Rules guys- nice work! Now, on camber plates...

#1

Just want to say a quick thank-you to the additional folks working on the rules. I feel as though my voice is being heard. Thank you. I wouldn’t mind for the process to be more open and transparent, but that’s a debate for another day.

While we’re on a roll with limiting rockers and locked diffs, I thought I’d stir the pot a little.
How about camber plates? There are a ton of variations here, not just on camber, but ride height. A true spec would be really nice.

I know that we all have many different types of camber plates, and asking us to change will kick up some dust (it will cost the vast majority of us money). But one budget minded solution is to use fixed plates with the stock mounts. Or allowing the stock mounts to be shifted over (you drill a hole in the strut tower for this)…just some thoughts. It would be easier to measure the deflection of a top plate than camber (which you need a properly loaded suspension and even ground for).

Thoughts from the peoples?

-Vic

#2

A fixed plate makes it a PITA to adjust for a car that is no longer straight.

If we’re going to spec camber plates, I’d prefer it was a readily available part that could be sourced from several suppliers. Well, or spec the vorshlag plates b/c they’re really nice, and then everybody has to buy new plates.

#3

Making a lot of folks throw away $300 camber plates would be very unhappy. A camber gauge is easy enough to bring to an event to check on folks.

A rule on camber plates like the rule on sway bars that prevents one-off custom solutions might not be bad tho.

Dropping the car more with some custom camber plate isn’t a slam dunk. As I understand it as you drop the car more, the suspension’s “roll center” or something like that goes up, and that’s bad.

#4

This seems like it would be a huge expense/hassle for an extremely small gain in parity over the current rules.

#5

I like the idea that our rules are simple to understand and adhere to, and stipulate “results” of what is governed and while a lot of guys on here can argue it, in my mind it shouldn’t be as big an issue of how we get there. Things like -3.5* camber, diff lockup test, track width, HP/TQ curve. So no, I don’t see a big advantage in camber plates used and don’t think it should evaluated for rule change (I’m using 3 year old IE plates that are bent and at least one hole is stripped even though I’ve re-tapped it twice). :unsure:

#6

throw ackerman angle into everyday conversation

Ranger wrote:

[quote]Making a lot of folks throw away $300 camber plates would be very unhappy. A camber gauge is easy enough to bring to an event to check on folks.

A rule on camber plates like the rule on sway bars that prevents one-off custom solutions might not be bad tho.

Dropping the car more with some custom camber plate isn’t a slam dunk. As I understand it as you drop the car more, the suspension’s “roll center” or something like that goes up, and that’s bad.[/quote]

#7

We’re thinking about using IE camber plates and heard that some people have experienced premature wear/slop. Anyone else seen this?

Thanks!

#8

Some people have had trouble with the IE plates. I’ve never had trouble with the UUC plates…http://www.harrisonmotorsports.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=669

#9

I’m using UUC also. So far so good. Although I’m not sure UUC makes them, there is another company’s stamp on it.

John

#10

Just to add another data point - we are using Ground Control “SpecE30” plates - no issues at all.

And another data point - I would really hate to throw out a part that works great for us, with no benefit or advantage or disadvantage given by the part. Probably would have been a good thing to spec from the beginning, but that horse is out of the barn, and hindsight is 20/20. It would be a pain to disassemble the front end and pay for (yet another) alignment to net out nothing.

In this case - the “Spec” is the setting (negative 3.5 max camber, which I think may be non-optimal for the R888 anyway). And - if we do the camber plates, how far behind are sway bars, which, IMHO, have more room for competitive advantage than the plates.

#11

FWIW Camber Plates are not on the radar screen for the rules group, so don’t get too worked up over it.

As for sway bars, as a practical matter there are only a few bars available to my knowledge (IE and Suspension Techniques; Racing Dynamics did a small batch but not sure if they will continue) so the choices are already pretty limited.

#12

Sway bars…Nothing to be gained in this area. The size is 22mm and the deflection for 22mm solid bar is 607 pounds. There is negligible difference in the end link location. The big difference is the size.

Example: 1" or 25mm= 1036pounds
7/8 or 22mm= 607pounds
3/4 or 19mm= 328pounds

If the bar was BIGGER in the front you could dial in more rear bar and reduce overall weight transfer.

The bar can’t be bigger in the front.

Sway bars are a red herring.Ask me how I know.

Regards, Roberet Patton

#13

OK I’ll bite - how do you know?

Good info BTW.

#14

Cause I spent time with the Addco away bar represenative trying to develop a 15+ piece minimum run of sway bars at 22mm that would be stiffer than the Ireland bar. I sent my Ireland bar to him for evaluation. The answer? See the above post.

