Decimal point for aero adjustment

[Blowtus]

Adjustment isn't fine enough at the moment. I assume the adjustment mechanisms in reality have free range of movement within their total range??

[ajp71]

Adjustment isn't fine enough at the moment. I assume the adjustment mechanisms in reality have free range of movement within their total range??

Yes but short of F1 your not going to get an adjustment that fine, in fact getting an accurate adjustment measurement isn't very common in itself.

[geeman1]

In reality F1 cars have a couple of different types of wings and they are few angles how they can mount them. So the aerodynamic adustability is not very accurate in real life so -1 from me

[Gunn]

At least by 0.5 increments would be better. Currently the adjustment of one increment is not sufficient to provide the level of accuracy that would be possible. It would be useful to be able to make smaller adjustments to wing angle than we currently can.



2c

[Renku]

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=8805

[wark]

Only for the formula cars. In fact, the GTRs' don't look adjustable at all--especially the front, yeah?

On a similar note, shouldn't we have a Monza wing for the BF1?

[Hyperactive]

Aren't the wing setting in real life cars based on "clicks" or "levels" instead of scientific angle parameters? One click dowforce more on the rear wouldn't be 1 degree:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/images/notebook/12_9_5/caption1.jpg
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/images/notebook/12_9_5/caption4.jpg

I know that previously I have said that we should be able to adjust the wings more precisely but it seems I was wrong :). It is a bit similar like with the gearbox settings. It is not possible to make a gearbox that allows you to change the gears in 0.001 precision (ratios) and it is not possible to make a wing attachment system that allows you to prefectly adjust the wings in 1 degree precision. It is a mechanical design problem, there just isn't room to make enough holes in the wing supports for 30 different wing angles :D. Maybe the cars in LFS could have differences in how much and how many steps they have in possible wing angles? Maybe something like 10 or 15 different wing angles for the FOX for example?

[Tweaker]

-1

Keep it at 1 degree... makes it easier for setups and perhaps having a wing that is so fine with its adjustments is a bit overboard imo.

The last thing I need is the wing settings that needed to be adjusted to smaller amounts, what we have right now is fine. Usually you can find a wing combination that is either understeery or oversteery just by 1 degree added or dropped on the rear. This is good that you know and feel the difference. But what does 1 degree or even halves of a degree going to help you with? Like 1/2 mph faster??? Gimme a break. And if you need to alleviate some setting and want to keep a certain downforce level, just do something else to the car that gets rid of understeer or oversteer. That is the beauty of making setups in LFS, you work in conjunction with other settings to make something you like. I'd hate to keep having smaller and smaller adjustments to the wing... thats being a bit tooo anal imo.

Moving it by 0.5 would be fine, but anything less is just crazy.

[Blowtus]

damned reposts :)

Even if the current degree of adjustment is 'accurate' it seems a little at odds with the rest of the setup features huge adjustability.

Tweaker - just because you do not understand the benefit in something doesn't mean that others would not. This suggestion takes nothing away from the ability to add as much downforce as you want, making the difference noticeable. I have been working on a set for the fo8 at aston north. One click of downforce either way makes a huge difference - either it doesn't turn enough or it turns too much. I can of course adjust this with the highly adjustable suspension settings, but they affect low and high speed corners equally, which is not ideal. I have confidence I'll be able to find the right combination eventually, but it seems a pointless complexity to the process.

[Gunn]

The last thing I need is the wing settings that needed to be adjusted to smaller amounts, what we have right now is fine.It might be the last thing you need, but you are not everybody. As a person who makes his own sets I know that 1 degree increments are less than satisfactory because the amount of change that one degree makes is too large to actually fine tune the aero. The amount of change in the behaviour of the car after a one degree change is very noticeable. Half the amount of adjustment would solve many setup issues.

[jtw62074]

I can't say I've needed or wanted it yet, but +1 on the suggestion.

