Meister R- Camber question

[Reggie91]

Yeah I know Chris. Once people have spent money on a wider set up they're not likely to admit it's crap so i'll just have to find out for myself too.

I'm not going for lap records and just want to enjoy driving it on track and want to look good while doing so haha!

 

[Indi]

I have the Area Motorsport YSR coilovers and area motorsport shortened steering arms to dial in the correct toe and I run -3.2 camber with around 3 degree castor up front fine although Rob did say this is all maxed out now but I do not wish to run anymore camber anyway.

 

[Reggie91]

Is that with the standard top mounts they provide with the kit or did you upgrade?

 

[Indi]

Is that with the standard top mounts they provide with the kit or did you upgrade?

With the standard top mounts, I'm yet to buy the Area top mounts.

 

[MilanoChris]

Yeah I know Chris. Once people have spent money on a wider set up they're not likely to admit it's crap so i'll just have to find out for myself too.

I'm not going for lap records and just want to enjoy driving it on track and want to look good while doing so haha!

A lot depends on wheel width, 235 for example would be rubbish on a 7.5J rim.

Also, I'll put this here, as I can't be bothered explaining it myself haha. This was posted on the MLR and many people do not realise this.

Fitting wider tyres DOES NOT INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE CONTACT AREA.
Your car weighs the same - in pounds. Running the same tyre pressure - the unit of which is pounds per square inch - the contact patch between tyre and tarmac - measured in square inches - is the same. Just a different shape.

You *could* lower the tyre pressure, to increase the area of the contact patch, but that introduces different other variables like lowering the lateral stiffness... Which you don't really want to do either unless you have a stiff enough tyre that can cope with the lateral loads without collapsing too much when running low pressure. (=squidgy).

Its all a bit of a compromise. But don't be held under the illusion that wider tyres makes the contact area larger. It doesn't.

Also:

For the same tyre pressure, the contact AREA is the same.
The WIDTH of the contact patch will be wider, but the fore-aft length of the contact patch will be less.

Same car weight in pounds + same pressure in pounds per square inch = Same area of contact in square inches.



However - if you choose to run lower pressures, then the contact patch will increase.

Same weight of car + less pounds per square inch = more square inches in contact with tarmac.

This will perhaps generate more grip *at the tyre to tarmac* interface, but may unsettle the car's handling due to more lateral deformation of the tyre? Depends on the tyre construction and many other factors.

Massively wide dragster tyres run pressures as low as 8 psi or less, so the contact patch is huge. But drag tyres are constructed so that the pressure inside the tyre isn't the only thing that creates rotational rigidity in the tyre.

There's a lot more than meets the eye going on.

Bu the fallacy that wider tyres increases grip is just that - a complete fallacy.

This is probably why TGM say what they did.

 

[mike.williams]

that doesnt even make sense. i get the impression who ever has typred that are refering to a wider tyre on an oem evo wheel.

i know i like my wider front 245/40 setup, it helps turn in and grip. spring rates and rear bar is a big factor as ive mentioned.

but for road use its not the best but can be imporved with the additon of more castor

 

[Reggie91]

What are peoples impressions on a reverse stagger fitment over a square set up?

245's (17x9) on the front and 225 (17x7.5) on the rear vs 245 square?

 

[spooke]

that doesnt even make sense. i get the impression who ever has typred that are refering to a wider tyre on an oem evo wheel.

i know i like my wider front 245/40 setup, it helps turn in and grip. spring rates and rear bar is a big factor as ive mentioned.

but for road use its not the best but can be imporved with the additon of more castor

I agree, wider front tyres should improve turn in and front grip. I wouldn't want to use anything more than my 8/7J setup on the road as it tramlines/torque steers enough as it is over bad roads.

What are peoples impressions on a reverse stagger fitment over a square set up?

245's (17x9) on the front and 225 (17x7.5) on the rear vs 245 square?

Personally I'd run staggered rather than square. I feel that 9J all round would need other changes to make it rotate, as Mike says, bigger rear arb, stiffer springs.

 

[mike.williams]

What are peoples impressions on a reverse stagger fitment over a square set up?

245's (17x9) on the front and 225 (17x7.5) on the rear vs 245 square?

this chassis needs a stiff rear spring rate to help the car turn (usually double the front) when using bigger rear arb's they do allow the rear spring rate to be slightly softer.

ive ran a lot of setups from 255 square, 245 square then 245/225. I much prefer the staggered setup as the wider rear tyre generates too much grip. To overcome that you need a silly stiff spring rate again.

but again it all comes down to spring rates and arb settings too. Myself running a stagger means i can run a slightly more compliant rear spring rate along with a beefy arb.

My setup works for me, but the best mod is a driver mod ( ie seat time)

 

[Indi]

Nail on the head Mike. May I also add it also depends on the driver, one person may prefer the planted rear feel (square) and another person may prefer loose rear so it does come down to personal preference whatever works best for you. I've ran a square 245/40 setup for the last year and half and done quite a few track days. It was a great setup for me and I managed impressive lap times . This year I will be tying out 255F 235R.

 

[mike.williams]

yep exactly that mate, everything is personal preferance.

 

[MeisterR]

Well, just to help out.
The ZetaCRD+ do come with a slotted top hole in the lower bracket, so no need for camber bolt.
The adjustable top mount is also standard, so you should be able to dial in the camber you need.

As far as traction goes, do remember that damper plays a big role in that.
When you turn on track, you want the damper to "push" the weight down onto the tyres.
Because this force the tyres to work, and in return you get better steering response and better traction.

Having a heavier springs do not do this, because when you throw weight onto the springs it compresses.
That is the function of a springs.
So even if you have 2 setup with the same springs rate, the ride and performance can be dramatically different depending on the damper valving.

Jerrick

 

[Kenz]

A lot of useful information in this thread. As said its all down to personal preference. What works for you may be horrible for someone else.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sonny1]

Now thats not a common site 🤔

 

[Kenz]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[spooke]

• F tire 265/35/18 Z2 (18 × 9.5J + 35)
• R tire 225/45/17 (17 × 7.5J + 44)

• F tire 245/40/17 (17 × 8.5J)
• R tire 215/45/17 (17 × 7.5J)

To not derail the thread too much, more info here http://www.itr-dc5.club/forum/index.php?/topic/42502-japanese-tuner-dc5s/

 

[Sonny1]

Alright I take that last comment back.....Its more common than I thought lol

 

[mike.williams]

• F tire 265/35/18 Z2 (18 × 9.5J + 35)
• R tire 225/45/17 (17 × 7.5J + 44)

sorry luke i have to correct this

• F tire 285/30/18 or possibly 295/30 (18 × 10.5J + 18)
• R tire 255/40/17 (17 × 9J + 35)

 

[spooke]

sorry luke i have to correct this

• F tire 285/30/18 or possibly 295/30 (18 × 10.5J + 18)
• R tire 255/40/17 (17 × 9J + 35)

Haha no worries that was one of the old setups anyway are there any photos of it's current setup?

 

[MilanoChris]

What sort of max front wheel width and tyre size are people getting away with without modifying the arches? I will trial fit 225/45/17 this weekend I think but I think I would be at the limit there with 17x8J ET48.