more camber=more rub?

[fckillerbee]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

^^^ This is a troll post.

are you retarded.


if you weren't trolling...then what have you contributed to this thread.














k thanx bye.

[280zx2by2]

Originally Posted by fckillerbee

if you weren't trolling...then what have you contributed to this thread.

Only diagrams and logic that you have not acknowledged and have yet to prove wrong.

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

What does this picture have to do with anything? We're talking about a McPhearson strut front suspension...


And the wheels do move independently of the rest of the car, the the wheels also include the hub and knuckle, this moves your center of axis out from the wheel. So all of these childish drawings that take no consideration into the rest of the suspension are proving nothing.








What? The angle of the front coilover exactly determines the angle of the wheel. This has NOTHING to do with rear suspension.

Ok my bad I was talking about both front AND rear suspension, which is why I posted a picture of the rear suspension. If we are being front suspension specific in this thread my point still remains true though. The hub rotates around the axis of the LCA ball joint, the wheel rotates around the hub. When the wheel rotates inward it pushes the inside lower edge of the wheel down. Since the hub is connected to the knuckle and the knuckle is connected to the LCA and the LCA is connected to the front xmember and the front xmember is directly connected to the chassis, by pushing the inside-lower edge of the tire down you are moving the car up. (unless you are pushing the earth down)

[fckillerbee]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

Cool hand drawing bro.

Your "diagram" clearly shows what I hand drew to scale. I only included different offsets.

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

So if you 0'd out the camber on this car it would go even lower???




OMG WAIT TILL STANCE NATION HEAR'S ABOUT THIS!

where's this knowledgeable input you were talking about? And what are you trying to prove anyway. Both your picture and your statement contradicts itself.

You posted a picture of a camber wheel increasing the distance from top to bottom.

And now you post this picture of this retarded car and try and say opposite? ummm....i'm confused.

[280zx2by2]

Show me where you believe the ball joint would be on this diagram.

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

Show me where you believe the ball joint would be on this diagram.

That is an inaccurate portrayal of the front suspension in an s-chassis car. The picture here is implying that the wheel connects directly to the strut. In actuality it connects to a knuckle which connects to BOTH the strut and the LCA ball joint.

[280zx2by2]

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

That is an inaccurate portrayal of the front suspension in an s-chassis car. The picture here is implying that the wheel connects directly to the strut. In actuality it connects to a knuckle which connects to BOTH the strut and the LCA ball joint.

No shit sherlock, but the center line of the hub and knuckle would be parallel with the ground EXACTLY like the picture at 0* of camber.

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

No shit sherlock, but the center line of the hub and knuckle would be parallel with the ground EXACTLY like the picture at 0* of camber.

How do you expect me to locate where the ball joint would be when you don't even have a LCA in the picture?



Why don't you look for yourself where the ball joint is. By changing the camber you aren't moving the LCA you're moving the knuckle. And by moving the wheel you're moving an edge of it either up or down, whether it is the inside edge or outside edge. the side that moves up no longer touches the ground (obviously) and the side that moves down raises the car.

[280zx2by2]

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

By changing the camber you aren't moving the LCA you're moving the knuckle.

Yes.

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

And by moving the wheel you're moving an edge of it either up or down, whether it is the inside edge or outside edge.

Yes.


Put these two logics together.

If the LCA does NOT move the entire assembly rotates on the lower ball join then.

If you don't agree with me on the location of the ball joint (red dot) then show me where you would like me to put it.


This is at -5 degrees. Look at the top of the suspension.



DAMN THE WHOLE CAR GOT LOWER. And the inside of the tire is at the same height.


Nice try guys.

[yomisiu]

if you're stretching the fuck out of a tire and you crank dat, wouldnt you be lower because of how the tire sits on the wheel? they arent square like most normal tires regular folks use, therefor, not raising it. idk, just thoughts

[!Zar!]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

Yes.



Yes.


Put these two logics together.

If the LCA does NOT move the entire assembly rotates on the lower ball join then.

If you don't agree with me on the location of the ball joint (red dot) then show me where you would like me to put it.


This is at -5 degrees. Look at the top of the suspension.



DAMN THE WHOLE CAR GOT LOWER. And the inside of the tire is at the same height.


Nice try guys.

Told you all so.

