Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

After putting some new toe arms in and getting the rear toe finally evened out I was thinking.

Firstly, what's the relationship between toe and camber?

As in, if I increase the amount of neg camber in the rear, I'm assuming it will add a touch more toe in or is that backwards?

That said, which would you do first? camber or toe knowing they affect each other.

Further to this.

Currently my car has the following setup.

Front:
-2.5 camber
about 1mm toe in on the pass side which I will be fixing - 0 on the driver side.
Castor unsure, assume around 5 or so deg, whatever the factory arms can give. Haven't looked or measured.

Rear:
About -1 deg camber
1mm toe in (that's on each side so total 2mm toe in). I set this under the assumption some rear toe in is good for grip and stability.

I was thinking I might add some rear camber and possible some at the front if also, maybe 3deg? Tyre wear hasn't been too bad on the current settings, I'm just going through the process of evening everything out.

I realise handling is a personal choice but is there a generic setup that's good for S13s?

I've got stock sway bars and BC BR coilovers F8kg/R6kg)

So also see a lot of people put a touch of toe out up front, say 1mm each side?

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/425556-diy-alignment-questions/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

try -3deg front camber

would benefit from adjustable castor rod with rose joints at 7 deg

0 rear camber

gtr or thicker rear swaybar

generally you want to remove any slop( rubber bushes) in the alignment settings

front toe seems to be a drivers preference, i've always found too much either way and the car will be understeery.

Edited by Dan_J

depending on your tyre size and how grippy your front is. if your front is a bit understeery then i wouldn't recommend 0 camber but -3 deg of rear camber is no real use for grip

am currently running this for my slip set up with 15's on the ceffy

-3 front camber

8+ castor

rear 0 camber

0 toe

havent tested toe on cornering but car is more grippy with 0 toe on take off

Edited by Dan_J

rear wheel camber is often used on FWDs to help stabilise/grip the rear in corner. Not sure what AWDs make of rear camber, but RWD rear wheel camber is only for the coolest kids who win badges at stance meets. Or drift and win badges for best photo taken of a drifting car.

tl;dr: do you see RWD race cars with camber in the rear? nope.

Hmm, OK I'm happy to hear thoughts, I've just always been under the impression that "some" rear neg camber was a good thing in a grip setup.

I got my original settings from DMS and he seems to know his stuff. (http://www.dmshocks.com/)

A quick example, this grip based S13 -2 rear camber.

http://www.nissansilvia.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=522196

Edited by ActionDan

If you get much seat time, have a play around then and see what suits you.

I re-read where I got it from (people I know, and their merit is obviously of no use on the internet) and the disclaimer is always "what feels best for the driver" and the second thing I noticed was "RWD race teams tend to minimise the amount of rear camber to increase straight-line traction". So I mis-read/mis-remembered and you are right, perhaps some rear neg camber is beneficial. I guess its a balancing act between straight-line traction and traction when exiting a corner maybe?

Pretty dodgy info above. All RWD race cars run some static camber. Even live axles guys will weld/shrink the housing to bend it such that they get some camber on the rear!

You definitely want rear camber for grip work. I had about 2 degrees (might have been a bit over - can't remember exactly) on the back of my 180 on semi slicks. Front you want as much camber as possible. I had about 4.5deg and it wasn't enough.

Less grippy tyres like KU36, RSRs etc need less camber.

Edited by hrd-hr30

I thought as much - no drama though Leeroy, as you said it is personal preference.

I'm running RS-Rs harry so thought -3 might be enough for those.

As for rear camber, -1.5 enough?

Car only has 200rwkw's and it's a CA so that 200 is slower than something that actually makes torque as well.

The best way to find the right camber and toe settings for your car and yourself is through empirical testing, unless you have a tire model that your can use, but you probably don't have the time to do so. Different tires need different geometry, what works with one brand of tires may not work with others (the reason why the tire testing that is done by the magazines can be pretty sus). If the car is to be tracked, then tire temps are a good start, you are typically looking for a even temp across the tread face, with maybe a slight drop from the inside shoulder to the outside, (a peak or drop in the center of the tire indicates under/over inflation) if the inside shoulders are more than 10 degrees higher than the middle, then you have too much camber, if the outside is higher, then you do not have enough. The construction of the tires will also make a difference, a more square (looking along the rolling axis) tire will typically want less camber than a rounded shoulder tire. With toe, a good starting point is 1mm out at the front, and 1mm in at the rear, this will be a fairly neutral setting on most cars. only run toe out at the rear of the car if you want the back of the car to provide more of a turning affect, as it will also reduce the stability of the car in a straight line and under acceleration. if you want to get the car to turn in better, then increase the toe out at the front. My car below, runs 1/0 degree camber F/R, and +1mm/-1mm toe F/R, but it does also run on crossply tires, not radials, F1 teams are currently running 0 or + camber on the rear of the cars due to the construction of the tires used.

1mm total, even on both sides with + being toe out. Toe is a very powerful tuning tool, even more so than camber in a lot of areas and it pays to be accurate with it, you can be 0.5 degrees different side to side with camber and not notice it, but you will notice a discrepancy like that with toe settings.

All done now.

It started out something like this.

Front/Camber/Toe

Driver: -2.5/4mm toe in

Pass: -1.8/5mm toe in

Rear/Camber/Toe

Driver: - 1.3/1mm toe in

Pass: -.7/1mm toe in

And after A LOT of stuffing around it now has the following and "looks" a lot better.

Front/Camber/Toe

Driver: -2.75/1mm toe out

Pass: -2.75/1mm toe out

Rear/Camber/Toe

Driver: - 1.3/1mm toe in

Pass: -1.3/1mm toe in

Once I drive it I'll know if it suits me or not.

Edited by ActionDan

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...