![]() |
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 666
|
What are your suggestions for alignment settings?
Just curious what you guys are using for your front and rear alignment settings for the street. Live around good twisties in the foothills. I have the following:
7/9 wheels with Yoko ES100 Slightly lower than Euro height 21\27 TB's Custom valved Bilsteins for this setup polybronze bushings stock SB Turbo tie rods Will soon be heading for alignment and need to make up my mind. Suggestions\comments always appreciated.
__________________
Paul S "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it" |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Galivants Ferry, SC
Posts: 10,550
|
Front toe..."smidge" of toe-in...1/16 to 1/8" measured at tire diamter..or 5 minutes each wheel.
Front caster...max... ( say 6-6.5 degrees). More important to get both sides as equal as you can, instead of going max. Front camber...lots options...30 minutes ( 1/2 degree) negative...up to 1-1.5 degrees if looking for VERY aggressive driving. If you drive more sanely..the greater neg camber will wear inside edges. Rear camber.....= front camber for "neutral" cornering.....or 1/2 degree more negative to impart a small amount of stabilizing understeer. 10-15 minutes total toe ( total for both sides). ---Wil Ferch
__________________
Wil Ferch 85 Carrera ( gone, but not forgotten ) |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 4,740
|
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Galivants Ferry, SC
Posts: 10,550
|
What I mean is that if you go very aggressive on negative camber, the tires would be rolling pretty much on their inside edges....not good if you MOSTLY go in a straight line..but darn near perfect if you CORNER near tha car's limits all the time ( "aggressive") because now the tire contact patch is more "square" to the ground when the car is leaned over that much.
Might that be a bit clearer? --- Wil Ferch
__________________
Wil Ferch 85 Carrera ( gone, but not forgotten ) |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 4,740
|
But who really cares if the contact patch is more square to the ground, if it doesn't improve adhesion and reduce understeer, where's the performance edge for aggressive driving?
I always thought that the factory settings already took into account cornering forces that would result in the optimum vertical tire contact patch because of the 6 degees of caster. |
||
![]() |
|
Back in the saddle again
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Central TX west of Houston
Posts: 56,135
|
frt
1/16-1/32" toe in max caster (but equal) Camber -1 -- -1.5 deg Rr 1/32 toe in Camber -1.5 -- -2 deg Most people recommend the camber on the front being about 1/2 degree more negative than the front, but some recommend equal camber settings frt to rear, so I suppose that would depend on your driving style. More neg camber in the rear than the front would make the car more prone to understeer than oversteer. Keep in mind that the weight distribution and the gas and brake pedal have a big effect on the attitude of the car, possibly a better way to try to balance under/over steer would be to get an adjustable swaybar for one end of the car (probably the rear)
__________________
Steve '08 Boxster RS60 Spyder #0099/1960 - never named a car before, but this is Charlotte. '88 targa ![]() |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Galivants Ferry, SC
Posts: 10,550
|
STLRJ:
What's that you say???? ..."who cares if the contact patch is square to the ground?...if it doesn't improve adhesion..." I give up... ( don't take this wrong, but) do you have any idea what you're saying ??? ---Wil
__________________
Wil Ferch 85 Carrera ( gone, but not forgotten ) |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 4,740
|
Don't get upset...but you increasing negative camber does reduce your contact patch so braking is compromised as well as cornering since you are now starting out with your wheels out of vertical.
If you started with your wheels vetical as factory specs suggest, you will maintain your contact patch square to the ground as the caster adds the right amount of negative camber as the wheels are turned off center. But if you have too much negative camber to begin with, you end up having too much negative off center reducing your contact patch even more... Do you have any idea what the relationship of caster has with camber as the wheels are turned off center? |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 666
|
Thanks for all the info! One of the reasons I asked this question is because I am stepping up to 9" wheels and it was my understanding that you use less camber with wider tires. Since I will be using 245's on the rear, I was thinking about 1/2 degree front and 1 deg rear or even 1 deg all the way around. I'll be doing a lot of weekend trips with the car so I don't want to get too crazy and waste tires needlessly. On the other hand I want it to handle nice.....Too bad you always have to sacrifice something!
__________________
Paul S "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it" |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of Long Beach, NY
Posts: 21,140
|
Quote:
__________________
Ronin LB '77 911s 2.7 PMO E 8.5 SSI Monty MSD JPI w x6 |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Galivants Ferry, SC
Posts: 10,550
|
STLRJ:
Yes... I do understand the relationship between caster and camber as the wheel is turned off center.... I'm simply asking you to review your own first sentence, when taken in absence of all the later things you say.... it made no sense... OK? So what's the problem? All settings are a compromise. The factory settings are OK for a wide range of driving conditions, but for "spirited" driving, an increase in the amount of negative camber is usually considered a fair trade-off of increased capability in the corners...balanced by more tread wear. I was saying that 0.5 degrees negative camber for front ( and either 0.5 or 1.0 negative for rear), would improve cornering and would be a performance enhancement setting. As a sub-set....you could use 0.5 both front and rear if you'd like your high speed turns fairly neutral...but feel free to go 0.5 more negative in the rear ( edit: rear then is 0.5 more negative than what is chosen for front)... if you feel more comfortable with some built-in high speed understeering tendency....slightly slower but more stable and forgiving. In this context, you can go yet more "extreme" by using as much as 1.5 degrees front camber...and likewise either 1.5 ( or 2.0 ) for the rear...with the admonition that these are *extreme* settings...and if you find yourself not curving through mountain canyon roads a lot, but instead find yourself on Freeway straights...you'll likely wear out your inside 1"-2" of tire. Simple and clear enough I thought....obviously not. Agreed...if your simply going in a straight line and running extreme negative camber...you risk having less "square" contact patch available for braking...no issue. ----Wil Ferch
__________________
Wil Ferch 85 Carrera ( gone, but not forgotten ) Last edited by Wil Ferch; 04-08-2006 at 01:48 PM.. |
||
![]() |
|
Back in the saddle again
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Central TX west of Houston
Posts: 56,135
|
Here in Houston ALL roads are VERY flat and VERY straight. My car is set to -1 frt and -1.5 rr camber and I have even tire wear. I, unfortunately, don't get to AutoX or DE my car.
