Not joined yet? Register for free and enjoy features such as alerts, private messaging and viewing latest posts and topics.
Wheel alignment settings
-
- Member
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:26 am
Wheel alignment settings
Hi all, new to the forum so go easy! The zmc is due a wheel alignment however wanted to get your thoughts on whether to stick with oem or reduce rear toe and increase front and rear camber (seems to be a good way to make the car more progressive and neutral). Car is a daily driver with a couple of track days a year so would be interested in tyre wear as well. Btw awesome forum! Cheers, Viren
07 Z4MC standard spec
- exdos
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:58 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
After experimentation my preferred settings are zero toe all round and reduced rear camber.
- BMWZ4MC
- Lifer
- Posts: 6346
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:24 pm
- Location: Back in the sunshine
Re: Wheel alignment settings
And increased front camber, or did you stick with OEM front camber settings John?exdos wrote:After experimentation my preferred settings are zero toe all round and reduced rear camber.
Z4MC - heavily fettled for track use
Lotus Exige - sensible daily driver on the mods slippery slope
Westfield SEiW - in hibernation
Modified RS4 Avant - back in Blighty
S2000 GT - gone
- exdos
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:58 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
I tried increasing front camber by removing the pins after I'd done all my other suspension mods, but I found that, like with the Z3MC, it makes the handling far too twitchy on public roads and therefore tiring to drive, so I reverted to OEM front camber. If I had camber/caster plates, I would increase the caster a tad, which would increase the dynamic camber but also retain/increase straight-line stability.BMWZ4MC wrote:And increased front camber, or did you stick with OEM front camber settings John?exdos wrote:After experimentation my preferred settings are zero toe all round and reduced rear camber.
-
- Member
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:26 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
Cheers guys, curious to understand how the driving dynamics change by reducing rear toe and camber? Also were bmw being conservative with they rear set up (eg induce understeer however making the car less progressive)
07 Z4MC standard spec
- Machine monkey
- Lifer
- Posts: 11310
- Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:49 pm
- Location: In the shire Oxfordshire
Re: Wheel alignment settings
I know this is the M specific area but dose any of this apply to non M zeds? I am looking at getting all my alignment set up shortly. I have a few suspension components still to replace but do i just go factory?
- exdos
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:58 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
The Z4M's OEM geometry does a good job of preventing the car from directing itself into the scenery (unlike it's predecessor- the Z3MC). The front geometry with a fair amount of toe-in creates understeer and the rear geometry, with a fair degree of -ve camber and toe-in reduces the tendency to oversteer and fish-tailing with excessive throttle input. All in all, the car has a tendency to understeer. Reducing rear camber and zero toe all round produces a more neutrally handling car. If your car has lowering springs, the the camber and toe will change.Viren wrote:Cheers guys, curious to understand how the driving dynamics change by reducing rear toe and camber? Also were bmw being conservative with they rear set up (eg induce understeer however making the car less progressive)
I don't know the OEM geometry of the non-Ms but changing the settings to what I have should also make a neutral handling car. Obviously, if anyone decides to change the geometry from OEM, they do so at their own risk.Machine monkey wrote:I know this is the M specific area but dose any of this apply to non M zeds? I am looking at getting all my alignment set up shortly. I have a few suspension components still to replace but do i just go factory?
-
- Member
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:26 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
Thanks, really useful info. What camber and toe numbers are you currently running (guess toe is close to 0 given your previous comment), cheersexdos wrote:The Z4M's OEM geometry does a good job of preventing the car from directing itself into the scenery (unlike it's predecessor- the Z3MC). The front geometry with a fair amount of toe-in creates understeer and the rear geometry, with a fair degree of -ve camber and toe-in reduces the tendency to oversteer and fish-tailing with excessive throttle input. All in all, the car has a tendency to understeer. Reducing rear camber and zero toe all round produces a more neutrally handling car. If your car has lowering springs, the the camber and toe will change.
07 Z4MC standard spec
- exdos
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:58 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
I run OEM front camber and approx -1.2 rear camber. Zero toe all round. I use this both for road and at The Ring. I must qualify to say that I also have AC Schnitzer Racing (adjustable suspension) H&R CSL ARBs, RTAB Limiter kit and 10mm wheel spacers all round, but I still think my geometry will apply with OEM suspension.Viren wrote:
Thanks, really useful info. What camber and toe numbers are you currently running (guess toe is close to 0 given your previous comment), cheers
- BMWZ4MC
- Lifer
- Posts: 6346
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:24 pm
- Location: Back in the sunshine
Re: Wheel alignment settings
I'm looking forward to experimenting with mine once I've fitted everything. I'll likely be running as much negative camber as possible on the track but I do agree it makes for a very twitchy ride on poorly maintained roads. Fortunately, I have camber/caster platesexdos wrote:I tried increasing front camber by removing the pins after I'd done all my other suspension mods, but I found that, like with the Z3MC, it makes the handling far too twitchy on public roads and therefore tiring to drive, so I reverted to OEM front camber. If I had camber/caster plates, I would increase the caster a tad, which would increase the dynamic camber but also retain/increase straight-line stability.BMWZ4MC wrote:And increased front camber, or did you stick with OEM front camber settings John?exdos wrote:After experimentation my preferred settings are zero toe all round and reduced rear camber.
