I've been reading posts on and off for a couple years here...
I'm curious if I just figured something out or if I'm barking up the wrong tree...

Tire discussions generally discuss how more negative camber is better for most tire rub issues that occur. Alignment posts are concerned about not getting as much negative camber as an owner desired...

As I looked out the window at someones negative camber on their 4WD truck during lunch today, it hit me. If "we" (The small percentage of owners who have not changed to Motons, KWs, etc) are having a discussion with "you" ( The great percentage of owners who are shock alteration inclined) about static camber you get during an alignment, tire rub, etc...Then does it follow that...

It appears reasonable that since you are lowered, the suspension is actually swinging thru the arc of motion equal to your drop caused by your Moton installation while in a static state and therefore showing significantly more negative camber sitting on the alignment machine than I show in the stock state on the same alignment machine ONLY because I am sitting higher and positioned at a different starting position located on the same Fixed Maximum Possible Range of Motion Arc available on the S2000...(?)

I do not understand how the same eccentric adjusters on the S can have a different maximum negative camber state on a lowered car versus stock unless ride height is actually a significant part of the game. (As I guess it is on the alignment machine)

I guess my question might be more clear if I were to ask "Would both a lowered and stock S have the same maximum negative camber if the suspension was compresssed to just touching the bump stops?"

I understand a lower center of gravity is desired, I am only curious why I see so many negative camber discussions... It appears a stock S must have a different static alignment value than a similary configured lowered S. The lowered S will always show more negative sitting on the alignment machine based on the drop ???

No flame suit required, just burn away...
I need to understand this better before I move on...

 

Yes, all else equal, lowering the car effectively moves the suspension correspondingly through its arc, thus changing the static alignment.

 

I am asking because many owners who suggest certain wheel/tire combinations which do not rub are also running more significant negative camber than a factory stock user can seem to get.

I have been afraid to select larger tire sizes because of my perceived thought that I did not have enough negative camber in stock form to keep rubbing from being an issue.

It never hit me that the reduced ride height might be the reason for this apparent addition of negative camber.

It seems fair to assume that if a given tire wheel combination which does not rub on a S with altered shocks will therefore not rub on a stock ride height S with significantly less "measured negative at stock ride height".

I am interested in obtaining shocks in the future, but want to maximize my learning experience on the track based upon my current limited mods of brake pads and fluids. This change alone woke me up after significantly fading the stock pads at Beaverun during my last outing. I assume RA-1 will enlighten me even more...

I'm leaning toward 235/45-17 Front and 255/40-17 Rear Toyo RA-1s, but would appreciate any and all advice from experienced track drivers about "The best Toyo RA-1 combination available today using stock AP2 rims, stock ride height and a Comptech adjustable sway bar". I guess this purchase will carry me thru summer track events until next year.

I appreciate your help with this matter. I will follow the advice posted on this thread and report back...

 

Ok....No input implies I'm going for the 235 & 255.

I'll try to figure out the swaybar as I go...

Thanks,

Keith

 

Oh, bc02....

When you going to Beaverun?

I'd like to meet up...

I can only easily run Sundays, But will try anything else as well.

PM me.