Elephant Racing Rear Cambermax -anyone use this?

JonT · 01-07-2006, 07:05 AM

Was checking out the Elephant Racing site and saw this product. Looks pretty neat. My last alignment could only dial in -1.5 in rear with factory adjustment bolt. I've got Victoracers in rear now so I probably need to bump up the negative camber to -2.0. This product looks like it will handle it.

http://www.elephantracing.com/suspension/rearcamber/911rearcamber.htm

Comments?

89turbocabmike · 01-07-2006, 07:26 AM

Wow, these slipped past my radar! They look good and what a simple idea(the best inventions usually are). These would be great for racing/autoX.

JonT · 01-08-2006, 12:53 AM

bump

Elombard · 01-08-2006, 05:06 AM

Awesome but I am not sure how it gets more camber than the stock set up? Seems like ist just makes it easier to adjust. I wish he could make this for the ride ht on the stock spring plates...and be cheaper than the welt adj. ones.

Chuck Moreland · 10:02 AM

Thanks for the comments.

Quote:

Originally posted by Elombard
Awesome but I am not sure how it gets more camber than the stock set up?

Camber adjustment is made by raising/lowering the end of the trailing arm relative to the spring plate (this actually causes the trailing arm to rotate, thus changing camber).

The factory adjuster is limited by the eccentricity in the bolt. It can only change the relative position of trailing arm/spring plate the amount of the eccentric offest. On most cars, this maxes out around 1.5 degrees.

Cambermax can go further. It is limited only by the length of the bolt which can get you to 3+ degrees no problem.

Cambermax is available from our host:
http://www.pelicanparts.com/catalog/shopcart/911E/POR_911E_SUSprf_pg23.htm#item22

Elombard · 01-08-2006, 02:42 PM

Chuck could something like this be done for the ride ht on the SC on rear plates?

I see what you are saying now. Will have to get a set.

davidppp · 01-08-2006, 02:52 PM

Hello, Chuck.

I don't immediately see why this will not fit onto pre SC cars?

what is the differnce please.?

Kind regards
David

Chuck Moreland · 01-08-2006, 05:56 PM

Ew, anything is possible. It is a more challenging problem though, due to limited space and greater strength requirement.

David, It can be used on early cars that are updated with AL trailing arms. It is not designed to be used with steel trailing arms. The steel arms provide a relatively limited platform for the adjuster screw to rest. They are also cut at a different angle than the AL arms, again the screw would not rest optimally.

Indeed it may work on the steel arms. I'm just not comfortable with the level of fit. If the product proves popular, I'll likely design a version for the steel arms.

Likewise it doesn't fit sway-a-way spring plates. They are thicker than factory plates.

Hotrod911T · Hotrod911T's Garage

Chuck,

I talked with you a couple of days ago about installing the CamberMax plates on my '69T. Thanks for sending them so quickly. You may recall that I had just installed SC aluminum trailing arms and had Sway-a-Way adjustable spring plates. I had to widen the slot on the plate about .020" to fit onto the wider aftermarket spring plates but everything worked fine. I haven't aligned the rear yet, but by measurement there is at least 3 degrees negative camber on each rear wheel, and I haven't even adjusted the camber to the max. With the original steel trailing arms (which may have become bent over the years), I was only able to get about 0.7 negative camber. If I had kept my steel trailing arms, I think the CamberMax would work if a small perch was welded on the inside of the arm to duplicate the thickness of the aluminum arms at that spot where the adjusting screw rests.

I am not able to get over 1 degree negative camber on the front wheels, so I also may be talking with you about your offset ball joints and possibly how to modify the upper mounting perch or camber plate to get about 2 degrees negative camber.

Thanks for your quality products.

Rod

Chuck Moreland · 01-25-2006, 09:39 AM

Hi Rod

thanks for the comments and glad it got you the camber you wanted.

As you creatively found, the CamberMax can be opened up a bit with file or dremel to accomodate the extra .020" inches of thickness on the SAW spring plates. Not too hard to do, but you want the fit to be snug - take too much material and it will get loose.

Lukesportsman · 01-26-2006, 04:51 PM

Chuck:

I would have loved these last summer when I fought with my alignment for days, finall requiring welding and machining the top of my slots to increase camber.

