Advice requested from those of you who have successfully checked camber at home

[John Harmon]

Practical advice (helpful hints & suggestions) requested from those of you
who have successfully checked camber at home (to sufficient accuracy).

If you have never checked your automotive alignment camber at home, you
probably won't be able to add much practical value to this thread; however
if you have actually measured your wheel camber with sufficient accuracy at
home, you almost certainly can add valuable pragmatic hints to this thread
(such that we'll all learn from your experience).

I am researching whether automotive alignment camber quick checks are yet
possible to a reasonable degree of accuracy using a free app on a common
mobile device (either iOS or Android, both of which I own).

A search does find a variety of methods to check camber at home:
https://www.google.com/search?q=check+camber+at+home
where some of those articles used mobile phone apps
(e.g., XXXXXX)

Here I am just asking for advice from those of you who have successfully
checked your camber at home using your smartphone to measure the angles to
sufficient accuracy.

To find apps which measure angles to sufficient accuracy, I have already
run a variety of Google searches of the general form:
1. review best ios free app angle automotive alignment camber accurate
2. review best android free app angle automotive alignment camber accurate

Some hits from the iOS searches are as follows:
A. Wheel Align for ALiSENSOR Wheel By Gloi AB
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wheel-align-for-alisensor/id513879710
B. iHandy Level Free By iHandy Inc.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ihandy-level-free/id299852753
C. Clinometer + bubble level + slope finder (3 in 1) By Peter Breitling
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clinometer-+-bubble-level/id286215117

Some hits from the Android searches are as follows:
A. Clinometer + bubble level By plaincode
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.plaincode.clinometer
B. iHandy Level Free By iHandy Ltd.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ihandysoft.carpenter.level
C. Angle Meter PRO By nakhon phagdeechat
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=iyok.com.anglemeterpro

The amount of useless responses to this thread can be minimized simply by
asking those who don't care to or who haven't ever successfully checked
their camber at home to NOT respond (they're not going to be able to tell
us anything we don't already know - all they're going to do is clutter up
this thread to make it harder to be useful to others).

However, if you have ever attempted to check your camber at home using a
smart phone angle measuring tool, your insight, hints, and advice would be
greatly appreciated (and would be generally useful to many people).

[pf...@aol.com]

Horatio Alger and/or one of his many clones is trolling again. Just check the source.

As to checking Camber "at home". When it comes to vehicular safety, when it comes to the lives of my wife, kids and grandkids, not to mention me, my advice is DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME - as no matter how smart the phone, the operator will be an idiot.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[John Harmon]

Ooooops.

> A search does find a variety of methods to check camber at home:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=check+camber+at+home
> where some of those articles used mobile phone apps

I had forgotten to link to a descriptive photo of the desired task:
http://i.cubeupload.com/6CPUl7.jpg

I'm sure there are gotchas (e.g., is the garage floor really flat?), but it
seems doable to measure camber at home if we can answer the main obvious
questions which are (I think):

Q: What accuracy is *needed* to measure camber at home?
Q: What accuracy can be *attained* with a typical mobile device?
Q: Is the repeatability sufficient in a typical home measurement setup?
Q: How do we compensate for typical errors (e.g., ride height, flat floor)?

What other gotchas will we need to look at to successfully measure wheel
camber using a mobile device in a typical garage setup?

[Steve W.]

John Harmon wrote:
> Ooooops.
>> A search does find a variety of methods to check camber at home:
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=check+camber+at+home
>> where some of those articles used mobile phone apps
>
> I had forgotten to link to a descriptive photo of the desired task:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/6CPUl7.jpg
>
> I'm sure there are gotchas (e.g., is the garage floor really flat?), but it
> seems doable to measure camber at home if we can answer the main obvious
> questions which are (I think):
>
> Q: What accuracy is *needed* to measure camber at home?

.01 degree or better.

> Q: What accuracy can be *attained* with a typical mobile device?

?????????? don't use one myself

> Q: Is the repeatability sufficient in a typical home measurement setup?
> Q: How do we compensate for typical errors (e.g., ride height, flat floor)?

Same way you do with the machines, Measure the floor and level the
machine prior to use. Using an app you could check the floor span where
you plan to do the work and zero it out.

>
> What other gotchas will we need to look at to successfully measure wheel
> camber using a mobile device in a typical garage setup?

How to attach the device to the wheel/hub.

--
Steve W.

[pf...@aol.com]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:32:37 PM UTC-5, Steve W. wrote:

> How to attach the device to the wheel/hub.

Not possible centered on the axle and neutral in two axis without additional (and expensive) tooling. Hence the "Idiot Operator" requirement.

Once again, Harmon/Alger is trolling for a Darwin Award.

NOTE: Azimuth accuracy in smart-phone devices (departure from the vertical) is typically less than 10 degrees. OK for orienting the picture on the phone, not so much for measuring tire camber. Pushing right up against the "Idiot Operator" requirement for trusting such a device for such a purpose.

It would be quite useful were the OP to actually make adjustments based on such a device - if we could only be sure when he inevitably wraps himself around a tree thereafter that he does so without any collateral damage. Yes, I am being snarky - but if ever there was a situation for such - this is one.

[John Harmon]

mako...@yahoo.com actually said:

> 0.01deg ?? I don't think so...

We really must know to what accuracy we need the measurements to be becuase
every measurement tool ever made has this as its basic issue.

Do you think it's less, or more accurate that we need for camber
measurement?

As just one reference, page 8 of this document says that camber (and toe)
measurements must be accurate to "2 angular minutes".
http://www.bimmerboard.com/members/snitch740i/original/BMW_Wheel_Alignment_System%5B1%5D.pdf

The question then becomes how to translate 2 angular minutes into inch
measurements.

On page 10 of that document it says the camber tolerance of another vehicle
model is ? 10' (plus or minus 10 minutes).

So what is 10 minutes in inches?

> If your car doesn't pull to one side and the tire is not wearing un-evenly,
> the camber is fine.

I realize there are many ways to measure things, and I understand that
you're using the tire wear and handling to measure camber, but I would like
to try to get a bit finer in granularity (especially since lots of other
things can cause both those issues).

> I have used an ordinary carpenters bubble level to check it.

I have plenty of carpenters bubble levels, one with digital output, so
that's also another option.

> If it is within 1/4 bubble it should be OK.
I understand what you're saying which is that the negative camber on my
rear tires can be anywhere between 0 and minus 2 degrees.

But I would like to get a bit more accurate than 1/4 bubble! :)

One of my cars specifies the following static camber range, for example:
Front (non-adjustable) camber = -0.7? minimum, 0.3? maximum
Rear (adjustable) camber = -2.2 ?mimimum, -2.0? maximum
( http://www.bmwdiy.info/alignment/index.html )

> Most roads have crown so the camber is not as critical as you might think.

Some cars compensate for that by specificying cross camber specs, but mine
are symmetric.

The static negative camber is "supposed" to increase lateral grip. At the
same time, it certainly increases inner tire edge wear and decreases
straight-line braking traction. On uneven road surfaces, you can get camber
thrust (where the tire moves toward the camber).

> Problems with this method are:
> 1 ground where the car is parked needs to be both flat and level

Yup. That's a measurement and calibration issue for sure, but luckily, my
garage is extremely flat (I measured it once long ago).

> 2 ordinary tire bulges out on the bottom, need to set the level
> against the tire away from the buldge

That's excellent advice. Since the tire bulges, I wonder if it's best
to use the wheel lugs to mount a jig which is what we measure to?
>
> Sometimes you can simply compare the reading on the front wheels
> to the back wheels.

This is a good hint, which is that we can just note what the *delta* is
between the front and back, and measure that delta, over time, with a handy
instrument.

> Also note many cars are designed to have the front wheels tilted
> inward at the top slightly for stability

Mine has negative camber on both front and rear, but front isn't adjustable
without adding camber plates.

> Unless you like this as a hobby, it probably doesn't pay to DIY.

I disagree but I understand your point.
On sheer economy, there are only 3 measurements I need for my sedan:
1. toe front
2. toe rear
3. camber rear

So all I need, to do a "pragmatic" alignment check, is to check those
three.
A. If they're off, then I can get the car aligned for $100 or more.
B. If they're on target, then I save $100 each time I measure them.
>
> Measuring toe in is much more fun.

On page 14 of the document above, it tells me that the static toe and
camber accuracy needs to be:
Toe measuring accuracy ?2' in measuring range ?2? in total range ?18?
Camber measuring accuracy ?1' in measuring range ?3? in total range ?10?
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

Does anyone here know how to convert the 1 and 2 minutes to inches?

[John Harmon]

Steve W. actually said:

>> Q: What accuracy is *needed* to measure camber at home?
> .01 degree or better.

Thanks for that answer because this is a critical number we must know to do
any aligment reasonably well.

If everyone concurs that 0.01 (one hundredth) of a degree is the desired
accuracy, I can work with that.

One problem with alignment is that we have to be intelligent about
converting units because I found this document where, on page 11, it says:
[quote]
Quick-acting clamp + measuring sensor + computer = 1' at a
measuring range of ? 3?
(all BMW vehicles are within that ? 3? measuring range).
[/quote]
http://www.bimmerboard.com/members/snitch740i/original/BMW_Wheel_Alignment_System%5B1%5D.pdf

But I don't (yet) know how to convert 1 minute to inches.
Does anyone want to take a stab at how to run that conversion?

>> What other gotchas will we need to look at to successfully measure wheel
>> camber using a mobile device in a typical garage setup?
>
> How to attach the device to the wheel/hub.

It seems to me that a "jig" of some sort needs to be made so that there is
a plane on the wheel that is (very precicely) parallel to the wheel to the
same 0.01 inches that we need for accuracy.

My initial idea is to take this concept to that 0.01 degree:
http://i.cubeupload.com/6CPUl7.jpg

Maybe bolt a flat steel plate to the wheel lugs (luckily, one of my cars
uses lug bolts so I can just use longer bolts but my other car uses lug
nuts which may make that flat plate bolting on more difficult).

[amdx]

I assume that is the wheel and not a hub cap.
I'm guessing your looking for something between 0.5* and 2*, but I want
to know.
Someone said you need accuracy within .01 degrees, that's 1% of 1
degree. Good luck getting the 18 year old at the tire shop to do that.
I'd be happy with 10%, being that it is an adjustable characteristic
that can depend on how you want to drive the car, comfort or cornering.
I don't have a clue about phone app accuracy, but you can check it.
But hey, I've never done it, so don't read my response.


Mikek

[John Harmon]

amdx actually said:

> I assume that is the wheel and not a hub cap.

The car I will test this out first on is a bimmer with alloy wheels and lug
bolts so both those traits make the task of bolting on a jig easier than if
it were a steel wheel with lug nuts.

> I'm guessing your looking for something between 0.5* and 2*, but I want
> to know.

I later found this BMW spec which shows that I need accuracy in 1 or 2
minutes ( http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg ) but how do I convert that 1

and 2 minutes to inches?

> Someone said you need accuracy within .01 degrees, that's 1% of 1
> degree.

I think he meant inches though.

> Good luck getting the 18 year old at the tire shop to do that.
> I'd be happy with 10%, being that it is an adjustable characteristic
> that can depend on how you want to drive the car, comfort or cornering.

I understand that the alignment shop guy might not care all that much to
get as accurate as he can.

Right now, I think the accuracy needs to be plus or minus one minute for
toe and 2 minutes for camber.

I just don't know how to convert minutes to inches.

[John Harmon]

Tekkie? actually said:

>> Measuring toe in is much more fun.
>

> +1 at least

According to this graphic, I need to repeatably measure toe to plus or
minus 2 minutes of accuracy and camber to plus or minus 1 minute of
accuracy:
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

Static camber will be measured in degrees, so the plus or minus 1 minute of
accuracy is easy enough for me to understand.

But sttic toe is usually measured in inches, so a problem is how do I
convert the 2 minutes of accuracy to a plus or minus inch figure?

[Phil Kangas]

"John Harmon"

>
> I just don't know how to convert minutes to inches.

You can't. Minutes of angle are a function of a
triangle.
Inches are simply a scalar measurement of distance.

[amdx]

A jig, if you can't use the actual wheel.

No, But 30 min is equal to 0.5 degrees.
Mikek

[John Harmon]

That's bad news because both the toe and camber are specified in degrees
but when I measure toe, it will be in inches.

At least when I measure the camber it will be in degrees so I won't be
switching units back and forth.

I know how to physically measure toe in inches (e.g., with a string); but I
don't (yet) know how to measure toe in degrees with a smart phone or
digital level.

[John Harmon]

amdx actually said:

>> That's excellent advice. Since the tire bulges, I wonder if it's best
>> to use the wheel lugs to mount a jig which is what we measure to?
> A jig, if you can't use the actual wheel.

I agree that, for our purposes, we should assume I jury rig a jig of some
sort so that there is a flat completely perpendicular plate bolted onto the
axle somehow (probably placed on the outside of the wheels using the lug
bolts or lug nuts).

>> Does anyone here know how to convert the 1 and 2 minutes to inches?
>>
> No, But 30 min is equal to 0.5 degrees.

Right. And the 1 and 2 minutes are 1/60th and 1/30th of a degree
respectively.

But what is 1/60th of a degree in inches?

[amdx]

Something wrong, 30 minutes is equal to 0.5 degrees.
1 minute is 0.0167 degrees, I don't think that's what you are after.

You might play with a trig calculator.
> http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp
I put in a 1 degree angle for (angle a) and 16" for
(side B) Then hit calculate to find (side a).
This says you need 0.279" of tilt top to bottom
on a 16" wheel.
Note: this triangle is rotated 90* to your wheel.
So take that into account when thinking about the calculation.
Bottom line, for a 1 degree angle you need a tilt of 0.279" over 16".
That's measurable, but you need a post 90* off the floor.

Mikek

[amdx]

That depends on the length.
Mikek
>

[pf...@aol.com]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 3:12:14 PM UTC-5, John Harmon wrote:
> mako...@yahoo.com actually said:
>
> > 0.01deg ?? I don't think so...
>

You are well-and-truly an idiot!