[KeiichiRX7]

agreed

[Hyperactive]

...
As a person who makes his own sets I know that 1 degree increments are less than satisfactory because the amount of change that one degree makes is too large to actually fine tune the aero. The amount of change in the behaviour of the car after a one degree change is very noticeable. Half the amount of adjustment would solve many setup issues.
Imho, that "issue" is part of the car's characteristics. Some racing cars have more and some have less possible wing angles meaning that the aero can't be adjusted to perfection. Of course real cars have the option of having several or at least few different wings for different purposes. However, LFS should not offer unlimited amount of setup options with infinite amount of steps between max and min values. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't get more new setup options and features but it means that the setup values need to have some logic behind them in form of realistic increments and minimum and maximum values.

[Gunn]

Imho, that "issue" is part of the car's characteristics. Some racing cars have more and some have less possible wing angles meaning that the aero can't be adjusted to perfection. Of course real cars have the option of having several or at least few different wings for different purposes. However, LFS should not offer unlimited amount of setup options with infinite amount of steps between max and min values. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't get more new setup options and features but it means that the setup values need to have some logic behind them in form of realistic increments and minimum and maximum values.Your opinion doesn't change the fact that a one degree adjustment can ruin the handling of the car and the amount of compromise needed in other areas to "correct" the problem negates the aero change in the first place. It can be improved and smaller increments would achieve an improvement.

[ajp71]

Only for the formula cars. In fact, the GTRs' don't look adjustable at all--especially the front, yeah?

The main front air dam/undertray of a GT car is normally not adjustable. http://www.schwedenkreuz.se/bilder/M3/CF-delar/IMGP2131.jpg

However some cars (actually very few) have little adjustable winglets, see attached pic. Generally GT cars go for as much downforce as they can at the front and balance it at the rear, due to large weight/harder tires vs. plenty of power.


On a similar note, shouldn't we have a Monza wing for the BF1?

I think the current range of angles is more than enough to simulate Monza style settings. Possibly when the aero model is more advanced we could see different wing options but for now there is no point.

Aren't the wing setting in real life cars based on "clicks" or "levels" instead of scientific angle parameters? One click dowforce more on the rear wouldn't be 1 degree:

It depends on the type of car when the adjustment is to a single plane rear wing then it's normally one of those clicky systems that gives you a lot less precision, about 8 max. Small single seaters will usually have a sliding system where you loosen one screw pivot the wing to where you want and then tighten it again when your happy, now this may theoretically be a limitlessly fine adjustment but in reality it's very vague and you can't adjust it to precisely where you had it last time so it's normally left alone unless there's a need to change it. Bigger single seaters have a system of winding on more wing, which will be more accurate but still not exact, but I don't know much about that.

Even if the current degree of adjustment is 'accurate' it seems a little at odds with the rest of the setup features huge adjustability.


The rest of the setup is already far too adjustable. People don't seem to realise that setting a car up IRL is a mixture of guess work and compromise, short of F1 nobody has there car setup as well as they would even in LFS if LFS had realistic settings, this is due to the fact that there isn't the time or the money to do that much testing and even things that are designed to be adjustable still take time to do.

[Hyperactive]

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that a one degree adjustment can ruin the handling of the car and the amount of compromise needed in other areas to "correct" the problem negates the aero change in the first place. It can be improved and smaller increments would achieve an improvement.
Improvement to make the car better? You could say the same thing if we some day get gear ratios that are based on the teeth count of the gears. One ratio is too low and another is too high for perfect maximum speed or corner. Imho, it is just something that is part of racing :)

[ajp71]

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that a one degree adjustment can ruin the handling of the car and the amount of compromise needed in other areas to "correct" the problem negates the aero change in the first place. It can be improved and smaller increments would achieve an improvement.

In reality you'd just either put up with it or change something else to accommodate. If one degree one way or another makes a car undrivable to you you seriously need to adjust your driving style to cope with it.

[Gunn]

Improvement to make the car better?No, improvement to make creation of setups better. Most people don't make their own sets so they wouldn't care either way.

\In reality you'd just either put up with it or change something else to accommodate. If one degree one way or another makes a car undrivable to you you seriously need to adjust your driving style to cope with it.Oh please. Just try to understand the concept.

