations to the actual tire performance. If you ever figure it all out, then you have a bright future in vehicle dynamics! -- Doug Milliken www.millikenresearch.com On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Neil Charlton wrote:

Quoted text (45 lines)

> Hi all, > > This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your take on > it. > > I've raced loads of online sims over the years and usually nick other > people's setups and just fiddle with the gearing. For example, Andi Wilke's > GPL and N2k3 setups seem to fit me like a glove. More recently, I've tried > The Notorious setups for F1C. > > I thought it was about time I sorted my own setup development skills as I > had some time off so I downloaded a few guides and read a few books and set > about it. I've come across something which is really confusing. To most of > you I'm sure it's clear but it's got me stumped. > > All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to > achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that > this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for > suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to > me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast > definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference between > the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim being used. > > I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and > stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then > changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This was a > complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually > increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developing a > setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with > what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and > half slower than TN's. > > I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone > experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup > rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics > behind it all? > > If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested > in your comments though. > > Regards > > > >

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:47:57 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and >stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then >changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This was a >complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually >increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developing a >setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with >what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and >half slower than TN's. > >I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone >experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup >rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics >behind it all?

You've come to the same conclusion I have it seems. Screw temperatures, camber is king seems to be the order of the day(in F1C). This has been so ever since F1 2001, I'm afraid. Camber adds an enormous grip advantage without loss of any longitudinal traction that I can see, or abnorm tyre wear and it even compensates for 145degC inner temps. I was hoping for them to fix this for F1C like they have fixed almost everything else like aero and slip... It just doesn't seem all that realistic to me, as they don't run with 6deg rear tyre camber IRL as far as I can see. >If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested >in your comments though. Hey you wrote it, pal! How much do *you* need to get out then, hmm? ;-)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:25:17 +0200, Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:47:57 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Charlton" ><[email hidden]> wrote: >>I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone >>experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup >>rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics >>behind it all? > >You've come to the same conclusion I have it seems. Screw >temperatures, camber is king seems to be the order of the day(in F1C). >This has been so ever since F1 2001, I'm afraid. Camber adds an >enormous grip advantage without loss of any longitudinal traction that >I can see, or abnorm tyre wear and it even compensates for 145degC >inner temps. I was hoping for them to fix this for F1C like they have >fixed almost everything else like aero and slip... It just doesn't >seem all that realistic to me, as they don't run with 6deg rear tyre >camber IRL as far as I can see. >

A similar discussion was going on yesterday in Sierra's NR2003 board: apparently people could get a significant increase in performance with such cambers... JD

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:45:55 +0300, Greger Huttu <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:47:57 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Charlton" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your take on >>it. > >Hi de hi, Neil. :) > >Camber thrust; http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/camber.htm

As I understand it, camber thrust isn't a real(or relevant, don't know which) cornering force, at least on cars. Camber thrust is there because the wheel wants to turn in a circle because it behaves like a cone. But the same force should be accomplished by pivoting the wheel(=slip angle). Example: On a road car you usually set a slight negative camber on the right front wheel to offset the crown of the road so that the car tracks straight on a straight piece of road. This can roughly be seen as if the right front wheel is turning in a radius [to the left] when pointing straight. Also, on a kart, if you negatively camber the front wheels by a fair amount, they will start scrubbing(losing straight line speed), the two wheels will try to turn into each other. So to offset that you have to toe them out so that each wheel's camber turn radius is equal to the toe-out turn radius. So the camber thrust force isn't just a magical outside force that is pointing into the turn _adding_ to the tyre's traction budget, but generated by the tyre itself thus _a part_ of the traction budget. So I think that the main reason to add camber to the wheels is to maximise the traction budget of each tyre and forget all about camber thrust when setting up a race car(in real life at least). A bit daunting to go out on a limb like this with Doug M. in the same thread... :-) Hopefully he can set things straight if I'm totally talking out of my rear.

I can only speak for oval racing, since I have little experience in GPL, but I'm hoping most people seeking even tire temps will eventually graduate to worrying more about getting an average across each tire that balances with the opposite corner (RF+LR=LF+RR). I don't recall ever getting even tire temps on one tire, on any oval, or for the two WC road courses for that matter. If your on an oval, shoot for a difference of about 10-15 degrees on the RF (Ex 225 212 210), a slight lesser difference for the LF, and a bit less than those for the rears. Once you get the overall tire temps up where you want, adjust the temps across each tire using caster. imo, any less differences than those and you'll be spending that much more time with the rest of the setup trying to improve it. That's all I can add. -- Tim White www.intracmotorsports.com "Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your take on > it. > > I've raced loads of online sims over the years and usually nick other > people's setups and just fiddle with the gearing. For example, Andi Wilke's > GPL and N2k3 setups seem to fit me like a glove. More recently, I've tried > The Notorious setups for F1C. > > I thought it was about time I sorted my own setup development skills as I > had some time off so I downloaded a few guides and read a few books and set > about it. I've come across something which is really confusing. To most of > you I'm sure it's clear but it's got me stumped. > > All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to > achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that > this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for > suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to > me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast > definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference between > the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim being used. > > I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and > stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then > changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This was a > complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually > increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developing a > setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with > what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and > half slower than TN's. > > I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone > experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup > rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics > behind it all? > > If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested > in your comments though. > > Regards > >

