# re drillin holes to get more negative camber on stock arms!



## queensbridgE (Oct 21, 2011)

someone mention to me that i can get -4 camber on stock arms if i re drill holes , has anyone done this? if so could you post some pictures , im trying to see if i can do this myself this weekend would save me a few bucks on buying rear camber arms. Thanks id appreciate all input!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Bad idea.


----------



## racin2redline (Sep 25, 2008)

That has fail written all over it. I wouldn't try it


----------



## LF_gottron (Jan 24, 2013)

im assuming you mean for the front, i used to be in the mkv world and people did that to the top hat all the time. i want to do this too. Im assuming just remove your front control arms and make the holes as long as possible


----------



## racin2redline (Sep 25, 2008)

queensbridgE said:


> im trying to see if i can do this myself this weekend would save me a few bucks on buying rear camber arms. Thanks id appreciate all input!


He said rear. The stock rear arms are already prone to failure when lowered. Especially the lower ones. Do it the right way. The fronts are a different story.


----------



## LF_gottron (Jan 24, 2013)

racin2redline said:


> He said rear. The stock rear arms are already prone to failure when lowered. Especially the lower ones. Do it the right way. The fronts are a different story.


my bad well yeah id buy aftermarket ones and then you have tons of adjustability. i have -10 in the rear right now


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Assuming it's the rear you're talking about, they are not only super flimsy on the yoke end, but also don't have room to safely drill holes outboard (inboard would require taking material away to make clearance for rose joint/bushing housing on the hub). Not really a good idea unless you have a death wish.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

LF_gottron said:


> i used to be in the mkv world and people did that to the top hat all the time. i want to do this too. Im assuming just remove your front control arms and make the holes as long as possible


Not possible! The front arms are cast with slotted holes already in them. There is no meat left to elongate the existing holes outboard. Our floating top hat also doesn't offer room for re-drilling unless you part ways with the design. DougLobue had adapted conventional 3-point bolted hats in his old black TT, so it's possible to convert and reposition everything inboard to give the desired static camber. 

Where you can really go nuts is at the bottom (not on the arms though). Since were blessed with bolt in ball joints, extender plates can be made to rposition the hub outward or forward to give more camber and caster. I have done it to my car and have been running them for years now. They allowed me get up to -5 degree if static camber and close to 10 degree of caster. I'm also actually making adapters that are repositioning the strut assembly inward to allow much wider wheels to be fitted (12" wide with no scrub and rubbing issues), and this approach can have extra negative camber dialed into the design. Lots of possibilities.


















Finished product


----------



## queensbridgE (Oct 21, 2011)

marcus thanks for the reply brotha , can you direct me to where you purchase or name of the caster plates , need something to give me atleast -5 camber fronts , ive tried ebay yet with no luck. Id apppreciate it thanks!


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

queensbridgE said:


> marcus thanks for the reply brotha , can you direct me to where you purchase or name of the caster plates , need something to give me atleast -5 camber fronts , ive tried ebay yet with no luck. Id apppreciate it thanks!


Unfortunately there is no off-the-shelf camber/caster plates or off-centric bushings that will give that much negative static camber. The ball joint extending plates shown above had to be fabricated. I first cut the plates in a shape that would fit the control arms and not hit the rotor at full lock (ball joints rotate following tie-rod motion but the bolted base stays static when the rotor is angled. Therefore it's not easy to get right) - then calculated and drilled the offset holes to give the desired camber and caster (here too it needs to be precise because too much camber compensation will stretch the axle out of specs and too much caster will make the tire contact the number/fender area due to the forward realignment) - and finally added studs, then bolted and welded them to the BJ to ensure acceptable structural integrity. 

There are a few options as far camber compensation for the front, but they will only get you to high 2's maybe 3 degree at very low static height (the popular ones are Ground Control plates and the SPC offset top hat bushings). If you really want to get to those levels that you're looking for, you're going to have to start designing and fabricating custom pieces.:beer:

PS: your SN says QB, where are you located?


