camber Plates where to buy them?

[johnc]

I might as well plug Erik's camber plates:

 

Machined from 7075 aluminum allow.

Replaceable military spec sperical bearing (alloy steel and heat treated race, PTFE Liner, alloy steel, heat treated and hard chromed ball, lot number tracking).

Military spec Torington bearing for the front camber plates.

Stainless steel attachment bolts.

 

I had Erik's original set that were run on the street, at autocrosses, and road raced (35,000 miles) from 1992 to 2002 and pulled them off the car. They needed no refurbishing, other then cleaning, and I sold them to a friend (Bryan Lampe) who raced on them for another two years and is putting them on yet another 240Z he's building. Here's what they looked like when I pulled them off my 240Z:

 

[mom'sZ]

so.... no body wants to make a comment on my strut brace question?

 

here it is again

So anyhow... back on subject, here's another question. Once one replaces the stock upper mounts with camber plates, what do you do for a strut brace bar? Most seem to attach to the stock mount bolts. Make a custom one? I don't really want to weld a bracket to the tower. IT competitors seem really paranoid about any welding in the area as constituting reinforcement. Suggestions anyone?

[evildky]

so.... no body wants to make a comment on my strut brace question?

 

here it is again

So anyhow... back on subject' date=' here's another question. Once one replaces the stock upper mounts with camber plates, what do you do for a strut brace bar? Most seem to attach to the stock mount bolts. Make a custom one? I don't really want to weld a bracket to the tower. IT competitors seem really paranoid about any welding in the area as constituting reinforcement. Suggestions anyone?[/quote']

I seem to recall someone(perhaps PDK?) offering a strut bar with ends to fit coil overs, aside from that I'd just fab upa couple of simple plates to bolt in place and weld the pickup points to and reuse most of your old bar

[Mikelly]

Couple of things to run through here... But first let me say that there is a wealth of info and I'm gonna make this one a STICKY! to all that contributed... Nice thread!

 

The AZC camber plates include a bit more than just the plate. The monoball is replacable cheaply (pull the number off the ball and replace) and CASTER is really important when setting a car up properly. Steve and Ian have one of the best handling track cars going because of all the caster they could dial in, which required less camber... So keep that in mind... It does require the ability to have adjustable TC rods, but they can be built cheaply enough (Less than $200 in most instances). The AZC units WILL NOT follow ITS rules, so be forewarned... Know the rules for your class.

 

I have a pair of those plates here and can take better pics of them if you guys would like... Unfortunately I don't have Jim's car here or I could take pics of them installed in his car as well.

 

The GC products in general are top shelf, and their camber plates for the Zcar are nice. But they are just that... Camber. I don't consider the minimal amount of caster they provide as truly beneficial. I've had this discussion with their tech staff in the past. On that note, GC has an EXCELLENT staff for tech questions...

 

On the issue of strut bracing, You might want to weld on a clevis bracke to the tower and just run a simple brace across horizontaly or have a flat plate fabricated that will bolt under the GC Camber plate and weld the clevis to the plate (If rules allow).

 

Took me a while to read through all this, but it was good info... Very good thread guys!

[johnc]

I don't have the IT rulebook handy but from what I've seen here on the West Coast you can weld a reasonably sized mounting plate to the top of the strut tower as part of a strut tower brace setup. The complete PDK bolt-in strut tower brace is illegal in IT because it has bracing that extends to the firewall. I think those braces can be unbolted.

 

For the rear, just weld a cross brace that attaches very low to the rear braces on the roll cage.

[ARZ_]

I have been lurking for a while on this subject and I have a few things to add

 

1: here is a few photos of my front AZC camber plate installed. No, they are not the straight forward installation they are cracked up to be. I hear they are working on that. There is plent of camber adjustment when you work out all the installation clearance issues. Also the mono ball is rattle free. If yours rattles from another manufacturer, then they dont know what they are doing.

 

 

 

 

 

2: I am currently in the process of manufacturing a kit that will let you install an infinately adjustable camber plate with out forcing you to hack and weld on your strut towers. My main motivation for this design was to preserve the factory look of my interior. Its obvious simplicity lends itself to a front install also. I have several details to work out before I sell these, I will try to post a photo tonight if anyone is interested. It looks like it will be a few weeks before I am ready to sell production models, but if there is any interest I will rush the design. The easiest way to describe the modification is to say that you will only be required to drill 2 extra holes to install these camber plates.

