Printable View
Anybody read on M.Net the thread titled "More Negative Camber==More G's???"? In it, several guys are promoting more negative camber in the front than the rear. This is certainly opposite from everything I've ever heard. Seems that conventional wisdom is more in rear than front. Anyway, have any of you guys tried this for autocross purposes, or on the street?
As I just posted over there, without knowing the rest of their setups, knowing what camber numbers they use is pretty worthless.
In addition, both Red Lightning and Blackbird are talking about primarily track cars, not autocross cars. There is a definite difference in maximised setup between the two, imho. :wink:
As they say search is your friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark52
http://forum.miata.net/cgi-bin/ultim...c;f=4;t=002622
I would lean toward proven winners testing like Andy Hollis. He does testing in a logical manner. Your car is not like his as far as weight and preparation. He is using around -1 degree all around but he has better shocks. I don't know if you have changed the bushing yet? In a car that was 12 years old I would say that should be one of the first things to do other wise you are compromising more expensive parts ability to work at their maximum. Andy does stress weight does make a difference in the Miata.
So I would say in a car that is near 50/50 weight balanced and Lowered that a lot more camber in the front than the rear would not be the optimum for the "complete traction circle". There is more than just turning involved in autocrossing. Quantified testing and a pyrometer will give you much better results than "seat of the pants" guesses.
Speaking of "seat of the pants" testing.... Did you make any sway bar changes for the TMS road course event? What Happened?
most drifters seem to run more front than rear. i dont remember what the spec cars run, 2.1 rear, 1.9 front??? i dont remember the new rule.
To be more direct about your question of using more negative up front than the rear. Yes I have seen it done but more on stock cars that have "generous" camber adjustments. A National SS Rx-7 ran a lot of front camber at one time on 245 Hoosier SO3's. In some cases with this might work out on a independent rear car. If the drivers style seems to be aggressive or the pavement grip could be a factor it could be a compromise that could be faster in a "stock" car. But a stiffly sprung lightweight car on proper sized rim/tires setups should not need as much.
But as Evolution Test and Tune teaches you will never know until you test the extremes. Just so happens there is a test in tune Nov. 12-13 in Houston run by Andy I bet. I would REALLY recommend that.
Bingo, and bingo. Without knowing what ride heights and caster settings they're running it doesn't matter what you think you know. And you're exactly correct about the differences in setup, but then again, you already knew that.Quote:
Originally Posted by altiain
The spec cars are -2 front and -2.5 rear with no restriction on ride height or caster. So again...you don't know jack unless you know the whole picture.
they got a rule now about camber and it aint no 2.5 degrees iirc, like 2.1 rear.... i dont remember, ask chris about the new rules...