Yikes - what can I say! Thanks to all contributors. I never expected Greger, Tim and a bunch of other respected guys to give so much information - I really appreciate it. It's clarified what I thought was going on and I think I can even see why now. Does this now mean I can produce Greger-beating setups? Err .... don't think so but I least I know what I'm doing ;) Cheers

The thing that is really important is dynamic camber, the tire's actual relationship to the road in mid corner. If you use very soft springs and bars you get more roll and you need to use more static camber in order to get the correct dynamic camber. Most F1C setups that I have seen, in fact most "hot" sim setups in general, use extremely soft springs and bars and allow much more roll than the real cars. So you have to run more camber than the real cars to get it to work. That said, it still doesn't completely add up. In F1C it's not hard to get as much as 20 deg. C difference between inside and outside of tire and still be getting good grip. I doubt that that is realistic. Another thing I have noticed is that hot setups often have unrealistically high amounts of toe-out in front and toe-in in the rear. Some extra camber may be necessary to deal with this, particularly in front. I don't think it is realistic to balance camber thrust against toe, that doesn't make sense in terms of what is happening to the tire carcass, but in terms of typical current sims' tire models it may work. "Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your takeon > it. ><snip>

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to > achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that > this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for > suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to > me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast > definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference

between > the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim beingused. ><etc.>

"Magnus Svensson" said: > > You've come to the same conclusion I have it seems. Screw > temperatures, camber is king seems to be the order of the day(in F1C). If you look at modern day F1 you'll see that this is actually the case - camber *is* king. Technology has evolved to such a point where modern F1-cars have virtually 0 degrees of lateral roll. Not only that, but with no-droop suspension and a geometry (pararell equal-lenght wishbones) that calls for very small camper changes in bump/rebound too. By looking at some of these cars you'll see that run "huge" amounts of front-camber for sure.... 3-4 perhaps even 5 or 6 degrees of negative chamber at times. I think much of this is due to camber-thrust and their relatively small and wide tires with big fleixng sidewalls. Add to that the fact that what we see in our sims is just a tiny bit of how real tire physics work. It's a very complex task. -- ed_

"Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f416c3e$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Magnus Svensson" said: > > > > You've come to the same conclusion I have it seems. Screw > > temperatures, camber is king seems to be the order of the day(in F1C). > > If you look at modern day F1 you'll see that this is actually the case - > camber *is* king. > Technology has evolved to such a point where modern F1-cars have virtually

0 > degrees of lateral roll. Not only that, but with no-droop suspension and a > geometry (pararell equal-lenght wishbones) that calls for very smallcamper > changes in bump/rebound too. By looking at some of these cars you'll see > that run "huge" amounts of front-camber for sure.... 3-4 perhaps even 5 or6 > degrees of negative chamber at times. I think much of this is due to > camber-thrust and their relatively small and wide tires with big fleixng > sidewalls. > I think you got it with the last bit; I remember an interview with one of the champcar guys (Castroneves, IIRC) at the end of last season who did a test session with Toyota in their '02 F1 car. Asked about the differences in the cars, he noted great surprise at how much more the F1 car rolled in the corners, due to it's relatively high-profile tires. > Add to that the fact that what we see in our sims is just a tiny bit ofhow > real tire physics work. It's a very complex task. > Indeed! > > -- > ed_ > >

For Nascar Racing, at least, the rule of thumb I've always read is to have the inner tire temps run 10 degree's hotter than the outer. -Larry "Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your takeon > it. > > I've raced loads of online sims over the years and usually nick other > people's setups and just fiddle with the gearing. For example, AndiWilke's > GPL and N2k3 setups seem to fit me like a glove. More recently, I've tried > The Notorious setups for F1C. > > I thought it was about time I sorted my own setup development skills as I > had some time off so I downloaded a few guides and read a few books andset

Quoted text (9 lines)

> about it. I've come across something which is really confusing. To most of > you I'm sure it's clear but it's got me stumped. > > All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to > achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that > this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for > suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to > me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast > definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference

between > the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim beingused. > > I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and > stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then > changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This wasa > complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually > increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developinga

Quoted text (15 lines)

> setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with > what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and > half slower than TN's. > > I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone > experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup > rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics > behind it all? > > If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested > in your comments though. > > Regards > >

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:19:12 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>"Magnus Svensson" said: >> >> You've come to the same conclusion I have it seems. Screw >> temperatures, camber is king seems to be the order of the day(in F1C). > >If you look at modern day F1 you'll see that this is actually the case - >camber *is* king.

