Why Adjust Camber?
 

Hey guys, so I want go get the TEIN STREET BASIS Z Coils, but a friend is telling me to get the TEIN FLEX Z Coils because you can adjust camber.

I know what camber is, but would it really be a big deal to be able to adjust camber? What would the benefits be of adjusting camber even if it's not that much?

Do you want to understeer into a wall on the track or would you rather go around the corner instead?

I don't under steer into a wall on stock suspension… lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Cole was hinting at. Adjustability with camber is good if you want to control understeer. Also it can help with uneven tire wear. When you drive aggressively with stock camber settings, you will notice that the shoulder see of the tire wears faster than the rest. If there's another incentive to get the flex z over the basis it would be that the flex z has much better dampening and therefore will ride much better.

+1 for tire wear on track. I was destroying the outside of tires even with -2.0 degrees. Now running -3.0 and it's a lot better. Probably need -3.5, but it is a daily driver!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about if it's just a daily with no track use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Being told the answer is one thing, knowing why is another.

Camber plates are added complication, if you're not looking to improve handling performance, KISS: keep it simple stupid

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fvJMxErfms"]MacPherson Strut - Explained - YouTube[/ame]

Extra negative camber helps the car handle a little bit better. It also improves grip to a point. More camber does not necessarily mean more grip and better handling- it's all about enough camber. Too much will mean worse handling and less grip. More camber on a street car will also shorten the lifespan of your tires.

On a street car, there are lots of ways to change the balance of the car. At stock, this car is very neutral and has very little understeer. Camber is one way to change that balance. Know what you're fixing before you fix it.

It's really not accurate to talk about under/oversteer as a thing because it happens for different reasons in different phases of the corner. There's corner entry balance, balance at the apex and track out balance. Camber can affect any phase of the corner, but front and rear camber have to be considered.

If you get adjustable coilovers and you don't know anything about this stuff, you will only hurt your car's handling. Most people with adjustable suspensions think they know about it and have them dialed in very wrong. The wheel rate and damper settings have a huge effect on handling too.

Your right foot has a lot more effect on your car's balance however. Practice that.

Camber is not well understood. The idea is to set camber so that the contact patch is evenly pressured when the suspension is at the most extreme angle expected for the track you're on.

For road use you want camber set so that in normal cornering the contact patch is flat and evenly loaded across the tread.

Too much negative camber overheats the inside tread rib and reduces total grip.

For these cars 1-2 degrees negative is the maximum camber you want at the rear.

For front camber zero or close to it is best for street use. The chassis already exhibits oversteer under drop throttle or power on so you do not need much camber if any at the front unless you are tracking the car.

For good illustration look at F1 cars. They run less front camber under 2017 rules than they did before the front tires were allowed to be so wide and very litle rear camber.

It is better to have a adjustment than regreting that you don't later.
Camber/Dampening can give you better performance and ride quality.

And why again F1 argument is being brought up. :/
Why not bring up alignment settings of monster trucks? They should be as applicable then F1's.
And 1-2 deg neg. camber rear, zero camber front for street? Oh, yes, of course there will be a bit oversteer due mass transfer from lift off & it's not hard to get power oversteer with stock low-grip tires, but it's driver inputs induced behaviour, car is understeer-ish with stock zero camber all around, why make it much more understeery than it is? Maybe rather worth be more mindful how one drives then simply mash up accelerator everywhere and steer with .. ehemm, alignment to compensate wrong control inputs.

Because all the cool kids are doing it. KISS Simple. lol

Came here to say this ^

Going cheap in general for coilovers will probably lead to regret later. I'd spend a little more now. Even if you dont end up using the adjustments now, you might want it later for different reasons.

Also, keep in mind you cannot adjust camber in the rear without aftermarket LCAs.

Nope. Toe will do more damage than camber

Edit: You also mention this car being neutral stock. Wrong again, push the car and it will understeer.

+1 on this.

Once you've had a taste of extra negative camber, you'll never want to go back to stock alignment.

