
Positive front suspension camber on older race cars (merged)
#1
Posted 26 August 2002 - 18:17
Anyone know?
I mean that's got to be adding a heap of understeer to a car that only has a front anti-roll bar anyway!
Can the rear-ends have really been THAT twitchy, or is it to offset the effect of all that rear mounted fuel?
PlaYtimE
Advertisement
#2
Posted 26 August 2002 - 18:44

I've often wondered about the same thing myself. The Tipo 35 Bugattis look almost comical with that much positive camber on the fronts ..... what could the reasoning have been?
#3
Posted 26 August 2002 - 20:13
PlaYtimE
#4
Posted 27 August 2002 - 07:29
Your assumptions are based on modern radial tyres I presume ?
I dont know, but first guess is the shoulder "digging in" afforded more grip.
#5
Posted 27 August 2002 - 08:31
#6
Posted 27 August 2002 - 14:46
A reason for pos. static camber during cornering can be ease of steering: the contact patch is in line with the king pin.
If you use negative camber, either you need power steering or you get a very awkward geometry.
Does this make sense?
mat1
#7
Posted 27 August 2002 - 15:58
Umm kinda:)
In layman's terms

PlaYtimE
#8
Posted 27 August 2002 - 17:07
Originally posted by Playtime
Hi Mat1,
Umm kinda:)
In layman's termsare you saying that there was a lot of vertical movement of the wheel during cornering and that that (depending on susp. design) allowed the wheel to 'swing up' and straighten, thereby presenting a greater contact patch during cornering?
PlaYtimE
Nope - the keyword here is kingpin inclination - or castor, for the more modern cars. I think what Mat1 is trying to say is that the old cars had a lot of positive castor, which would straighten the wheel up as it turned into a corner. Makes sense, kinda - but that would make the steering very heavy again. Which would explain the big steering wheels, and the close-up driving positions, I guess.
Still seems simpler to have started out with less positive camber.
#9
Posted 27 August 2002 - 17:46
Originally posted by Bladrian
Nope - the keyword here is kingpin inclination - or castor, for the more modern cars.
I always understood that, strictly speaking, kingpin inclination is not the same thing as castor. Castor is what you see in side elevation, kingpin inclination is what you see in front elevation. Then you get into talk about steering offset : the difference between the point where the king pin axis and wheel centre line touch the ground. This can be positive or negative. This offset leads to a jacking effect as steering lock is applied.
#10
Posted 27 August 2002 - 18:12

#11
Posted 27 August 2002 - 18:13
Originally posted by David Beard
I always understood that, strictly speaking, kingpin inclination is not the same thing as castor. Castor is what you see in side elevation, kingpin inclination is what you see in front elevation. Then you get into talk about steering offset : the difference between the point where the king pin axis and wheel centre line touch the ground. This can be positive or negative. This offset leads to a jacking effect as steering lock is applied.
Yes KPI and castor are as you describe.
My understanding is that positive camber was in some way connnected with the cross-ply tyres used at the time - in fact there was a thread about this a while back:
http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=44927
PdeRL

