bjhines Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Am I crazy?... don't answer that... To use the "cambered tires" you set the camber on your car to plant the tire FLAT(-2.5dg). The whole trick was in the ZERO toe angles. This assumes you still maintain proper camber gain in a corner. This was entirely NOT about reducing camber in your suspension set up(you must match it to the tires' -2.5 degrees). You could NOT swap different angled tires at the track WITHOUT matching their angles with suspension camber adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 But, but, but... if your camber gain in roll is zero due to a good bump camber curve, why would you need these tires? Couldn't you just stand up normal square tires? And we haven't even started talking about the inside tires... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjhines Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I took a long look at the poor quality proofs of concept at the bottom. The contact patch sheet is the most telling. The way I see it, The tire's outer wall is tall and complaint, The inside wall is short and stiff. The outer wall allows greater compliance and load distribution while maintaining overall tire diameter. The short inner wall reinforces overall tire stiffness and feedback and is lightly loaded. This also is shown to payoff in the ability to set TOE angles to ZERO. The actual alignment should bias a little weight to the inside by having a hair MORE neg-camber than the tires require for flat static contact. ie. 2.5 degree tires might get -2.6 degrees actual suspension adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjhines Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 45 minutes and no response... I know its not a chat room, but there must be some brain cells a burnin tonite. The outside of a tire sees the widest range of loading. The inside of a tire can be less compliant without penalty. also... The alignment and tire shape puts the sidewalls at an angle; wider track width and braced against lateral forces inside and outside. The greater compliance of the outer walls will allow using less dynamic camber gain from the suspension. This leads to better geometry with front-rear weight transfer when camber gain is NOT desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cygnusx1 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Looks like they got their patent well before I posted the idea in 2006. DARN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonball89 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I've been running cambered tires on a Legends Car for years. We have to run a Spec, Radial, DOT approved tire. The main advantage on our cars for using cambered tires are less tread squirm on the outside edge of the tire under cornering, not so much for suspension geometry reasons. Keep in mind that this is on oval tracks, where the suspension experiences the same load for the most part through every corner. I would think that slicks would just wear out faster with the outside edge being thinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 To use the "cambered tires" you set the camber on your car to plant the tire FLAT(-2.5dg). The whole trick was in the ZERO toe angles. This assumes you still maintain proper camber gain in a corner. This was entirely NOT about reducing camber in your suspension set up(you must match it to the tires' -2.5 degrees). You could NOT swap different angled tires at the track WITHOUT matching their angles with suspension camber adjustment. Scanning the webpage quickly again it is readily apparent that you have the right idea. The purpose of the tire is to get a better contact patch while running the neg camber. I disagree that you couldn't swap different angled tires without matching the suspension angles. Seems to me that you might have a situation where a car handled better with more angle on the tire or more angle on the suspension. SWAG is that it would probably have to do with how much body roll the car had and how stiff that outer sidewall is, but for instance if you were running a Porsche Cup car that runs 5 or 6 degrees neg camber you might still see a benefit from these tires, even if the camber was set higher than the tire was designed to compensate for. I suspect that tire temps and wear would still be the way to set this up, rather than trying to match the angle of the tire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjhines Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) What happened to this? Did the realization that you still need suspension camber kill it? Edited March 8, 2010 by bjhines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) I don't know, but I will bump it to help revive an extremely interesting thread.. Things like this are far more instructive to me than simple textbooks explaining theory on suspension geometry. Edited March 8, 2010 by Daeron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I just found this ridiculous. Note the license plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.