Actually, I have watched it very carefully, and they do not always apply that much camber as is done in F1C. Some have a little more than others, some have a little less. Check out this pic for example, it's Kimi going out for his qualifying lap at hockenheim last GP: http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/phc/pger03/sat/raikkonen2-lg.jpg Compare that to -6.0deg front camber in F1C in outside view. That's just the fronts, all RL cars seem to have very little to no camber to the rear tyres, and they almost seem to get positive camber on the outside rear when cornering hard. Hotlapper setups in F1C often have heavy camber at the rears too! Just for kicks I modified the .hdv of the Ferrari to allow much greater camber. I went out with -14deg on the fronts and -12deg at the rears!!! And it drove extremely well! I put in a 1:16.0 at Hungaroring with a scorching 192/140/85 temperature on the LF tyre... I could brake at exactly the same points as usual and forward traction also seemed unaffected. >Technology has evolved to such a point where modern F1-cars have virtually 0 >degrees of lateral roll. Not only that, but with no-droop suspension and a >geometry (pararell equal-lenght wishbones) that calls for very small camper >changes in bump/rebound too. Well, Renault and Michelin incorporated a variable camber suspension which works by deflection and body roll... So supension dynamics still matters, I guess. > By looking at some of these cars you'll see >that run "huge" amounts of front-camber for sure.... 3-4 perhaps even 5 or 6 >degrees of negative chamber at times. I think much of this is due to >camber-thrust and their relatively small and wide tires with big fleixng >sidewalls. As for camber thrust, see my reply to Greger. I don't agree on that camber thrust is the reason why camber is applied, I think the camber they are using is applied because the rubber is optimally exploited at that angle in cornering. And that they don't apply camber to the rear because that would make them lose longitudinal traction and add a lot of scrubbing, especially with toe-in. >Add to that the fact that what we see in our sims is just a tiny bit of how >real tire physics work. It's a very complex task. No kidding... :-\ I was just hoping that the model was a little bit more advanced than this and that they had 'fixed' it by now.

The ISI sims are not realistic in this regard. The Papy sims are much closer to RW experience. In F12002, etc., yes, camber is king - the more neg cam you add, the greater the tire temp diff...and the greater the grip. WTF. In N2003, you aim for a lower temp diff: maybe 4-8 deg. betw. inner & outer. Also, Papy models roll resist (and has since Indy 500); ISI, AFAIK, doesn't. That is, you can increase yer Vmax 3-4 mph by running the tires on edge (common sense dictates the inner edge, but if yer not cornering, pos cam works just as well). Overinflating the tars also significently decr. the roll resist. In addition to roll (amt. and rate) via springs, bars & damps, you also have to factor in camber gain; i.e., the more aggressive you are, the more (neg) gain you induce, meaning you have to start off w. less neg cam. SRH also plays a (small) part here. Finally, cam alone doesn't affect scrub - that's a funct of toe. --Steve Smith "Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > This is one that's been bugging me for ages and I'd appreciate your takeon > it. > > I've raced loads of online sims over the years and usually nick other > people's setups and just fiddle with the gearing. For example, AndiWilke's > GPL and N2k3 setups seem to fit me like a glove. More recently, I've tried > The Notorious setups for F1C. > > I thought it was about time I sorted my own setup development skills as I > had some time off so I downloaded a few guides and read a few books andset

Quoted text (9 lines)

> about it. I've come across something which is really confusing. To most of > you I'm sure it's clear but it's got me stumped. > > All the guides, almost without exception, discuss adjusting camber to > achieve an even temp across the tyre on average - the rationale being that > this ensures the greatest contact patch and optimum grip. It allows for > suspension and body roll in the turns and, as such, is perfectly clear to > me. However, every setup I've ever driven that was anywhere near fast > definitely is not like this. Invariably, there is a large difference

between > the inside and outside of the tyre regardless of the type of sim beingused. > > I decided to do an experiment in F1C. I used TN's setup for Hungary and > stuck with it until I could produce steady mid 16s with no aids. I then > changed nothing except the camber to try and even up tyre temps. This wasa > complete disaster. The grip totally went away, tyre temperatures actually > increased overall and the setup was generally hopeless. I tried developinga

Quoted text (15 lines)

> setup from scratch with even tyre temps from the outset and ended up with > what felt like a nicely balanced setup. Unfortunately, it was a second and > half slower than TN's. > > I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone > experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup > rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the physics > behind it all? > > If you've read this far, you really should get out more. I'd be interested > in your comments though. > > Regards > >

Magnus Svensson wrote:

Quoted text (61 lines)

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:19:12 +0200, "Ed Solheim" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> "Magnus Svensson" said: >>> >>> You've come to the same conclusion I have it seems. Screw >>> temperatures, camber is king seems to be the order of the day(in >>> F1C). >> >> If you look at modern day F1 you'll see that this is actually the >> case - camber *is* king. > > Actually, I have watched it very carefully, and they do not always > apply that much camber as is done in F1C. Some have a little more than > others, some have a little less. Check out this pic for example, it's > Kimi going out for his qualifying lap at hockenheim last GP: > > http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/phc/pger03/sat/raikkonen2-lg.jpg > > Compare that to -6.0deg front camber in F1C in outside view. That's > just the fronts, all RL cars seem to have very little to no camber to > the rear tyres, and they almost seem to get positive camber on the > outside rear when cornering hard. Hotlapper setups in F1C often have > heavy camber at the rears too! > > Just for kicks I modified the .hdv of the Ferrari to allow much > greater camber. I went out with -14deg on the fronts and -12deg at the > rears!!! And it drove extremely well! I put in a 1:16.0 at Hungaroring > with a scorching 192/140/85 temperature on the LF tyre... I could > brake at exactly the same points as usual and forward traction also > seemed unaffected. > >> Technology has evolved to such a point where modern F1-cars have >> virtually 0 degrees of lateral roll. Not only that, but with >> no-droop suspension and a geometry (pararell equal-lenght wishbones) >> that calls for very small camper changes in bump/rebound too. > > Well, Renault and Michelin incorporated a variable camber suspension > which works by deflection and body roll... So supension dynamics still > matters, I guess. > >> By looking at some of these cars you'll see >> that run "huge" amounts of front-camber for sure.... 3-4 perhaps >> even 5 or 6 degrees of negative chamber at times. I think much of >> this is due to camber-thrust and their relatively small and wide >> tires with big fleixng sidewalls. > > As for camber thrust, see my reply to Greger. I don't agree on that > camber thrust is the reason why camber is applied, I think the camber > they are using is applied because the rubber is optimally exploited at > that angle in cornering. And that they don't apply camber to the rear > because that would make them lose longitudinal traction and add a lot > of scrubbing, especially with toe-in. > >> Add to that the fact that what we see in our sims is just a tiny bit >> of how real tire physics work. It's a very complex task. > > No kidding... :-\ > > I was just hoping that the model was a little bit more advanced than > this and that they had 'fixed' it by now.