I ran three BMWCCA races with a bigger 1" bar up front and more adjustment (tighter) bar in the rear. While visuals of the car said less sway, the lap times by the driver (that’s me) were no different. Granted it was not a back-to-back test and I’m not the fastest SE driver, but I can hold my own with everyone but Skeen, Cobetto and Allen. More testing with a little more rear bar would have been nice and I think the lap times could improve, but furthering test is of no use,we’re using a 22mm bar–not 1".

Given the existing 22mm rules: Red herring.

Regards, Robert Patton

PS the camber plate rule is solid. No need for revision as the limiting 3.5 rule is just that, a limit. You can have the front end lower by using BMW offset (crash mount) and the bending the strut to get to the maximum 3.5. But the lower front end doesnot really get you any on-track advantage. Bench racing and theory…perhaps yes. But on track, no.

PSS the rules guys came up with the 3.5 limit as a way to keep racers from using ajustable mounts (which are limited to about 3.0-3.5 only) and then bending the strut to get more than 3.5. A good move as the camber is easily verified and we don’t have to chase Racer x with his bent-up struts that are impossible to prove.

#15

Thanks for sharing info. Did you observe actual understeer conditions with the 1" bar up front, or only lap time differences, and did you maintain the 19mm bar in the back?

I agree with you on camber plates - not sure what is proposed as broken in the current rule.

No doubt you hold your own - the vids and points say solid driver, and the posts say solid wrench.

#16

Age wrote:

[quote]Thanks for sharing info. Did you observe actual understeer conditions with the 1" bar up front, or only lap time differences, and did you maintain the 19mm bar in the back?

AJ, thanks for the kind comments. I’ve been doing this stuff since there was only 1 driver in the SE, only 3 in the MA region and 0 elsewhere. Lots of people have worked hard to get the car numbers where they are today. Are you not associated with the west coast’s growth? You bet, keep 'em on track.

To answer your questions: A little bit of understeer( again, further testing to get it loose would have been fun-but why waste further time), negligable lap time differences, 19mm Ireland adjustable was used in the back and I moved from the end-of-the bar setting to about 1" back on both sides.

Regards, Robert Patton

#17

Robert -

I’ve thought about the bars a bit. As Skeen pointed out this weekend, “spec miata” is now a verb.:laugh:

Based on my reading of the rule, there is no required material. Just a diameter. Doesn’t say the bar has to be straight or solid (or round stock for that matter, if you really want to debate what “bar” means :wink: ).

Since the bar is just a wide U and the length of the sides of the U factors heavily into its effective stiffness, couldn’t you just build a bunch of bars of different effective stiffnesses? Each bar would only have one set of mounting holes, hence “non-adjustable.”

That’s about as far as I’ve gotten thinking about it. I haven’t even looked under the car to see if that is physically possible given where the bar is mounted. Maybe we should mock up a 22 mm carbon fiber bar in my autoclave this weekend. :lol:

As Mike showed me at Roebling, there’s ample time to be found out there without spending another penny on the car. :huh: Now I just gotta find it.

Steve D.

#18

Steve, the Addco guy says the end length of the u-shape versus diameter of the bar equals negligible results. In other words, unless you can get a bigger bar you’re wasting time. If the conceprt had worked I was to be a millionaire selling “Patton’s Proven Putzy Sway Bars painted in Pepto Pink.”

The Ireland is a solid bar.

The ST on Laura’s car was hollow. I’ve got an Ireland on order for her to stiffen up her car. We’ll see if the Ireland stuff will keep her inside passenger tire from spinning as she comes out of tight right hand corners.

Thread hijack…how was the RR test-n-tune? Skeen in attendance? Lap times? Others in attendance?

Regards,Robert Patton

#19

Patton wrote:

You definitely get better stiffening results by going bigger on the bar, but if you are diameter-limited, shorter arms = stiffer every time. Heck, if you really want stiff, just use a straight bar with no bends at the end.

Patton wrote:

[quote]Thread hijack…how was the RR test-n-tune? Skeen in attendance? Lap times? Others in attendance?

Regards,Robert Patton[/quote]

I’ll co-jack. Skeen was there for coaching and moral support. No other SE30 guys unfortunately. Mostly just street car guys with enough racers thrown in to keep Richard and Kaye pissed off.:laugh:

IIRC, Skeen was in the low 24s in my car (with me as ballast). I saw some high 25s. It rained Sunday so we got to practice car control.

He drove a friend’s caged 3.8l 996 for a few laps in the dry. Quote of the weekend afer my friend got out from riding with Mike: “I’ve never had an orgasm with another man before!” :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Mike is a class act.

Steve D.

#20

Thanks for the sway bar test info Robert. Yea, I’ve been around since 2006 and autocrossing my E30 with Walter Ford with the BMW club before starting track days. It’s been a fun few years with some growing pains. 2009 will be the best year yet.