What Cupraman is refering to (I believe) is the unatural toe created by removing the Ackerman for drifting purposes...
Ackerman is there to keep the car stable in the turns, as both wheels are pointing in the same direction relative to the direction they want to go... this affect is the opposite of what you want to happen in a drift vehicle... so they get rid of it, which makes the car unstable again... it would result in positive toe (IE the tyres will try to get closer together when driving normally through corners, reducing their grip quite a bit)
I have no idea where the notion that an unstable car is better than a stable car to do controllable-ass-swinging-through-turns with comes from. I'd imagine that a drift car is set-up to be highly controllable at extreme situations which are not useful for normal driving or racing but not that it's an instantly spinning monster.
I wouldn't know about un-natural, but Ackerman steering geometry will have similar effects to a setup with negative toe at high steering angles - most commonly used in slow turns. So I guess Ackerman reduces un-natural toe with further un-natural means the more one turns.
However a much better and in-depth explanation, citing various sources, is available here:
It also features a nice section regarding race cars and why some engineers opt for no ackerman, others for negative ackerman and others for >100% ackerman geometry. All of them for the sake of stability and speed.
So, based on the fact that race engineers seem to find pros for all these extremes and all of them seem to benefit stability, I'd say that Ackerman geometry is probably a minor factor by which to determine the overall stability or instability of a vehicle.
As you have said the Ackerman is there to decrease the toe in corners... and as the perfect racing line includes all four wheels having as much grip as they can and the by the nature of using two wheels next to each other will force one of them to take a longer (and looser) line when turning the Ackerman allows each to move 'forward' in relativity to the line that tyre is taking. When you remove the Ackerman (or increase it beyond 100%) your tyres are no longer working with each other but are working against each other (either trying to push together in the case of < 100% ackerman, or they are pulling away from each other in the case of > 100% ackerman) thus making the car less stable when trying to drive it normally (IE not drifting)
It does make sense to remove Ackerman (almost) completely for drift reasons, as two wheels pointing in EXACTLY the same direction will have more effect on a car that has lost control (IE is no longer gripping the road), just like taking corners on loose terrain it is often quicker to get the car pointing in the right direction and the hammer down then to mess around with this whole avoiding loosing grip in the first place...
The point here was not to explain what settings favor drifting.
Yes generally low or no Ackerman geometry will be better when going always with opposite lock. But only if this doesn't compromise the maximum wheel angle like it happens in LFS. As I said in my first post, In 100% parallel steering you have a maximum of 36degrees steering angle in both wheels but in 0% parallel steering->full Ackerman geometry at XRT you have 43degreese for the leading wheel and ~30degreese for the trailing wheel. So there must be a compromise between keeping the tires parallel and having maximum lock at the leading wheel.
But apart from this. I, AndRad and xaotic responded to some frivolous points cupraman tried to state using the “stfu” attitude.
A user who actualy prooved to me his quality by senting several PM's swearing at me.
mooving on
This is a simplistic approach that applies only in low rolling speeds.
While cornering in speed, none of the tires actually faces the direction it is going. Tires produce maximum grip at a certain slip percentage.
When cornering, this slip percentage is covered by the slip angle and the speed in which the tire is traveling.
The effective slip percentage of any tire depends in many aspects like the tire’s design, the compound it’s made, the temperature it’s operating, the air pressure that it keeps it inflated and the vertical load it pushes it to the ground.
Keeping it simple. The greater vertically loaded tire produces its maximum grip at a higher slip percentage (or angle if we are talking about a turn) comparing to a less loaded tire.
It’s a known fact that in a turn, while creating some lateral forces, the outside tires get loaded a lot more than the inside tires. That makes the outside tires produce their maximum grip at a higher slip angle than what the inside tires need to be effective. Here is where the anti-Ackerman geometry comes into play, (the more you steer the more toe in is applied) especially in situations when track conditions and the car's setup tend to stress the front outside tire way more than the inside.
Situation like these are met in fast tracks with wide corners using a car that has grater roll resistance at the front, and doesn't produce much downforce.
In slower tracks with tight corners where weight transfer transitions last longer and you are forced to enter corners while braking (that makes both front wheels more equally loaded), some percentage of Ackermann geometry (the more you steer the more toe out is applied) is beneficial in making the car to turn.
100% ackerman implementation would be efficient only in parking speed turning. This is the only case where a road car keeps both front wheels equaly loaded when turning. So no manufacturer realy uses it. Thats why you hear thiese tire sqealing noises while turning in parking spaces covered in that smooth surface.
Ackerman, anti-Ackerman at nearly any sensible percent or fully paralell steering, isn’t nesseserily going to make the car spin happy on its own. So no it’s not all about Ackermann, it’s a combination of several factors around suspension geometry and stiffness that play a far grater role than this.
