-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Negative Camber in the Rear and Expensive Tires
- Thread starter lolachampcar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Followup to my post #369:
My SC agreed to cover the cost of tires IF they were found to be out of alignment...
"Within specs" is -1.75 +/- 0.35, i.e. -1.4 to -2.1
Mine was -2.02
Got my new tires to the tune of $1,000...
Also, I asked for the camber bolts but was told I "didn't need them" because my car was "within specs".
Good thing I'm not paying for gas - I need the money for my "tire fund".
My SC agreed to cover the cost of tires IF they were found to be out of alignment...
"Within specs" is -1.75 +/- 0.35, i.e. -1.4 to -2.1
Mine was -2.02
Got my new tires to the tune of $1,000...
Also, I asked for the camber bolts but was told I "didn't need them" because my car was "within specs".
Good thing I'm not paying for gas - I need the money for my "tire fund".
But what was the rear toe measurement??? That's the critical one.
Camber alone will not cause the severe wear on the very inside of the tire like in your pic earlier. There will be more wear on the inside, but it will be gradual across the entire tire.
SUPRKAR
Member
I have just received a set of adjustable links these were made as a prototype by BBC Speed and Machine. I will be installing them on my car then taking it for alignment to see what improvement I can make. I would like to get my car to the negative 1 camber or possibly a little less. I posted a picture of the links to photobucket and hope the link is correct. http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y443/polera257/IMG_20140625_122832_z... The Right most link has the Tesla bushings installed which I pressed out of my original link in the center, the left link is without bushings. The next step is to make the links from aluminium. BBC is also making a bushing which will fit the link so when these are done you will not have to press out your bushings, just purchase the links and install.
anything over about 0.210" longer than stock will have you run out of toe adjustment.....
0.210" longer is good for reducing negative camber by about a degree depending on where your upright neutral position is (ride height).
0.210" longer is good for reducing negative camber by about a degree depending on where your upright neutral position is (ride height).
SUPRKAR
Member
I mentioned 0.210 to BBC and their feeling was make it adjustable which would allow for imperfections and let everyone adjust to their maximum benefit before losing toe. Also in the event adjustable toe links are made additional adjustment can be done without replacing the upper links.
SUPRKAR
Member
Yes they will be available. I am going to test these, once we know they work aluminium units will be made complete with bushings. After another quick test they will be available from BBC Speed and Machine 908-862-6336 Mike is the contact person.
Last edited:
What is the current feeling from our alignment gurus with regards to whether Tesla's updates to alignment (bolt torques, eccentric cams et) have resulted in a car that holds it's alignment well? It's hard to filter out the current state of affairs with all the noise about incorrect alignment specs, miscalibrated alignment equipment, damage in transit etc. I've never had a car that drifted out of alignment with normal driving. Assuming my S is finally "in the zone", should I be checking the alignment with high frequency?
SUPRKAR
Member
Installed the links today will update with alignment results next week. The links fit perfectly and took no time to install.
Awesome job.
Am I the only reading this thinking how absolutely fcuking absurd this is? I can't even imagine what would happen if BMW released a car that burned through tires like this and owners going to the trouble to machine their own parts. Tesla should be doing this. I can already tell that my rears will wear unevenly again but don't want to bother my SC.
The suspension engineers for tesla should be replaced.
If you drive an M3, M5, or X5 M/X6 M, you know tire wear very well. Even my old MB E350 went through rear tires (35 profile) at double the warranty rate, and those were staggered so I had no rotation options. Uneven tire wear is definitely uncalled for, I get it. But don't think that BMW and Mercs don't wear tires quickly... They most certainly do, especially if you can't rotate them front to back. As for the Tesla with 21" wheels, I'd imagine even with a correct geometry, they would wear rear tires at a very fast rate, being as heavy as a SUV and on sticky summer tires.
KOL2000,
This is actually standard stuff for a lot of cars. Do not mention rear camber to a GT3 owner unless you have a spare hour to hear the rant
It is also why I knew I had to put it up on the rack within the first month of ownership (actually, the first time I looked at the car from the back) and, once I saw there was no camber adjustment, knew I had to machine new upper links. Again, all standard stuff. Just do a search on Porsche adjustable links.
I'm not defending any of this by the way. It is obvious that MS passes federal stability regs. on coil springs with higher ride height and WAY less camber. I've not confirmed this with Tesla engineering but the only reason I can think of for not using the same alignment specifications on the lower air suspended cars was to keep from having yet another set of suspension to keep track of. My GUESS is they have this problem for cost reasons only but do not think for a moment that Tesla is special on this one.
This is actually standard stuff for a lot of cars. Do not mention rear camber to a GT3 owner unless you have a spare hour to hear the rant
It is also why I knew I had to put it up on the rack within the first month of ownership (actually, the first time I looked at the car from the back) and, once I saw there was no camber adjustment, knew I had to machine new upper links. Again, all standard stuff. Just do a search on Porsche adjustable links.
I'm not defending any of this by the way. It is obvious that MS passes federal stability regs. on coil springs with higher ride height and WAY less camber. I've not confirmed this with Tesla engineering but the only reason I can think of for not using the same alignment specifications on the lower air suspended cars was to keep from having yet another set of suspension to keep track of. My GUESS is they have this problem for cost reasons only but do not think for a moment that Tesla is special on this one.
I have hard time buying this explanation but do not have a better one.
They must have thought it should be good enough.
Then came misalignments and torn tires. Then they designed adustable camber bolts to fix it.
Then those bolts proved "unstable" causing new misalignments.
Now they are developing new bolts that 'won't move'.
...
SUPRKAR
Member
I have modified my car to no end and will continue to do so. I had the links made because I did not agree with the situation. I think Tesla should do something more than bolt slop but I am also waiting for my lighted sun visors. I don't always agree with what Tesla does so I take things into my own hands. I do feel Tesla is making some mistakes and it will come back to bite them, in the meantime I bought the car and will learn to live with the things I don't like. I reserve the right to complain!
SUPRKAR
Member
The sloppy bolts (my favorite name for them) were produced to allow service centers to bring cars that were out of spec, into spec. So, if one end of the spec is -2.4 and your car is -2.5, the SC can install the bolts and get you into the Tesla approved range. They have nothing to do with moving the air suspended cars into the coil suspended car's camber range.
I agree that there is something going on with out of alignment (toe out in the rear in particular) on MS. My only guess early on was that it COULD be from transport as I have faith that the cars left the factory with the wheels pointing in the correct direction.
Lastly, the "too cheap to do two sets of suspension" theory is mine and mine alone. It is the best I can come up with given the facts. I'll gladly accept a better theory.
I agree that there is something going on with out of alignment (toe out in the rear in particular) on MS. My only guess early on was that it COULD be from transport as I have faith that the cars left the factory with the wheels pointing in the correct direction.
Lastly, the "too cheap to do two sets of suspension" theory is mine and mine alone. It is the best I can come up with given the facts. I'll gladly accept a better theory.
Similar threads