----------



## Deceitful (Sep 30, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Unfortunately there is no off-the-shelf camber/caster plates or off-centric bushings that will give that much negative static camber. The ball joint extending plates shown above had to be fabricated.


 Camber, caster, more range of motion.
https://www.innfab.com/store.html#!/~/product/category=0&id=21595737


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Deceitful said:


> Camber, caster, more range of motion.
> https://www.innfab.com/store.html#!/~/product/category=0&id=21595737


Thanks for getting me in the loop with the IDF tubular control arms. 

Yes they do have 1/2 a degree of caster dialed in (nothing to write home about btw), and slotted ball joint mounting holes (just like OEM). As I said, there is no off-the-shelf solution that offers that much static camber and the IDF not an exception. So, a small, negligible bit of caster, comparable camber adjustability as OEM arms, some Heim joints, and a sizable price tag is all I've always seen in them. 

More range of motion? Isn't that limited by your strut travel? I don't know of a strut that has more compression or droop than OEM arms can accommodate for with plenty of room to spare. With NORMAL dynamic operation, you're on the bump stops in both directions with the factory arms and they're nowhere near interfering with anything (having the frame on the floor with bags don't count because there's no motion at that point... maybe except for... Jame's car :laugh.


----------



## Deceitful (Sep 30, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Thanks for getting me in the loop with the IDF tubular control arms.
> 
> Yes they do have 1/2 a degree of caster dialed in (nothing to write home about btw), and slotted ball joint mounting holes (just like OEM). As I said, there is no off-the-shelf solution that offers that much static camber and the IDF not an exception. So, a small, negligible bit of caster, comparable camber adjustability as OEM arms, some Heim joints, and a sizable price tag is all I've always seen in them.
> 
> More range of motion? Isn't that limited by your strut travel? I don't know of a strut that has more compression or droop than OEM arms can accommodate for with plenty of room to spare. With NORMAL dynamic operation, you're on the bump stops in both directions with the factory arms and they're nowhere near interfering with anything (having the frame on the floor with bags don't count because there's no motion at that point... maybe except for... Jame's car :laugh.


I'm sorry that Im not familiar with everything you do or do not know of "oh track god of TT's" 

I was thrown off by the "NO off the shelf camber/caster" Usually that means zero, but in this case there is at least one. 

And no, it does not offer as much adjustment as the OP is looking for, but -3* compared to the stock 1.28* is a little more tangible, and .5* of caster over the 0 from the stock arms. Heim joints are a plus which relieves the replacement of bushings a little less often while also giving up some of the slack the poly-urethane or rubber counterparts leave you with. And $525 is not that sizable of a price tag if you subtract the cost of bushings, cost of arms if you are in the market to replace and or if you sell the OEM arms. 

And yes, I am on air, which is why the larger range of motion is needed for me, because the rear control arm maxes out on the subframe before the subframe can touch the ground. And not only does that help with the stress that I put on those bushings by having a heim joint instead, I would be able to keep my car parked aired down and not have to worry about damaging or unseating some less than adequate bushings for the application that I need it for while also taking some slop out of the suspension. Low static guys can gain from this as well. 

I'm pretty sure that anyone that is looking for that much front or rear camber is not worried about the aesthetics of operating at a track car level, So you're safe to take a back seat with this one. :beer:


----------



## queensbridgE (Oct 21, 2011)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Unfortunately there is no off-the-shelf camber/caster plates or off-centric bushings that will give that much negative static camber. The ball joint extending plates shown above had to be fabricated. I first cut the plates in a shape that would fit the control arms and not hit the rotor at full lock (ball joints rotate following tie-rod motion but the bolted base stays static when the rotor is angled. Therefore it's not easy to get right) - then calculated and drilled the offset holes to give the desired camber and caster (here too it needs to be precise because too much camber compensation will stretch the axle out of specs and too much caster will make the tire contact the number/fender area due to the forward realignment) - and finally added studs, then bolted and welded them to the BJ to ensure acceptable structural integrity.
> 
> There are a few options as far camber compensation for the front, but they will only get you to high 2's maybe 3 degree at very low static height (the popular ones are Ground Control plates and the SPC offset top hat bushings). If you really want to get to those levels that you're looking for, you're going to have to start designing and fabricating custom pieces.:beer:
> 
> PS: your SN says QB, where are you located?



im actually located in socal lol... how much will a pair of these run me if you where to fabricate some for me , i mean your really my last resort , im very interested if you want we can text / talk shoot me a msg we can talk further about it.