Too true... hehe, I was just pointing out the fact that it does play a part, and will decrease the stability of car when you do remove the ackerman completely (which was where Cupraman was originally coming from, even if he did overstress it). The slip-angles of the tyres should always be considered when laying down Ackerman, I was simply using the purest most simple way of looking at it...
Here's a question the drift followers might be able to answer me... are the tyres they use standard radial tyres?
On a bit of a side notice, Xaotik... I am rather interested in the list of books refered in that .doc you linked and how they come up with different results... I might have to have a look at a couple of them... hehe
This is a part of the Official d1gp round and i have the whole "race" or event call it as you like.....
But this isnt my point. My point is if we can replicate this one at lfs and most of us can easily understand that it is much easier with more steering lock a feature that will not do ANY HARM to the racing community ! right?
Im racing in lfs too (i like LR servers after the death of CTRA) and i barely use the half of steering lock , but when i drift i use it all the way and most of the times when trying something "good" i need to step off the gas and keep it at full lock sliding until it reduce the sliding angle and be "driftable" again..... IF only i had more steering angle !! then it will be a new potential for the drifting community and a hell lot of fun
We all want lfs to be better and better and im not a kid asking for bumbers stickers and the all good bunch of sh** things that makes "drifting" or call it this nice driving technic looks so childish
As for the guy that said that lfs isnt the same with real life sliding i managed to make a small vid that you can easily take a look that my handwork is exacly the same like in lfs .
The main differences between lfs and real life drifting is the bumps, g forces and the biggest one is FEAR once you are done with this handwork and footwork is almost the same
I dont remember if that has been posted in Improvements Suggestion section - to have antiAckermann also (I understand that we have only Ackermann in Parallel Steering setting)
Plug a controller in without force feedback then that's pretty much what driving a real car can be like in certain conditions, you can still 'feel' the car but your slightly more detached. I.e going from my mini to a golf, it's all basically the same but slightly different.
Plus in a real car you get a lot of feeling of the car through your butt/spine which your less likley to get with a wheel and pedals playing lfs.
But your right though, lfs is good for showing the fundamentals.
In LFS,I think XRT(for example) will spin out. And as you can see from the inside view he held the same angle all the time(except when he drifted out of the corner). But,in LFS,you can't do that on full lock. Long story short - possible,but you got to have really good skillz.
Power steering is just added weight, and should be kept to Forklifts, HGVs and the odd luxury limosine... I personally dislike power steering on anything that weighs less than 1400kgs it's a waste of weight and power...
If I've got problems parking I go a touch faster... and that's the only reason I can see for putting Power Steering in a car...
Just one reason I love my CR-X
EDIT: For comparison, I think I get more information from my wheel in the CR-X then I do in any of the FWDs in LFS... but that should change with the tyre update I would think...
Meh? You doubt I feel more or doubt it'll get better?
With both the Goodyear Tourers and the cheap as chips Arrowspeed tyres on there I could feel so much under the wheel. (I know it's criminal to put cheap tyres on a car like the CR-X which is why I had them all replaced with the Tourers)
If you read that thread though, I doubt you will feel more because LFS seems to remove (dampen out) most of the FFB effects it has available to it. Some slight changes to the tyres physics won't fix that. It might feel somewhat better, but only marginly. I don't think the full potential is realised.
Just with that mod you can tap the throttle repeatively and really feal some amazing weight shift in the front. You feel the curbs stronger and you feel most things that are just lost.
i M NOT SURE IF THIS IS OFF TOPIC, BUT I JUST skimmed through and realised that my caps lock was on
i just read the last post, ant the ffb on some cars like xrt is pretty heavy, but then i drive the fxo, which doesnt way too much less (does it :really and it is really light but active
FFB in lfs depents on the setup too. Im changing lfs ffb on the fly with " < and >" in every set car so that i have the feeling i like most
Wheel + some realistic FFB prolly makes you slower from other players that doesnt use so strong ffb or not at all (mouse) Especialy in cars like FOX is you use Drivers ffb 100 and a nice let say 40-50 in game ffb one tap can take the wheel off your hands , plus if you wave your tale accidentaly wheel is very aggresive even if you do quite good and smooth throttle work.
I use about 35 in FOX but maybe lower at T1 when it going to be carnage .. Fox junkies u know....
Wow that FFB dll really ruins the FFB It's just completely random what happens.
I think LFS has one of the best FFB systems, although it could use some improvements. Still, it's way better than any other I've tried.
after the death of CTRA) and i barely use the half of steering lock , but when i drift i use it all the way and most of the times when trying something "good" i need to step off the gas and keep it at full lock sliding until it reduce the sliding angle and be "driftable" again..... IF only i had more steering angle !! then it will be a new potential for the drifting community and a hell lot of fun 
