[Logicoeur]

Originally Posted by Z K

In the San Francisco area, the roads are like the surface of the moon with potholes that can bend suspension components and dent wheels. It has been rated the worse road conditions in the country.

https://www.kalw.org/post/why-does-b...untry#stream/0

It doesn't seem like those writers have been to Massachusetts. The name "massholes" refers to the potholes, not the drivers

[FaRKle!]

Originally Posted by Jahjaman

Thanks very much for providing input. The comparison is very enlightening indeed.

If I can dumb down what you're saying... does that mean a ball joint is designed to withstand pushing forces against it (perpendicular forces) but doesn't do well when it rotates (which is what happens when turning the wheel)?

Originally Posted by kern417

I think he's saying the opposite. It's designed to allow rotation but not perpendicular load. Like in the control arm example, it rotates around the pivot but doesn't face a lot of direct load from the sides of the bearing. In our suspension we're basically beating it up since all the spring force pushes up on it.

Think of it in terms of how much surface area is supporting the load. If you look at a camber plate mounted in a car the load is "up/down" along the damper piston shaft. Since the ball joint has to have holes in those directions for the piston shaft to pass through there's less surface area supporting the load.

For other applications, like a sway bar end link, the load is perpendicular to the threaded rod coming out of the ball joint and there's much more surface area supporting the load.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by kern417

At the end of the day, it's a race car mod. Race cars rattle. The only way to get around it is either bushings, or fixed camber adjustment (that's less than ideal). It's just one of the huge downsides of our front suspension setup. Great for cost and packaging, but crappy for driving dynamics.

In regards to fixed camber adjustment, is there a reason someone couldn't make something like these for this platform?
https://www.dinancars.com/product/d1...0i-335i-335is/
I feel like it would be a perfect solution for most people who just want 1.5-2 camber and stock NVH levels.

[MacklinUSOB]

Originally Posted by Nugget

In regards to fixed camber adjustment, is there a reason someone couldn't make something like these for this platform?
https://www.dinancars.com/product/d1...0i-335i-335is/
I feel like it would be a perfect solution for most people who just want 1.5-2 camber and stock NVH levels.

I looked far and wide for a simple solution like this prior to going to adjustable plates because my E8X and E9X friends all have these on their cars. This comes down to the top hat design on the F series.

If you open the hood and look at the top hat on an F, there are aluminium extrusions that completely fill the circumference of the opening in the strut tower on the chassis and the tower itself is hardly larger than the entire plate. A plate like the Dinan would only work if it also functioned as a spacer to clear the extrusions but that doesn't solve the overall tower size limitation. Additionally, BMW integrated the stabilizer bar mounts on the top hat so those would no longer be usable. In short, there are a lot of reasons why it won't work.

Next best option are these Millway plates

[FaRKle!]

Just got the Millway Street camber plates installed today. Props to Samuel for getting them to me so quickly!

Some observations:
-The plate height is indeed the same 10mm thickness as the OE top mount.
-It's easy to take apart the sliding mechanism and replace the damper piston shaft mount and polyurethane buffers if they ever wear.
-The screw HW supplied are 6mm hex, grade 8.8. Personally I hate hex for things that need to get torqued to spec, and I'm wondering why the HW is grade 8.8 when the OE bolts are grade 10.9.
-I've asked Samuel if there's any issue with running the OE bolts. I don't think there should be since they're the same thread size and pitch. They will protrude past the bottom of the plate below the shock tower unlike the bolts supplied, but that doesn't seem to be an issue when I took a look.

I've only driven a bit around town so far, but I'm impressed with how little change there's been in NVH. I actually can't even tell if there's been any change from my setup before. I'll leave the possibility that if you have OE bushings for the tension strut you may have a small increase in NVH, but if you already have monoballs like I do, you might not notice anything. It'll be interesting to see the data I collect on my commute this week.

Video to come...

[Lancelot]

Originally Posted by FaRKle!

