DC5 BuddyClub Rear Camber setting?

[plAythiNG]

The photos don't show anything because they aren't taken from the same point of reference and they don't quote camber settings on either shot. If you're using examples a bunch of creative photos just won't do. Take photos from the same angle with settings quoted for each one and then they can be used for reference.

Sorry, first ones are -0.55, below ones are -3.6

[plAythiNG]

oh, so that is the definition of stance?

OK...

carry on...

No, didnt say this is the definiton of stance, was SHOWING THE COMPARISON betwen the pictures, if you look, the top of the tire was clearly sticking out of the guard, and once camber was dialled in, you can see the tire is sitting inside the guards..... So to clear up, NO I was not defining stance.

[MYDC5R]

fk yeah POPCORN!

[m0nty]

Having to run -3.6 rear camber just so wheels fit is a little silly though. Proper fitment to begin with is a much better idea.

[stevan]

Point being that you're not going to run any more than -2.0 rear camber because it shits up the handling. Putting big wheels on and then having to run unfavourable settings to make them fit is full retarded. And you never go full retard.

Point? The point you said is you cannot seee how rear camber can change stance. I clearly showed you that adjsuting rear camber can drastically change the stance of a car.

And the settings I run for the street, are not UNFAVOURABLE. I wanted an aggressive setup/look for the street.

the irony of an aggressive look is that it isnt great for handling but at least you have more front camber on your car alex.

back to timmy's question, i have my buddyclub camber kit set at 1.5 degrees atm , fronts as well but fronts will go to 3 degrees pending how much i can adjust the toe on stock tie end rods when the new wheels get mounted.

[plAythiNG]

Having to run -3.6 rear camber just so wheels fit is a little silly though. Proper fitment to begin with is a much better idea.

Not really, for the street, having an aggressive look is what im after, and im loving my fitment at the moment..

This thread has totally gotten out of wack, simply because M0nty cannot accept to be wrong. After i proved to him that by adjusting the rear camber, this can change the stance of the car. He then moved on to saying how to run aggressive amounts of camber to just fit wheels is "silly".

[m0nty]

Please read my post. How is running -3.6 rear camber beneficial for ANYTHING other than making oversized wheels fit. If you want to run wheels like that and have decent handling then get the guards pulled and induce around -1.5 camber. The photos you posted with the wheels sitting out nearly an inch is dumb, dangerous and in my opinion looks ridiculous.

[plAythiNG]

When i was running zero camber, u said they look ridiculous.. u want me to quote it for u.... cant win with u!

[m0nty]

When i was running zero camber, u said they look ridiculous.. u want me to quote it for u.... cant win with u!

Then fit wheels that fit properly. I've given you a viable solution that ensures no defects and also gets you the best tyre wear and handling yet you insist I'm just hating on you.

When you check out build threads for all the aggressive wheel runners round here you'll see that everyone has done guard work.

[lowie]

The photos don't show anything because they aren't taken from the same point of reference and they don't quote camber settings on either shot. If you're using examples a bunch of creative photos just won't do. Take photos from the same angle with settings quoted for each one and then they can be used for reference.

It is pretty far fetched to say those particular photos don't show anything in comparason to the other...Yes they aren't from the same point of reference but to the trained eye, and I imagine a majority of active users on this thread have, it's just picking at nothing to say you can't see the obvious difference in fitment which is obviously achieved by camber settings

It's still helpful for a quick post. Not perfect, but still helpful.

oh, so that is the definition of stance?

OK...

carry on...

You could probably agree stance over car forums is generally refers to the overall impression of the car...two obvious factors that contribute towards this is height and wheel fitment. Looks like that's what plaything is refering to

[stevan]

^^ agreed with will. this is just a debate of stance for functionality vs aggressive flushed street stance. moreover, Timmy's car (remember the op ) is built for functionality, 1.5 degree all around should clear, if you want to track it put a touch more on the front and call it a day.

[m0nty]

^^ agreed with will. this is just a debate of stance for functionality vs aggressive flushed street stance. moreover, Timmy's car (remember the op ) is built for functionality, 1.5 degree all around should clear, if you want to track it put a touch more on the front and call it a day.

Exactly. This thread got sidetracked at stance. I have to apologize for my hand in fanning the flames.

/thread

[Timmy_B]

One is legal, one is not. When given that scenario is there really more than one choice? I assumed Timmy's wheels actually fit his car properly.

Yeah, they aren't massive size wheels... So i should aim for about -1deg camber..

what front camber are you running?

No front camber atm..

Car booked in for friday morning

[m0nty]

Run more on the front. For a street setup I'd run -1.8 front and -1.5 rear. For track runs on the same setup I'd dial up another -0.8 on the front.

[Timmy_B]

Thanks Sam.
will upload pics when its all done