__________________
Steve '08 Boxster RS60 Spyder #0099/1960 - never named a car before, but this is Charlotte. '88 targa ![]() |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,334
|
Just as a data point: stlrj is something of an iconoclast when it comes to suspension settings and theory.
If I could boil his theories down (probably inaccurately, but as well as I can manage), it would be that 40 years of track/performance development work on 911 suspension does not apply to street driving, where he feels stock settings are best.
__________________
Jack Olsen 1972 911 My new video about my garage. • A video from German TV about my 911 |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of Long Beach, NY
Posts: 21,140
|
![]()
I think stock settings have a little built in understeer ?
__________________
Ronin LB '77 911s 2.7 PMO E 8.5 SSI Monty MSD JPI w x6 |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Galivants Ferry, SC
Posts: 10,550
|
84toy:
If you're running 245's on 9'" in the rear...this is very much like a Turbo car, and those shouldn't run "as much" negative camber as the narrower body cars with lesser tires.. ... as a generalization.... ![]() RoninLB...basically yes, if you really look at factory settings, Porsche not only set the car up for "average" conditions, but also dialed-in a bit of low speed understeering characterisitics to combat the inherent , final oversteering tendencies our cars have. Note that front camber ( factory, depending upon year...is about "0"..and rear camber by factory goes as high as 1 degree negative....relate these numbers to my text and you'll see it will undrsteer more using factory settings). ---Wil Ferch
__________________
Wil Ferch 85 Carrera ( gone, but not forgotten ) |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of Long Beach, NY
Posts: 21,140
|
Quote:
__________________
Ronin LB '77 911s 2.7 PMO E 8.5 SSI Monty MSD JPI w x6 |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 4,740
|
I know that stock settings have built in understeer and increasing negative camber doesn't help!
And stock settings are the best compromise for those who imagine that they drive more aggressively than they think, since stock setting already give you 1 1/2 degrees of negative at 20 degrees of turning angle...more than you'll ever need for aggressive cornering. |
||
![]() |
|
Team California
|
I might even agree that stock settings are optimal for a street driven only 911, especially for the significant population that doesn't plan on ever pushing their car to its (very high) limits. As Wil correctly pointed out, all setting are a compromise. In fact, I would assert that there is an approx. 1:1 trade-off between ultimate cornering performance and highway (straight line) manners in a 911. Increasing neg. camber in the front will increase front GRIP and reduce understeering, (to answer stlrj's question), but cause car to be more "darty" on typical freeway surfaces. Or not "track" as well, put another way. And reduce braking performance, as contact patch is reduced, (in a straight line).
Without going into a long, boring treatise into 911 suspension development and the inherent engineering challenge of a rear-engine performance car, suffice it to say that stock settings are not optimised for cornering performance, they are optimised for safety. Mostly safety from lawsuits from unsuspecting owners driving tailights-first into cement walls. Stock 911s on the track are understeering pigs, period. They handle like pig slop when pushed by a capable driver. You don't have to agree with me, stlrj, I'm right. ![]() ![]()
__________________
Denis Trump uses an autopen and votes by mail, in case anyone wonders. ![]() |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 4,740
|
Quote:
If negative camber was the solution to understeer, then why haven't I found it on any search no this BB? Besides, I already tried it and it doesn't work! Last edited by stlrj; 12-19-2003 at 12:11 PM.. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Galivants Ferry, SC
Posts: 10,550
|
Well said speeder..
It's so nice of STLRJ to decide....for us...that the factory settings are "the best compromise ".... STlRJ...two items for you to consider: 1.) A compromise is just that...a trade-off of known characterisitics for a given purpose. Unless you know "my purpose"..please don't tell me what "my" best compromise is... K? 2.) Giving you full credit for your admitted knowledge as to the camber change with steering wheel crank angle... do the numbers you quote take into account the suspension changes ( in position) that occurs as the car "lists" in a corner?...or do your calculations ignore this fact? There are two different answers if you did ( or did not) take this into consideration. Similarly, how much lean do you figure? Oh?...with "stock" torsion bars? Fatter torsion bars? This too makes a difference. How can you make such sweeping generalizations? Better yet, why not discourage any questions on this board as to suspension settings? Simply not necessary.....just look at the factory manual ! Regards, --Wil Ferch
__________________
Wil Ferch 85 Carrera ( gone, but not forgotten ) |
||
![]() |
|