 

Fire me a PM if your interested in a truely unique design that dosent force you to hatchet your strut towers.

 

If I considered my front install "not good enough" then you can just imagine how the rear looks (from a clean install perspective)

[JMortensen]

Man I hate statements like this one: "If yours rattles from another manufacturer, then they dont know what they are doing."

 

The GC monoballs rattle. The reason is that they aren't supporting the load from the suspension, the needle bearings do that. Having the needle bearing in there is still superior because it eliminates the stress on the monoball. So it does rattle, and it is superior to the AZC design.

[Mikelly]

I agree with Jmortensen on this comment. Although I think the monoball would be fine, I do believe the GC unit will last longer due to the lack of load placed on the monoball assembly.

 

Mike

[ARZ_]

IF THE MONOBALL RATTLES IN A NEW PART, THE MACHINIST/MANUFACTURER DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THEY FIT TIGHT ENOUGH (IE: he did not calculate/specify how much material the anodizing process would/should add).

 

I engineer parts (interference/press fit) like this for a living that have a far higher consequence for failure than just a rattling front or rear end. Further more the thickness of the Snap ring must be rigourosly controlled and installed in the proper direction and also pressed into the groove if you are to manufacture a rattle free monoball assembly.

 

MONOBALLS THEMSELVES DO NOT RATTLE UNLESS THEY ARE WORN AND NEED TO BE REPLACED, "LOAD" OR "NO-LOAD".

 

I agree the Thrust/torrington bearing is a pretty way to reduce "STEERING" friction, but if it rattles then it is poorly engineered also. Surely I could come up with a way to eliminate this rattle if I designed with a Thrust/torrington bearing. My initial design is for the rear.

 

I also agree a Momoball isnt optimum in axial load but these are engineered for over 5000 pounds axially and and teflon lined (IE: for lubrication). Thats twice the weight of the vehicle on one corner, and most manufacturers quote about a 1/3rd safety margin (multiply 5000 lbs by 3).

 

It will work in the front with a few extra parts. I will share this when the design is complete. I will complete it sooner if ther is any REAL interest.

[JMortensen]

IF THE MONOBALL RATTLES IN A NEW PART' date=' THE MACHINIST/MANUFACTURER DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THEY FIT TIGHT ENOUGH (IE: he did not calculate/specify how much material the anodizing process would/should add).

 

I engineer parts (interference/press fit) like this for a living that have a far higher consequence for failure than just a rattling front or rear end. Further more the thickness of the Snap ring must be rigourosly controlled and installed in the proper direction and also pressed into the groove if you are to manufacture a rattle free monoball assembly.

 

MONOBALLS THEMSELVES DO NOT RATTLE UNLESS THEY ARE WORN AND NEED TO BE REPLACED, "LOAD" OR "NO-LOAD".

 

I agree the Thrust/torrington bearing is a pretty way to reduce "STEERING" friction, but if it rattles then it is poorly engineered also. Surely I could come up with a way to eliminate this rattle if I designed with a Thrust/torrington bearing. My initial design is for the rear.

 

I also agree a Momoball isnt optimum in axial load but these are engineered for over 5000 pounds axially and and teflon lined (IE: for lubrication). Thats twice the weight of the vehicle on one corner, and most manufacturers quote about a 1/3rd safety margin (multiply 5000 lbs by 3).

 

It will work in the front with a few extra parts. I will share this when the design is complete. I will complete it sooner if ther is any REAL interest.[/quote']

If your statement was really "If the hole for the monoball is machined so poorly that that whole bearing can move back and forth and create a rattle, then whoever built it doesn't know what they're doing" then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But the GC camber plates have the hole for the monoball machined so tight I had to use a press to get them out. The snap ring is also very tight. Once installed there is no slop in the mounting of the bearing itself.

 

The torrington bearing doesn't rattle, it only isolates the monoball from the weight of the car. So the monoball carries basically 0 vertical load and only has to deal with the pivoting, which a chrome plated, teflon lined monoball is more than capable of handling (and coincidentally that is what GC sends out).