The McLaren uses Michelin tyres, they need less camber to work than the Bridgestone. Take a look at the camber on the Ferrari. A quote from F1 Racing magazine interview with Bridgestone: "The tyres do look very different. How does your tyre work with it's rounder construction?" "We use 'camber thrust' so that when you lean a tyre inwards it wants to turn in that direction. That generates some cornering force. When you look at the front suspension of the Ferrari, for example, you can see that it has negative camber settings to use our tyres' camber thrust. But the Michelin would like to stand up vertically and be used in that position. So they could not be using camber thrust, but instead using maximum cornering power. So I guess their tyre has very high cornering power. We believe Michelins' philosphy of cornering is different because they use cornering power only and do not adopt camber thrust at all" -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers>

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:25:44 +0100, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>The McLaren uses Michelin tyres, they need less camber to work than the >Bridgestone. Take a look at the camber on the Ferrari. > >A quote from F1 Racing magazine interview with Bridgestone: > >"The tyres do look very different. How does your tyre work with it's rounder >construction?" >"We use 'camber thrust' so that when you lean a tyre inwards it wants to >turn in that direction. That generates some cornering force. When you look >at the front suspension of the Ferrari, for example, you can see that it has >negative camber settings to use our tyres' camber thrust. >But the Michelin would like to stand up vertically and be used in that >position. So they could not be using camber thrust, but instead using >maximum cornering power. >So I guess their tyre has very high cornering power. We believe Michelins' >philosphy of cornering is different because they use cornering power only >and do not adopt camber thrust at all"

Hmm... good quote. Sort of throws a spanner in the works for me, doesn't it? I have to ponder some more over how they separate "cornering power" over total cornering force... Can't quite wrap my head around it yet. I knew that camber thrust is a pretty vital part in motorcycle physics, but the premise is very much different, although the rounded vs. square tyre above is vaguely related. Well, back to the drawing board.

Magnus Svensson wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Hmm... good quote. Sort of throws a spanner in the works for me, > doesn't it? I have to ponder some more over how they separate > "cornering power" over total cornering force... Can't quite wrap my > head around it yet. > > I knew that camber thrust is a pretty vital part in motorcycle > physics, but the premise is very much different, although the rounded > vs. square tyre above is vaguely related. > > Well, back to the drawing board.

I have very little understanding of camber thrust and cornering power, I just thought a few people here may be interested in the article. From what I understand / have read, the outside tyre in a turn gives the maximum cornering power, that being the tyre the weight of the car is transferred to, thus the tyre stays virtually flat to the ground. The inside tyre lifts it's outer edge even further and relies predominantly on camber thrust to help the cornering. Of course, I could be completely wrong, my memory isn't so good these days :) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers>

Codswallop. "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hpr0b.8711$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (69 lines)

