Cheap-ass alignment tricks

[pothole]

Originally Posted by Brad Roberts

I run the cars square (even the Caymans) 255 square under 986's.

Well, there you go then!

I won't be running square, hence my intention to run an arseload more front camber!

[thstone]

Originally Posted by pothole

Well, there you go then!

I won't be running square, hence my intention to run an arseload more front camber!

Everything is a tradeoff. Handling will improve at the expense of additional tire wear.

With -2/-1.5 camber F/R, street driving will wear the inside of the tires fairly quickly (especially the rears). If you track the car, there still isn't enough camber and you'll wear the outside of the tires very quickly.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by thstone

Everything is a tradeoff. Handling will improve at the expense of additional tire wear.

With -2/-1.5 camber F/R, street driving will wear the inside of the tires fairly quickly (especially the rears). If you track the car, there still isn't enough camber and you'll wear the outside of the tires very quickly.

I had -2.5 on my old BMW. The wear rate wasn't that bad. It was also sufficient camber for track days. I was running -2.5 front, -1 rear. Zero understeer. But that was with 225 front and 235 rear tyres, so almost square.

[Brad Roberts]

Arse load?

I said I run upwards of -3.6 on the 255's depending on the driver!! That is pretty close to arse load!!

Choosing camber has many factors.

1. Tire construction
2. Tire size
3. Suspension design
4. Use of the car
5. Driver talent (or lack thereof)

I start with the above before moving into tire temps and setting camber per track, per corner of the car.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by Brad Roberts

Arse load?

I said I run upwards of -3.6 on the 255's depending on the driver!! That is pretty close to arse load!!

Choosing camber has many factors.

1. Tire construction
2. Tire size
3. Suspension design
4. Use of the car
5. Driver talent (or lack thereof)

I start with the above before moving into tire temps and setting camber per track, per corner of the car.

Brad, old thing, you have to appreciate people working at a different pay grade from your fine self regards car prep. There is ZERO chance of me changing geo settings to suit whatever tyres I happen to have fitted, for instance.

For me it's pretty simple. I'll be lowering the car and I want to dial out as much understeer for as little money as possible. I want to get as much camber on the front as I can and as little as possible on the rear. To a degree the fine details don't matter because I won't be able to achieve the ideal settings anyway, so like I said it's just a question of getting as far as I can in a certain direction.

I'll be lucky if a can get even as much as 2 degrees on the front, so there's no debate as to whether going for more makes sense. It won't be an option unless I spend a tonne of cash I don't have.

[Brad Roberts]

From a geometry standpoint (not component) The BMW front is pretty good, and yes I'm referring to E36 chassis'.

I have very little E30 experience

[thstone]

Originally Posted by pothole

I had -2.5 on my old BMW. The wear rate wasn't that bad. It was also sufficient camber for track days. I was running -2.5 front, -1 rear. Zero understeer. But that was with 225 front and 235 rear tyres, so almost square.

In my experience running a street/track combo BSX Boxster (225F/255R tire widths) that I drove to work everyday and did over 30 track days with, I found that -2.75F/-2.0R camber still isn't nearly enough.

Sure, its better than -1.5 but ultimately the outside portion of the tire is still what wears out first. Ultimately, you need more than -3 to fully compensate for the camber curve of the Boxster strut suspension.

Other make/models will, of course, cause this to vary as will tire selection, driver skill/technique, etc, etc...