Do I need a Camber kit?

[Nightwalker]

i just got an ingalls rear camber kit....is this the better company to get?i heard SPC n ingalls tend to be the best two.

[SoCaliTrojan]

Originally Posted by Nightwalker

i just got an ingalls rear camber kit....is this the better company to get?i heard SPC n ingalls tend to be the best two.

Why are you asking after you've already bought it? It's better to do research before a purchase. Anyway, both companies are the most popular. They have slight differences. I'll just quote myself since I haven't heard of any changes in the last year or so:

Originally Posted by http://www.tsxclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15885

[MrHeeltoe]

I was told this thread was here and was expecting more slaying. I think that by in large those in the know all generally agree. To clarify my stance and highlight the support for it I chose the following snippet from the first post.

However, for the TSX there is an issue. When you lower a TSX the front camber is not pushed out to a degree that it becomes a problem, however the rear is. In an Acura TSX or Accord Euro, you only really need it for the rear. The question really is this: At what point does purchasing new tires become more expensive then having purchased a camber kit. In my mind with a good camber kit costing 150 USD for both sides, and good tires costing 120 USD a piece, It is completely worth while to spend the money on a camber kit as a preventative measure.

The specific need for a camber kit is really dependent on the general definition of need. This can only be outlined by the particular user. I take a more general approach in the camber article I submitted to Honda Tuning. The degree of wear experienced with bad camber is not to the point where I put a blanket on it and say it is always needed. Because even though camber may go out, and it may not result in the perfect wear pattern, it does have a benefit attached to it for aggressive drivers. This coming from a person who routinely wears the OUTSIDE edge on tire on stock cars with good alignments.

Do we let the single-track-minded alignment machine, or the need-to-please-the-masses engineers decide the camber angle we should be running? Or do we, the daily drivers, make that call on an individual basis?

I feel heightened knowledge and thorough evaluation of individual needs and desires is the key to making product suggestions to customers. I take this stance because too often vendors sell to make money, not to make customers happy. I want my customers to know why they are buying what they are buying and why. I have lost some camber kit sales due to my article. But I have gained more sales than I have lost.

Yes, even though I tell people they don't need camber kits, and tell them I never use them, enough of them make the determination on their own that they need them. More people buying based on all the information, rather than convention. "Lowering the car? Better get a camber kit!" This is old thinking. Better is: "Lowering the car? The camber will be effected. What does this mean to you? Do you feel the need to fix it? A camber kit is the solution."


All in all, I thank you for the respect you have given my writing. I respect your stance as well.

Marcus

[MemphisRheins]

Hey Marcus,

Very nice to see your response to my thread, and in no means was my responce to your article meant as a snipe, just personal opinion.

Just to touch this up now, since this thread is a bit old... I do completely agree with your last note:

Lowering the car? The camber will be effected. What does this mean to you?

thats actually the perfect way to put it, Personally when I was writing this article, I was a bit more conservative about tires.

Now I am lowered significantly more, and running a -2.3 , on both sides for performance characteristics, but if you ask me thats the great thing about a camber kit, its the same thing that separates Coilovers from Spring/Strut Combos, the Adjustability for personal tastes... So I still stick with my opinion:

Lowering the TSX your rear Camber will be pushed to the Negative, If you wish to control this, for either conservative or performance reasons, a Camber kit is the solution

- MR

[MrHeeltoe]

This is very true also. For the performance aspect camber would want to be adjustable. I touched on that in the Honda Tuning version of the article as well.

http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/t...ide/index.html

If camber kits are not necessary why are there so many available? The fact is camber kits need to be available to those who actually need them. The finer a car is tuned, the more control a driver will want to have over alignment settings. Adjustability is the key to getting dialed in. Individuals using very expensive oversized wheel/tire combinations generally strive to get every last mile out of them before replacement is needed. Fixing the camber is the only way to ensure a completely even wear on a car built for cruising.


When a car is lowered and the camber goes negative, the contact patch is compromised when it goes straight. Obviously this is bad for you drag racers and you'd want to maximize your contact patch by fixing the camber.

Negative camber is visually apparent from outside of the car. This is a big deal to some people and it is a look that is not always desired. This is particularly true of the Accord, TSX and TL crowd where the aim of lowering is to reduce tire gap, and unwanted camber angle is unsightly. The need for a camber fixing solution is clear.

Marcus

[mantequiya]

Being new to the board I’m not trying to be an ass. It’s amazing that only LannyMCS had a comment about alignment and performance and was right on. This is from the perspective that you modify a car to increase performance. If you want to lower your car and make it handle worse I guess that’s cool. There are lots of books with good information written by experts, engineers, and racers. I’m freely admitting I’m none of those thing, but I’ve done my homework. Don’t take my word do some research. As noted by others the internet full of questionable information. A couple points worth making.

1st Caster is a non factor in tire wear.

