How much negative camber is too much?
07-16-2003, 09:53 AM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
How much negative camber is too much?
I recently installed the Skunk2 front camber control arms and adjusted it to 2.5 negative front camber, and did the rear washer bolt trick on the rears to 1.8 negative camber. Car is lowered 2" all around and of course I'm running STS.
Now I noticed I cannot stop as quickly before (of course), but turning/cornering is much better. How much is too much negative camber for a FWD car?
Now I noticed I cannot stop as quickly before (of course), but turning/cornering is much better. How much is too much negative camber for a FWD car?
07-16-2003, 10:06 AM
#2
I said I don't want a title!
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (CivicSiRacer)
With the Azenis, the more the better. Yes, braking will suffer (I found that it is now more difficult to trailbrake), but you'll make up for it in cornering ability.
Be careful the Skunk2 front camber plates don't slip. I just lowered my car more to get the camber I want as I still don't trust the Skunk2's.
Be careful the Skunk2 front camber plates don't slip. I just lowered my car more to get the camber I want as I still don't trust the Skunk2's.
07-16-2003, 11:43 AM
#4
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Shiny side up dammit, MO
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (91SiKen)
control arms are a no-no in Street Prepared, but they are OK in Street Touring.....it should be backwards, that would be the logical way.... :shrugs: I already wrote my letter to the SEB about it....but that's a whole different thread 
07-16-2003, 11:57 AM
#5
New User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (carl_aka_carlos)
I recently asked the same question and 2 to 3 degrees seemed to be the limit. Any more than that, and you need to reduce the body roll (springs or sway bars).
Scott
Scott
07-16-2003, 12:01 PM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One by one, the penguins steal my sanity.
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (celica73)
Watch who replies to this question, as it varies quite a bit from car model to car model (especially from double-A-arm to McP strut designs). The standard 3* that you might see posted on the web usually applies to McP struts, which need more static camber to get the proper dynamic camber.
07-16-2003, 12:38 PM
#7
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Crack Monkey)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Watch who replies to this question, as it varies quite a bit from car model to car model (especially from double-A-arm to McP strut designs). The standard 3* that you might see posted on the web usually applies to McP struts, which need more static camber to get the proper dynamic camber.</TD></TR></TABLE>
it doesn't seem to matter which suspension type you are using if you are on falkens and have a decent suspension setup. all of them seem to work best with a minimum of -3*.
nate-has -3.5* front camber on his sts car
it doesn't seem to matter which suspension type you are using if you are on falkens and have a decent suspension setup. all of them seem to work best with a minimum of -3*.
nate-has -3.5* front camber on his sts car
Trending Topics
07-16-2003, 01:05 PM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (solo-x)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
it doesn't seem to matter which suspension type you are using if you are on falkens and have a decent suspension setup. all of them seem to work best with a minimum of -3*.
nate-has -3.5* front camber on his sts car</TD></TR></TABLE>
OK. I can't let this kind of inaccuracy go. Let's ask ourselves why we want negative camber.
Obviously the car accelerates, stops and turns best when the tires are flat on the ground, assuming the tires are symetrically constructed inside to outside (old BFG R-1s were not).
If the car does not roll when it turns then we would want 0 camber because the tires will remain flat on the ground during acceleration, braking, and turning. But of course, every car with a suspension does roll; and that roll produces some camber change and the tire is no longer flat on the ground. So we add a little negative camber so that when the camber change happens (it's almost always positive camber change) the net effect will put the outside tires flat on the ground.
But cars' suspension designs influence how much camber change happens with roll (in general double wishbones produce less adverse camber change than McP struts). So a rule like "tire x needs -3 degrees camber" is obviously a big generalization. The fact is that more negative camber reduces braking efficiency and (to a lesser extent) acceleration. That's why the new Neon SRT-4 comes from the factory with 0 front camber. It's big draw is acceleration so they optimized acceleration at the expense of handling by adjusting camber.
Like everything else about car setup there is no rule for camber that works for all cars, for all tires, and for all types of driving. It's a compromise and there is no simple answer.
Regards,
Alan
it doesn't seem to matter which suspension type you are using if you are on falkens and have a decent suspension setup. all of them seem to work best with a minimum of -3*.
nate-has -3.5* front camber on his sts car</TD></TR></TABLE>
OK. I can't let this kind of inaccuracy go. Let's ask ourselves why we want negative camber.