 

The rattle comes from the ball and the race. You may be right that this is a good way to tell if your monoballs in your AZC plates need replacing. But that's not so with the GC setup. If there is ANY play in the monoball itself, it will rattle in the GC plate. This is because the ball is totally isolated and isn't carrying any of the vehicle's weight. So any time the suspension droops the monoball gets loaded on the top, then when it starts to compress again, the ball is free to move, and it does so. The ball switches from the top of the race to the bottom. That thou or two is audible, and it doesn't mean that the monoball is worn out. I replaced mine because of the rattle and it was back in a matter of weeks. This is unlike the AZC setup where the suspension would have to go to full droop before the ball was freed up, and at that point you probably wouldn't be noticing any rattles because you're airborn with a decent amount of hangtime and you've probably got other things to worry about.

 

Design a better one, I'd love to see it. But until you do I'll continue to say that the GC is superior, although I will admit that it isn't as friendly to the daily driver as the AZC due to the noise. As tube80z always says, in racing, friction is your enemy. The GC design has a lot less friction.

[JMortensen]

I was thinking about this a bit, and maybe the solution to the rattle is to use the other style spring hat in the rear. The rear doesn't need to pivot, and as you said the monoball is more than capable of handling the load, so in the interest of quieting the rattle you could use the MM or AZC spring hat in the back. It doesn't take the twisting of the front struts, so there should be no real problem there.

 

I still like the GC plate as designed for the front, but using the other spring hat would solve that problem...

[johnc]

There shouldn't be any loosness in the monoballs unless they are low grade commercial units without any lining.

[JMortensen]

That hasn't been my experience John. I replaced the original teflon lined monoballs with the best monoballs that my local bearing supply could get. They were also chrome/teflon and ran ~$35 each. They started rattling within a couple weeks.

[johnc]

Are you sure its the monoball itself that is rattling or could it be:

 

1. The monoball is moving within the mount?

2. The shock shaft is moving within the monoball?

3. The shock is moving inside the strut tube (gland nut loosening)?

 

The EMI plates I ran above never had a rattle from the monoball or the mounting in 10 years of use. I have seen EMI plates where the snap ring grooves holding the monoball in place were damaged by a loose shock shaft mounting. Then the load on the monoball and snap ring became a series of reversing impact loads which slowly galled the snap ring groove in the camber plates. The monoballs were fine but the camber plate itself was damaged.

[JMortensen]

Are you sure its the monoball itself that is rattling or could it be:

 

1. The monoball is moving within the mount?

2. The shock shaft is moving within the monoball?

3. The shock is moving inside the strut tube (gland nut loosening)?

 

The EMI plates I ran above never had a rattle from the monoball or the mounting in 10 years of use. I have seen EMI plates where the snap ring grooves holding the monoball in place were damaged by a loose shock shaft mounting. Then the load on the monoball and snap ring became a series of reversing impact loads which slowly galled the snap ring groove in the camber plates. The monoballs were fine but the camber plate itself was damaged.

The monoball is the only thing that could be moving. You can feel the slop in the monoball, not a lot, but there is movement, and I think it's this thou or two movement that makes the noise. Gland nuts were checked and rechecked and rechecked. GC provides a shouldered nut which fits tightly into the monoball and when tightened allows no movement. As previously stated the monoball is a press fit and is VERY tight with respect to the snap ring.

 

When I was trying to diagnose the noise I had a friend turn around in the car and put his finger on the strut as we drove. He could feel the clicking of the monoball in the race.

 

I don't think I got two sets of crappy monoballs, and they both started rattling within a few weeks. Again, if the weight of the car sat on the monoball then they wouldn't be able to make noise at all. It's the fact that they aren't loaded that allows them to rattle. I'd imagine it should be the same with the EMI plates. If not, maybe I ought to buy a couple of monoballs from EMI and see if that makes a difference...

[randy 77zt]

on my gc camber plates the monoball and its race rattle up and down in the machined pocket in the camber plate.this is from the strut shaft moving up and down on bumps.i think gc has changed the design since i bought these many years ago.if i was building a street only z i would skip the camber plates.gc is stuff for race cars.the phone sales guys are there just for sales.they dont work on cars .i havent been at thier shop in years but its basically a owner operated business.

[MTenneZ]

[url=http://www.racetep.com/datsun1.html]http://www.racetep.com/datsun1.html[/url'] Top-end scroll down $110 for the front or rear.

