Camber Plates

#1

I need some new camber plates. I am leaning towards VMTECHNIK camber plates or Ground Control plates. Anyone have an experience and likes or dislikes about these options. I am also open to other brands.

Thanks for you input.

Jason

#2

I may have the same need shortly.

I’ve done some searches on this forum, but most of the “camber plate” posts are older. I’ve heard good things about UUC and Ground Control. I have some experience with the Ireland units. The UUC products that I’ve owned in the past have always been top notch. Though I wonder about the urethane surrounded bearing. Seems like a more “streetable” solution than a true race plate. The VMTechnik looks like a copy of the original GC plate. The one thing I like about VMTechnik is the use of nuts vs. cap-head hardware.

At the end of the day, we’ve never been able to get anywhere near max camber before the upper spring hat hits the inner-most part of the shock tower. Without questionable massaging of the shock tower, I’m not sure what else is workable and legal?

#3

I am on the same page as you. Searches brought up older info.

I don’t like the GC allens threading into aluminum. Not sure UUC urethane will be a good idea on a race only car and I think they have less range then GC or VMTechnik. I like that the main plate on VMTechnik is hardened steel vs aluminum. I know any plate may hit the inner shock tower but not much we can do about that legally.

I just don’t have any direct input on the latest version of these products and would hate to drop over $300 and not like the end result.

#4

I have just replaced a set of the UUC camber plates with a set from Valley Motorworks (VMTechnik). with the UUC plates I got about -2.5 deg camber. With the new plates I get about -3.4 degrees. The other thing I noticed was the stack hight on the UUC plates is 3/4" to 1" greater than on the VMTechnik plates. So the result of the new plates is lower front ride height and more camber. If you are interested in the UUC plates let me know they are for sale. They worked great for street and HPDE.

#5

Here’s the link for the VMTechnik camber plates. Anyone smart about camber plates want to comment on this design? I’ve a camber plate that has a stripped bolt hole so I either need to repair it with some kind of threadsert or get a new camber plate(s). And since the PO installed the plates I don’t even know what brand I have.
http://www.vmwerks.com/proddetail.asp?prod=vmwcplate

My suspension was going to be my winter project, but then I blew up another motor. Oh well.

#6

I had a set of UUC camber plates installed last season and was very pleased with them. Was able to get up to the legal -3.5 degrees with no modification and have had no durability problems. The guy that does my alignment said he enjoyed how easy it was to set them up.

#7

SpeedSmith wrote:

Are you questioning the feasibility or the legality? For 2010 you’re good on the legality.

“9.3.8.1.1 The top of the front shock towers may be modified to allow the installation of adjustable or fixed camber plates. Modifications are limited to laterally slotting the three mounting holes, and trimming/notching the center hole only to allow the installation of additional camber plate hardware.”

Matt

#8

Any of the camber plates mentioned will work fine. You do not want any flex in the unit…no urethane!! I have been using Ground Control for 5 years on my current car…no issues and easy to adjust. I did, however, have to cut the inner side of the strut tower to allow enough camber, but that is on my car which had wreck damage. Chuck

#9

cwbaader wrote:

I think that’s the legality issue for SE30 that mahoneyj mentioned, not the massaging of the top of the strut tower.

#10

Steve, that would be massaging the top of the strut tower:blush: CB

#11

Ohhh. I thought you were saying you had to cut the side of the tower (to make more room for the spring and upper pad), not the top of the tower. Sorry for adding confusion.

#12

The part that got my attention was the stack height issue. My perception is that camber plates all lift your front end. Do these VMTechnik camber plates look like they have a unique design that does not lift the front end?

#13

Looks to me, with the upper plate being steel, you could remove the ring on top of the strut tower and put the camber plate on top. That should drop the front end about an inch. That is, if the spring will clear the top of the tower. CB

#14

OK, It seems to me that there is some liberal interpretation of the rule quoted below. I’m in the build process and have installed GC plates. There was no slotting or any other modifications necessary to install… Now I don’t know what my final neg camber results will be but it is apparent to me that the spring perch hitting the inside shock tower is the limiting factor.

If others believe that the shock tower can modified or as it sounds rengineered then I’m having some concerns regarding this rule change.

I think some clarification is in order…My two cents is that the rule only permits changes to the top of the strut mount to only facilitate the camber plate mount…

As the spring perch is the limiting componant to achieve neg camber how can modifying the strut top mount be beneficial?

Matt H. wrote:

[quote]SpeedSmith wrote:

Are you questioning the feasibility or the legality? For 2010 you’re good on the legality.

“9.3.8.1.1 The top of the front shock towers may be modified to allow the installation of adjustable or fixed camber plates. Modifications are limited to laterally slotting the three mounting holes, and trimming/notching the center hole only to allow the installation of additional camber plate hardware.”

Matt[/quote]

#15

Quite clear to me. Some camber plates are made to mount under the tower, some over. The rule quoted allows either. Chuck

#16

Chuck,

That makes sense to me…What concerns me is the talk of “massaging” the strut tower to achieve max camber…

Believe me, if this allowed then I need to start the process. I’m not going to leave a clear competitive advantage on the floor.

#17

The rule in question mentions nothing about ‘massaging’ the tower to achieve max camber, only as Chuck said to mount the camber plates. By my interpretation of the rule, I think massaging would in violation of the rule.

#18

Rule clearly states that metal can be removed to accommodate mounting of camber plates. It does not specify how the camber plates are to be mounted. CB

#19

I guess i made the same mistake as steve did.

massage top of tower: legal
massage side of tower: illegal

right?

#20

epalacio19 wrote:

[quote]I guess i made the same mistake as steve did.

massage top of tower: legal
massage side of tower: illegal

right?[/quote]

Good discussion guys! I think the rule was intended to allow you to remove material around the top of the shock tower to accommodate the adjustment bolts, screws, cap-heads, whichever your particular brand of camber plate has. So yes, massaging the top of the shock tower is legal. However, lots of folks are still running into the issue of the upper spring plate hitting the inner side of the shock tower. Massaging this would be, as I read the rules, illegal.

I guess I’m wondering if there’s any legal options? If so, I’m all ears.