F1 2012 The logic (or lack thereof) in F1 2012 car setup.

[ptroinks]

I need some help understanding how setup works in F1 2012. The way I see it, there is little logic behind the "help" text beneath several of the setup options. I have quite a lot of questions about this, so I hope someone will take some time to answer .

Aerodynamics and Braking:
The "user tip" text under these setup options are pretty straight-forward, and I don't really have any complaints about them.

Balance:

Front anti-roll bar: "A higher value generates turn-in, creating a more responsive car at the cost of actual cornering grip. This will also affect tyre wear".​

- I don't understand this at all. How can a race car be "more responsive" and at the same time have less grip? The way I understand physics, if any car has a lot of cornering grip, the car will also be responsive because of the cornering grip (I understand "grip" as meaning lateral friction between the tire and the track). To put it very simplified; What do I care if the front wheels respond incredibly fast to my inputs at a corner if the resulting lack of grip causes my car to continue straight into the gravel (or wall)? The goal should be to have the highest amount of grip possible in any racing situation. What am I missing?

Rear anti-roll bar: "A higher value results in less understeer, but increases oversteer, making the car less stable at the rear. This will also affect tyre wear".​

- Pretty straight-forward. Adjusting the rear ARB only controls oversteer/understeer, and as I understand it, a higher setting increases rear tire wear. The way the cars understeer in F1 2012, this should be set pretty high at every track, I presume.

Suspension:

Front ride height: "A higher value yields more understeer in fast corners, and allows for softer springs and a more aggressive use of the kerbs, but lowers overall downforce".​

Rear ride height: "A higher value yields more oversteer in fast corners, and allows for softer springs and a more aggressive use of the kerbs, but lowers overall downforce".​

- Does this work in-game? The downforce part is ok, but I haven't noticed any problems at all using both ride height and spring stiffness set to 1 at the front and the back, even on a bumpy track and when using lots of curbs. Do anyone have a different experience? I can't even remember having problems in the rain with ride height set to 1. If this is generally the case, why even have the option to increase the ride height?

Front spring stiffness: "A higher value generates more understeer, more responsive handling and higher traction, but reduces cornering grip. Tyre wear will also be affected".​

Rear spring stiffness: "A higher value generates more understeer and more responsive handling, but reduces traction and cornering grip. Tyre wear will also be affected".​

- Again the concept of more responsive handling and reduced grip. I don't get it!
- About the understeer; how does this work physically? I'm not criticising here, just wondering how it works. How does stronger springs generate understeer? The weight transfer to the wheels during cornering is the same, regardless of the spring settings, isn't it? Or does stiffer springs cause the inside wheels to lift slightly during cornering and thereby causing less total grip?

Gearbox:

The only thing I'm wondering about here, is this: When would we need to set gear 1 any lower than the highest setting? It says to set it for the slowest corner of the track, but no matter how slow the corner is, won't it help acceleration to have gear 1 at the highest setting so I don't have to change to gear 2 before exiting the corner?​

Alignment:

Camber front: "Decreasing the camber value improves front stability when turning but will lower straight line acceleration and increase front tyre wear".​

- How on earth can adjusting the front camber affect acceleration when F1 cars have rear wheel drive? Because camber causes less tire surface to be in contact with the track when going straight, I would think that front camber would improve acceleration (however slightly).
- Is there really any reason whatsoever to have the front camber at anything above -3.50? I haven't experienced any significantly increased tire wear with this setting either. What are your experiences?
- What is Codemasters' definition of "front stability"? Does it mean the same as cornering grip? It does seem so in the game, and from what I've read about how camber works, this would be the effect. If I'm wrong, please let me know!

Camber rear: "Decreasing the camber value improves rear stability when turning, but will lower traction and increase rear tyre wear".​

- I understand this better, and it seems logical. After all, the cars are all rear wheel drive.
- I have the same questions here regarding "rear stability" and tire wear.