2nd Alignment has a huge impact on handling. All FWD drive cars are going to understeer and tweaking the camber and toe make a big difference. The general rule of thumb increasing negative camber increases grip. Because of the inherent FWD understeer you want more negative camber on the front than the rear. Small amounts of toe-out in the front reduces understeer and help the car turn in. Small amounts of toe-out in the rear
also reduces understeer and helps the ass end rotate. Alignment is not just about shredded tires it’s a cheap highly effective modification.

3rd Factory alignment settings are a balance of tire wear and nice safe understeering. This is why the vast majority of cars have visible positive camber (reduces traction) on the front and negative on the rear (increasing traction). FWD, RWD, or AWD all car companies setup there cars to understeer. In a street fight between a chassis engineer and the safety nazi – safety always wins. Understeer is safe (and sucks). If you look at old RWD Nissans and BMWs cars they had huge amounts of negative camber and toe-in in the back to tame those old overstreering trailing arm suspensions. These numbers are not the gospel. And ultimate handling was at the bottom of list when they came up with them.


Do you need a camber kit? What’s your goal?

[alnug]

ok I agree with you that alignment is crucial to getting your car handling the best it could and I've written extensively about it on the UK Accord site.

But i have to disagree with you on one point...Toeing out the rear...this is a BIG nono......you only toe out the rear if you want to find a ditch somewhere it causes a hugely unstable drive in everyday conditions...although it is perfectly fine on the track...having toe out in the front and rear in the TSX will cause it to be EXTREMELY skittish and nervously twitchy....slight bit of toe out is ok for some cars...but probably more so for rear wheel cars since the natural tendancy it to push the wheels into the neutral position....for the TSX...not recommended.

Now the Camber issue is much debated..some say you don't need is and only talk from a tire wear perspective....first let me tell you..if you are running more than -2deg toe in the rear you will wear tires out faster on the inside.....I agree it's not as extreme as tire wear associated with incorrect toe but it is there non the less.

However, I want to look at the rear camber from a performance perspective. And let me tell you this..having -1deg camber in the rear with 5minutes of toe in gives the car a MUCH MUCH more balanced poise in corners as well as increasing turn in responsiveness and feedback....you have the feeling that the rear is turning with you instead of you trying to drag it around the corner. The car just feels a lot more 'alert' compared to when i was running a massive -2deg 30minutes in the rear!

[mantequiya]

Can't argue with the toe-out. I was talking generally not about the TSX.
In a my younger more foolish day used to run 1/16" toe-out front and rear on my mk1 gti. Managed to keep it out the ditch but had to adjust driving style and get lucky. Much like a sportbike you had to get the corner speed right before turn-in and roll on the throttle - no drama. Over cook it, chop the throttle, hit the brakes mid turn at the limit and it would get loose. Tight low speed stuff the car was a demon.

Most FWD cars have trail throttle oversteer to some degree. Aggressive left foot braking can get the back end to break loose regardless of setup. I'll check out your posts on the UK board.

[alnug]

Originally Posted by mantequiya

Can't argue with the toe-out. I was talking generally not about the TSX.
.... Much like a sportbike you had to get the corner speed right before turn-in and roll on the throttle - no drama. Over cook it, chop the throttle, hit the brakes mid turn at the limit and it would get loose. Tight low speed stuff the car was a demon. .....

WOW..sounds like you were really on a thin knife edge back then ...glad you managed to get past it ok lol

[evertp1]

hey guys...

I have my TSX lowered all the way down on both the front and rear... is there neg camber? of course! people ask me if im getting a camber kit (because they can see that it is way out of spec) anyhow... i lowered it myself and then went to the dealership for alignment. they said i needed a camber kit (which i already knew)
i put 20000 kilometers (approx 12 427.42 Miles) and my tires are fine, no sign of MAJOR wear on the rear tires. and i have had tires rotated 3 times, once myself, and twice by dealership. however, because i dont have a camber kit on front nor rear, when i go to the track and do burn outs, the front wears out A LOT more than the rear (obviously with burnouts, and they are the drive wheels). I really and truly understand this thread. and what i get from this, is that we need camber kits to prolong life of tires, and to keep within factory spec. after putting 20K on my tires and no major wear, i like my out of spec camber. and it is great on the track and even on the on and off ramps on the highway. but as my daily driver, i drive like 60kph MAX. so is my slow speed a reason why my tires havent been chewed in a couple week or even months?

[blackcaTSX]

I dropped my TSX on the A-Spec suspension kit and my rear camber is off by one degree. So I'll be purchasing a rear camber kit.

[MrHeeltoe]

Originally Posted by blackcaTSX

I dropped my TSX on the A-Spec suspension kit and my rear camber is off by one degree. So I'll be purchasing a rear camber kit.

We recommend the Ingalls ones.

[evertp1]

i realized that negative camber makes my rear end drift/sway side to side when driving on the snow this winter. But in the summer, it was great, especially on cornering and the car drove straight

[04pwptehsex]

thread revival , need an alignment after camber kit ?

[CarbonDetails]

Originally Posted by 04pwptehsex

thread revival , need an alignment after camber kit ?

Yes indeed. The camber kit will alter the toe and camber numbers so an alignment is not an option its a requirement.