Tire Wear (More inside or outside?)
So I have a set of old RA1's (yes old) that have one edge worn significantly more than the other. These didn't come off my Miata (I'm a poor tire beggar!)
What I'm wondering is, should I put these on my Miata with the worn edge inside or outside? Here my Miata setup: - koni yellow, 550F / 340R - hollow RB bar up front, no rear bar - ~1.5 front camber, 1.25 rear camber - zero toe front/rear Thanks |
if you run too much camber, put that edge on the outside.
if you run too little camber, put it on the inside. |
I am guessing that it is difficult to get 'too much' camber at ~12.75" ride height and stock arms. So put the worn edge on the inside?
Tim |
just a quick note.....you should be running more rear camber than front and a little bit of toe in on all four ends for handling purposes.
I think with the camber you're running, put them inside |
I'd say what is more important to consider is how much toe you're running. Thats the true killer of tires (as far as the inside/outside argument). You probably still want to run the worn edge on the outside regardless though.
I've heard that running tires in the incorrect rotation direction periodically will help them wear evenly as well. |
Originally Posted by spitefulcheerio
(Post 728724)
just a quick note.....you should be running more rear camber than front and a little bit of toe in on all four ends for handling purposes.
I think with the camber you're running, put them inside |
lol I'm going by what other people have told me. My alignment is setup for autox, by what others have told me.
Front: -1.1 camber 5 caster 1/32" toe in Rear: -1.75 rear 1/32" toe in I'd actually like to know where I'm wrong so I can change it though.... |
I run a lot more rear than front, by memory its about 2 front 2.5 or 3 deg camber rear.
Dann |
Originally Posted by wayne_curr
(Post 728727)
You are just flat out wrong and must be called out. I'll let someone else take it from here.
>=12" front ride height (measured hub center to fender) >=4.5" front ride height measured at forward most straight section of pinch weld with 205/50/15 or 225/45/15 tires Front camber: -2* (or as close as you can get to it) Caster: +3.75 to +4.25* Front total toe: 0 Rear camber : -1.8* Front total toe: 0 <=12.0" 3.75~ 4.25" front ride height measured at forward most straight section of pinch weld with 205/50/15 or 225/45/15 tires Front camber: -2.8* (or as close as you can get to it) Caster: +2.75 to +3.5* Front total toe: 0 Rear camber : -2.5* Front total toe: 0 Works for me (I use the second setup).. PS, I'd mount the worn edges on the "outside". |
Thanks guys, it really seems like it is a bit of a crap shoot on what side to mount the worn edges. I don't really have a bunch of camber and no toe, so inside wear should be low.. but there is also good camber gain through the travel so outside wear should be low as well.
So relatively even wear.. which means these tires won't last me all that long, ha (worn edges will wear too.. eventually cording). Thanks |
Get more camber and put the worn edges on the inside always.
|
Originally Posted by jacob300zx
(Post 729141)
Get more camber and put the worn edges on the inside always.
plz edumacate me. |
the toe in will make it twitchy. Ok for AutoX but not for high speed stuff.
|
~12" ride height:
Rear camber: -2.0 Front camber: -2.2 Front Castor: 5.0 Rear toe-out: +0.125" |
Originally Posted by sixace
(Post 729238)
Curious as to why worn on the inside? I try and get even wear, but always end up with slightly more wear on the insides. All the ax crew usually end up flipping the tires on the wheels to get the worn insides to the outside to extend life..
plz edumacate me. |
Originally Posted by rider384
(Post 729384)
More camber means there's more weight resting on the inside edge of the wheel. More weight on it means more wear.
btw, you run more neg camber on the rear than front? :giggle: |
Had it backwards, -2.2 is front and -2.0 is rear :giggle:
And I know that, of course I knew that... |
I still don't understand what more rear camber is bad...my alignment setup is for autox. I spoke to a couple of auotx vets and they said my setup was a good streetable autox alignment
|
Originally Posted by sixace
(Post 729385)
Uh yeah, I get that. The question was why would someone mount used tires with the worn edge on the inside edge.
Back in my learner years I ran a 03 with just Yellow Konis and "old FM-springs". I needed to flip the tires twice to make the most of the rubber. With the modified LCAs (moved lower ball joint) and the -3.2 I run now the wear is even and I can just move wheels according to the wear at the track (LF is always punished the most on our tracks). |
Originally Posted by spitefulcheerio
(Post 728724)
you should be running more rear camber than front and a little bit of toe in on all four ends for handling purposes.
Do not let spitefulcheerio do your alignment. |
Originally Posted by spitefulcheerio
(Post 729404)
I still don't understand what more rear camber is bad...my alignment setup is for autox. I spoke to a couple of auotx vets and they said my setup was a good streetable autox alignment
A proper ax setup is along the lines of -2.9 fr, -2.5 (or more) rr, max caster, bit of toe-out in front and a bit of toe-in for the rear. Track setup has already been posted. I'm far from an expert, but just a bit of research reveals that the above ax setup is used by nationally compettive ax'ers. It could be dependant on tires/sways/springs/driving style, etc. but there it is... I used to use the above ax setup before the track addiction hit. Now I just keep the track setup and it's ok for ax (unless your serious). Ax setup for track, not so good.. ymmv:2cents: |
But m.net said I should use the Icehawk alignment!
|
M.net says FFS is much more betterer too, im selling my turbo shit.