NLSP: .. if taste of it on track. Unless one drives like hoon on public roads, i doubt one will often seen high side-Gs / understeering issues when pushed to limits while simply daily driving. Except maybe in very low-grip situations like on ice/snow, but good winter tires will help much more there, with extra camber almost not matter.

I think more people have problems with cheap camber plates than cheap dampers and springs...

Not an F1 argument, just an illustration that more camber isn't necessarily better. Wider tires need less camber. Basically, the stiffer your suspension the more static camber you can generally benefit from. Street suspension moves around a lot compared to competition suspension so camber needs to be carefully considered.

The object of static camber settings is to optimize contact patch pressure (and thus tread temperature) for the driving you intend to do. Camber is very track specific. For road use less camber will be better than for track use. Wide tires need less camber. Stiff suspension can tolerate more static camber because dynamic camber doesn't vary as much.

For road use rear camber of about 1.5 degrees and front camber of about zero is probably ideal.

I don't get how making car understeer-ish is ideal. Way more understeery then even stock. But to each his own i guess, it's your car.

You are missing one minor thing. The front and rear camber curves of this car are very different. The rear WILL gain a lot of negative camber under compression, but the front suspension is a different story. Even on stock suspension with larger amounts of movement, the front camber gain under compression is much smaller than the rear. So even on stock suspension (which the op is not going to be using) some static camber in the front is a great benefit to grip.

Because the more camber you have, the more followers and girls you'll get.

Duhhh

If you're unhappy with the understeer or are wearing out or blueing the outer edges of your front tires, then you want more negative camber up front.

If not, then no need. Typically unless you're doing track/autox, it's not necessary.

With regards to camber settings, more even tire wear and predictable handling dynamics in emergency situations with untrained drivers.

Macpherson strut is probably the most common front suspension now, yet I'd bet 99.9% of cars come with near zero camber and lots and lots of understeer.


Do you approve of me yet Dad?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...1bd3cd19c6.jpg

strat61caster: it already IS understeering with even zero camber at all corners of stock alignment (indeed, like most new cars, for safety). Question was - why even more understeer then that is safer? So that it becomes unsafe but other way around then too tail-happy and "you see tree that kills you" (c) R.Hammond ?
Untrained ones shouldn't switch off electronic SC instead of dealing in weird alignment, "because F1".

The more power you have the more understeer you need.

For a graphic example check out old photos of sedan/GT racing from the 70's when they were all rwd. Front roll stiffness was so high the cars routinely lifted the inside front wheel in hard corners, just as fwd racers lift a rear wheel and for the same reason.

Chassis set up requires that you consider how much work each contact patch will be asked to do and tune the chassis to get the most total grip available.

You will note that F1 cars understeer heavily until they put their massive power down.

On the contrary, I am not missing that at all. In street driving you almost never get large suspension movements.

The main benefit of lowering springs is not the tiny difference in CG height but the reduction in suspension travel you get. You do not want lowering springs for street driving.

With proper tires these little cars will pull close to 1g on stock springs and roll bars. If you are routinely pulling 1g on the street you will eventually be arrested and your car impounded, assuming you are an excellent driver. Otherwise a tow truck is in your future.

Gforce: your power argument/reasoning to dial in more understeer is about as valid as ill-advise to go for staggered tire setup for these cars if fitted with forced induction. Though i'm somewhat suspecting that you are trolling.

You are definitely correct, that in a strictly street environment, we are not asking the same of the suspension travel and contact patch. In the discussion, it seems many of us lost the original context.

Stock isn't zero in the rear. Mine was 0F/-1R from the factory. A little is put in the rear for safety reasons.

You will need to explain this to be understood.

Staggered tire sizes are a just fashion statement for street cars.

Even F1 has gone back to a less staggered setup for 2016/17, more like 60's formula cars which did run on street tires.

The more drive you try and put through the rear axle the more understeer you need to allow the car yo out the power to the road. This is pretty simple and well understood chassis physics.

McPherson strut front suspension usually has around zero camber. If the chassis is fwd then you often see more negative camber at the front.

