On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

cl...:

Uhh, got that backwards on the camber and caster:

Car will pull toward side with LEAST
positive Caster, or toward side with
least NEGATIVE(most upright wheel)
camber.
Negative camber is NOT upright. Negative camber is top in. Least
negative is the same as most positive. I know what I'm talking about -
I've not only worked the trade, I've taught it.

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 19:28:37 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:48 -0400, wrote:

A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
positive caster.

Brain fart?...
If that's what I wrote - yes. Top out is positive CAMBER - and the
car will pull to the highest positive CAMBER or least negative..
Caster is opposite.
Positive CASTER is top back and it will pull to the side with the
least positive, or most negative.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:30:43 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 19:28:37 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:48 -0400, wrote:

A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
positive caster.

Brain fart?...
If that's what I wrote - yes. Top out is positive CAMBER - and the
car will pull to the highest positive CAMBER or least negative..
Caster is opposite.
Positive CASTER is top back and it will pull to the side with the
least positive, or most negative.

Easy to do. I had to think about it before I replied.

On 07/10/2017 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

cl...:

Uhh, got that backwards on the camber and caster:

Car will pull toward side with LEAST
positive Caster, or toward side with
least NEGATIVE(most upright wheel)
camber.
Negative camber is NOT upright. Negative camber is top in. Least
negative is the same as most positive. I know what I'm talking about -
I've not only worked the trade, I've taught it.


"He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:15:10 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

Is it normal for the outside edges of the front tires to be stairstepping
on the outer inch or two only?

By stairstepping, I mean that you can't see the wear all that much but if
you rub your hand over the tread in one direction, you can feel a lip on
each side swipe tread.

If you run your hand over in the other direction, you don't feel it. You
only feel it if you run your hand from back to front on the outside tread
of the two front tires.

If you do the same with the rear tires or on the inner edge of the front
tires, you don't feel any 'stairstepping".

The tires are about a year old and are wearing the front outside edges
only.

One hundred and 5 posts?! Talk about beating a dead horse into powder.
--
It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:52:56 -0400, Trumpster
wrote:

On 07/10/2017 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

cl...:

Uhh, got that backwards on the camber and caster:

Car will pull toward side with LEAST
positive Caster, or toward side with
least NEGATIVE(most upright wheel)
camber.
Negative camber is NOT upright. Negative camber is top in. Least
negative is the same as most positive. I know what I'm talking about -
I've not only worked the trade, I've taught it.


"He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."
Bull****. I did it for a lot longer than I taught it, and the
teaching was not at the end of my automotive career. Like a masochist
I went back to the trade ---. At least my years of teaching made me
eligible for coverage under OTIP's retired teacher plan - so I have
good health insurance at a reasonable price. (Yes, we still buy health
insurance in Canada!!!!)

In rec.autos.tech, on Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:03:26 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:56:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

The car steering geometry specs will have been designed to make your car
safe to drive in all circumstances.

The specs are almost always a *range* so there's room to be at one end or
the other, isn't there?

I think the answer is no, not always.

If caster has a range of 2 to 4 and camber 5 to 7, that doesn't mean
that you can put caster at 2 and camber at 7 and everything is even
moderately acceptable, aiui.

The range refers to one value at a time, that if the caster has a range
of 2 to 4 and you have it set at 1.9, that's bad in itself, regardless
of what the other values are. (Maybe in some special situations a
skilled aligner can safely go outside the range, I don't know one way or
the other, but my point is made in the paragraph above, which I think
you think would be acceptable.)

Alignment is a compromise and any particular setting of camber, for
example, may well limit the acceptable setting of caster to a smaller
range than the range given in the spec. Competent pros know this and
allow for it.

Corrections?

I hope you don't intend to tell the shop what settings you want, and
will instead tell them your problem** and what you think woudl help,
without ordering them to do that.

**I'm not sure why some feathering is worth all this trouble in the
first place. Will your tires wear out sooner? How much sooner? How
much is that in dollars?

Micky wrote: "If caster has a range of 2 to 4 and camber 5 to 7, that doesn't mean
that you can put caster at 2 and camber at 7 and everything is even
moderately acceptable, aiui.