> Magnus Svensson wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:19:12 +0200, "Ed Solheim" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >> "Magnus Svensson" said: > >>> > >>> You've come to the same conclusion I have it seems. Screw > >>> temperatures, camber is king seems to be the order of the day(in > >>> F1C). > >> > >> If you look at modern day F1 you'll see that this is actually the > >> case - camber *is* king. > > > > Actually, I have watched it very carefully, and they do not always > > apply that much camber as is done in F1C. Some have a little more than > > others, some have a little less. Check out this pic for example, it's > > Kimi going out for his qualifying lap at hockenheim last GP: > > > > http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/phc/pger03/sat/raikkonen2-lg.jpg > > > > Compare that to -6.0deg front camber in F1C in outside view. That's > > just the fronts, all RL cars seem to have very little to no camber to > > the rear tyres, and they almost seem to get positive camber on the > > outside rear when cornering hard. Hotlapper setups in F1C often have > > heavy camber at the rears too! > > > > Just for kicks I modified the .hdv of the Ferrari to allow much > > greater camber. I went out with -14deg on the fronts and -12deg at the > > rears!!! And it drove extremely well! I put in a 1:16.0 at Hungaroring > > with a scorching 192/140/85 temperature on the LF tyre... I could > > brake at exactly the same points as usual and forward traction also > > seemed unaffected. > > > >> Technology has evolved to such a point where modern F1-cars have > >> virtually 0 degrees of lateral roll. Not only that, but with > >> no-droop suspension and a geometry (pararell equal-lenght wishbones) > >> that calls for very small camper changes in bump/rebound too. > > > > Well, Renault and Michelin incorporated a variable camber suspension > > which works by deflection and body roll... So supension dynamics still > > matters, I guess. > > > >> By looking at some of these cars you'll see > >> that run "huge" amounts of front-camber for sure.... 3-4 perhaps > >> even 5 or 6 degrees of negative chamber at times. I think much of > >> this is due to camber-thrust and their relatively small and wide > >> tires with big fleixng sidewalls. > > > > As for camber thrust, see my reply to Greger. I don't agree on that > > camber thrust is the reason why camber is applied, I think the camber > > they are using is applied because the rubber is optimally exploited at > > that angle in cornering. And that they don't apply camber to the rear > > because that would make them lose longitudinal traction and add a lot > > of scrubbing, especially with toe-in. > > > >> Add to that the fact that what we see in our sims is just a tiny bit > >> of how real tire physics work. It's a very complex task. > > > > No kidding... :-\ > > > > I was just hoping that the model was a little bit more advanced than > > this and that they had 'fixed' it by now. > > The McLaren uses Michelin tyres, they need less camber to work than the > Bridgestone. Take a look at the camber on the Ferrari. > > A quote from F1 Racing magazine interview with Bridgestone: > > "The tyres do look very different. How does your tyre work with it's

rounder > construction?" > "We use 'camber thrust' so that when you lean a tyre inwards it wants to > turn in that direction. That generates some cornering force. When you look > at the front suspension of the Ferrari, for example, you can see that ithas

Quoted text (18 lines)

> negative camber settings to use our tyres' camber thrust. > But the Michelin would like to stand up vertically and be used in that > position. So they could not be using camber thrust, but instead using > maximum cornering power. > So I guess their tyre has very high cornering power. We believe Michelins' > philosphy of cornering is different because they use cornering power only > and do not adopt camber thrust at all" > > > > -- > > Ian P > <email invalid due to spammers> > > > >

Is that a technical term? "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Tnw0b.72812$[email hidden]... > Codswallop. >

Steve Smith wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Codswallop. > > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> A quote from F1 Racing magazine interview with Bridgestone: >> >> "The tyres do look very different. How does your tyre work with it's >> rounder construction?" >> "We use 'camber thrust' so that when you lean a tyre inwards it >> wants to turn in that direction. That generates some cornering >> force. When you look at the front suspension of the Ferrari, for >> example, you can see that it has negative camber settings to use our >> tyres' camber thrust. >> But the Michelin would like to stand up vertically and be used in >> that position. So they could not be using camber thrust, but instead >> using maximum cornering power. >> So I guess their tyre has very high cornering power. We believe >> Michelins' philosphy of cornering is different because they use >> cornering power only and do not adopt camber thrust at all" >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ian P >> <email invalid due to spammers>

I'm only quoting what the guy from Bridgestone said in the September 2003 issue of F1 racing magazine. I would hope he knows at least something about tyre technology. Which part(s) *exactly* is (are) codswallop ? -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers>

ISI's tire model may not be perfect but there is a whole lot of stuff in there. Regarding roll resistance, here are some lines from the 2002 Michelin tire file for F1C, from the section for the hard tires: Radius=0.325 // Radius of tire RadiusRPM=4.65e-6 // Increased radius per unit RPM SpringBase=54500.0 // Base spring rate with no pressure SpringkPa=1331.0 // Spring rate per unit pressure RollingResistance=1435.0 // Resistance torque (Nm) per unit deflection (m) on ground The first two lines indicate that there is a base radius that is RPM dependent. The next two indicate that there is also a spring rate that is pressure dependent. The spring acts against deflection from the base radius. The next line indicates that there is a rolling resistance torque that depends on the deflection. So not only is rolling resistance modelled, but it is also clearly pressure dependent. Regarding camber sensitivity, well I don't know how realistic it is, but here is the data from the same file: CamberLatLong=(2.99, 0.121, 0.11) // Peak camber angle, lateral gain at peak, longitudinal loss at 90 degrees This appears to indicate that the optimum *dynamic* camber angle for the Michelins is 2.99 degrees, that at this angle it gains 0.121 in lateral friction coefficient, and it loses longitudinal friction coefficient at a rate of 0.11/90 per degree of camber. So first there is a small, realistic camber angle at which you get the maximum lateral friction. Secondly there appears to be very little loss in longitudinal friction for any realistic camber angle. This means that the typical soft suspensions that many people are using in F1C will require greater than 3 degrees of static camber, but probably not more than 5 or so. A harder suspension would require less, but the minimum you would need would be 2.99 (the above is for the front tires btw). I don't know how much camber gain is built into the suspension, but they do have shorter upper arms so probably not much. Someone with more patience than I could figure it out by plotting out the values in the f1susp.pm file. I'll pass. Since we are talking about tires with a base friction coefficient of around 1.9 that means there is only about a 6% lateral friction gain at most from playing around with camber. Too much isn't going to cost you much, but neither is too little. Too much isn't going to cost you much in longitudinal grip either, in fact it is negligible. And in my experience this is confirmed by telemetry. More camber feels better but doesn't have a huge effect on lateral grip or speed on the straights. It seems to affect the transients more than anything else, i.e. more camber (up to a point) seems to make it more drivable. Is that realistic? I don't know, but if nothing else the file shows clearly that there is no need for huge camber angles unless you are using unrealistically soft springs and bars (and many people are). For a realistic setup somewhere around 3 to 4 degrees of static camber in front, and about a degree less in the rear, should be optimal. For the record, here are the optimum dynamic camber angles for the 2002 season soft compound tires: Front Rear Michelin 2.99 2.07 Bridgestone 3.17 2.17 Seems the reverse of what I would expect, but that's what's in the files. If you are making a setup for F1C, it makes absolutely no sense to deviate far from these values. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Kgo0b.71044$[email hidden]... > The ISI sims are not realistic in this regard. The Papy sims are much > closer to RW experience. In F12002, etc., yes, camber is king - the more > neg cam you add, the greater the tire temp diff...and the greater thegrip. > WTF. In N2003, you aim for a lower temp diff: maybe 4-8 deg. betw. inner& > outer. > > Also, Papy models roll resist (and has since Indy 500); ISI, AFAIK,doesn't. > That is, you can increase yer Vmax 3-4 mph by running the tires on edge > (common sense dictates the inner edge, but if yer not cornering, pos cam > works just as well). Overinflating the tars also significently decr. the > roll resist. >