Toe front: "A higher value makes the car responsive when turning but less stable on straights. A lower value has the reverse effect".​

Toe rear: Same as Toe front.​

- Does "higher value" mean moving the slider to the left? That's how I understand it, since the value gets higher that way ("A higher value makes the car responsive (...)" ). However, I remember reading that F1 cars get more responsive with less toe-in (I think it was Barrichello who commented that during his time at Ferrari, Schumacher used very little tow-in, and for Barrichello that would make the car too responsive). Correct me if I'm wrong.
- I have never experienced what I could call a lack of straight line stability, no matter what my toe settings were. Have you experienced otherwise? If there's no practical difference, shouldn't I just keep the toe-in at max?


OK, that was a lot of questions! I certainly hope (some of) you read it all and can answer me. Thanks in advance!

 

[f1mn]

For the ARBs:
Front: Having a more responsive car means the car will turn it at a greater speed, but as a result, the car will not make it round the corner since the inertia will exceed the friction force generated by the tyres contacting the track, and your car will understeer around the corner.

For the camber, the more camber you have on the tyres, the smaller the contact patch is on the track. Therefore, you will get tyre wear along the inside edge (negative camber) of the tyre rather than even wear across the entire surface of the tyre.

Straight line stability is how planted your car is under straight line acceleration and braking. If your car is not stable in a straight line, then you will not be able to accelerate and brake as well as your car could.

If you can find it, a good reference for all this is Tune To Win by Carroll Smith. It explains everything about Vehicle Dynamics and car setup.

 

[Dmitry Zaharov]

Forget about tips, they are useless.
About ARB/Springs - imagine corner and the car. Then draw arc from corner entry to corner exit. This represents car's trajectory when you turn wheel of your car into the corner. As you stiffen your front end (both ARB and spring), this imaginable arc will bend more towards corner apex. If it's too stiff you will cut the corner (too early entry and too much turn in), if it's too soft you will miss the apex (entry understeer).
As you stiffen your rear end, end position of imaginable arc will slowly shift from corner exit towards corner apex. If it's too stiff car will turn around itself (oversteer) and if it is too soft you will go to the grass or runoff area (exit understeer).
Thus, depending on spring and arb setting you can chose car behavior in various corners.
About Camber - it is really simple. More agressive camber will give you more grip in the corner (car rolls and tyre contact patch increases) but less braking and accelerating ability. This is try and evaluate setting.
About Toe in - even more simple. On wide track (Malaysia is best example of carpark-wide track) more toe in is appreciated. So if you feel you're a bit lost on the track then increase your toe in. On narrow track (Monaco, Australia), less toe in is better. If you feel you car balanced right but you're scraping the barriers then decrease toe in.

These are quite basic things, and they apply in general car setup, not only in F1 2012.

 

[Kristian Nenov]

For the suspension I can tell you it's pretty strange. Now I was last testing on Monaco and I can say that some of the things do work correctly.

Higher number in the stiffness means more responsive car. Which means faster weight transfer and overally less lock ups. Same goes for the camber. And more responsive car means less slides too. But not exactly. That's a "bonus" effect which... I can't really explain now.

For the ARB:
More front ARB means more turn in but less mid corner grip. Which means you'll be able to turn in more but in the middle of the corner your car will understeer more. Haven't tested in F1 2012 as I'm not using anything different from 1 front ARB. In my opinion the car has even too much turn in. Anyways, I was saying, I haven't tested it on F1 2012, but on F1 2011 it meant more front ARB = less rear end grip.

Rear ARB:
It's the opposite. More rear ARB = less tyre wear.

For ride height I can tell you that anything different from 1/1 is not worth it. At least for me. It gives you less grip but more curbs to ride, but it's not worth it. You lose too much time.

Gearbox:
I haven't used max 1st gear on any track but USA. It's not worth it. The less RPM the engine has to do for the next gear - the faster you'll accelerate through that gear. If you make 'em too long - you won't have enough acceleration.

 

[Dmitry Zaharov]

To me it suspension setting in F1 2012 makes perfect sense. Softer suspension works like a treat on slow tracks (Singapore, Monaco, Abu Dhabi), stiffer on faster tracks (Suzuka, India). Combined tracks like Korea require some tricky balance to find, and I pretty much like it. Just by the book.