[Hyperactive]

What I'm trying to say is that wing values have some limits based on the mechanical structure and attachment etc. of the wing. Having these limits in LFS isn't too big challenge as it is "just" slightly limiting the options available. I am not saying that wing angles can not be adjusted in 0.5 precision, I am saying that the mechanical structure of the wing doesn't allow this withing the whole range of wing angles. Check the attachment for this.

[Bob Smith]

For now I would appreciate the extra flexibility that 0.5 degree adjustments would bring.
Perhaps when all the car settings can be adjusted to the appropriate level of precision (e.g. dampers usually have only a few settings, springs come in fixed stiffness with a reasonable gap between stiffnesses, ARBs come in certain thickness (but some also have something you can slide to adjust their effect), etc) wing mount points can also be taken into consideration.

[Blowtus]

yes - consistency within the different setup options. Either aero should have more adjustability or the others should have less :)

[jtw62074]

Good points on both sides. On the one hand, many (most?) wings are adjustable in steps of probably a fair amount over one degree, while the screw type ones would be infinitely adjustable (dial in 1/100th of a turn if you want). On the other hand, many people want finer adjustment for the sake of better tuneability, where the handling is ruined if you go 1 degree either way.

One thing to keep in mind is that on the wings designed for a specific real car, it's probable that the available settings were given much more careful design consideration than simply allowing 7,8,9 degrees (or 7, 10, 12 for that matter). Suppose a real wing was tried with 7,8,9 degree adjustments. The crews might have found that usually 7 wasn't enough, but 8 was too much. The aero folks might provide a newly redesigned wing with 7.5, 8.5, and 9 degree adjustments.

Perhaps the guys that want the finer adjustability are really the engineers in the LFS world. Why not allow the finer adjustments for awhile, then later on pick out the fastest set of 5 or 6 or whatever settings and keep those as the only available options? Might that eventually lead to the best of both worlds?

[ajp71]

^^Real wings aren't finely adjusted normally although a slider can be infinite normally using fixed holes is far more accurate and recordable so you can get the same setup again but like I said I strongly doubt even a top level FIA GT team would adjust the wings for each circuit even when they can due to the lack of testing they'll go for something that works with only a few of settings they ever use.

I remember reading somewhere an article written by someone involved with F1 in the '60s, when they had real variety in circuits, saying they only changed a few very limited settings every for certain tracks even though they could have had far more adjustment had they chosen to.

[bbman]

I think Todd raised the (valid) question: Someone has to drill those holes, so who does it?

[Bob Smith]

Not so much who drills the holes, who picks the best positions to draw the instructions to give to the person with the drill?

[ajp71]

I think Todd raised the (valid) question: Someone has to drill those holes, so who does it?

Normally the manufacturer of the wing (to state the obvious), who usually for GT cars will be producing generic wings mounted onto reinforced carbon fibre body panels for a particular car.

[bbman]

And there is no way you could just exchange the plates with those holes? REALLY? :really:

[ajp71]

And there is no way you could just exchange the plates with those holes? REALLY? :really:

Well you could but seeing as they're normally made of composites it's not just like getting your drill out and hoping for the best. IRL you honestly won't get to the stage of needing a finer adjustment though because the next time out the track and even the car will be just ever so slightly different, enough to mean that such a tiny wing change is anything but the top priority, normally even the most professionally prepared and run cars will have something slightly higher on their priority list than considering whether they need half a degree more wing.

[wark]

So. Even if it is realistic that the chin spoilers on LFS GTR cars can be adjusted--is a full 15° realistic? or putting degrees aside, is it realistic that they can be adjusted enough to make that profound of a difference?

[ajp71]

So. Even if it is realistic that the chin spoilers on LFS GTR cars can be adjusted--is a full 15° realistic? or putting degrees aside, is it realistic that they can be adjusted enough to make that profound of a difference?

No, the difference of the extra downforce given by adjustable aerodynamic aids on the front of a GT car is fairly minimal, so much so that most don't teams don't bother with them even when they have the choice unless they are desperate for more front end downforce. If you really had to reduce or increase the amount of frontal downforce by a significant amount you'd change the front airdam you're running.

