Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

lol. we will have to agree to disagree on this one! :( Laser machine, great for taxi-cabs, not so good for track cars. let me put it this way, look into a V8 Super car team, or an F3 team or pretty much any motorsport operation either in the pits or back at their workshop, and you will see none of them use laser alingers, and it's not down to cost.

on the topic of laser aligners, i don't rate them... i've have them done to a specified setting (they've printed out my results), come back a few minutes later unhappy with the setup and the settings that they did are different again!

beer baron recommended the kit...

it's a well made kit and very simple.

http://www.ikeya-f.co.jp/en/product_notice...a-one_gage.html

i've yet to try it, but it's really a no brainer - and i might bring it to a laser alignment joint just to see the difference.

for the price you could fabricate one yourself with some nice rulers and string, but this is a nice little package with a carry bag and not too much hassle.

only draw back is no castor, which is derived from a maths equation of camber anyway (gary any input)?

post-9983-1195613083_thumb.jpg

Thanks Eug,

and bb you had me laughing out loud with your post. Seems i really need to try one of these kits.

As far as castor goes, i have the whiteline bushes in mine and i would think u just set them to max and then forget about it. By max i mean to shorten the arm as much as possible, giving the most castor. Usually around 6 with these bushes.

I could be wrong though :rolleyes:

As far as castor goes, i have the whiteline bushes in mine and i would think u just set them to max and then forget about it. By max i mean to shorten the arm as much as possible, giving the most castor. Usually around 6 with these bushes.

I could be wrong though :rolleyes:

i have the whiteline bushes ready to go in as well.

however you would ideally want the same adjustment on both sides. not to mention i have had it mentioned to me previously that castor adjustments are affected by camber adjustments.

Eug,

i noticed when i was on the laser machine, working thru alignment changes progressively going from soft settings to fairly hard that if you adjusted camber it would affect the castor a little and vice versa. Im happy to be proven wrong but i think u would get the castor where u want it, and then make the camber changes.

Obviously if you are piling on heaps of camber u might need to go back and adjust the castor(if you arent already at max, assuming camber "steals" castor)

Having said all that i can notice the difference when driving that alignment changes make so maybe some trial and error is the best way to go. See what you like etc

Wheres someone smart when u need them :rolleyes:

Edited by 2630GTS

i forgot to mention in my previous post that the max settings on both sides would not necessarily mean the same settings on both sides, so there is a little flaw in that castor alignment aspect.

and yes i think we both agree that castor and camber affect one another. so which do you adjust first, and how much influence does have one setting on the other?

correct, trial and error is the go - and i'm sick of going back into the alignment shops (and spending $50-70) to get my alignment correct, and with a machine that doesn't even read accurately. once off purchase of a string-line alignment kit and i can fiddle to my heart's content.

Wheres someone smart when u need them tongue.gif

starts with G and ends with ARY

correct, trial and error is the go - and i'm sick of going back into the alignment shops (and spending $50-70) to get my alignment correct, and with a machine that doesn't even read accurately. once off purchase of a string-line alignment kit and i can fiddle to my heart's content.

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime

I am actually going to buy one of those Ikeya Formula wheel alignment kits, where do you obtain them (or should I get one in Hong Kong in January)?

good man eug, jumping in the deap end is the way to go. I have used one of the ikeya kits on a friends car in japan and it's pretty good. I've also used one we made from some flat aluminium bar, string and bulldog clips... lol.

eug and 2630GTS. yes adjusting one arm affects the other. the biggest thing to watch when adjusting camber and castor is they both can affect the toe to some degree. and toe is probably the most important of the front end alingment. there is a proper order in which to peform wheel alingment (ie, toe, camber, castor, toe) but I can't remember it off the top of my head :rolleyes: too many hits to the head I think.

rear end alingment is just as complex as you have toe, camber and what is effectively castor (rear upright angle adjusted with the traction rod).

2630gts, once you give up the laser beams you will never look back! :/ I promise.

I used to be a big fan of massive castor on the front end, and just a little camber (about 2.2degrees neg). but I've grown out of it. Things are nicer when you are getting quick with a bit less castor, and a bit more camber (more like 3 degrees neg). Toe makes a huge difference too. all this is for track obviously. the whiteline bushes will probably put your castor about right (6 degrees pos).

and just to reiterate, have a look at any top level motorsport operation. none of them have sharks with freakin lazer beams on their heads for alignment. always using set squares, dials and string lines to check and adjust wheel alignment and chassis.

I am actually going to buy one of those Ikeya Formula wheel alignment kits, where do you obtain them (or should I get one in Hong Kong in January)?

PM sent Gary

I've also used one we made from some flat aluminium bar, string and bulldog clips... lol.

eug and 2630GTS. yes adjusting one arm affects the other. the biggest thing to watch when adjusting camber and castor is they both can affect the toe to some degree. and toe is probably the most important of the front end alingment. there is a proper order in which to peform wheel alingment (ie, toe, camber, castor, toe) but I can't remember it off the top of my head :rolleyes: too many hits to the head I think.

rear end alingment is just as complex as you have toe, camber and what is effectively castor (rear upright angle adjusted with the traction rod).

2630gts, once you give up the laser beams you will never look back! :/ I promise.

you make a good point. there might be some restrictions/relationships between the settings of camber, toe and castor. a compromise between all 3 settings.

i suppose i'll try to google some methods or a procedure list as a basis. wouldn't mind to get russ/mark's input on this as well - they seem proficient in string line alignment.

p.s. - what is the traction rod, i've heard the terminology thrown around a few times. same as tension rod?

i've got the bush kits with eccentric centres sitting on my desk now. so all i'm aware of are; camber & castor

just throwing this out there, but how would you go adjusting toe with different front and rear track or with different front and rear offset wheels? The units pictured look to mount at the center of the wheel so it's a no go measuring across the car so wouldn't you have to depend on the the alignment between the front and rear wheels?

