SCCA Solo C Street Discussion

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

"Any modification that allows for more neg camber vs OEM would be an illegal modification" -Wouldn't you agree on this statement alone?

Degassing your shocks is legal and will result in more negative camber (due to lower ride height) then you could ever hope to achieve with OEM parts. Camber bolts are also a legal modification and get you more camber than OEM so on it's face, your statement is overly broad.

There is also the question of "how much camber can you achieve OEM." Someone upstream reported -1.9 on TRD springs and OEM struts. Figure some measuring differences between machines and they could measure over -2 at another shop.

Camber is just a number. It's how you arrive at that number that matters. Until you can show me the cold hard facts of an out-of-spec Koni, with measurements done by yourself, I'm inclined to believe the engineer who designed the shocks as well as the multiple people who have measured their shocks and found them in spec. Once again, Occam's Razor.

[ChrisV]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

The measurements you keep referring were from a user that did NOT report achieving -2.0 degrees camber or more.

It is apparent that not ALL Koni full replacement users are able to achieve a significant increase in negative front camber.

It is still a plausible theory Koni's production tolerances may be poor enough to affect alignment as such. It may be a situtation that some Koni struts may be Street class legal and some not.

Camber does not simply "grow". As I am sure you know it is a product the mechanical relationship of the angle the hub mounts to the strut/chassis.

If you can not achieve -2.0 degrees camber with OEM struts, but can with Koni yellow full replacements, do you really believe they are the identical??!!

"Any modification that allows for more neg camber vs OEM would be an illegal modification" -Wouldn't you agree on this statement alone?

I measured and got 2.2. It would be far more likely that Koni had the wrong measurements than their tolerances being wildly off.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Euphues]

deleted

[TMF]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

I have run both 225 and 235. While 235 is not as sharp, the gearing has help me on certain courses. I have noticed that 225 heats up way faster than 235.

235 seems to be cheaper than the 225 and 245...why I cannot understand

Interesting, I greatly appreciate the first hand feedback. I would have thought the 225's were cheaper also.

This leaves me with a tough decision. Crispness/responsiveness or top speed/peak grip?One of our local courses does tend to have some higher speeds where top end would be nice, but still has lots of tight sections. Perhaps 225's and bring the tire sprayer.

[ButteR]

Alright, someone’s gotta say it - this Camber topic is getting redundant, boring & flooding the C street thread. I think it’s time this topic be moved to a new thread like “C-Street Debatable Mods” .. or hell, C Street Camber Envy Anonymous. 100 posts ago it was established that there is an issue here, and I understand the concern and also agree that some kind of solution, clarification, conclusions and maybe even administrative actions need to be made, but you guys aren’t making any progress at all anymore on this subject.

I’ve got full koni replacements shocks, TRD spring springs and TRD sway bars. I’ve got something like -2.2 camber up front and I could get more if I wanted. This is true for everyone with the same set-up as me (or just springs + shocks..sometimes even just shocks). Those who have any other single/combination of C street legal mods (springs,shocks( inserts), sways) that are NOT full koni replacements are not getting -2 camber up front. So, there’s your opening statement / first topic in the “C-Sreet Debatable Mods” forum (and there’s your answer too, it’s the frikkin strut housing being different than OEM that allows for the increased camber... either the small variances in measurements and the corresponding impact that those variances have on camber have been miscalculated/underestimated etc., or people are flat out missing a comparative measurement…what else could be the culprit? The yellow paint on the strut housing that allows for more camber? Common now.)

So far, as mentioned above, a few forum members have done some comparative analysis on the koni strut housing vs the oem strut housing and there aren’t any noticeable differences. A koni engineer/manager was asked to provide some specs on the Koni strut housing and claimed that they were designed to be direct oem replacements.

So there you have it, I just summed everything up in 3 paragraphs. Until something that hasn’t been listed here pops up, this topic doesn’t really need to be discussed anymore. Eventually the mystery is going to be identified, but it sure as hell aint going to happen by arguing on an internet forum about the structure of arguments (altho some of it was pretty funny, but it’s time for it to end ;D)

In the meantime, if you got the inserts instead of the full replacements and the camber envy is killing you, I’d recommend to call Koni up and show them this thread, and ask for a swap. If 10 of you organize a “customer service assault” , I’m sure that Koni will swap your inserts for fulls or supply you with their strut housing or WHATEBER and then you will have -2 or more camber. Or you can just take a drill and open up the strut bolt diameter a bit to allow for more camber.