The range refers to one value at a time, that if the caster has a range
of 2 to 4 and you have it set at 1.9, that's bad in itself, regardless
of what the other values are. (Maybe in some special situations a
skilled aligner can safely go outside the range, I don't know one way or
the other, but my point is made in the paragraph above, which I think
you think would be acceptable.)"


If caster has a range of 2 to 4 degrees then I would
aim for the middle of that range, just as I would
with the other specs. In this case, 3degrees. I
prefer a little more centering force, so I'd set
a little on the high side, but still in range. 3.2 or
so.

5 to 7 degrees camber??? Those tires'd be
practically laying on their sides! lmao. Most
cars have half to one degree of camber either
way.

Say front to specs are -0.05 to +0.10. 0.03
deg. would be the middle of that range.
NOT zero, as I see too many techs aiming
for. You want static toe, which should
result in 0deg toe - straight ahead - when
vehicle is moving. Unless something is
worn or bent.

Front TOE that is. Damn!

On 13/07/2017 1:03 PM, micky wrote:
In rec.autos.tech, on Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:03:26 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:56:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

The car steering geometry specs will have been designed to make your car
safe to drive in all circumstances.

The specs are almost always a *range* so there's room to be at one end or
the other, isn't there?

I think the answer is no, not always.

If caster has a range of 2 to 4 and camber 5 to 7, that doesn't mean
that you can put caster at 2 and camber at 7 and everything is even
moderately acceptable, aiui.

Camber is a tyre wearing angle and at 7 degrees would definitely lead to
tyres wearing on one side. For road going cars, 1 degree
positive/negative would normally be the maximum you would aim for.
Competition cars can go to 2 or even 3 degrees.

Caster, on the other hand, has a good deal more leeway since it isn't a
tyre wearing angle. It does create self aligning torque so a decrease
will affect the car's ability to straighten up out of a turn. An
increase, on the other hand, will make the steering heavier.

Toe in changes can affect the understeering/oversteering characteristics
of the car and, therefore, affect the handling.

You need to have an understanding of suspension kinematics before you
arbitrarily play around with manufacturers specifications. Simply
lowering a car will upset the kinematics and, as a consequence, the
handling.

The range refers to one value at a time, that if the caster has a range
of 2 to 4 and you have it set at 1.9, that's bad in itself, regardless
of what the other values are. (Maybe in some special situations a
skilled aligner can safely go outside the range, I don't know one way or
the other, but my point is made in the paragraph above, which I think
you think would be acceptable.)

Alignment is a compromise and any particular setting of camber, for
example, may well limit the acceptable setting of caster to a smaller
range than the range given in the spec. Competent pros know this and
allow for it.

Corrections?

I hope you don't intend to tell the shop what settings you want, and
will instead tell them your problem** and what you think woudl help,
without ordering them to do that.

**I'm not sure why some feathering is worth all this trouble in the
first place. Will your tires wear out sooner? How much sooner? How
much is that in dollars?

It generally isn't. It is an effect of the design compromises in
steering kinematics versus vehicle usage. The type of usage described by
the OP is the perfect example of an extreme that is outside the
manufacturers design expectations. The penalty, if it can be called
that, is increased tyre wear. It's no different to expecting increased
tyre wear if every launch is like that of a jackrabbit.

--

Xeno

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:00:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Micky wrote: "If caster has a range of 2 to 4 and camber 5 to 7, that doesn't mean
that you can put caster at 2 and camber at 7 and everything is even
moderately acceptable, aiui.

The range refers to one value at a time, that if the caster has a range
of 2 to 4 and you have it set at 1.9, that's bad in itself, regardless
of what the other values are. (Maybe in some special situations a
skilled aligner can safely go outside the range, I don't know one way or
the other, but my point is made in the paragraph above, which I think
you think would be acceptable.)"


If caster has a range of 2 to 4 degrees then I would
aim for the middle of that range, just as I would
with the other specs. In this case, 3degrees. I
prefer a little more centering force, so I'd set
a little on the high side, but still in range. 3.2 or
so.