Just got the Millway Street camber plates installed today. Props to Samuel for getting them to me so quickly!

Some observations:
-The plate height is indeed the same 10mm thickness as the OE top mount.
-It's easy to take apart the sliding mechanism and replace the damper piston shaft mount and polyurethane buffers if they ever wear.
-The screw HW supplied are 6mm hex, grade 8.8. Personally I hate hex for things that need to get torqued to spec, and I'm wondering why the HW is grade 8.8 when the OE bolts are grade 10.9.
-I've asked Samuel if there's any issue with running the OE bolts. I don't think there should be since they're the same thread size and pitch. They will protrude past the bottom of the plate below the shock tower unlike the bolts supplied, but that doesn't seem to be an issue when I took a look.

I've only driven a bit around town so far, but I'm impressed with how little change there's been in NVH. I actually can't even tell if there's been any change from my setup before. I'll leave the possibility that if you have OE bushings for the tension strut you may have a small increase in NVH, but if you already have monoballs like I do, you might not notice anything. It'll be interesting to see the data I collect on my commute this week.

Video to come...

Exactly my observations as well - down to the question about bolts, oem bolts seemed more suited - we still went ahead with the millway provided bolts on and it's fine.

[andino]

Would be nice if we can use OEM bolts because the provided washers are a bit small and don't bite well on strut bars. If we can use OEM bolts, i'll swap mine out asap.

My replacement bearings from Millway have shipped as well. Will update when I get them in and the car apart to see how the (currently installed) bearings have held up.

[FaRKle!]

Samuel got back to me on using the OE bolts.

There's no problem using the OE bolts, BUT you have to make sure that none of them protrude below the bottom of the plate and interfere with the camber slider and thrust bearing as camber is adjusted. In my case that means the two bolts on the engine side of the plates have to be the shorter Millway ones. I'm going to swap the others for the OE bolts though.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by FaRKle!

Samuel got back to me on using the OE bolts.

There's no problem using the OE bolts, BUT you have to make sure that none of them protrude below the bottom of the plate and interfere with the camber slider and thrust bearing as camber is adjusted. In my case that means the two bolts on the engine side of the plates have to be the shorter Millway ones. I'm going to swap the others for the OE bolts though.

I'm still not sure I understand the concern with the Millway bolts? They installed fine for me. I always thought the OEM bolts were stretch bolts meant to be replaced.

[FaRKle!]

Originally Posted by kern417

I'm still not sure I understand the concern with the Millway bolts? They installed fine for me. I always thought the OEM bolts were stretch bolts meant to be replaced.

Lower grade, and for those of us using strut tower braces the screws are a bit short (not as much thread engagement) and the washers aren't quite wide enough to bite down on both sides of the material due to the smaller OD. Plus I hate how easy smaller hex bolts strip compared to larger sockets.

[Samuel Lindkvist]

Hi guys. Thanks for giving us feedback about the bolts.

There is one reason we supply the bolts instead of just using the OE-bolts. That is because the design is made to be exactly the same height as OE top mounts. I don´t think any other has that important feature. That means that the bolts that is in the direction of the camber change comes in the path of the OE-plastic bearing. So the 5-hole cars need to have 2 bolts per side shorter. The remaning 3 can be OE-bolts. We have discussed earlier if we should supply only the 2 bolts that is mandatory to change. But some people like the look when all five are the same.
One option could be to install several thick washers and use OE-screws. But since the OE is a little conical in the end it is a bit risky.

Regarding the 8.8 and 10.9. We had 10.9 before. The difference is that a 8.8 should be torqued to 24Nm and 10.9 to 30Nm. The goal is always to have a stretch in the bolt. So a 10.9 with 24Nm is not as good as a 8.8 with correct torque.
We have a stainless thread insert with locking function in the camber plate that we think works really good with 8.8 but 10.9 could also be used.

I really appreciate your feedback and will see if we can fulfill the desire for different screws in the future.

