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

[FR-S Matt]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

yep, 1/16 per side sounds bout right

make sure you find a good alignment place though, one that lets you sit in the car, etc.

Yeah, I definitely plan on it. Thanks for the guidance. I do want straight line stability for sure.

[ZDan]

I'm a big fan of having a decent amount of camber even for 100% street usage. IMO -1 degrees should be a minimum, and you can run as much as -2.5 without hurting tire life much. You *will* get "camber wear" on the inside of the innermost tread blocks, but if toe is kept minimal it's not a big deal.

Regarding toe, for me zero toe is far preferable to too much toe. I run zero to ~0.1 degrees toe in all around on the FD RX-7. On the S2000, ~0.15-0.25 degrees total (1/16" to 3/32" total) rear toe, zero front.
The wonkiest handling I've ever experienced was with inadvertently having too much rear toe (S2000 and 240Z). In my experience, no issues with near-zero rear toe.

Toe is most definitely more critical as far as tire wear goes. The difference between reasonable toe (0.3 degrees total max IMO) and too much (say, 0.6 degrees, which is actually within spec on the AP1 S2000) is more than a factor of 2x on tire wear! Weirdly, some people will accept this, but not any trace of "camber wear", even though the camber buys you a ton of lateral grip without costing you much in terms of wear.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by FR-S Matt

Question about camber. About to install my LCA's this weekend and I've got some Whiteline camber bolts for the front to go with the OEM Subaru crash bolts. How much negative can I run before I start seeing extensive tire wear? Trying to make my tires last their duration while still having a nice look to the car and hopefully a little increase to handling with negative camber. I'm trying to get a little negative camber both front and back so my +38 offset 18X9.5 RPF1's don't poke too much. I've read a little bit and seen others say stay below -2 degrees, otherwise tire wear begins to take effect. My rears actually look good with the stock LCA right now with a good amount of negative camber, but nothing major. The fronts on the other hand are most likely at 0 camber.

Is -1.5 front/rear a bad number to aim for? Will I suffer any effects from having the same camber on both sections or should I aim for a little more/less specifically on the front or back?

Definitely want 0 toe all around hence why I got the SPC LCA's with the toe kit. I figure I'll need to get it aligned again after changing the camber.

While you'll always get a little bit of camber wear, it won't really become a concern unless you're driving like a granny exclusively, with a decent amount of camber (-3). Toe is what really chews through tires.

You'll be just fine at -1.5 front/rear, but may want to consider slightly more in the rear for more grip under cornering.

0 Toe will be fine all around, although it'll make the car slightly easier to "break loose" in the corners; this is where more negative rear camber will assist. Having a *very* slight amount of toe-in will help the car "go straight".

For reference, the BRZ comes with 0 to 1/16" total toe-in in the rear (sample size of about 25 cars)

Also, for what it's worth, I prefer about 3/32" to 5/32" total rear toe-in on my s2k, depending on the setup, whereas I prefer 0 rear toe on the FR-S/BRZ. As always, ymmv, and alignment IS subjective.

[FR-S Matt]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

While you'll always get a little bit of camber wear, it won't really become a concern unless you're driving like a granny exclusively, with a decent amount of camber (-3). Toe is what really chews through tires.

You'll be just fine at -1.5 front/rear, but may want to consider slightly more in the rear for more grip under cornering.

0 Toe will be fine all around, although it'll make the car slightly easier to "break loose" in the corners; this is where more negative rear camber will assist.

For reference, the BRZ comes with 0 to 1/16" total toe-in in the rear (sample size of about 25 cars)

That's what I'll shoot for when I make my adjustments. Thanks!

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by brzadmir

I know to each of their own but, take a stock BRZ; what would be your to do mods to create an ultimate handling BRZ?

That's very subjective... is this a street car or a race car?