Z4MC - heavily fettled for track use
Lotus Exige - sensible daily driver on the mods slippery slope
Westfield SEiW - in hibernation
Modified RS4 Avant - back in Blighty
S2000 GT - gone
- Vanne
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:55 pm
- Location: Dubai
- Contact:
Re: Wheel alignment settings
Hi exodus,
Getting my h&r lowering springs with my new blistein hd's installed tomorrow, what settings would you recommend for this setup? I realize the new springs will need to bed in for about 500kms. Any insights to the setting if I use a 10mill spacer for the fronts and 3mill for the rear?
Getting my h&r lowering springs with my new blistein hd's installed tomorrow, what settings would you recommend for this setup? I realize the new springs will need to bed in for about 500kms. Any insights to the setting if I use a 10mill spacer for the fronts and 3mill for the rear?
2007 EuroSpec Z4///MC Building/Developing Z4 GT3
Powered by Severn Tuning
Powered by Severn Tuning
- exdos
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:58 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
Vanne,Vanne wrote:Hi exodus,
Getting my h&r lowering springs with my new blistein hd's installed tomorrow, what settings would you recommend for this setup? I realize the new springs will need to bed in for about 500kms. Any insights to the setting if I use a 10mill spacer for the fronts and 3mill for the rear?
If you are using lowering springs, this automatically increases -ve camber, and at the same time it changes the toe angles. Personally, I would get the toe angles set at zero (or very slight toe-in) and reduce the rear camber to about -1.2 degs.
The whole concept of setting static geometry is to optimise the car's handling and tyre contact patch in the dynamic situation. The geometry settings always will be a compromise which attempts to account for the changes in damper length (ride height), pitch, squat and lateral bodyroll, all of which change the car's handling and tyre contact patch dependent on the attitude of the car in the dynamic situation. You'll find the front toe angle has the biggest effect on the perceived handling of your car.
I know that lots of negative camber on the front wheels looks cool, but unless you get the same degree of bodyroll as the angle of -ve camber when hard cornering, then you aren't actually using the full width of the tyre in the contact patch, consequently the inners of the tyres tend to wear excessively, especially with some toe-in. If you can reduce bodyroll with better suspension then IMO, there's less need for increasing -ve camber. I hope this makes sense to you.
-
- Member
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:37 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
Regarding the tyre wear i have set my front -ve camber to maximum negative camber with the pins pulled (approx 1.2-1.3 degrees i believe... possibly more with 0 toe) and the tyre wear across the front tyres is now even where it wasn't before.exdos wrote:Vanne,Vanne wrote:Hi exodus,
Getting my h&r lowering springs with my new blistein hd's installed tomorrow, what settings would you recommend for this setup? I realize the new springs will need to bed in for about 500kms. Any insights to the setting if I use a 10mill spacer for the fronts and 3mill for the rear?
If you are using lowering springs, this automatically increases -ve camber, and at the same time it changes the toe angles. Personally, I would get the toe angles set at zero (or very slight toe-in) and reduce the rear camber to about -1.2 degs.
The whole concept of setting static geometry is to optimise the car's handling and tyre contact patch in the dynamic situation. The geometry settings always will be a compromise which attempts to account for the changes in damper length (ride height), pitch, squat and lateral bodyroll, all of which change the car's handling and tyre contact patch dependent on the attitude of the car in the dynamic situation. You'll find the front toe angle has the biggest effect on the perceived handling of your car.
I know that lots of negative camber on the front wheels looks cool, but unless you get the same degree of bodyroll as the angle of -ve camber when hard cornering, then you aren't actually using the full width of the tyre in the contact patch, consequently the inners of the tyres tend to wear excessively, especially with some toe-in. If you can reduce bodyroll with better suspension then IMO, there's less need for increasing -ve camber. I hope this makes sense to you.
Although my allignment was pretty far out i believe that adding negative camber on the front of an M (within reason) actually improves the tyre wear on the inside of the front tyres (same applies to an E46 M3) although this may also be down to changing the toe to 0/ a combination of both.
The wheel allignment i had certainly had a big impact on my car and would highly recommend getting it done regularly especially considering its a relatively small outlay. I should also mention my car is completely standard in terms of suspension.
- exdos
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:58 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
It's toe that scrubs the tyres far more than camber, because the wheels are not rotating in the direction of movement of the car unless toe is at zero.FR08MEE wrote:
Although my allignment was pretty far out i believe that adding negative camber on the front of an M (within reason) actually improves the tyre wear on the inside of the front tyres (same applies to an E46 M3) although this may also be down to changing the toe to 0/ a combination of both.
-
- Member
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:26 am
Re: Wheel alignment settings
So here's what I'm thinking:
Front camber: 1.0
Front toe: close to zero or slight toe in (0.04)
Rear camber: 1.4
Rear toe: 0.06 toe in
Given the car is used daily, mostly road use, couple track days a year seems an okay compromise. Any thoughts?
Front camber: 1.0
Front toe: close to zero or slight toe in (0.04)
Rear camber: 1.4
Rear toe: 0.06 toe in
Given the car is used daily, mostly road use, couple track days a year seems an okay compromise. Any thoughts?
07 Z4MC standard spec