The measuring device must be accurate to one one-hundredth of a degree, or two decimal places. The measurement itself will be far less sensitive than that, probably to a single degree, no more. But if I am staring (for instance) at 90 degrees and want to get to 89.75 degrees - hence the need for that level of accuracy.

Azimuth on the typical smart-phone (how accurate is it a measuring off the vertical) is typically somewhere between 8 (at best) and 15 degrees - and that only if it has a screen-orientation function. Many do not. And many more have only a 90-degree function and only in one direction.

Put another way, the phone is smart enough not to even attempt the process. The idiot owner who insists that it is possible - with the right app/software - deserves exactly what he gets.

Minutes are a circular unit-of-measure. Not a linear unit. So, "inches" will be measured at some point on a diameter as compared to another point along that diameter using a fixed radius. If 'vertical' minutes, one endpoint of that radius will be the center of the earth. If other than vertical, the determining endpoint will be something hopefully more nearby such as the axle or some specified point. And the diameter on which the distance is measured will be specified.

But, minutes do not convert to inches other than the chord defined by the starting point and the end point of the measured distance along the total arc.

False premises lead to false conclusions. I am calling you an idiot as you seem congenitally unable to understand the most basic geometry - previously most basic physics - yet insist on some sort of false precision to draw others into your idiocy as an actual problem. It isn't. Otherwise, you are a simple (very simple) troll. Yeah, I am responding - in the same way that our grandkids enjoy Wack-A-Mole at the penny arcade. You will probably never go away, but well-turned invective can be enjoyable, even if against a helpless target.

[AMuzi]

On 12/8/2016 2:12 PM, John Harmon wrote:

Sort of mixed units.

For a circle with radius about 286.5 feet your circumference
will be about 21,600 inches so each minute of arc will be
one inch. I don't think that helps you here.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:00:41 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

>Practical advice (helpful hints & suggestions) requested from those of you
>who have successfully checked camber at home (to sufficient accuracy).

The accuracy of the level application on my one phone is out bt over
7 degrees. That is a simple "level" app.. The "rigid" level
application on my Blackberry PlayBook is very accurate - How you
reference it to the wheel will be the biggest variable that can
through your accuracy off. A trammel type setup made from a straight
bar of metal (or "straight" hardwood) with 2 screws protruding to
reach the edge of the rim, adjusted to be identical in protrusion,
will transfer the wheel angle accurately to the "level". You can
determine if the rim is true to the spindle by checking the level with
the bar upright with the wheel turned 180 degrees to make sure the
reading is the same with the wheel turned.

>
>If you have never checked your automotive alignment camber at home, you
>probably won't be able to add much practical value to this thread; however
>if you have actually measured your wheel camber with sufficient accuracy at
>home, you almost certainly can add valuable pragmatic hints to this thread
>(such that we'll all learn from your experience).
>

WITH CARE you can check your camber to a reasonably high level of
accuracy. To get the camber "normalized" you need to roll the car
back and forth a few feet so the car "settles" on it's suspension. A
professional setup uses a "slip plate" that allows the wheels to slide
in and out with little resistance. Normal procedure is to bounce the
car on the slip plates to "normalize" the suspension.

>I am researching whether automotive alignment camber quick checks are yet
>possible to a reasonable degree of accuracy using a free app on a common
>mobile device (either iOS or Android, both of which I own).
>

I've done it long pre-smart-phone using a simple bubble level to
verify the alignment was "close enough" afterr an accident in central
Africa severely damaged the front of my Peugeot.
I've also done hundreds of alignments with "pro" equipment.

[Ben Bacarisse]

For small angles sin(A) = A (provided A is in radians) and d times
sin(A) (hence d times A) is the displacement at a distance d caused by
an angle a. To convert to radians, multiply degrees by .0174532925199
(pi/180).

For example, 2 minutes = 1/30 deg = .0005817764173 radians so 8 inches
from the hub that corresponds to a displacement of 8 * .0005817764173 =
.00465 inches or 4.65 thousandths of an inch (0.118 mm). I image that's
hard to measure.

The suggested accuracy of 0.01 degrees corresponds to a displacement of
3.5 micrometres at 8 inches. That's less the typical width of a human
head hair.

--
Ben.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 20:12:12 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

>mako...@yahoo.com actually said:
>
>> 0.01deg ?? I don't think so...
>
>We really must know to what accuracy we need the measurements to be becuase
>every measurement tool ever made has this as its basic issue.
>
>Do you think it's less, or more accurate that we need for camber
>measurement?
>
>As just one reference, page 8 of this document says that camber (and toe)
>measurements must be accurate to "2 angular minutes".
>http://www.bimmerboard.com/members/snitch740i/original/BMW_Wheel_Alignment_System%5B1%5D.pdf
>
>The question then becomes how to translate 2 angular minutes into inch
>measurements.

Well, 2 angular minutes is 1/30 degree, 03 0.03 degrees.

>
>On page 10 of that document it says the camber tolerance of another vehicle
>model is ? 10' (plus or minus 10 minutes).
>
>So what is 10 minutes in inches?

It is .01 degrees

>
>> If your car doesn't pull to one side and the tire is not wearing un-evenly,
>> the camber is fine.
>
>I realize there are many ways to measure things, and I understand that
>you're using the tire wear and handling to measure camber, but I would like
>to try to get a bit finer in granularity (especially since lots of other
>things can cause both those issues).
>
>> I have used an ordinary carpenters bubble level to check it.
>
>I have plenty of carpenters bubble levels, one with digital output, so
>that's also another option.
>
>> If it is within 1/4 bubble it should be OK.
>I understand what you're saying which is that the negative camber on my
>rear tires can be anywhere between 0 and minus 2 degrees.
>
>But I would like to get a bit more accurate than 1/4 bubble! :)
>
>One of my cars specifies the following static camber range, for example:
>Front (non-adjustable) camber = -0.7? minimum, 0.3? maximum
>Rear (adjustable) camber = -2.2 ?mimimum, -2.0? maximum
>( http://www.bmwdiy.info/alignment/index.html )
>
>> Most roads have crown so the camber is not as critical as you might think.
>
>Some cars compensate for that by specificying cross camber specs, but mine
>are symmetric.

And the caster has an offset instead.

>
>The static negative camber is "supposed" to increase lateral grip. At the
>same time, it certainly increases inner tire edge wear and decreases
>straight-line braking traction. On uneven road surfaces, you can get camber
>thrust (where the tire moves toward the camber).
>
>> Problems with this method are:
>> 1 ground where the car is parked needs to be both flat and level
>
>Yup. That's a measurement and calibration issue for sure, but luckily, my
>garage is extremely flat (I measured it once long ago).
>
>> 2 ordinary tire bulges out on the bottom, need to set the level
>> against the tire away from the buldge
>
>That's excellent advice. Since the tire bulges, I wonder if it's best
>to use the wheel lugs to mount a jig which is what we measure to?

Like I said in an earlier post - make a "jig" - a kind of trammel
device - that contacts the lip of the rim and transfers the
measurement out to a straightedge that spans the rim fiving a flat
surface parallel with the wheel centerline. Best to use this for toe
adjustments as well.

minutes are 1/60th of a degree.. Converting that to inches requires
offset and trig. The farther you can extend the "offset" the more
accurate you can be. I use a laser level on the trammel jig to extend
the line out about 10 feet from the spindle. Then do the calcs to find
out how much toe-in you want at 10 feet for the angle specified. If
the toe is specified in inches it is the difference between the front
and back of the tire circumference. Again, some calculations will
allow you to measure farther out for more accuracy.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 20:12:14 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

>Steve W. actually said:
>
>>> Q: What accuracy is *needed* to measure camber at home?
>> .01 degree or better.
>
>Thanks for that answer because this is a critical number we must know to do
>any aligment reasonably well.
>
>If everyone concurs that 0.01 (one hundredth) of a degree is the desired
>accuracy, I can work with that.
>
>One problem with alignment is that we have to be intelligent about
>converting units because I found this document where, on page 11, it says:
>[quote]
> Quick-acting clamp + measuring sensor + computer = 1' at a
> measuring range of ? 3?
>(all BMW vehicles are within that ? 3? measuring range).
>[/quote]
>http://www.bimmerboard.com/members/snitch740i/original/BMW_Wheel_Alignment_System%5B1%5D.pdf


>
>But I don't (yet) know how to convert 1 minute to inches.
>Does anyone want to take a stab at how to run that conversion?

Pythagorus' theorem -, or better yet, trigonometry. Or a triangle
calculator like http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm Solve a
triangle. You know (from your measurements) the base of the triangle
(distance from spindle) and the height (difference between the
projected line and "straight"), or the base and 2 angles (the desired
angle and 90 degrees) to calculate the height. One way tells you what
angle you have, the other gives you the distance measurement you WANT.

>
>>> What other gotchas will we need to look at to successfully measure wheel
>>> camber using a mobile device in a typical garage setup?

Your biggest problem is getting your head around all the concepts.

>>
>> How to attach the device to the wheel/hub.
>
>It seems to me that a "jig" of some sort needs to be made so that there is
>a plane on the wheel that is (very precicely) parallel to the wheel to the
>same 0.01 inches that we need for accuracy.
>
>My initial idea is to take this concept to that 0.01 degree:
>http://i.cubeupload.com/6CPUl7.jpg
>

On some vehicles it CAN be that simple -- On others it is definitely
a wee bit more complex, but you have the idea.

>Maybe bolt a flat steel plate to the wheel lugs (luckily, one of my cars
>uses lug bolts so I can just use longer bolts but my other car uses lug
>nuts which may make that flat plate bolting on more difficult).

And the length of the studs/bolts gets critical - not to mention it
works best with 4 or 6 studs - not so good on odd numbers like the
common 5, or the less common 3 stud wheels.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

There is a saying about Bimmers.
If you have to ask how much - for anything - you can't afford to drive
a bimmer.. There are enough things that can go wrong in the front end
of one of those kraut-wagons that I think you are definitely being
penny wise and pound foolish trying to save $100 on the maintenance of
a late model Bimmer. Don't be such a cheap-ass. - or drive a Chevy.

You want to know if anything is worn or bent - and measuring CASTER is
required as well to know. You really don't have your head around the
concepts well enough to understand WHY an alignment check should be
done properly. Your "quick check" is just that - and if you are at all
in tune with your car as a driver you will know there is something
wrong just as well by simply driving the car. If you are not "in tune
with the car" the Bimmer is wasted on you --- (as it is on the vast
majority of Bimmer owners)

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

If you are going to measure the toe with a string, you may as well
forget about it. You can NOT get enough accuracy or repeatability to
determine if the toe is correct or not. Without pro equipment, to get
that granular in your measurement you NEED to extend your measurements
5 or 10 feet and measure with a goor steel tape measure, or extend the
displaced centerline accurately and measure with a steel rule. Using
the simple tape measure will give you the total toe - which will be
double the specified toe per wheel, and will not tell you if you are
off-center.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

That depends whether it is at 12.5 inches, 12.5 feet, or 12.5
miles.......
You REALLY need to study your high-school math.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 12/8/2016 12:00 PM, John Harmon wrote:

> The amount of useless responses to this thread can be minimized simply by
> asking those who don't care to or who haven't ever successfully checked
> their camber at home to NOT respond (they're not going to be able to tell
> us anything we don't already know - all they're going to do is clutter up
> this thread to make it harder to be useful to others).

New to USENET?
I've done wheel alignment in my garage but given your arrogant attitude
I prefer not potentially clutter things here.

FYI, you won't be the first to call me an asshole today so don't be so
proud when you do so.

[John Harmon]

amdx actually said:

>> But what is 1/60th of a degree in inches?
> That depends on the length.

Following that statement to the logical next step, here is a
representiative track for my sedan from this thread:
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1312326-1998-BMW-528i-Complete-FRONT-Suspension-Overhaul

That photo says that the track is:
- Front Track Width = 1512 mm
- Rear Track Width = 1526 mm

So now what's 1/60th of a degree, in millimeters?

[amdx]

You have a misunderstanding, to figure millimeter or inches,
you need to have two lines that are connected like a below,

l****/
l /
l /
l /
l/
The angle between l and /, we will call 1/60 of a degree,
the **** is the millimeters or inches, BUT, the quantity of millimeters
or inches depends on the length of l, as you can see the longer l the
larger **** will be. But the angle stays the same.


Use the link below
may help you see it.

http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp
I put in a 1 degree angle for (angle a) and 16" for
(side B) Then hit calculate to find (side a).
This says you need 0.279" of tilt top to bottom
on a 16" wheel.
Note: this triangle is rotated 90* to your wheel.
So take that into account when thinking about the calculation.
Bottom line, for a 1 degree angle you need a tilt of 0.279" over 16".

That's measurable, but you need a post 90* off the floor to measure from.
Second note: Side (a) the tilt at the top (mm or inches), Side (b) is
perpendicular to the floor, Side (c) would be the tilt of the wheel.
Angle (a) is the degrees of the angle you set.

Mikek

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"New to USENET?
I've done wheel alignment in my garage but given your arrogant attitude
I prefer not potentially clutter things here.

FYI, you won't be the first to call me an asshole today so don't be so
proud when you do so. "

I doubt the OP actually even knows what camber is. He is probably conflating it with caster which is the amount the lower parts of the tires are closer together. That angle along with the camber which could also be called steering inclination axis is what makes the steering wheel return to the center.

Unfortunately most of what I know (and I know my limitations) applies to rear wheel drive cars which usually had a toe in, but now with front wheel drive there is usually a toe out.

I don't know if I can say this for true on these newer cars, some of which have quite complicated suspension, but in the old days if you knew how to align a car you could do it with a piece of string. Things have changed and now withe front wheel drive and independent rear wheel suspension having it's own caster and camber, toe in or whatever, has complicated the situation a bit.

But still if you got the money for tires all you have to do is drive the car a while and see the wear on the tires.

