Thread: New camber rules for certs

Originally Posted by Horny_Devil

but isnt that exactally what the driven test with the simulated weight in the car is for when going for a cert? isnt that why they look over the car from top to bottom take measurements etc?

yes, but it still must be practical and safe. Cert is for certifying non-standard parts on a car - they should still be practical and safe for road use - as thats what its getting certified for = road use.

saying that racecars will account to be less than 1% of the cars driving around lowered with the camber out.

also as i think someone mentioned before, race
cars don't make good dailys. you get shaken around there cold in winter and sweltering in summer. If you end up using one as a daily they just make you angry.

@ siRge

Originally Posted by illicit

obviously you are not your average Joe Public driver, you'll have a better understanding of the effect of the changes to your handling, more importantly the negative effects in regard to road use.

Some of the replies here seem to want to legislate out of common sense. You are driving your race car on the road - this is a special circumstance, there should be checks in place to ensure that the vehicle meets some safety standards suitable for use around other public road users and that you understand this is a special vehicle, requiring special licensing for you to use.

Originally Posted by civiconfire

Nobody has mentioned toe angle. Surely having a toe-in to compensate for loss of surface contact on your tires makes it cert worthy? Although you do go through tires quicker this way, as I have discovered. I think the rules should really state that you need full surface contact for the width of your tread.

^^^ This

This thread is getting dumber and dumber.

Just put wheels that fit well on your car and nobody will give a shit how much camber you have.

How dumb is that really, having camber to help your cornering but running toe in to compensate......the more toe in you have on a pair of wheels makes it harder to turn that pair of wheels into a corner.

Someone should lock this before any more stupendous information is spilled over the net making us look dumber.

A little bit sure...... To make it cert worthy...no

You are better off flipping/rotating and maintaining tyre pressure to minimalise wear.

Originally Posted by DrRubber

This thread is getting dumber and dumber.

Just put wheels that fit well on your car and nobody will give a shit how much camber you have.

How dumb is that really, having camber to help your cornering but running toe in to compensate......the more toe in you have on a pair of wheels makes it harder to turn that pair of wheels into a corner.

Someone should lock this before any more stupendous information is spilled over the net making us look dumber.

In my case it's not a matter of wheels not fitting properly (I've currently got factory 14x5.5" on ), rather just my ride height means the lowest negative camber I can get in the rear is -3° which is what I am currently running. Fortunately I've already had my car certified so shouldn't have to worry about it, but I do feel the change comes across as a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and should be based on a maximum amount of negative camber for all cars (surely contact patch relative to camber is consistent across all cars, regardless of factory recommendations?) to define what is and is not a silly amount.

What it should be is = or - the factory specs...so if its outside a certain tolerance then fail but if within range all good.

Originally Posted by DrRubber

What it should be is = or - the factory specs...so if its outside a certain tolerance then fail but if within range all good.

If the issue is purely tyre contact patch affecting braking and handling, and given that contact patch relative to camber angle is largely consistent regardless of vehicle (weight extremes etc. aside) I feel a maximum allowed camber angle could be given rather than a (fairly limited) range outside of factory tolerances.

^^^ What are the other effects of running more aggressive camber angles?

Those will need to be taken into consideration also.

The problem we have Mr.Shine is that you are looking for a way around the issue you and others have - wanting to run more camber.
There is already a way around this - cert or authority card.

You are wanting to modify your vehicle to your own personal preference, which is fine - just prove its safe by getting cert and/or authority card.

Originally Posted by illicit

The problem we have Mr.Shine is that you are looking for a way around the issue you and others have - wanting to run more camber.

Not at all. I already have certification and have no desire to run more rear camber than the -3° camber I'm forced to run due to my ride height, which has already been certified. As I recall I was interested in -2° rear camber for my alignment, but permaisuri was unable to get it lower than -3°.

I'm running on factory 14x5.5" wheels with factory-size 185/60R14 tyres, and don't have issues with my tyres rubbing on the guards. I have no intention of fitting wheels or tyres that would require any greater amount of camber front or rear. My thought process is merely that the stated issue is handling and braking performance as a result of contact patch relative to camber angle, something that I understand to be relatively constant across vehicles and their appropriate tyre width.

The problem I see is that it's using vehicle-specific factory settings to limit extensive, non-factory modifications for something that is not a vehicle-specific issue. If I run -5° camber on a 205/50R15-fitted wheel on my Roadster I'm going to have the same contact patch as a Honda Civic running the same camber, wheel and tyre width settings, and yet we're bound by different factory settings on extensively non-factory modified cars.

I see it as an illogical knee-jerk reaction. Instead I think it should be defined as a maximum negative camber setting for all cars, conditional on the car also passing a satisfactory road handling and braking test that is properly defined, e.g. the car must be able to brake from x speed within y distance etc.

Originally Posted by DrRubber

It has to be based on the factory tolerance.....Why the fuck do you think each car has its own specs built into massive databases on alignment machines ??? Because all cars are different.

So if you say 2 degrees OUTSIDE of the vehicles TOLERANCE (rather than just a set number for any car) that will in fact give you the scope to go to 3 degrees as the TOLERANCE for the spec is usually a degree either side.

I don't think there's any need for vulgarities. The actual issue has nothing to do with individual cars' factory alignment tolerances and handling characteristics, but vehicles' handling and stopping relative to contact patch as a result of camber changes. As above, two vehicles running the same camber and wheel/tyre widths will have the same contact patch, give or take minor amounts relating to their individual weights.

I don't disagree that unsafely cambered cars shouldn't be on the road, but given the issue is one of handling and/or braking ability it should be based on a structured, defined test of handling and/or braking ability rather than what seems to be an arbitrary amount of variation from the factory specifications relating to a now non-factory vehicle.

It has EVERYTHING to do with factory spec

but hey what would honda or any other manufacturer know about building cars and developing suspension systems eh.....

Originally Posted by DrRubber

It has EVERYTHING to do with factory spec

but hey what would honda or any other manufacturer know about building cars and developing suspension systems eh.....

Factory suspension systems with factory wheels, absolutely. Factory alignment specs are less relevant at best when you're dealing with significantly (read: certification-worthy) modified vehicles.

That's a fair point, however it doesn't address the issue that we are dealing with significantly non-factory modifications, potentially even with regard to that very suspension geometry if you're throwing in aftermarket suspension arms as well.

As a case in point of how factory alignment specifications can be barely if at all relevant to certification, MX-5 factory alignment specs for rear camber are -0.72° +/- 0.5° giving a maximum of -1.72° camber including certification allowances. With my ride height alone I'm incapable of getting less than 3° so in my case factory specs are impossible without further aftermarket suspension arms and the like, taking it even further from the factory suspension setup that is supposed to make it vehicle-specific.