[Samuel Lindkvist]

Hi guys. Thanks for giving us feedback about the bolts.

There is one reason we supply the bolts instead of just using the OE-bolts. That is because the design is made to be exactly the same height as OE top mounts. I don´t think any other has that important feature. That means that the bolts that is in the direction of the camber change comes in the path of the OE-plastic bearing. So the 5-hole cars need to have 2 bolts per side shorter. The remaning 3 can be OE-bolts. We have discussed earlier if we should supply only the 2 bolts that is mandatory to change. But some people like the look when all five are the same.
One option could be to install several thick washers and use OE-screws. But since the OE is a little conical in the end it is a bit risky.

Regarding the 8.8 and 10.9. We had 10.9 before. The difference is that a 8.8 should be torqued to 24Nm and 10.9 to 30Nm. The goal is always to have a stretch in the bolt. So a 10.9 with 24Nm is not as good as a 8.8 with correct torque.
We have a stainless thread insert with locking function in the camber plate that we think works really good with 8.8 but 10.9 could also be used.

I really appreciate your feedback and will see if we can fulfill the desire for different screws in the future.

[FaRKle!]

Originally Posted by Samuel Lindkvist

Regarding the 8.8 and 10.9. We had 10.9 before. The difference is that a 8.8 should be torqued to 24Nm and 10.9 to 30Nm. The goal is always to have a stretch in the bolt. So a 10.9 with 24Nm is not as good as a 8.8 with correct torque.
We have a stainless thread insert with locking function in the camber plate that we think works really good with 8.8 but 10.9 could also be used.

Thanks for clarifying this. Since my camber plates didn't come with any instructions I torqued the 6mm Hex bolts to 30Nm like the OE.

[FaRKle!]

I've put up my video on the "street" camber plates:

[blumagic]

Originally Posted by FaRKle!

I've put up my video on the "street" camber plates:

you are xdrive right? how much camber are you running. I've read that plates are nice to the axles but can't find anything on extensive testing.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by blumagic

you are xdrive right? how much camber are you running. I've read that plates are nice to the axles but can't find anything on extensive testing.

adding camber with plates is ok because it shortens the length of the axle. The problem is making the control arm longer lengthens the axle, reduces engagement, and can cause damage.

[blumagic]

Originally Posted by kern417

adding camber with plates is ok because it shortens the length of the axle. The problem is making the control arm longer lengthens the axle, reduces engagement, and can cause damage.

i get that, I just didn't know if there was a limit i.e. 2 degrees is okay but 3.5 will bind the axle when cornering.

[FaRKle!]

Originally Posted by blumagic

you are xdrive right? how much camber are you running. I've read that plates are nice to the axles but can't find anything on extensive testing.

Yup xDrive. I set the front to -2.5deg.

[andino]

Originally Posted by blumagic

you are xdrive right? how much camber are you running. I've read that plates are nice to the axles but can't find anything on extensive testing.

I've been running mine on xdrive for a while now. I run -2.5* as well up front without issue. I've run mine for about 10k miles now through varying conditions without trouble. Keep in mind, I have the monoball plates and not the street ones but functionally, they're the same albeit just some more NVH.

[Jvac]

Originally Posted by FaRKle!

I've put up my video on the "street" camber plates:

Thanks for trying these out. I'm looking forward to hearing your experiences after you've run them for a while

[ktw]

For those with camber plates set at relatively high negative front camber (compared to stock or what can be achieved with eccentric bushings), have you tested different front toe settings? I.e., does the inward camber thrust from ~-2.5 degree camber warrant/allow slightly less toe in without making the car too darty?

[kern417]

Originally Posted by ktw

For those with camber plates set at relatively high negative front camber (compared to stock or what can be achieved with eccentric bushings), have you tested different front toe settings? I.e., does the inward camber thrust from ~-2.5 degree camber warrant/allow slightly less toe in without making the car too darty?

I zeroed out my toe and about to go back to adding some in. At least for street driving it's not worth it.