Obviously the car accelerates, stops and turns best when the tires are flat on the ground, assuming the tires are symetrically constructed inside to outside (old BFG R-1s were not).
If the car does not roll when it turns then we would want 0 camber because the tires will remain flat on the ground during acceleration, braking, and turning. But of course, every car with a suspension does roll; and that roll produces some camber change and the tire is no longer flat on the ground. So we add a little negative camber so that when the camber change happens (it's almost always positive camber change) the net effect will put the outside tires flat on the ground.
But cars' suspension designs influence how much camber change happens with roll (in general double wishbones produce less adverse camber change than McP struts). So a rule like "tire x needs -3 degrees camber" is obviously a big generalization. The fact is that more negative camber reduces braking efficiency and (to a lesser extent) acceleration. That's why the new Neon SRT-4 comes from the factory with 0 front camber. It's big draw is acceleration so they optimized acceleration at the expense of handling by adjusting camber.
Like everything else about car setup there is no rule for camber that works for all cars, for all tires, and for all types of driving. It's a compromise and there is no simple answer.
Regards,
Alan
07-16-2003, 02:22 PM
#9
I said I don't want a title!
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (00R101)
I understand your theory Alan, but ask yourself why we have all found benefits to more negative camber in STS/STX and why the Realtime and GrandAm Hondas run so darn much negative camber in the front.
I believe King was running 3.5-3.8 negative or so on their ITRs, and the springrates they run are over 1000lbs on most tracks.
Aside form the acceleration and braking issues, cornering speed is where it is at, in both Solo and on the roadcourse (unless you have 500hp or so, then it becomes a little less of an issue, especially on a roadcourse). Hence, more negative camber allows us to corner faster, regardless of what it says on paper.
I believe King was running 3.5-3.8 negative or so on their ITRs, and the springrates they run are over 1000lbs on most tracks.
Aside form the acceleration and braking issues, cornering speed is where it is at, in both Solo and on the roadcourse (unless you have 500hp or so, then it becomes a little less of an issue, especially on a roadcourse). Hence, more negative camber allows us to corner faster, regardless of what it says on paper.
07-16-2003, 02:31 PM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Todd00)
Point taken Todd; The proof is in the pudding.
I wonder how much tread flex has to do with the need for increased camber. Let's face it, front drivers are just big fat pigs when it comes to outside front tires. They use them up faster than a crack ***** goes through her nightly receipts. So maybe we are just twistin' the crap out of the tread. Extra negative camber allows for less tread distortion regardless of what the static footprint might be doing.
I wonder how much tread flex has to do with the need for increased camber. Let's face it, front drivers are just big fat pigs when it comes to outside front tires. They use them up faster than a crack ***** goes through her nightly receipts. So maybe we are just twistin' the crap out of the tread. Extra negative camber allows for less tread distortion regardless of what the static footprint might be doing.
07-18-2003, 03:25 AM
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dallas, PA, 18704
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (00R101)
When I set up my car last year (an 89 Civic Si for autocross on Azenis that won at Topeka), I ran -3.5 camber in front. And for this years car (which is essentially the same...88 Civic), I've tried to reduce the front camber. What I've found with the Azenis is that it seems to lose grip at less than 3 degrees negative. In fact, -2.5 is noticeably worse than 3. I run 3.2 negative on the car because too much really is not good. But I'm with Todd that especially in autocrossing, no matter what car you have, the cornering capability is absolutely crucial. And every front wheel drive car I've ever driven has rewarded 3+ degrees negative camber in front (Golf, Neon, Celica, Integra, Civic, etc). And you wouldn't think the Civic needs as much as the strut cars.... it probably doesn't really.... but it still needs alot to be a fast autocross car.
Just thought I'd share that, for what it's worth.
Chris
Just thought I'd share that, for what it's worth.
Chris
07-18-2003, 05:24 AM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One by one, the penguins steal my sanity.
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Todd00)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... and why the Realtime and GrandAm Hondas run so darn much negative camber in the front.
I believe King was running 3.5-3.8 negative or so on their ITRs, and the springrates they run are over 1000lbs on most tracks.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Road race cars often need more more negative camber because of the higher cornering forces and speeds they see.
