Installed coilover; Too much camber in the back.

[Matt Andrews]

Originally Posted by ultra

Genuinely curious how it handles at that ride height and with that camber. Nobody has really mentioned it yet so it'd be interesting to hear.

I think it depends on your application. For the track, the 2.5 deg we have in the back actually makes the tire temps pretty even on RS3's on the track. If you are managing tires to temps, this is the right range on track...

[trueno86power]

Originally Posted by Matt Andrews

I think it depends on your application. For the track, the 2.5 deg we have in the back actually makes the tire temps pretty even on RS3's on the track. If you are managing tires to temps, this is the right range on track...

Yeah I've realise that too on my car, I'm at -2.6 -2.7 and my tires temps are close to even! But for now I'm on the cheap OEM tires so I can't heat them up too much or I lose traction... Next year I'll run on Azenis so i'll be better!

So for everyone I've didn't installed the arm finally. To make a long story short, I've installed them and go to an alignement shop, they claim to be able to align these arm but that was false and they fucked up my arm ( paint and nuts! ) So they "rebuild" them and I'll just sell it.

I've align it on an other shop and the guy did a great job with the OEM arm. So I'm at -2.6 -2.7 app on the rear.


I've put it on the track and seriously it handle perfectly ! And don't forget I'm still on OEM tires. I can't push it too much because the tires are always at theirs limits but still I can have plenty of fun on the track! I'm really suprise.


Plus, the BC's are sooo great! I've put them to F 15 R 15 for the setting and it's perfect, it absorb where it need and it's stiff where it need.

On the street, yeah it's a little bit more stiff but nothing crazy still close to OEM ride.

[Keith@AIRAID]

Originally Posted by Synack

This piece alone corrects up to 1.5 degrees??

Link please?

Sent from my Nexus 7

It's actually +/-.75 degrees.

http://www.whiteline.com.au/product_..._number=KCA326

From the numbers you posted earlier these would be perfect.

[Shady195]

Holy fuck the misinformation in the start of this thread is unreal. If you don't know with a reasonable amount of certainty. Don't talk please.

[jawn]

Originally Posted by Shady195

Holy fuck the misinformation in the start of this thread is unreal. If you don't know with a reasonable amount of certainty. Don't talk please.

This thread is from 2012.

[Shady195]

Originally Posted by jawn

This thread is from 2012.

Showed up cause someone posted. Did not really pay attention

[bfrank1972]

Let's revive shall we - can anyone give a technical explanation why -2.5 degrees of rear camber is such a bad thing when it comes to handling at the track? Especially when you have that much or more front camber to balance things out?

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Let's revive shall we - can anyone give a technical explanation why -2.5 degrees of rear camber is such a bad thing when it comes to handling at the track? Especially when you have that much or more front camber to balance things out?

Getting much more than - 2* in the back starts messing with your ability to put power down. That and the lateral grip increase increases understeer. Fixing that with more camber up front again will eventually sacrifice braking performance. Suspension setup is all about balance, everyone has their own sweet spot. I prefer camber even front to back between - 1.5*and-2*,assuming a RWD chassis that is close to 50/50 weight distribution.

Sent through a series of tubes

[cjd]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Getting much more than - 2* in the back starts messing with your ability to put power down. That and the lateral grip increase increases understeer. Fixing that with more camber up front again will eventually sacrifice braking performance. Suspension setup is all about balance, everyone has their own sweet spot. I prefer camber even front to back between - 1.5*and-2*,assuming a RWD chassis that is close to 50/50 weight distribution.

Sent through a series of tubes

Preference doesn't translate to actual performance on track in this case... -3f/-2r is the typical starting point for this car, and pushing both higher isn't uncommon - the 1 degree difference seems just about right, too. Pushing front up to -3.3 might see the rear to -2.3; It's not about being RWD and even weight; it's all about the actual suspension dynamics of the platform.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by cjd

Preference doesn't translate to actual performance on track in this case... -3f/-2r is the typical starting point for this car, and pushing both higher isn't uncommon - the 1 degree difference seems just about right, too. Pushing front up to -3.3 might see the rear to -2.3; It's not about being RWD and even weight; it's all about the actual suspension dynamics of the platform.

Good points, the multilink in the back will certainly retain the camber better throughout the suspension travel than the front McPherson. I come from the bmw crowd where they also like to run - 3F/-2R typically for the same reason. It has to do with driving style too. The reason I prefer a more even camber is because I am pretty heavy on trail braking, which increases the car's rotation. With more camber up front I tend to oversteer too much. You're right in saying there is a theoretical setup where the car performs best, but most drivers can't take advantage of that perfect setup if the car is too over/understeering for them.

Sent through a series of tubes

[bfrank1972]

Thanks for the feedback guys - one more question. Does the multi-link geometry in the rear have a consistent camber change rate or is it optimized for factory height? I.E. from stock height to say 2" compression does the rate of camber change remain the same as if you lowered the car 2" (coilovers) and then compress the suspension another 2"?

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Thanks for the feedback guys - one more question. Does the multi-link geometry in the rear have a consistent camber change rate or is it optimized for factory height? I.E. from stock height to say 2" compression does the rate of camber change remain the same as if you lowered the car 2" (coilovers) and then compress the suspension another 2"?

The rear geometry gains negative camber as the suspension compresses. This is by design, to combat the camber loss due to the lean of the car. The front camber stays more constant through deflection, it changes a bit, but not much. This means that as the suspension compresses more, the car will be more prone to understeer. The same goes for lowering the car without camber correction arms or bushings.

To directly answer your question, it is optimized for factory ride height. Then again, more camber in the rear is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be corrected or balanced out from the front.

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

The rear geometry gains negative camber as the suspension compresses. This is by design, to combat the camber loss due to the lean of the car. The front camber stays more constant through deflection, it changes a bit, but not much. This means that as the suspension compresses more, the car will be more prone to understeer. The same goes for lowering the car without camber correction arms or bushings.

To directly answer your question, it is optimized for factory ride height. Then again, more camber in the rear is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be corrected or balanced out from the front.

Right, I understand that by design there is a negative camber gain during rear suspension compression - I guess my question was more directed toward the nature of how the camber changes. Is it a linear (or close) relationship relative to spring compression, or is it more of a curve (like decreasing rate of camber change as the suspension comprsses)? Reason I ask is for all those track junkies out there that sit 2" lower on aftermarket coilovers, with camber correction from adjustable lcas, the rear of the car may behave very differently under comprssion/load compared to a car at factory height or even 1", even if restored to factory camber/toe specs all around. Thanks

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Right, I understand that by design there is a negative camber gain during rear suspension compression - I guess my question was more directed toward the nature of how the camber changes. Is it a linear (or close) relationship relative to spring compression, or is it more of a curve (like decreasing rate of camber change as the suspension comprsses)? Reason I ask is for all those track junkies out there that sit 2" lower on aftermarket coilovers, with camber correction from adjustable lcas, the rear of the car may behave very differently under comprssion/load compared to a car at factory height or even 1", even if restored to factory camber/toe specs all around. Thanks

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Not sure, it depends on how much longer the lower links are than the uppers. Has anyone had the twins on a chassis rig? I would love to see actual numbers on these chassis.

Like this: http://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale-...-so-different/

Sent through a series of tubes