Trying to understand ball joints

[38racing]

Not worried about low friction at this point. Just trying to understand how different length ball joints effect things. This will be for a metric stub chassis. Please correct me if I'm wrong: Longer ball joints on lca, drop chassis closer to ground and help to correct lca angle. I'm assuming you want these as straight (level) as possible. I assume this would also lower roll center? Longer ball joints in uca, give more angle for better clearance and help move the roll center to left or right depending on which side you lengthen? Sorry for the rookie question, I just don't know. Thanks for the help.

[Confused?]

Longer ball joints raise the roll center. Changing angle in the uppers also affects camber gain/loss. More angle, more gain. Less angle, less gain.

[Anonymous24]

Long stud upper ball joints set shallow inside the spindle can be used to create a taller spindle hypothetically. Taller spindles can reduce the amount of camber change in dynamic. Obtaining a 0° camber change I feel is optimal on the RF.

[Confused?]

0 camber change? I hope you mean caster change.

[Anonymous24]

No sir I do mean zero degree camber changeZero degree caster change is also preferable.

[Confused?]

Please explain your theory behind that. I can't get my head around zero camber gain. Are you talking about the wheel staying at, say 4degrees, throughout the motion of travel?

[dereksehi]

I think what anonymous means is after the car dives and rolls onto the rf from that point on you want zero camber change. From the studying I have done if you check it in the shop statically you want to gain between 1.5 and 2.0 on the rf depending on track banking and the tire you are running.

[Confused?]

That would make sense. But that does not equate to zero camber gain. That would mean he is trying to maintain the staic setting through the chassis movement. I get that.

What you are saying is, in effect, camber gain. What I perceive as zero gain would mean the tire stands up as the chassis dives and rolls over.

Thank you for tclearing that up for me. I was, as my name implies, confused.... LOL

[Anonymous24]

Camber change on the RF causes instability. I know that zero gain is impossible but keeping at little as possible is what we are trying to achieve

[dereksehi]

So if you have no camber gain on the rf when the chassis dives and rolls you want the camber to go positive? If you have no gain at the rf statically when checking it in the shop when the car dives and rolls dynamically you are going to loose rf camber because when the chassis rolls over the upper control mount moves out and the lower moves in therefore you will lose negative cmaber which to me wont plant the rf tire.

[stock car driver]

he obviously has no idea what hes talking about thus the reason he needs to be anonymous!

[Confused?]

Anonymous24, message me with the chassis company that you own/work for. Of all the chassis I've been around, none try to achieve zero camber gain.

[TCmod]

Depends on how you are measuring camber gain. If your doing it by raising and lowering the control arms or if you simulating chassis movement from static to hiked up at race height. Obviously you'll get major numbers just moving the spindle with car on stands. But bottom your rf out and jack your lr up or however you want to simulate race height then look at your numbers.

[Anonymous24]

When the car rolls in the corner you want the entire tire tread surface to be evenly on the track surface. That is most important part of the track. on the straight its important for complete tire tread but not as important. You never enter the corners at the same rate of speed hence you do not achieve the same amount of chassis roll at every corner. Say the chassis rolls 1° in turn one and you get 3° of chassis roll in turn three. Camber curve will kill you in this scenario because you cannotset the car two different ways for two different corners of one single track. Therefore 0° camber change during chassis roll would be optimum. In static you should set the camber to a degree that would be optimum for cornering. Am I making any sense yet.For those talking nonsense about me go get educated and then come back and let's discuss.

[stock car driver]

When the car rolls in the corner you want the entire tire tread surface to be evenly on the track surface. That is most important part of the track. on the straight its important for complete tire tread but not as important. You never enter the corners at the same rate of speed hence you do not achieve the same amount of chassis roll at every corner. Say the chassis rolls 1° in turn one and you get 3° of chassis roll in turn three. Camber curve will kill you in this scenario because you cannotset the car two different ways for two different corners of one single track. Therefore 0° camber change during chassis roll would be optimum. In static you should set the camber to a degree that would be optimum for cornering. Am I making any sense yet.For those talking nonsense about me go get educated and then come back and let's discuss.

So when I am banging on chip and my mph tops out at 87 or whatever it is for that gear EVERY lap you don't think Im entering the corner at the same speed lap after lap corner after corner?