[jtw62074]

Hi guys,

Just wanted to drop in with a bit of info. I saw today a user manual for a pretty serious formula car series meant for the engineers (can't say which cars, sorry). In it was a table of the hole patterns for front and rear wing flaps which looked much like one of the ones Hyperactive posted about half way through this thread. Note that this is adjusting the flaps only, which are the pivoting part at the trailing end of the wing. The wings themselves on this car are fixed and can not have their angle of attack altered other than by adjusting ride height difference front to rear.

There's a table in the manual showing every possible hole combination. Turns out they indeed were selected to give single degree precision throughout the range. I.e., 1 deg, 2 deg, 3 deg, etc..

It was also pointed out to me today that the wings on Indycars (at least at the time this gentleman was involved with them) the wings were infinitely adjustable via a screw. The downside is you're counting turns of the screw rather than knowing exactly what the wing angle really is without the help of a table to look at, so if you have 6.70 deg wing, then change it to 7.25, then want to change it back again to 6.70, you might wind up with 6.73 or 6.82 unless you adjust clear to the end of the screw and start over again, counting turns very precisely.

On the holey design, he also pointed out that (if the rules permit it, which in this case they don't) it would be very simple to rig up a spacer that put you half way between the holes or something like that, so instead of 1 deg, 2 deg, 3 deg, you now can choose from only 1.5 deg, 2.5 deg, 3.5 deg. So the increment would remain the same while you could choose a different spacer to offset everything by 0.5 or 0.3 degree or what have you.

I do support decimals in LFS though if folks want it, even though I don't personally need it at the moment. Both types of wings exist in real life, so this is a case where everybody is right :)

[Tweaker]

It might be the last thing you need, but you are not everybody.
Neither are you. And don't take that seriously, because my opinion of finite wing angles is just that there is no real benefit of having it. I disagreed to having adjustments smaller than 0.5, why is it that I suddenly appear to try and speak for everyone? :rolleyes:

And Blowtus, yes the FO8 feels different when adjusting in small increments of just 1 degree, but that tells you a lot about your setup in other areas... it's not JUST the wing angles that should make you fast through a corner. It's just that many reasons people are giving for having this are for top end speed and minor changes in handling, when a half a degree of wing wouldn't change your speed or handling much at all, "so why bother?" I ask. But then again, for most of the downforce cars it is noticeable, but it should be done to how most realistic counterparts adjust their wings (like Todd just said above). It is nice to have a simplistic way of setting up the car, and if you need downforce in one area, but need some oversteer, adjust something else.... usually you can make a setup that uses all the settings to your liking, and is still perfect for a race in terms of tire wear/heat and overall performance.

AFAIK Todd, when they use a screw, they either have the degrees of measurement on the side of the wing, or they have a ruler to measure it... typical mathematics tools like a protractor of sorts :)

[Gunn]

...why is it that I suddenly appear to try and speak for everyone? :rolleyes: bah you aren't worth the trouble.

[Tweaker]

Well I could go through the trouble to try and explain why this doesn't seem to have any benefit...

Say you start out with a setup... any car... and it uses 10/16 F/R wing settings. This, on most cars would give some understeer, as well as some unneeded drag on most courses. So you'd start dropping the wing angles to find something a bit quicker, as well as something a tad more loose on the rear. Lets say you come into the situation that your car is affected by either a 10/12 (oversteer) setting, or 10/13 (understeer). Surely this would be a possible range that you want to stay at, and then you'd want to adjust other settings on the car which DON'T affect drag, but rather improve or reduce grip.

So if I wanted to have the 10/12 setting, and I needed to deal with the oversteer, I'd start adjusting the cambers (usually adding) and pressures. As well as the differential locking and anti-roll bar. Again, your car's grip is not solved completely with just your wing settings. If you have a car that has undesired oversteer, it shouldn't just be solved by adding a tiny bit more wing. The problem lies not with just your wing settings, it is a whole lot more to that, and it just takes practice to learn what else can improve the car's performance.