----------



## queensbridgE (Oct 21, 2011)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Unfortunately there is no off-the-shelf camber/caster plates or off-centric bushings that will give that much negative static camber. The ball joint extending plates shown above had to be fabricated. I first cut the plates in a shape that would fit the control arms and not hit the rotor at full lock (ball joints rotate following tie-rod motion but the bolted base stays static when the rotor is angled. Therefore it's not easy to get right) - then calculated and drilled the offset holes to give the desired camber and caster (here too it needs to be precise because too much camber compensation will stretch the axle out of specs and too much caster will make the tire contact the number/fender area due to the forward realignment) - and finally added studs, then bolted and welded them to the BJ to ensure acceptable structural integrity.
> 
> There are a few options as far camber compensation for the front, but they will only get you to high 2's maybe 3 degree at very low static height (the popular ones are Ground Control plates and the SPC offset top hat bushings). If you really want to get to those levels that you're looking for, you're going to have to start designing and fabricating custom pieces.:beer:
> 
> PS: your SN says QB, where are you located?



im actually located in socal lol... how much will a pair of these run me if you where to fabricate some for me , i mean your really my last resort , im very interested if you want we can text / talk shoot me a msg we can talk further about it.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Deceitful said:


> Camber, caster, more range of motion.
> https://www.innfab.com/store.html#!/~/product/category=0&id=21595737



That's pricey!  The thought of a tubular set has crossed my mind a few times un the past few weeks. They would be pretty simple to build, and even reproduce with ease. Would probably cost $200 a set or so.


----------



## Deceitful (Sep 30, 2005)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> That's pricey!  The thought of a tubular set has crossed my mind a few times un the past few weeks. They would be pretty simple to build, and even reproduce with ease. Would probably cost $200 a set or so.



Correct, these could easily be produced in the shed for less. But locating the correct heims, building a jig, buying tubing and plate, welding equipment and supplies, thread-all and powdercoat, I'd rather just buy them :laugh:


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Good point. :laugh: I guess I was just thinking about how I having those things already.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Deceitful said:


> I'm pretty sure that anyone that is looking for that much front or rear camber is not worried about the aesthetics of operating at a track car level, So you're safe to take a back seat with this one. :beer:


You don't have to worry about me not taking a back seat on this one boss. Anything beyond practical dynamic operation is out of my comprehension, so I couldn't even discuss, let alone argue something I don't even comprehend. That's also why my post insisted on 'normal operating conditions' with the word normal in bold. 

LMAO on "aesthetics of operating at a track car level" though :wave:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Deceitful said:


> And no, it does not offer as much adjustment as the OP is looking for, but -3* compared to the stock 1.28* is a little more tangible, and .5* of caster over the 0 from the stock arms. Heim joints are a plus which relieves the replacement of bushings a little less often while also giving up some of the slack the poly-urethane or rubber counterparts leave you with. And $525 is not that sizable of a price tag if you subtract the cost of bushings, cost of arms if you are in the market to replace and or if you sell the OEM arms.


