making the front wheel centered?

[markseven]

You know that there is a difference between static camber and dynamic camber, right?

Caster generally improves steering stability and *very* slightly increases camber gain (dynamic camber) under load.

I'm not sure why turner is claiming that they increase track. Most likely someone just typed that in without understanding it. The outer balljoint is already forward of the inner. Therefore, rotating it further forward decreases track, which also decreases static camber. It's very, very simple.

Turner is claiming increased track because, with the upper strut mount remaining fixed, along with the caster change, the CABS are either:

Add negative camber which effectively increases track.

or

Add positive camber which effectively decreases track.

The additional caster isn't a linear forward movement of the control arm / hub is it? That would demand that the upper strut mount move forward accordingly.

[LJ851]

Turner is claiming increased track because, with the upper strut mount remaining fixed, along with the caster change, the CABS are either:

Add negative camber which effectively increases track.

or

Add positive camber which effectively decreases track.

The additional caster isn't a linear forward movement of the control arm / hub is it? That would demand that the upper strut mount move forward accordingly.

If negative camber is generated at the bottom of the strut, track is increased.

The caster is altered because only one end of the strut assembly (bottom in this case) is moved.

If you moved the bottom and top of the strut assembly equally you would change the wheelbase without affecting the caster.

[markseven]

If negative camber is generated at the bottom of the strut, track is increased.

The caster is altered because only one end of the strut assembly (bottom in this case) is moved.

If you moved the bottom and top of the strut assembly equally you would change the wheelbase without affecting the caster.

Tru dat. The point I was trying to make is that the CAB is not moving the whole control arm forward in a linear fashion.

The offset CAB is forcing the control arm to "pivot" at the lower strut mount, right? That arc is what is creating either the negative or positive camber event.

[Todd Black 88]

The offset cab forces the control arm to pivot on the inner ball joint of the control arm. This pushes the outer ball joint, which is attached to the lower strut, farther forward and in a hair( due to it already being perpendicular to the center line of the chassis) This gives increased caster, and a slight increase in toe in. I would think also a slightly narrower track.

If the outer ball joint was before the perpendicular point normally, it would increase track IMO.

[markseven]

The offset cab forces the control arm to pivot on the inner ball joint of the control arm. This pushes the outer ball joint, which is attached to the lower strut, farther forward and in a hair( due to it already being perpendicular to the center line of the chassis) This gives increased caster, and a slight increase in toe in. I would think also a slightly narrower track.

If the outer ball joint was before the perpendicular point normally, it would increase track IMO.

Yes. I should not be multitasking.

[nrubenstein]

Turner is claiming increased track because, with the upper strut mount remaining fixed, along with the caster change, the CABS are either:

Add negative camber which effectively increases track.

or

Add positive camber which effectively decreases track.

The additional caster isn't a linear forward movement of the control arm / hub is it? That would demand that the upper strut mount move forward accordingly.

Caster is the front/back angle from the top of the strut tower to the hub. Camber is a side to side angle at the wheel. Note that the reference points are not the same. You can have lots and lots of caster, or no caster at all, depending on how the front suspension is engineered.

Shifting the hub forwarded increases the caster angle if you make no adjustments to the position of the strut tower. The offset control arm bushing accomplished this by ROTATING the control arm forward. As the control is ALREADY PAST perpendicular, this narrows the track. Narrowing the track decreases static camber.

[nrubenstein]

Tru dat. The point I was trying to make is that the CAB is not moving the whole control arm forward in a linear fashion.

The offset CAB is forcing the control arm to "pivot" at the lower strut mount, right? That arc is what is creating either the negative or positive camber event.

Yes. It pivots in an arc.

[markseven]

Yes. It pivots in an arc.

That was rhetorical.

[M-technik-3]

Mine is the same way, and all other early chassis cars I have seen with steel arms are the same.

[Wh33lhop]

I actually had positive camber up front way when I put M3 CABs on my stock 325i. Lots more caster though.

[fronton]

It does not matter early or late M3, nor steel or aluminum. All US e30 M3 chassis had the same dimensions/geometry. Sport evo's have the same non-centered wheel as well.

[BillBrasky]

nrubenstein, LJ851 and fronton are all correct.

Here is my M3 that I installed 96-99 M3 control arms to move the wheel more toward the center of the wheel housing.

[Cabriolet]

nrubenstein, LJ851 and fronton are all correct.

Here is my M3 that I installed 96-99 M3 control arms to move the wheel more toward the center of the wheel housing.

thank you. this is the info i need. i guess ill be getting those in the near future to get a better look.

[Roysneon]

Now I need to take a second look at mine. Non-M car with E30M3 suspension, including Condor delrin offset CABs. I've never noticed the wheel not looking centered.

[nrubenstein]

Now I need to take a second look at mine. Non-M car with E30M3 suspension, including Condor delrin offset CABs. I've never noticed the wheel not looking centered.

The M3 fenders are the difference.