Alright /o/, I want to hear your arguments for negative camber.

File: SA7RIQm.jpg (898KB, 4147x2765px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 4147x2765px

upto -5 on the front for a performance or track car is fine. helps with cornering grip but the actual number depends on how stiff the car is and the suspension type.
massive negative camber on rear is pointless. stance kiddies do it to to fit wider wheels under guards.
tyre wear comes from camber and toe. track cars are generally setup with basically no toe at the front and small amunt at the rear. this setup on a street car would mean normal tyre wear but also make the car twitchy. stance kiddies will leave theyre alignments stock and stock alignments have heaps of toe to make the car 'safe' for normies.
pic related is pretty good setup for most cars /o/tists would drive

>>17537273
adding to this a street car (assuming rwd, front engine), IMO should be setup with -2.5 to -3 front camber, either 0 toe or .05 degrees toe in at the front, -1 to -2 rear camber and 0.5 to 1.5 degrees of toe in at the rear depending on how twitchy the rear of the car is and how much you can handle as toe in provides stability.

general rules for alignments are that more neg camber helps steady state cornering, hinders braking and accelerating, toe in whether its front or rear helps with stability, toe out at the front gives better turn in and potentially more turn in grip and more castor increases camber gain as the wheels are turned which can compensate for a lack of outright camber on tighter tracks and potentially afford you more braking grip by running less camber whilst still gaining decent camber as the wheel turn.

File: ghbnj.jpg (3MB, 2817x1775px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2817x1775px

>>17537212
Y33 BOYZ

File: 1497171691938.jpg (17KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 360x360px

>>17537712
how disgusting, had to be a gypsy