BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,980 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Does anyone have the new camber plates installed yet that fit the stock suspension(stock style)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
6spd said:
Does anyone have the new camber plates installed yet that fit the stock suspension(stock style)?

No .... however we deal with the folks at Ground Control all the time with their systems.

Is there a specific question or concern?..... if so I will gladly gather the data for you.

Regards

Shadowman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,353 Posts
How well do they fit? Is there any noise? Is it an easy install? Do they raise or lower ride height at all? Do the settings hold up or do they drift? Those would be my questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Need4Spd said:
How well do they fit? Is there any noise? Is it an easy install? Do they raise or lower ride height at all? Do the settings hold up or do they drift? Those would be my questions.
I will gather the data in the am...... and then post my findings.

Shadowman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
6spd said:
Does anyone have the new camber plates installed yet that fit the stock suspension(stock style)?
shadowman said:
No .... however we deal with the folks at Ground Control all the time with their systems.
Actually the answer is yes. :nono: :)

Here is my reply from another thread on them :
I just installed the GC adjustable camber plates with the stock springs. The GC plates increased the front ride height by about 1/8" or a tad more. I measured the front ride height at 15" center of roundel to fender lip versus 14 3/4 to 14 7/8 stock. The maximum negative camber the plates can provide is around -1.6 to -1.8 degrees as I have them maxed out and that is all I can get.

GC claimed two things on the phone: (1) the plates will not increase the ride height and will actually lower it since they are "very low profile"; and (2) you will be able to get 2.5 to 3.0 degrees negative camber.

Looking at the stock upper spring/bearing mounts, there is no possible way for anything to be any lower profile than the factory mount imo -- they are extremely thin from strut mounting plane to the spring plate (maybe 1/4").

So...I'm not all that pleased with what I was told versus the truth of the installed end result.
I tracked the car at VIR full since then (Oktoberfest last week), and it did wonderfully. It has the GC plates, Dinan rear bar, 9.5" front rims and 265/35 Dunlop r-compounds all around. There was no destroying of the outside front tire finally. Also I entered it in the Oktoberfest autocross and won class 7A with a time of 58.9 seconds. The second place car (heavily modified E28 M5 that usually wins at Oktoberfest) was 1:02:xx. I could have used a tad more negative camber than the almost 2.0 degrees I have now at the autocross, but all-in-all it amazed everyone how I was able to horse the big *** 4000lb E39 M5 around that course so fast. :haha:

I wish the ride height hadn't been raised with the GC plates, but they are thicker than the stock top spring hat. If you look at the stock hat, you'll see that it would be impossible to design something that didn't increase ride height as it is the lowest profile spring hat with bearing I have ever seen. BMW did a good job on its design.

Since I'm not happy with the 15" front ride height, I'm now looking at options of either the Dinan springs or the GC coilover kit with ~430 lb/in front springs. I would like to get the ride height back down to around 14" up front with factory rake to the rear.

Here is a picture of turn 3 track out where you can see a fairly decent camber profile on the outside front tire. This is ~60-65mph or so and the car is very close to the limit.



Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
It is hard to distinguish from stock since it is about 1/8" or a tad more higher. Here is a shot rolling up to the starting line at the Oktoberfest autocross on the Patriot Course at VIR :) :

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
Maggo said:
Are you driving the stock rear rims in front?
Yes. You have to use 3mm spacers and longer lug bolts. With this setup you get the same scrub radius as the stock 8" rims provide (i.e. the center of the 9.5" rim is aligned where the center of the 8" rim is -- hence the additional width is balanced on each side, more front spacing and more back spacing).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
CSBM5 said:
Yes. You have to use 3mm spacers and longer lug bolts. With this setup you get the same scrub radius as the stock 8" rims provide (i.e. the center of the 9.5" rim is aligned where the center of the 8" rim is -- hence the additional width is balanced on each side, more front spacing and more back spacing).
Thanks for the info.
My biggest problem ist understeering.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
Yikes! I know what that's like. All the mods I did were focused on balancing out the car while retaining as close to stock ride quality as possible, and I think I achieved that objective. If I could just take 3/4" out of the front ride height, it would be perfect.

Here is a series of pics exiting turn 3 at VIR and getting some oversteer (note hand positions on steering wheel and also front wheel position in last pic). My wife was taking these with a Canon Digital SLR and a 70-300mm zoom lens (112-480mm 35mm equivalent) zoomed all the way in, so the last pic is over full frame since she was just holding down the shutter and following the car. She took some really good pictures last week at the O'fest. :cool:




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
It appears that all of the the questions were answered.....

I too was told that they replace the OEM spring hat as such would not raise the car..... however I understand after reading various replies that the thickness of the new sping hat maybe the issue. The installation should be straightforward however with OEM springs they will have to be compressed in order to replace the hat. And then lastly then will remain stable once installed and adjusted.

I wish i had more to share

Take care

Shadowman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,515 Posts
Unfortunately, the 1/4" to 3/16" lift that results from adjustable GC strut mount is a necessary evil.