#12
Posted 27 August 2002 - 19:00
It would be interesting to know why
#13
Posted 28 August 2002 - 00:38
I'm going to take a shot at this. But firstly lets get this Castor and Camber thing out of the way.
# 1, Castor (Caster) is the way the kingpin or ball join vertical axis leans backwards from the true vertical axis. It is one of the things makes a car run straight down the road. Generally a car has positive Caster for this purpose.
# 2 Camber is the way the tire/wheel leans outward at the top to help the tire wear straight. Remember these tires were not radials and they were many times just cotton ply and natural rubber. Not any steel except in the bead. If a car is to have centerpoint steering the old books are in debate about its effectiveness. With the old kingpins they had to lean the wheel outwards and the king pin inwards toward the center of the car at the top to achieve this condition.
Another thing that was not very well understood was how necessary it was to have centerpoint steering on frontwheel drive cars. If you study into the old Cord automobile and the Citroen you might find some information on this.
Mostly I believe that they just did not understand the problems to really solve the difficulties in this total problem.
One must also remember that ball joints did not become popular until around 1952 when the Lincoln adopted them for all the cars made by this division of FoMoCo. This one thing, which I believe started in Britain, had a great deal to do with modern wheel suspension. Just look a t some of the Bugattis(sp) and their camber to think that the problem was just not even partly understood. Yours, M. L. Anderson
#14
Posted 28 August 2002 - 05:45
now as a comparison, while the early fords [model T's]had a similar system to the bugs [without the elegant hollow axle tube-ford used an "i" section forging].. the later fords[model "A" and V-8's] kept the 90 degree angle between the stub axle and the kingpin on the spindle and angled the holes in the axle itself....thus while the wheels appeared "straight" the centerpoint steering remained in effect.[adjustment was made by bending the axle beam- "cold"!!!
now as far as CASTER is concerned,the bugs used wedges to tilt the axle in respect to the leaf springs...the more caster applied[up to 6+ degrees positive] the more stable the car is at speed..but a bitch to turn in fast corners ...thus less caster angle was used[as low as 3 degrees]to allow nimble steering [but the car tended to "hunt" or wander on long straights....]
ok..time to name drop...at monterey this year i had a long coversation with "alain de xxxxxxx" about the amount of caster on lord so and so'd type 51...and how the good mechanics changed the wedges to suit different tracks ..[by the way,4 degrees works well at laguna seca]
perhaps later we can discuss akermann steering[or the lack of it]on gp bugs
and i have a lot to rant about castor[or lack of it] on front drive miller-fords....
#15
Posted 28 August 2002 - 06:49

#16
Posted 12 March 2006 - 04:22
1) taking into account for caster would mean positive camber in order to get the camber to zero during a corner (in other words, the outside tire would move toward upright as the steering turns the wheels into the corner)
2) an efort to control oversteer, especially when opposite lock was applied
3) something to do with the narrow tires of the time
Or am I missing something? I'd love to know.
#17
Posted 12 March 2006 - 07:05
http://forums.autosp...&threadid=47164
#18
Posted 12 March 2006 - 08:22
#21
Posted 12 March 2006 - 09:27
Originally posted by Catalina Park
Looking at this photo.... The benefits are
1) You can carry a wider load.
2) You are adding side thrust to the wheel bearings which would help to stop the wheels falling off.
Very astute

#22
Posted 12 March 2006 - 18:28
David B
#23
Posted 12 March 2006 - 20:24
I wonder whether Ettore Bugatti's aluminium wheels (on a T35 for instance) are designed in a similar way. The lower outer spokes are taking the load in compression. In this way the combination of the positive camber (or hollow or dip in wheelwighting parlance) and the dishing of the wheel (which increases the stiffness) makes the load bearing spokes vertical.
There is an interesting article on wheelwrighting in John Seymour's The Forgotten Arts, published by the National Trust in 1984. He also records that "A dished wheel of the first century BC was dug up in Anglesey in 1947" so good tried and trusted technology.
#24
Posted 12 March 2006 - 20:56
as to the bugatti wheels...the issue was not so much weight bearing in a static vertical vector as on the wagon[lets face it; the wagons top speed is vertually static] as the side load created by spindle steering and a horozontal load at the contact patch of the tire at high speed.....the early bug blade wheels had just cast flat spokes only and tended to not like "kerb bouncing"...later wheels had reinforcing flanges cast in and provided proper bracing against side loads.
the actual conceptual design of the bugatti wheel is a cloudy area with a mix of proper engineering and le patron's unique imagination.nevertheless they did/do work just fine ...
#25
Posted 12 March 2006 - 22:43
Originally posted by dbw
..with lavish use of tallow applied to the interface, a long working life was assured.
I wonder how the smell of hot tallow from the wheel bearings (or at least the axle to wheel interface) compared with that of Castrol R?
#26
Posted 12 March 2006 - 22:55

DCN
#27
Posted 12 March 2006 - 23:37