"Magnus Svensson" said: > > http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/phc/pger03/sat/raikkonen2-lg.jpg Usless picture - you cannot judge an angle unless your looking straight at it. -- ed_

"Magnus Svensson" said: > Well, Renault and Michelin incorporated a variable camber suspension > which works by deflection and body roll... So supension dynamics still > matters, I guess. Don't forget that in F1 - they "waste" (imho) countless millions of dollars and research on tiny tiny tiny tiny details... That VC-suspension they developed - although radical and innovative - might account for a 10th here or a 10th there - but no more... it's just a tiny piece of the complete package. -- eD_

Ian, Not you...the interviewee! The Bridgestone apologia is kaka. I presume they are trying to cover their a** for building a tyre so bad that it is in danger of costing M.S. a World Championship. Viz: "So they could not be using camber thrust, but instead using maximum cornering power." Yeah, right, like anybody would rather have CT than maximum cornering power." Clearly, the 'stones *need* a lot of CT in order to get any grip at all, whereas the Michies can maintain a wider contact patch (which is the preferred way to get the best mech grip). Modern F1 cars have virtually no roll, thus no camber gain, so any car that's showing a lot of neg cam is doing something wrong (or, in this case, it's the tires are doing something wrong). --Steve "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:p6x0b.9299$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote: > > Codswallop. > > > > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > >> A quote from F1 Racing magazine interview with Bridgestone: > >> > >> "The tyres do look very different. How does your tyre work with it's > >> rounder construction?" > >> "We use 'camber thrust' so that when you lean a tyre inwards it > >> wants to turn in that direction. That generates some cornering > >> force. When you look at the front suspension of the Ferrari, for > >> example, you can see that it has negative camber settings to use our > >> tyres' camber thrust. > >> But the Michelin would like to stand up vertically and be used in > >> that position. So they could not be using camber thrust, but instead > >> using maximum cornering power. > >> So I guess their tyre has very high cornering power. We believe > >> Michelins' philosphy of cornering is different because they use > >> cornering power only and do not adopt camber thrust at all" > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Ian P > >> <email invalid due to spammers> > > I'm only quoting what the guy from Bridgestone said in the September 2003 > issue of F1 racing magazine. I would hope he knows at least something

about

Quoted text (11 lines)

> tyre technology. > Which part(s) *exactly* is (are) codswallop ? > > -- > > Ian P > <email invalid due to spammers> > > > >

Nice theory, but if it were true, simmers wouldn't be running tons of neg cam to increase grip. As to roll resist, there's a lot more to it than pressure, e.g., camber, toe, tire dia. & width, etc. In the RW, running a lot of neg cam you don't need would tend to rip the wheel right outta yer hands. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> ISI's tire model may not be perfect but there is a whole lot of stuff in > there. Regarding roll resistance, here are some lines from the 2002 > Michelin tire file for F1C, from the section for the hard tires: > > Radius=0.325 // Radius of tire > RadiusRPM=4.65e-6 // Increased radius per unit RPM > > SpringBase=54500.0 // Base spring rate with no pressure > SpringkPa=1331.0 // Spring rate per unit pressure > > RollingResistance=1435.0 // Resistance torque (Nm) per unit > deflection (m) on ground > > The first two lines indicate that there is a base radius that is RPM > dependent. The next two indicate that there is also a spring rate that is > pressure dependent. The spring acts against deflection from the base > radius. The next line indicates that there is a rolling resistance torque > that depends on the deflection. So not only is rolling resistance

