D Stock R56 alignment?
I've read quite a few of the archives on the R53s and found that most are minimizing camber in the rear and maximizing camber in the front. I'd like to hear the arguments/explanations for minimizing camber in the rear, I'm pleading ignorance on that one. Zero toe in the rear is also most desired. On all my autocross cars I've always liked toe in the front to be out at least 1/8" for a crisper turn-in.
For the R56 it's still difficult to get negative camber up front, but there's so much available in the rear I'm still wondering why the Mini can't utilize it.
Any thoughts from the gallery?
d
For the R56 it's still difficult to get negative camber up front, but there's so much available in the rear I'm still wondering why the Mini can't utilize it.
Any thoughts from the gallery?
d
Same answer as the tire pressure questions in the V710 thread. Rotation.
-1.5 to -1.8 degrees camber in the rear is fine, if you can also get -2.2 to -2.5 in the front to go with it. You can't, in Stock.
Scott
90SM
-1.5 to -1.8 degrees camber in the rear is fine, if you can also get -2.2 to -2.5 in the front to go with it. You can't, in Stock.
Scott
90SM
With all the available rear camber, there is more rear grip. Minimizing the camber balances the grip levels front and rear, helping rotation, without having to go to crazy amounts of rear toe out or pressure.
Thanks.
I have been thinking of trying 0.1 degree toe out in the front (just under 1/8"), zero toe in rear, max negative camber in front and 0.5 degrees less camber in the rear than the front. It sounds from these comments as though this is a reasonable starting point.
I have been thinking of trying 0.1 degree toe out in the front (just under 1/8"), zero toe in rear, max negative camber in front and 0.5 degrees less camber in the rear than the front. It sounds from these comments as though this is a reasonable starting point.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




