Re: SZ alignment spec

[Thomas Washburn <thomasw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

White Anthony <anthony.white@domain.elided> wrote:

> Just to confirm, those are positive camber settings?
>
> I'm simply surprised that they're as high as 2 degrees positive on the 
> front, and even more surprised that there is any positive camber at all 
> on the de Dion.
> 
> Are any suspension experts out there able to suggest why this might be?

I copied the numbers verbatim without noticing how odd those camber figures 
were.  I believe the oddness can be attributed to the authors of the 
workshop manual, not the suspension designers.

On page 00-49, under "Axles and suspensions," the workshop manual reports 
the rear camber angle, represented by a lower-case beta, as

  +1deg 45min +/- 10min 

But on page 00-43, under "Camber angle," there is a diagram of the rear 
wheel with obvious positive camber.  The angle, also represented by a 
lower-case beta, is called out as

  -1deg 45min +/- 10min

So it would appear that what the workshop manual calls "negative camber" 
is we would call "positive camber" and vice versa.  What's less clear is 
why the manual would list two different figures for the same dimension,
each of the same magnitude but with opposite signs.

More discordant voices:

  "Exclusive to the De Dion axle is its negative camber value and a 
  forward toe-in."  -- Alfa's official English-language press release for 
  the ES30, page 8

and

  "At the rear of the competition version [of the 75, as well as the 
  production S.Z.] a specific camber was created with 1mm of toe-out and a 
  negative camber of 1 degree 30'." -- Piatti's "Alfa Romeo S.Z." page 78

Regardless, I'm certain that the ACTUAL static camber, front and rear, is 
what we would call "negative" (further apart at the bottom than at the top).

Regards
-Tom
thomasw@domain.elided
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided