Quote:
Originally Posted by evilC
The front on a link pin or ball joint suffer camber change in roll from near vertical to horribly positive. The Macpherson strut suffers less badly but still has some changes.
The rear on a swing axle is absolutely chronic in roll going from several degrees poitive in droop to several degrees negative in compression. The IRS again suffers less badly but does go from positve camber to negative camber in droop to compression. To add figures to all this would require significant data on a wheel alignment gig and a chapter of a book.
|
I'm sorry, I always only have a McPherson/IRS beetle in mind, forgot to add that
Corcerning the McPherson strut, I assume you mean the camber changes that come from compliance in the bushings?
Or do you mean other camber changes?
Quote:
|
I am not aware of any data relating to the tyres ability to cope with camber change but I ask you to imagine a situation where there is excessive camber, the taller profile tyre will keep the tread more readily in contact with the road than the lower profile tyre because the sidewall is not having to deform as much. Put another way if the load on the tyre is constant in both instances the sidewall of the tall profile tyre will deform more than the low profile tyre.
|
I've read some data about tires having the most grip when cornering when they have a fairly large negative (dynamic, ie total) camber (afaik it was >7 degrees).
Don't remember anything about the sidewall hight or strength being said in that article though.
I'll see if I can digg it up.