CIH

Yeah that was in the Illustrate Adjustments tab but we only had about 20 minutes. I haven't tried it before and didn't fancy experimenting so late in the day. Is that true of most beams ? Never seen the option except in the case of this A6.

Instructions read like an eccentric bolt kit but it doesn't look like one ?

dead as a do-do.

Had a better day today. This time, I set toe before the camber lift, then readjusted toe. Seemed to go much smoother. Wouldn't have been do-able without the lift so I'm glad we perservered with it. Put a workbuddy's A6 on the rig too. Beam suspension on the rear. :angry: Told him it was just like a big Fiesta ha ha

I've encountered a couple of odd "holes" in the database. Late model Celica on factory 17"s, for eample.

Does it ever get tricky setting up a car against what you may would done given a free reign ?

Is this the focus you "slammed" recently ?

Well I'd expect the car to feel "lazy" turning against the thrust ie; to the right but I read in the technical theory areas that the car would only be sensertive to the thrust factor beyond 30'. Or is that just @ DA ? Slightly off-topic but I had a tough day today. Had an E46 come-in. As usual the customer had left the car and the damn supervisor hadn't asked any meaningful questions ("just wants it doing, oh it pulls to the left"). It had been to a garage earlier that day and had bushes, ball joints etc checked. Anyway, lined her up and spent ages fighting the camber as it just wouldn't stay-put. Car comes back about 10 minutes later apparantly just the same. Got to speak to the fella and had a test drive. Car was pulling and you could feel the car shift when applying any steering action to the left. Turned out bottom ball joints had play and the wishbone compliance bush on the N/S/F was shagged. So, lessons learned: 1) Don't take anyone's word for anything and do the checks yourself 2) If the tyres look fine then it probably isn't geometry (that is right, isn't it ?) 3) Don't let idiots make you rush One other thing too. Had a late model Astra SRi in. Tried to do front camber with the axle lifted and only managed about 0.20 improvement. Locked it in place, lowered the jack (following the on-screen prompts) and the camber had shifted to spec (about 0.60 total movement). This isn't the first time camber has shifted like that. Any ideas where I may be going wrong as it totally undermines any confidence I have in the adjustments ?

I suppose the owner drove it away ?

I had never even thought about Thrust Angle in that context. So is that why TOOT is required ? To ensure correct Thrust Angle deviation ? Or are there other benefits too ? Also, does the outer (steered) wheel display any special infulence/behviour ? Or is it simply passive ?

nice little bit of publicity for WIM too.

If everything is correct, once TOOT is effective the angle of the inner steered wheel actually defines the thrust angle heading ?

So once TOOT is initiated, the arc of the inner wheel needs to intersect with our imaginary rear thrust pivot point ? So how should that image be adjusted to be correct ? I understand the concept but I'm struggling to visualise it.

In your picture, looks like the steered wheels are turning through a parallel arc. In that picture, there is no TOOT as such. Yes DSP600. So that's why I can't find an SAI bargraph huh ? The BMW had the weights in. Is the specific positioning important ? In the nearside, I had two on passenger seat and two in the foot well. Offside, one in foot well and 3 on the seat so as not to block brake pedal depresser and steering-wheel clamp.

Looks like the steered wheels are turning through a parallel arc. In that picture, there is no TOOT as such. Don't want to stray off track but can I have your advice on this Alignment I had in today please: BMW E93 ('07) 325D CoupeCabriolet: Came in for brake work but it was noted the front tyre outer tread area displayed heavier wear than the central tread. Feathered wear, nothing violent. The SAI out of spec suggests to me the SR can't migrate across the tyre correctly but 2 problems. I didn't have an OEM spec castor figure from the database and, because I only had a number and a colour (red), I had no idea whether SAI was too far positive or negative. I thought I could move camber to compensate but didn't have enough info to make confident adjustments. In the end I adjusted the back end to be symmetrical and advised the rig indicated problems with the front suspension, possibily the suspension arms. The N/S/F (left) ride-height was a few mm or so away from O/S/F (about 6/7 IIRC). No clear signs of anything bent, broken, impacted etc.

Might leave it a couple of months as the extra £400-£500 looks to make the difference. Plus the show season is over and I don't need a car day-in, day-out. Having said that, I'm getting really bored without one and it's really tricky trying new things on the Hunter Rig with customer's cars why not ? It's such a funky, crazy looking little wedgy thing. And it's sounds really good with the motor buzzing away behind your shoulder.

You'd think after 20 years of Roadsters Mazda would have it down to a fine art by now...

How about the earlier Mk1 1600 MR2 ? Pretty sure the 4AGE wasn't detuned to 90bhp at any time during it's lifetime.....

lol poor old Mr Honda Dealer getting nailed with a load of Geometry "jargon" 'bet his head fell off just about then.

Nice. Don't fancy the bodykit much though. Does that white van in the background ever move ?

Um, let me try to rephrase. An incorrect toe angle has no bearing on TOOT ? But, if the angle of the wheels were incorrect @ DA would this not skew the TOOT result ? Or, because of the shape of the TOOT initiator (either TRE or Hub) then any problems with toe @ DA are negated as soon as any steering lock is applied ? I understand toe @ DA and TOOT are two different issues. I'm trying to understand if there is any interplay between the two.

Yep today actually.... Seemingly the dealer took the car to a third party and their machine had the figures within spec... The dealer then calibrated their own machine (clever them) and their machine now has the figures within spec. So the owner who wasn't allowed to watch told them it's bollox and he's coming back to us tomorrow, so we will see "calibrated their own machine" ? That sounds fishy.....

About right for a Yank. Bet that lexus doesn't have 100k mile service intervals. Surprised they made a FWD Impala though.

So correcting toe @ DA won't necessarily put the wheels in the correct position for TOOT ? By extension, the only way to correct inconsitent TOOT would be part(s) replacement ie; steering arms, TREs, wheel hub etc ? I was thinking about how to track down which part was bent but, if I understand correctly, an inconsistent Included Angle would indicate the Hub. Though, if IA were consistant across the axle, it would indicate not the hub assembly but TRE or Steering Arm. So, in the case of the former, TOOT could also help confirm what IA indicates ie; wheel hub deformity. Finally, let's say both camber, and by action IA, and toe @ DA were corrected but TOOT was still incosistent lock to lock. Then the customer should be advised of wheel hub deformity and if severe enough (say, > 1.5 ?) replacement advised ? Otherwise tyre wear similar in appearance to Toe would result ? Oh that reminds me, I would appreciate with some help with the math regarding lateral scrub but I think that's enough for today.

Lower it, calibrate it, love it I've seen one for sal on Autotrader near where I work. 1.6 P-reg/96 Uk model 97k miles White looks tidy enough Would that be a 90bhp model ? Doesn't appear to be a special edition. On for £1200. I reckon £1k would be enough. Well, it would have to be as I don't want to spend anymore and would prefer an earlier model anyways.