Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 18 of 18
  1. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by butterfingers View Post
    i thoguht it was normal to have more neg camber in the rears
    As opposed to what?

  2. #14
    first few posts all said front camber being higher.

  3. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by butterfingers View Post
    first few posts all said front camber being higher.
    Ahh right, I can't think of a situation where you would want the rear to have more static camber than the front, because the double wishbone setup on the rear gives more dynamic camber gain during cornering than the front Mcpherson Strut type setup. This means the rear suspension gains more negative camber under roll, so it's natural to have more static negative camber on the front if you want to generate enough grip during cornering to maintain a good balance of Front vs Rear grip during cornering.

    To visualise this, take a setup with -1.5 deg neg camber front/rear, when the car rolls the rear keeps gaining camber and keeps a flat tyre contact patch but the fronts either gain very little or no neg camber and actually roll onto the outside of the tyre, not using the inside part of the tyre. Now if you had -3 deg neg camber up front and -1.5 at the rear, during cornering both the front and rear would have good tyre contact to the road. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example.

  4. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by intertia View Post
    Ahh right, I can't think of a situation where you would want the rear to have more static camber than the front, because the double wishbone setup on the rear gives more dynamic camber gain during cornering than the front Mcpherson Strut type setup. This means the rear suspension gains more negative camber under roll, so it's natural to have more static negative camber on the front if you want to generate enough grip during cornering to maintain a good balance of Front vs Rear grip during cornering.

    To visualise this, take a setup with -1.5 deg neg camber front/rear, when the car rolls the rear keeps gaining camber and keeps a flat tyre contact patch but the fronts either gain very little or no neg camber and actually roll onto the outside of the tyre, not using the inside part of the tyre. Now if you had -3 deg neg camber up front and -1.5 at the rear, during cornering both the front and rear would have good tyre contact to the road. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example.
    Good info. I guess the examples I saw were all street/stance cars. Thanks

  5. #17
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Car:
    Laser,B16EF,DC2
    thanks for all your help guys good info

  6. #18
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Car:
    EG B20
    2 more (inter-related) reasons for more camber on front:
    1. Front gets higher lateral load because most of the weight is on the front axle. This means more sidewall flex under corner load, and a larger compensation angle through camber is required
    2. FWD tends to understeer - you are trying even out grip levels front and rear. Actually not just FWD, check out the camber front and rear of V8s and F1 - all have more on front.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.3


Terms and Conditions
Ozhonda.com is in no way affiliated with the Honda motor company or Honda Australia in anyway whatsoever.