 

[ptroinks]

Damn, this is complicated...

 

[Nick Karshev]

It is not so much complicated m8.
Just needs to read a little

 

[Leonardo Chaves]

The better response/less grip trade off is correct, a stiffer car will respond faster, with less pitch and lateral roll, but it will also handle weight transfer more abruptly, which leads to uneven loading of the tires (ie the car is so stiff that the inside tires aren't even touching the ground during cornering, lifting the rears clean off the road during braking).

How do you go about it?
ARB's are lateral, only for the corners, while springs are longitudinal, for braking, accelerating and curb riding.
As pointed out in this thread already the general rule is slow corners=soft, fast corners= stiff.

Still on curb riding, having the chassis high off the ground helps you if want to attack the curbs agressively, it helps a lot, i´m always between 2 and 5 (don't see the need to go higher either) in terms of height.
Never 1, the benefits of running that low don't seem all that great imo.

Running less camber means your tires are straighter to ground and have a better contact patch when no lateral forces are acting upon it, less camber should give you better grip under braking and acceleration (i do agree that using acceleration to describe what it does on the front wheels is ludicrous, couldn't they have said better braking? everyone would understand fine...)
More camber means better grip during corners, better contact patch when the car is rolling laterally.

 

[James Bannister]

Forget about tips, they are useless.
About ARB/Springs - imagine corner and the car. Then draw arc from corner entry to corner exit. This represents car's trajectory when you turn wheel of your car into the corner. As you stiffen your front end (both ARB and spring), this imaginable arc will bend more towards corner apex. If it's too stiff you will cut the corner (too early entry and too much turn in), if it's too soft you will miss the apex (entry understeer).
As you stiffen your rear end, end position of imaginable arc will slowly shift from corner exit towards corner apex. If it's too stiff car will turn around itself (oversteer) and if it is too soft you will go to the grass or runoff area (exit understeer).
Thus, depending on spring and arb setting you can chose car behavior in various corners.
About Camber - it is really simple. More agressive camber will give you more grip in the corner (car rolls and tyre contact patch increases) but less braking and accelerating ability. This is try and evaluate setting.
About Toe in - even more simple. On wide track (Malaysia is best example of carpark-wide track) more toe in is appreciated. So if you feel you're a bit lost on the track then increase your toe in. On narrow track (Monaco, Australia), less toe in is better. If you feel you car balanced right but you're scraping the barriers then decrease toe in.

These are quite basic things, and they apply in general car setup, not only in F1 2012.

Dimitry your tips on ARB and Springs is brilliant, was struggling round Melbourne and using your tip I just slightly raised my front and rear ARB and stiffened the springs, once I did a couple of laps I was even quicker than my old Assist time which I thought I'd never get close to on TT but I was within tenths of it consistently too, fantastic advice!

 

[Dmitry Zaharov]

Still on curb riding, having the chassis high off the ground helps you if want to attack the curbs agressively, it helps a lot, i´m always between 2 and 5 (don't see the need to go higher either) in terms of height.
Never 1, the benefits of running that low don't seem all that great imo.

I totally agree with above statement. 1/1 was good in F1 2011 but it is not anymore in F1 2012 just because car is too unstable. 2/2 gives far more stable car and on tracks like Singapore where curb riding is normal 4/4 is really beneficial.

 

[Frazer Fabio]

I find no problem with 1 1 on many tracks

 

[Nick Karshev]

I need some help understanding how setup works in F1 2012. The way I see it, there is little logic behind the "help" text beneath several of the setup options. I have quite a lot of questions about this, so I hope someone will take some time to answer .

Maybe this will help you to understand things better

http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/attachments/rd-setup-guide-1-0-pdf.1638/

 

[ptroinks]

ARB's are lateral, only for the corners, while springs are longitudinal, for braking, accelerating and curb riding.

Aaahhhh! Thank you, thank you, thank you !!!! That was the "silver bullet" that explained the difference (and importance) of both ARBs and springs for me!

Still on curb riding, having the chassis high off the ground helps you if want to attack the curbs agressively, it helps a lot, i´m always between 2 and 5 (don't see the need to go higher either) in terms of height.
Never 1, the benefits of running that low don't seem all that great imo.

