I remember reading that instaling a set of camber plates raises the front end slightly. Does this affect handling? Is there a set of camber plates that does not raise the front of the car? Is the only way to conteract this raising to get coilovers (the idea here being that you could set the front a little lower/shorter than the rear to compensate for the camber plates)?

What is recommended for street use? I know a guy who had the webb plates and he said that the lack of a rubber bushing made them ride horrible on the street. I would also prefer to not make any modifications to the car - drilling holes, etc... Also, do certain plates only work with the stock spings and struts while others only work with certain aftermarket setups? Initially I will be using the stock stuff but would like the option to switch ing later on if I so desire.

Thanks guys.

 

I'm running the Ireland Engineering adjustable street/race plates... They did not raise ride height as I measured it... In fact, IIRC they lowered it about 1/8 - 3/16". I love them. You can hear them a bit when making tight turns, and you'll notice them when you cross particularly nasty expansion joints.

I love the Ireland plates - beauty in simplicity at a great price.

They worked well with my Bilstein SP/H&R springs setup and should also work well for OEM struts. They also tested them on PSS9's. I DID have to modify the retainer on a lathe to get the beefy nut on top of the SP's to work. Jeff Ireland told me they would fix that...

I also had to trim the opening in the driver's side strut tower to allow me to get full adjustment. At -2.2 up front, it just barely hid the innermost bolts... Since I wasn't sure if -2.2 was the right setting (it was, btw for my setup), I trimmed a bit of the opening with a cutoff wheel.

Depending on how much negative camber you dial in on the front, be prepared to adjust the rear swaybar (if you have an aftermarket one). Nearly everyone I know that installed camber plates and went to -2.0 or more on the front with -1.0-1.2 on the rear ended up backing off their rear swaybar. This held true for everyone running a 22mm rear bar or 25mm H-Sport. Since I'm running the 19mm H&R bar, I left mine on the stiffest setting (although it can be a bit twitchy, it's great for autocrossing).

I'm running -2.2 camber up front, max caster I could get, .25 total toe (out) up front, -1.2 camber in the rear and neutral toe out back... Wicked for our autocross courses!!! I'll back off the front camber for DE's, though, to around -1.5 and adjust the toe in a bit up front, too.

Just my $.02.

 

K-Mac also works without raising the car, and for me required no modifications. I'm also running -2.2 up front with max caster, but 0 toe. -1.7 in the rear, also with 0 toe. 19mm RDR rear bar set on stiffest setting.

Fine for autocross (run frequently) and street use. I am using the version with the poly bushing, not spherical bearing though.

Scott
90SM

 

When you write max caster, what is the deviation from stock? I assume you've dialed in more positive caster...more mechanical trail.

 

Another general question about camber plates...Do they hold their settings as a daily driver...or will I be re-adjusting them every few thousand miles?

 

Depending on which way you install the Ireland plates, you can get more caster or less... factory spec is what, 4.3-5.3? I'm running ~6 degrees with my current setup. Turning effort is almost non-existant and it's VERY quick to turn in... If I flipped the top adjustment portion of the plates around, my guess is that it would be right around the stock specs...

 

I've got 6k miles on mine and 3 autocrosses and they haven't moved a bit... I have the marks for my autocross setup and street settings scribed in the Ireland plates.

 

Which camber plates raise the rideheight of the car?

 

I don't understand how your steering effort is "almost non-existent"...adding positive caster adds steering effort - moving the strut tower towards the back of the car. This places the point of leverage farther out in front of the tires making them more resistent to turning. Your comments lead me to believe you've move these towards the front of the car, which should make steering response feel lightning quick. And, up to a point you should get some better steering feel; positive caster (mechanical trail) dilutes steering feel as tires saturate. Essentially, too much mechanical trail masks the effects of pneumatic trail and tire slip at the steering wheel. When we speak about communicative steering, this is critical; if you were to draw a parabola type graph or an acceleration curve that drops off over time, you would find that steering effort - in a perfect scenario - becomes lighter and lighter as a tire saturates. Some tests have shown that steering effort will lighten by as much as 30% during the last 1%-2% of a turn giving the driver incredible feedback about tire slip. Adding lots of positive caster will in the extreme mask this feeling...because, steering effort actually increases at a point in the turn when it ought to begin sending tingly litte pieces of information about tire slip. Positive caster does aid camber - camber gain - during the initial part of a turn. This means you can actually dial in a little less static negative camber. There are no absolutes, but I would not want to dilute steering feel as a tire saturates.

Seriously, there are NO absolutes, just better (smart, informed) compromises based upon your goals.