Anyways, my original intent was not to claim the origianl poster needs 3* or 2* or whatever, but that he should make sure he compares apples with apples and not oranges.
I believe King was running 3.5-3.8 negative or so on their ITRs, and the springrates they run are over 1000lbs on most tracks.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Road race cars often need more more negative camber because of the higher cornering forces and speeds they see.
Anyways, my original intent was not to claim the origianl poster needs 3* or 2* or whatever, but that he should make sure he compares apples with apples and not oranges.
07-18-2003, 07:14 AM
#13
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Crack Monkey)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Anyways, my original intent was not to claim the origianl poster needs 3* or 2* or whatever, but that he should make sure he compares apples with apples and not oranges.</TD></TR></TABLE>
that _should_ go without saying, but it usually happens. i'll admit, i've been guilty of the same sin before too.
nate
that _should_ go without saying, but it usually happens. i'll admit, i've been guilty of the same sin before too.
nate
07-18-2003, 08:00 AM
#14
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Todd00)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Be careful the Skunk2 front camber plates don't slip. I just lowered my car more to get the camber I want as I still don't trust the Skunk2's.</TD></TR></TABLE>
A little OT for the thread but camber related since the issue came up. I'm trying to decide between the Skunk2 and Ingalls. Are Ingalls that much of a pain to get the right setting? What about Progress group kits? I don't think they range as a much as Skunk, but any experience with those?
A little OT for the thread but camber related since the issue came up. I'm trying to decide between the Skunk2 and Ingalls. Are Ingalls that much of a pain to get the right setting? What about Progress group kits? I don't think they range as a much as Skunk, but any experience with those?
07-18-2003, 08:06 AM
#15
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Vitt1)
just an fyi. in some email correspondance with Andy on the SEB, he indicated that the camber kit allowance in ST may be tightened up in the near future. just letting ya know!
nate
nate
07-18-2003, 09:30 AM
#16
I said I don't want a title!
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Crack Monkey)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Road race cars often need more more negative camber because of the higher cornering forces and speeds they see.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Higher cornering speeds yes--but do roadrace cars really see more cornering G's than an autox car? Maybe more sustained G's for roadracing, but autox would see just as much total overall as a roadracing car IMO.
Road race cars often need more more negative camber because of the higher cornering forces and speeds they see.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Higher cornering speeds yes--but do roadrace cars really see more cornering G's than an autox car? Maybe more sustained G's for roadracing, but autox would see just as much total overall as a roadracing car IMO.
07-18-2003, 10:57 AM
#17
Painting Masterpieces
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (CivicSiRacer)
How much negative camber is going to depend not only on the suspension you're running but also what kind of tires you'll be on. Specifically, how stiff the tire sidewalls are.
Sounds like you've got some testing to do with your specific combination to determine your optimal neg camber.
Sounds like you've got some testing to do with your specific combination to determine your optimal neg camber.
07-18-2003, 12:04 PM
#18
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Greenville, SC, USA
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (Ponyboy)
Though it isn't readily adjustable, adding more negative caster effects the camber when the wheels are turned. Sooo... you can take a slightly less agressive negative camber to improve straight-line accel/decel and gain the grip by tweaking the caster.
07-18-2003, 12:10 PM
#19
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (PupaScoopa)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PupaScoopa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Though it isn't readily adjustable, adding more negative caster effects the camber when the wheels are turned. Sooo... you can take a slightly less agressive negative camber to improve straight-line accel/decel and gain the grip by tweaking the caster.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i think you mean positive caster. and if you think by dialing in 5* of caster you can dial out .5* of camber, you are sorely mistaken. do the measurements. you'll find out that to get any appreciable camber gain through caster you would need something like 15* of caster. you don't want to know what happens to your cross weights with that much caster.
nate
i think you mean positive caster. and if you think by dialing in 5* of caster you can dial out .5* of camber, you are sorely mistaken. do the measurements. you'll find out that to get any appreciable camber gain through caster you would need something like 15* of caster. you don't want to know what happens to your cross weights with that much caster.