5 to 7 degrees camber??? Those tires'd be
practically laying on their sides! lmao. Most
cars have half to one degree of camber either
way.
Renault R16 spec was range of 1.66 tp -3.66
My Firenza ran -1.0

Say front to specs are -0.05 to +0.10. 0.03
deg. would be the middle of that range.
NOT zero, as I see too many techs aiming
for. You want static toe, which should
result in 0deg toe - straight ahead - when
vehicle is moving. Unless something is
worn or bent.
neg camber causes the wheels to try yo toe out, so a bit of toe-in
makes them run straight. pos camber causes them to try to toe in - so
a bit of toe out makes them run straight. There ARE other factors - of
course.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:05:08 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:00:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Micky wrote: "If caster has a range of 2 to 4 and camber 5 to 7, that doesn't mean
that you can put caster at 2 and camber at 7 and everything is even
moderately acceptable, aiui.

The range refers to one value at a time, that if the caster has a range
of 2 to 4 and you have it set at 1.9, that's bad in itself, regardless
of what the other values are. (Maybe in some special situations a
skilled aligner can safely go outside the range, I don't know one way or
the other, but my point is made in the paragraph above, which I think
you think would be acceptable.)"


If caster has a range of 2 to 4 degrees then I would
aim for the middle of that range, just as I would
with the other specs. In this case, 3degrees. I
prefer a little more centering force, so I'd set
a little on the high side, but still in range. 3.2 or
so.

5 to 7 degrees camber??? Those tires'd be
practically laying on their sides! lmao. Most
cars have half to one degree of camber either
way.
Renault R16 spec was range of 1.66 tp -3.66
My Firenza ran -1.0

Say front to specs are -0.05 to +0.10. 0.03
deg. would be the middle of that range.
NOT zero, as I see too many techs aiming
for. You want static toe, which should
result in 0deg toe - straight ahead - when
vehicle is moving. Unless something is
worn or bent.
neg camber causes the wheels to try yo toe out, so a bit of toe-in
makes them run straight. pos camber causes them to try to toe in - so
a bit of toe out makes them run straight. There ARE other factors - of
course.
Just thought of another possibility - is thaT MACHINE EQUIPPED WITH
RACK AD PINION STEERING? Make sure the mountings are tight and the
bushings are not worn?

On 7/9/2017 9:03 PM, Xeno wrote:
The MARKET sets the price. Do you really think, for example, that a
$50,000
Rolex Watch tells better time than a $50 Timex watch?

Sometimes they do - and that Timex will not be keeping time 45 years
from now, while the Rolex likely will. My Dad's old Rolex Tutor was
just cleaned and ovehauled - it is 65 years old

A Rolex is something that will be handed down for generations. A Timex
will be lucky to last for a single generation.

But the Timex will be good enough, and it's replacement will cost way
less than the service on the Rolex I would think.

My first watch was a Timex that had stopped working for my dad. I banged
it around a bit, it started working, and I used it for more than 10 years.

Ever wonder why those old ads showed Timex's getting the cr*p beat out
of them and still ticking. That's because that's what keeps them ticking.

ci...@snyder wrote: " Renault R16 spec was range of 1.66 tp -3.66
My Firenza ran -1.0 "

That's fairly close to the middle: -1.66deg

thekhhhmah @ tardsRtheckmah . shortbus . edu wrote in message
...
ci...@snyder wrote: " Renault R16 spec was range of 1.66 tp -3.66
My Firenza ran -1.0 "

That's fairly close to the middle: -1.66deg

After bragging that you can't even comprehend 2+2, and repeatedly
proving that you're an imbecile, maybe you should leave the math to
grownups, li'l buddy. You're too retarded. FCKWAFIA!

Chaya Eve posted for all of us...



The marketing genius in the L/XL/GXL lineup is that you get everyone if you
break your product into three fundamental "good/better/best" ranges (where
the idea is to gouge as much money as you can from the consumer).

What you do is offer the item which does the job at the "L" level.
Then you add a few nice-to-haves at a good price markup for the "XL level.
Then you throw in highly marketed costly items for the "GXL" level.

