Why Adjust Camber?

[NLSP]

Originally Posted by Cole

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.

[churchx]

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.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by PandaSPUR

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.

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

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by churchx

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.

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.

[churchx]

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.

[yelsew]

Originally Posted by Gforce

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.

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.

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by MatthewFRS

What would the benefits be of adjusting camber even if it's not that much?

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

Duhhh

[DarkSunrise]

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.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by churchx

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

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

Duhhh

Do you approve of me yet Dad?

[churchx]

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".

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by churchx

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.

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.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by yelsew

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.

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.

[churchx]

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.

[yelsew]

Originally Posted by Gforce

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.

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.