nate
07-18-2003, 12:26 PM
#20
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (solo-x)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i think you mean positive caster. and if you think by dialing in 5* of caster you can dial out .5* of camber, you are sorely mistaken. do the measurements. you'll find out that to get any appreciable camber gain through caster you would need something like 15* of caster. you don't want to know what happens to your cross weights with that much caster.
nate</TD></TR></TABLE>
Then why does it work with certain cars? Such as VWs, specifically the Mannix/Wenzel setup that OWNED FSP for a while, and now everyone has copied them...
i think you mean positive caster. and if you think by dialing in 5* of caster you can dial out .5* of camber, you are sorely mistaken. do the measurements. you'll find out that to get any appreciable camber gain through caster you would need something like 15* of caster. you don't want to know what happens to your cross weights with that much caster.
nate</TD></TR></TABLE>
Then why does it work with certain cars? Such as VWs, specifically the Mannix/Wenzel setup that OWNED FSP for a while, and now everyone has copied them...
07-18-2003, 12:34 PM
#21
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Shiny side up dammit, MO
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (PseudoRealityX)
that whole caster thing works better on a macstrut car that has a shitty camber curve to begin with
*note....the above is a gross oversimplification in the name of brevity
*note....the above is a gross oversimplification in the name of brevity
07-18-2003, 12:44 PM
#22
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (PseudoRealityX)
because it's not a honda. i could be wrong, but i beleive caster in combination with kingpin inclination ultimately determine the rate of camber gain. on tom hoppe's wrx, he runs about 8* of caster and says he gains nearly 1* of negative camber at 15* of steering lock (average number for most tight turns). but the kingpin inclination on that car is signifcantly steeper then on a honda.
the mannix/wenzel setup that owned fsp is somewhat of an oddball. in talking with him and daryll (local ep vw driver and previous fsp driver that uses a similar setup as the mannix/wenzel fsp car. also finished 5th at nats last year) they use no rear swaybar and a large front bar with something like 400/600 for spring rates. to compare that to your typical honda setup is futile as there is virtually nothing comparable between the cars other then the location of the drive wheels.
don't get me wrong, caster changes can help a civic or integra go faster. i don't think it's a good way to good camber though. 2-3* of caster to improve stability or whatever is fine, but imo unnecessary. don't band-aid insufficient camber with caster.
nate
i could be wrong, but i beleive caster in combination with kingpin inclination ultimately determine the rate of camber gain. on tom hoppe's wrx, he runs about 8* of caster and says he gains nearly 1* of negative camber at 15* of steering lock (average number for most tight turns). but the kingpin inclination on that car is signifcantly steeper then on a honda.the mannix/wenzel setup that owned fsp is somewhat of an oddball. in talking with him and daryll (local ep vw driver and previous fsp driver that uses a similar setup as the mannix/wenzel fsp car. also finished 5th at nats last year) they use no rear swaybar and a large front bar with something like 400/600 for spring rates. to compare that to your typical honda setup is futile as there is virtually nothing comparable between the cars other then the location of the drive wheels.
don't get me wrong, caster changes can help a civic or integra go faster. i don't think it's a good way to good camber though. 2-3* of caster to improve stability or whatever is fine, but imo unnecessary. don't band-aid insufficient camber with caster.
nate
04-10-2015, 12:05 PM
#23
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (solo-x)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
it doesn't seem to matter which suspension type you are using if you are on falkens and have a decent suspension setup. all of them seem to work best with a minimum of -3*.
nate-has -3.5* front camber on his sts car</TD></TR></TABLE>
OK. I can't let this kind of inaccuracy go. Let's ask ourselves why we want negative camber.
Obviously the car accelerates, stops and turns best when the tires are flat on the ground, assuming the tires are symetrically constructed inside to outside (old BFG R-1s were not).
If the car does not roll when it turns then we would want 0 camber because the tires will remain flat on the ground during acceleration, braking, and turning. But of course, every car with a suspension does roll; and that roll produces some camber change and the tire is no longer flat on the ground. So we add a little negative camber so that when the camber change happens (it's almost always positive camber change) the net effect will put the outside tires flat on the ground.
But cars' suspension designs influence how much camber change happens with roll (in general double wishbones produce less adverse camber change than McP struts). So a rule like "tire x needs -3 degrees camber" is obviously a big generalization. The fact is that more negative camber reduces braking efficiency and (to a lesser extent) acceleration. That's why the new Neon SRT-4 comes from the factory with 0 front camber. It's big draw is acceleration so they optimized acceleration at the expense of handling by adjusting camber.