Most marketing is aimed to get people to jump to the GXL level, while most
consumers will resist the extremely high price, but they don't want the
"cheap stuff" which is why you have to have a "good/better/best" range.


In the matter of car lines the manufacturers have turned the option list
into "lines". In other words if you want basic-no options and want to add
collision avoidance you must buy a higher line, if you want a moon roof then
you must buy the higher line. Of course they always stick in unwanted items
in the higher lines; like premium audio, heated seats. You can't delete
them.

I knew a guy whom worked at a major tire manufacturer in quality control.
After GM started to reject boxcars of tires, they started loading the
exceptional spec tires at the doors of the boxcars after loading the usual
spec'd tires in first. The GM inspectors would only check the first out lot
then move on.

Your marketing education is just a low level of psychology. You are taking
this thread away from the excellent advice of many people who have done this
for many years. Where did you get your education and where do you work?

--
Tekkie

posted for all of us...



On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:34:56 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

They always tell us to have a "good/better/best" lineup, because people
*want* to pay more for "better" stuff, but at the same time they teach us
about 'economies of scale' where you slightly differentiate the product
(e.g., gold-plated trim) so that people will *think* that it's a better
product (even though it's the same product).

I realize I said economies of "scale" when I meant economies of "scope".

The marketing genius in the L/XL/GXL lineup is that you get everyone if you
break your product into three fundamental "good/better/best" ranges (where
the idea is to gouge as much money as you can from the consumer).

What you do is offer the item which does the job at the "L" level.
Then you add a few nice-to-haves at a good price markup for the "XL level.
Then you throw in highly marketed costly items for the "GXL" level.

Most marketing is aimed to get people to jump to the GXL level, while most
consumers will resist the extremely high price, but they don't want the
"cheap stuff" which is why you have to have a "good/better/best" range.

They "think" they're getting a good value by going for the "better" because
they don't want to "think" much when they buy. They just want to associate
dollars to quality, so you make that association for them with the
good/better/best L/XL/GXL pricing tier.

You give the educated consumer a lot less credit than they are due.
The "educated consumer" doesn't need a degree in marketing.

Particularly in today's automotive market, where there really are very
few "options" if you want, say, a sunroof on a car, you need to buy a
minimum trim level that is NOT base. And if you want, say, the high
end infortainment system with navigation, you need to buy the next
level up - which ONLY comes with the sun roof. Gone are the days, to a
great extent, of ordering from the "menu" where you could order the
big motor on the "stripper" and get a "sleeper" - with eithe bench or
bucket seats, in any colour you wanted, with any colour pait you
wanted - and any tire and wheel combo, and any gear ratio the company
made, with or without Posi.
You have 3 choices, Base, Medium, and high content - or L, GL, or GLX
You can't make the L-to-XL pricing jump too high, but you can get away with
making the XL-to-GXL price jump very high (because you're playing on
consumer emotions).

No, you are playing on consumer's WANTS. They WANT the sunroof and the
navigation system and high end audio - so they buy the GLX

Everyone wins when you market it right.
* the cost-conscious consumer thinks they got good product at a good price.
* the value-conscious consumer thinks they got a better value at not too
much of a bump in price
* the status-conscious consumer pays through the nose for status and gets
it if the marketing department can maintain the status feelings
* the company makes out because they sold essentially the same product to
three different types of customers, making the most profit on the third
type but still making profits on the first and second type due to economies
of scale (volume) and economies of scope (differentiation).
* the marketing department wins awards and bonuses for increasing the
perceived value of the GXL "best" model, even though it's essentially the
same item as the other two (only it has special options and gold trim and
free coffee and free car washings, or whatever makes people feel good).
No, that's why you have a chevy, a cadillac, a BMW and a Mercedes.
THAT is where pride and emotion make people do stupid things.
Mer bought homself a loaded Kia or Hyundai for less money than a
"base" BMW or Merc or Caddy, that will cost him WAY less in
maintenance and repairs, where he will get WAY more for it at resale,
in percentage terms than either of the options, or a lower contented
car - meaning he got VALUE for for his money. REal value, not based on
"marketing BS"

I'm sorry Clare, I just wrote a post with the same points as yours. I didn't
get down to this level prior to posting. It's getting to be too much with
her conflating issues.

