Sbc Phase 2 Rear Negative Camber Kit

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

As the title says, how much does the SBC rear camber kit increase rear track by? And the increase in neg. camber too?

 

I gave my SBC catalogue to Anthony some time ago, and currently having a think about going back to a 205 beam. Problem is, I like the way my 205 handles with 309 beam (ZX arms & GTi6 ARB) so looking at options.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Alan_M

[Anthony 1,002]

The kit gives 1 degree negative camber and 20 minutes toe in, so very similar to your existing ZX arms.

 

Feb reckoned that it was about 18mm wider track (on each side I assume) although the spacing on the arms is less than that.

 

There was a topic or two about this a few weeks back.

[feb 47]

Yes, the above figures were quoted by SBC (toe in 20-25 minutes) when I spoke to them a few weeks ago.

 

I had the impression that 18mm was the total increase in trackwidth, not per side but I did not clarify with them.

 

This is a pic of my old 205 with the phase II fitted, not the clearest of pics though:

 

Alan, why are you thinking of changing the current setup?

Edited April 14, 2011 by feb

[Cameron 16]

Looking at the SBC arms I got from Tom_m a week or so ago, I'd say the track width increase was 18mm in total, so 9mm per side.

[Anthony 1,002]

Yeah, you're probably right - I was trying to mentally factor in the effect of the increase in camber in addition to the width of the spacer wedge, but I think I over-estimated how much (or rather, little) extra track you'd gain from half a degree odd camber increase

[Cameron 16]

Well, when I measured my front camber it was 13mm difference (top to bottom, measuring to vertical) on a 14" rim, which equated to pretty much bang on 3 degrees. So for 1mm camber I'd say it equates to about 4mm extra track width, or 2mm each side.

[feb 47]

Well, when I measured my front camber it was 13mm difference (top to bottom, measuring to vertical) on a 14" rim, which equated to pretty much bang on 3 degrees. So for 1mm camber I'd say it equates to about 4mm extra track width, or 2mm each side.

 

You've lost me although I used to be good in trigonometry but an increase in trackwidth doesn't necessarily give an increase in camber if the whole wheel is moved parallel to its initial position as I understand.

 

On the same way you can achieve negative camber without altering the trackwidth and only bringing the top part of the wheel inwards, the bottom point of contact (imagine using cycle tyres) would be the same, no?

 

Think of a wheelchair and keeping the bottom of the wheel on the same point on the ground but bringing the top point of the wheel inwards, trackwidth remains the same while increasing negative camber.

 

Edit> actually if the trackwidth is measured from wheel centre to wheel centre (rather than point of contact on the ground) the trackwidth will indeed change when altering the camber.

Edited April 14, 2011 by feb

[tomcolinjones 26]

trackwidth is measured from wheel centre to wheel centre (rather than point of contact on the ground) the trackwidth will indeed change when altering the camber.

Unless the camber is achieved by changing the angle of the stub axle, then the camber can be +/- and the wheel centres remain the same distance away from eachother.

[Cameron 16]

You never measure track width at the wheel centres though. Track is always measured from the centres of the contact patch, basically the centre of the tyre at the point of contact with the ground.

 

If you moved the top mount inboard you would actually get an increase in track width as well as an increase in camber, because the assembly is pivoting around the bottom ball joint which is a distance above ground level. Picture a see-saw I guess, where the pivot is the bottom ball joint, you move one end down, the other goes up and vice versa.

 

Feb - what I meant was, if the backing plate is 9mm thick and also adds 1 degree of camber, you would get a track increase from both the backing plate moving everything out, and the camber moving the base of the wheel out and the top in. You'd therefore end up with 9mm + about 2mm extra track each side, so a 22mm track width increase in total.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Very crude way of doing it as it's never that accurate, Better off with machined arms from Bridgecraft eng, I might have a set of SBC ones for sale in a few months because of this if you do go that route

[Batfink 201]

So for a car running slicks whats have people found is best camber wise at the rear? I have two options. Buy a skip brown kit or machine the arms. I'm running a 309 rear beam so the rear is going to have to be rolled out anyway as there's not even a finger width between the wheel and bodywork. But the SB kit has the advantage that its simply bolted on and the beam will not need stripping down.

Saying that I'm currently on drums at the rear and will be moving to discs so I need to check rear track width anyway..

[welshpug 1,655]

1.9 is wider by a few mm at the rear than the 1.6 IIRC, given that it all needs to come apart and that it doesnt matter what trailng arms you start with, I'd say go for the Bridgecraft arrangement

 

If you do need a little extra width you can always use ABS rear hubs+stub axles+discs.

[Spiky 37]

sorry for dumb but whats the details of the bridgecraft arrangement?

[welshpug 1,655]

machine out the stub axle holes to the specified angle and fit oversize pins afaik.

 

Martin did put a thread up a while ago.

 

http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?showtopic=76681&st=0

Edited April 15, 2011 by welshpug

[Cameron 16]

What makes that better than the SBC ones then, is it just that you can specify whatever angle you want?

[welshpug 1,655]

yes you choose your angles and they are machined very precisely with uprated stub axles, its rather more than just a stub axle bent manually in a press and a wedge shaped spacer for the brake caliper bracket.

[Spiky 37]

What the contact details for this ?

 

Any Idea if price?

[Cameron 16]

That's some press if it can bend 25mm diameter solid steel bar..

 

I'm sceptical as to whether that's how they make them, how did you come to that conclusion? Are there obvious press marks on the shafts? Besides wouldn't a standard stub axle be too short for the extra width the spacer plate gives? I really need to get my arms from Tom apart and see how they're made I guess.

 

So the fancy machined arms, they also machine the face that the backing plate mounts to, and re-drill and tap the bolt holes?

[feb 47]

I am interested to see how they are made Cameron so if you take them apart post some pics up.

 

Anthony reckons they are 405 stub axles.

Edited April 15, 2011 by feb

[welshpug 1,655]

specifically i dont know how they did them but that's what I was led to believe they were 405 stub pins.

[Cameron 16]

 

Well I'll have mine apart next week hopefully so I'll try to enlighten everyone.

[SurGie 54]

1.9 is wider by a few mm at the rear than the 1.6 IIRC.

 

 

Iv looked it up and found that the difference is > 1.6GTI is '52.3' and the 1.9 is '52.7' wide.

 

So what is it that makes this difference, is it because of the drum brakes stub or the arms, it cant be the beam surely ?

[welshpug 1,655]

just the drum/hubs themselves, and the difference in wheel width and offset.