(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

It used to be that a few people were so convincing that when they said cambers is broken many just relied on their word thinking they must have properly tested it. They may have tried to test it a bit, but hard to make out a difference and switch tuning to include camber, and up to 1.09 there was no negative effect of positive dynamic camber (or not as much) so initial test would be very inconclusive.

This set in the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)

The same folks who convinced people initially that camber was broken at 1.09 release reaffirmed their position that camber is broken, and again many people bought into this as they must of tested it right... Even if so is it not clear they had serious confirmation bias and the testing more of the same push the car you want faster harder.

Reafirming the irrational primacy effect

Now that many updates have passed and there is no follow up update to 1.09 because if camber is still broken, the 1.09 didn't must of just replaced one broken system with another, but then why has it not been fixed since... People are starting to really test for themselves as it becomes more and more clear there are gains to be found with camber & when asked for test data to prove camber is broken they rely on there being no proof of camber working. Its interesting because both side for the most part have provided the same evidence on both sides. some go a few tenths faster with camber, some go a few tenths without camber, both side always a few tenths separation, then you have either side pointing at the other side saying they have only shown a few tenths gains and say its too little to make a call, yet its the same amount on both sides......

Its also very suspicious that while guys posting test results with camber showing a benefit there is a curve to the results while data showing 0/0 is faster is always linear to zero. Linear results tells me they run until they get what they want they are not equally testing each set up and IMO they are obscuring the test to get the results they think supports their hypothesis. Linear results like that are a tell tale sign of false data, its not always the case, but quite often.

Obviously each side that puts out data that only supports their hypothesis over values their own data that confirms their theory while disregarding the contrary data that shows the same thing just on the other side.


This should make it clear both sides push harder the car they want faster. Its hard to spot who is being objective, but when somebody switches sides they MUST have seen something that convinced them or why switch sides especially at GTP where thinking camber is working is cause to be insulted flame batted and more... If somebody believes camber wored they must be convinced to voice it at GTP, if they voice it in the face of being mocked what does that tell you?

Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)

In this situation of confirmation bias on both sides. The ONLY way any real test data can come out if if the testers are Blind to the suspension settings. The driver cannot be aware of what camber is on the car, if he does 10 variations one including 0/0 he cant know what hes driving the order must be random and 0/0 shouldn't be the first or last in the session.

So Far CargoRat has done such a test, and it convinced him there is something to camber he might of been missing out on.

His post being ignored really, this displays

Belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)

It might not look it but JohnnyPenso opened the topic so he can control the topic he and a few others are really trying to belittle any evidence to support the use of camber while over glorifying anything that shows different.

No blind test showing cambers broken, but blind test show camber works.

So far Cargorat has done the most conclusive testing to date, & while it may not seem so, his post is more valuable than ANY of the testing that has been done on BOTH sides. How his post is treated will be a big clue as to who is willing to be open minded in the debate and who is closed minded and just hurting progress of GTP.

Crickets ROFLMFAO nobody saying a thing lol, hottest topic on GTP just went SILENT lmfao

No I don't have a Crystal Ball, lol


I've recently been made aware that IRacing has generic 3 way temp splits on tires where the difference in temp splits is consistent LMFAO always hot middle even with low pressure lol users say to ignore the temps and tune by tire wear lol. SO even the GREAT IRacing hasn't got tire temp split modeled correctly So am I bothered PD doesn't either? Nope, BUT I have already confirmed the tire temp in GT is not the tire as a whole as I can create hot spots on the tires and see them on the temp display in the game.

Sorry, its just IRacing is used as an example so often its interesting to see they are not as perfect as some may think they are lol.

I also think I may have been a little confusing when I talked about tuning for balance tire wear, I will put together a post that's more clear,should be interesting.

In GT6 what is going on with the tires. The tires the tires the tires.

I see this as a 2 part topic even though the 2 parts are intertwined. Tread Wear & Tire Temps

Wear is how long the tread last its as simple as that but the temp is constantly changing and as the temp changes the available grip changes and the wear rate changes. Red tires wear off tread faster than cold tires and so in reducing tire temp we extend the use of the tread of the tires.

I look at a Front Engine Front Wheel Drive car and I see heavy tread loss on the front but minimal on the rear.

Does that mean the rear has more grip because its loosing tread slower OR does that mean I'm using more of the fronts grip.....

Ahhh this is where it is interesting

Im using more of my front tires grip.

Weight uses grip, more weight on the front uses more tire grip

Steering uses grip (less than accelerating)

Accelerating uses grip (more than steering)

The back end is light, not steering the car,and not accelerating the car, its USING less tires grip ultimately all the tire have the same amount of grip potential as long as they are all the same compound.

A rear wheel drive car

Often much closer to 50/50 so equal weight equal weight grip usage, but the rear wheels accelerating use more grip than the front on steering.

The results in both cases is a car with a higher tread number on one side. In my experience the greater the difference between the 2 the more difficult, and slow the car is, and this forces us to PIT early when a car with balanced tread were front to rear handles more consistently as the tread wears down and can still use tires with much lower tread numbers.

For example a car with even wear can go down to 3/3 f/r and still be driveable and not terribly off the pace, where a car with 9/5 will be difficult to drive, slower and need to pit way before the car with even wear.

Its 2 part, we try to use the drive wheels the MOST EFFICIENTLY reducing temps and wear

In most cases this will require using more of the rear tires tread on a front wheel drive car and more on the front of a rear wheel drive. On top of maximizing the use of the drive wheels.