modelled, > but it is also clearly pressure dependent. > > Regarding camber sensitivity, well I don't know how realistic it is, but > here is the data from the same file: > > CamberLatLong=(2.99, 0.121, 0.11) // Peak camber angle, lateral gainat > peak, longitudinal loss at 90 degrees > > This appears to indicate that the optimum *dynamic* camber angle for the > Michelins is 2.99 degrees, that at this angle it gains 0.121 in lateral > friction coefficient, and it loses longitudinal friction coefficient at a > rate of 0.11/90 per degree of camber. So first there is a small,realistic > camber angle at which you get the maximum lateral friction. Secondlythere > appears to be very little loss in longitudinal friction for any realistic > camber angle. > > This means that the typical soft suspensions that many people are using in > F1C will require greater than 3 degrees of static camber, but probably not > more than 5 or so. A harder suspension would require less, but theminimum > you would need would be 2.99 (the above is for the front tires btw). > > I don't know how much camber gain is built into the suspension, but theydo > have shorter upper arms so probably not much. Someone with more patience > than I could figure it out by plotting out the values in the f1susp.pmfile. > I'll pass. > > Since we are talking about tires with a base friction coefficient ofaround > 1.9 that means there is only about a 6% lateral friction gain at most from > playing around with camber. Too much isn't going to cost you much, but > neither is too little. Too much isn't going to cost you much in > longitudinal grip either, in fact it is negligible. And in my experience > this is confirmed by telemetry. More camber feels better but doesn't havea > huge effect on lateral grip or speed on the straights. It seems to affect > the transients more than anything else, i.e. more camber (up to a point) > seems to make it more drivable. > > Is that realistic? I don't know, but if nothing else the file showsclearly

Quoted text (23 lines)

> that there is no need for huge camber angles unless you are using > unrealistically soft springs and bars (and many people are). For a > realistic setup somewhere around 3 to 4 degrees of static camber in front, > and about a degree less in the rear, should be optimal. > > For the record, here are the optimum dynamic camber angles for the 2002 > season soft compound tires: > > Front Rear > Michelin 2.99 2.07 > Bridgestone 3.17 2.17 > > Seems the reverse of what I would expect, but that's what's in the files. > If you are making a setup for F1C, it makes absolutely no sense to deviate > far from these values. > > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Kgo0b.71044$[email hidden]... > > The ISI sims are not realistic in this regard. The Papy sims are much > > closer to RW experience. In F12002, etc., yes, camber is king - the

more > > neg cam you add, the greater the tire temp diff...and the greater the > grip. > > WTF. In N2003, you aim for a lower temp diff: maybe 4-8 deg. betw.inner

Quoted text (8 lines)

> & > > outer. > > > > Also, Papy models roll resist (and has since Indy 500); ISI, AFAIK, > doesn't. > > That is, you can increase yer Vmax 3-4 mph by running the tires on edge > > (common sense dictates the inner edge, but if yer not cornering, pos cam > > works just as well). Overinflating the tars also significently decr.

the > > roll resist. > > > >

In article <0j40b.8288$[email hidden]>, Malc <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >"Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > >> I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does everyone >> experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup >> rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the >physics >> behind it all? > >Once I've got each tyre balanced if the temps are too high I stiffen the >shocks, if they are too low I soften them.

This I don't quite understand. Maybe my logic is a bit off. I take it that you are talking about 'wheel rate' in GPL, yes? I've just checked this in GPL at Kyalami and the temps did go up, though not by much, when I softened the wheel rate, but I don't understand why. I thought if you stiffen a wheel's suspension then you're making that wheel do more work because the suspension is less able to dissipate the energy/load as easily. If the wheel is having to absorb more energy/load then surely its temperatures should rise not fall. What is is that I am missing here? -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GJ766KA4BsQ$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> In article <0j40b.8288$[email hidden]>, Malc > <[email hidden]> writes > > > >"Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... > > > >> I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does

everyone

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >> experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup > >> rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the > >physics > >> behind it all? > > > >Once I've got each tyre balanced if the temps are too high I stiffen the > >shocks, if they are too low I soften them. > > This I don't quite understand. Maybe my logic is a bit off. I take it > that you are talking about 'wheel rate' in GPL, yes? I've just checked > this in GPL at Kyalami and the temps did go up, though not by much, when > I softened the wheel rate, but I don't understand why. I thought if you > stiffen a wheel's suspension then you're making that wheel do more work > because the suspension is less able to dissipate the energy/load as > easily. If the wheel is having to absorb more energy/load then surely > its temperatures should rise not fall. What is is that I am missing > here?

I only know that it works, but the way I see it is that the tyre bounces more, and so has less contact with the road. Less contact = less grip = less heat. I thought wheel rate was the spring, not the dampers. I was talking about the dampers. Malc.

First, it's not a theory, the numbers are right there in the file. Secondly, define "tons of neg cam". The setups I have looked at at Team Redline or gpx.it typically use just slightly more than 3 degrees of neg. camber. Not 5 or 6, 3 or sometimes 4. So where are all these simmers that are supposedly using tons of neg. camber? Three degrees is perfectly consistent with the numbers in my previous post. I do think it's a bit higher than what is used in real life, but it is not inconsistent with the numbers in the tire file. The amount of camber that people are actually using seems to be getting exaggerated with each telling. Three to four degrees is all I have seen in any setup that I have downloaded. I wouldn't call that tons. And if someone thinks he is getting more grip by running 6 degrees or more (or whatever "tons" means) then let's see the evidence, in telemetry files, showing that he is actually pulling more G's. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3Qy0b.72893$[email hidden]... > Nice theory, but if it were true, simmers wouldn't be running tons of neg > cam to increase grip. >