In making a setup, you don't just add or drop wing angle and expect that to solve everything. The wing angle is really a good tool to use when you need to solve a handling issue, but not completely, and that is what I am trying to explain. Finishing it off with doing a few tiny clicks to the wing is taking it a bit too far since all you'd really be pushing for is that tiny bit of extra speed. You'd have to drive like a robot to make that effective out of every corner. Once you've worked out the other odds and ends, wing angle just becomes a very minor damper on the speed of you car. Because as soon as you have your car suited for the track's speed and corners, the wing angle is really kept at one ratio or combination at one time.

Example given: If I find that I can't handle corners at the best possible speed with a 10/12 setting, all you really need to do to increase downforce a bit by raising them both by one notch -- 11/13. Your speed difference is usually affected only by a few MPH at best, and if you are on a track that has lots of turns, this is a safe option for finalizing the setup. If it is something like AS National, you have to be a bit more careful, because most drivers are trying to squeeze the most speed out of the car, while not sacrificing the car's performance for the only 3 corners downforce is really necessary for. But the best option STILL in LFS for controlling your speed and handling is not entirely your wings -- it is your tire pressures. Running a race setup for hotlap setup, tire pressures are the sensitive parts of the setup that need attention, as they affect top speed and handling quite a bit. And if you want to run a low drag setup at AS NAT or something, you can control the oversteer or understeer by raising or lowering the tire pressures on the front or the rear.

With all this in mind, the process in making a setup is quite tedious, and having small wing adjustments is not the answer to curing handling issues. If people want an easier way to solve them by way of wing angles, then I guess this is what they need. It is quite surprising though how many people don't understand the connections from one setup value to the other, and how one setting affects another... so they resort to using just the wing angles and having the desire to make it more 'advanced'. I guess wing angles are the basics to making a car suit someone's style :shrug: I can't argue against that of course, because there is no way people are going to spend a lot of time on their setups most of the time.

Having the fine adjustments wouldn't affect me anyways, because if I had 12.5/15.5 or something, the difference would just be hardly there since tons of other settings on the car could be at fault, and it just isn't the wings. Your car has to be fairly stable under high loads, high heat, low speed corners, low/high fuel, majority of corners on left or right, etc...

Of course, nothing is worth Gunn's time :tilt:

[Renku]

From the F1 broadcasts I've seen pit crew doing front wing adjustments with hexagonal wrench for exmple. I of course haven't seen the exact tool myself, but for sake of argument let me just use it. There is a matching hole in the wing and by rotating the wrench the angle of the wing changes. How many "degrees" on the wing would a 45° turn of the wrench equal, I dunno. But it looks that the wing angle adjustment on a real F1 car is quite fine.

[Blowtus]

Tweaker, you entirely miss the point. I don't know why you are at such pains to do so. Downforce affects vehicles in a specific way. Other settings can be combined to achieve a very similar feel to a change in downforce, but this is less accurate, more prone to affecting other areas unintentionally, and entirely unnecessary. Can you name any other areas of adjustment that affect high speed turning more than low speed?

[Tweaker]

Tweaker, you entirely miss the point. I don't know why you are at such pains to do so. Downforce affects vehicles in a specific way. Other settings can be combined to achieve a very similar feel to a change in downforce, but this is less accurate, more prone to affecting other areas unintentionally, and entirely unnecessary.

But picture this:

Using the FZR on AS National, you have to compromise either grip or speed with your setup. Some kind of find a middle-ground between the two, but most of the time (like for racing), some people prefer to be faster on the straights, than they are in the corners.

Now if you use the current downforce model that is in 1 degree increments, you will indeed notice a change in speed or grip, but not to extreme amounts if you only move by +/- 1 degree. Still, if you are changing the rear wing for example, it can give you understeer (+) or oversteer (-)... but usually setups for tracks like AS National, people opt for the low rear drag downforce setting that mostly gives oversteer. By doing that they can have a slightly higher top speed, but then at the compromise of some unsafe handling. Usually people will just raise the rear wing 1 or 2 degrees and thats it. But that isn't wise at all, since you just decreased your top speed, for grip that is hardly of use on that track. So if you lowered the rear wing, you'd want to work on the rear camber and pressures most likely. Heck, even the front pressures, cambers, toe, etc. can alleviate the oversteer by inducing a bit more understeer to even it out. By doing that you could still have a well handling car and still have something that is faster on the straights. A quick basic fix to oversteer is to add more rear wing, and that is what most people do.