Both KMAC and Dinan involve similar or greater lift and neither of them are on-par with GC with respect to adjustability.

Business Case = No feasible alternative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
CSBM5 said:
Also I entered it in the Oktoberfest autocross and won class 7A with a time of 58.9 seconds. The second place car (heavily modified E28 M5 that usually wins at Oktoberfest) was 1:02:xx.
That is huge, nice going! Can you tell us what kind of pressures you ran in the SSRs on the road course, going from cold to hot?

Lscman said:
Both KMAC and Dinan involve similar or greater lift and neither of them are on-par with GC with respect to adjustability.
Agreed, but the Dinan springs are a little shorter, so the front ride height with their camber plates can remain near OEM if one is also inclined to swap springs. I think the lesson here is that, at least in terms of aesthetics, the camber plates are not a good stand-alone option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
451 Posts
If you're not looking for the adjustibility factor, what is the downside to using a Dinan plate? I'm just looking to improve the handlling and tire wear for street application and not to track the car. Is the extra $200 for the GC plates worth it in my situation?
Lscman said:
Unfortunately, the 1/4" to 3/16" lift that results from adjustable GC strut mount is a necessary evil.

Both KMAC and Dinan involve similar or greater lift and neither of them are on-par with GC with respect to adjustability.

Business Case = No feasible alternative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
EdP said:
That is huge, nice going! Can you tell us what kind of pressures you ran in the SSRs on the road course, going from cold to hot?
I ran with 28 psi cold that turned into ~37 psi hot. It was over 90F last Monday, and I set the cold pressures that morning when it was ~70F or so. I was getting just about perfect tread-to-sidewall scrub, so I stayed put with those pressures. I try to run up the tractive force versus slip angle curve and stay just on the left side of the peak, so I'm not into burning the tires with large slip angles only to achieve the same tractive force from them but with no reserve if I need more. I was timed by "someone" at 2:26 around VIR full course. ;)

Also, I was running Hawk HT10 front pads and Axxis Ultimate rears and purposely not overdoing it (for the stock brake system) in the braking zones lap after lap -- I would run a couple very hot laps than cool it some in braking zones, couple hot ones, etc. I succeeded in not cooking the stock calipers or rotors even with some 140+mph to 40mph braking at the end of the back straight.

Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
CSBM5 said:
I ran with 28 psi cold that turned into ~37 psi hot. It was over 90F last Monday, and I set the cold pressures that morning when it was ~70F or so. I was getting just about perfect tread-to-sidewall scrub, so I stayed put with those pressures. I try to run up the tractive force versus slip angle curve and stay just on the left side of the peak, so I'm not into burning the tires with large slip angles only to achieve the same tractive force from them but with no reserve if I need more. I was timed by "someone" at 2:26 around VIR full course. ;)

Also, I was running Hawk HT10 front pads and Axxis Ultimate rears and purposely not overdoing it (for the stock brake system) in the braking zones lap after lap -- I would run a couple very hot laps than cool it some in braking zones, couple hot ones, etc. I succeeded in not cooking the stock calipers or rotors even with some 140+mph to 40mph braking at the end of the back straight.
Chuck
Thanks Chuck, that's pretty much where I've been on temps too. I don't remember any graphics re slip angle curve, but that's why I keep Going Faster accessible in the bathroom for easy reading. :hihi: I think I understand you to be saying that you're trying to be at/just short of optimal slip angles, as opposed to sliding the car beyond them? But wouldn't those relatively large slip angles ultimately produce less tractive force? I guess I'm not really clear on the terminology, and this is probably an area that can be better demonstrated than explained, but if you could elaborate, I'd appreciate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
The plot of tractive force (y-axis) verus slip angle (x-axis) goes up at a fairly steep slope and almost a straight line. It starts rolling over and forms a peak then declines sharply with increasing slip angle (however street tires typically have a gradual decline past the peak hence hearing them howl out at the track). R-compound tires form a higher peak and typically have a sharper decline after the peak. Racing slicks have a very peaked curve and are usually very unforgiving past the peak of the curve -- the tractive force falls off rapidly with increasing slip angle.

What I was referring to is staying on the left side of the peak but very close to the top. This generates just as much tractive force as going over the peak and sliding the tires more (and feeling like you're doing something great) since if you look at the curve at that point, you are generating the same tractive force but just with more slip angle if you are past the peak. Also, when you are on the left side of the peak, if you screw up or need some reserve due to track conditions, you have some reserve to call on up to the peak and some forgiving action over the peak. If you are past the peak and need reserve, you're toast.

I'll try to post a graph to show a curve like I'm referring to later tonight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
CSBM5 said:
The plot of tractive force (y-axis) verus slip angle (x-axis) goes up at a fairly steep slope and almost a straight line....
Thanks, that's what I was visualizing, though now it's clear to me how you could have the same tractive force on either side of the peak. Do your SSRs make a lot of noise in turns? Mine do, though they're not shaved.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top