Alignment FAQ Thread

[ZDan]

Lowering the car an inch or so gets you to around -2.5 degrees, which is pretty much right where you want to be for street/track. My car is lowered about 1.25" in the back, one side is at -2.45, the other at -2.6. That is close enough. Adjustable LCAs are IMO not worth the $$$/time/effort. Also I like to keep critical structural components factory where possible/practical.

Originally Posted by churchx

Because Rear LCAs is cheapest way to add camber adjustment in rear with sufficient range (i don't count "unofficial" H&R camberbolt usage in rear as much of an option, as due small range they can do only for evening out. Nor do i count as "cheaper" eccentric whiteline bushings, as installing them and/or adjusting with them is PITA and savings on a bit smaller price go down the drain paid on alignment tech time/work)?
Or you wanted arguing that getting alignment in rear or upping camber in rear aswell for track use is not needed? Sure not needed, if one doesn't want to get max grip and even tire wear.

[TylerLieberman]

Not getting an alignment just seems like a waste of money after adding suspension components. If you're going to spend ~$1,500 on coilovers to increase performance and gain adjustability, why not spend the small extra to ensure you can properly adjust everything alignment wise to ensure the vehicle is setup properly?

Just seems like a waste of time and money.

[churchx]

ZDan: i DON'T want any lowering, so i won't see extra camber. I'm not in looks crowd, car already is relatively low stock and going any lower will only multiply daily driving issues by order. Will limit where i can park (if parking needs driving over kerb), will limit where i can drive (winter roads with deep grooves/trails and bumper scraping), and will limit even where i can track (later - as in snow/ice tracks).
Also in many cases OE parts have low cost in large production volumes being main design target, not functional/practical better properties so sometimes obsession for keeping everything stock means not having better parts/car, just cheaper.

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Lowering the car an inch or so gets you to around -2.5 degrees, which is pretty much right where you want to be for street/track. My car is lowered about 1.25" in the back, one side is at -2.45, the other at -2.6. That is close enough. Adjustable LCAs are IMO not worth the $$$/time/effort. Also I like to keep critical structural components factory where possible/practical.

Again, depends on the use. -2.5 is kinda excessive for a car that doesnt see track/autox. Or might be too little if tracking on super sticky tires.

My rear camber was -1.8/-2.6 left/right after lowering one inch. So ymmv

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

Not getting an alignment just seems like a waste of money after adding suspension components. If you're going to spend ~$1,500 on coilovers to increase performance and gain adjustability, why not spend the small extra to ensure you can properly adjust everything alignment wise to ensure the vehicle is setup properly?

Because rear camber is *likely* to be in a good place for your wants/needs/usage anyway.

Just seems like a waste of time and money.

Buying aftermarket parts (with far less engineering and testing behind them) that you probably don't need, that's a waste of time and money...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by churchx

ZDan: i DON'T want any lowering, so i won't see extra camber. I'm not in looks crowd, car already is relatively low stock and going any lower will only multiply daily driving issues by order. Will limit where i can park (if parking needs driving over kerb), will limit where i can drive (winter roads with deep grooves/trails and bumper scraping), and will limit even where i can track (later - as in snow/ice tracks).

For your usage you're probably fine with the ~ -1 to -1.25 rear camber you already have stock.

Also in many cases OE parts have low cost in large production volumes being main design target, not functional/practical better properties so sometimes obsession for keeping everything stock means not having better parts/car, just cheaper.

OE manufacturers have a veritable army of engineers and technicians to design and test parts and cars to ensure that out of 10s of thousands (sometimes 100s of thousands) of cars on the road for hundreds of thousands of miles, critical structural components don't fail on a regular basis. Aftermarket components often have *zero* analysis and testing behind them. It fits, it adjusts, yay, done!

OEM parts are designed to be inexpensive to produce, but they're also designed to be extremely durable and reliable in real-world use. Aftermarket simply doesn't have the resources to do this to anything like the same degree. They don't *need* to either. I have seen structural failures of aftermarket suspension components which resulted in track incidents (nothing too bad beyond minor bodywork), the supplier's response was along the lines of "It's a *race* part, have to change them out as now it's wear item". When I asked about inspection methods and intervals and mean time between failure data, crickets... Aftermarket companies don't face the same level of responsibility and liability as manufacturers do when critical components fail. And they too are in it to make money. They don't have to invest in structural analysis and durability testing so they don't.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by finch1750

Again, depends on the use. -2.5 is kinda excessive for a car that doesnt see track/autox. Or might be too little if tracking on super sticky tires.

A fairly wide range is acceptable and usable in my experience, for whatever the intended usage.

-2.5 is IMO at the upper end of streetable, particularly if car does track work as well. But even street-only, camber wear isn't *that* bad as long as toe is kept minimized. Lowered a more modest 0.8" would probably put rear camber closer to -2, which is no prob for street only usage.

My rear camber was -1.8/-2.6 left/right after lowering one inch. So ymmv

Yeah that's a bit wonky. Honestly I'd try loosening subframe attachment bolts and shifting the whole unit to one side to make left/right alignment more symmetrical.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Yeah that's a bit wonky. Honestly I'd try loosening subframe attachment bolts and shifting the whole unit to one side to make left/right alignment more symmetrical.