The camber, if those numbers are accurate, would be a nice gain. However, the caster of 0.5* is over ~7* stock, so it's 7 --> 7.5*, which is nothing. What you are calling "slack" is really "compliance" and is desireable in street cars. Heim joints will not outlast the bushings, unless you are binding and therefore destroying the bushings or popping them out of the arms, which you obviously have since you are worried about touching your subframe to the ground, and they aren't cheap to replace either. $525 is a lot for something that only offers benefits to you while you're parked and "air'ed out", but I guess that's not much on top of a super dooper air system. :thumbdown:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> You don't have to worry about me not taking a back seat on this one boss. Anything beyond practical dynamic operation is out of my comprehension, so I couldn't even discuss, let alone argue something I don't even comprehend. That's also why my post insisted on 'normal operating conditions' with the word normal in bold.
> 
> LMAO on "aesthetics of operating at a track car level" though :wave:


And the reason you can't comprehend has nothing to do with being limited on intelligence. :laugh:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Oh this thread is getting good nowopcorn:


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

20v master said:


> And the reason you can't comprehend has nothing to do with being limited on intelligence. :laugh:


That can be argued... The closed mindedness of you parking lot heros is a bit ridiculous. :screwy: Making your TT perform well is great. Having it be a "track" built only car is awesome. Your dedication to product development is appreciated. Your close minded, superior attitude towards purpose built show cars is pretty lame. Regardless of the type of build benefits can be had from nearly every upgrade part offered. The claims of "mishandling" maybe true to an extent. Suspension upgrades are a way to make corrections, even for those who have air suspension. As Brian stated, there are a different set of benefits to the tubular arms. Whether you choose to use your "small mind" on the subject is up to you...

It's crazy that you can't see that some of these "mishandling" cars are very well thought out to the smallest of details. They are built as displays of Audi's sport luxury side of the car. Performance is still desired, but the desire to live life a parking lot full of cones at a time is not. 

You are a smart guy Max, but the superior attitude that you display regularly is very obnoxious. Their plenty of others that know their sh*t as well, but chose to build with asthetics in mind, this time...




PLAYED TT said:


> Oh this thread is getting good nowopcorn:


:wave:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm not choosing a side today, but I will say this...The OP is looking for a way to cheaply get camber front and rear. *For the rear the answer that still comes up after being a member on her for 4+ years is YOU DONT OWN A TT YOU SUPPORT IT!* That being said sure there are cheap ways to do everything and they will all eventually bite you in the ass. As for the front the OP (no offense) he is looking for an off the shelf solution. I'm not hiding the fact there are people on here with engineering degrees, home grown tinkering degrees and the ever increasing "Is your IQ even high enough to operate a motor vehicle" degree. We all know what he wants he cant have here without digging deeper than bolt ons. OP it takes time to figure these things out. Hell when I got my TT another saying was TT's dont go low without bags. Now I laugh at that. As of now get 4 rear adjustable arms, slam it and be happy with -1.5 and -5 degrees. /rant


PS still wondering what size these aggressive wheels are that you insist they cant fit. 
opcorn:


----------



## queensbridgE (Oct 21, 2011)

Im running 18x10 +6 225/40/18 and lowered on tein coilcovers and I cant seem be able to turn the wheel even with a slight pull and rolled on the fenders. Thanks for all the input guys didn't mean to bring so much controversy over some camber lol. Im not trying to cheap out im coming from a niss 350z where parts available like hookers in vegas. It amuses how limited these cars are to aftermarket parts.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Hate to say it but the only person who can run 10's up front has widened fenders. Even with lots of camber that may not be possible


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> Hate to say it but the only person who can run 10's up front has widened fenders. Even with lots of camber that may not be possible


It's very possible. There are 9.5" wheels on the car I just bought from Miami, but they stick way out to clear the 14" brakes. You just can't lower the car enough to be slammed, tucking, draggin, scraping, and looking overall retarded. It goes both ways, tires and wheels sticking 2" out past the fender is just as silly and unattractive visually, nevermind the uselessness, *IMMFHO* (since everything has to be prefaced so as to not hurt anyone's feelings, if you disagree I don't really care) as the frame touching the ground.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

20v master said:


> It's very possible. There are 9.5" wheels on the car I just bought from Miami, but they stick way out to clear the 14" brakes. You just can't lower the car enough to be slammed, tucking, draggin, scraping, and looking overall retarded. It goes both ways, tires and wheels sticking 2" out past the fender is just as silly and unattractive visually, nevermind the uselessness, *IMMFHO* (since everything has to be prefaced so as to not hurt anyone's feelings, if you disagree I don't really care) as the frame touching the ground.