Now onto more important topics, how bout those re71s? Has anyone burned through an entire set yet? If not on this car, maybe someone has some more info on the mazda forums? I hear the life of the tire is short in comparison to other autoX tires…like the ZIIs.

[markw]

I've got both star specs 235/40-17 and 225/45-17 stones. The stones have way more grip, and sharper turn in. If you want evidence, look at the last SDR CS event, Arvind and I were both on stones, and we both beat Scott.

Mark

[ButteR]

Yes I watched your video. Was awesome. I trust the tires just curious about the durability. Going to buy them regardless.

BTW, selling my 245/40/17 ZII Star specs. The inside tread is low but theres a lot left on the outside tread so mounting the outside to the inside could yield quite a few runs.

Going to take the wheels with the tires off now, clean em up n then I'll be provide pics and tread life numbers to anyone whose potentially interested in buying - PM me

[Jawnathin]

Originally Posted by renfield90

The 225 Bridgestone is easily the tire with the sharpest turn in I've ever felt. I haven't tried the 235, but I don't think it will be that floppy (the taller gearing is helpful/hurtful depending on the course). Definitely don't go 245 if you don't want floppy.

Have you tried a 235/40 Z2 SS? I want to give that a try, I imagine it is super sharp. Even more than an RE71.

245/40s RE71s aren't bad, much better than the RS3s on 245/40. Would love to try a 225/45 and 245/40 RE71 back to back though.

Originally Posted by renfield90

In practice I think the soft limiter holds you just under that. The downside of the taller gearing is that if you have a slow corner, you fall deeper into the torque dip and have a harder time climbing back out.

Yes, this is true. You might gain some higher top end but your gearing is taller so you won't accelerate as quickly. Lower RPM + taller gear can compound and hurt ya. This topic was beaten death a few months ago. The gearing really sucks on our cars but I'd go shorter rather than taller if given the choice.

Originally Posted by ButteR

Alright, someone’s gotta say it - this Camber topic is getting redundant, boring & flooding the C street thread. I think it’s time this topic be moved to a new thread like “C-Street Debatable Mods” .. or hell, C Street Camber Envy Anonymous.


....

Until something that hasn’t been listed here pops up, this topic doesn’t really need to be discussed anymore. Eventually the mystery is going to be identified, but it sure as hell aint going to happen by arguing on an internet forum about the structure of arguments (altho some of it was pretty funny, but it’s time for it to end ;D)

Sorry, I will disagree and I will say the conversation is interesting and I think it is relevant towards C Street. It matters to C Street and that is what this thread is about. I find it very interesting how one set of shocks can seem to allow more camber than another and I am interested in understanding what if any differences there are that may confirm legality.

It just baffles me that you are taking the position of NOT wanting to discuss it or trying to chase it off into another thread as if it doesn't belong here. Why? If it wasn't interesting or relevant then people wouldn't bring it up.

I am not on either side of the fence, it isn't envy, I just want to know. Its not like a set of front Konis are expensive or unobtainable. I just want to know the legality before I make a commitment to buying a set and I know others feel the same.

[ksconekiller]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

The measurements you keep referring were from a user that did NOT report achieving -2.0 degrees camber or more.

It is apparent that not ALL Koni full replacement users are able to achieve a significant increase in negative front camber.

It is still a plausible theory Koni's production tolerances may be poor enough to affect alignment as such. It may be a situtation that some Koni struts may be Street class legal and some not.

Camber does not simply "grow". As I am sure you know it is a product the mechanical relationship of the angle the hub mounts to the strut/chassis.

If you can not achieve -2.0 degrees camber with OEM struts, but can with Koni yellow full replacements, do you really believe they are the identical??!!

"Any modification that allows for more neg camber vs OEM would be an illegal modification" -Wouldn't you agree on this statement alone?

I'm assuming you're referring to me as the user with the full replacements who did not report getting over 2 degrees of camber. Not only is that true (I was at 1.5 degrees), but I got exactly the same camber with the Konis that I did with OEM struts. I don't know that this helps clarify anything, but on my car, with this set of struts, measurements came out the same both ways.

Are my Konis different than others? Is my car different than others? Other than it being a BRZ relying only on the crash bolts for camber gain, it shouldn't be any different than any other car here. But even my BRZ was able to get more than some of the cars mentioned here (some say they only got 1.0-1.1 degrees). So I think there is a decent amount of variation from car to car. BUT...

If someone gets more camber simply by changing to different struts without adjusting anything else, logic would say that the struts are not the same specs.

