Well, in my efforts to get more camber while maintaining a reasonable ride height on the street, I’m strongly looking at adjustable UCAs. I still see some outer wear, and though I should first look into wider wheels (205/50 15 Azenis on 6" wide wheels right now which are probably rolling over even under high pressure, camber arms seems to be an effective method to get 2.5degrees without being dropped 3", which I was for a bit. If I had a G3 Teg, I’d simply get the Skunk2s and be done with it. I remember mojo92gsr (Jonna) purchased a set and looked into modifying them to fit the DA, but scrapped it since it would be too $$$/impossible. I occaisionally see the Vision arms but I’d rather spend $200 instead of $300+. Are there any other options?
More importantly, are camber adjustable UCAs legal for STS, especially with the new rulebook coming out in 2004? As far as I’ve gathered, they are currently legal for STS yet illegal for Street Prepared based on some strange interpretation, which makes me worry that this “loophole” will be closed shortly, and I don’t want to be changing out control arms every weekend (enough problems already).
Hmm, I didn’t realize that these arms are illegal for Street Prepared. That seems a little odd. Hopefully, if the rules change, it’ll be the Street Prepared rules changing to allow them and not the STS rules to get rid of them. I recently purchased a set of the Vision Arms. I haven’t installed them yet because they’ll require me to get an alignment, and if I’m going to do that, I’d like to get the car corner-weighed again(reduced a bunch of weight since I corner weighed the car about a year ago). I’m also a little bit concerned because I was told that the minimum negative camber I could get out of those arms was about -3°(at about the height my car is now). I think that’s too much for a daily driver.
Speaking of rule changes, how often do rules change? I’m still in my first year of autoxing, so I haven’t been around long enough to know. One rule that I’d love to see changed in STS is the requirement for a reclinable seat.
-nino
I believe that adjustable camber in any for will remain legal in STS, because the class is supposed to mirror popular street modifications. However, it does say for “corrective” in the rules which causes ambiguity. Many national STS competitors use camber adjustment to increase negative camber but it has been called into question.
I think adjustable camber is illegal in SP for non MacStrut cars like an Integra. The thought there is that this adjustment would allow non-Mac cars to dominate.
Originally posted by MrFrost
[B]I believe that adjustable camber in any for will remain legal in STS, because the class is supposed to mirror popular street modifications. However, it does say for “corrective” in the rules which causes ambiguity. Many national STS competitors use camber adjustment to increase negative camber but it has been called into question.
This is the reason behind some lengthy discussion on H-T. The arms are legal based upon the need for street cars to reduce camber. Me, you and many others want to increase it. I’m worried that this rule will be clarified further next year, or worse, it isn’t, some bitches, and I have to cheat or toss 'em.
Some more interesting ambiguity is the legality of spherical bearing Trailing arm bushings. The rules explicitly claim that all “manners of mounting” are legal for STS. I believe there’s a new thread about this.
Nino, does it look like the arms will have any contact issues with very low cars? Hopefully the balljoint is at the same height (relative) as the stock piece. The Vision arms are all that’s currently out there?
I don’t think that they’ll vave contact issues, but it’s hard to tell without seeing what they look like once they’re installed. There’s a few members on here that have these arms so maybe one of them will chime in.
I thought I read somewhere about another company making these…
EDIT: I just did a quick search and it looks like SPC makes some kind of adjustable balljoint or something. The post I found doesn’t talk about it much.
I’d stay away from the adjustable ball joint thing because caster will change when you change camber. They are also taller than the stock units (the one’s that I’ve seen) which will create a clearance problem as well as change the car’s geometry somewhat.
I looked on Ebay and the Ingalls style kits interest me. However everything says that they adjust like 0 to (+3) deg. It looks like it could be modified but safey may be an issue.
I’d like a set of those vision arms anyone know the range of adjustment?
Originally posted by GSpeedR Nino, does it look like the arms will have any contact issues with very low cars? Hopefully the balljoint is at the same height (relative) as the stock piece. The Vision arms are all that’s currently out there?
No, it clears just fine on low cars. Search for my “Improved Vision” post.
AFAIK the Vision Neagtive A-Arm is the only adjustable control arm.
Frost, it goes from negative to WAY negative depending on your ride height.
Just read the post (search wasn’t working a few dqays ago), and they look really nice. My farking Unix machine won’t access the 2nd and 3rd pages, though.
There’s caster adjustment on the adjustable balljoint? I figured it would be purely lateral, but I suppose the UCAbj isn’t completely lateral to the wheel center.
So the Vision arms should also have some caster adjustment by default (possible unwanted?)?
I was somewhat unclear. When I think of adjustable ball joint it’s the kind that rotates in an offset manner to change camber. I consider the vision setup to be an adjustable UCA.
Originally posted by SE-37K
[B]No, it clears just fine on low cars. Search for my “Improved Vision” post.
AFAIK the Vision Neagtive A-Arm is the only adjustable control arm.
Frost, it goes from negative to WAY negative depending on your ride height. [/B]
Duy, I dont think that clearance issues are the same for a car with 18" wheels and a car with 15" wheels. When you have 18" wheels, you only have to lower it about 1 - 2" max to get that “tucked” look but when you have 15" wheels, you have to lower it 3"+ to get that “tucked” look so the A arm is a LOT closer to the inner fender
I helped him with the install and it was close i thought. But then again, the ball joint isnt closer to the outside of the car as it would be with a traditional camber kit.