Guy was telling me a long time ago that on some Mazeratis there were like four shocks per wheel. I stuck with electronics LOL. In fact last year we did a head job (due to a jumped timing chain) on a Chevy Ecotec engine. I want NOTHING to do with them anymore.

Anyway, camber matter most on turns. the rest of it not so much. Measuring it entails getting the geometry of the hub/tire/whatever at a straight on position and then comparing that to it at a turning position. Camber goes along with the geometry of the whole steering assembly to establish toe out on turns, because one wheel is turning a larger radius than the other. You don't generally set that except maybe on big semi trucks. It is simply figured out when they design it. T%The camber does affect it, but really you don't have to set that unless you change the lower A frame. Even changing the whole strut tower is not likely to affect it much, enough to worry about anyway.

And people want to worry about shit like this when the brake lines are rusting out and the software that runs the engine is about to crash. Gimme a 1967 Chevy, really. Now on those you DID set the camber. It is all in the shop manual. (not a Chilton's)

[tlvp]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 20:12:12 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon wrote:

> translate 2 angular minutes into inch
> measurements.

Sheesh, you don't translate angular measurements into linear ones.
An angle isn't a length. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[tlvp]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 20:37:59 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon wrote:

> so a problem is how do I
> convert the 2 minutes of accuracy to a plus or minus inch figure?

You need a cataly$t, and a good front end man. Bring your vehicle to the
front end man, lubricate him with your cataly$t ($100 should do nicely),
and he'll perform the conversion for you, even adjusting things to the
result you would desire (key word or phrase: "wheel alignment").

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

[pf...@aol.com]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Harmon wrote:

> So now what's 1/60th of a degree, in millimeters?

You are now proven stupid, as well as being a true idiot.

READ THE $%^&*()!@# TEXT in the procedure. Millimeters are not involved. They are mentioned for informational purposes so that *you* might understand why things do not line up front-to-rear. Degrees are involved. Hence the use of a level and plumb-bob. The HORIZONTAL DIMENSION is measured and marked. This is at the axle. Then The VERTICAL AXIS is determined. If it is at the correct angle from true vertical (hence the need for a level) when the vehicle is on the ground and correctly loaded you now have the correct camber. WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE TO THE PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED MARK. Which then GIVES YOU A DIMENSION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Back in the day, and at very good shops today, the mechanic will ask the owner whether the car is normally driven solo or with passengers. If solo, he will put (usually) a 40-60 pound weight in the driver's seat to simulate "proper loading".

That you are a BMW owner explains a lot as well.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2390373/BMW-drivers-really-aggressive-drivers-prone-road-rage-wheel.html

That you cannot read for content is typical of the species.

The sharpest tool you should be allowed is a rubber spoon.

[amdx]

On 12/9/2016 7:47 AM, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Harmon wrote:
>
>> So now what's 1/60th of a degree, in millimeters?
>
> You are now proven stupid, as well as being a true idiot.

Hey Peter, why all the hate?
How is the rest of your life, do you treat everyone this way?
I think I have posted a pretty good explanation to try and give him the
understanding he is missing.
I did it without one vile word.
In fact, I enjoyed it. How joy did you have in your response?
None, you were mad. Huh! How silly. If you are not happy making
a response, why do it.
Mikek

[John Harmon]

tlvp actually said:

> Sheesh, you don't translate angular measurements into linear ones.
> An angle isn't a length. Cheers, -- tlvp

I agree that I'm confused (which is why I am hesitating to respond because
I don't wish to muddy the technical issue further for everyone).

The problem with doing camber at home is different from the problem of
doing toe at home.

For my bimmer, the camber is specified in degrees, and the measurement
tools we're exploring measure in degrees.

We just have to solve the conceptually simple problem of
a. Accuracy to 1 minute of angular measurement
b. Creating a wheel plate that meets that accuracy
c. Measuring to that accuracy with a mobile device

The problem, for my bimmer, is that the manufacturer specifies the toe in
degrees, yet we measure in inches. The conversion confuses me to no end
(which is obvious to all).

However, that specific translation problem may be solved if I trust this
layman's chart, for a similar vehicle:
http://www.bmwdiy.info/alignment/index.html

Which puts the toe-in in inch measurements of:
Front toe (left): Minimum = 1/32", Maximum = 3/32"
Front toe (right): Minimum = 1/32", Maximum = 3/32"
Front toe (total): Minimum = 1/32", Maximum = 3/16"

As with all specs written by laypeople, I can't tell if that toe is to the
centerline of the bimmer or wheel to wheel but since they specify a
single-wheel toe, can I safely presume that the spec is to the *centerline*
of the vehicle?

[John Harmon]

tlvp actually said:

> You need a cataly$t, and a good front end man. Bring your vehicle to the
> front end man, lubricate him with your cataly$t ($100 should do nicely),
> and he'll perform the conversion for you, even adjusting things to the
> result you would desire (key word or phrase: "wheel alignment").

Anyone can catalyze a reaction, but the catalyst remains unchanged.

That is, if I do that, I learn absolutely nothing.

I remain as uneducated as before.

[amdx]

On 12/8/2016 7:36 PM, amdx wrote:
> On 12/8/2016 6:54 PM, John Harmon wrote:
>> amdx actually said:
>>
>>>> But what is 1/60th of a degree in inches?
>>> That depends on the length.
>>
>> Following that statement to the logical next step, here is a
>> representiative track for my sedan from this thread:
>> http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1312326-1998-BMW-528i-Complete-FRONT-Suspension-Overhaul
>>
>>
>> That photo says that the track is:
>> - Front Track Width = 1512 mm
>> - Rear Track Width = 1526 mm
>>
>> So now what's 1/60th of a degree, in millimeters?
>>
>

Just Repeating so you don't miss my post.
I would like to know if my explanation made any sense to you.
Be sure to use the trig calculator to help you understand.
Maybe even draw out a few right triangles get the idea


>
> You have a misunderstanding.
>To figure millimeter or inches, you need to have two lines that are connected like a below,

[John Harmon]

Ed Pawlowski actually said:

> I've done wheel alignment in my garage

What we don't want is advice from people who would never contemplate doing
a camber measurement at home.

We want advice from people who have actually checked camber at home:
http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg

All the advice from tlvp, for example, of why he would NOT to check his
camber at home is and was already known before he posted anything. He added
negative value to this thread.

Since he would never do it, he has never thought about how to do it, and
since he not only knows not how to do it, but more importantly, he has
never done it, so his advice not to do it doesn't help anyone.

He simply wasted everyone's time with his fear-filled response.

Likewise, you waste everyone's time with your I-won't-tell-you response.
If you're not going to tell anyone anything, then why bother responding?

Besides, you only pretend to have done it, which is fine, but you playing
make believe doesn't help anyone here. I knew all this would happen,
because most people are utterly horrified at the mere thought of checking
camber at home so I was trying to avoid having to respond to comments like
yours and tlvp's which simply waste everyone's time.

Based on these specs ( http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg) the measurement
range is plus or minus 3 degrees to an accuracy of plus or minus one
minute.

If we can't achieve one minute of accuracy out of a mobile device, what
*is* the accuracy thqt we *can* achieve out of a mobile device?

[John Harmon]

amdx actually said:

> You have a misunderstanding, to figure millimeter or inches,
> you need to have two lines that are connected like a below,
>
> l****/
> l /
> l /
> l /
> l/
> The angle between l and /, we will call 1/60 of a degree,
> the **** is the millimeters or inches, BUT, the quantity of millimeters
> or inches depends on the length of l, as you can see the longer l the
> larger **** will be. But the angle stays the same.

Nice graphic!

To your point, I completely agree that I'm utterly confused when it comes
to "toe" angles.

It was my mistake to ever bring in the concept of "toe" to this discussion
because, while measuring toe with a tape measure at home is relatively easy
(once the mechanical overhang problem is solved), *converting* the damn
manufacturer's spec from angles to inches is the *confusion* I have.

Here is the toe spec for a similar vehicle to mine:
http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif

Notice that the "total toe" spec is 0 degrees 14 minutes plus or minus 10
minutes.

Also notice that the measurement accuracy for "total wheel toe" is also
given in similar units of a measuring accuracy of plus or minus two minutes
in a measuring range of plus or minus two degrees within a measuring range
of plus or minus 18 degrees.
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

I admit I'm confused.
My dilemma is understanding how to *measure* to that spec.

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> You REALLY need to study your high-school math.

This off-topic confusion is all my fault.

I should never have brought toe into this discussion because toe is easily
done at home when you have specs that are in linear dimensions such as
inches but not so easily understood when you have toe specs in angles.
http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

Clearly I'm confused how to do the conversion.

[John Harmon]

AMuzi actually said:

> Sort of mixed units.

But angles are the units that the manufacturer provides for toe while I'm
almost certainly going to measure toe with a distance measurement.

The manufacturer specifies the "total toe" as 0 degrees 14 minutes plus or
minus 10 minutes:
http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif

The manufacturer specifies a "total toe" required accuracy of plus or minus
2 minutes in a measuring range of plus or minus two degrees with a total

measuring range of plus or minus 18 degrees.
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

So this confusion is all my fault.

Clearly I'm confused because the way I think of toe is linear, but the
manufacturer specifies toe in angles, so I should not have brought up toe
in the first place.

Camber is simpler because the manufacturer specifies angles and the
measurement is in angles.

So we should stick with camber for this thread (because it's a simpler
problem).

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

No you can not. Total toe iis the difference between the track at the
front of the tire and the track at the rear of the tire. devided by 2.
The specification on the Bimmer and most cars today is given as the
toe PER SIDE, which theoretically is 1/2 of the total toe.. The toe
per wheel is measured to the parallel longitudinal axis of the vehicle
and is given per wheel to enable centering of the steering linkage so
the car goes straight when the wheel is centered.

The reason the measurements are given as an angle is because that is
essentially what you are setting. You are setting the angular
relationship between the wheel and the longitudinal axis of the car. A
linear measurement is not an accurate specification because differen
diameter wheels can be used on vehicles, and the displacement of the
neasurement from the rolling axis of the tire affects the linear
measurement, but not the angular measurement.
If you are not using professional equipment and you are depending on
calculated linear measurements the ONLY way to aproach the accuracy
BMW is specifying is by extending the measurement to at least 3 feet,
prefferably 6 to 10, and calculatinf the offset at that point.

But I'm wasting my breath - You've been told this several times and it
has not gortten through to you. Stop being a cheap-assed wannabee,
find a good mechanic - and TRUST HIM. Pay him what the job is worth.
If you can't afford to proain a bimmer, drive a bloody Chevy!!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

You can educate youself on what an alignment consists of, and
understand what is involved, without doing it yourself. I think your
problem is you have a fear of mechanics - an ingrained mistrust -
combined with a very tight grip on your money (although how that goes
along with driving a wiener wagon, I cannot for the life of me figure
out)

[nospam]

In article <o2epef$4s4$1...@news.mixmin.net>, John Harmon

<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

>
> But angles are the units that the manufacturer provides for toe while I'm
> almost certainly going to measure toe with a distance measurement.

not if you want to do it correctly, you won't.

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> And the length of the studs/bolts gets critical - not to mention it
> works best with 4 or 6 studs - not so good on odd numbers like the
> common 5, or the less common 3 stud wheels.

My plan (later) is to create some sort of test jig that bolts to the wheel.

Sort of like this: http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 16:58:31 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski actually said:
>
>> I've done wheel alignment in my garage
>
>What we don't want is advice from people who would never contemplate doing
>a camber measurement at home.
>

I've done it at home and on the side of the road. I've also done it
hundreds of times with professional equipment.

>We want advice from people who have actually checked camber at home:
>http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg
>

My advice is YOU will not measure it accurately enough, and camber
isn't the only angle you need to check, and the other angles are more
difficult to measure - with caster being virtually impossible for you
to measure without proper equipment.

>All the advice from tlvp, for example, of why he would NOT to check his
>camber at home is and was already known before he posted anything. He added
>negative value to this thread.
>
>Since he would never do it, he has never thought about how to do it, and
>since he not only knows not how to do it, but more importantly, he has
>never done it, so his advice not to do it doesn't help anyone.
>
>He simply wasted everyone's time with his fear-filled response.

And a fairly accurate response.

>
>Likewise, you waste everyone's time with your I-won't-tell-you response.
>If you're not going to tell anyone anything, then why bother responding?

And I've told you

>
>Besides, you only pretend to have done it, which is fine, but you playing
>make believe doesn't help anyone here. I knew all this would happen,
>because most people are utterly horrified at the mere thought of checking
>camber at home so I was trying to avoid having to respond to comments like
>yours and tlvp's which simply waste everyone's time.
>
>Based on these specs ( http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg) the measurement
>range is plus or minus 3 degrees to an accuracy of plus or minus one
>minute.
>
>If we can't achieve one minute of accuracy out of a mobile device, what
>*is* the accuracy thqt we *can* achieve out of a mobile device?

It depends a whole lot on the mobile device, on the application you
are using, and how you apply it.

"design it in autocad, lay it out with a string, mark it with a
crayon, and cut it with an axe"

That about describes the accuracy of your approach. Is it POSSIBLE to
be accurate in that scenario?? Of course, if you try often enough -
but your repeatability is not going to be very good.

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> If you are going to measure the toe with a string, you may as well
> forget about it. You can NOT get enough accuracy or repeatability to
> determine if the toe is correct or not.

This is good advice that a string won't be accurate nor repeatable enough
for toe measurements.

> Without pro equipment, to get
> that granular in your measurement you NEED to extend your measurements
> 5 or 10 feet and measure with a goor steel tape measure, or extend the
> displaced centerline accurately and measure with a steel rule.

This home-alignment howto shows camber in degrees and toe in both degrees
and in inches:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignment.html

The really good news is that the author suggests 0 degrees of camber,
which, it seems to me on initial thought, should be the easiest of all
angles to measure.

> Using
> the simple tape measure will give you the total toe - which will be
> double the specified toe per wheel, and will not tell you if you are
> off-center.