Maybe if some of you go outside and actually do this shit, you will see the above hold true.

Think of the front of the car and how it jacks up when turn your wheel as the camber goes positive.

[cbcm2435]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

Yes.



Yes.


Put these two logics together.

If the LCA does NOT move the entire assembly rotates on the lower ball join then.

If you don't agree with me on the location of the ball joint (red dot) then show me where you would like me to put it.


This is at -5 degrees. Look at the top of the suspension.



DAMN THE WHOLE CAR GOT LOWER. And the inside of the tire is at the same height.


Nice try guys.

plus if you look at the picture, it shows that it being on the edge of the tire changes nothing, yeah the out side edge of the tire is higher, but its not going to change ride height it will just tuck under the fender

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by 280zx2by2

Yes.



Yes.


Put these two logics together.

If the LCA does NOT move the entire assembly rotates on the lower ball join then.

If you don't agree with me on the location of the ball joint (red dot) then show me where you would like me to put it.


This is at -5 degrees. Look at the top of the suspension.



DAMN THE WHOLE CAR GOT LOWER. And the inside of the tire is at the same height.


Nice try guys.

Look at the wheel. The red dot you marked as the ball joint is still within the width of the wheel. and as long as its still within the wheel it means that the inside of the wheel is moving down. Also, the line you have representing the strut started out at an angle. When in actuality the strut in the car sits straight up and down at 0* camber unless you have a slotted mount, in which case it would sit straight up and down even with negative camber. This alone makes your drawing and measurements inaccurate. If you had started the drawing with the strut straight up and down the 5* wouldn't make as big of a difference in the overall highest point of the strut. And if you moved the point of the ball joint further into the wheel (like it actually is in real life), how much the lowest point of the wheel is moving down would be much more apparent.

[!Zar!]

Go outside.

Measure your camber and ride hight.

Now turn your wheel to lock.

Now measure your camber and ride hight.

[articdragon192]

Originally Posted by fckillerbee

you are running a 265 on the front?

I can't tell on your ride height, shadows, the minimum amount of change in the angle and compression on the tire may not change much for you. I can tell however that you now have more room inbetween your fender and tire. As far as ride height, you may have increased height because of the roundness of your tire. as in, a 35 has rounded edges rather than square. the tire may get taller towards the center. These are all very tiny key points that we tend to miss. Also, don't forget that most race tires are softer on the inside of the tire and hard on the outside for cornering (sidewall flex). don't forget tire wear plays a part too in take off some of that ride height while previously cambered.

265/35 front and rear. I took camber out of the REAR. Focus on the rear of the car. In the front I actually added camber, hence why it is lower as well. I had to drop the rear 3/4" to get it back to the ride height it was at before.
Also, rounded edges won't contribute to nearly a full inch of ride height difference.

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

Sorry if this comment makes me seem like an asshole but I can't see a difference in the two pictures. maybe just a lil less tucking when the camber is pulled out of it, which I mentioned before.

It raised the car. Fender to ground distance is higher. By almost an inch. I had to get helper springs for my coilovers to I could lower my car back to down to it's desired ride height, since I had to droop the spring to go lower.

From my personal experience, adding camber has lowered my car, and taking camber out has raised it. No diagram or math explained over the internet will refute my personal experiences with camber change.

[anarchyperf]

It lowers your car... I win

Zero Camber - pay attention to the blue line


Negative Camber

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by !Zar!

Go outside.

Measure your camber and ride hight.

Now turn your wheel to lock.

Now measure your camber and ride hight.

1. If I understand you correctly you're helping my argument, adding camber raises the car, positive or negative. And I would go do this now if my car wasn't 1300 miles away.
2. I have measured the distance of my crossmember and rear subframe, removed camber, then measured again. The car was lower after I took the camber out.

Originally Posted by articdragon192

265/35 front and rear. I took camber out of the REAR. Focus on the rear of the car. In the front I actually added camber, hence why it is lower as well. I had to drop the rear 3/4" to get it back to the ride height it was at before.
Also, rounded edges won't contribute to nearly a full inch of ride height difference.



It raised the car. Fender to ground distance is higher. By almost an inch. I had to get helper springs for my coilovers to I could lower my car back to down to it's desired ride height, since I had to droop the spring to go lower.