Another vote for optional part numbers. Steel arms: I'm ok with the modding to fit Sway Aways but better yet if you could do it in all four combos.

Tyson Schmidt · 01-26-2006, 08:36 PM

You could weld a little platform onto the steel arm for the adjuster screw to rest against. That's the beauty of the steel trailing arms.

Lukesportsman · 01-27-2006, 06:04 PM

Yep, the next time I align her...spring, this will be added to the rear with "welded" tab. Keep up the good ideas, Chuck!

Hotrod911T · Hotrod911T's Garage

The only problem I can see right now for me using the CamberMax is that the Zone 8 autocross and time trial rules require two modification points to be taken each for a front or rear camber plate.

Chapter III, Section V. of the 2006 CGR's reads "Installation of front or rear "Camber plates" to increase available camber adjustment (per end) 2 points".

My car is close to the point limit for its class, that is why I went with de-cambered ball joints instead of a front camber plate and will probably remove the rear CamberMax plate once I use it to set the camber and the alignment is locked in place. Maybe if I left the plate in place but simply remove the adjusting screw it would no longer qualify as a camber plate as far as the Zone 8 competition rules go, but that doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the rule.

Rod

Tyson Schmidt · 01-27-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hotrod911T
The only problem I can see right now for me using the CamberMax is that the Zone 8 autocross and time trial rules require two modification points to be taken each for a front or rear camber plate.

Chapter III, Section V. of the 2006 CGR's reads "Installation of front or rear "Camber plates" to increase available camber adjustment (per end) 2 points".

My car is close to the point limit for its class, that is why I went with de-cambered ball joints instead of a front camber plate and will probably remove the rear CamberMax plate once I use it to set the camber and the alignment is locked in place. Maybe if I left the plate in place but simply remove the adjusting screw it would no longer qualify as a camber plate as far as the Zone 8 competition rules go, but that doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the rule.

Rod

So simply use the camber max to get the needed adjustment, tighten the rear two bolts, and then remove the camber max. That way you're simply using it as a tool.

I don't think the camber max really qualifies as a "camber plate" anyway. That really only applies to cars with macPherson struts front or rear.

juanbenae · juanbenae's Garage

it's only cheating if the rules have adapted to the technology and they say it's cheating. if Ive got this whole "evil" thing figured right, if you stay ahead of the rules with technology you are not cheating.

Tyson Schmidt · 01-27-2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k911sc
it's only cheating if the rules have adapted to the technology and they say it's cheating. if Ive got this whole "evil" thing figured right, if you stay ahead of the rules with technology you are not cheating.

It's not like that. I don't like cheating.

I can get any (reasonable) amount of negative camber in the rear of any 911. I have methods that will get me there without Chucks pieces. But these make it possible for someone without the experience I have to do roughly the same thing.

There are variances from car to car. My '69 has no problem getting -2.75 in the rear with the stock eccentrics on both sides. So is it fair that my competitor may have a car that can only get -1.5?

davidppp · 01-28-2006, 12:33 AM

Hello, Tyson.

I'm sure there are plenty here who'd appreciate a heads up on your method, please..me for one!

Or is it secret?

Kind regards
David

MobileWrks · 01-28-2006, 05:29 PM

I did use them on one car, cause the guy who wanted install went from 15s to 17s and just wanted to play with the suspension a bit. Said he can change camber faster without the nuckle busting that usually he was doing... LOOKS GOOD on there aswell

Zeke · 01-28-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 89turbocabmike
Wow, these slipped past my radar! They look good and what a simple idea(the best inventions usually are). These would be great for racing/autoX.

Me too. Chuck never ceases to amaze me with his creations. I wonder if he sleeps at all?

AFA Tyson goes, I know part of his "secret." The main thing about Tyson is that he sees the obvious when the rest of us overlook it. What he does is so simple, yet so damn smart. If you spend as many hours under a 911 as he does, you might "see" it too.

All one has to do to be as clever as Chuck and Tyson is too take things apart and really look at them. And look at them some more. And then want to change things. And then look at them some more, etc.

It's total dedication and I salute them both.