Eug,

with the whiteline bushes on max, i found the difference side to side to be so tiny that you will never notice it. Also im not convinced that there is such a thing as a traction rod i think this is more a name the japs have given it.

Consider the whiteline rear camber kit, it comes with bushes that go on one or both ends of this so called traction rod(the factory one). Adjusting this adjusts camber rather than pulling the wheel forward castor style.

Im happy to be proven wrong though

BB,

I get the laser beam treatment for free, full use of the machine so it will be hard to stay away. However it would be good to never have to go back, ill have to hit up one of these kits when i stop smokin cash on bits and pieces for teh 26/30

cheers guys

traction rod does have a small effect on camber, but it mainly adjusts the angle of the upright. it's called a traction rod as adjusting this angle effects traction. i've also called upper control arm (just like the other one), and trailing arm. but traction rod is as good a term as any. think of it kind of like a casor rod for the rear. the main way you are adjusting camber at the rear is the main upper control arm.

also, the traction rod bushes can't go at both ends as it only has a bush on one end. the other end is a fork.

Hey bb,

i was talking about the factory suspension link, u know the link that your traction rod replaces.

If you buy 2x whiteline rear camber kits then u can fit one to both ends of this link and it affects camber more than anything else. I know because i have played around massively with my rear camber on the aligning machine and thats how u adjust it, just adjusting the bush on the link that your shock goes thru wont give u much change to the neg rear camber. You need to shorten both links to get more negative camber in the rear(per side), again the whiteline kit does this by adding an adjustable bush to one or both ends of the factory "traction rod"

Also having castor in the rear sounds odd to me, i really dont think u would want to be pulling the rear wheels towards the front of the car.

I think the japs have called it a traction rod to give it some cute name, when really camber is the main thing apart from toe, that gives u traction in the rear. So really a better name would be camber rod.

Wheres the old SK when u need him :)

Edited by 2630GTS

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Well.... it's not just "de-oxygenating". If you do that you just have, most likely, ethane. So you still need to do a synthesis step to combine a number of ethanes/ethanols to make circa-8-chain hydrocarbons. And of course you don't want straight chain HCs, because n-octane actually has a negative octane rating (ie, it's worse even than the n-heptane which sets the zero on the octane scale!), so you have to do some tricky catalytic chemistry to synthesise branched HCs. That's all doable - but it doesn't come for free. And.... it starts with ethanol, which is an agricultural product, and there will almost certainly never be enough of that as a base stock to replace the liquid fuels that are in use. You really wouldn't want to be planning to be using any more ethanol for fuels than is currently already used (in E10, E85s, etc). And ideally you'd be looking to reduce such usage, as it is largely wasteful, particularly in the stupid-ole'US-of-A where the corn lobby has organised it so that it's actually primary production corn that is used to make a lot of the ethanol, not by-products and waste, like it is (mostly) elsewhere. So, what I said about needing free-ish energy probably still applies. True synth fuels would be made from H2 and CO2, in a near reversal of the combustion process. In fact, given that the H2 would be split from water first, it actually is a complete reversal of the combustion process. But...energy intensive. The human race burns something like 1 cubic MILE of crude oil, after it has been made into various fuels. Every year. That's a simply stupendous amount of energy. Just assume that the density is 900 kg/m3, and that the calorific value is 45 MJ/kg, then that is 165.9 x10^12 MJ of energy. Or more than 10^19 Joules. You get a maximum of 1 kJ/s per square meter solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, and so if you halve that for daylight, and halve it again for average weather (highly optimistic) and then take ~25% for the very best efficiency of solar panels, then you need about 85.7 billion square metres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to replace that liquid fuel energy consumption. Each panel is about 1m2. That's a rather large number of panels. We also burn about a cubic mile of coal. We also use hydroelectric power. We also use nuclear. We also use a number of other sources, both "renewable" and not. You can kind of ignore the renewable ones (except for hydro, because it will all end up getting subsumed into pumped hydro for storing other renewables, and so it won't be the standalone renewable that it originally was), so we end up needing a multiple of the ground area number that I just arrived at.
    • Corvette thread then? Don't say I didn't predict the future again. "I love the little MX5, I do, but I just want something a little easier to get in/out of, a little more cushy and some power would be nice - I miss the V8 Rumble... I found this clean red C5 for sale recently and..." I'll do you a great deal on the next step, which is one of those but you can fit people in it, too.
    • What about renewable diesel and/or gasoline? I see some projects spinning up like de-oxygenating ethanol to make drop-in compatible bio-gasoline especially in CA. I still think the future is EVs and we should've all gone full throttle on nuclear power after the 1973 oil crisis like France. Despite 15 years of work in CA to reduce the CO2 intensity of generation with renewables our electric grid is still far worse than even "low carbon" nuclear power. ICE is pretty cool when you aren't depending on the stupid thing to be practical and reliable and cheap as possible to get you to work every day. It's kind of like mechanical watches or vacuum tube amps.
    • I just rolled over "my" first 10k km in the MX5 Every time I go anywhere it always ends up in a adventure to look at houses and find some random country roads I've been on leave since early November but unfortunately need to go back to work on 19 January Luckily though I still have a fair chunk of leave left to burn until.... Not that I'm counting 😁
    • These look like S13 wheels.  And Welcome! 
×
×
  • Create New...