That same article shows how to get the individual wheel toe:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignpics/align3.jpg

Since this thread is all about practical advice, the great news is that the
article offered the following pragmatic recommendation of:
a. Zero degrees of camber for a street car
b. Zero toe
(or a smidge of toe of about 1/16" on each side for a total toe of 1/32")

Both those zeroes should be relatively easy to measure with shop tools, are
they not?

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> There is a saying about Bimmers.
> If you have to ask how much - for anything - you can't afford to drive
> a bimmer.. There are enough things that can go wrong in the front end
> of one of those kraut-wagons that I think you are definitely being
> penny wise and pound foolish trying to save $100 on the maintenance of
> a late model Bimmer. Don't be such a cheap-ass. - or drive a Chevy.

I have multiple vehicles.

My japanese vehicle never breaks.
My bimmer always breaks.

I work on both of them just the same.

> You want to know if anything is worn or bent - and measuring CASTER is
> required as well to know.

My vehicle has never been in an accident but that's not really the point
because nobody will disagree with you that caster is part of an alignment
equation, and, that caster comes before camber which comes before toe.

This article shows that if you can measure camber, you can measure caster:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignment.html

Since my bimmer has no direct way to adjust caster, I'm skipping the
non-adjustable caster (for now) to concentrate on camber.

> You really don't have your head around the
> concepts well enough to understand WHY an alignment check should be
> done properly.

I think that's an unfair statement that I don't understand why an alignment
measurement needs to be correct but certainly I am confused about how to
convert a toe specification that is given in degrees to a toe measurement
which will be made in inches.

What matters to an alignment check is simply that the manufacturer's stated
accuracy is achieved.

That accuracy, for my bimmer, is stated here:
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

> Your "quick check" is just that - and if you are at all
> in tune with your car as a driver you will know there is something
> wrong just as well by simply driving the car. If you are not "in tune
> with the car" the Bimmer is wasted on you --- (as it is on the vast
> majority of Bimmer owners)

The bimmer insult isn't really needed here since this is a technical
question, but it's fair to say that what you're saying is that "alignment
can be felt" but I would clarify that by adding "sometimes".

I'm not sure if you can feel the difference, for example, between 2 degrees
of negative camber in the rear wheels and 1 degree.

Over time, your tires will tell you; but waiting the 5K miles for the tires
to inform you of that difference is not a quick check by any means. :)

[nospam]

In article <o2ercj$8g5$1...@news.mixmin.net>, John Harmon

<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

> My japanese vehicle never breaks.

buy another

> My bimmer always breaks.

sell it or give it away

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> The accuracy of the level application on my one phone is out bt over
> 7 degrees. That is a simple "level" app..

This is the first indication of what's possible out of a mobile device in
this thread, so I thank you for figuring out that your level app has an
accuracy of plus or minus 7 degrees (if I understood you correctly).

How did you find that out though?

> The "rigid" level
> application on my Blackberry PlayBook is very accurate - How you
> reference it to the wheel will be the biggest variable that can
> through your accuracy off. A trammel type setup made from a straight
> bar of metal (or "straight" hardwood) with 2 screws protruding to
> reach the edge of the rim, adjusted to be identical in protrusion,
> will transfer the wheel angle accurately to the "level". You can
> determine if the rim is true to the spindle by checking the level with
> the bar upright with the wheel turned 180 degrees to make sure the
> reading is the same with the wheel turned.

I agree that the jig attached to the wheel has to be exactly on target
(within the stated accuracies, all of which add up).

Here's an example of a camber jig for home use:
http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg

Here's an even better camber jig setup for home use:
http://i.cubeupload.com/J0UuYd.png

> WITH CARE you can check your camber to a reasonably high level of
> accuracy. To get the camber "normalized" you need to roll the car
> back and forth a few feet so the car "settles" on it's suspension.

This is good practical advice that you need to both roll the car back and
forth to let it settle on the suspension, and you need to add slip plates
under the wheels so that they slip nicely when adjusted.

> A
> professional setup uses a "slip plate" that allows the wheels to slide
> in and out with little resistance. Normal procedure is to bounce the
> car on the slip plates to "normalize" the suspension.

This is also good advice to bounce the car and to use slip plates for
measuring and adjusting toe so that the wheels move freely.
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignpics/align3.jpg

> I've done it long pre-smart-phone using a simple bubble level to
> verify the alignment was "close enough" afterr an accident in central
> Africa severely damaged the front of my Peugeot.

The really good news is that, like in your case, a simple bubble level
might suffice simply because a decent rear camber spec is zero degrees
anyway, which is the easiest angle to measure.
http://i.cubeupload.com/J0UuYd.png

In summary, what I've learned in the past day are a few things:

1. A practical value for rear camber is 0 degrees to a smidge negative
2. A practical value for toe-in is 0 inches to a smidge positive (inward)

Both those are so close to zero that I can check that they are zero, and
then I can tweak them to a "smidge" inward.

But that is a different problem from checking them, which seems to be
easily doable using a few common tools based on my googling today:
http://www.tomhoppe.com/index.php/2009/02/cheap-digital-camber-gauge/

[John Harmon]

nospam actually said:

>> But angles are the units that the manufacturer provides for toe while I'm
>> almost certainly going to measure toe with a distance measurement.
>
> not if you want to do it correctly, you won't.

This article states that you can get as accurate at home as you need to:
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/wheels-tires/modp-1010-diy-wheel-alignment/

Here's how they measured toe-in, for example:
http://image.superstreetonline.com/f/30286048+w+h+q80+re0+cr1/modp_1010_06_o%2bdiy_wheel_alignment%2bstring_box.jpg

Notice they measured toe in linear measurements.

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> Total toe iis the difference between the track at the
> front of the tire and the track at the rear of the tire.

Ah! My bad. Thank you for that correction.

Until you admonished me, I had previously thought total toe was just the
toe of both wheels to the centerline added up.

I stand corrected.

So "total toe" is the difference between the tracking of the front of the
tire and the rear of the tire (measured to centerline of the vehicle).

> The specification on the Bimmer and most cars today is given as the
> toe PER SIDE, which theoretically is 1/2 of the total toe..

Yes.

> The toe
> per wheel is measured to the parallel longitudinal axis of the vehicle
> and is given per wheel to enable centering of the steering linkage so
> the car goes straight when the wheel is centered.

Thank you for this pragmatic advice that the toe per wheel is given so that
we can keep the steering wheel centered while doing the job.

> The reason the measurements are given as an angle is because that is
> essentially what you are setting.

Thank you because, when I read the next sentence, for the first time, I
understood why toe is specified as an angle!

> You are setting the angular
> relationship between the wheel and the longitudinal axis of the car.

Ah. Yes. This is true that the *angle* is the angle of the wheel to the
centerline of the vehicle.

It's a tiny angle which is very close to zero; but it's an angle for sure!

Is this diagram I just made modified correct for that angle?
http://i.cubeupload.com/rtvi9L.gif

> A
> linear measurement is not an accurate specification because different

> diameter wheels can be used on vehicles, and the displacement of the
> neasurement from the rolling axis of the tire affects the linear
> measurement, but not the angular measurement.

Ah. I see what you're talking about.
Thanks for that pragmatic advice!

Is this diagram that I just made showing what you just said?
http://i.cubeupload.com/BzNqBY.gif

> If you are not using professional equipment and you are depending on
> calculated linear measurements the ONLY way to aproach the accuracy
> BMW is specifying is by extending the measurement to at least 3 feet,
> prefferably 6 to 10, and calculatinf the offset at that point.

I don't understand that statement.
I was trying to draw what you said but I don't know which way to extend.

In which direction do I extend the line?
In front of the car?
Or to the side?

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> Total toe iis the difference between the track at the
> front of the tire and the track at the rear of the tire. devided by 2.

Thank you for your pragmatic advice.

Is this diagram I just made correct for total toe?
http://i.cubeupload.com/kYxrgm.gif

[Scott Dorsey]

John Harmon <Harmo...@example.com> wrote:
>
>I have multiple vehicles.
>
>My japanese vehicle never breaks.
>My bimmer always breaks.
>
>I work on both of them just the same.

The japanese vehicle you can drive and drive without doing any maintenance and
it won't break until all of a sudden everything fails. The BMW requires a lot
of very specific maintenance, and you need to keep on top of that maintenance,
and if you do not do it, it will break. But, you can drive it for a long, long
time before everything fails.

Maintenance is better than repairs any day, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Harmon]

cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:

> You can educate youself on what an alignment consists of, and
> understand what is involved, without doing it yourself. I think your
> problem is you have a fear of mechanics - an ingrained mistrust -
> combined with a very tight grip on your money (although how that goes
> along with driving a wiener wagon, I cannot for the life of me figure
> out)

I appreciate your advice.
Here are the diagrams I made for toe based on your pragmatic advice.

1. This shows why toe is specified as an angle to the centerline:
http://i.cubeupload.com/rtvi9L.gif

2. This shows why an *angle* is better than a distance specification:
http://i.cubeupload.com/BzNqBY.gif

3. This shows that Total Toe is a distance while toe is an angle:
http://i.cubeupload.com/kYxrgm.gif

If that is correct, the only problem I have understanding in the spec is
why the total toe is specified in angles when it should be the difference
in the distance between the front and rear tracks to the centerline:
http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

[John Harmon]

nospam actually said:

>> My japanese vehicle never breaks.
>
> buy another
>
>> My bimmer always breaks.
>
> sell it or give it away

My japanese vehicle is sort of like Android; it just works.
The bimmer is more like my iPad; it constantly can't do basic stuff.

:)

[John Harmon]

Ed Pawlowski actually said:

> My reply is strictly based on the fact that you come across as an
> arrogant prick telling poeple who may reply..

I understand your reply (which was that I sounded arrogant to you when I
asked people who wouldn't be adding any value not to respond).

And you must understand mine, which is that I was trying to prevent a huge
waste of time becuase *most* people wouldn't dare contemplate checking
their camber (or toe) at home.

The problems with doing alignment at home stem first from *understanding*
the specs, which it is clear, I'm still grasping.

After the specs are understood, then the next problem is measuring the
camber and toe.

And the third problem is adjusting them.

This thread is only about measuring them, but I agree, my confusion on toe
angles slowed things down.

[John Harmon]

Scott Dorsey actually said:

> The japanese vehicle you can drive and drive without doing any maintenance and
> it won't break until all of a sudden everything fails. The BMW requires a lot
> of very specific maintenance, and you need to keep on top of that maintenance,
> and if you do not do it, it will break. But, you can drive it for a long, long
> time before everything fails.
>
> Maintenance is better than repairs any day, though.

To put the difference more honestly, I've had both vehicles for more than
15 years each so I know their personalities well.

The Toyota almost never breaks down, but when it does, the fix is generally
simple and easy to do where parts are easy to find and relatively
inexpensive. Yet, it doesn't handle as well (although it's a different type
of vehicle altogehter).

But here are the "problems" I've had with the Toyta:
1. The transmission shift lever uses idiotic plastic bushings (replaced 2x)
2. The sway bar used buna rubber bushings (replaced with poly bushings)
3. The electrical antenna keeps breaking (I finally gave up on it)
4. The torsion clutch pedal spring is stupid (replaced with linear spring)
5. The digital clock digits go out (gave up after fixing it twice)
6. The oil filter housing gasket leaks (fixed by replacing it)
8. The door opening mechanism failed (replaced with OEM)
9. The front shocks were toast within five years (replaced w Bilsteins)
10. The rear brakelight stopped working (sanded a few times & is now fixed)
Plus assorted standard maintenance (belts, clutch, fluids, brakes, etc.).

The bimmer constantly breaks down, but its handling is nice. However, it's
important to know that the bimmer I have is the E39 which has about 20
items made like crap, where *everything* else is rock solid.

So the twenty items made like crap on the E39 are, offhand:
1. The cooling system (mostly the idiotic plastic expansion tank)
2. The DISA valve (mostly an idiotic plastic flap pin)
3. The window regulators (two idiotic plastic rollers)
4. The Bosch ABS control module (an idiotic internal wire badly mounted)
5. The seats twist (idiotic sleeves on the many motor control cables)
6. Instrument cluster pixels die (idiotic pink stickytape connectors)
7. The headlight adjustment (idiotic plastic adjustment pins break)
8. AC control (idiotic FSU/FSR blows its mosfets time and time again)
9. CCV (aka PCV) (idiotic design creates mayonaise in cold weather locales)
10. Doors leak water (idiotic lack of glue in the vapor barrier adhesive)
11. Trunk wiring (utterly idiotic design has no concept of opening flex!)
12. Temperature (idiotic placement of the ambient temperature sensor)
13. Windshiled washer system (the entire design is idiotic)
14. Jack pads (idiotic lack of a center pin was replaced under TSB)
15. AC odors (idiotic lack of a way to vent collected water)
16. The cupholders (idiotic design can't be fixed - just throw it away)
17. Wood trim (idiodic material was never tested for lifespan)
18. Windshield molding (idiotic use of recycled rubber was a disaster)
19. Power steering leaks (idiotic design of the I6 hoses & V8 brackets)
20. The front shocks were toast within its first year (warranty fix)
Plus assorted standard maintenance (belts, clutch, fluids, brakes, etc.).

My summary, after owning both from new for over fifteen years each is that
the BMW is a pain in the ass to repair whenever something does go wrong,
and things go wrong a lot because BMW doesn't know how to design a complete
car but the handling is phenominal and the engine is bulletproof.

Meanwhile, the Toyota is a dream child to repair when something does go
wrong (which is almost never) simply because Toyota knows something BMW
doesn't know, which is how to design a complete vehicle.

But all this is OT.

[pf...@aol.com]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:01:12 AM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
re now proven stupid, as well as being a true idiot.
>
> Hey Peter, why all the hate?

Hatred? That is an emotion that takes effort and requires knowledge of the actual target beyond the initial idiocy.