Well yeah its possible if you could get lots of negative camber in the front. But that brings us back to square one. I just dont think its possible for the OP to get what he wants


----------



## queensbridgE (Oct 21, 2011)

well i did it , i just ordered a set of kmac front caster plates i talk to the manufacture and they said ill be able to get about -5 with these so ill post pictures once i get them and install them. Lets see if i can make it work.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

:thumbup: 

Lets see a picture of the wheels.


Here is a 10" et10 up front. That's a lot to tip in.


----------



## queensbridgE (Oct 21, 2011)




----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

F14's, nice choice.:thumbup: If you are going to start doing some work to your lady, start a built thread. I'd love to see how these fit, and shape the styling of the car. :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> That can be argued... The closed mindedness of you parking lot heros is a bit ridiculous. :screwy: Making your TT perform well is great. Having it be a "track" built only car is awesome. Your dedication to product development is appreciated. Your close minded, superior attitude towards purpose built show cars is pretty lame. Regardless of the type of build benefits can be had from nearly every upgrade part offered. The claims of "mishandling" maybe true to an extent. Suspension upgrades are a way to make corrections, even for those who have air suspension. As Brian stated, there are a different set of benefits to the tubular arms. Whether you choose to use your "small mind" on the subject is up to you...
> 
> It's crazy that you can't see that some of these "mishandling" cars are very well thought out to the smallest of details. They are built as displays of Audi's sport luxury side of the car. Performance is still desired, but the desire to live life a parking lot full of cones at a time is not.
> 
> ...


Superior attitude, when all I did was try to guide the OP towards achieving his goal -5 or more camber? I can't control that some people will feel inferior by the content of what I post, just like I can't help the fact that there are some that will appreciate, or find it useful. I won't change what I'm into to please you or anyone, just like I wouldn't expect you to suddenly be into what us "parking lot heros" do. However, where you got me totally wrong is by thinking or assuming that I don't respect the craftsmanship and detail put into some show builds. I am a subscriber/avid reader of your build (which I find the body work modifications impressive), Morio's, Ben's, James's just to name a few, yet I'm closed minded to show builds. :screwy: I could easily say the same about your attitude with some of your comments, but honestly I'm not phased by what you think it is that we do. 

I love to help, and that's what made me not small minded enough to decide to post and help the guy who's doing something different than what I chose to do with my car (Just like I took the time to provide what I could when you were tackling a project). If I was as closed minded as you put it, or felt above what you guys do, I wouldn't be posting or trying to help. Now, if you looked in the mirror, you'd realize that you're doing the very thing that you're blaming me of. Not that I care one bit, but doesn't your tone ("parking lot full of cones" etc.) suggest that you feel superior to how local club-level solo events are conducted? 

BTW, not that you'd care either, but real SCCA solo events are mostly done on open deserted air strips or the likes, and I'm only a hero in "parking lots" because roadsters aren't allowed on road courses without much improved roll over protection (which is about to change for me and my car). Anyway, I'll be careful not to interfere with my obnoxious superior attitude in threads that involves dedicated show cars (not that what I had had to provide would mean much anyway). Carry on! :wave:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

This thread :facepalm:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> That can be argued... The closed mindedness of you parking lot heros is a bit ridiculous. :screwy: Making your TT perform well is great. Having it be a "track" built only car is awesome. Your dedication to product development is appreciated. Your close minded, superior attitude towards purpose built show cars is pretty lame. Regardless of the type of build benefits can be had from nearly every upgrade part offered. The claims of "mishandling" maybe true to an extent. Suspension upgrades are a way to make corrections, even for those who have air suspension. As Brian stated, there are a different set of benefits to the tubular arms. Whether you choose to use your "small mind" on the subject is up to you...
> 
> It's crazy that you can't see that some of these "mishandling" cars are very well thought out to the smallest of details. They are built as displays of Audi's sport luxury side of the car. Performance is still desired, but the desire to live life a parking lot full of cones at a time is not.
> 
> ...


