Ok, so during my times at the track, I've seen camber plates oriented with the slots running from center of the plate toward the fenders, center of the plate toward the engine, and both ways on the same car.

Since I'm getting Ian's sexy new ride dialed in in the near future, what is the consensus of the orientation issue? Does it matter beyond where the preferred range of adjustment falls? Would it be better for steering characteristics to start with them positioned as close to the fender as possible?

etc.?

TIA on this one, guys.

 

Keith,

If I understand your question properly, here goes -

Picture the stock factory setup - the tops of the strut shafts are centered in the round openings in the fenders. If you want to move the top of the strut in a way that increases negative camber, you have to move it inward, toward the engine (picture the top of the tire moving inward to increase negative camber).

The camber plates I have seen have slots that run from the center position to one side. So, you have to position the plates in a way that when you move the top of the strut off center, it moves inward, toward the engine. The slot has to point from the center of the hole in the fender toward the center of the car.

Hope this helps.

Matt

 

well, you could certainly adjust the eccentric at the strut for more-maximum camber, and have the strut top to the outermost part of the strut (if the slots were oriented from center of hole toward fender) and achieve the same camber and range of adjustment, no?

So what I'm getting at, I suppose, is how it affects the steering geometry oriented one way over the other.

Make sense?

 

Keith - are you saying that with the plates that you are using, you will also affect the caster by turning them around? What kind of plates are these? If the switch does not affect the caster, then it is strictly your preference as a driver how much you want. I know that with the Paragon camber/caster units all the way in plus a full camber setting on the strut eccentric, I can make my front wheels look like something from a Cheech and Chong movie.

 

yeah, no caster adjustment - just camber, but you can install the "slot" one of 2 ways (either toward the motor from center of the strut tower opening, or toward the fender from center of the strut tower opening)

I guess I'm making this sound confusing the way I worded it.

Essentially, what I am asking is if there is any real difference, assuming that you were wanting to run a streetable camber angle at the most positive position of the camber slot, camber-wise.

 

Keith-

Finally figured out what you are asking. Once I get the camberplates (far future right now ) I would set them up with the following:

1. Max out neg. camber on the lower strut excentric.
2. Set plate so that 0 camber is with LEAST amount of space to the outside of the car.

This would accomplish 2 things,

1. Hopefully 0 camber would be with the plate fully extended towards the fender, easy to read/set to 0.
2. Would allow for max. neg camber possible (more slot towards motor) as pos. camber is not a desired feature.

Make sense? I guess since there is a point of diminishing returns with regards to neg. camber, this might be excessive. To your point, yes, you could play mix and match between the two to achieve a specific camber setting, ie -1 deg is -1 deg regardless of the plate orientation. As to why cars would be set up one way versus another, might be due to manufacturing tolerance of the car? Perhaps in a previous accident? Who knows.

My $0.02, YMMV