Harmon/Alger is a troll whose sole purpose in life is to spin the wheels of the otherwise well-intentioned by inveigling them into meaningless discussions over processes that have no relevance in reality. Usually continued so long that the "horse" is not only dead, but skinned, flayed and flensed.

He cannot read for content. As the processes over which he appears to be confused are rather obvious. Which means either one of two things:

a) he is invincibly ignorant.
b) he enjoys spinning peoples' wheels.

Whether the former or the latter, he has no place in a reasonable discussion as he cannot be reasonably, nor engage in meaningful discussion.

Again, the sharpest tool he should be allowed is a rubber spoon as he is clearly a danger to himself or others who may be victims of his ineptitude.

I would have a great deal more respect for him were he to sign his real name. But that he changes it as often as he (likely) changes his socks is the certain indication of his status as a troll.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[nospam]

In article <o2evkp$hl2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, John Harmon

only because you're too stupid to figure out how, particularly after
people repeatedly explain to you exactly how.

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, amdx wrote:

> On 12/9/2016 7:47 AM, pf...@aol.com wrote:

>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Harmon wrote:
>>
>>> So now what's 1/60th of a degree, in millimeters?
>>

>> You are now proven stupid, as well as being a true idiot.

>
> Hey Peter, why all the hate?

> How is the rest of your life, do you treat everyone this way?
> I think I have posted a pretty good explanation to try and give him the
> understanding he is missing.
> I did it without one vile word.
> In fact, I enjoyed it. How joy did you have in your response?
> None, you were mad. Huh! How silly. If you are not happy making
> a response, why do it.
> Mikek
>
>
Come on, the original poster, whatever he's talking about, cross posted
this to
comp.mobile.android, rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair,
sci.electronics.repair

Only one seems directly applicable, maybe alt.home.repairs is valid
(though I thought that was about repairing homes, not doing repairs at
home), but comp.mobile.android and sci.electronics.repair have nothing to
do with auto repair, despite a fairly regular strain of people
crossposting between the latter and the home repair newsgroup.

Anyone so clueless to post to this bunch of newsgroups is starting out
with a problem.

Michael

[amdx]

Ya, I am to. But first let me say this, The first spec you posted,
0* 14' plus or minus 10', seems this isn't as critical as some posters
are making it.
For toe, it is still a trig problem, but the problem is defining,
side b (a reference point).

> http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp

I wonder do the shops attach a laser and measure on a wall scale a
defined distance away?

I don't know this, is it a single adjustment that moves both wheels or
do you adjust both wheels separately? (makes a reference even more
important)
Sorry just thinking on the keypad.

You have a trig problem and a measurement problem.
The measurement problem is more difficult.

It is not be hard to convert the 14 minutes to inches using the wheel
diameter as one line.
The angle is how much more is the front of the wheel turned
in more than the rear of the wheel. I'll call the wheel 16"
from front to rear. (just realized this almost the same trig problem for
camber, just rotated 90*)

I'm using the trig calculator above, this time the orientation is correct.
Put the following numbers in, (side c) = 16, (angle A) = .233. The angle
is .233 because 14min/60min = .233.
Your answer is (side a) which is 0.065". So, you want the rear of a 16"
wheel stick out 0.065" more than the front.
Not real easy to measure, But, if you could extend the 16" to 12 ft
(192") with a laser pointer, then (side a) is 0.781".
The laser must be perfectly square with the wheel.
Just some thinking. Hope it makes some sense.
Mikek

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Meanwhile, the Toyota is a dream child to repair when something does go
wrong (which is almost never) simply because Toyota knows something BMW
doesn't know, which is how to design a complete vehicle. "

It gets better than that. I used to work with a guy from Poland. Said he could not believe how many tools you need for cars in the US, which includes Toyotas. Says the ones they sell over there come apart with like a half dozen wrenches while here you need all kinds of Torx and whatever else they can invent.

For reasons beyond the scope of this text which is already beyond the scope of this thread, people over there have more of a tendency to fix their own stuff. Seems people in the US are getting lazy, to the point where they will jiggle the handle on the toilet for ten years rather than to adjust it.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"You have a trig problem and a measurement problem.
The measurement problem is more difficult. "

I was wondering when someone was going to mention trig.

What he needs is something to act as a really huge caliper. Looking at the bottom of most cars there is no centerline to be found.

Actually is you can be absolutely sure the car is on a level surface, something like a plum bob could work. Measruing it accurately is still a problem, from the rim to a string ? And adjusting to minutes with only like 16" to work with ? No thanks.

But the good news is that you don't need the BMW alignment machine, they are not really brand specific. That means he does not have to go to the dealer and pay three times what an independent would charge.

On older cars I did set the toe in a few times. There was enough clearance to measure underneath wheel to wheel. Whaddya think the odds of that are here ? Did Slim leave town ? I never set caber or caster in the old backyard, but usually you don't heave to, even after replacing ball joints. They have to pretty far out of spec to affect it enough, really. Still, usually I would just pay the damn forty bucks and have it aligned. Of course that forty bucks is now a hundred, but how much is a set of tires ? A nice set of Dunlops or Michelins is worth the cost of an alignment, plus the car handles better. Plus with really good tires it rides better and quieter.

But some people are penny wise and pound foolish.

[amdx]

On 12/9/2016 3:53 PM, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "You have a trig problem and a measurement problem.
> The measurement problem is more difficult. "
>
> I was wondering when someone was going to mention trig.

You just haven't read all the posts, I have at least 3 maybe 4 posts
that mention trig and I posted a calculator, with the problem to solve.

> What he needs is something to act as a really huge caliper. Looking at the bottom of most cars there is no centerline to be found.

I mentioned finding the reference is the hardest part.

>
> Actually is you can be absolutely sure the car is on a level surface, something like a plum bob could work.

Measuring it accurately is still a problem, from the rim to a string ?

And adjusting to minutes with only like 16" to work with ? No thanks.

I also mentioned if you could mount a laser square to the wheel, then
you could measure at 16ft on a wall and use 0.781" instead of 0.065".
I said 12ft in my post, that was wrong.

>
> But the good news is that you don't need the BMW alignment machine, they are not really brand specific.

That means he does not have to go to the dealer and pay three times what
an independent would charge.
>
> On older cars I did set the toe in a few times. There was enough clearance to measure underneath wheel to wheel.

Whaddya think the odds of that are here ? Did Slim leave town ? I never

set camber or caster in the old backyard, but usually you don't have to,

even after replacing ball joints. They have to pretty far out of spec to
affect it enough, really. Still, usually I would just pay the damn forty

bucks and have it aligned. Of course that forty bucks is now a hundred,
but how much is a set of tires ? A nice set of Dunlops or Michelins

is worth the cost of an alignment, plus the car handles better. Plus
with really good tires it rides better and quieter.
>
> But some people are penny wise and pound foolish.
>

And sometimes people are penny wise and also pound wise.
It really ads up over 30 years.
Mikek

[John Harmon]

amdx actually said:

> Ya, I am to. But first let me say this, The first spec you posted,
> 0* 14' plus or minus 10', seems this isn't as critical as some posters
> are making it.

Now that I've done some more research, I have a better handle on 'toe' so
I'm going to agree with you that getting toe precise to 2 minutes isn't all
that important, in all likelihood.

For *setting* toe, especially in the rear, it could easily be that 0 toe
(degrees or inches) would be just fine, or, maybe, to take up some
suspension slop, a "smidgeon" of toe (maybe 1/16th of an inch or less in
linear dimension no matter what the wheel/tire diameter).

This is to take up the slop in the suspension (perhaps slightly more in the
front if it's a typical RWD like all my vehicles are).

> For toe, it is still a trig problem, but the problem is defining,
> side b (a reference point).
>
> > http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp

I'm still confused how to convert toe from degrees to inches, but luckily,
there are web sites that will do it for us.
https://robrobinette.com/ConvertToeInchesToDegrees.htm

> I wonder do the shops attach a laser and measure on a wall scale a
> defined distance away?

Interesting you mention that, because the reason for the *far away* wall is
simply that the angle is small, right?

> I don't know this, is it a single adjustment that moves both wheels or
> do you adjust both wheels separately? (makes a reference even more
> important)
> Sorry just thinking on the keypad.

If you are talking about toe, I'm no expert, but the way I understand it is
that you lock the steering wheel in the center position first (which has
nothing, per se, to do with alignment but with esthetics) - and then - you
pick a side, and twist a tie-rod ever so slightly - which - depending on
the direction of twist, moves the front of the wheel in toward the
centerline of the vehicle - or outward.

So it's one wheel at a time, measured to the centerline.

Of course, you can assume all sorts of symmetries and do both wheels at the
same time, but conceptually I think of toe as a wheel-to-centerline thing,
to be done one at a time.

> You have a trig problem and a measurement problem.
> The measurement problem is more difficult.

That's an interesting observation that the measurement problem is more
difficult, but I think only if we try to measure degrees of toe.

If we measure inches of toe, the measurement problem is conceptually
trivially simple.

> It is not be hard to convert the 14 minutes to inches using the wheel
> diameter as one line.

I'm trying to find the triangle in the equation of toe in order to figure
out how to convert the distance measurement to an angle.

Here I just drew what is my first pass guess at where that triangle lies:
http://i.cubeupload.com/ZmdfeN.gif

Is *this* the trigonometric angle everyone is talking about?

> The angle is how much more is the front of the wheel turned
> in more than the rear of the wheel. I'll call the wheel 16"
> from front to rear. (just realized this almost the same trig problem for
> camber, just rotated 90*)

You make a good point here in that we really have a 3-dimensional X, Y, and
Z axis, each of which is rotated by 90 degrees (caster, camber, and toe).

> I'm using the trig calculator above, this time the orientation is correct.
> Put the following numbers in, (side c) = 16, (angle A) = .233. The angle
> is .233 because 14min/60min = .233.
> Your answer is (side a) which is 0.065". So, you want the rear of a 16"
> wheel stick out 0.065" more than the front.
> Not real easy to measure, But, if you could extend the 16" to 12 ft
> (192") with a laser pointer, then (side a) is 0.781".
> The laser must be perfectly square with the wheel.
> Just some thinking. Hope it makes some sense.
> Mikek

Just to ask to get me more firmly grounded, is *this* the triangle everyone
is talking about?
http://i.cubeupload.com/ZmdfeN.gif

[tlvp]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:14:34 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon wrote:

> The problem, for my bimmer, is that the manufacturer specifies the toe in
> degrees, yet we measure in inches.

So don't measure in inches. If you have tools to measure camber in degrees,
you can surely repurpose them to measure toe-in in degrees also, no? HTH.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.12.16 um 20:11 schrieb John Harmon:

The problem is obviously not the hardware; it is the user.
*SCNR*

--
http://www.albasani.net/index.html.de
Ein freier und kostenloser Server fuer Usenet/NetNews (NNTP)

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.12.16 um 20:46 schrieb nospam:

*FACK*

[tlvp]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:58:43 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon wrote:

> ... certainly I am confused about how to

> convert a toe specification that is given in degrees to a toe measurement
> which will be made in inches.

Same here, but about temperatures using wall thermometers: people always
spec out temperature in degrees but all I see is how many inches the column
of mercury is, no idea how to convert degrees into inches here either :-) .

Can you help :-) ? Cheers, -- tlvp

[Andy Burns]

tlvp wrote:

> John Harmon wrote:
>
>> I am confused

>
> Same here, but about temperatures using wall thermometers: people always
> spec out temperature in degrees but all I see is how many inches the column
> of mercury is, no idea how to convert degrees into inches here either

Smartphones contain 3-axis accelerometer chips and magnetic compass
chips, but AFAIK (unlike digital levels) they don't contain an
inclinometer chip, so the accuracy from a phone is not likely to be
high, the "bubble level" apps you can get for phones are a bit of a
joke, they'll probably be influenced by large chunks of metal nearby.

The spec of the MEMS inclinometers in digital levels seems to be +/-6
minutes when measuring horizontal or vertical and +/-12 minutes for
other angles, so even they would be marginal.

[Xeno]

You might find these links useful

http://tinyurl.com/jdas8oy
http://tinyurl.com/jud2p3b

Note, if you alter camber, toe will alter and you will need to check and
adjust if required.

HTH

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

[amdx]

On 12/9/2016 12:14 PM, John Harmon wrote:
> cl...@snyder.on.ca actually said:
>
>> The accuracy of the level application on my one phone is out bt over
>> 7 degrees. That is a simple "level" app..
>
> This is the first indication of what's possible out of a mobile device in
> this thread, so I thank you for figuring out that your level app has an
> accuracy of plus or minus 7 degrees (if I understood you correctly).
>
> How did you find that out though?
>
>> The "rigid" level
>> application on my Blackberry PlayBook is very accurate - How you
>> reference it to the wheel will be the biggest variable that can
>> through your accuracy off. A trammel type setup made from a straight
>> bar of metal (or "straight" hardwood) with 2 screws protruding to
>> reach the edge of the rim, adjusted to be identical in protrusion,
>> will transfer the wheel angle accurately to the "level". You can
>> determine if the rim is true to the spindle by checking the level with
>> the bar upright with the wheel turned 180 degrees to make sure the
>> reading is the same with the wheel turned.
>
> I agree that the jig attached to the wheel has to be exactly on target
> (within the stated accuracies, all of which add up).
>
> Here's an example of a camber jig for home use:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg
>
> Here's an even better camber jig setup for home use:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/J0UuYd.png

If either of those devices had a laser pointer in them that point
up, you could do a trig problem using the ceiling for camber, and on the
front wall by rotating the device 90* for toe.

Hey, just noticed your link,
http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg
has the sears level shown here,
http://www.sears.com/craftsman-10-in-digital-lasertrac-reg-level/p-00948292000P?sid=BVReview

The Sears level does have a laser in it.
That will do what I suggest, rotate it 90* and point it forward to see
a spot on the wall. Find the centerline of your car and then it's a
simple trig problem.
The hard part, finding the centerline of your car.
I'm not sure this helps you though, I saw no evidence that you
understood how the trig solves turning the angle into inches.
Mikek

[pf...@aol.com]

After all this - consider the implication: An individual with the comprehension of the common garden slug has taken tools to the suspension of a heavy machine capable of significant speed and will then put it on the road amongst similar machines. Worse, that same slug will likely be operating the machine, perhaps with others in it.

