inner tire wear

[bcjammerx]

if your toe is straight and your camber is that negative...you will wear the inner tire

[Law Grandeur]

yes that would be called A-camber. I gots lots of it

[deevergote]

Not 100% what your local alignment shop will set yours too.

Here are the specs strait from the Honda shop manual.

Camber
Front = 0°00' +/- 1°
Back = -0°25' +/- 30'

Caster = 3°00' +/- 1°

Toe
Front = 0 +/- 3mm
Rear = Toe in 2mm +/- 2mm

I don't know what to make of these numbers. I think My explanation was backwards but that's to be expected. Last time I talked to the guy was over a year ago....

So stock toe is 2mm in for the rear, and no toe in front. Camber is slightly negative in the rear, 0 in front. So the front should be totally zeroed. Caster really isn't adjustable on our cars, though if the stock specs leave a 1 degree tolerance, it must be variable by at least that much (might be interesting... I don't believe anyone has played with caster yet... at least they haven't discussed it here.)

I wonder how true the failing ball joint theory is for our cars. Our ball joints are pretty fixed... there's really no flex there. If it's failing, it has failed. Kinda like a failing popsicle stick... if it fails, you have 2 pieces! Still, I've seen lower ball joint failure, and it does result in the bottom of the wheel shooting out (major negative camber! ) There may be some merit to that. I would think that if the ball joints are failing, and causing the tire wear, that it would read as negative camber when aligning. Unless, of course, the failing ball joints cause a front end that has 0 degrees when in the air to sit with negative camber when the weight of the car is on the wheels...

It's always a good idea to replace your ball joints anyway. The lowers are $25 from Honda, I believe. The uppers... should be replaced with the upper control arm (some have replaced the joint itself... I'm not very comfortable with that, based on the way it is in the control arm.) I'm not sure how much the uppers cost at Honda. I'm using aftermarket ones (not a really good idea).

[johnl]

So stock toe is 2mm in for the rear, and no toe in front. Camber is slightly negative in the rear, 0 in front. So the front should be totally zeroed. Caster really isn't adjustable on our cars, though if the stock specs leave a 1 degree tolerance, it must be variable by at least that much (might be interesting... I don't believe anyone has played with caster yet... at least they haven't discussed it here.)

Caster isn't an issue with tyre wear, and on cars with zero or almost zero scrub radius (like the CB7 et al) won't have much affect on steering 'pull' even if caster is quite unequal side to side (add scrub radius into the mix and this is no longer the case, and SR will change if you change the wheel offset). However with unequal caster the steering will feel different left vs right (and the car may actually handle differently in left and right hand corners).

I know this because I played with caster quite a bit when trying to cure a mystery steering pull, and found that even with the caster quite different side to side it had little to no affect on steering pull. This is contrary to generally accepted wisdom on this which states that the car will "pull toward the side with the greatest caster", but after a lot of thinking as to why I wasn't finding this to be the case on my CB7 I figured out that it must be to do with the lack of significant scrub radius on the CB7 (which I 'measured' on the computer using a carefully measured up diagramatic representation of the front suspension), and that 'accepted wisdom' was assuming significant scrub radius to be present as is more typical with RWD cars.

I have increased caster on my CB7 (up from a measured 2.8° to a calculated appoximate 5°), and know the following statements to be true from experience as well as theory:

Increasing caster angle increases steering 'weight' (not an issue with power steering), also improves on-centre and off-centre feel (though theory suggests that it may slightly decrease steering feedback at the limit of adhesion), improves straight line stability, steering response, and steered camber gain. I.e. increased caster causes the OF to gain additional neg camber and the IF to gain additional pos camber as the wheels are steered, both of which affects act to couteract the camber gains caused by body roll.

This tends to mean that less static neg camber is required to keep the OF more vertical relative to the road when cornering (especially in tighter corners where more steering input is used and more body roll tends to be present), but also improves the 'roll' camber angle at the IF (which static neg camber actually makes worse).

Most manufacturers of high performance cars these days are using much higher caster angles than used to be the case (10° wouldn't be considered outrageous), allowing them to keep static camber angles within reasonable limits without substantially compromising the manner in which the steered contact patches are presented to the road surface when the chassis is 'rolling' in corners.

I would think that if the ball joints are failing, and causing the tire wear, that it would read as negative camber when aligning. Unless, of course, the failing ball joints cause a front end that has 0 degrees when in the air to sit with negative camber when the weight of the car is on the wheels...

The camber with the wheels off the ground is irrelevant as camber is never measured this way, and that camber will change with suspension motion in any case whether or not the ball joints are worn. The issue is whether or not the worn ball joints will allow inward or outward movement as the car is rolling.

Assuming that the bottom of the front wheels 'pull' outward due to worn ball joints (increasing neg camber), the toe will also become toed-out (so we would have neg camber + toe-out). This would be due to the steering mechanism being behind the wheels, rather than in front of the wheels. If the rack etc were in front of the wheels the toe would become toed-in with outward ball joint movement, or else the ball joints would move inward instead of outward, again causing toe-out.

Whichever way the wheels move laterally due to worn ball joints when travelling in a straight line, this will change at at least one front wheel whenever the car starts to generate a lateral acceleration, and the toe will abruptly change (possibly substantially) causing erratic steering behavoiur.

[deevergote]

You know, I edited my post right after I made it to add the "at least they haven't discussed it here" part regarding caster with you in mind, John!

[johnl]

You know, I edited my post right after I made it to add the "at least they haven't discussed it here" part regarding caster with you in mind, John!

'Ask and you shall recieve', if I have the time or happen to be in the mood!

[bcjammerx]

hey ladies...y'all hear that...johnl's in the mooooood

[johnl]

hey ladies...y'all hear that...johnl's in the mooooood

The ladies will be sadly disappointed, too tired for that sort of mood!