Going in for an alignment

[B-R-Z]

As long as I won't see any bad tire wear from negative camber then I won't mind maxing (negative) it out with the camber bolts. If there's no negative affects of doing it then why not? It'll be there when you want it (spirited weekend cruises\off-ramps etc), and when you don't need it then no big deal.. Right?

[speargunsandracecars]

Just got my BRZ aligned today. I had Whiteline camber bolts for the front. The tech was able to get them at -1.0 up front with no load. 0 toe all around. I imagine with the wheels on the ground, a full tank of gas, and a little more driving, there may be -0.1 or so camber gain on the front. My stock rear camber was -1.4 with 1/3 of gas. The stock toe alignment was a little out of whack, which would explain the tendency to veer slightly to the right. It feels a little more stable now, and no longer veers slightly to the right.

I'm surprised at the lack of caster adjustment. I wish I could max the caster on this car.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by speargunsandracecars

Just got my BRZ aligned today. I had Whiteline camber bolts for the front. The tech was able to get them at -1.0 up front with no load. 0 toe all around. I imagine with the wheels on the ground, a full tank of gas, and a little more driving, there may be -0.1 or so camber gain on the front. My stock rear camber was -1.4 with 1/3 of gas. The stock toe alignment was a little out of whack, which would explain the tendency to veer slightly to the right. It feels a little more stable now, and no longer veers slightly to the right.

I'm surprised at the lack of caster adjustment. I wish I could max the caster on this car.

Top hats like Raceseng and Vorshlagg allow ft caster adjustment up to 7-7.5 degrees. However now we're speaking of coil over applications.

[samfrs]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Top hats like Raceseng and Vorshlagg allow ft caster adjustment up to 7-7.5 degrees. However now we're speaking of coil over applications.

Just curious Can you explain more about caster adjustment? Which is good or bad?

[speargunsandracecars]

Caster is essentially the angle created by the steering's pivot point from the front to back of the vehicle. It's hard to visualize on a car... Easier way to visualize it is in the form of motorcycles. Bikes have a rake angle, which is caster. Aggressive(low rake angle) on bikes cause it to turn quickly, at the expense of stability. Normally found on sport bikes. While less aggressive rake(higher angles) cause it to turn slower and you'd need more force to get the bike to turn, but it's much more stable. Usually found on cruisers and such.

The same principles work on cars. A high caster makes the car more inclined to remain in a straight line. That also means that the your steering wheel is more prone to self-centering. It also causes you to use more force to get the car to turn, and it's also not as quick to turn. A lower caster is exactly the opposite of this. The car is more inclined to move around more, self-centering isn't as prominent, it's quicker turning, you use less force to get the car to move, and you'd need to have more steering input to get the car to remain straight.

Generally speaking, people with cars that they track without power steering prefer low caster(3-4 degrees) since steering effort is decreased. While most people with cars with power steering prefer to have higher caster, since power steering really amplifies the effects of low caster. In general though, a typical DD or weekend warrior would prefer to maximize their caster. It makes the car feel more stable at any speed or while cornering.

Keep in mind that caster has very little effect on how much maximum mechanical grip your car will have. A low caster car and a high caster car set up exactly the same way will still have the same amount of mechanical grip. It just changes the 'feel' of the vehicle.

One more thing, high caster also introduces some negative camber while cornering, but it's so small that it's almost insignificant.

[Turbo95eg6]

Was quoted 80 bucks for alignment, is that pretty standard? Sounds pricey to me.

[ZionsWrath]

75-100 is pretty standard rate. If you have aftermarket afjustments expect to pay by the hour.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by 2point0

I politely disagree, but then again it depends on the driver. I have a long commute but I also love taking corners and going on mountain runs. I added a set of camber bolts and am right around -1 degrees in front and just that change was a huge improvement when turning, even on stock suspension (now I'm on RCE Yellows...even better!). I don't chalk my tires or anything but I would like to max out the bolts at some point and note the changes.

I would love to see quantitative proof that it actually improved anything in those situations. I'm running whiteline bolts maxed out and still don't have enough camber up front (based on wear onto the shoulders, even with ~38psi cold with track/autoslalom use), but for true daily driving I would much rather be back on the stock alignment. The steering is too light on center for my taste now, and it tramlines WAY worse than on the stock alignment.

You want the least amount of camber as possible to keep the contact patch flat for your cornering needs. Running more negative camber than you need is just as detrimental to grip as running not enough, in both cases you aren't utilizing the full tire, it just changes which side you're wearing more. You also get less grip for braking (marginally less, but still less) as you add more negative camber.

All that said, for performance driving these cars NEED camber up front, but for a car that just putts around town the OEM alignment is what you want.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by wparsons

You want the least amount of camber as possible to keep the contact patch flat for your cornering needs. Running more negative camber than you need is just as detrimental to grip as running not enough, in both cases you aren't utilizing the full tire, it just changes which side you're wearing more.

True, but the point of diminishing returns on camber is in the neighborhood of 3.5 degrees. For practical purposes on this car, you pretty much want to run as much as you can get.

All that said, for performance driving these cars NEED camber up front, but for a car that just putts around town the OEM alignment is what you want.

Hate to hear "OEM" or "factory" or "stock alignment". Almost meaningless. Factory spec is always a broad range and sometimes allows for *positive* camber which is beyond stupid. Some cars' OEM range also allows for a lot of rear toe, which kills tires *and* handling (twitchy in a straight line, but resists turning into corners).

On these cars, for best combination of handling and tire life, you'll want to maximize camber and minimize toe. Even 2.5 degrees of camber won't impact tire life more than about 10-15%. -1 to -2 is nothing on tire wear, but will substantially improve handling vs. near zero (which is what you have up front stock).

[2point0]

Originally Posted by wparsons

All that said, for performance driving these cars NEED camber up front, but for a car that just putts around town the OEM alignment is what you want.

I see what you mean, and for anyone who has no intention of pushing the car, alignments are just a normal maintenance procedure. I like to make it lean.

I can't really give any proof about the improvements the negative camber gave me, but I wouldn't go back. There was an increase in tramlining, but that is also from the wider, stickier tires. At this point, I don't even notice it. I think the solid steering rack bushings helped with this, though. The tires are less likely to move around from slop.

[B-R-Z]

I got it done today, only one wheel was in the red (toe). I didn't use the camber bolts since I just DD tons of highway miles.

Sorry about the crappy pic