Camber F/R Bias
#1
Camber F/R Bias
Having read thru numerous articles/posts on the subject matter thru this board, miata.net, s2ki.com, honda-tech.com, I am now ready to get my second autox alignment to fine-tune the car. Since I'm still learning, I am hoping that experts out there will shed light on the issue of front-vs-rear camber bias.
Both Miata and S2000 have recommended camber specs for less front and more rear, all in negative. Logically, RWDs like those two cars and RX-8 probably need less camber in front than FWDs since the front is not inundated with accelerating duty. So tire rolling is minimized during cornering due to better weight distribution and less effort required making the turn. In the back, where the acceleration takes place on RWD, excessive camber may prevent horsepower delivery due to less-than-ideal tire contact patch. To make matter even more confusing, more bias between front/rear equals more understeer. So 0.5 to 0.75 is the recommended bias on Miata & S2000.
Based on all of these discussions, why is it that less front and more rear is the suggested setting in practice contrary to logic? I am inclined to run these following numbers for autox/street:
F
Camber: -1.5
Caster: Max (5-7)
Toe: 0 or 1/16 out (1/8 total)
R
Camber: -1.8 to -2.0
Toe: 1/8 in (1/4 total)
Cross-camber: 0
Cross-caster: 0
Any thoughts?
Both Miata and S2000 have recommended camber specs for less front and more rear, all in negative. Logically, RWDs like those two cars and RX-8 probably need less camber in front than FWDs since the front is not inundated with accelerating duty. So tire rolling is minimized during cornering due to better weight distribution and less effort required making the turn. In the back, where the acceleration takes place on RWD, excessive camber may prevent horsepower delivery due to less-than-ideal tire contact patch. To make matter even more confusing, more bias between front/rear equals more understeer. So 0.5 to 0.75 is the recommended bias on Miata & S2000.
Based on all of these discussions, why is it that less front and more rear is the suggested setting in practice contrary to logic? I am inclined to run these following numbers for autox/street:
F
Camber: -1.5
Caster: Max (5-7)
Toe: 0 or 1/16 out (1/8 total)
R
Camber: -1.8 to -2.0
Toe: 1/8 in (1/4 total)
Cross-camber: 0
Cross-caster: 0
Any thoughts?
Last edited by CRX Millennium; 09-14-2005 at 11:39 AM.
#2
Ever car's camber curve is different. Your camber settings should be based on how quickly the wheel gains camber through the range of travel. The 8 does a good job on both ends of the car. I found -1.5 on both ends worked for me and the car was very neutral. It will be hard to get -1.5 if you are on the stock suspension.
#3
Logically, RWDs like those two cars and RX-8 probably need less camber in front
Front camber: max possible.
caster: max possible after camber.
rear camber: same as front or 0.5 more negative than front.
toe: 0 front, 0 rear, or set rear to suit driving style.
Your numbers actually look pretty good. Its pretty hard to get -1.5 in the front, depending on your car. If you have a stiffer front bar, I'd definetly set rear camber to the same as the front.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
duworm
Series I Wheels, Tires, Brakes & Suspension
1
10-01-2015 05:57 PM
titaneum_grey
Series I Trouble Shooting
7
09-17-2015 12:51 AM