jase
Junior Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by jase on May 4, 2012 15:53:38 GMT 12
Good Afternoon
Ive just had a mate go through a cert and hes been failed on having to much camber -2.2deg to be precise hes been told he needs to have less than -1.3 in the front and a little more in the rear.
Im struggling to find any info on this on your website, and im also struggling to understand why there is such a small limit of camber imposed on his car. im guessing its the same for models others as well.
The car is a lowered Honda, and what happens with their suspension when you lower them is they get camber. but the other thing is they dont camber to the extreme of being unsafe. A in drop on the car would give about -2.5deg of camber. if the car has been aligned and the toe removed this would result in very little to no adverse tyre wear, and no adverse handling, infact it would actually make the car handle better in corners. im struggling to see how having a small amount of camber like -2-3 degrees is unsafe if its been aligned?
Lastly how is this going to effect those who already have certs for lowered vehicles that have more than the little amount of camber that's apparently in effect? i need to go in to get my cert updated for the next lot of mods ive done for my car.
Any info or help would be much appreciated
Jason
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on May 16, 2012 10:31:57 GMT 12
Hi Jason We've recently released an Information sheet which clarifies the requirements for camber adjustment. This provides all of the information you should need to understand the reasoning behind the ring-fencing of the requirements. One thing that I'll add for clarity, is that the info-sheet allows half a degree over the MAXIMUM allowable camber angle which is specified by the manufacturer. If you wish to go beyond these limits, you'll need to have documentation from Motorsport NZ www.lvvta.org.nz/documents/infosheets/LVVTA_Info_04-2012_Suspension_Camber_Angle_Guide.pdfI hope this helps, Justin |
|
|
|
Post by wdebdy on May 16, 2012 15:57:03 GMT 12
Sorry to say it Justin, but it seems like a sledgehammer to crack a walnut type situation. Isn't this going to be totally impossible to police? Next time the car goes for a wheel alignment it will be changed anyway. Or will you be unable to cert with camberplates etc fitted?
I mod early Toyota's, many of which have positive camber as standard with no provision for adjustment. It would be dangerous to run those sort of settings with 4 times the horsepower, completely different front suspension and wide low profile tyres. In fact I doubt my current project would pass the road test like that. What will happen to say a live axle car with an IRS conversion? Are you stuck with standard specs or the specs from the donor?
I understand the difficulty in setting these types of rules but I just can't see these working, shouldn't a road test and visual inspection be enough to determing if alignment settings are safe? And if certifiers are passing vehicles with dangerous amounts of camber isn't that an issue with the certifier rather than the rules? THe overall standard is that a car has to be safe as well as ticking all the boxes on a form.
Callum
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on May 17, 2012 9:08:59 GMT 12
Hi Callum
This issue was initially raised by LVV Certifiers, who asked for a limit to assist them in making a determination. In coming up with these limits, we talked with several people who are experts in their field, to determine a reasonable limit. This included experience racers.
Remember we are talking about vehicles which are sharing public roads with other motorists, and not a race track situation where 'on the limit' handling characteristics may be acceptable.
As it also says in the info-sheet, if the vehicle is set up with more aggressive camber angles, this can be acceptable, however this must be for a legitimate motor sport vehicle and owner.
Just like we have no control over suspension heights being changed after certification, policing of this is going to be difficult after the vehicle has been certified, however this has been put in place to help certifiers at the time of inspection. It is always the responsibility of the vehicle owner to maintain the vehicle to the same state it was in when LVV Certified.
The insurance companies are also becoming more knowledgeable in this area, so should you have an accident, if the vehicle has been further modified, or changed from the state it was in when certified, they may well refuse your claim.
I hope this helps.
Justin
|
|
|
|
Post by wdebdy on May 17, 2012 13:49:00 GMT 12
Thanks for the reply Justin, to give you some background I went and saw my wheel alignment guy today. Specs for my current projects -
KP61 Starlet - standard min camber - 0 degrees
KE70 Corolla - standard min camber - 0.67 degrees positive
Puts me in a not so good spot really, not very keen to run with positive camber with the mods I have done. Recommendations for a reasonable road cruiser were 1 to 1.5 degrees negative, obviously no longer legal. The interesting bit for me though was this -
AE86 Corolla - standard min camber - 0.17 degrees negative
The AE86 is virtually the same shell (at least engine bay and suspension mount wise) as my KE70 (in fact the same specs as the AE86 seem to apply to the AE71 and TE71), is there scope to use those specs when being certed or is related to the exact car in question rather than a model range?