All suspension arms are attached to the subframe, shifting the subframe won't do anything to the alignment.

I wonder if swapping the lcas would help though...

[churchx]

Originally Posted by ZDan

For your usage you're probably fine with the ~ -1 to -1.25 rear camber you already have stock.

OE manufacturers have a veritable army of engineers and technicians to design and test parts and cars to ensure that out of 10s of thousands (sometimes 100s of thousands) of cars on the road for hundreds of thousands of miles, critical structural components don't fail on a regular basis. Aftermarket components often have *zero* analysis and testing behind them. It fits, it adjusts, yay, done!

OEM parts are designed to be inexpensive to produce, but they're also designed to be extremely durable and reliable in real-world use. Aftermarket simply doesn't have the resources to do this to anything like the same degree. They don't *need* to either. I have seen structural failures of aftermarket suspension components which resulted in track incidents (nothing too bad beyond minor bodywork), the supplier's response was along the lines of "It's a *race* part, have to change them out as now it's wear item". When I asked about inspection methods and intervals and mean time between failure data, crickets... Aftermarket companies don't face the same level of responsibility and liability as manufacturers do when critical components fail. And they too are in it to make money. They don't have to invest in structural analysis and durability testing so they don't.

ZDan: how me not wanting lowering for daily driving makes that i never go to track? Last i checked, lowering is not mandatory requirement for track admitance . Even though most of mileage happens at daily driving, 3/4ths of tire wear for me happens on track. And for that i need at least -3 front and more then 2 rear, or otherwise it's mostly tire outside, that gets worn.
As for zero analysis .. tell that to eg. Velox/verus, that their design process using FEA software or how they tested their LCAs on durometer rig for eg. 50K bend cycles is "zero". Or many well known aftermarket shops, that make parts for racing .. often designing them stronger then OEM ones exactly because of intended use/abuse. Again, velox is nice example with his stronger clutch forks, when stock easily broke with higher rated aftermarket clutches. Yes, there is lot of crap in aftermarket too, but it's wrong to put OEM as something best/better then anything else, mixing all aftermarket stuff in one bag.

[Decep]

Originally Posted by ZDan

A fairly wide range is acceptable and usable in my experience, for whatever the intended usage.

-2.5 is IMO at the upper end of streetable, particularly if car does track work as well. But even street-only, camber wear isn't *that* bad as long as toe is kept minimized. Lowered a more modest 0.8" would probably put rear camber closer to -2, which is no prob for street only usage.


Yeah that's a bit wonky. Honestly I'd try loosening subframe attachment bolts and shifting the whole unit to one side to make left/right alignment more symmetrical.

Thats how mine was too, more than a degree off on one side compared to the other. SPC lca's fixed it.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by churchx

ZDan: how me not wanting lowering for daily driving makes that i never go to track?

Who ever said you never go to the track?

Last i checked, lowering is not mandatory requirement for track admitance .

Neither are LCAs.

Even though most of mileage happens at daily driving, 3/4ths of tire wear for me happens on track. And for that i need at least -3 front and more then 2 rear, or otherwise it's mostly tire outside, that gets worn.

Not the end of the world...

But yeah, in your specific case it's useful to get another degree or so of negative rear camber vs. the -1° plus/minus stock. Still less important than getting a lot more than stock 0° camber up front!

Yes, there is lot of crap in aftermarket too, but it's wrong to put OEM as something best/better then anything else, mixing all aftermarket stuff in one bag.

True enough. But 50k load cycles of a test article pales in comparison to the durability testing done by OEM manufacturers...

Anyway, I stand by my point that for most people, adjustable rear LCAs are not necessary. Most people who regularly track these cars are lowered to some degree, and will be in the -2 to -2.5 degree range which is a decent place to be.
Tracked stock-height car, OK, it makes some sense.
Or if a car is as asymmetrical as finch or decep, yeah, I'd wanna correct that...

For me, I don't need it. Neither did my competitor in time trials, he removed his to get rid of a classification point so he can run lighter-weight or do another mod instead. We were tenths apart at NHMS before he got rid of them, tenths apart at Palmer after.

As someone mentioned, YMMV...

[DarkSideFRS]

anyone know the OE alignment specs for the RS1? i found the one for the regular frs, but nothing on the RS1 or TRD spring..

[churchx]

If RS1 is not lowered, should be same. If lowered (which probably the case with TRD springs), negative camber probably will increase due change in suspension geometry, but then again i haven't seen listed any "OE alignment specs" for any springs (then again, for coilovers too). I guess user should know what one gets, for what reasons, and how to change if not to one's liking.

[DarkSideFRS]

Originally Posted by churchx

If RS1 is not lowered, should be same. If lowered (which probably the case with TRD springs), negative camber probably will increase due change in suspension geometry, but then again i haven't seen listed any "OE alignment specs" for any springs (then again, for coilovers too). I guess user should know what one gets, for what reasons, and how to change if not to one's liking.

Well, the rs1 comes with the trd spring installed from the factory. I would assume there should be some "OE" alignment spec since it was a factory option.