Can you name any other areas of adjustment that affect high speed turning more than low speed?

Other areas of adjustment that affect high speed turning more than low speed? All of these are for better or for worse:

-Tire pressures
---lowest = greater lowspeed grip, worse highspeed grip in most cases, lower top speed
---highest = greater highspeed stability and grip under high loads, worse low speed grip, higher top speed

(but LFS has very extreme minimal and maximum performance characteristics, so for most cars, setups are done with medium to medium-high psi)

-Cambers
---neutral = poor highspeed cornering, better low speed manueverability
---more added = better grip in either low or high speed corners... usually tend to find the average for both situations. Too much will give better or worse grip in other speed.

-Differential - primarily clutch pack with it's coast setting.
---Minimal locking gives better turn-in ability, but looser yet stable acceleration out of corners
---More locking gives more understeer, but a more direct form of acceleration with the car

Toe in/out
Anti-roll
....

It's not so hard to list the obvious ?

So what "point" am I missing entirely? What is the "point" of having the small adjustments of downforce? Is it because people cannot figure out how to alleviate understeer/oversteer in small 1 degree ranges by changing something other than the downforce setting? If that is the case, I have said it before... that I DO see the reasoning for that, because not everyone can be setup experts or something :shrug: But I figured that the 1 degree of wing adjustments was simple and well suited to those people, since they have a choice between a safe and slow car, or an unsafe and fast car. And a 0.5 wing adjustment in between wouldn't make it perfect, there will always be something else other than the wing setting that is problematic.

Still, I can see that having such a wide range of downforce will have no affect to me or anyone else, people will just be using whatever they please, and that is how setups are made. It's just that I am trying to explain the simplicity and feedback you get from a setup by using only 1 degree steps. If I had to choose from +/- 1 degree on the rear, and then could choose 0.5... that still doesn't solve the issues of your car completely. It's too hard to make it clearer in words, since this whole setup making process is really mentally challenging and suited to someone's own preference. This FO8 league I was in several months ago... the setup testing was a few continuous nights all the time to get something right. Usually it'd end up with choosing between +/- 1 degree on either wing, but I'd always make a choice and then adjust another setting that will suit that downforce level I had chosen (eg PSI and Cambers).

[Blowtus]

Your examples other than camber are wrong, in my experience. Lowering tyre pressure down a few psi doesn't give you more low speed grip and less high speed. Tyre pressure is also critical for temperature and speed. There is a point where you can adjust camber for either better low or better high speed, but if you set it for high speed you destroy tyres much quicker. Throwing differentials, anti-roll, and and toe settings in is quite laughable, all have a similar effect at all speeds.

I found myself in a situation at Aston North, with the fo8, where I was trying to tweak the balance for the loosest (thus fastest, and best cornering) setup I could handle. I had my tyres set at a level where they worked well for the low speed sections and didn't overheat. 1 click of downforce either way was a massive change to vehicle handling. High speed cornering a touch loose, low speed cornering not loose enough. What would you suggest? half or a quarter degree of downforce on the rear, and a little more rear anti roll, would have been the perfect, simple, logical solution.

People can still adjust it in 1 degree increments if they want to! Having smaller changes possible doesn't suddenly make it harder to work out the effect of a change.

[Tweaker]

Lowering tyre pressure down a few psi doesn't give you more low speed grip and less high speed.
I am pretty sure it does if you try in large amounts. Do a oval test in the BF1 with the default setup and start qualifying with no wind. Run the car with lowest pressures up to 6th gear and rev out and see if it hits the limiter near the beginning of Turn 3 and read your speed on the wheel where it is a decimal... something like 188.7 ? or similar? Then run the car with full pressures and do the same thing. It tops out at 192.6 or iirc... And just stays there. AND you have plenty of time to rev it out before you have to turn. The speed of your car has always been affected by tire pressures in LFS, and many road car setups make use of it for high speed tracks. And look at the UF1 or even more so the MRT... those setups for the big tracks like Aston, people run full pressures to get the highest top speed. Having it so high will of course make the low speed grip abysmal, but it is still driveable if you can hold the proper line. Lowering the tires only a few PSI wont show that much of a difference, but it is noticeable in terms of grip. But the lower you go, the worse the tires can handle under high loads, and they just sag... which is why you see the sidewalls overheating. The actual optimal pressure for nearly all the tires in LFS is about 25% of the slider bar -- only good for hotlapping of course. But then again, try that same 25% setting on Westhill with the FO8, and it will be slow. The wheels will sag and you will LOSE speed from too much friction... you need to raise the pressures to reduce that.