--
Tekkie

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:58:57 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 7/9/2017 9:03 PM, Xeno wrote:
The MARKET sets the price. Do you really think, for example, that a
$50,000
Rolex Watch tells better time than a $50 Timex watch?

Sometimes they do - and that Timex will not be keeping time 45 years
from now, while the Rolex likely will. My Dad's old Rolex Tutor was
just cleaned and ovehauled - it is 65 years old

A Rolex is something that will be handed down for generations. A Timex
will be lucky to last for a single generation.

But the Timex will be good enough, and it's replacement will cost way
less than the service on the Rolex I would think.

My first watch was a Timex that had stopped working for my dad. I banged
it around a bit, it started working, and I used it for more than 10 years.

Ever wonder why those old ads showed Timex's getting the cr*p beat out
of them and still ticking. That's because that's what keeps them ticking.
A couple of kids were out playing ball, and one of them had a Timex
that had quit. He it it into the infeild with the bat, and it worked
again - al least for a while. My older brother can't wear a cheap
watch. A timex would quit in a week. The rolex worked perfectly. He
can now wear some cheap quartz watches - but cheap mechanicals were
no-go.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 03:05:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

ci...@snyder wrote: " Renault R16 spec was range of 1.66 tp -3.66
My Firenza ran -1.0 "

That's fairly close to the middle: -1.66deg
The Firenza isn't an R16 The Firenza spec was -1
Rhe renault would be in spec at -3.66 - as long as both wheels were
the same.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:17:42 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:34:56 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

They always tell us to have a "good/better/best" lineup, because people
*want* to pay more for "better" stuff, but at the same time they teach us
about 'economies of scale' where you slightly differentiate the product
(e.g., gold-plated trim) so that people will *think* that it's a better
product (even though it's the same product).

I realize I said economies of "scale" when I meant economies of "scope".

The marketing genius in the L/XL/GXL lineup is that you get everyone if you
break your product into three fundamental "good/better/best" ranges (where
the idea is to gouge as much money as you can from the consumer).

What you do is offer the item which does the job at the "L" level.
Then you add a few nice-to-haves at a good price markup for the "XL level.
Then you throw in highly marketed costly items for the "GXL" level.

Most marketing is aimed to get people to jump to the GXL level, while most
consumers will resist the extremely high price, but they don't want the
"cheap stuff" which is why you have to have a "good/better/best" range.

They "think" they're getting a good value by going for the "better" because
they don't want to "think" much when they buy. They just want to associate
dollars to quality, so you make that association for them with the
good/better/best L/XL/GXL pricing tier.

You give the educated consumer a lot less credit than they are due.
The "educated consumer" doesn't need a degree in marketing.

Particularly in today's automotive market, where there really are very
few "options" if you want, say, a sunroof on a car, you need to buy a
minimum trim level that is NOT base. And if you want, say, the high
end infortainment system with navigation, you need to buy the next
level up - which ONLY comes with the sun roof. Gone are the days, to a
great extent, of ordering from the "menu" where you could order the
big motor on the "stripper" and get a "sleeper" - with eithe bench or
bucket seats, in any colour you wanted, with any colour pait you
wanted - and any tire and wheel combo, and any gear ratio the company
made, with or without Posi.
You have 3 choices, Base, Medium, and high content - or L, GL, or GLX
You can't make the L-to-XL pricing jump too high, but you can get away with
making the XL-to-GXL price jump very high (because you're playing on
consumer emotions).