1. Anything in an .ini file is a theory in my book...unless it's a RW number...and/or until I've tried it in vitro. 2. Yes, 3 deg. is reasonable, but 6 deg. (as in some online claims) isn't. Six deg. isn't just unrealistic, it should be undriveable! 3. OK, I haven't d/l many setups with -6 deg., but after all the posts, I did try it, and damned if it didn't seem to work as advertised! But no, I didn't analyze the telemetry; I'm more a seat-o'-th'-pants kinda guy. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > First, it's not a theory, the numbers are right there in the file. > Secondly, define "tons of neg cam". The setups I have looked at at Team > Redline or gpx.it typically use just slightly more than 3 degrees of neg. > camber. Not 5 or 6, 3 or sometimes 4. So where are all these simmersthat > are supposedly using tons of neg. camber? Three degrees is perfectly > consistent with the numbers in my previous post. I do think it's a bit > higher than what is used in real life, but it is not inconsistent with the > numbers in the tire file. The amount of camber that people are actually > using seems to be getting exaggerated with each telling. Three to four > degrees is all I have seen in any setup that I have downloaded. Iwouldn't > call that tons. And if someone thinks he is getting more grip by running6 > degrees or more (or whatever "tons" means) then let's see the evidence, in > telemetry files, showing that he is actually pulling more G's. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3Qy0b.72893$[email hidden]... > > Nice theory, but if it were true, simmers wouldn't be running tons ofneg > > cam to increase grip. > > > >

In article <0yz0b.9356$[email hidden]>, Malc <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (36 lines)

>"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:GJ766KA4BsQ$[email hidden]... >> In article <0j40b.8288$[email hidden]>, Malc >> <[email hidden]> writes >> > >> >"Neil Charlton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >news:bhqedd$lk9$[email hidden]... >> > >> >> I guess what I'm asking is for other people's take on this. Does >everyone >> >> experience this? If so, and offset tyre temps are required, what setup >> >> rationale do you use to decide on the degree of camber. What's the >> >physics >> >> behind it all? >> > >> >Once I've got each tyre balanced if the temps are too high I stiffen the >> >shocks, if they are too low I soften them. >> >> This I don't quite understand. Maybe my logic is a bit off. I take it >> that you are talking about 'wheel rate' in GPL, yes? I've just checked >> this in GPL at Kyalami and the temps did go up, though not by much, when >> I softened the wheel rate, but I don't understand why. I thought if you >> stiffen a wheel's suspension then you're making that wheel do more work >> because the suspension is less able to dissipate the energy/load as >> easily. If the wheel is having to absorb more energy/load then surely >> its temperatures should rise not fall. What is is that I am missing >> here? > >I only know that it works, but the way I see it is that the tyre bounces >more, and so has less contact with the road. Less contact = less grip = less >heat. >I thought wheel rate was the spring, not the dampers. I was talking about >the dampers. > >

Cheers Malc, at least I know which one to mess with now. :) -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

Okay Steve let me come at it from a different angle: 6 degrees may have worked, but was it necessary? Did it really feel like you had more grip than 3 degrees? Were your lap times better? I agree that it should be undrivable. I'm not trying to claim it's realistic (at least I don't think I did :). I'm just saying that it looks to me like 3 degrees is all anybody should really *need* (slightly more if you have very soft springs/bars). I think the only reason people are using 6 (if they are, I still haven't seen it) is that the model doesn't appear to penalize you much for using more than the optimal amount. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BOJ0b.119151$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 1. Anything in an .ini file is a theory in my book...unless it's a RW > number...and/or until I've tried it in vitro. > > 2. Yes, 3 deg. is reasonable, but 6 deg. (as in some online claims) isn't. > Six deg. isn't just unrealistic, it should be undriveable! > > 3. OK, I haven't d/l many setups with -6 deg., but after all the posts, I > did try it, and damned if it didn't seem to work as advertised! But no, I > didn't analyze the telemetry; I'm more a seat-o'-th'-pants kinda guy. > >

Agreed. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Okay Steve let me come at it from a different angle: 6 degrees may have > worked, but was it necessary? Did it really feel like you had more grip > than 3 degrees? Were your lap times better? I agree that it should be > undrivable. I'm not trying to claim it's realistic (at least I don'tthink > I did :). I'm just saying that it looks to me like 3 degrees is allanybody > should really *need* (slightly more if you have very soft springs/bars).I > think the only reason people are using 6 (if they are, I still haven'tseen

Quoted text (11 lines)

> it) is that the model doesn't appear to penalize you much for using more > than the optimal amount. > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:BOJ0b.119151$[email hidden]... > > 1. Anything in an .ini file is a theory in my book...unless it's a RW > > number...and/or until I've tried it in vitro. > > > > 2. Yes, 3 deg. is reasonable, but 6 deg. (as in some online claims)

isn't. > > Six deg. isn't just unrealistic, it should be undriveable! > > > > 3. OK, I haven't d/l many setups with -6 deg., but after all the posts,I > > did try it, and damned if it didn't seem to work as advertised! But no,I > > didn't analyze the telemetry; I'm more a seat-o'-th'-pants kinda guy. > > > > > >