Crazy Right

I noticed that reducing tire wear with better wheel angles results in better use of the tread, I'm using more grip, and using more grip also wears down the tread BUT while making USE of the G instead of wasting it.

Front Wheel Drive are a bit special because the rear wheels don't steer or accelerate the car, so balancing the wear on a FF is never going to get the rear wear to balance out and inmost cases RWD will still run through the rear a bit faster BUT we can get the wear down to as close as possible.

As our tires wear down the balanced wear front to rear lets us stay out longer, stay faster while out there and the handling will be as consistent as possible. When choosing a tire for the event I ike to choose the tire that wears out as evenly as possible and so that the tread wears out at around the same time Im getting low on gas, this gives me the best performance possible.

So we are trying to even out the tire wear, meaning use the same amount of grip front and rear, balanced grip, wear the tires out equally. Keeping angle correct keeps temps down, this extends balanced life, and keeps performance consistent, this is especially important when the tread starts wearing down, makes the car drive more consistent over the life of the tires.

This is true in real ife and in Gran Turismo. You don't hear tuners in real life jabbering about adding X amount of camber to get X off a time, they adjust it to have balanced grip, use the tires equally and as efficiently as possible.

If you want an example

In order for this to be seen by others, take the time to run an Aventador at full PP on Sports Medium tires in a tire wear race event, and examine how your tires have worn out.

In order for my car to show anything at all, I believe people need to see what the car is like without my balanced tire tune. Then they can actually see the difference it makes. Remember this is a tire wear tune and events with tire wear are needed and the longer the event the more advantageous the set up will be. Offline drivers can run the Ascari Race Resort Event. Note how the tires wear out, and what the lap you need to pit on, when your loosing more time staying out then you would making a pit stop, my Aventador can stay out competitively until the gas runs out.

My best example is my Maxed PP Aventador running on Sports Medium Tires with perfect wear

If I had to guess Id say GTP is silent waiting on anybody to post anything as if PJT's post does not exist, THEN once that's done others will come back commenting on the new post whatever its about ignoring PJT's post.

Wow they are kinda obvious are they not....

Seems not many will acknowledge the test or the question if anybody else has Blind Test data.

I wonder why

I have to admit Im surprised they just drop it, somebody should keep asking until they give an answer.

Interesting thing is GT6 is the first full title in a while to remove the break in period and so in GT6 we buy cars fully broken in. This was a change for online fairness I believe


It could even be the same top speeds as in GT5 but with fully broken in cars, where in GT5 the stock car zero miiles would have to be broken in so at zero miles its not as fast as fully broken in.



Not sure why I dint think of it sooner, but that should account for some GT5 to GT6 variation if you break in the cars in GT5 to be at the power of GT6 they will go faster. Using used cars with high millage wont do, new cars broken in fully best to compare.


PD did that if I understand correctly to keep things online fairs as the break in period was manipulated for advantages in GT5...

I'm still waiting for acknowledgement of the Blind Test question that has been re-asked and still ignored....

This is what will happen. Our friend asking will post a conclusion based on all blind test data he receives from the request. Once his conclusion is posted those who don't like the result will all of a sudden do blind test that show the opposite result (linear to zero lol) & attempt to discredit the conclusion. Chances are the test data is fraudulent and not done blind if even done at all, its these times for strange reasons people somehow delete replays etc, but swear upon the data recorded by pen.

Lets wait and see..............







Ohh GT5 had no body roll so Camber added linear grip, this is not like real life for those that somehow think it is.

No Body Roll what the fuck are they adjusting camber for in GT5?

Interesting is there was about 2deg lean at most in GT5 and always the same, could explain why most cars in GT use 2deg camber gain. its leftover from before GT6 and so before body roll/roll camber.

In GT5 camber should be perfect at 0/0 a grip adder function must of used camber to add grip unrealistically to make the setting useful. Its much more realistic in GT6 but the car specs can be improved with each cars camber gain specs. We already know its a modifyable spec in the game it would just take a lot of work to measure this on 1200 cars.

With ABS Turned ON



This Highlights an issue with ABS and why I advocate NOT using ABS. There is an added stability factor to GT6 ABS that helps stabilize unstable set ups, allowing for Stottys Driving Style & Tuning style that compliments the ABS & Tuning/Driving style that maximizes the use of the stability assist in ABS.

Turn the ASSIST off and Those Alien Set Ups don't stay on the road, they rely on the assist. The assist also poisons physics testing as it allows the unstable set up being tested to stay on the road and use tuning that takes advantage of the assist.

TRUE No Assist Drivers have to tune in the stability and cannot tune are cars so unstable they cant stay on the road or they wont stay on the road, we don't have the ABS stability assist to stabilize the car on entry.

They take advantage by making the car overly oversteer, but the ABS Stability assist lets them control the car on entry with ABS Braking understeer, but wacky tuning then to promote brake release oversteer, and finally a very very weak LSD to allow full throttle on exit on a car that's suspension is tuned for crazy oversteer.

A zero assist tune that then has ABS turned on had a double dose of entry understeer lol


If you play the game with fake assist no surprise they all think the game physics are broken, assist got no business when we are testing physics, that and major confirmation bias, its a circus at GTP. Frustrating the people trying to really dig into the subject with an open mind are dealing with such close minded idiots.

This is why I never use ABS even in Time Trials.