Efficient alignment

[Ecky]

The only piece I'd add to this is, I'm often taking corners at the very limit of grip. Having some negative camber likely evens out tire wear, but I don't have a baseline yet. I suppose if I lose some rear-end traction from having zero toe in at the back, I'll simply scale back the speed around corners slightly, and it'll be fine, but I'm a little wary of making the car too tail-happy. The compromise for being able to set the rear toe to zero might be a little more rear camber than front, and/or a stiffer front sway bar, so the rear is less likely to get out from under me.

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by freebeard

.... Farm tractors have massive positive front camber. I guess it makes for straighter furrows?

They do that so that the footprint of the front tires is small and can fit in a furrow. The alternative is to space out the front axle so each is in its own furrow.

[freebeard]

So, like a slot racer then?

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by CapriRacer

Toe in is stable, toe out is unstable (the vehicle can't figure out which side to follow).

On solid rear axles, toe isn't a problem because it is very close to zero.

Camber tends to cause good cornering, but at the expensive of tire wear. So it is very important to get the toe very close to the target value if you want good tire wear.

And what would you say the target value should be, to keep tire wear low, accounting for dynamic loads and rubber bushings that deflect?

[freebeard]

That wold be case dependent, varying with suspension geometry and [possibly] roll center height.

Solid vs trailing arms vs A-arms; anti-dive and anti-squat; and &tc.

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by Ecky

And what would you say the target value should be, to keep tire wear low, accounting for dynamic loads and rubber bushings that deflect?

Go by the vehicle manufacturer's published target values for toe. Ignore the tolerance - or at least divide the range by half!