From my personal experience, adding camber has lowered my car, and taking camber out has raised it. No diagram or math explained over the internet will refute my personal experiences with camber change.

First of all, thank you for not being an ass.. Second, I can't explain how pulling camber out of your car would make it rise, I'm not educated on the front suspension of a z32.. Is it different? If it is that could be the reason. What I know is that I have pulled camber out of my car, made measurements relative to the subframe and crossmember, and done the math, and after doing all this I have come upon the conclusion that adding camber raises the car.

[articdragon192]

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

First of all, thank you for not being an ass.. Second, I can't explain how pulling camber out of your car would make it rise, I'm not educated on the front suspension of a z32.. Is it different? If it is that could be the reason. What I know is that I have pulled camber out of my car, made measurements relative to the subframe and crossmember, and done the math, and after doing all this I have come upon the conclusion that adding camber raises the car.

I was mostly pointing out the REAR of my Z32, which is nearly identical so that of an S-chassis and R-chassis.
The front is a miltilink set up, very similar to the rear suspension as well. So the front and rear act very similarly. And each time I've removed camber, that side has raised itself, and each time I've added camber, it lowers itself.

[fckillerbee]

Originally Posted by anarchyperf

It lowers your car... I win

Zero Camber - pay attention to the blue line


Negative Camber

I will divulge more into this.


your picture is accurate for a negative offset wheel.

Put the blue line on the other side

[anarchyperf]

Originally Posted by fckillerbee

I will divulge more into this.


your picture is accurate for a negative offset wheel.

Put the blue line on the other side

Very good point.

[!Zar!]

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

1. If I understand you correctly you're helping my argument, adding camber raises the car, positive or negative. And I would go do this now if my car wasn't 1300 miles away.
2. I have measured the distance of my crossmember and rear subframe, removed camber, then measured again. The car was lower after I took the camber out.

You're right, I agree with you.

I am positive my car got higher after going from -5 to -1 in rear.

[articdragon192]

Originally Posted by fckillerbee

I will divulge more into this.


your picture is accurate for a negative offset wheel.

Put the blue line on the other side

My wheels are positive offset. Still sat higher with less camber.

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by anarchyperf

Very good point.

The blue line doesn't even need to be on the other side of the box, just across the front.

[anarchyperf]

Alright... after playing with my box for a little ... These are my findings

0 offset wheels
Negative Camber Raises car to a point. After some pretty extreme camber it begins to lower it.

Positive Offset Wheels
Negative Camber always Raises height. Until Extreme Camber

Negative Offest Wheels
Raises height until a certain point if close to 0 offset. With a wheel with a greater negative offset it always lowers the height. At what point it raisies and lowers I'm not sure but I believe it's relative to tire width.

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by anarchyperf

Alright... after playing with my box for a little ... These are my findings

0 offset wheels
Negative Camber Raises car to a point. After some pretty extreme camber it begins to lower it.

Positive Offset Wheels
Negative Camber always Raises height. Until Extreme Camber

Negative Offest Wheels
Raises height until a certain point if close to 0 offset. With a wheel with a greater negative offset it always lowers the height. At what point it raisies and lowers I'm not sure but I believe it's relative to tire width.

Quoted for the truth

[JKL1031]

Originally Posted by yomisiu

if you're stretching the fuck out of a tire and you crank dat, wouldnt you be lower because of how the tire sits on the wheel? they arent square like most normal tires regular folks use, therefor, not raising it. idk, just thoughts

Das wat I was thinking...but it doesn't relate to suspension height, just the tire is standing taller with camber than flat.

[articdragon192]

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

Quoted for the truth

Except that didn't apply to my car, lol

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by articdragon192

Except that didn't apply to my car, lol

did you measure your ride height immediately after you set the car down or did you drive it around to let the coils settle first?...

[!Zar!]

Originally Posted by articdragon192

Except that didn't apply to my car, lol

Same here.

[JKL1031]

All that box proves is a point on that box becomes Huber or lower based on its position. What really needs attention is what happens to the suspension when that spindle/axle on the knuckle is pointed upwards; in which I think lowers the suspension. To back that up, more camber is what happens when u dump a stock car down with people in the back. The height lowers and the tire cambers. I'm not saying I'm right, but this should have been cleared up by someone by now.