New SpecE30 Camber plates

#21

Walter you’ve never seen a topmount camber plate have you? If you allow an aftermarket spring locator, which is what the perch actually is. You can do different things with the camber plate. Total amount of camber is not really my concern here. Reinforced/Floating spring perches will get expensive as the diameter of these springs is large. It’s alot of potential machining to make gains in the suspension that don’t include just a camber figure.

If you use a different perch you can then move the main portion of the actual camber plate above the shock tower. This draws the shock shaft further up into the body shortening it. You can also make the spring locator float freely on the shock shaft getting it closer to the top of the strut tower further lowering the car and allowing free movement for a compressed spring. There is no way to simply write the rule to prevent that. It’s alot easier to just say "unmodified factory spring perch/locator PN# XXXX must be retained." as that in and of itself will limit the designs of new camber plates.

#22

Yes I have seen what you described… Why ask if I have not? However you missed my point altogether. Individual changes are assessed by the rules committee. There is no slippery slope, that is what a rules committee is for. You make the assumption that we are all doing whatever we want completely unchecked. Whether a rule is easy to write or not is immaterial. The rules specifically state by part number what springs are legal. Why not change the "all camber plates are legal" to the specific part numbers for the 3 suppliers?

BTW I appreciate the open discussion on the subject. I am not the manufacturer just a retailer that has seen an opportunity to improve the reliabilty of the cars. I have a E30 spring perch that we just took out of a car and it is cracking around the strut hole. The Vorshlag design completely eliminates this problem and does not give a competitive advantage with respect to camber change.

#23

vmwerks wrote:

Actually there is no rules committee…
the rules are made by the series directors.

#24

nasaregistrar wrote:

[quote]vmwerks wrote:

Actually there is no rules committee…
the rules are made by the series directors.[/quote]

So the series directors are acting as a rules committee?

nitpicking :wink:

#25

"The only work done to the strut top is the addition of the bearing which does not aid in any adjustment specifically."

It looks like the "addition of the bearing" is done by welding?

It is a beautiful component.

Reards, Robert Patton

#26
#27

And finally and educated observation…

#28

They should have just spec’d a fixed camber plate from the beginning. Kinda like sway bars, bumpers, exhausts… Just my 2 cents.

#29

Simon,perhaps we need a maximum "number." As it is fixed camber (bmwcca) with a maximum of 3.5, I’m betting that all of the JS/KS racers were at that number—yes, even with fixed camber. Can you get more than 3.5 within the spec e30 rules which allow adjustable camber? Well, yes and no.

Glad I don’t have to make the rules, I only have to help Cullen enforce them.

Regards, Robert Patton
ly

#30

My front was at -2.8 with fixed camber plates and offset strut hats on my JS car.

#31

The way I read the rules, these plates would be illegal in a similar way that basketweaves are illegal as well as plastic bumper swaps to early cars are. They give absolutely no performance gain yet still in the spirit of the rules are illegal.

#32

The problem here is, as it’s written the spring perch is NOT part of the camber plate. They aren’t really in any supension setup. The camber plate is a replacement for the upper strut mount, not the spring perch. This manufacturer has jumped to that conclusion, and it’s not legal. It is a slipperly slope that’s the problem, even if you say it’s not, it still is. If you open the door, there will be more products on the market very shortly to take advantage of them.

The reason you had the cracked spring perch was because you did not provide adequate support to the perch. You installed something incorrectly. The cracking of perches has nothing to do with the H&R Springs or the camber plate used, the loading on the perch is the roughly the same with aftermarket and stock springs. Properly installed any camber plate will be just as reliable as the stock suspension. The factory just used a big fat gold washer to support the perch perhaps that wasn’t retained with the camber plate you were using before…

#33

vmwerks wrote:

If you offset the hole so the shock in no longer in the center of the spring, you can get more camber before the perch binds on the body. Sorry you are offended by what some of us think. No offence was ment.

Michael O.

#34

ilateapex wrote:

[quote]vmwerks wrote:

If you offset the hole so the shock in no longer in the center of the spring, you can get more camber before the perch binds on the body. Sorry you are offended by what some of us think. No offence was ment.

Michael O.[/quote]

There are alot of things you CAN do, and they are all illegal. The hot air comment meant that we do not make or enforce the rules. I was in no way offended…

#35

Elephant4 wrote:

Brother you just said a mouthful. B)

#36

Matt, the obvious quote, "hindsight is 20/20." I’ve got empathy for those in the rule making positions.

Regards, Robert Patton

#37

Patton wrote:

[quote]Matt, the obvious quote, "hindsight is 20/20." I’ve got empathy for those in the rule making positions.

Regards, Robert Patton[/quote]

Good point, anyone who is responsible for creating or enforcing interpreting rules is in a tough position. The BMWCCA just went through a big change with respect to SpecE36 and some prepared class rules clarifications. I certainly would not volunteer for it, keyword, volunteer. One thing I did not expect was the level of "discussion" regarding the legality of the plates.

#38

If you offset the hole so the shock in no longer in the center of the spring, you can get more camber before the perch binds on the body. Sorry you are offended by what some of us think. No offence was ment.

Michael O.[/quote]
Preface…I know this is not an option, just trying to understand…
Im not sure I understand this (above quote)… if you slot the upper spring perch, theroretically the top can move away from the body of the car allowing more negative camber but what about the bottom of the spring? That mounts diectly to the strut housing. This keeps the spring centered around the shock. You would have to heavily modify the strut housings at the bottom mount to move the entire spring offset from the shaft of the shock otherwise the suspension would not function correctly. The springs and shocks work on the same linear plane. Am I missing something?

Brian

#39

Brian,

No you are not missing anything. I have not looked into doing this except thinking of ways that modifying the stock spring pearch is bad. I have no doubt that someone could figure some advantage to this and make it work. Say a wedge rubber under the spring?

You would not have to offset the hole at the top that much to help camber. I don’t think that .25 degree would affect the lower spring placement.

Understand that I have not done this just thinking of things that could happen.

Michael O.

#40

Patton wrote:

[quote]Matt, the obvious quote, "hindsight is 20/20." I’ve got empathy for those in the rule making positions.

Regards, Robert Patton[/quote]
Don’t take what I said the wrong way; I’m simply agreeing with the fact that a spec’d plate would save lots of headaches for organizers and participants alike. I certainly don’t claim to have foresight beyond anyone else.