No, you are playing on consumer's WANTS. They WANT the sunroof and the
navigation system and high end audio - so they buy the GLX

Everyone wins when you market it right.
* the cost-conscious consumer thinks they got good product at a good price.
* the value-conscious consumer thinks they got a better value at not too
much of a bump in price
* the status-conscious consumer pays through the nose for status and gets
it if the marketing department can maintain the status feelings
* the company makes out because they sold essentially the same product to
three different types of customers, making the most profit on the third
type but still making profits on the first and second type due to economies
of scale (volume) and economies of scope (differentiation).
* the marketing department wins awards and bonuses for increasing the
perceived value of the GXL "best" model, even though it's essentially the
same item as the other two (only it has special options and gold trim and
free coffee and free car washings, or whatever makes people feel good).
No, that's why you have a chevy, a cadillac, a BMW and a Mercedes.
THAT is where pride and emotion make people do stupid things.
Mer bought homself a loaded Kia or Hyundai for less money than a
"base" BMW or Merc or Caddy, that will cost him WAY less in
maintenance and repairs, where he will get WAY more for it at resale,
in percentage terms than either of the options, or a lower contented
car - meaning he got VALUE for for his money. REal value, not based on
"marketing BS"

I'm sorry Clare, I just wrote a post with the same points as yours. I didn't
get down to this level prior to posting. It's getting to be too much with
her conflating issues.
Time to plonk the idiot.

"The Firenza isn't an R16 The Firenza spec was -1
Rhe renault would be in spec at -3.66 - as long as both wheels were
the same. "

Clarify?

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:27:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

"The Firenza isn't an R16 The Firenza spec was -1
Rhe renault would be in spec at -3.66 - as long as both wheels were
the same. "

Clarify?
Simple. My Vauxhaull Firenza was apec'd at -1 degree camber. I think
it was actually closer to -1.5 Had NO tire wear issues with the
oversized tires installed on it for over 7 years

A Renault R16 was specc'd at +1 to -3.66
If it was set at +1 on trhe left and -3.66 on the right it would
"technically" be within spec, but would be turning very tight tight
turns as soon as you took your hands off the wheel.
Properly set up at about -2 on each side, it would corner like a
fiend, carving corners like a knife, and holding on to the road as if
it had claws.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:27:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
- show quoted text -
"Simple. My Vauxhaull Firenza was apec'd at -1 degree camber. I think
it was actually closer to -1.5 Had NO tire wear issues with the
oversized tires installed on it for over 7 years

"A Renault R16 was specc'd at +1 to -3.66
If it was set at +1 on trhe left and -3.66 on the right it would
"technically" be within spec, but would be turning very tight tight
turns as soon as you took your hands off the wheel.
Properly set up at about -2 on each side, it would corner like a
fiend, carving corners like a knife, and holding on to the road as if
it had claws. "

And being 'in spec', a lot of alignment places
would send the car out the door that way, and
if the customer came back, they'd say 'It's in
spec' even though the car was doing f'king
doughnuts. (facepalm!)



Sorry, for some reason while reading
through your earlier post I confused
your car with the Renault.

What is the camber range on
your Firenza?

On 07/14/2017 03:14 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
I knew a guy whom worked at a major tire manufacturer in quality control.
After GM started to reject boxcars of tires, they started loading the
exceptional spec tires at the doors of the boxcars after loading the usual
spec'd tires in first. The GM inspectors would only check the first out lot
then move on.

When I took statistics years ago it was geared toward engineers. The
major question was how many samples do you have to examine to ensure the
batch is only N% crap. N would be provided by sales and marketing after
they determined the economics of repairing or replacing crap versus
going for as close to 100% quality product as you could.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:57:42 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:27:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
- show quoted text -
"Simple. My Vauxhaull Firenza was apec'd at -1 degree camber. I think
it was actually closer to -1.5 Had NO tire wear issues with the
oversized tires installed on it for over 7 years

"A Renault R16 was specc'd at +1 to -3.66
If it was set at +1 on trhe left and -3.66 on the right it would
"technically" be within spec, but would be turning very tight tight
turns as soon as you took your hands off the wheel.
Properly set up at about -2 on each side, it would corner like a
fiend, carving corners like a knife, and holding on to the road as if
it had claws. "

And being 'in spec', a lot of alignment places
would send the car out the door that way, and
if the customer came back, they'd say 'It's in
spec' even though the car was doing f'king
doughnuts. (facepalm!)



Sorry, for some reason while reading
through your earlier post I confused
your car with the Renault.

What is the camber range on
your Firenza?
IIRC it was + 1/2 to - 1 1/2 - not sure, but I believe we had it set
at -1. It's been gone for a LONG time now.
I never owned an R16, but rallyed an R12 for 3 punishing seasons.