[solort]

Seems like I will get a pair of extra rear wheels and put 235/45-17 tires on them for the rear for gearing changes.

[ButteR]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

Have you tried a 235/40 Z2 SS? I want to give that a try, I imagine it is super sharp. Even more than an RE71.

245/40s RE71s aren't bad, much better than the RS3s on 245/40. Would love to try a 225/45 and 245/40 RE71 back to back though.



Yes, this is true. You might gain some higher top end but your gearing is taller so you won't accelerate as quickly. Lower RPM + taller gear can compound and hurt ya. This topic was beaten death a few months ago. The gearing really sucks on our cars but I'd go shorter rather than taller if given the choice.



Sorry, I will disagree and I will say the conversation is interesting and I think it is relevant towards C Street. It matters to C Street and that is what this thread is about. I find it very interesting how one set of shocks can seem to allow more camber than another and I am interested in understanding what if any differences there are that may confirm legality.

It just baffles me that you are taking the position of NOT wanting to discuss it or trying to chase it off into another thread as if it doesn't belong here. Why? If it wasn't interesting or relevant then people wouldn't bring it up.

I am not on either side of the fence, it isn't envy, I just want to know. Its not like a set of front Konis are expensive or unobtainable. I just want to know the legality before I make a commitment to buying a set and I know others feel the same.

I think the topic about the camber mystery is interesting as well. The conversation about this topic for the last 7 days has been anything but interesting.

Originally Posted by ksconekiller

I'm assuming you're referring to me as the user with the full replacements who did not report getting over 2 degrees of camber. Not only is that true (I was at 1.5 degrees), but I got exactly the same camber with the Konis that I did with OEM struts. I don't know that this helps clarify anything, but on my car, with this set of struts, measurements came out the same both ways.

Are my Konis different than others? Is my car different than others? Other than it being a BRZ relying only on the crash bolts for camber gain, it shouldn't be any different than any other car here. But even my BRZ was able to get more than some of the cars mentioned here (some say they only got 1.0-1.1 degrees). So I think there is a decent amount of variation from car to car. BUT...

If someone gets more camber simply by changing to different struts without adjusting anything else, logic would say that the struts are not the same specs.

[markw]

Originally Posted by ButteR

Yes I watched your video. Was awesome. I trust the tires just curious about the durability. Going to buy them regardless.

BTW, selling my 245/40/17 ZII Star specs. The inside tread is low but theres a lot left on the outside tread so mounting the outside to the inside could yield quite a few runs.

Going to take the wheels with the tires off now, clean em up n then I'll be provide pics and tread life numbers to anyone whose potentially interested in buying - PM me

Not sure on durability. Next outing will be up north at El Toro, then the July Champ event. I'm going to do the practice in my NB Miata I just picked up for my daughter, she's going to be driving. I kept the half gone starspecs for practices. I went with the 225/45 on them because they didn't make a 235/40, and when I drove your car with the 245's it felt mushy on turn in even though it had lots of grip. If the stones were available in a 235/40 I'd have gone with them.

Jawnathin - you were a good second faster than me at the SD tour both days, I was on the 235/40-17 starspecs, with the non-trd springs and perrin bar. I was next to you in grid #75 silver FRS. First tour, and I was fresh out of Evo phase 1/2 school the weekend before. The 225 Stones turned in way quicker than my starspecs, I was having to adjust during my runs to them. The SS's had around 90 runs on them.

[simpleisbest]

Originally Posted by solort

Seems like I will get a pair of extra rear wheels and put 235/45-17 tires on them for the rear for gearing changes.

Yup! Gonna test this very set-up next week

[Jawnathin]

Originally Posted by markw

Jawnathin - you were a good second faster than me at the SD tour both days, I was on the 235/40-17 starspecs, with the non-trd springs and perrin bar. I was next to you in grid #75 silver FRS. First tour, and I was fresh out of Evo phase 1/2 school the weekend before. The 225 Stones turned in way quicker than my starspecs, I was having to adjust during my runs to them. The SS's had around 90 runs on them.

Hi Mark, I remember, you also helped weigh my car

That was a tough weekend. First time at that site and it was very different from what I'm used to. Dirty on the first two runs each day, went a bit soft on run 3s to try to get a clean one in. Could have been worse but certainly not my best. Either way it was a good experience and I'm glad I got to meet the SoCal group.

Anyway, good to hear about the 225 stones being even sharper than the 235/40 Star Specs. If I go Bridgestone again I think I'll give the 225/45 a try over the 245/40 next time. Still open to trying the Rival S and V720s.