...another thought, although feeling tire slip is a good thing, too much may send the wrong message as well. You may find that you're not approaching limits as quickly as the car can because it gives warning too soon. This is better, in my opion, than over driving a car you cannot feel. The real purpose behind this final thought is about steering effort. Quick accurate steering is a must in autoXing. Steering feel is vital on a track. In then end, the engineer who told me that caster is a "conveneient conceit" is probably correct...it can create more problems than it cures.

 

All I know is are that my settings work for my particular setup... Because we've got power steering, you can afford to run more positive caster and still retain rather effortless steering while also getting more of a directional steering feel and straight-line stability (which helps offset some of the effects of the toe out I'm running up front). I flipped the camber plates around to test and the car was more twitchy with less caster...

When I turn-in, the car turns in and goes like a bat outta hell in the direction I choose... IMHO, the added negative camber and toe out more than offset the addition of positive caster as far as steering effort is concerned. The mix of settings allowed me to retain straight-line stability while also still providing quick transitions and excellent turn-in...

My settings:

Front camber: -2.2
Total toe front: 0.25
Caster: ~6 (don't remember the exact setting)

Rear camber: -1.2
Rear toe: Neutral

 

Scobib, I have the ireland engineering camber plates waiting to go on my car and im trying to figure out how to set the caster. How do you have your plates set as far as how the silver piece (I guess strut retainer) is positioned?

 

You can also try less caster (less than stock) and do away with toe out. This will also speed up steering response. You'll give up a little intial bite upon turn-in, but gain it back on the back side of the turn. Tire wear will improve too. These are all considerations if you want to run a successful, read enduring racing campaign. And predictability is absolutely key in racing. Feeling the tires losing grip thru the steering wheel is very important. So is ultimate grip, but if you cannot determine saturation consistently on or off line, you cannot drive at the car's limits. This requires feel.

In addition, toe out and negative camber can have a detrimental affect on braking...depends upon how aggressive the settings are...I don't know what units you're using for toe, but if .25 is in inches, a 1/4" is a lot. Over the long haul, you'll eat into brakes and tires. The tendency here is to say it's not bad at all, but these recommendations are really a function of where you're driving. If you're racing, really racing for a living, having enough tire and brake left at the end of a race is important. Then, the phrase "it's not bad at all" is judged against the back drop of your competitors...who might just have figured out that more tire wear and brake wear along with better feel is a good thing...food for thought Scobib, nothing else. If I were standing next to you I would be helping you. I'm not picking, just suggesting you try another way to be even faster. The initial part of the turn is really a small part of the entire turn. You may give up very little upon turn-in, but gain a lot back by being able to put the power down sooner, brake later, and reach the absolute limit of adhesion with every turn every time. Ah, but alas, settings change from track to track...

In the end, you will choose to build in control here at the expense of control there. Where here and there are depends upon your assumptions. But you must keep your scarfices to a minimum; your car is only as fast as its weakest link.


Camber is a function of roll rates and roll resistence, so no comment there.

 

Yeah, I know you're tossing out ideas - no worries.

All I can say is that this setup won me another autocross title in 2005. Tire wear was similar to the 2004 season. So, it works on all the different courses I have seen so far. I expect the setup will also work again this season...

I'm not a track junkie, but hitting the track for DE's, I would take a bit of camber out of the front and also decrease toe in the front...

Fangio - I'll look again tonight. IMHO, the Ireland directions are horrid.

 

Yea, autoXing is a different animal altogether. Lots of toe out, lots of negative camber, big rear bars etc. I did my last autoX in 1982 with no where near your results. I did manage to beat some really expensive and powerful hardware with a Ford Fiesta. Twas quite funny to most...in fact, a few first gen RX7s, original Mini, VW golfs...I did have fun. Camber was set at 2.5 degrees negative (adjusted by a cam actuated lower control arm link), 2.5mm toe out, big rear bar only - no front bar, stock caster, big brakes, and a 165hp Kent tractor motor lugging 1,750 lbs. It liked to swap ends every now and again on long sweepers...twice on public roads - major highways.

My comments are usually somehwere between abstract and practical, biased towards track and road...for what it's worth. I'll probably not venture the autoXing route again.

 

scobib, did you get a chance to check out your camber plates.

 

Yes... they're setup so the top the strut is pointed more towards the back of the car (thus increasing caster). The best way to do it is to hold them up in there w/o the strut and see which way you would like them...

Also, the holes in the capture plate are offset toward the engine so there's more adjustment available for camber... If you flip them 180, you won't be able to get more than -1.5 degrees.