[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Brake pads, and rear camber adjustment

Dan gives us this great idea on rear camber...

> From:          Damm3@domain.elided
> Date:          Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:06:48 -0400
> To:            bmw-performance@domain.elided
> Subject:       Re: rear camber adjustment
> Reply-to:      bmw-performance@domain.elided

> The concentic bolts/washers on the ends of the arms in the rear alow
> for 3.5 max, and about 1.7 or so minimum.  I merely asked my
> alignment shop to mark the spots for 2 and for 3.5 and they did. 
> Now, bear in mind that there is a range in each side, and they may
> differ, in fact, my left rear, after adding H&R was MINIMUM 3.5 and
> we didn't bother measuring max, but I'd guess it was around 5.0 or a
> little more.  So the shop grinded the tabs and lengthened the holes,
> re-welded new tabs and presto - range reduced to 1.8 to 3.5.  Once
> this was done, I merely asked them to mark the ranges I now have.  

Carl says...
I have just been leaving my car set up with max neg camber, but your 
way saves a lot in tires.  I will try it.  Front camber is a little 
more difficult, but several of us are working on the ultimate 
negative camber (adjustable) setup, which we will share after some 
prototyping.  For now, I use two washer as shims on the lower strut 
bolts, and with the  H&R coilovers at max height (about 1.5 inches 
lower than stock), I get about 3 degs neg camber.  with the coilovers 
adjusted for a lower ride (can go almost 3"...not reccomended), the 
neg camber is, theoretically, greater, but I have not measured it.  I 
should do the same as you have...make the adjustment at the alignment 
shop, and mark it.
 
> BTW, Porshce autoX today (high speed though - more like a time trial
> course, gotta love those Porsche guys), Hobbes (my M3) and Kieth
> Robertson took third and fourth overall, first and second for street
> tires out of 49 cars that competed.  First and second overall went
> to a Turbo Miata on R1s and a full bore racing SCCA six cylinder 914
> with wheel flares to infinity and back, on slicks.  Kieth and I were
> within 2 seconds of their times.  Cool thing is Kieth is still
> runnng a STOCK set up!   
> 
> Unfortunately, Carlos Diaz in his beautiful LTW had to leave before
> he could get his runs in, he probably would have had FTD on his (for
> now) street tires.

I can't imagine running autocross on street tires.  All the more 
power to you, but I bet that once you try race tires, you will not go 
back.
 
> Kieth brought the floating rotors, man are they cool, much cooler
> than I expected.  Now, I need feedback on pads.  Stock pads will be
> gone soon.  The hawks  (?)  seem to have gotten a pretty good
> reception, but I understand you must wash off the dust pretty
> quickly after heavy use.  What do you guys think?

See the latest issue of Sportcar mag.  Good write up on pads.  I 
think that you need at least two sets of pads, track and street.  
Autocross pads (Hawk Y-5s are very specialized).  For street, use 
something just above stock, that is clean, quiet, rotor friendly, and 
gives you good pedal feel (can be modulated.  some pads take no 
preassure to put you thru the windshield, while others require all 
your strength).  I use PBR Deluxes and like them.  On the other end of 
the "street" scale, there are "high performance street pads," like 
the Hawk HPS (?), or the Performance Friction Z-rated.

For the track, you need godzilla pads that STOP, even when they are 
hot.  Usually not as much feel, very dirty, noisy, and eat rotors 
(especially if they are applied hard while they are still cold.  Warm 
them up first, and they are not so bad on rotors.  Problem is, that 
is hard to do on the streets).  I am convinced that Hawk blacks, for 
lighter cars, and Hawk blues for the M3 or M5, are THE way to go.
I welcome other opinions.
 
> As to Scott Hung's comments on cost per HP, no doubt SC is more COST
> effective, but I like normal aspiration.  I plan to drive the car
> for a pretty long time, don't care for the wear that a blower places
> in the engine over the long run.  I know the cost comes out pretty
> close for the mods we've been talking about vs. a SC, but as Scott
> said, that kinda takes the fun out of it.  I like adding things
> piecemeal; small incremental improvements IMHO are more fun than one
> big 100 hp add on. Plus, you ad the SC, that takes the fun out of
> the competition at the local autocrosses and time trials.  
> 
> My $M .03

I agree with your comments, especially the part about "staying legal 
for ANY formal competitons."  A supercharger puts you out of the hunt 
in nearly all racing.  I have not driven an M3 equipped with a SC, 
and sure would like to (Chuck Q, do I get a test drive this fall?).  
I am going to reserve any further comments on whether to SC or Not to 
SC until I have driven one.  It may be so much fun, I will just have 
to have one!  Who doesn't like horsepower?  For now, I will just putt 
along with my Supersprinted-to-the-max M3, and be satisfied with 
continuing suspension upgrades.

WHEW!  My one arm is tired.  This is my last post (famous last words) 
until my shoulder heals!

regards to all,

Carl
Carl Buckland
1000 Boston Bldg
Nine Exchange Place
Salt Lake City, Utah  84111
801-531-6686
Fax 531-6690
E Mail buckland@domain.elided