The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 438 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: [work] Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Zionsville Radiator, Service Shop in Long Beach CA Camber plates Re: Camber plates Re: > Pre-Purchase Insp, '95 525
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:28:56 -0800 (PST) From: Carlos Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: JKerouac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- JKerouac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Two on my car would be: keeping the stock HFM sensor but >making a larger diameter tube for it, and removing the DSC throttle >place and shaft from the DSC housing, instead of replacing it with >an //M Z intake boot. That to me screams intake mod. Surely there must be some points added for a cold air intake or somesuch. I would see it as *any* change from stock falls in the intake mod category whether it's minor, a change in parts from another car (like in your case), or whatever. Stock or not, pretty simple. > since they're probably not mods most people would even consider. > In the interest of fair competition, now that I've started it, > would other like to spill the beans about mods that clearly skirt the > intent, though not the letter, of class rules? Hmmm there's a pretty interesting discussion in the BMW CR list right now of what the interpretation of fender rolling is. Once you see the pics of the car in question though you notice this other little mod (from about 20 feet away) that is most likely a violation of the rules or better put, creative interpretation of the rules which would put the car in a different (much faster) class. Put another way if you car was running SCCA stock autox class and you won a Nat'l championship with the mods you made. Do you think you would get protested? Or know you're going to get protested. I think the latter. In small local chapter region events I don't see this as a problem, who cares what you have done to the car, classify it yourself or at least be up front about the mods and run whatever class it may fall in. If someone beat me and I found out they had a 4 bar pressure regulator I could give a crap, chances are I got beaten because the other person outdrove me. But on the other hand if I had spent a ton of money travelling, preparing the car to the letter of the rules, this was a Nat'l championship and winning means 4 brand new race tires and I was beaten by .002 seconds and I find out the other guy has that pressure regulator? Wouldn't you be p*ssed and protest their cheating @ss? Carlos. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:05:09 -0800 From: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Easier, yes. Better, no, not if we're trying to be fair. I can buy a factory offset strut bearing for a half degree more negative camber. But unless I've lowerd my car about 3.5 inches (which also increases neg camber), an extra half degree is nowhere near optimal for autocrossing. I can even get fixed strut bearings from companies like Ireland and Turner that will give me more like ~1 degree more than the stock bearing, but this is not close to the 2.5-3 degrees that most of the serious autocrossers are running. So for a fixed offset, I'm proposing that we stick with our current assessment of 2 points per half degree (which, unless your autocrossing under our classification system, this means nothing to you, sorry). But what about the other extreme? What if someone running 600# springs on their coil-overs, and a 26mm front sway bar, cranks their adjustable camber plates over to 5 degrees negative? Should I give that car 20 more points? That is also not fair, nor is it a smart way to set up a car, but I digress, and hey, it is my example. There is some optimal setting that keeps the tire planted to the pavement. So all I'm trying to accomplish is determine (through real life experiences or, more likely, educated estimates) how much time difference is associated with having the optimal camber, all other things being equal. (Which, of course, they are not.) The adjustable camber devices will get that optimal number of points, regardless of how the camber is actually adjusted. And I won't have drivers break out their tools to reduce their camber by 0.63 degrees on-site just to avoid getting moved up a class. :^) Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:49:34 -0800 >From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wouldn't it be easier/better to assume that anything beyond stock camber >settings are "optimal" and just assign the same points to adjustable/fixed >camber plates. I run the same camber settings on my adjustable plates as I >did with my fixed plates, it was just a royal PITA to get those settings >from the fixed plates/shims/blah blah.' > >Adjustable plates may get you more camber, but more isn't neccessarily >better. You can have too much. > >Marco ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:18:58 -0800 From: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tammer Farid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Answers a la interspersalization. Tammer baited Marco with: >Marco, > >Would you include the incidental camber gain after lowering >as being "beyond stock settings?" Assuming no aftermarket >gear specifically for optimizing camber is in place. > >-tammer FYI, the effects of camber change when lowering a car are already accounted for (more or less) in the points for non-stock springs. Yes, it is kind of an average, since not everyone lowers their car the same amount, and the extent of the camber change from springs is slightly different on different models. By nature, classification systems often have many compromises built-in. And then Marco: >Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:05:43 -0800 >From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >yep. The one thing I won't define is "optimal" ;-) > >I run -3.5 on my racecar. I used to do that by a combination of fixed >plates, shims, lowering, which btw would mean a compromise on corner weights >to even out camber. Now with my adjustable plates I don't need the shims, a >kludge, and I can corner weight the car properly. > >So adjustable ride height i.e. coilovers should be also assigned points. We introduced additional points for coil-overs, and also for multi-adjustable shocks, this last year. I'm not sure it is enough points, but we had to recognize the advangage gained by being able to more readily tune the suspension. >A car that is properly corner weighted with "optimal" camber settings will >handle better than a car with screwed up corner weights. > >Of course my experience is in racing, I've never autocrossed. > >Marco Heck Marco, you should come out a couple of times and have some fun with us. Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:28:10 -0800 From: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One of the main reasons I joined this list is to stay in touch with performance modifications, new models, etc., as they may relate to autocrossing. Discussions like this are most helpful. Thanks, everyone, for your participation. The fact that there is also a sense of humor and a bit of irreverance is, of course, icing on the proverbial cake. Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:49:11 -0800 (PST) >From: Carlos Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:56:17 -0800 From: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A couple of quick (OK, maybe not so quick) comments follow: >Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:57:30 -0800 >From: JKerouac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Carlos Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > One basic assumption that goes into a point system is that if a >change is made, that the change is made to its maximum possible effect >for autocross. A system like this pretty much has to have this assumption. To the extent that we can account for "degrees of modification", we do. But we're not going to get in the business of determining if Spring A make the car go faster than Spring B. The one thing that keeps coming up in our discussion is the difference between street-driven cars vs trailered cars. Here are some real-life examples. One car won SCCA's Street Mod class at Nationals this year. It came to a GGC autocross on a trailer. A couple of cars have almost the same mods as the championship Street Mod car, but are driven to the event. They SHOULD be trailered, IMHO, but they're not. One guy street drives his car, but trailers it to the event. Because he doesn't want to get it dirty? Because his family is more comfortable in the tow vehicle than stuffed into the car? Who knows. A couple of trailered cars are street legal but the drivers don't want to abuse their own bodies with their extremely stiff suspensions on the trip to the autocross site. So even that distinction is blurred. <snip> >What happens is that the people who make standard mods in standard ways >don't have the fastest cars but do get penalized the most. >There are many examples of alternate free mods that perform as well or >better than assessed mods. Our instructions currently advise drivers that they must report all performance mods, whether or not they are listed in our system. Our interest is to create a fair competition, not to provide loopholes for mods that have no points. If we get a car with mods for which we have no points, we take the time to try to figure out the correct points for those mods. Thank goodness the majority of autocrossers don't do this, or we'd have to hire full-time staff. :^) <snip> > So what about an inclusive set of assessments which allow you to do >any of a list of mods without penalty? Then the alternatives are >automatically assessed since they are not on the "allowed" list. <snip> This is beginning to sound like the typical SCCA system. If I were to run in SCCA's Solo II, the aftermarket steering wheel and non-stock shift lever on my car alone would bump it up from Stock to Street Prepared. Those mods alone would not make a competitive Street Prepared car. The reason GGC avoided this is so that people can make whatever mods they want, and we can (in theory) place their car in a class with other cars with similar performance potential. We just ask them to tell us what they've done and hope that they're honest. <snip> >Barry Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:24:05 -0500 From: "Steve Hazard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Coming out of lurk mode <BG> Hi Scott, Our Autocross Committee will be meeting next week to make some changes to the points assigned for Negative Camber, Coilovers, and a few other factors that escape me right now. Boston Chapter of course has been using your excellent GGC autocross classification system as well for several years now. Thanks for all your hard work Scott. At this time the rule for Neg Camber is: Increased negative front camber points (2 points per 0.5 degree increase) On my 98M3/4 I run the TC Kline plates with his D/A Koni C/O kit. Optimum front camber is 3.25 Neg on my car. This was done using a pyrometer and a EVO Dial in school. Using TY's rules I get assessed 9 points. Stock is 0.9-1.0. Many of the newer BMW's have massive under steer built into them. Adding Negative Camber makes a huge difference in the balance of the car and its slip angles. In fact I believe that it is the MOST SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION you can make to the E36 platform! More than shocks, springs, sways, etc..... I've driven just about every possible permutation of E36 possible. From bone stock to my fully prepared BSP M3. I have copied from our website the 2004 points allocations. I have added my proposed points outside of the current ones> Suspension and Brakes Upgrades: Front Sway bar (added, larger than stock, or adjustable) (add 1 point) 2 Rear Sway bar (added, larger than stock, or adjustable) (add 1 point) 2 Springs, cut or non-stock, set of 4 or less (add 2 points) 8 Shocks, non-stock, set of 4 or less (add 1 point) 4 Front Stress bar (add 1 point) ok Rear Stress bar (add 1 point) ok Rear subframe, relocated or adjustable (camber) (add 2 points) Increased caster (add 2 points) ok Quick ratio steering (add 2 points) ok Brake system improvements (e.g. larger rotors, drum to disk) (add 4 points) ok X-brace for E36 (except convertibles) (add 3 points) ok Increased negative front camber points (2 points per 0.5 degree increase)1 point per 0.25 We will be adding a points total for any Coil Over kit as well. Probably 4-6 points One of our fastest, most consistent drivers runs a 93 325is with Ground Control caster/camber plates, 17x8 wheels, 245/40-17 Kumho MX, racing seat/belts, Turner anti-roll bars, Advance Design shocks, Eibach springs, x-brace. This car is dialed in! So is the driver. It has a motor swap good for about 30 more HP than stock. This year I put him in class CS. He out ran all the CS & CR cars (CR's on r compounds) and almost every BS car during the year. He's down on HP and Torque to the M3's