Personally I would have thought a set maximum (say 1 or 1.5 degrees negative) unless the manufacturers specfications (+0.5) allowed more may have been a better approach (with the overiding rule on safe handling of course) but I don't get to make the rules.
Callum
|
|
bwarp
Junior Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by bwarp on May 19, 2012 13:00:15 GMT 12
I tend to agree with Callum here.
I can understand wanting to out law the 'demon camber' trend that has over run the country, because it is dangerous and stupid, but the amount of camber on my friends EK9 Civic, when it failed it's certification was minimal, in my opinion.
The silly thing is, in my MX5, judging by current rules, if I lowered the car to the limit of 100mm from the ground without using adjustable suspension, the natural camber on the wheels would be terrible due to suspension design, but i wouldn't need certification and it's probably far more dangerous than the EK9 and it's driver who is wanting to do the right thing and get certed...
As far as I'm aware his car was set up by an alignment specialist who deals with race cars and so forth, probably much like a few of the people on the LVVTA panel, who have expressed their opinions on the camber issues, thus forcing this guideline change.
I don't think this change in the rules will pick out the people doing stupid things and stop them from doing it at all, but it will ruin it for the people trying to do the right thing, and turn them into criminals too.....
just my $0.02
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on May 22, 2012 11:01:36 GMT 12
Hi guys
Thanks for your comments - we'll definitely take these on board, and discuss your points.
Unfortunately we're pretty tied up with other stuff this week however, as it's LVVTA's 20th anniversary, so I'll get back to you early next week, or as soon as I possibly can.
Cheers, Justin
|
|
bwarp
Junior Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by bwarp on Jun 7, 2012 21:55:03 GMT 12
just to bump this up a little bit. I've managed to locate the factory recommendations from a workshop manual for my car (Mazda MX5). The camber is adjusted based on the ride height... What say I want to cert my car at a ride height outside these factory specs? (which i will most certainly want to do) surely the camber allowance should be adjusted to suit due to the design of the suspension...?  say for example i wanna cert it for 300mm ride height, which measurement would they take on here? it seems unfair to take the lowest one listed, as, if the table continued the negative camber would continue to increase. |
|
|
|
Post by cheese on Jun 20, 2012 10:01:29 GMT 12
I'm also interested in these new camber restrictions. Having a Datsun with independant rear suspention, the more I lower it, the more negative camber i will get in the rear, these rules seem so tight some off the shelf lowering springs may push the rear camber over the limit, and my car lower than this already. Is there a list somewhere with factory camber so limits can be found? there is no way i will be able to meet these new restrictions without having to seemingly unnecessary heavily modify my rear suspention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jun 27, 2012 21:26:39 GMT 12
Hi guys
We haven't forgotten this one, but we're pretty busy at present!
I do suggest that you guys take another read of the information sheet - as a lot of your questions are already answered, or explanations made in that document.
Justin
|
|
|
|
Post by yunosurodosuta on Jul 16, 2013 18:04:48 GMT 12
Is there are any update on the questions that weren't answered?
Also I'm going for cert soon I would like to confirm that the camber limit for an MX5 is -2 on the back and -1.55 front.
Stock rear is -1.08+/-.45 and front is -0.20+/-.45 from the factory sheet.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheese on Dec 23, 2013 8:06:35 GMT 12
Has any progress been made around further clarification around the camber restrictions?
Looking at how they are currently worded, any datsun with semi trailing arm rear suspension (for example a 510/1600) can no longer be lowered basically at all without pushing it our of the guidelines of the new camber restrictions.
Ideally in the rear of my 910, I want to run negative 1 to negative 1.5 degrees camber, I feel this is in no way excessive and it is in no way 'demon camber'
There is no mention of factory camber in the factory nissan manual or the Gregory manuals, but the Haynes manual has rear factory camber at positive 2°15' to positive 3°45' which according to these restrictions leaves me unsure about what direction to head in.
Are Datsuns now forced to keep the poor handling decisions made in the factory?
|
|