X2 tired of the condescending attitude of certain ppl on here. They cant just share what they know they gotta throw it in ppls faces. 

And it doesn't help Max's case (whom I think can be a little condescending but really means good)when you got his hype man 20vmaster waiting to insult or belittle anyone who doesn't know about their platform or isn't preparing a racecar. Cant count how many times he has chimed in to a thread just to make some smartass comment to some new guy. Usually right after max would post too:sly: Aww he must follow every post you make max! How cute.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Not gonna lie. Everyone needs to calm down lol. Just because Adam and max don't like slammed cars doesn't mean you guys can't get along with them. I've never had an issue with the race car guys. I generally read those type of threads but don't post. Just because this isn't up their ally doesn't mean they still can't help lol. Actually I think I trust them more on suspension components than any stance guy. Why? They know what will take a beating and last. How many of you are running max's rear control arms? I wish I was :laugh:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Agreed. Theres a lot that can be shared and learned. But some people have a lack of social skills and start going the sh1t talking route. Yes Adam, you. You'*re* a d1ck. Your back handed insults and condescending attitude makes people want to beat your ass. Thats no way to live. If your cool with being hated because you run your mouth, thats fine. But again, no way to live. Im sure it will catch up with you. I just hope someone catches it on tape so we can witness karma in action. Let the angry typing commence..


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

lol everyone need to chill. We're all TT enthusiasts here whether we're in it to turn heads or take it to the track or maybe a little bit of both. We have a lot of good people here and all Ive been seeing lately is people just getting at each others throats. Lets all grow up a bit. Id hate to see the small community of active TT owners part ways from what we all love doing and sharing it on the forums. 

Lets remember that were all here to help each other out regardless of our end goals and/or backgrounds. Seriously, all this is getting really old to keep on running into. It does nothing for the TT community and we learn nothing to make our TTs better. 

So stop. :beer:


----------



## blackfnttruck (Jul 4, 2004)

Back to the subject with a couple of questions for all of you. Has anyone installed the IDF control arms? I'm wondering if you can actually get more than the stock camber out of these arms.

Max.....I know you know the SCCA rules, I believe these arms would not be legal for BSP class because of the heim joints...correct?

Max.....did you ever make a template for your extended plates that you would pass on or do you intend to make a kit?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

blackfnttruck said:


> Back to the subject with a couple of questions for all of you. Has anyone installed the IDF control arms? I'm wondering if you can actually get more than the stock camber out of these arms.
> 
> Max.....I know you know the SCCA rules, I believe these arms would not be legal for BSP class because of the heim joints...correct?
> 
> Max.....did you ever make a template for your extended plates that you would pass on or do you intend to make a kit?


After a quick search, it seems that IDF had redesigned their original arms that ran from release to 2012 to allow a bit more camber than OEM. How much exactly, I do not know and maybe someone with them can comment (you could always contact them too). 

The IDF or any Heim-jointed tubular control arms is not Legal in stock, street touring, or street prepared. (IDF is not the first or only one making them, don't know if you're aware of the "Nikhil arms"). 

I did make a template and sent it to a member that traded his car for something else and lost the template. I'll send you a PM or an email about them. :beer:


----------



## blackfnttruck (Jul 4, 2004)

Yup, I think I've also seen the other arms you mentioned, both nice setups. Thought those were not legal for prepared.
Thanks for the input.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

I would not elongate the holes in any stamped steel component. The increase ability to "chuck" back and forth will tare the arm apart in short manner. 



Deceitful said:


> Camber, caster, more range of motion.
> https://www.innfab.com/store.html#!/~/product/category=0&id=21595737


Heims on front control arms do not last long at all on street cars. Especially with stiffer spring rates. Even for track cars they do not last long and require a good bit of maintenance. 




