Rear Camber link(s) RX7...

The piece in question is actually a spherical bearing with a rubber seal pressed into both ends. I run them stock with no problems. I got burned once too many time trying to help on this forum so a PM is the only way to go. I did not PM because someone I know and respect already has. :rolleyes: Seems a little strange that the chief of tech has all the answers for a fee. As with doctors--get a second opinion. Do your adjustment at the subframe as the rules allow.
 
And people wonder why they never get any response to questions on this board :bash_1_: . PS. The ones you designed will not pivot with the rear control arms and will break. The stock ones will allow for flex in both directions.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Let me be clear, I did not design these. A local race shop did where the shop foreman is head of tech in my region and the owner has been racing SCCA for 30+ years. As far as them breaking, I do not have the knowledge to comment but would suspect and hope the designers knew what they were doing. That can be questioned though since we have concluded the design is not legal. I'm just a rookie trying to have a good time and learning.

Anyone care to comment on what they use for rear camber adjustment on the 2nd Gen?

Stock dog bones and somehow do some type of modification at the subframe seems like a logical approach...
 
Let me be clear, I did not design these. A local race shop did where the shop foreman is head of tech in my region and the owner has been racing SCCA for 30+ years. As far as them breaking, I do not have the knowledge to comment but would suspect and hope the designers knew what they were doing. That can be questioned though since we have concluded the design is not legal. I'm just a rookie trying to have a good time and learning.

Anyone care to comment on what they use for rear camber adjustment on the 2nd Gen?

Stock dog bones and somehow do some type of modification at the subframe seems like a logical approach...
[/b]
Click to expand...
Get in touch with mazdaspeed and register with them if you have not done so already. The link that sets the subframe angle is where you want to adjust your camber. it will do the same for both sides unless you want to stagger the left and right. Feel free to pm me and I will give you a phone number and give you all the help I can. You are new to this and don't know how "tech" discussions on this board go south fast.
 
Bring up a dead horse as I am just trying to understand what is legal. I have come across rear upper links like these:

38720.gif


So instead of using something like this we have to "slot" the mounting points? (I am having a hard time with this as the above seems safer).

Or Camber bolts:
35420.gif


What about adjustable ball joints like:

35590.gif



Or adjustable mounts:

35710-assembly.gif


Thanks,

Derek

(Oh and if you don't want to respond, then PM me please).
 
What kind of car are you referring to? I don't see any of the posted pictures as options for a 2nd Gen RX-7 but maybe you are talking about a different car.

I have come to the conclusion and no one has proven me wrong that there is no legal way to adjust rear camber on a 2nd Gen RX-7 for IT. Do people do it anyways? A quick glance at the rear suspension would tell you. Note I run ITE where there really aren't any rules and yes I have camber links.
 
Any car, what this thread is more about adjusting camber on any multi link suspension. The examples I was pulling are cars that are running in IT looking through: Ingalls Engineering

If you look through you will see a lot of other examples like shims (you could change toe in as well by using combinations of shims) for the GTI. I am just wondering at this point does it make sense to have the only way to adjust be elongating and re-enforcing the mounting position, vs. opening the rule up to allow for the use of adjusters for upper links, or shims in the GTI example, but still limit the use to stock lower control arms. This way the base suspension design does not change, and we can run the correct camber to not tear up tires.

Just some thoughts.

Derek
 
There are several options that fall within the rules (below). Why adjustable links are not included is beyond me. I believe the intention of the IT rules is to allow for adjustment of camber, caster, and toe settings, however in some instances the way the rules are written this becomes very challenging as evidenced by this thread. Send in a request for adjustable links, although I would suspect the response would be "inconsistent with class philosophy" or "the rules are adequate as written".

1. Cars equipped with MacPherson strut suspension may
decamber wheels by the use of eccentric bushings at
control arm pivot points, by the use of eccentric bushings
at the strut-to-bearing-carrier joint, and/or by use
of slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point. If
slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing
chassis structure and may not serve as a reinforcement for
that structure. Material may be added or removed from the
top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster
plate.
2. On other forms of suspension, camber adjustment may be
achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric bushings.
3. All forms of suspension may adjust caster by means of
shims or eccentric bushings. Additionally, MacPherson
strut-equipped cars may adjust caster at the upper strut
mounting point/plate.
4. Independent rear suspension mounting holes may be
slotted and reinforced for purposes of camber and/or toe
adjustment. Material may be removed from the top of the
strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate.
 
Mark, I like the design, and think it could be successfully argued as legal. I would make one change, though. Start with hex stock and leave a wrench area if possible. Chuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top