Mt.net people dont know anything. |
Originally Posted by spitefulcheerio
(Post 729404)
I still don't understand what more rear camber is bad...my alignment setup is for autox. I spoke to a couple of auotx vets and they said my setup was a good streetable autox alignment
The way I understand it is that in a corner, your car rolls and gains more camber. Due to your front roll couple, the front of your car gains less camber than the rear so you need more static camber up front. It seems logical to most that more camber in the rear makes sense on a RWD car but try not to believe the hype and mis-information on m.net. Here is a good place to read about alignment specs. http://949racing.com/miata-race-alignment-info.aspx |
I use the 949 alinement specs and honestly get a little more wear on the out side of the tire, I just depends on your driving style. Ive tried to get tire temps but it's rained at all the MC events I made it to this year and I blew up my car the first run last event so no such luck this year. I don't know why you would ever run more camber in the rear, Maybe drifting? The front always sees more load, thats why you run more in the front. Also Toe out makes a car twitchy, I run toe in for street cars and toe out for the track for best turn in. Sixace must be doing something right here Mad props on the 2010 Unlimited class champ.
|
It is good practice to use an IF temperature gauge and actually determine what alignment works best for you. It's also why you see smart racers mark tires with chalk.
|
Its the toe wearing the inside of the tire not the camber. Toe is a tire killer, common misconception is the camber doing it due to people lowering the car and not realigning the toe. Run crazy camber and no toe and profit. Fancy pants had 2.7 front and 3.0 rear, it was maxed out.
|
Originally Posted by spitefulcheerio
(Post 729404)
I still don't understand what more rear camber is bad...my alignment setup is for autox. I spoke to a couple of auotx vets and they said my setup was a good streetable autox alignment
Two reasons why it is wrong. 1) The rear suspension geometry gains more negative camber than the front as the car rolls or sqats in acceleration. 2) Front tires job is only cornering and the rear is also needed strait line acceleration. Also for comparison BMW E30’s have very near the handling balance of a miata. factory specs also have the front tires standing straight up and a fair amount of negative camber. Anybody who has really made an E30 fast has a shit ton of front negative camber and just a bit more than stock in the rear. Similar thing works for the Miata as well. My own experimentation has led me to the same conclusion as Emillio’s 949 alignment the guy knows what he is talking about. Much more than about -2.5 in the rear saw diminishing returns but it just got faster as I maxed out front camber to about 2.8 which is all I could get. Autocrossing I still wear the outside edges of the tires if your driving on the street and not cornering hard a lot Toe is what kills the inside edges way more than camber. My suggestion is Max out front camber first. Back off only enough to get the same castor on both sides what ever max you can get both sides equal with camber as the priority. Put a little less camber in the rear. To save tire wear set the toe to 0 degrees all around. Mark the flats on your front tie rods. It helps a little if prior to an autocross you adjust the tie rods out 2 hex flats per side on the front works good. Keep it marked and you can adjust your toe yourself for different events and set it back to zero for daily use to save tires. Bob |
Thank you for that in depth description. I understand where I went wrong now.
MY only problem is at stock ride height, I'm maxed out with front negative camber. I won't be stock ride height for long and I know lowering the car adds negative camber so once I have my tokicos installed, I'll be looking to setup my alignment properly. I'll also do that toe trick for my next autox! Thanks again |
Originally Posted by Gotpsi?
(Post 729476)
.... Sixace must be doing something right here Mad props on the 2010 Unlimited class champ.
1. Tires 2. Tires 3. Tires In retrospect, there is one thing more important. Benjamins. |
Haha what tires do you run? NT01?
|
Originally Posted by Gotpsi?
(Post 729476)
I use the 949 alinement specs and honestly get a little more wear on the out side of the tire, I just depends on your driving style.
The way to set alignment is with a tire pyrometer - plain and simple. |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 729830)
+1. Emilio's specs are a good starting point but I run more camber than that on both of our cars. My standard track slut alignment is -3.0F, -2.8R, +3.5 caster, no toe. Big power cars (250+whp) get 1/8" rear toe in.
|
Originally Posted by Gotpsi?
(Post 729817)
Haha what tires do you run? NT01?
|
Originally Posted by jacob300zx
(Post 729567)
Its the toe wearing the inside of the tire not the camber. Toe is a tire killer, common misconception is the camber doing it due to people lowering the car and not realigning the toe. Run crazy camber and no toe and profit. Fancy pants had 2.7 front and 3.0 rear, it was maxed out.
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 729830)
+1.The way to set alignment is with a tire pyrometer - plain and simple.
spot on, if your on a budget or lazy just max it out what you can get and run zero toe. |
Originally Posted by savington
(Post 729830)
the way to set alignment is with a tire pyrometer - plain and simple.
|
Originally Posted by bbundy
(Post 729615)
Much more than about -2.5 in the rear saw diminishing returns but it just got faster as I maxed out front camber to about 2.8 which is all I could get.
We usually pick up about .5° without changing ride height. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:08 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands