Looks like they officially shot the idea down. From the most recent FasTrack under "Member Items Not Recommended":

"Camber adjustment modifications (Neary, ref. 03-083)"

Funny, they made a lot of new allowances in this FasTrack to bring ST more in line as a progression from Stock to SP, but not this allowance...oh well.

There is a TON of stuff up for member comment in this FasTrack too, so if you want to have a say, do it now, because in 4 weeks it will be too late.

To all you DSPers, you might want to let the **** know what you think about classing the Neon SRT-4 in DSP, because thats where it will probably go.

Mike

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RacerMike &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Looks like they officially shot the idea down. From the most recent FasTrack under "Member Items Not Recommended":

"Camber adjustment modifications (Neary, ref. 03-083)"

Funny, they made a lot of new allowances in this FasTrack to bring ST more in line as a progression from Stock to SP, but not this allowance...oh well.

There is a TON of stuff up for member comment in this FasTrack too, so if you want to have a say, do it now, because in 4 weeks it will be too late.

To all you DSPers, you might want to let the **** know what you think about classing the Neon SRT-4 in DSP, because thats where it will probably go.

Mike</TD></TR></TABLE>

tards

Aahj

 

The Neon SRT-4 will fall into DSP under the catch all clause which I found out is usable at National events (contradictory to how I read the rules). I'm not going to start writing letters until its officially classified or I see one in action.

 

i'm still 100% confused with why you dsp integra guys want to _reduce_ your front negative camber. on my car i run stiffer springs, the big front swaybar, a 23mm rear bar (thanks geratol, me likes!) and over -3.5* front camber on STREET TIRES. now i have to beleive that a wider hoosier is making more grip then my falkens, and i also have to beleive that you will get more body roll out of a car that has more grip but softer suspension. can i risk being an *** and suggest that there might be something else causing this odd tyre wear then excessive camber?

nate-just trying to help

 

Everything I have experienced and everyone I have talked to running SP with this type of suspension does not need more than 2 deg of negative camber on Hoosiers. Most are between 1.5 and 1.75.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crosser &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Everything I have experienced and everyone I have talked to running SP with this type of suspension does not need more than 2 deg of negative camber on Hoosiers. Most are between 1.5 and 1.75.</TD></TR></TABLE>

hmmm.... is that due to less sidewall flex in a hoosier as compared to my falkens? i could see how that _might_ be the case, but it still seems rather odd to me. hoosier's tech info states that the tire likes large amounts of camber, fwiw.

nate has never driven his car with hoosiers. i _did_ ask for permission to be an *** though!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">can i risk being an *** and suggest that there might be something else causing this odd tyre wear then excessive camber?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes, you can risk being an ***

You got any suggestions? I've pretty much looked at everything and come up with camber everytime. Couple reasons for what you are observing though. 1 - Hoosier radials don't roll, whereas your street tires will roll, thereby benefiting from the added camber. 2 - My car is pretty flat during cornering, but even if we assume it rolls more than yours, this would only ADD more negative camber since we gain camber under squat.

I'm interested to see if Matt W. has similar issues, especially now that his car is lower than mine (more negative camber). If he doesn't, well then I can assume its not a camber issue, but until that happens I feel confident that losing .5 degrees of negative up front would help me a great deal.

Mike

 

my preliminary guess is that the smaller diameter tyre is allowing excessive wheelspin on the inside front. are you using a quaife or a clutch type diff? in either case, the inside tyre can obviously handle only x amount of power. (i'm stating this for clarity, not inferring you don't already know this) exceeding this amount of power will cause the inside front to spin, causing the excessive wear on the inside edge of the tire. matt kogan had a similar issue on his sentra (viscous diff). we set his car up so that it _would_ spin the inside front so that the diff would help promote rotation. the end result was some incredibly fast wear on the inside 1.5" of tire. it was fast though, so it was a price he was willing to pay. if you were willing to try something different, i would see what would happen with a 14" tire combo.

really, i am just trying to help. sometimes a naive mind thinks outside the box better then a more experienced one. and i have nothing better to do at the moment.

nate

 

Well, on the spinning tire issue, I do use a Quaife, and I have to believe that if the wear is from spinning the inside tire (enough spin to wear it out faster than the outside of the tire which gets abused...that's a LOT of spin) I would be able to notice that much spinning. I notice no wheel spin... On the tire size thing, none of the FWD CRXs are having this problem in CSP, including Kuegler last year in his 91. Similarly, none of the FSP FWD cars are having this issue.

Appreciate the input though...I'm contemplating having some offset bushings made to get me to -1.5 and see what happens.

Mike

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RacerMike &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm interested to see if Matt W. has similar issues, especially now that his car is lower than mine (more negative camber). If he doesn't, well then I can assume its not a camber issue, but until that happens I feel confident that losing .5 degrees of negative up front would help me a great deal.

Mike</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'd like to see the results myself. I know last year the problem wasn't as pronounced as yours was but I was wearing that patch out. That was with slightly less camber then you had last year and I had some toe out on the front and rear (1/8 and 1/16 respectivly). This year the the toe is the same in the front, zeroed in the back, and camber is about -3.2. Nothing to really report yet with 21 runs on the tires (and rotated front to rear and stuff).