Anyone here wish to be on the road nearby? Not I, certainly.

[Tekkie®]

cl...@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...


>
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:14:35 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
> <Harmo...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >tlvp actually said:
> >
> >> You need a cataly$t, and a good front end man. Bring your vehicle to the
> >> front end man, lubricate him with your cataly$t ($100 should do nicely),
> >> and he'll perform the conversion for you, even adjusting things to the
> >> result you would desire (key word or phrase: "wheel alignment").
> >
> >Anyone can catalyze a reaction, but the catalyst remains unchanged.
> >
> >That is, if I do that, I learn absolutely nothing.
> >
> >I remain as uneducated as before.

> You can educate youself on what an alignment consists of, and
> understand what is involved, without doing it yourself. I think your
> problem is you have a fear of mechanics - an ingrained mistrust -
> combined with a very tight grip on your money (although how that goes
> along with driving a wiener wagon, I cannot for the life of me figure
> out)

+1 and gaining BMW=$$$

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

cl...@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...


>

> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:13:33 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
> <Harmo...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >amdx actually said:
> >
> >>> That's excellent advice. Since the tire bulges, I wonder if it's best
> >>> to use the wheel lugs to mount a jig which is what we measure to?
> >> A jig, if you can't use the actual wheel.
> >
> >I agree that, for our purposes, we should assume I jury rig a jig of some
> >sort so that there is a flat completely perpendicular plate bolted onto the
> >axle somehow (probably placed on the outside of the wheels using the lug
> >bolts or lug nuts).
> >
> >>> Does anyone here know how to convert the 1 and 2 minutes to inches?
> >>>
> >> No, But 30 min is equal to 0.5 degrees.
> >
> >Right. And the 1 and 2 minutes are 1/60th and 1/30th of a degree
> >respectively.
> >
> >But what is 1/60th of a degree in inches?
> That depends whether it is at 12.5 inches, 12.5 feet, or 12.5
> miles.......

> You REALLY need to study your high-school math.

+5 and high school math... He could go back to school and learn all this for
less bux than he wasted-not to mention our time.

Drive it to the BMW shop and tell them you want it set to the preferred
settings. Make certain all your bushings and arms and their esoterically
named crap is brand new because as it wears it will change. Don't hit any
curbs, potholes, driveways, obstructions of any sort, or drive it period.
Better get new springs too as they will sag and take everything out of the
trunk. If it's a convertible weld some stiffeners along the top. Have your
partner and you control their weight. Fill up with gas first. Get all
pebbles, stones and other safarcus out of the treads. Make certain the tire
pressure is within a 10/th of a pound. I am sure I am forgetting
something...

--
Tekkie

[Bill Vanek]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:25:35 -0500, Tekkie® <Tek...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I too am starting to wonder if this guy is nuts, or maybe just a
troll. There is some very simple math involved here.

[Tekkie®]

Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us...


>
> On 12/8/2016 12:00 PM, John Harmon wrote:
>
> > The amount of useless responses to this thread can be minimized simply by
> > asking those who don't care to or who haven't ever successfully checked
> > their camber at home to NOT respond (they're not going to be able to tell
> > us anything we don't already know - all they're going to do is clutter up
> > this thread to make it harder to be useful to others).
>
>
> New to USENET?
> I've done wheel alignment in my garage but given your arrogant attitude
> I prefer not potentially clutter things here.
>
> FYI, you won't be the first to call me an asshole today so don't be so
> proud when you do so.

Aw shucks, I wasn't even thinking of doing that... It's Saturday so should I
just do it to keep the quota?

--
Tekkie

[nospam]

In article <ooso4ctsk0s8n1f86...@4ax.com>, Bill Vanek

<bilv...@invalid.com> wrote:

> >> >
> >> >But what is 1/60th of a degree in inches?
> >> That depends whether it is at 12.5 inches, 12.5 feet, or 12.5
> >> miles.......
> >> You REALLY need to study your high-school math.
> >
> >+5 and high school math... He could go back to school and learn all this for
> >less bux than he wasted-not to mention our time.
> >
> >Drive it to the BMW shop and tell them you want it set to the preferred
> >settings. Make certain all your bushings and arms and their esoterically
> >named crap is brand new because as it wears it will change. Don't hit any
> >curbs, potholes, driveways, obstructions of any sort, or drive it period.
> >Better get new springs too as they will sag and take everything out of the
> >trunk. If it's a convertible weld some stiffeners along the top. Have your
> >partner and you control their weight. Fill up with gas first. Get all
> >pebbles, stones and other safarcus out of the treads. Make certain the tire
> >pressure is within a 10/th of a pound. I am sure I am forgetting
> >something...
>
> I too am starting to wonder if this guy is nuts, or maybe just a
> troll.

could be both.

> There is some very simple math involved here.

and some common sense.

[Tekkie®]

cl...@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...


>

> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:14:34 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
> <Harmo...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >tlvp actually said:
> >
> >> Sheesh, you don't translate angular measurements into linear ones.
> >> An angle isn't a length. Cheers, -- tlvp
> >
> >I agree that I'm confused (which is why I am hesitating to respond because
> >I don't wish to muddy the technical issue further for everyone).
> >
> >The problem with doing camber at home is different from the problem of
> >doing toe at home.
> >
> >For my bimmer, the camber is specified in degrees, and the measurement
> >tools we're exploring measure in degrees.
> >
> >We just have to solve the conceptually simple problem of
> >a. Accuracy to 1 minute of angular measurement
> >b. Creating a wheel plate that meets that accuracy
> >c. Measuring to that accuracy with a mobile device

> >
> >The problem, for my bimmer, is that the manufacturer specifies the toe in

> >degrees, yet we measure in inches. The conversion confuses me to no end
> >(which is obvious to all).
> >
> >However, that specific translation problem may be solved if I trust this
> >layman's chart, for a similar vehicle:
> >http://www.bmwdiy.info/alignment/index.html
> >
> >Which puts the toe-in in inch measurements of:
> >Front toe (left): Minimum = 1/32", Maximum = 3/32"
> >Front toe (right): Minimum = 1/32", Maximum = 3/32"
> >Front toe (total): Minimum = 1/32", Maximum = 3/16"
> >
> >As with all specs written by laypeople, I can't tell if that toe is to the
> >centerline of the bimmer or wheel to wheel but since they specify a
> >single-wheel toe, can I safely presume that the spec is to the *centerline*
> >of the vehicle?
> No you can not. Total toe iis the difference between the track at the
> front of the tire and the track at the rear of the tire. devided by 2.
> The specification on the Bimmer and most cars today is given as the
> toe PER SIDE, which theoretically is 1/2 of the total toe.. The toe
> per wheel is measured to the parallel longitudinal axis of the vehicle
> and is given per wheel to enable centering of the steering linkage so
> the car goes straight when the wheel is centered.
>
> The reason the measurements are given as an angle is because that is
> essentially what you are setting. You are setting the angular
> relationship between the wheel and the longitudinal axis of the car. A
> linear measurement is not an accurate specification because differen
> diameter wheels can be used on vehicles, and the displacement of the
> neasurement from the rolling axis of the tire affects the linear
> measurement, but not the angular measurement.
> If you are not using professional equipment and you are depending on
> calculated linear measurements the ONLY way to aproach the accuracy
> BMW is specifying is by extending the measurement to at least 3 feet,
> prefferably 6 to 10, and calculatinf the offset at that point.
>
> But I'm wasting my breath - You've been told this several times and it
> has not gortten through to you. Stop being a cheap-assed wannabee,
> find a good mechanic - and TRUST HIM. Pay him what the job is worth.
> If you can't afford to proain a bimmer, drive a bloody Chevy!!

Letz see up to +127 ?

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

nospam posted for all of us...


>
> In article <o2ercj$8g5$1...@news.mixmin.net>, John Harmon

> <Harmo...@example.com> wrote:
>
> > My japanese vehicle never breaks.
>
> buy another
>
> > My bimmer always breaks.
>
> sell it or give it away

Yeah, some single mother needs this to stimulate the economy.

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

John Harmon posted for all of us...

The BMW sounds like a great value... Have you considered having it bronzed?

--
Tekkie

[Scott Dorsey]

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= <Tek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The bimmer constantly breaks down, but its handling is nice. However, it's
>> important to know that the bimmer I have is the E39 which has about 20
>> items made like crap, where *everything* else is rock solid.
>>
> So the twenty items made like crap on the E39 are, offhand:
> 1. The cooling system (mostly the idiotic plastic expansion tank)
> 2. The DISA valve (mostly an idiotic plastic flap pin)
> 3. The window regulators (two idiotic plastic rollers)

Many of these are known problems. Things like the cooling system you need
to plan to replace, and not just the expansion tank but also the thermostat
body. You may want to consider one of the aftermarket water pumps that do
not fail also, when it comes time to do your next water pump replacement.

If you haven't replaced your air plenum, you're probably about time for
doing that to do. Do it before it fails.

These are _maintenance_ items that you know are going to fail, not
_repair_ items that you fix when they break. You know it's going to happen,
deal with it before it fails.

> 8. AC control (idiotic FSU/FSR blows its mosfets time and time again)

There's an aftermarket retrofit for this also.

> 9. CCV (aka PCV) (idiotic design creates mayonaise in cold weather locales)

There'a sheet on that one. you're supposed to clean it when you change your
oil. And yes, you're supposed to change your oil often. Follow the extreme
service schedule in the book or get the "old school maintenance" schedule
from the BMWCCA.

> 10. Doors leak water (idiotic lack of glue in the vapor barrier adhesive)
> 11. Trunk wiring (utterly idiotic design has no concept of opening flex!)
> 12. Temperature (idiotic placement of the ambient temperature sensor)
> 13. Windshiled washer system (the entire design is idiotic)
> 14. Jack pads (idiotic lack of a center pin was replaced under TSB)
> 15. AC odors (idiotic lack of a way to vent collected water)
> 16. The cupholders (idiotic design can't be fixed - just throw it away)
> 17. Wood trim (idiodic material was never tested for lifespan)
> 18. Windshield molding (idiotic use of recycled rubber was a disaster)
> 19. Power steering leaks (idiotic design of the I6 hoses & V8 brackets)
> 20. The front shocks were toast within its first year (warranty fix)
> Plus assorted standard maintenance (belts, clutch, fluids, brakes, etc.).

Again, a lot of these are maintenance items, others (like the wood trim)
I haven't heard of.

You should be on your third set of windshield molding by now if you are
replacing it according to normal schedule and keeping the car outside.

The power steering leaks again are what you get if you don't purge the
system annually like the manual says and don't change the hoses when they
start to fail. By now you should have replaced every rubber part under
the hood at least once. If you haven't replaced the pads in the shock
towers and the differential mount, do them now.

> My summary, after owning both from new for over fifteen years each is that
> the BMW is a pain in the ass to repair whenever something does go wrong,
> and things go wrong a lot because BMW doesn't know how to design a complete
> car but the handling is phenominal and the engine is bulletproof.

Most of these things that went wrong are things that a mechanic familiar
with the vehicle should have expected to go wrong and should have taken
care of before they went wrong.

Yes, there's a lot of stuff to do every 3,000 miles including checking
the rubber parts. Yes, there's a transmission fluid change and differential
fluid change every 30,000 miles. Yes, you need to change your brake fluid
every two years and your coolant every fall. There is a _lot_ of maintenance
on these cars.

Do maintenance and you will not have to do so many repairs.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Harmon]

Tekkie? actually said:

> +5 and high school math... He could go back to school and learn all this for
> less bux than he wasted-not to mention our time.

The problem I have is confusion about where the triangles are for toe, and
it has absolutely nothing to do with high school math since the trig
involved is easy (soh, cah, toa) if we only knew where the triangles are.

For example, total toe is specified in *degrees* of all things.
http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg

Yet, total toe is simply the toe measured at the back of the wheel/tire
combination minus the toe measured at the front of the wheel/tire
combination, both of which are *linear* measurements.

Since toe angles are the same no matter what size the wheel/tire
combination, how can total toe be specified in degrees when it's measured
in inches?

Since the tire has the same angle the entire time, there is absolutely no
difference in angle between a toe measured at the front of a wheel/tire and
a toe measured at the back of that wheel/tire!

So, sure, I'm confused because total toe is specified in degrees.
But the confusion has nothing to do with high school trig.

Summarized, if total toe is the difference between toe at the rear of the
tire and toe at the front of the tire, yet, the angle of the wheel/tire
combination to the centerline of the vehicle is the *same* no matter how
large a wheel/tire combination is, then how the heck can total toe be
specified in degrees?

https://s23.postimg.org/ajrtf269n/10_total_toe_angles.gif

[John Harmon]

Bill Vanek actually said:

> I too am starting to wonder if this guy is nuts, or maybe just a
> troll. There is some very simple math involved here.

Hi Bill,

If you can answer this question then it will show that you actually
understand what you call *simple math*.

Here is the question:
https://s23.postimg.org/ajrtf269n/10_total_toe_angles.gif

Summarized, that says: If total toe is the difference in toe between the
rear and front of the tire, and if the difference in angles between the
rear and the front of the tire are exactly the same (by definition, since
the angle of the wheel/tire combination to the centerline of the car is the
same no matter what size the wheel/tire combination is!), then how the heck

[John Harmon]

Xeno actually said:

> You might find these links useful
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jdas8oy

That is a nice total-toe-in-inches to degrees calculator, which takes into
account wheel size, but I'm still a bit confused how total toe can *ever*
be an angle, when the angle at the front of the wheel is exactly the same
as the angle at the rear of the wheel?
https://s23.postimg.org/ajrtf269n/10_total_toe_angles.gif

It's not the math (the math is easy); it's the concept of total toe having
anything whatsoever to do with degrees when it's merely the difference in
toe between the front and rear of the tire when the angle at the front and
the rear is (by virtue of straight lines) exactly the same!