For example, my 1991 Alfa Romeo 164 has negative 2.4 degrees front camber and negative 0.5 degrees rear camber. My 97 SAAB Aero has zero degrees front camber although up to one degree negative front camber is acceptable. Rear camber is zero because the SAAB uses a beam axle.

The BRZ has steeply angled front struts. There is some negative camber gain at the front as a result. The main reason for the angled struts was styling though.

Front strut camber gain depends a great deal on the angle if the front LCA at static ride height. Lowering the car moves the front strut towards negative camber.

The BRZ has static negative rear camber because the original chassis is awd. The BRZ fits Impreza rear suspension almost unaltered from the little sedan except for stiffer shorter springs.

Why exactly was I quoted?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Car suspension/balance/braking/nannies can be engineered/designed about specific setup. Be it staggered or not. 350Z, MR2 were designed with staggered setup. It's not JUST fashion statement. Ours - around squared setup, like most of cars.
To keep handling/balance right for cases with more power then stock, one proportionally rises grips on both ends. Be it fitting wider tires both front & rear, be it doing aero / suspension changes to increase grip on both ends proportionally. Or doing combination of them to compensate with one another, but keeping balance/bias somewhat close to OE, be it with staggered or of square.
NOT thoughtlessly or for stupid bling reasons or due some upmarket cars engineered with completely different suspension & balance in mind have some some single component done this way, "so it must be better". Everything works as system. Systems often are different, most often then not blind copy component of one into different is mistake that needs to be workarounded with changes/upgrades to other components. Everything is possible, but i don't get why tripling spendings to fix mistake is wiser then not doing it in first place.
There are competent people from suspension shops on this forum providing lot of valuable info/suspension tuning advises for these cars. There are many track day junkies that have tried different setups and reported their experiences. There is lot of good info to read in internet if one searches. But you keep bringing up completely different cars with different suspension & contradicting everything those people say & had experienced.
And i don't get why you need to tune grip balance so that it's close to neutral only under full gas and make it stupidly understeer in all the other cases and then call it ideal and advising it to others not driving wrong. If you are not providing right driver inputs you need to fix your driving, not tune suspension around it and calling it according "well understood chassis physics". Understeer/oversteer balance is not judged under 100% acceleration in turn, so no need to change bias due more power. Upping overall grip? Possibly. Changing bias? No.
You are free to make your car worse for sake of your beliefs/weird driving style and "because F1". But please, don't advise that to others.

As for F1- we don't have pushrod suspension, so don't compare.

As for all this talk about "oversteer and "understeer" is useless. There's corner entry oversteer, mid-corner oversteer and track out oversteer and each is caused by something different. Know what you are trying to fix before you make any adjustment.

If you want to understand car balance, pick up Carroll Smith's Engineer To Win and Tune To Win and ignore internet threads. There's so much uninformed opinion here it's kind of frustrating to read. Real professionally written books are good for learning how cars work.

Only because your quoted bit referred back to another quote talking about front camber only. Quotes in quotes in posts are not quoted.

The topic of zero camber at the front struts only was expanded to talk about zero camber at all four wheels.

Push or pull rod (F1 uses both but mostly pull rods these days, they can be made lighter) makes no difference to geometry.

Any skilled driver not only knows about understeer and oversteer and how it all works but ought to know.

All road cars are sold by manufacturers with understeering chassis. At the most basic level all cars steered by the front wheels must understeer to initiate the turn.

Most expert drivers are referring to the tendency of the chassis in a bend when you apply power, does the chassis oversteer or continue to understeer. Given enough power all rwd chassis will oversteer under power. AWD and fwd will always continue to understeer as more power is applied. An exception to this is provided by part time computer controlled awd which can now end all front drive if the computer is programmed to do so which the system sold by ZF to various makers does. Similar systems are now made by companies such as GKN for fwd systems with part time awd adding drive to the rear wheels only as needed. The Ford Focus RS uses this system in reverse to allow the awd chassis to actually drift, albeit completely controlled by the computer.