Forty-six and 2 said:


> That can be argued... The closed mindedness of you parking lot heros is a bit ridiculous. :screwy: Making your TT perform well is great. Having it be a "track" built only car is awesome. Your dedication to product development is appreciated. Your close minded, superior attitude towards purpose built show cars is pretty lame. Regardless of the type of build benefits can be had from nearly every upgrade part offered. The claims of "mishandling" maybe true to an extent. Suspension upgrades are a way to make corrections, even for those who have air suspension. As Brian stated, there are a different set of benefits to the tubular arms. Whether you choose to use your "small mind" on the subject is up to you...
> 
> It's crazy that you can't see that some of these "mishandling" cars are very well thought out to the smallest of details. They are built as displays of Audi's sport luxury side of the car. Performance is still desired, but the desire to live life a parking lot full of cones at a time is not.
> 
> ...


Well, I just want to clarify. Max's car is a more of a "track only" car, but most of us "parking lot hero's" drive the cars plenty on the street. So increased performance without throwing sensibility out the window making the car totally suck as a road car. 

This being said, I can understand air setups on cars for those who want the "look of low" in pictures but still need to drive the car. However, static and low can be done. But will require more $$ than most have and engineering tooling/capabilities that are out of the reach of most. 

Personally if I wanted to go low, it would be to lower the C.G of the car as low as possible. To do this would require new spindles to be machined from Titanium, custom drive shafts, custom subframe, struts, springs ect. The idea would to keep the car as low as possible to prevent air flow under the car but without bottoming out under high G force conditions, however allowing a larger suspension travel to compensate for poor surfaces to limit bump steer. 

A couple weeks ago a broke two strut mounts at a track event due to a high speed corner that had some different pavement heights. If I was running camber plates...I would have broken the strut or the shock tower welds. The proper understanding of fail points is lost on all but a few people on the entire VWVortex forum. The general rule is if it breaks, then it needs to be made tougher...This is a lack of understanding of engineering and the dynamics of assembly design.

I will not point fingers but all the companies other than one on here actually understand this.



PLAYED TT said:


> Not gonna lie. Everyone needs to calm down lol. Just because Adam and max don't like slammed cars doesn't mean you guys can't get along with them. I've never had an issue with the race car guys. I generally read those type of threads but don't post. Just because this isn't up their ally doesn't mean they still can't help lol. Actually I think I trust them more on suspension components than any stance guy. Why? They know what will take a beating and last. How many of you are running max's rear control arms? I wish I was :laugh:


Agreed. We still love you James, even with pink wheels  

With over 2500 miles of on track driving with my TT this year alone, I am more than happy to fill in those who want to know how long things last and where not to waste money 



Tempes_TT said:


> lol everyone need to chill. We're all TT enthusiasts here whether we're in it to turn heads or take it to the track or maybe a little bit of both. We have a lot of good people here and all Ive been seeing lately is people just getting at each others throats. Lets all grow up a bit. Id hate to see the small community of active TT owners part ways from what we all love doing and sharing it on the forums.
> 
> Lets remember that were all here to help each other out regardless of our end goals and/or backgrounds. Seriously, all this is getting really old to keep on running into. It does nothing for the TT community and we learn nothing to make our TTs better.
> 
> So stop. :beer:


Could not have said it better myself. No point turning this place into the MK4/5 forum.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

I was trying to avoid any further ranting and arguing, but I guess I should clarify my post.

I have zero problem with the racing community. I actually have a ton of respect for those who choose that mod route. It is beneficial to all aspects of choice modding. Whether it is racing or simply going for a low riding car. Typically products developed through motor sports are tested under a much higher strain than any street driving car will produce. That is where, even in my first post, I said I appreciate those who take the time to develope the parts for our cars.

My problem comes from those who feel superior to those who choose touse these parts for reasons other than racing. I don't take well to the condescending attitudes toward the choice of modding for show. To some, it seems that a race should be the ONLY reason your car should be lowered, and if it's not done with the perfect geometry in mind, you have ruined your car, and the thought of this can not be fathomed... It's that attitude that pisses me off. That and the superior, so much smarter than everyone posts. 