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I'm a big fan of having a decent amount of camber even for 100% street usage. IMO -1 degrees should be a minimum, and you can run as much as -2.5 without hurting tire life much. You *will* get "camber wear" on the inside of the innermost tread blocks, but if toe is kept minimal it's not a big deal.

BMW agrees with you 100%.

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by brzadmir

I know to each of their own but, take a stock BRZ; what would be your to do mods to create an ultimate handling BRZ?

It really depends...street car? racecar? mix of both? auto-x?

Hell, racecars will have very different set-ups just for different tracks.

Tire choice first. Then the rest can be built around that (and budget).

- Andy

[solidONE]

Preload adjustment. I notice that the vast majority of coilover set ups come with a preload adjuster with which the height is also adjusted. This is not ideal. I know they make up for it in most instances with a helper spring to prevent the mains spring from flopping around at full extension/droop. Why is independent preload adjustment so neglected with automotive performance suspensions?

Here's the Ohlins R&T with the snazziest strut attachments I've seen. Preload is independent to height adjustment. Beautiful!


Here's the top end KW clubsport 3-ways. same one used in Evasive's Pikes Peak car. notice there are no separate adjusters for height on the strut body. Only preload. Looks like the rear do offer some length adjustment, but very minimal.


Even the entry level coilover makers include independent height adjustment.

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I'm not so sure about shunning the idiots. It's hard to distinguish them from misguided and underinformed people that may be new to the hobby. Since the twins are going to be 'My First Sportscar *TM) for a lot of people, there is a chance to hook them on the reality of good dynamics if they can be intrigued and/or educated early enough. There is a chance to grow the community's knowledge base, instead of just sending them off, tail between their legs to find acceptance in the easy lifestyle of parking your car to look cool.

However it would take some biblical level of patience to put up with the mind numbing repeating questions.

I couldn't do it.

I think it's good that threads like these are right here in the middle of the suspension forum. Newer people might stumble across them and learn a thing or two. Plus they can ask questions...they might be less willing to venture into a different section of the site that has only more knowledgeable people. I like having things mixed so people are exposed to the advanced stuff, even if it's by accident! And then we can all expose the BS.

I'm very glad that the wheel/tire forum is separate so that every other thread isn't a "will it fit" thing.

- Andy

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by ultra

There point I was trying to make is simply that there's always going to be many different segments in the market for aftermarket suspension for this car.

Instead of nitpicking why doesn't somebody with a little knowledge on the subject do up an infographic which plots brands/models/types of suspension packages against performance potential/usage type (lowering, fast street, light track, light competition, professional competition) on one axis, versus price on the other?

Could make for some interesting and possibly heated discussion between folks who actually care about such things while making things pretty simple for the lazy types out there.

Whoever makes that will inevitably piss a lot of people off.

- Andy

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by solidONE

Preload adjustment. I notice that the vast majority of coilover set ups come with a preload adjuster with which the height is also adjusted. This is not ideal. I know they make up for it in most instances with a helper spring to prevent the mains spring from flopping around at full extension/droop. Why is independent preload adjustment so neglected with automotive performance suspensions?

Even the entry level coilover makers include independent height adjustment.

Oooooooh here we go.

One of the most overrated and best marketed "features" on coilovers today. Seriously.

1. The reason that entry level coilovers include independent height adjustment is cost. That's it. They'll use identical damper inserts for multiple platforms and simply thread on different lower mounts and camber plates. Boom, they have a new application (with essentially no R&D). I've seen replacement damper inserts sent to a customer labeled "STI/WRX/EVO/Legacy" for a popular brand. Yeah, that's a big reason why they're cheap.

2. Motorsport level dampers generally don't have independent height adjustment because the dampers are already shorter. They're designed that way from the start to run at lowered ride heights and still have bump travel. You get a helper spring so you're not preloading the main and you can keep the springs seated at full droop.

3. Speaking of droop, it's can be nice to have. With independent ride height adjustment and no helpers, your droop travel is essentially just how much the main springs are compressed at normal ride height. With helpers, you can get a lot more.

