Alpine camber gain

[socorob]

Does anyone know or have measured the camber change in an early series alpine? From pictures of hard turns it looks like camber is going more positive(the wrong direction) as the side gets compressed. Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but surely it's not designed to go the wrong way?

 

[alpine_64]

The alpinea actually ran slight positive to neutral camber from new.. so in a hard turn i can easily see the wheels gaining more positive attitude. I have dialed in some negative camber on my car.. heavier steering but nice turn in.

 

[socorob]

I was thinking as much. I guess that's why they handle so badly for what they are.

 

[alpine_64]

Robbie,

I'd have to dssagree on the handling front.. the alpines are actually quite handy through the bends. While they have an initial lean to them.. and they are quite softly sprung .. look at their period race history.. they were competitive cars.. and they werent not doing well via power or light weight.. they were often heavier and less powerful than the competition.. they did well on brackes and handling.

With a few tweaks they can be very effective cars A to B.

If your car is not handling well.. check things like toe in/out settings, steering box and all the tie rods and bushes. A big issue with them is if they are running to much toe in, gives them lots of inital understeer before the tail will break out and also amplifies the intial lean.

 

[socorob]

I just replaced ball joints and tie rods. I have 1/16 toe in, but the most negative the camber would go was around +.2 or +.3 degrees. I recently got to drive some parade laps of the local road course. They only let us go 30-40 mph, but that was even through the sharpest turns. There were a couple s2000s in front of me and some new mustangs behind me. They are zipped through the tight turns at that speed like they were on a Sunday drive at that speed. The alpine was almost at its limit on the sharpest curve at that speed. I know it handles good for a 50 year old car, but I want to do some lapping days and don't want to be the rolling road block for everyone else. Is it possible to mix and match some early/late series front end parts to get a little better geometry? I think with just a slight negative camber gain throughout compression would totally transform the handling.

 

[Bill Blue]

Robbie, are sure about the most negative camber being + .2 or +.3? That's what my positive limits are (Series V). Adding shims moves camber to the negative side. When I started, my camber was something like negative 1.25. With zero shims it specs out like your car.

Bill

 

[socorob]

Yes. When I took it to get aligned, they did the passenger side 1st. It would go to -1. Then they went to the drivers side an it would only go to the .2-.3. Is it possible for the crossmember to shift any, could that be why one side could go 8/10 of a degree more than the other? Do the later series crossmembers have better geometry than the early ones did?

 

[Bill Blue]

Robbie, within reason (Hell, even beyond reason), there are only two things that limit the amount of negative camber that is available. #1 is the length of the bolts holding the top A frame to the crossmember. #2 is the number of shims available.

Your problem is the guy doing your alignment . Maybe he ran out of shims. I've noticed the guys doing alignment like to pretend there is some mysterious magic, available only to the initiated, required to adjust the front end. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If all you want is more camber, that can easily be done by you. Using a relatively flat floor and a carpenters square, you can do a good job of getting the sides even. Its all in the number and thickness of the shim pack. If you need more shims, they can be easily made or you can send out a shim SOS.

Bill

 

[socorob]

I had the manual with me and was there with the guy the whole time. When we arranged all the shims as per the manual that's all I could get out of the drivers side. We had to go back and redo the passenger side to match the drivers.

 

[Bill Blue]

You say "When we arranged all the shims as per the manual", what do you mean? Does that mean you used all the shims that were available on that side of the car? If so, get more shims.

Bill

 

[socorob]

I didnt see how it could go any more negative. There were 3 places with shims in the manual A,B, & C. It said to go more negative you had to remove the shims from 2 of the locations and put them in the 3rd. That's what we did and it didn't look like the upper a arm could go back any farther, it was all the way against the bracket that bolts to the inner fender. Was I missing something?

 

[Bill Blue]

I didnt see how it could go any more negative. There were 3 places with shims in the manual A,B, & C. It said to go more negative you had to remove the shims from 2 of the locations and put them in the 3rd. That's what we did and it didn't look like the upper a arm could go back any farther, it was all the way against the bracket that bolts to the inner fender. Was I missing something?

I don't think so. My cars are Series V and have no inner fender bracket, so the upper A arm can go all the way back to the inner fender and considerable negative camber can be achieved. Is there any way you can finagle some room to move the A arm back some more?

 

[sunbby]

Bill, Yes I think he is having an issue with the earlier Series suspension that has that extra bracket, so all of the shims at location C have been removed. If that extra bracket is removed you could keep adding more negative camber, just keep adding shims at location A.

Much earlier I asked what was the purpose of that extra "upper" bracket but I don't think we got any definitive answers. Certainly it may stiffen up the suspension, but Rootes did away with it in the later Series, so maybe it can be left off?

 

[alpine_64]

Robbie,

i am running a SII with the original king pin front end.. I manages to get to -1.25 before i ran out of adjustment. On a street car you wouldnt really want much more than that, and you will be putting more load through the front suspension with neg camber.. not to mention i am sure you are runnign wider radial tryes than the stock 165.

Was the car understeering heavily? Was it leaning heavily? what springs and shocks are you running.. what sway bar?

 

[Bill Blue]

Robbie, as to your quest for camber gain during suspension travel, let me say this. I know a little less than squat about the subject. But in 15 years of hanging around the Alpine world, I can't remember anyone make the claim the later suspension provides, in any way, superior geometry. Just the opposite. The usual claim is the early set up provides better geometry control.

Bill

 

[socorob]

I have old shocks and springs. I'm to the point to make a decision on whether to upgrade those, or try something different for the front arms. I get a little sway and a lot of understeer compared to most of the other cars. I have not done an autox since I had the alignment. When I took the car in to get it done, there was .5 degree difference in camber between sides. Ive watches several videos and can see most cars out there can take turns faster than the alpine. I'm trying to improve it as much as possible. Most cars there may be faster but not many are as cool.

 

[Chuck Ingram]

I have old shocks and springs. I'm to the point to make a decision on whether to upgrade those, or try something different for the front arms. I get a little sway and a lot of understeer compared to most of the other cars. I have not done an autox since I had the alignment. When I took the car in to get it done, there was .5 degree difference in camber between sides. Ive watches several videos and can see most cars out there can take turns faster than the alpine. I'm trying to improve it as much as possible. Most cars there may be faster but not many are as cool.

Camber is plus or minus .5 of degree oaf what is stated..you may be wanting to look at castor angles.Castor is easily changed regardless of what the manual states.