CSG and RCE tag-team suspension Q&A thread! Ask us anything!

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Calum

I keep thinking about the rear camber gain vs the front and wondering if I should attempt to match them. I'm not disagreeing with you, at all. More I'm wondering what's more important matching camber to roll, or camber curves front and rear as I doubt either is going to be possible in the real world. My thinking is that matching camber to roll will give the best ultimate grip and use of the tire patch, while matching front and rear will be the most predictable allowing the driver to better utilize what grip is available. I guess it would come down to the driver.

Along those lines, how does lengthening the RLCA or shortening the RUCA effect the rear camber curve? And as was asked by @wootwoot is it better the adjust the rear camber via the upper or lower?

I don't think it would be unpredictable, camber is only one part of the tire's efficiency and the change is sort of gradual through the suspension's travel. It would just be another balance adjustment. If they are both matched perfectly to roll they both produce max grip (from camber). If they gain/lose differently the car's grip balance will change front:back as the car rolls.

But, I guess, as the suspension compresses is probably a better thing to think about. Not just roll. Since weight transfers all over the place in a corner depending on entry, steady state and exit, the camber is also affected by front:rear transfer. So camber curve tuning probably has a shit ton of variables/situations to consider.

So, um, compromises and stuff...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dimman

But the geometry changes whether it gains or loses. Which strut/LCA proportions are more representative of actual?

Even in your second case, with the more vertical and longer strut and shorter LCA, camber still increases above horizontal. Draw a circular arc from P1 to P2 to P3, you'll continue to gain strut angle and camber from P2 up to about P2.5

The two drawings are both extremes, 1st one has a 22degree strut angle, which is excessive, and the strut is quite short relative to the LCA length. 2nd one has a ~10degree strut angle, a bit on the low side, and a long strut relative to LCA length.

But in both cases, you have to go *well* above LCA horizontal before you begin to lose camber.

[Dimman]

Learning is fun!

[Calum]

So, adjusting camber from the top of the strut will put things in a spot of the curve that gives more camber gain for the same bump. But adjusting camber from the bottom of the strut gives less camber gain. How noticeable of a difference would this be?

[7thgear]

anyone have any inside info if Bilstein is gonna be making damper inserts or full struts for our cars?

[7thgear]

Because we have castor, during cornering the wheel begins torate on 3 axis, all of a sudden things like scrub radius and camber changes dueto castor start to play an effect.



I used to be big into the whole MacPherson strut thing ofkeeping the a-arms in check but recently I’ve been feeling that Castor could bethe saving buddy we’ve all ignored.



And mayhaps with proper castor, a low cars (WITH PROPERsuspension travel/spring/rebound setup) will end up controlled and fast on theactual road.

[OICU812]

Interesting points on caster. So that said camber plates like Vorahlagg that add a full extra degree of caster by design would be according to all that's discussed here is a better thing? And so I understand this by adding more caster one should run less camber with a plate that adds more caster or am I understanding some of this wrong?

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Interesting points on caster. So that said camber plates like Vorahlagg that add a full extra degree of caster by design would be according to all that's discussed here is a better thing? And so I understand this by adding more caster one should run less camber with a plate that adds more caster or am I understanding some of this wrong?

to a point




If your roll stiffeness is too much, then you’ll end up sacrificingcontact patch due to the wheel tilting on itself too much



So.. it’s all about balance.



But I think for the stock setup I think it’s worthexploring.

[Dezoris]

Whats the deal with resetting the stability control after lowering. It seems to not working right, is there a way to reset it?

[Racecomp Engineering]

Hey all,

Back from my vacation. So glad to see this thread taking off! Really awesome discussion going on here. I'll be back into it soon.

- Andy

[RYU]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

Hey all,

Back from my vacation. So glad to see this thread taking off! Really awesome discussion going on here. I'll be back into it soon.

- Andy

Andy,

I'm selfishly asking you to take my wild idea into consideration please! Would love to hear your thoughts. PM me if you'd like.

It's a few pages back on this thread regarding the use of stock shocks with the "lowered" LCAs coupled with a corresponding front spring/damper solution.

Thanks!
btw.. Welcome back!

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by RYU

Andy,

I'm selfishly asking you to take my wild idea into consideration please! Would love to hear your thoughts. PM me if you'd like.

It's a few pages back on this thread regarding the use of stock shocks with the "lowered" LCAs coupled with a corresponding front spring/damper solution.

Thanks!
btw.. Welcome back!

thanks! I'll start digging through what I missed in this thread a little tonight and tomorrow.

- Andy

[mike156]

I always see talk of roll height and control arm angles and how they should control ride height. The idea that a car that is to low handles terribly because of these issue I personally think is a bad assessment. Most of those cars handle poorly because they are out of bump travel.

This is my opinion of focus:

1. Adequate suspension travel (shock travel and joint articulation)
2. Proper spring bias
3. Eliminate bumpsteer
4. Lower cog
5. Worry about geometry changes

Lowering the car obviously takes care of #4 and I'm saying that for all out performance, COG is likey more important then suspension arm geometry. The limit here being how low can you really get away with on a given track.

For a more general approach, going too low is obviously going to make the car difficult to drive anywhere. This also requires spring rates that will overwork a street tires grip capacity. At that point, improving geometery will provide gains in performance. This really means, start at the tires and work backwards on what the suspension needs to be to take best advantage of the tires selected.

[wootwoot]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

I think the upper control arm is the best place to adjust camber in the rear. Changing the length of the lower control arm can hinder suspention performance.... At least that is what I have gathered from around these parts. OP should have good info in this regard.

Anyone?