Pay an expert. Alignment bliss achieved.

That is funny. Using your theory, the picture that Stun posted of the Nascar means that the car would go straight I am guessing and I have no idea what should happen with the tractor. If either were pulling because of camber there would be a black tire mark everywhere it goes because that would be a whole lot of binding.

It is kind of hard to support your position when science isn't on your side, isn't it? Here is another simple proof if you want to try to test you theory. Get a bicycle and lock the handle bars straight forward. Vice grips, tack weld, take your pick, but no ability to steer. Then ride that bike and tell me how well it turns. It won't. If you lean, you just lean. You will just fall over because it won't turn no matter how much camber you put into it. Using your flawed theory you should be turning tight circles putting some lean into it.

I know, I know you have that song rageing in your head "I can ride my bike with no handlebars, no handlebars". Which is true. You absolutely can ride your bike with no handle bars and turn left and right with just a simple lean, but you know what, it isn't the camber that is turning you. It is the steering axis. When that steering axis doesn't exist, all the camber in the world won't make you turn.

You don't have to take my advice. It is better you find out on your own. There was a time when I couldn't grasp the concept which is why I suggest getting the wood car demo from Hunter. It is probalby much safer than riding a bike that won't turn and you can see what happens with toe and caster as well.

 

We’re still waiting on your proof.


Unlike you, I have found out on my own. I prove it every time I align a 3 axle commercial vehicle.

You’re the only one with less than zero credibility in this thread.

 

To clarify (yes everyone is right)

Camber can cause a car to pull for the following two reasons, only in scenarios where camber does not match in opposing angles right-to-left.

Using Stun Guns picture (camber angles are parallel, not opposing):



Assuming the rear wheels have no camber adjustments, and are straight up and down, the thrust angle between the rear tire contact patch and the drag of both front tire’s offset contact patch will cause the car to pull to the left due to the force vector between the front and rear contact patches.

If all 4 wheels, or just the front wheels, were adjusted with the same amount of camber in opposing directions, Sungod is correct and the vehicle would track straight like it does on those crazy tuner cars.

Secondly, if camber is so out of adjustment that the tread shoulder of only one front tire is starting to rub the pavement (after a crash etc), the different circumference of the tires tread shoulder will cause a pull, just like when you roll a cone-shaped object on the floor. It does not roll straight.

 

Not everyone was correct. Because sungod didn’t spec his camber example. He simply said camber doesn’t cause a pull. And to be fair, not trying to be a dick, you did go get your truck aligned by someone else.

 

As someone who has built a bunch of steel bike frames, and had to make sure they're in perfect alignment, if your rear wheel is cocked over even a couple of millimeters, your bike will absolutely not go straight when you take your hands off the bars. But bicycles are a lot more sensitive than cars regarding alignment being only two wheels that have to balance as well.

I would hazard a guess as to the reason the tractor's front wheels have so much positive camber, and that would likely be to keep the footprint of the base of both tires together at the bottom of the furrow. And since they're typically used in soft soil, no rubber is scrubbing off and you're not going fast enough to notice a pull one way or the other, plus, you're in the freaking furrow, which is like driving the toy cars at Disneyland.

 

Positive camber on the front of a farm tractor is to lessen steering effort.
The kingpin angle is pointing to the center of the tire's contact patch. If this wasn't the case, the wheel would have to roll as well as pivot to turn.

 

There's no way you aren't supposed to be under a bridge somewhere because I'm pretty sure it's impossible to be this fucking stupid.

 

Proof of what? You are the one making a claim you can't support. Get your camera out and get on your bike and show me the circles you can turn without a steering axis. Please, I will gladly say that I am wrong if you can somehow break the laws of physics.

 

The Bicycle... Totally different forces involved in turning vs the forces of turning a car.
Just to blow sungod's mind....you actually turn the bars right on a sport bike if you want to start turning/leaning left. Not sure if that's so on pedal bikes, as I never ridden anything with less than 100hp.

 

I think it's time to broaden the 'discussion' to include motorcycle countersteering, ackerman geometry and camber tires

 

Pffffff get real bro. Now a guy has to weld a headtube? I’ve posted facts. Real life applications. People have come into this thread and corroborated.

You, on the other hand, continue to simply type the word physics. That’s it. I mean. You can get angry. You can repeat yourself. You can concoct silly experiments. You can beg and say “please, do this, use a camera” but I’m not hearing it. If you did what I do, you’d be out of a job.

 

Dude can’t handle counter steering logic.

 

maybe we should get into a throttle steering discussion. y'know. for clarity.

 

Bicycles are the exact same. At walking speed (no lean turns), head angle steers the bike. At speeds where lean stabilizes, it is countersteering.

I'm not trying to feed the troll, but just want to emphasize that you said starting a turn, not maintaining the turn. Transitions are so much worse than the argument going on here about constant inputs. I looked at a suspension design textbook and almost blew chunks remembering the pain of partial differential equations.

 

I'd also like to talk about anti-dive geometry, please add it to the list.

 

You realize we are talking angles here? Stun's theory is that you turn by increasing camber. That is simply not the case. I have offered up a multitude of ways to test his theory. The use of a bicycle is just one and one that isolates his theory specifically.

Yeah shame on me for standing behind science. It isn't fair, I know.

 

Oh god, dont add rear tire steering to the mix.

 

I’ll defer to the motorcycle peeps who just mobbed this thread lol

 

not to worry. that's #13 on my non-starter-for-TW list.

 

No. I didn’t theorize anything. You have a problem with this statement- “camber can influence steering. Camber can cause a pull.”

Now you’re just confused.