Like everything else about car setup there is no rule for camber that works for all cars, for all tires, and for all types of driving. It's a compromise and there is no simple answer.
Regards,
Alan
it doesn't seem to matter which suspension type you are using if you are on falkens and have a decent suspension setup. all of them seem to work best with a minimum of -3*.
nate-has -3.5* front camber on his sts car</TD></TR></TABLE>
OK. I can't let this kind of inaccuracy go. Let's ask ourselves why we want negative camber.
Obviously the car accelerates, stops and turns best when the tires are flat on the ground, assuming the tires are symetrically constructed inside to outside (old BFG R-1s were not).
If the car does not roll when it turns then we would want 0 camber because the tires will remain flat on the ground during acceleration, braking, and turning. But of course, every car with a suspension does roll; and that roll produces some camber change and the tire is no longer flat on the ground. So we add a little negative camber so that when the camber change happens (it's almost always positive camber change) the net effect will put the outside tires flat on the ground.
But cars' suspension designs influence how much camber change happens with roll (in general double wishbones produce less adverse camber change than McP struts). So a rule like "tire x needs -3 degrees camber" is obviously a big generalization. The fact is that more negative camber reduces braking efficiency and (to a lesser extent) acceleration. That's why the new Neon SRT-4 comes from the factory with 0 front camber. It's big draw is acceleration so they optimized acceleration at the expense of handling by adjusting camber.
Like everything else about car setup there is no rule for camber that works for all cars, for all tires, and for all types of driving. It's a compromise and there is no simple answer.
Regards,
Alan
Couldn't agree with you more. This this is a really old thread, but I can't help adding to your answer when so much mis-information is thrown around. It prevents people from setting up their cars properly. Also, when they have the wrong understanding, they continue to perpetuate it through the forums as if it were gospel. Everything 00R101 mentioned is true, and it needs to be combined with proper testing.
CAMBER TESTING & TUNING
Camber is determined on a car by car basis, which includes track testing, and the readings from tire temperature tests. To adjust camber start with a suspension that's close to how you want it dialed in. That is you pick settings in the range you think will work, and begin testing there. Testing means going to the environment (drag, big-track, canyon, etc.) the car will be used on and doing a few runs. Tire temps from each tire are taken right after the runs. You'll take a temperature probe and read the inner, center, and outer sections of each tire for temps. 12 readings in total are taken from the tires. What you're looking for is an even temperature distribution. If for example, you go to a track and your front tires are reading hotter on the inside than the outside, it means you have too much negative camber. That reading will tell you to reduce the amount of negative camber. How much? Depends on the temperature difference. High difference means more change, lower difference mean less change. Once you've made a change go an test again. Your goal is to test until you no longer see a temperature difference.
DO NOT USE OTHER'S CARS AS A FINAL MEASUREMENT
As for the examples mentioned by the other forum members in this thread such as so-and-so car needs 3.0 camber to work, those are at best rough guide lines, and not set in stone. Camber needs can change from driver to driver. Slower drivers may not be able to corner well enough to need higher camber rates, and will need to dial settings back. Even driver preference can change the camber needs on the same car. If a driver has a more precise style that uses fewer, but finer inputs, he will have a completely different suspension setup than a driver that dives hard into corners and uses a more blunt-force hard charging style of driving. Even the weight of the driver, weather for a given day, tire compound, ride height, etc, etc, etc can change the camber needs. What I outlined above just tests for camber. There are other tests that determine spring rates, sway bar settings, damping setting, etc. Suspension tuning is called a black art because there are so many interdependent variables that affect one another when changed. Even the basic principles I outlined above, are just that, basic. There's a lot to suspension tuning.
Bottom line is that the only true measure of that camber someone needs is a tire temperature probe, and proper testing.
04-11-2015, 05:08 AM
#25
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much negative camber is too much? (solo-x)
Alan,
Couldn't agree with you more. This this is a really old thread, but I can't help adding to your answer when so much mis-information is thrown around. It prevents people from setting up their cars properly. Also, when they have the wrong understanding, they continue to perpetuate it through the forums as if it were gospel. Everything 00R101 mentioned is true, and it needs to be combined with proper testing.
