Do I need to reset rear wheel camber with these lowering links?

[lolachampcar]

Camber is a function of the length of the upper control arm. There are bushings (or with newer cars an outboard ball style joint) on each end. Unlike the toe link, there is no eccentric bolt to adjust the upper control arm's length thus camber is not adjustable.

I guess bushing wear or "settling" could cause camber to change with time. I've not seen this with MS thus can not comment from first hand experience.

 

[3mp_kwh]

Not sure I understand. Looking at the rear of my MS, the left rear tire has significantly more negative camber than the right. I know for a fact it did not used to be this way. Obviously somehow it got adjusted. This is in standard ride height, FWIW.

Semantics. We can say that camber "adjusts" when you select different ride heights, but adjustability from an alignment perspective would be an ability to set camber independent of ride height.

I've mostly dealt with European cars, and given alignment recipes to shops where you see printouts of the range the manufacturers specify. They all have them. In my experience, they seldom allow much over -1 degree negative. I think it is with reference to what many of us have seen, that makes numbers like -2.5 hard to swallow. Fixing it in, in an attempt for safety, is like taking away the ability to turn off traction control. If that is the thinking, it will eventually narrow the customer.

 

[lolachampcar]

I'm a little unclear what you are saying with the last two sentences.

WRT Safety
MS on coils has somewhere around a 1 degree negative camber spec in the rear (.9-1.2 or something close to that) so we know minus one is sufficient to pass stability control regulations. The key test is the emergency maneuver test at about 50 mph where the driver yanks the wheel back and forth with a pause or dwell between one of the "yanks". It is difficult for active stability control electronics to control the pendulum affect that is the car yawing into over steer. Manufacturers use negative camber so that the car rolls onto more contact patch with side loading thus catching the over steer.

IF I am correct that minus one degree of negative camber is sufficient for MS then the only reason the air car has more camber is because Tesla did not want two different upper links; one for coil and the other for air suspension cars. I do not think this is a matter of safety but more one of cost and complexity.

Lastly, and this really is my opinion out on a limb, but I would personally rather have a car with more over steer tendency in a once in a many miles driven emergency situation than I would a car that can wear the inside shoulder of the rear tires. I knew from the minute I brought my P85 home that I had to "fix" the rear camber. I also know on other cars that are not my daily driver and that carry a lot of negative camber that I need to watch the rears like a hawk. The average owner may not be aware of these issues and most certainly is not crawling around under the back of her/his car to scope out the inner shoulders on a regular basis. IMO, an MS with high negative rear camber is much more likely to have a blow out than fail in an emergency maneuver. Again, just my opinion.

 

[3mp_kwh]

I'm a little unclear what you are saying with the last two sentences.
WRT Safety
MS on coils has somewhere around a 1 degree negative camber spec in the rear (.9-1.2 or something close to that) so we know minus one is sufficient to pass stability control regulations. The key test is the emergency maneuver test at about 50 mph where the driver yanks the wheel back and forth with a pause or dwell between one of the "yanks". It is difficult for active stability control electronics to control the pendulum affect that is the car yawing into over steer. Manufacturers use negative camber so that the car rolls onto more contact patch with side loading thus catching the over steer.
IF I am correct that minus one degree of negative camber is sufficient for MS then the only reason the air car has more camber is because Tesla did not want two different upper links; one for coil and the other for air suspension cars. I do not think this is a matter of safety but more one of cost and complexity.

I think safety should be established for a given ride height, not the +3/4" to +1" height of the coil suspension (vs. Standard). That's a height SAS owners don't use, and also seems unnecessarily high by the looks, and use, of the coil cars. It seems it is also where existing links provide more normal -1 camber(?). Tesla, or any other maker, would have problems if -1, at a 'Low' ride height, ever became +1 at a driver-selectable High (oversteer). So, that's where I conclude safety is what drives tire-eating camber.

I understand Audi uses similar suspension arm layouts. But w/o cockpit adjustable ride heights, they can use a more normal -1. Audi also sells cars with much higher roll centers (engine height). So, we might conclude their tire contact patches are more apt to need the negative camber.

 

[lolachampcar]

It would be interesting to see where air rear camber ends up when the car is in high (the highest setting where you can still drive the car around).