I'll have to test that, but I can't remember ever needing the ride height above 1/1, even on bumpy tracks and lots of curb usage. I remember in F1 2011, I had to use ride height above 1/1 when at Shanghai because of the bumpy track (sparks flying!). In F1 2012, 1/1 works fine for me.

 

[Leonardo Chaves]

Glad to help

2 things regarding chassis height:

1-the difference in downforce between a 1-1 car and a 5-5 car is a heck of a lot smaller than it was on 2011, there is no longer 1,5 s just in lowering the car, i don't even know if there was a downside from having a low car in 2011 (i pretty much "raped" the curbs no problem) but whatever it was the trade off wasn't worth it.

2- I do feel that if you want to run over the curbs like an animal a higher car is way better.
A low car will snap if you go over the curbs too hot.

Bottom line, now i feel there is a worthy trade-off here.

 

[James Bannister]

Another thing that was explained to me by another user on here Martin Ott, is that if you want you can lower your rear wing but raise the rear ride height and you don't lose too much that way, does come in handy I've found on tracks where you want the straightline speed with your wing down at 1 but not lose the cornering speed. (he'd be able to explain it better I'd expect), but I've found I'm doing this for a few tracks with long straights but some higher speed corners.

 

[ptroinks]

Another thing that was explained to me by another user on here Martin Ott, is that if you want you can lower your rear wing but raise the rear ride height and you don't lose too much that way, does come in handy I've found on tracks where you want the straightline speed with your wing down at 1 but not lose the cornering speed. (he'd be able to explain it better I'd expect), but I've found I'm doing this for a few tracks with long straights but some higher speed corners.

So a "rake" actually works in 2012? I mean, having the rear ride height higher than the front to compensate for a low rear wing?

 

[James Bannister]

Yeah it definitely works sometimes, can't confirm all the time, but for example I wanted 3/3 for the wings at Australia for it to be comfortable but it wasn't quite as fast, so ended up opting for 3/1, but to get the comfort back I raised the rear ride height slightly.

 

[doberjam]

For the ARBs:
Front: Having a more responsive car means the car will turn it at a greater speed, but as a result, the car will not make it round the corner since the inertia will exceed the friction force generated by the tyres contacting the track, and your car will understeer around the corner.

For the camber, the more camber you have on the tyres, the smaller the contact patch is on the track. Therefore, you will get tyre wear along the inside edge (negative camber) of the tyre rather than even wear across the entire surface of the tyre.

Straight line stability is how planted your car is under straight line acceleration and braking. If your car is not stable in a straight line, then you will not be able to accelerate and brake as well as your car could.

If you can find it, a good reference for all this is Tune To Win by Carroll Smith. It explains everything about Vehicle Dynamics and car setup.

http://users.telenet.be/AudiR8/Carroll Smith - Tune to win OCR.pdf

 

[Qazdar Karim]

Yeah it definitely works sometimes, can't confirm all the time, but for example I wanted 3/3 for the wings at Australia for it to be comfortable but it wasn't quite as fast, so ended up opting for 3/1, but to get the comfort back I raised the rear ride height slightly.

As long as F1 game doesn't have a true aerodynamic model the "rake" effect will not work ... just saying !

 

[Peter Hooper]

For the ARBs:
Front: Having a more responsive car means the car will turn it at a greater speed, but as a result, the car will not make it round the corner since the inertia will exceed the friction force generated by the tyres contacting the track, and your car will understeer around the corner.

For the camber, the more camber you have on the tyres, the smaller the contact patch is on the track. Therefore, you will get tyre wear along the inside edge (negative camber) of the tyre rather than even wear across the entire surface of the tyre.

Straight line stability is how planted your car is under straight line acceleration and braking. If your car is not stable in a straight line, then you will not be able to accelerate and brake as well as your car could.

If you can find it, a good reference for all this is Tune To Win by Carroll Smith. It explains everything about Vehicle Dynamics and car setup.

Brilliant book, bought this back in my Indycar driving days