Wai

Just put the knuckle under a press. You get camber that would never slip. A little ghetto, but works very well in many classes that do not allow camber kit.

offcamber

what do you mean by knuckle? please explain the process.

Wai

See the attachment and bend where the arrow is pointing at.
I've also seen people chose to bend the UCA.

It's gonna be hard to get the exact same camber left and right, but you can get them close enough that the car would still track straight.

wupike21

How well does our geometry make use of dynamic camber? At what point does increased caster cause significant bumpsteer? I'm coming from an S2000 where I could have over 6* of positive caster with no ill effects.

redzcstandardhatch

tons of dudes have bent the knuckle... scares me, but i've never seen a "custom" bent one break.

do it right, and it'll work. i've seen that people have heated them up prior to bending them

KIWI

You are quite right Scott, no arguement here. But if they are not allowed to change camber settings, they sure as hell wont be allowed to do anything to eliminate Bumpsteer.

However, the whole problem is that this is racing... It's competitive! people are always looking for an edge. The rule is Stupid, and I can't understand why Nasa with all the different series it runs, and the wealth of experienced racers they have at their disposal keep coming up with some dumassed rules! Most appear to be based around the "Cost" to the racer. Tell that to the H2 Competitors who have gone through 5 to 7 blocks in a season because of the Stock internals rule. Expensive Dash and Datalogging is ok but a set of decent Rods are illegal? Don't get me started on this nonsence.

Most of the rules are legit but some are obviously going to be bent out of shape anyway! Already we have the dangerous, but perfectly legitimate option of heating and bending the cast knuckle! So what happens when one of those break with possible deadly results? Personally I'd rather take the penalty whatever it is and run the proper equipment.
By the way... If everyone did that, the penalty would mean nothing. And you could all have better handling cars.

Without getting into the whole rules thing... I would like to hear the reasoning for this particular "Camber" rule? I might be way off base, but as I believe this is not a "Dead Stock" series, ie some modifications are permitted. So why would this, probably one of the most important items in suspension tuning be banned?

Just my 0.2c

Kiwi

Stinkycheezmonky

It is allowed, but has a +4 points penalty. Because of the relative severity in points, Scott and I (and others) are trying to find a way to get around it.

Here are the rules:
7) Replace or modify control arms (other than plates, shims, slots, or eccentric bolts/bushings for simple camber/caster adjustment only) or RWD/AWD rear trailing arms (may have spherical/metallic joint for the connection to the spindle/knuckle) +4


10) Simple camber, caster, and toe adjustment by any method that does not alter suspension mounting points (unless the modification used is otherwise assessed points above). Bolt on camber/caster plates are not assessed points. (Free)

To me it seems like it'd just be easier to make alignment-related parts free, as the difference according to the rules plays into particular suspension design (Machpherson strut vs. independent), manufacturer choice (Vette's have adjustable suspension all over), and so on, rather than just limiting cost. But then, we have the same issue with ECU modifications. For whatever reason (policing maybe) the rules people don't want to open that up, despite some very good arguments for it. Then again, the rules are constantly developing, so things could change in the future.

ScottBell

iTrader: (1)

To put some numbers on it, Jeff, for my car with my classing I can run a camber adjuster that is +2 or +4, or maybe both at 2510lb.

If I can shed the points, none left for adjusters to stay in class, I can run 2385lb. Which do you think I prefer? That's why we are looking for a no points way to get just that little bit more camber we need to make the Hoosiers work, and more importantly, wear well.

I'm going to run no points for adjusters either way. My car is just as fast at stock camber as -2.5,but it eats the tires. The only lap time advantage I would give up would be on 45 to 60 min runs where the outside is overheating.

KIWI

I agree, But who, or how do they come up with some of this stupid stuff that has no apparent good reason or purpose.
If one vehicle has the ability of full suspension adjustment everywhere, then all vehicles should be allowed the same.
Same goes for programable ECU'S or whatever.
The easiest regulations to police are those that can be seen without pulling the car apart.


Kiwi

KIWI

Scott,
yes I can see the delema, I'd prefer the lighter weight as well. Brings you back to the spacers under the bushing housings.
Back in the day, we used to shave camber into the tires for qualifying... Depends on your tire budget, and it appears your take offs are stuffed anyway!
So much for keeping the cost of racing down?

Kiwi

Stinkycheezmonky

I have no idea how they come up with this stuff. It does seem very silly to me too.

DB2-R81

Hello Kiwi,

Funny to hear another old timer mention this, when I suggested we did it on autocross cars some time ago every one alleged I was talking nonsense and out of my mind.

By the way any progress on the second generation Integra splitter?

KIWI

Hi Mark,
Yeah the one thing about getting old is sometimes you learn stuff! And necessity is the mother of invention.
We tried that back in the late 80's in New Zealand. And It was a trick used in the Jackson Racing Honda CRX's of the SCCA Escort Endurance series in the early 90's.

I should have news on the 2010 range of Splitter kits very soon.
CRX, DA Integra, DC2 Gen II, RSX, TSX,

Kiwi

JOE BD-0

I think spc makes that......good luck

ScottBell

iTrader: (1)

They do not. Several companies make an adjuster for the inside of the control arm. They are a pain to deal with, and probablly not a no points mod anyway. I don't understand why NASA goes out of it's way to give strut cars plenty of options for adjustment, but won't give the A arm cars anything.

I think we are about to see a TB come out on this.

Johnny Mac

SPC used to make it but they haven't produced it for the past three years or so.

JOE BD-0

You MAY be able to use their current available model, the one that also has longer UCA mounting studs, or you could take the adjustable part from that part set and "massage" it into some stock UCA studs. There are two sizes though (new one is larger)and it might not work for your application.
--Johnny Mac, our 2209 friend has commissioned his Grand Am Team machinist guy to re produce the old style SPC part so they may be available to us at some point. Good Luck

ScottBell

iTrader: (1)

What's the time frame on this and are there any pictures around of what he is going to make? I'm going to get going on this for me a and Stinky after the end of this month, unless someone else is planning on turning some out.

JOE BD-0

Sorry, but these most likely would be one-off pieces....not a production run...YET.
They are two piece (Delrin and metal)bushings that replace #7 in the above Honda parts diagram.
The hole is way off center so the camber is adjustable by rotating the piece around.
I still have an old set from spc, but I don't know how to do pics.
The newer model from spc includes the #7 adjustable part as well as the threaded stud that it goes into.
I suppose the legality/points deduction of these particular parts would depend on the rulebook you are running under.
Good Luck

ScottBell

iTrader: (1)

We can't use metal unless it something like a metal sleve inside the poly bushings. (That could also be a rules question. It does say non-metalic bushings)

Basicly no solid metal connecting the control arm to the frame.

I'm making or having made some offset bushings from a plastic to be announced after I talk to a materials guy. It's just as easy to make 20 of them as 4 after we set up.

Tyson

so under the rules youre working under, all you need is a thin sheet of rubber, plastic or delrin in between the eccentric and the casing... right?

good luck.

Johnny Mac

Hey Tyson,

Are you and Joe the "good-luck" twins? As if luck has anything to do with it. Hmmm, but it's a nice thought. So, I'm going to do it here...now...and for the first time. Good Luck

jsbumed

I don't normally post much on this forum, but I thought it might be a good idea to chime in on this one. Offcamber - in this case, the TT/PT rules state that unless you are using a stock OEM UCA, then you must take the points. Swapping out arms with another Honda vehicle doesn't fall under this definition, so if you go that route, you must take the points.

To hopefully answer a few other questions from this thread - All TT/PT rules and car classifications are written and determined by the National TT/PT director. Before they are published, they are reviewed and approved by NASA's national office. I do not know the formula used to class the cars, but I do know that suspension type is factored into the formula. As far as some vehicles have free camber adjustment available to them, the National director has stated before that not all cars will be able to have points free methods of camber adjustment due to suspension design. I do not know for sure if this is figured into the base classing or not, but I believe it is.

Now, I will not get into whether or not I agree with every TT/PT rule n a public forum. Regardless of my opinion, either favorable or negative, I am responsible for ensuring that the rules are understood and followed. If anyone ever has a question on whether a modification is allowed or if they should take points for them, they can and should email their regional or national director. In this case, the word of the national director trumps all. If anyone feels their car's base classing is incorrect, then they can email an appeal to the national director. Anyone may also reqeust that their individual vehicle be reclassed based on dyno numbers and minimum weight as well. In some cases drivers come out ahead that way and in others they don't.

wupike21

Are you talking about something like this?

http://www.jegs.com/i/Specialty+Prod...84955/10002/-1



I imagine the normal use is for the bolts to be oriented outwards towards the ball joint... but could they be oriented inwards towards the shock tower?

The one above can adjust from +1.75* to +3.25* (-1.75* to -3.25* reversed). There is also one that can adjust from 0* to +1.5* (0* to -1.5* reversed):

http://www.jegs.com/i/Specialty-Prod...oductId=755126



These would be no-points as it would fall under "7) Replace or modify control arms (other than plates, shims, slots, or eccentric bolts/bushings for simple camber/caster adjustment only)"

jprelude92

chassis tech makes the upper control arm for 92 to96 prelude part#CARX-PRE-9296 $158.95 i think for the set found this here bbn-performance.com