 

imo, i don't think the adjustable control arms should be allowed. they give us provisions to change our suspension geometry in ways that mac suspensions can't. i don't think it should be allowed in sts either, but it would appear i'm the only one that feels this way. maybe my opinion will change if i get to make the jump to dsp next year.

nate

 

The August FasTrack gives all cars the allowans of camber adjustment bolts, and from my reading, they don't say that you can't use them on an A-arm car. So, you can't alter control arm length, but you will be able to change their pickup points on the chassis with offset bolts, you get the camber change, but you pay less for it.

Did I misinterpret the new ruling?

Scott

 

the "crash bolt" allowance was an oversight in the original ruleset. camber plates were allowed but crash bolts weren't. the new rule allows crash bolts in st*. offset bushings and alternate control arms were already allowed for double wishbone suspension st* cars. the control arm provision allows you to change control arm length to compensate for camber changes, thus allowing you to alter the camber curves, the car's track, and various other things. also, the offset bushing allowance says nothing about maintaining the stock rubber/metal ratio in the bushing. so i can make some scintered bronze bushings for my car, as long as they are offset, and install them on control arms with revised suspension geometry. the allowance opens a pandora's box, and frankly i don't think it is needed in a nationally campaigned st* or *sp car.

nate

 

So the camber adjustable sliding type upper balljoints I just put on my 91 Si aren't SP legal? Good thing I am in SM (um, did really I just say that?)

Offset bolt kits are legal though? Not sure where I am going with this, although I have been thinking of ditching the hybrid lately.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 91SiKen &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So the camber adjustable sliding type upper balljoints I just put on my 91 Si aren't SP legal? Good thing I am in SM (um, did really I just say that?)

Offset bolt kits are legal though? Not sure where I am going with this, although I have been thinking of ditching the hybrid lately.</TD></TR></TABLE>

correct, they are not legal for street prepared. though i'm not really sure why you would want them. i don't like loosing suspension travel i worked so hard to get.

nate

 

Mike, I chased this for a long time too. Make sure you've got enough suspension travel. Once I fixed that, and kept my camber kit from slipping, I found that I could run more than -3 camber and get even wear on Hoosiers, or any other tire.

Yeah, this is for a track setup, but still...

Warren

 

warren, are you saying the lack of suspension travel can cause the odd tyre wear? i'm confused....

nate

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geratol &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Neon SRT-4 will fall into DSP under the catch all clause which I found out is usable at National events (contradictory to how I read the rules). I'm not going to start writing letters until its officially classified or I see one in action.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I saw a stock neon SRT-4 at an event in New Jersey about 3 weeks ago. All that power & added weight isn't doing too much for them. It wasn't the best driver in the world - but without a LSD stock, you could imagine how much wheelspin the srt-4 gets coming out of corners if pushed too hard. As far as the suspension upgrades on the stock SRT-4, I feel they are not as noticable b/c of the added weight. The SRT-4 now weighs as much as my prelude, which we all know is a pig. I worry more about the Neon R/Ts right now than the SRT-4s

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by luder94si &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I saw a stock neon SRT-4 at an event in New Jersey about 3 weeks ago. All that power & added weight isn't doing too much for them. It wasn't the best driver in the world - but without a LSD stock, you could imagine how much wheelspin the srt-4 gets coming out of corners if pushed too hard. As far as the suspension upgrades on the stock SRT-4, I feel they are not as noticable b/c of the added weight. The SRT-4 now weighs as much as my prelude, which we all know is a pig. I worry more about the Neon R/Ts right now than the SRT-4s </TD></TR></TABLE>

I thought the same things about the IS300 and 330i, too heavy. But it seems the solution with those cars is huge tires. Now you have big hp and gobs of traction.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by luder94si &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I saw a stock neon SRT-4 at an event in New Jersey about 3 weeks ago. All that power & added weight isn't doing too much for them. It wasn't the best driver in the world - but without a LSD stock, you could imagine how much wheelspin the srt-4 gets coming out of corners if pushed too hard. As far as the suspension upgrades on the stock SRT-4, I feel they are not as noticable b/c of the added weight. The SRT-4 now weighs as much as my prelude, which we all know is a pig. I worry more about the Neon R/Ts right now than the SRT-4s </TD></TR></TABLE>

In DSP, they can add the LSD and loose a lot of the extra weight you are talking about. They also can get much more tire to actually put all that torque they have down. It will be interesting to see if anyone steps up with one.

 

daddio maybe? seems like a SP classed neon has a better shot than a SM kneeyawn

 

Mike - Get that car on a skidpad and take some tire temps! In my mind, that's the best (only?) way to optimize camber. This will also give you proof positive whether wheelspin is causing the problem.

I know that stock LSD-equipped Type Rs will cord the inside of the front tires from wheelspin. Ask Shawn W. And he definitely does not have too much camber.

I bet skidpad tests will show you that your camber isn't too far off. Just my guess (but I don't have too much Honda tuning experience).

Good luck, let us know what you find out