he competes against and he still is killing them! Go to our results page to see what I'm talking about> http://www.boston-bmwcca.org/results/2004/autocross.asp?event=8 http://www.boston-bmwcca.org/results/2004/autocross-season.asp What is an eye opener is the two drivers at the top of BS are also top notch drivers, but BOTH their M3's DO NOT HAVE Camber plates yet. They have all the other suspension mods but not Camber up front, nor Coil overs. I rest my case :-) As you know Scott, the handling mods make up over 75% of the difference in autocross times on the later model cars. HP increases and brake work is minor, unless it's a wide open faster style course where you can put the power down. IMHO the order from highest to lowest,excluding tire choice> Front Camber Springs Shocks Rim width & tire width Sway bars X Brace If you have time we should chat. I'm curious to hear your feedback to this post Cheers, Steve ----------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:23:23 -0800 From: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "E30 Yahoo Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I hesitate to ask this question, since I'm trying to isolate the effects of one variable as if dozens of other variables always remained the same, which, of course, they never do, variables being, um, variable. But hey, I've gotta start somewhere. This is research for our 2005 update to the GGC autocross classification system. These questions are directed to autocrossers who have installed front adjustable camber devices (plates, whatever, I just like the word "devices") on their BMWs. This is not about the half degree "crash correction" strut bearings, or even the other fixed offset strut bearings sold by companies like Ireland and Turner. I'm just interested in data on front adjustable camber. 1. When you installed front adjustable camber devices, and after you arrived at what you feel is your optimal camber settings, how much of a difference in run times did it make? Please include a reference, like, for example, "on a 60 second course". 2. Did you make any other changes at the same time, or was front adjustable camber the only mod you made? 3. What size sway bars are you running? 4. Year and model BMW on which the mods were made? Thanks, Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:54:44 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scott, Barry and the rest of the crew bring up some good points,,,, so at least for camber plates why not just assign points by measured camber. And I guess when the front of the oil pan touches the ground that's too much camber.... heeeheee. -Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:23:47 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Tammer Farid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [work] Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scott, I barely have time to race anymore. Adding another hobby will only result in a divorce lawyer buying a new P-car. Marco -----Original Message----- From: Scott & Charlotte Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:19 AM To: UUC Digest Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tammer Farid Subject: [work] Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber >A car that is properly corner weighted with "optimal" camber settings will >handle better than a car with screwed up corner weights. > >Of course my experience is in racing, I've never autocrossed. > >Marco Heck Marco, you should come out a couple of times and have some fun with us. Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:07:52 -0500 From: Steven Schlossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Zionsville Radiator, Service Shop in Long Beach CA Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Quoting Damon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hey list, > > Anybody have experience with the all-aluminum radiator from Zionsville? I have been very please with mine. I did not do the install but it did go in very nicely. I find my water temp is a needle width cooler than the stock radiator. I also replaced the plastic thermostat housing with an aluminum one. Plus it gives me confedience knowing that it is more reliable than the BMW version. -- ...steven ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:48:09 -0800 (PST) From: kjk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Camber plates Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Marco wrote: "Adjustable plates may get you more camber, but more isn't neccessarily better. You can have too much." Clearly, Marco doesn't drive a BMW with a stock front spring. :-). Max camber on my M5 with KMACS was not even 3 degrees and it still understeered. I now have fixed Dinan plates (didn't like the ride quality of the KMACS on the street or the lift) and find that the driver has a lot to do with how much my car understeers. Kevin Kelly '91 M5 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:18:00 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Camber plates Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;-P Your car is a pig ;-) No really I love the E34 M5. I had a student once that had a bored and stoked E34 M5 that was a frickin rocket ship and it also handled pretty well. No he kicks my butt in his DM E30 M3. But not for much longer And I do occasionally get to drive my wife's E39 540 6spd and it is also a plowing pig unless I throttle steer it and trail brake it a bit more than usually warranted, but I need to remember to turn off the damn DSC for that to work. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of kjk Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UUC] Camber plates Marco wrote: "Adjustable plates may get you more camber, but more isn't neccessarily better. You can have too much." Clearly, Marco doesn't drive a BMW with a stock front spring. :-). Max camber on my M5 with KMACS was not even 3 degrees and it still understeered. I now have fixed Dinan plates (didn't like the ride quality of the KMACS on the street or the lift) and find that the driver has a lot to do with how much my car understeers. Kevin Kelly '91 M5 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________________________________ In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:07:35 -0800 (PST) From: Jonathan Brush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: > Pre-Purchase Insp, '95 525 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bmwe34.net/E34main.htm __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(12 messages) **********