> http://tinyurl.com/jud2p3b

In this case of converting toe angle to inches, it's much easier to
visualize why single-wheel toe is specified in degrees.

Here's a diagram I made which shows that concept, which I agree is very
simple trig (soh cah toa):
https://s18.postimg.org/fq07txfih/11_toe_is_a_triangle.gif

> Note, if you alter camber, toe will alter and you will need to check and
> adjust if required.

Thanks. It seems that the order is "caster, camber, and then toe", in so
much as the two vehicles I have (toyota, bmw) both specify that you adjust
in that order.

Caster affects camber which affects toe so that's why you do it in that
direction.

Intererstingly, from the standpoing of tire wear in normal settings, the
same curve applies which is that caster affects tire wear less than does
camber which affects tire wear less than does toe.

So the order to think of the 3D axis are caster, camber, and toe (in that
order) for the x, y, and z axis.

[John Harmon]

tlvp actually said:

> So don't measure in inches. If you have tools to measure camber in degrees,
> you can surely repurpose them to measure toe-in in degrees also, no?

Let's think about what you just suggested.

While what you said sounds easy, which is that if you can measure camber in
degrees, why can't you measure toe in degrees, your truism ignores the
simple unalterable but very basic fact that the tool uses *gravity* to
measure angles.

That is, gravity-based tools work fine for measuring camber.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/3025271110_ffee13e89e.jpg

But how are you going to shift gravity by 90 degrees in order to measure
toe the same way?

[Bill Vanek]

I replied to your original question days ago, and you ignored that
reply. Regardless of that, your questions have been answered
repeatedly. Toe *is* an angle, but if you know the outside diameter of
the tire, it can also be spec'd in inches, or any other linear
measure. The conversion involves only the measure of sides of a
triangle, which is really basic math. This is my original reply:


Inches depends on the outside diameter of the tire:
https://robrobinette.com/ConvertToeDegreesToInches.htm

Minutes to degrees can be found here:
http://zonalandeducation.com/mmts/trigonometryRealms/degMinSec/degMinSec.htm

Regarding the needed accuracy, it depends on exactly what you are
trying to achieve. There is a wide range in camber that will not cause
any meaningful tire wear. Toe is much more critical, including for
overall feel at higher speeds, but you are also dealing with runout,
and there really isn't any good way to adjust for that at home.

The overall point is that even if you are off with the camber, the
tires are not going to be worn out all that much earlier, so close can
be good enough, especially if you bother with rotation. Toe is much
more important, and if you want that exactly right, pay someone to do
it right. You can get it close at home, but it's just luck if it's
exactly right.

You also have to keep in mind that a rear drive car's toe out will
increase with speed, and a front drive car will do the opposite. There
is plenty of slop in steering & suspension, and you will get varied
readings, especially if you are not using turntables. Sometimes trying
to save money is not such a good idea.

At the same time, finding someone to do the job right can be a
challenge, too. There's plenty of hacks out there.

If all you care about is getting things close enough that there won't
be ridiculously excessive tire wear, then have at it. But if you are
trying to get things just right, both for handling and tire wear
purposes, pay someone.

[Bill Vanek]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 22:49:28 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

>It's not the math (the math is easy); it's the concept of total toe having
>anything whatsoever to do with degrees when it's merely the difference in
>toe between the front and rear of the tire when the angle at the front and
>the rear is (by virtue of straight lines) exactly the same!

That is not at all what total toe means. 0 degrees of toe for a wheel
is when the tire is exactly parallel to the centerline of the car
(that is a simplification, but it's usable here). Toe is a measure of
the variance in degrees from straight ahead. Total toe is merely they
sum of the toe in degrees of both the left and right sides. So if the
left is +2 degrees, and the right is -2 degrees, the total toe is 0
degrees. That means minimum tire wear (theoretically), but the
steering wheel will be a bit off-center.

The difference between the front and back of the tires is used only
for distance measure, not angles.

[John Harmon]

Scott Dorsey actually said:

> Many of these are known problems. Things like the cooling system you need
> to plan to replace, and not just the expansion tank but also the thermostat
> body. You may want to consider one of the aftermarket water pumps that do
> not fail also, when it comes time to do your next water pump replacement.

Hi Scott,

I'm extremely familiar with the BMW, but only you and I seem to know what
we're talking about here.

Unlike Tekkie, nospam, & Jeorg Lorens (who can only troll), I'm intimately
familiar that the cooling system overhaul is a standard maintenance item on
the E39, E38, and E46 (all of which use essentially the same Meyle and
Nissan components) and I am also intimately familiar with the metal-vaned
(petersburgh) water pumps.

The gasket-less MAP thermostat isn't all that bad, but since the water pump
has to be removed anyway, we replace them as a matter of course during the
overhauls (I've done about four overhauls of my entire cooling system
myself).

We all have the special counterholding tools for the fan clutch removal and
we often replace the mechanical or hydraulic tensioners (it's arbitrary
which any one bimmer has) and serpentine belt at the same time since all
that stuff has to come off anyway.

We have it down to a science. In fact, most of us have replaced the
expansion tank cap (I think the ORM is 1.2 bar but I'd have to look that
up) with a lower pressure cap, which doesn't prevent anything from
happening *other* than when it blows, it blows out the cap at a lower
pressure so the expansion tank seams don't split.

We also all know to keep the coolant level LOW (at or below the max at all
times) since too many people overfill the expansion tank. Admittedly, when
it's full, it *looks* empty but that is the way it was designed.

> If you haven't replaced your air plenum, you're probably about time for
> doing that to do. Do it before it fails.

I appreciate the advice, but offhand I'm not sure what you're calling the
"air plenum", but if you're talking about that idiotically designed DISA
valve which moderates the intake manifold harmonics, I'm completely
familiar with the DISA valve engineering flaws and have long ago replaced
the innards with re-engineered ones from Gary at German Engineering
(replace the plastic pin with titanium).

> These are _maintenance_ items that you know are going to fail, not
> _repair_ items that you fix when they break. You know it's going to happen,
> deal with it before it fails.

Again, you and I are probably the only people on this thread who understand
what we're talking about so I'm extremely familiar which what breaks on the
typical E39, E38, and E46 (which are all essentially the same depending on
the years designed).

>> 8. AC control (idiotic FSU/FSR blows its mosfets time and time again)
> There's an aftermarket retrofit for this also.

There are *tons* of aftermarket FSUs, but I'm not aware of any design
change to any other component than the FSU itself.

>> 9. CCV (aka PCV) (idiotic design creates mayonaise in cold weather locales)
>
> There'a sheet on that one. you're supposed to clean it when you change your
> oil. And yes, you're supposed to change your oil often. Follow the extreme
> service schedule in the book or get the "old school maintenance" schedule
> from the BMWCCA.

This one I'm also intimately familiar with, simply because, if you know the
bimmer, you know one of the most difficult standard jobs is to overhaul the
CCV because it's in the middle of the engine so to speak.

What we have all done is we have modified our oil dipstick tubes, because
the CCV dumps cold oil into the dipstick tube, which hardens with contact
with water vapor into the extremely badly designed teeny tiny
concentric-circle space in the two-tubed dipstick.

Also we've all changed the CCV components into the modified cold-weather
ones (insulated) but they're a bear to put in because they're fatter and
there's precious little room in the first place.

Suffice to say that you and I are the only two people here who actually
know what we're talking about (Tekkie, nospam, Jeorg, and a bunch of the
other fools don't have a clue what we're talking about when they bash BMW).

It's nice to know that there are some intelligent people here.
Thanks for being intelligent!

>
>> 10. Doors leak water (idiotic lack of glue in the vapor barrier adhesive)
>> 11. Trunk wiring (utterly idiotic design has no concept of opening flex!)
>> 12. Temperature (idiotic placement of the ambient temperature sensor)
>> 13. Windshiled washer system (the entire design is idiotic)
>> 14. Jack pads (idiotic lack of a center pin was replaced under TSB)
>> 15. AC odors (idiotic lack of a way to vent collected water)
>> 16. The cupholders (idiotic design can't be fixed - just throw it away)
>> 17. Wood trim (idiodic material was never tested for lifespan)
>> 18. Windshield molding (idiotic use of recycled rubber was a disaster)
>> 19. Power steering leaks (idiotic design of the I6 hoses & V8 brackets)
>> 20. The front shocks were toast within its first year (warranty fix)
>> Plus assorted standard maintenance (belts, clutch, fluids, brakes, etc.).
>
> Again, a lot of these are maintenance items, others (like the wood trim)
> I haven't heard of.

I left off a few things because that was an ad-hoc list, but just like the
fact that *all* the cluster and MID pixels go bad, all the wood trim
cracks.

It's not actually the wood that cracks; it's the super thick coating of
varnish on the outside that cracks. It's a warranty repair and I had all my
wood trim replaced under warranty, but the replacement wood trim cracked
just the same.

It's a manufacturing and design flaw that they all have.

> You should be on your third set of windshield molding by now if you are
> replacing it according to normal schedule and keeping the car outside.

The good news about the windshield molding is that it doesn't affect
anything other than looks and noise. It's not a weather item so it doesn't
keep out water.

The bad news is that the Germans use too much recycled rubber, which is the
problem with that windshield molding.

Again, I'm impressed that you're the only one on this newgroup who knows
what he is talking about with respect to bimmers. You'll find I know my
model extremely well (probably better than almost any non mechanic you have
ever met).

That's because I "think" about what I'm doing.
And I collaborate with others to learn from them.

Which is the reason, after all, for this thread.

> The power steering leaks again are what you get if you don't purge the
> system annually like the manual says and don't change the hoses when they
> start to fail. By now you should have replaced every rubber part under
> the hood at least once. If you haven't replaced the pads in the shock
> towers and the differential mount, do them now.

I have done an overhaul of the rubber from buna to viton long ago, and the
worst were the SAP/SAS valves in the back of the intake manifold. They're
impossible to get to under the best of circumstances.

The power steering isn't so bad if you clean the power steering reservoir
filter once every few oil changes with gasoline (most people don't know
that it's even there) and if you replace the oetiker (sp?) clamps with
standard hose clamps and replace the hoses.

The V8 has special problems with the power steering pump bracket breaking,
so a standard maintenance item is to check the bolts every oil change.

The I6 isn't bleedable so you have to suck the fluid out the reservoir with
a turkey baster, but it's not all that bad to do. It's just ATF Dexron IV
(now Dexton VI since Dexron IV lost its copyright long ago).

> Most of these things that went wrong are things that a mechanic familiar
> with the vehicle should have expected to go wrong and should have taken
> care of before they went wrong.

I learned of all the issues by running into them and then learning how to
re-engineer them. My point is that most of these known problems span
models, so, BMW *knows* that they build crappy components but they don't
fix them. So that's just bad engineering on BMW's part.

All BMW cares about is the handling and performance, and, those components
are engineered fantastically well.

> Yes, there's a lot of stuff to do every 3,000 miles including checking
> the rubber parts. Yes, there's a transmission fluid change and differential
> fluid change every 30,000 miles. Yes, you need to change your brake fluid
> every two years and your coolant every fall. There is a _lot_ of maintenance
> on these cars.

I disagree with *some* of what you just wrote.

Most bimmer owners have learned NOT to change the "lifetime" transmission
fluid for two key reasons. The first is that many people have had failures
just *after* changing the fluid where the hypothesis is that "stuff" got
mixed up and moved about (like crud). The second is that it's actually not
trivial to change the transmission fluid because of the specific
temperature requirements (which most people skip).

Just like most people skip the 500 pounds of weight to set the ride height
to "normal" when aligning the car, most people skip steps when changing the
transmission fluid - and problems arise as a result.

But I do agree that BMW used crappy BUNA rubber for things that get hot,
such as the valve cover gasket (which fails on almost every engine!). BMW
has since replaced BUNA with Viton but they didnt' tell their customers
that so for years customers were replacing the buna VCG with another crappy
buna VCG.

> Do maintenance and you will not have to do so many repairs.
> --scott

BTW, are you the "Magnum" "Scott" of BMW fame?
If so, we actually know each other and we have common friends who have both
beemers and bimmers.

Either way, it's a *pleasure* to speak with someone who is not only
intelligent, but who knows what he's talking about (which most of the fools
in this thread don't).

[John Harmon]

Joerg Lorenz actually said:

> The problem is obviously not the hardware; it is the user.

Jeorg Lorenz,

Why do you pollute this thread with your worthless OT drivel?
You don't know the answer to *any* question asked.
Not one.

Yet, Jeorg Lorenz you pollute the thread nonetheless.

[John Harmon]

nospam actually said:

> only because you're too stupid to figure out how, particularly after
> people repeatedly explain to you exactly how.

nospam,

Why do you constantly pollute this thread with your worthless drivel?
You don't know the answer to *any* question asked in this thread.
Not one.

Yet, nospam, you pollute the thread nonetheless.

[John Harmon]

Tekkie? actually said:

> The BMW sounds like a great value... Have you considered having it bronzed?

Tekkie,

Why do you constantly pollute this thread with your worthless drivel?

You don't know the answer to *any* question asked.
Not one.

Yet, you pollute the thread nonetheless.

[John Harmon]

Andy Burns actually said:

> Smartphones contain 3-axis accelerometer chips and magnetic compass
> chips, but AFAIK (unlike digital levels) they don't contain an
> inclinometer chip, so the accuracy from a phone is not likely to be
> high, the "bubble level" apps you can get for phones are a bit of a
> joke, they'll probably be influenced by large chunks of metal nearby.

Thank you Andy for staying on topic and helping to increase the tribal
knowledge here with respect to the accuracy that a smartphone has for
measuring angles.

Apparently a smartphone accelerometer is used for measuring angles, which
fits a camber measurement application, but for the life of me, I don't see
how a smarphone accelerometer can fit a toe-angle application.

Can you?

