Hi Gary,
I've seen the mod where the upper control arm is drastically tilted to
provide a lot of anti-dive... I didn't do that, so I may have created a
monster ;) . I'll have to see if the braking is significantly
compromised by the increased camber gain. If it is, I can always rebuild
the upper towers again to put the control arm in a more suitable spot.
At some point it'll be worthwhile to analyze the benefits offered by all
of the various suspension designs and decide whether to build one from
scratch.
The camber gain is good for keeping the tires inside the fenders,
anyway. With the stock spindles and 16x7" wheels I had to use spacers to
keep the tire rim from hitting the upper ball joint - things were in
exactly the wrong place.
Theo
Sent: May 25, 2009 2:14 PM
To: Smit, Theo
Cc: tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Camber question
Hi Theo,
Lowering the upper fulcrum mount was a trick from the 60's.
I was told "we don't do that anymore" back in the 90's..
Do modern tires still like that?
My read on it was that the new thinking was to increase
caster so you get more camber change only on turns, changing
the camber curve caused less tire footprint under braking.
????
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Theo Smit
To: Lynn Wall , tigers@autox.team.net
Sent: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:14:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Camber question
If you mean "tire-shredding understeer" when you say "twitchy"
then
you're probably right. The steering effort would also be very
light,
mostly because there's not nearly enough tire touching the
pavement. I'm
going to start with about half a degree negative (205/45-16's on
7" wide
rims) and see where I have to go from there. When I rebuilt the
front
crossmember I lowered the attachment point of the upper fulcrum
pins,
and that should give me a better camber curve (more negative
camber for
a given amount of suspension compression) but we'll see what
actually
happens. In the limited amount of driving I did with the car a
couple of
weeks ago the steering effort and stability seemed OK at least
up to
60-70 MPH.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tigers-bounces@autox.team.net
> [mailto:tigers-bounces@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Lynn Wall
> Sent: May 25, 2009 9:18 AM
> To: tigers@autox.team.net
> Subject: [Tigers] Camber question
>
> Hey all,
>
>
>
> First let me say thanks to all the vets out there. Your
> sacrifice is appreciated.
>
>
>
> Second I am trying to align my tiger and the camber has me
> puzzled. The owners manual says 3 degrees 50 minutes
> positive camber. It describes positive camber as the top
> of the tire moving AWAY from the engine.
>
>
>
> I cant believe that applies to todays tires and wheels. I
> am running 16 Panasports and when I went even slightly
> positive the handling became EXTREMELY twitchy. I looked up
> what my 67 mustang should be and it suggested = to 1 negative
> camber. I tried that an it seems to handle much better.
>
>
>
> Any ideas/suggestions. Im getting pretty good at changing out
shims.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
>
>
> Lynn
> _________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
http://www.team.net/archive
|