CAMBER TESTING & TUNING
Camber is determined on a car by car basis, which includes track testing, and the readings from tire temperature tests. To adjust camber start with a suspension that's close to how you want it dialed in. That is you pick settings in the range you think will work, and begin testing there. Testing means going to the environment (drag, big-track, canyon, etc.) the car will be used on and doing a few runs. Tire temps from each tire are taken right after the runs. You'll take a temperature probe and read the inner, center, and outer sections of each tire for temps. 12 readings in total are taken from the tires. What you're looking for is an even temperature distribution. If for example, you go to a track and your front tires are reading hotter on the inside than the outside, it means you have too much negative camber. That reading will tell you to reduce the amount of negative camber. How much? Depends on the temperature difference. High difference means more change, lower difference mean less change. Once you've made a change go an test again. Your goal is to test until you no longer see a temperature difference.
DO NOT USE OTHER'S CARS AS A FINAL MEASUREMENT
As for the examples mentioned by the other forum members in this thread such as so-and-so car needs 3.0 camber to work, those are at best rough guide lines, and not set in stone. Camber needs can change from driver to driver. Slower drivers may not be able to corner well enough to need higher camber rates, and will need to dial settings back. Even driver preference can change the camber needs on the same car. If a driver has a more precise style that uses fewer, but finer inputs, he will have a completely different suspension setup than a driver that dives hard into corners and uses a more blunt-force hard charging style of driving. Even the weight of the driver, weather for a given day, tire compound, ride height, etc, etc, etc can change the camber needs. What I outlined above just tests for camber. There are other tests that determine spring rates, sway bar settings, damping setting, etc. Suspension tuning is called a black art because there are so many interdependent variables that affect one another when changed. Even the basic principles I outlined above, are just that, basic. There's a lot to suspension tuning.
Bottom line is that the only true measure of that camber someone needs is a tire temperature probe, and proper testing.
Couldn't agree with you more. This this is a really old thread, but I can't help adding to your answer when so much mis-information is thrown around. It prevents people from setting up their cars properly. Also, when they have the wrong understanding, they continue to perpetuate it through the forums as if it were gospel. Everything 00R101 mentioned is true, and it needs to be combined with proper testing.
CAMBER TESTING & TUNING
Camber is determined on a car by car basis, which includes track testing, and the readings from tire temperature tests. To adjust camber start with a suspension that's close to how you want it dialed in. That is you pick settings in the range you think will work, and begin testing there. Testing means going to the environment (drag, big-track, canyon, etc.) the car will be used on and doing a few runs. Tire temps from each tire are taken right after the runs. You'll take a temperature probe and read the inner, center, and outer sections of each tire for temps. 12 readings in total are taken from the tires. What you're looking for is an even temperature distribution. If for example, you go to a track and your front tires are reading hotter on the inside than the outside, it means you have too much negative camber. That reading will tell you to reduce the amount of negative camber. How much? Depends on the temperature difference. High difference means more change, lower difference mean less change. Once you've made a change go an test again. Your goal is to test until you no longer see a temperature difference.
DO NOT USE OTHER'S CARS AS A FINAL MEASUREMENT
As for the examples mentioned by the other forum members in this thread such as so-and-so car needs 3.0 camber to work, those are at best rough guide lines, and not set in stone. Camber needs can change from driver to driver. Slower drivers may not be able to corner well enough to need higher camber rates, and will need to dial settings back. Even driver preference can change the camber needs on the same car. If a driver has a more precise style that uses fewer, but finer inputs, he will have a completely different suspension setup than a driver that dives hard into corners and uses a more blunt-force hard charging style of driving. Even the weight of the driver, weather for a given day, tire compound, ride height, etc, etc, etc can change the camber needs. What I outlined above just tests for camber. There are other tests that determine spring rates, sway bar settings, damping setting, etc. Suspension tuning is called a black art because there are so many interdependent variables that affect one another when changed. Even the basic principles I outlined above, are just that, basic. There's a lot to suspension tuning.
Bottom line is that the only true measure of that camber someone needs is a tire temperature probe, and proper testing.
great info here and from solo-x. Love these knowledgable contributions.