Does anyone have any more info on these? Perhaps I am missing something completely, but I can't tell where the adjustment comes from. I would assume that it is in the mount it self versus the strut tower or a plate. If so that might be a good way to go for a primarily street driven car.

 

 

I was thinking about this a bit' date=' and maybe the solution to the rattle is to use the other style spring hat in the rear. The rear doesn't need to pivot, and as you said the monoball is more than capable of handling the load, so in the interest of quieting the rattle you could use the MM or AZC spring hat in the back. It doesn't take the twisting of the front struts, so there should be no real problem there.

 

I still like the GC plate as designed for the front, but using the other spring hat would solve that problem...[/quote']

 

When you mention the pivoting are you referring to the strut rotating along its axis within the monoball? Also, are you advocating the use of MM or AZC hats for both front and rear with whatever camber plates being used? And if not what style hat gets used in the front?

 

And last for now, how important is the use of camber plates in the rear if using adjustable control arms? From what I've read they are not that important at all on a predominantly streetcar front or rear. However with the rebuilding of my subframe I will at least use adjustable LCAs.

[Here comes trouble]

Monoball rattling thoughts: The monoball cartridge housing should be installed and welded to the top adjustable plate and the top adjusting slotted plate should have the camber adjusting slots. The cartridge housing should be machined with a remainder of a lip on the top to capture the monoball and prevent it from coming all the way thru the cartridge housing. The bottom of the cartridge housing should have a snap ring to hold the monoball in place. I assume upward force of the strut shaft will be a lot greater than downward force of the shaft. (this is where rattling could occur between the monoball and snap ring.....an additional thin snap ring could take up the slop and act as a shim if the ring was machined too wide in the housing.) The monoball housing should be made of steel..... Z car monoballs should have a 5/8 inch (com 10) inside diameter with the retaining nut shoulder filling the 5/8 " inside diameter. .....What I am describing above is a Carrera steel camber plate which places the monoball housing, adjusting slots and bearing on the top adjusting plate.... .....................Aurora in Indiana has been making some real tough monoball bearings for years as heim joints for the aftermarket auto market and are sold by Stock Car Products for about $8.00 a piece and locally for $10.... Rather than vegetate till Christmas, I have a camber plate project. Caster ???? It would be easier for me to add fog lights to the camber plate than caster rate it. My project camber plates wiil cost about $25.00 a corner and I can afford and make them..and should not be compared to the higher cost better units..The adjustable strut rods do not look that difficult. Here is my camber plate project page....http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=106293

[mom'sZ]

how important is the use of camber plates in the rear if using adjustable control arms?

In my opinion, not that important on a street car. If whatever plates you choose do develop a rattle, on the front, where they're under the hood, you'll never notice. In the back however, they're right behind you head. Also, the ground control plates eliminate the rubber biscuit at the top strut mount. This transfers road noise and bumps right into the cabin, kind of harsh for the street. With adjustable control arms the camber plates are unnessasary. One of the advantages of camber plates is quick, on the car adjustment of the camber. On a street car, you'll likely have it aligned and never touch it again. One of the things I tried to stress in my original post was that this car is a SCCA ITS car. In that class you must use stock unmodified control arms. So adjustables are not an option. That has a lot to do with why I made the choice I did.

[JMortensen]

One issue with using plates in the front and not in the rear is that the plate lowers the car about an inch or an inch and a half. So you'll be running the rear coilover a lot lower to compensate for the difference in height. This difference would be more severe in a 280.

 

As to the noise, what I was talking about is getting a spring hat which would let the spring rest right on the monoball itself, essentially bypassing the torrington bearing and loading the monoball. I haven't looked into that idea too far, but what would be needed is a top hat for the spring which tapered so that the weight of the car rested on the small monoball. In looking at MM's coilover setup, it looks as though they have a totally flat top hat, so that woudn't work. The AZC setup does taper, but I don't know if it is enough because the hole in the bottom of the GC camber plate is pretty small. I'm not sure that it can be made to work easily. I still do think that loading the monoball would quiet it down a lot though.

 

Then there is still the possibility (albeit slim) that I was using crappy monoballs. I really don't think this is the case since the first ones came from GC and the second set were so damn expensive...