4. As for bump travel...my experience is that MOST of the time, a cheapo coilover with independent height adjustment will have less bump travel at all but extreme drops compared to a well designed single height adjustable coilovers. This is a gross generalization, but I'm sticking to it.

Yes independent ride height can be a good thing and some good coilovers have it (Ohlins, TEIN SRC). But a lot of good mid-level and motorsport level coilovers don't. I hate seeing people say it's a "must have" feature when 95% of the time it's a cost saving measure marketed really well.

- Andy

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

Oooooooh here we go.

One of the most overrated and best marketed "features" on coilovers today. Seriously.

1. The reason that entry level coilovers include independent height adjustment is cost. That's it. They'll use identical damper inserts for multiple platforms and simply thread on different lower mounts and camber plates. Boom, they have a new application (with essentially no R&D). I've seen replacement damper inserts sent to a customer labeled "STI/WRX/EVO/Legacy" for a popular brand. Yeah, that's a big reason why they're cheap.

2. Motorsport level dampers generally don't have independent height adjustment because the dampers are already shorter. They're designed that way from the start to run at lowered ride heights and still have bump travel. You get a helper spring so you're not preloading the main and you can keep the springs seated at full droop.

3. Speaking of droop, it's can be nice to have. With independent ride height adjustment and no helpers, your droop travel is essentially just how much the main springs are compressed at normal ride height. With helpers, you can get a lot more.

4. As for bump travel...my experience is that MOST of the time, a cheapo coilover with independent height adjustment will have less bump travel at all but extreme drops compared to a well designed single height adjustable coilovers. This is a gross generalization, but I'm sticking to it.

Yes independent ride height can be a good thing and some good coilovers have it (Ohlins, TEIN SRC). But a lot of good mid-level and motorsport level coilovers don't. I hate seeing people say it's a "must have" feature when 95% of the time it's a cost saving measure marketed really well.

- Andy

Awesome! Thank you, Andy. I hadn't considered #3 in your explanation for some reason. I've actually worked on a "hellastanced" FR-S recently and while I had it on the lift (was a bitch to even get in on the lift) I noticed that at full droop the lower control arms were all still angled upwards. They had the same stance brand coils installed on their car as the once pictured in my earlier post. I cannot imagine how that car would behave running over crests at speed. Probably catch some air each time then bottom out.

[MyRx]

Can higher priced coilovers compensate the lack of other equipment ie LCAs, camber kits, etc? Same coilovers, can they be manipulated to 'dial in' rear differences from OEM configurations? I ask b/c I recently got a 'sit-in-car-alignment' with a forum member's rec settings. Afterwards, car has never felt better - 100% improvement over stock. When I returned to the shop, the findings were reviewed, .5 degree diff in rear cambers were apparent, diff springs height/rest. Suggestions were reviewed. Now I ask, saving $ where I can, high priced COs or bits n pieces to achieve a good balance?

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by MyRx

Can higher priced coilovers compensate the lack of other equipment ie LCAs, camber kits, etc? Same coilovers, can they be manipulated to 'dial in' rear differences from OEM configurations? I ask b/c I recently got a 'sit-in-car-alignment' with a forum member's rec settings. Afterwards, car has never felt better - 100% improvement over stock. When I returned to the shop, the findings were reviewed, .5 degree diff in rear cambers were apparent, diff springs height/rest. Suggestions were reviewed. Now I ask, saving $ where I can, high priced COs or bits n pieces to achieve a good balance?

erm..

compensante is the wrong word

LCA's etc (which really just means bushing upgrades) improve response (due to being stiffer) and reduce alignment deflection (again, due to being stiffer)

for argumetns sake, an overgeneralization is that these don't make the car faster, they just make it easier for you to drive at the limit, make your driving experience crisp, and improve predictability


you can't compensate for this with "coilovers", which serve a completly different function.