> The spec of the MEMS inclinometers in digital levels seems to be +/-6
> minutes when measuring horizontal or vertical and +/-12 minutes for
> other angles, so even they would be marginal.

Thanks for explaining that the accuracy of the MEMS inclinometer in digital
levels is six to twelve minutes.

This Home Depot blurb says a common 10-inch Husky is "Accurate to 1/10 of a
degree", which is in the range you stated.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Husky-10-in-Multi-Function-Standard-Digital-Level-THD9403/205999357

[John Harmon]

amdx actually said:

> If either of those devices had a laser pointer in them that point
> up, you could do a trig problem using the ceiling for camber, and on the
> front wall by rotating the device 90* for toe.

I think you're one of the few people who are actually *thinking* about what
they are saying on this thread, and for that, I very much appreciate your
sugestions.

It seems, from what Andy Burns intimated, that the smart phones use
gravity-based accelerometers (with the compass) and not inclinometers, so,
while they can be used for camber, the accuracy will be about plus or minus
six minutes.

However, to use them for toe (as I think it was tlvp who suggested that),
would be folly, I think, simply because toe is in a different plane where
gravity isn't different for various angles of toe.

However, the laser beam is in the right plane for toe measurements!
So is the centerline of the car.

So it should, in theory, be easy to do something like this:
a. Attach a laser to the car centerline and mark where it hits a wall.
b. Attach that laser to the wheel and mark where it intersects.
c. That's the triangle!
https://s18.postimg.org/fq07txfih/11_toe_is_a_triangle.gif

NOTE: I haven't calculated yet the *distance* it would take for the
centerline and tire to hit the wall, which could be prohibitive.

> Hey, just noticed your link,
> http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg
> has the sears level shown here,
> http://www.sears.com/craftsman-10-in-digital-lasertrac-reg-level/p-00948292000P?sid=BVReview

That level is "accurate to 1/10th of a degree" (six minutes) so that must
be the standard accuracy of the inclinometers in digital levels.

> The Sears level does have a laser in it.
> That will do what I suggest, rotate it 90* and point it forward to see
> a spot on the wall. Find the centerline of your car and then it's a
> simple trig problem.

I think you hit upon a good idea which is to use the laser as the straight
line for the vehicle centerline and for the tire angle, because where they
intersect will be the triangle we need to measure.
http://i.cubeupload.com/BzNqBY.gif

The only problem may be the length of the Adjacent (centerline) mark.

> The hard part, finding the centerline of your car.
> I'm not sure this helps you though, I saw no evidence that you
> understood how the trig solves turning the angle into inches.

The trig is easy. soh cah toa.
What's hard is figuring out what the triangles are for "total toe":
https://s23.postimg.org/ajrtf269n/10_total_toe_angles.gif

Most people here don't even understand the question because they keep
saying it's a math problem. But the math is trivial. My confusion is how on
earth do they specific total toe in degrees when total toe is simply the
difference in toe from the rear to the front of the tire/wheel but toe
angles are the *same* at the rear and front of the wheel!

I'm sure the answer to that question is simple but everyone says it's a
math trig issue but it's really a conceptual misunderstanding on my part.

[John Harmon]

tlvp actually said:

> Same here, but about temperatures using wall thermometers: people always
> spec out temperature in degrees but all I see is how many inches the column

> of mercury is, no idea how to convert degrees into inches here either :-) .

I think you (yet again) completely missed the point.

The math for single-wheel toe is trivial which even you seem to understand.
https://s18.postimg.org/fq07txfih/11_toe_is_a_triangle.gif

However, I said I was confused about total toe.

The toe in the front of a wheel/tire combination is the same in degrees as
the toe at the rear of that same wheel/tire combination (and, in fact, no
matter what size the wheel/tire combaination, the toe is the same degrees
of angle).

Yet, total toe is merely the difference in toe from the rear of the
wheel/tire to the front.

And total toe is specified in degrees.
https://s23.postimg.org/ajrtf269n/10_total_toe_angles.gif

[John Harmon]

Scott Dorsey actually said:

> Yes, you need to change your brake fluid

Hi Scott,

In the case of the brake fluid, most of us use the ATE super racing blue
stuff (even though blue is not an official DOT color) and then the "amber"
ATE DOT4 where we alternate from non-DOT blue to DOT-amber.

However, this is normal maintenance for any car, since brake fluid is
hygroscopic,

The bimmer has 6 brake hoses though, two of which fray because they're too
close to the exhaust manifold on the I6 (just behind the ABS control
module, which is also too close to the exhaust manifold, even with the heat
sheild that BMW added), so *they* have to be periodically replaced.

Again, I do appreciate that you are one of the very (very) few people on
this newsgroup who know what you're talking about.

Many of the others (e.g., nospam, Tekkie, Jeorg, etc.) are clueless fools
who wouldn't know a bimmer from a beemer if it hit them.

[Vic Smith]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 00:08:52 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon
<Harmo...@example.com> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey actually said:
>
>> Yes, you need to change your brake fluid
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>In the case of the brake fluid, most of us use the ATE super racing blue
>stuff (even though blue is not an official DOT color) and then the "amber"
>ATE DOT4 where we alternate from non-DOT blue to DOT-amber.
>
>However, this is normal maintenance for any car, since brake fluid is
>hygroscopic,
>

I've never changed brake fluid in 50 years of car/truck ownership.
So it's not "normal" to me.

[John Harmon]

Bill Vanek actually said:

> Toe *is* an angle, but if you know the outside diameter of
> the tire, it can also be spec'd in inches, or any other linear
> measure. The conversion involves only the measure of sides of a
> triangle, which is really basic math.

I had/have no problem with the trigonometry, since it's simple soh cah toa
stuff, these triangles.

My main problem is where was the triangle.

It seems to me that, if toe is specified in inches, then the triangle
should be specified at some known point off from the center of the wheel to
the centerline of the car.

If they specify toe at any other point than a known point off from the
center of the wheel, then they have to specify how far they are from that
known point for any inches-to-degrees conversion to apply.

Isn't that right?

> Inches depends on the outside diameter of the tire:
> https://robrobinette.com/ConvertToeDegreesToInches.htm

I completely understand that measuring inches from the tire tread to the
centerline of the car and then using that as the "opposite" in the
trigonometric soh cah toa, will come up with the wrong angle which will be
more and more wrong the further the measurement is taken from the center
point of the wheel.

When they specify toe in inches, why don't they just specify it from the
rim of the wheel (instead of from the tread of the tires?)

> Minutes to degrees can be found here:
> http://zonalandeducation.com/mmts/trigonometryRealms/degMinSec/degMinSec.htm

I can convert with basic sohcahtoa trig but I need to visualize the
triangles first.

> Regarding the needed accuracy, it depends on exactly what you are
> trying to achieve. There is a wide range in camber that will not cause
> any meaningful tire wear.

I have learned a lot about this accuracy problem since I opened this
thread, which I can summarize as no basic home tool will get the accuracy
specified by BMW (which is 1 minute for camber).

However, you really don't *need* that accuracy (which is what you are
saying).

An inclinometer will get us to about 1/10th of a degree (six minutes) of
accuracy as stated on thisadvertising blurb:
http://www.sears.com/craftsman-10-in-digital-lasertrac-reg-level/p-00948292000P

A typical smartphone apparently uses either a gyro or a magnetic compass
and accelerometer, which can't get to the same accuracy (it seems) as an
inclinometer can (or so I'm told).

However, in the end, a "smidge" of negative camber (about a degree or so)
is probably in the accuracy range we really need, which a smartphone can
do.

> Toe is much more critical, including for
> overall feel at higher speeds, but you are also dealing with runout,
> and there really isn't any good way to adjust for that at home.

Static toe is actually easier to measure and harder to measure than camber,
it seems.

It's easier because it's easy to measure distances and then convert those
distances to degrees using basic sohcahtoa trig.

It's harder because you can't easily measure degrees of toe with a typical
inclinometer level or smartphone gyro/compass/accelerometer because they're
based on gravity which is in a different plane for measuring camber angles
as it is for measuring toe angles.

> The overall point is that even if you are off with the camber, the
> tires are not going to be worn out all that much earlier, so close can
> be good enough, especially if you bother with rotation.

BMW does not recommend ever rotating tires, but they don't care about tire
wear. The camber is only adjustable in the rear and it's pretty high (I
forget but it's at least 2 degrees negative camber for each rear wheel).
That wears out the inner edge like you can't believe.

Me? I'm ok with zero camber but that can't be obtained (the last alignment
proved that). But I think 1.5 or 1 degrees was what the guy was able to get
me.

So, for me, the camber setting would be to simply put it at the lowest it
will go (least negative) for the bimmer but for the toyota I have a wider
range (where only the front camber can be set because the toyota has a
solid rear axle so nothing is settable).

As for wear, it seem everything goes in this direction:
1. caster
2. camber
3. toe

In that caster is done first, then camber, and then toe, and in that wear
is least with caster and then more with camber and then even more with toe
(under typical settings).

It's just x y z planar stuff. :)

> Toe is much
> more important, and if you want that exactly right, pay someone to do
> it right. You can get it close at home, but it's just luck if it's
> exactly right.

I have done my toe when I replaced tierod ends, pitman arms, and idler
arms, and then when I took the cars for alignment, the toe was spot on.

So I think toe is easy, compared to caster and camber.

> You also have to keep in mind that a rear drive car's toe out will
> increase with speed, and a front drive car will do the opposite.

I'm an old man who has never had a FWD car and I hope that I die before I
ever stoop that low.

So all my questions are for RWD vehicles.

> There
> is plenty of slop in steering & suspension, and you will get varied
> readings, especially if you are not using turntables. Sometimes trying
> to save money is not such a good idea.

The simple test is to set the alignment at home, and then take it to the
shop for double checking. Many shops offer free tests if nothing needs to
be changed; but I would hesitate to take them up on that only because they
can always find something so I suspect that's just a gimmick.

Has anyone here ever gotten the "free test" actually for free if there was
nothing to change? Or do they always find "something"?

> At the same time, finding someone to do the job right can be a
> challenge, too. There's plenty of hacks out there.

Never in my life (and I'm an old man) have I seen a mechanic install a tire
correctly (I use Tire Rack authorized installers), so I suspect it's the
same with alignment.

For example, I had to bring 500 pounds of my own weights to my last
alignment. The alignment guy *knew* how to do it right, he just knew that
most of this customers don't have a clue.

It's the same with the tire mounting shops. They *know* how to do it right,
but they also know most of their customers don't have a clue so they get
lazy.

I doubt a single car tire is installed correctly, by the book, on any car
taken to the typical tire shops (wheel works, goodyear, midas, etc.).

> If all you care about is getting things close enough that there won't
> be ridiculously excessive tire wear, then have at it. But if you are
> trying to get things just right, both for handling and tire wear
> purposes, pay someone.

I think the summary is this simple.

A. Check the alignment at home for the things that can be adjusted.
For my Toyota, that's only caster, camber, and toe in the front, and for my
bimmer, that's only camber and toe on the rear and toe on the front.

B. Adjust if necessary (using a smart phone or inclinometer for camber, and
a tape measure for toe). I'm not sure how to do caster in the toyota since
I only just found out that the caster is adjustable on the toyota.

C. Take it to one of those "free if it's ok" shops, and see what they get
for measurements.

If I'm perfect, it's free (I assume); if it needs adjusting, then I learn
what can and can't be done.

[John Harmon]

Bill Vanek actually said:

> That is not at all what total toe means.

If I misunderstand what "total toe" means, then that is probably the root
of my confusion that toe at the front of the wheel is the same angle as toe
at the back of the wheel, yet total toe is specified in angles and (I
thought) that total toe is the difference in toe from the back to the
front.

> 0 degrees of toe for a wheel
> is when the tire is exactly parallel to the centerline of the car
> (that is a simplification, but it's usable here).

I don't understand why that is a *simplification* because it seems to be
true by definition that if the wheel/tire angle to the centerline of the
car is zero, then there is zero static toe.

Dynamic toe might be difference because a suspension uses complex geometry.

> Toe is a measure of
> the variance in degrees from straight ahead.

Yup. Toe is the angle difference that the wheel/tire is pointing versus
where the centerline of the car is pointing.


> Total toe is merely the

> sum of the toe in degrees of both the left and right sides.

Ah. If *that* is "total toe" then that's a completely different story!

If "total toe" is simply the toe at the front driver's wheel plus the toe
at the front passenger-side wheel, then that is trivial to understand.

But that's not what others said "total toe" was.
But, you must be right because if total toe was what others said it was
(which is the difference in toe from the back and front of any one wheel),
then it can't possibly be specified in degrees.

So what you explain is "total toe" makes far more sense than what others
explained as total toe.

> So if the
> left is +2 degrees, and the right is -2 degrees, the total toe is 0
> degrees.

That makes sense if we use a definition of total toe which adds up the toe
of each tire on the axle instead of calculating the difference of toe
between the front and back of any one wheel on the axle.

So probably I was misled by someone's (I forget who) explanation that total
toe was the difference in measured toe from the back of the wheel to
centerline and the front of that same wheel to centerline.

> That means minimum tire wear (theoretically), but the
> steering wheel will be a bit off-center.

The steering wheel is (mostly) unrelated to alignment but I know what you
mean when you say that. I also know that you were using theoretical numbers
which make sense.

In the real world, the toe is generally similar (if not the same) between
two wheels on the axle (such as 1/32nd of an inch for each wheel, for a
"total toe" using your definition of total toe, of 1/16th of an inch).

> The difference between the front and back of the tires is used only
> for distance measure, not angles.

That statement makes sense because the angle at the front of the tire with
respect to centerline is the same as the angle at the back of the tire with
respect to centerline - which is why they put individual toe in angles -
because angles are independent of wheel/tire size.

In summary, I was misled by someone's definition of total toe being the
difference in distance between the front and back of a tire to centerline.

If total toe is defined as the combined toe of both wheels on the axle,
then total toe can easily be defined in either inches or in angles.

Now it makes sense.
Thanks!