Originally Posted by DRedman45
you are confusing static and dynamic camber....you run more negative camber because the dynamic effect is more positive during cornering, which is why you add more negative camber so you have more tire contact in corners. The side effect is that the neutral position(staright forward) you have less contact on the outside sidewall and more on the inside wall
If you were to get aligned with a more camber setting closer to 0* from say -2.5* then during cornering with the 0* the dynamic camber would be closer to +1-1.5* and roll over the outside side wall...that is why the 135 understeers stock. The 0* camber setting will wear more evenly during normal driving and handle worse than the 2.5*
Ah ok, I somewhat simplified what I said earlier. But I am not big on the whole static/dynamic camber thing (not that this is even relevant), but if you ask me, the only time your car is truly static is when it is not moving. No movement means no tire wear so it's not really relevant.
But that's just a tangent. I will not disagree with anything you said. That is the textbook definition/basic explanation of camber. My point is that this guy is not flying around a track. I am going to make an assumption, the OP is the only one that can confirm or deny this, that he doesn't drive the car to the point where the tire will be flat. He is not producing enough standard to dynamic camber change as you put it, to be efficient. Maybe for brief moments. But it was under this assumption that I made my previous statement. Uneven camber wear does not mean the car is handling better, it means you need to dial it down. Racecars shoot for even wear all across and their sole purpose is to go fast. Obviously street cars have more purposes than that so there will be a tradeoff, but it is an example as to why you shouldn't generalize camber wear to handling or understeer.