Having higher pressures just makes the diamter of the tire larger. less friction, smaller contact patch, and it makes the car approach speeds a lot quicker in midspeed acceleration. Try racing the oval racers with the lowest PSI... you will beat them off the line for only a brief second, but then they will quickly gain momentum MUCH faster than you because they use the highest pressures possible.

I found myself in a situation at Aston North, with the fo8, where I was trying to tweak the balance for the loosest (thus fastest, and best cornering) setup I could handle. I had my tyres set at a level where they worked well for the low speed sections and didn't overheat. 1 click of downforce either way was a massive change to vehicle handling. High speed cornering a touch loose, low speed cornering not loose enough. What would you suggest? half or a quarter degree of downforce on the rear, and a little more rear anti roll, would have been the perfect, simple, logical solution.
I'd first try adjusting the front camber to a lower value by at least 0.3 to 0.5, and then adjust tire pressures (you'd lower the psi on the front, and raise it on the rear). Wouldn't even touch ARB.

[Bob Smith]

Everyone has their own preferences when it comes to setups, both in the way they adjust things and how they want their car to handle.

I've never thought many settings were that speed sensitive, especially compared to downforce. Your wing angles will be the primary factor deciding high speed balance (assuming other settings are sensible, run -3 front camber and +4 rear camber and no doubt the car will oversteer no matter how much rear wing you run).

Tyre pressures are very important for car balance in LFS, although not as much as they were back in patch P where 2 psi extra at the rear would turn horrible understeer into spin city. More so than suspension settings I'd say.

While half a degree will make negligable difference to outright grip at any speed, nor top speed through drag, if you have a car that is nearly neutrally balanced the current +/- 1 degree can make a huge change. I'm guessing it must tie into working the tyres, I remember working on my FXR set at Blackwood, I was doing everything I could to get the car to turn in better with limited success. I dropped the rear wing one degree and was amazed, the back end did exactly what I was hoping for and my lap times dropped a good half second in a couple of laps. Top speed barely changed and neither would have outright grip, only now I could use both tyres properly and everything began to gel. Anyway, back to the point, 1 degree can make a surprising difference, hence I feel half degree measures would be useful.

I do suspect too many people rely on wing angles to get the car handling right than looking elsewhere.

I'd also be in support of removing wing angle adjustments completely for the GTR cars where the front wing is just a molding. The rear wing angle can then just be fixed to give slight understeer and it's one less thing to worry about.

[Blowtus]

I am pretty sure it does if you try in large amounts.

Changing tyre pressure in large amounts is hardly a step I would take in the fine tuning stages of vehicle setup. Will throw temperature and acceleration out the door.

I'd first try adjusting the front camber to a lower value by at least 0.3 to 0.5, and then adjust tire pressures (you'd lower the psi on the front, and raise it on the rear). Wouldn't even touch ARB.

Camber on the front was already at a level optimum for low speed grip and manageable temp wise. reducing it further would reduce outright corner speed and not make full use of the tyres. Adding camber to the rear would mean the insides get too hot. Adding pressure to compensate for this would change the low speed balance again, and reduce traction out of the low speed corners.

[Tweaker]

Last post in here....

Never said raise rear cambers. But your setup is 'optimal' so I haven't a clue what you have. This is just something to put me on the ball here, and neither of us want to be proven 'wrong' of course. Which is why you think it is hard to have me agree, and vice versa for you and me. You're the winner Blowtus, feel proud... I'll give you a gold star sticker for these forums (or maybe your lunchbox), you've earned it :zombie:

:doh:

[Blowtus]

woohoo.