" IIRC it was + 1/2 to - 1 1/2 - not sure, but I believe we had it set
at -1. It's been gone for a LONG time now.
I never owned an R16, but rallyed an R12 for 3 punishing seasons. "

Just for reference -3/4degrees would have
been the middle of that camber range.

thekma @ retard.shortbus.com wrote in message
...
" IIRC it was + 1/2 to - 1 1/2 - not sure, but I believe we had it
set
at -1. It's been gone for a LONG time now.
I never owned an R16, but rallyed an R12 for 3 punishing seasons. "

Just for reference -3/4degrees would have
been the middle of that camber range.

Just for reference, you got it wrong again, dumb****. After bragging
that you can't even comprehend 2+2, maybe you should leave the math to
grownups, li'l buddy. You're too stupid and retarded. FCKWAFIA.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 03:09:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

" IIRC it was + 1/2 to - 1 1/2 - not sure, but I believe we had it set
at -1. It's been gone for a LONG time now.
I never owned an R16, but rallyed an R12 for 3 punishing seasons. "

Just for reference -3/4degrees would have
been the middle of that camber range.
Wh said the middle is where I would want it to be? But of coarse
anyone can figure out that simple math.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 03:09:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

" IIRC it was + 1/2 to - 1 1/2 - not sure, but I believe we had it
set
at -1. It's been gone for a LONG time now.
I never owned an R16, but rallyed an R12 for 3 punishing seasons. "

Just for reference -3/4degrees would have
been the middle of that camber range.
Wh said the middle is where I would want it to be? But of coarse
anyone can figure out that simple math.

Anyone other than Theckmah the village idiot, of course.

"Wh said the middle is where I would want it to be? But of coarse
anyone can figure out that simple math. "

Where you want it, vs factory specs, might
not be optimal for the way it was designed
to handle.

But then again, I like my caster a tad on the
high side, if a body/align shop is willing to
perform the surgery on a modern unibody to
get it there.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 08:35:42 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

"Wh said the middle is where I would want it to be? But of coarse
anyone can figure out that simple math. "

Where you want it, vs factory specs, might
not be optimal for the way it was designed
to handle.

But then again, I like my caster a tad on the
high side, if a body/align shop is willing to
perform the surgery on a modern unibody to
get it there.
Within factory spec, on a vehicle designed with a fully adjustable
front geometry, what's wrong with setting it up to corner - within
factory specs - particularly when it does not make the car handle
badly or wear tires??? It had enough camber to make it hold the road
like it was glued, and self center well, without requiring excessive
steering effort - even with manual rack and pinion steering and
over-sized tires.

cl...@snyder:

Camber in/of itself is not a centering
parameter. Caster and kingpin(SAI)
are.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

cl...@snyder:

Camber in/of itself is not a centering
parameter. Caster and kingpin(SAI)
are.
Anyone who knows anything about alignment knows that - but the
combination has to be right to get the combination of good self
centering and easy steering - particularly when running high negative
camber.That's where you need a REAL alignment man. Getting it to go
down the road straight IS, most definitely, a camber issue. Camber
will cause a pull a lot quicker than caster. Because of the
relationship between KPI and camber, the spec required may change
significantly if a rim with different offset is used, or even a
different rolling diameter - because it changes the "scrub radius" The
"scrub radius" has to do with the relationsgip if the wheel centerline
and the steering axis (or baljoint or kingpin) centerline and where
they meet. A vehicle with a positive scrub radius will pull to the
side of a blown tire very violently, while a negative scrub radius
will not. With a positive scrub radius a low tire is much more
noticeable, and a cross camber situation also causes more pull.
Putting smaller wheels on a car reduces negative scrub radius -
putting taller tires on increases negative scrub radius

I go into all this to explain, in part, why I chose a high end of the
negative camber lmit on the Vauxhall when I installed the oversized
(much wider and higher offset rim which tends to change the scrub
radius) Negative scrub radius counteracts brake pull and tends to make
a front end try to toe in, while negative camber tends to cause toe
out. Getting it ballanced keeps the "active tor" or "rolling toe"
neutral.