When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
[QUOTE=949Racing,Jul 30 2009, 08:23 PM] I measure 17.5mm total travel in the slot. So midway is 8.75mm each way from centerpoint. Turn the upper washer 90
Not sure if they did, you tell me. This is all that was included.
Front Camber: -3.3
Front Caster: 5.3
Rear Camber: -3.15
Rear Toe: 1/8" Total
With the J's S2, I wasn't able to get much caster, but with that much negative camber, I'm not sure I want a ton of caster anyway, though I do miss the steering feedback.
Haha, it helps that I took it with a 5D and 24-70L with a strobe. But seriously, I heard that Aaron's S2000 suffered damage possibly because of a design flaw in the SPC kit, and I especially don't like news of people's bolts slipping on them (hence the perpendicular fix). If all you need is more front adjustment, I'd take the J's anytime. Unfortunately, I think SPC is the only solution for the rear.
Originally Posted by VitaRenovatio,Jul 30 2009, 08:47 PM
With the J's S2, I wasn't able to get much caster, but with that much negative camber, I'm not sure I want a ton of caster anyway, though I do miss the steering feedback.
Just out of curiosity, why don't you want much castor?
^ From my limited understanding of suspension and alignment, more caster means more negative camber gain with steering angle. Since I already have -3.3 degrees of camber, which will probably increase as the suspension compresses (dynamic camber gain), I'm not sure I want even more camber gain on top of that from having a high caster angle.
Also, I believe that in the S2000, camber and caster are interrelated, and you have to sacrifice one or the other. I may have been able to get more caster out of my car, but at the cost of less camber. I think for high-speed cornering (i.e. Buttonwillow, WSIR), you want more camber than caster, whereas for low-speed, sharp turns (i.e. autocross) your priority is more caster.
Originally Posted by VitaRenovatio,Jul 31 2009, 04:34 AM
Also, I believe that in the S2000, camber and caster are interrelated, and you have to sacrifice one or the other. I may have been able to get more caster out of my car, but at the cost of less camber. I think for high-speed cornering (i.e. Buttonwillow, WSIR), you want more camber than caster, whereas for low-speed, sharp turns (i.e. autocross) your priority is more caster.
On my last alignment a couple of weeks ago, I elected to try this out. I have 7.5* of caster and -3.0* of camber in front(zero toe) while using only -2.7* camber in the rear(3/16 total toe). It was originally intended to be used on VIR to see if I could datalog better times through Oak Tree turn. Out of that turn you have the back straight. ended up that work didn't allow me to go. Next event is in August at Summit Point where a high speed turn leads to the main straight.
PS. I have my SPC's angled at approximately 45* to allow for adjustment of camber & caster while still providing a little extra bit of insurance against moving.
This thread may have gone off the rails a little, but that is okay as it it the same general topic.
If you read the topic, it is about the SPC offset (upper) adjustable ball joint, and not the J's racing Roll Center Adjuster, which if we're not all talking about the same thing could be a problem. The SPC ball joint only allows for a TOTAL of 3 degrees adjustment ( +/- 1.5 deg), though CKit is correct that there is some offset already built into the ball joint (I don't recall or have the specs or a ball joint in front of me right now), so I suppose the perpendicular method will either give you more negative camber OR positive camber (correct for lowering) depending on which direction you install it.
Since I was looking for far more neg. camber up front, I didn't do any measuring/testing of what gains the perpendicular method might make available, but I would still worry about the boss/slot not lining up and therefore not enough threads for the already thin nut to have available (it didn't look like enough).
I did the 45-degree installation that FF2Skip describes, not to compromise on camber/caster gain, but rather that (from what I believe is a design flaw) the SPC joint cannot be pressed into the upper A-arm with the slot completely perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the car properly. There is an interference between the top of the ball joint and some of the non-flat portions of the A-arm casting. The result would be the ball joint pressed in at a bit of an angle, which I really really didn't like. A slight rotation (towards that 45-degree direction) alleviated the problem and it pressed in completely flat. Because my car is slightly lowered, I ended up getting the camber I wanted anyway.
As for the relationship between camber and caster, a little searching will lead you to a very good writeup on the subject, but the short version is that the camber gain is not enough to seriously consider vs. setting the static camber where you really want it and then maxing the caster afterward.
Going with more negative camber just gave me the impression that I was losing too much in braking versus the gain in possible in-turn speeds. It was only my "feeling" and not datalogged. This is part of the reason for backing down static camber.