Yes Max you do have a great knowledge base. Know one is denying that. You do prove to be helpful regularly. I have had discussions with you that only lead to you rewording what I have said, in what seems to be a your way to up keep a reputation of superior knowledge. The reason why I say this is, in later threads you and others began boasting your knowledge, and how others abandon debates with you due to their inferior knowledge.

My jabs about being a parking lot hero were out of anger. I apologize. They were directed at you, not all racers in this forum. I personally have zero desire to race around cones, and my TT build reflects that. That does not mean I'm ignorant to the modification direction needed to build a car that can do so. I simply chose a different direction. 

I suppose I will go back selective reading to avoid this in the future.


Noah, I have a ton of respect for you, your company, and your car.:beer: I also apologize to you, for what I made out to look like a disrespectful generalization of all who choose to race their cars in this forum.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

:thumbup::thumbup:

Nothing but love Matt 

We are all good friends here with common interests in cars.


:thumbup::thumbup:

So lets get back to talking about suspensions :laugh:

But rule #1 safety first.


----------



## Deceitful (Sep 30, 2005)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> I was trying to avoid any further ranting and arguing, but I guess I should clarify my post.
> 
> I have zero problem with the racing community. I actually have a ton of respect for those who choose that mod route. It is beneficial to all aspects of choice modding. Whether it is racing or simply going for a low riding car. Typically products developed through motor sports are tested under a much higher strain than any street driving car will produce. That is where, even in my first post, I said I appreciate those who take the time to develope the parts for our cars.
> 
> ...


I agree completely. I have a respect to the guys who whole heartily build their cars to be dedicated track monsters as well. But this :



20v master said:


> that's not much on top of a super dooper air system. :thumbdown:



sets for that condescending tone that us show/daily hate to hear so much from them.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Deceitful said:


> I agree completely. I have a respect to the guys who whole heartily build their cars to be dedicated track monsters as well. But this :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



20vmaster has proven many times over that he lacks social skills! I've seen him do it to others and myself. I agree we are all part of the same community but quite frankly he is a d bag and will never have my respect. eace:


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

*Matt ,Nothing but respect toward your reasoning Sir!*



Forty-six and 2 said:


> I was trying to avoid any further ranting and arguing, but I guess I should clarify my post.
> 
> I have zero problem with the racing community. I actually have a ton of respect for those who choose that mod route. It is beneficial to all aspects of choice modding. Whether it is racing or simply going for a low riding car. Typically products developed through motor sports are tested under a much higher strain than any street driving car will produce. That is where, even in my first post, I said I appreciate those who take the time to develop the parts for our cars.
> 
> ...


Such humble-civil-decent-spoken-highly-skilled-man you are ! 

Wish I could just gather all TT contributors and share good time socializing around those cars which brought us all together :heart::beer:. 

Dear OP : 

Lucky you! every person participated in your thread offering thoughts/understandings/knowledge/mistakes to learn from in my own personal opinion.

have u considered top mount camber kits like Ground Control
http://www.ground-control-store.com/images/fullsize/CCPA4_fs.jpg

adding some fender rolling or wider fenders would help you reaching your goal .

How much camber degree required front/rear ?

How much wheel offside,fender-to-wheel clearance, target camber / caster degree required ?

Is this daily-performance-show car or dedicated show car project?

wheels going to add curves of attractiveness


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

Hope those fits ur criteria  

Found those on fleabay : http://www.ebay.com/itm/INGALLS-FRONT-BALLJOINT-CAMBER-KIT-VOLKSWAGEN-FULL-SET-BOTH-SIDES-/151025488249

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ingalls-35658-Alig-Camber-Kit-Front-Volkswagen-Beetle-/140413703161

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BEETLE-GOLF-GTI-JETTA-IV-99-05-MKIV-MK4-DM-FRONT-CAMBER-CONTROL-KIT-BLACK-/231002121578

hope i was helpful posting those links


----------

