Adjusting Camber
 

I am gettin an alignment in next couple days and I was wondering how I should adjust the camber i mainly do road course and HPDE and a little autocross

i have tein s tech springs
bilstein shocks
progress sway bars

please dont tell me to search because i have seen the other thread but i want some personalized answers

-1.8 in front, and -2 in the rear.

what about for the toe...or that all around

I have my toe set to 0.1 front 0.15 rear.

Camber is -1.5 front, 2.0 rear.

castor 6.8 front (no rear adjustment.

i'm neg 3 on the camber all the way round. woohoo.

how does that work out for u

i don't have trouble cornering. i can beat you. :smoker:

^Makes him go through tires pretty fast..

camber doesnt kill tires as much as toe.

um.. i disagree lol

anything more than -2 is unecessary unless you are tracking or racing on a regular basis and have the money to replace tires twice as often.

i dunno, the stock 225s lasted 14k with light tracking on 8.5s. only towards the end did they start to feel wrong, and they were only mildly lopsided. i could have probably flipped em around at 10k and gotten another 5k (so 19 in total).

and you never know when you might need that extra bit of cornering ability.

the stock tires are really high treadwear rating though.. get ANY other tire and see how bad -3 messes with you... i have -2.5 on the rear and after 3 months (2k miles) i have slicks on one side and half tread on the other side of the tire

I think that might be indicative of another issue.

I have a good number of miles on my tires with no noticable outside-inside differences in tread.

Now, on my subie, I had the toe at 0.45 inward (I am not sure why. Came to me that way) In under 2k miles, the outside had worn almost slick. THis is with nearly zero camber.

i need to go find my allignment sheet..

i copied one of the preferred allignment specs off here... and it was pretty close but my camber couldnt get quite as much in the front (-1.8 instead of -2.0)

the fronts are wearing ok but the rear (-2.5) is horrible...

I'm running -1.7 up front and -1.9 in the rear.

don't these different cambers cause understeer?

Uh...huh. What?

Please; outline the mechanism behind your hypothesis.

staggered wheels cause understeer, therefore staggered camber causes understeer???

Oh. Ok, I see your point. My 'pologies. I suppose if you had pos or zero camber on the front and -2 on the rear that you would get understeer. I dont think the differences that you are seeing here will translate to EXCESSIVE understeer. Such and effect should be small enough that you could dial it out by stiffening the rear dampers (bandade, I know) or moving your rear sway in one hole. I dont think it would be noticable.

EDITED to ADD: I saw your edit. Weak sauce, man.

Interesting; I decided to run a relatively conservative -2.1R -1.7F and camber wear is nearly nonexistent in both the front and rear. There may be a slight bias but really really too much. I do know my toyo t1r's *seemed* to camber wear a bit more but it could have been for a number of other reasons, not necessarily the tire itself. Toe zero'd out, naturally, and tire pressures around 36psi cold - 275 rt615s.

I only managed 10k out of the stockers, and that was with factory suspension/alignment :D

i got great track tire wear across the thread with a 1.2 and a 1.4! 0 toe. car is predictable and feels just as good as when i was running 1.7 and and 1.9 . I DID get inside street tire wear with the 1.7.
i am beginning to believe that the 0.5 really doesnt make any difference in my car except increased street tire wear.
olddragger

I thought my OE Bridgestones were like 140. How is that really high? Unless you're comparing them to the 30 or 40 of Kumho V710's...

i have almost -2.0 front camber, and only -1.5 at the rear.

yep.

i am running 1.4 front and rear.. i might back that down..

denny. did you get some extra front right wear at little talladega? i was a bit surprised!

btw, op. lots of really good info in that other sticky thread. dont be lazy.

beers :beer:

0 toe when you were -1.7/1.9?