GroovierWolf3, camber is typically used more on tight tracks, but from my experience comes into play more on tracks that have elevation changes, or much more specifically, tracks that have turns that have some bank on them. Sebring is a very flat track. While the last turn is old broken concrete, there is really only the one dip just before the broken concrete where you may bottom out if your suspension is either too soft or your your ride height too low. However, if your suspension is to stiff, you’ll bounce and skip all over the place. I haven’t taken the time to test “bunch of camber” vs “no camber”. While some camber will always be beneficial, except for drag racing, due to the flat curves, it’s my theory that less camber is needed at Sebring. A couple other things to consider, if you turn your CASTER higher when you turn a resultant camber adjustment will be imposed. More caster allows for less negative camber. Caster only effects a wheel that turns laterally (ie the front wheels). So the result is that the front wheel becomes more negative when turning while weight transfer throws weight towards the outside tire. An ideal setting would result in zero camber during the turn. Something to be mindful of is that the more severe the turn, the more negative camber that is imposed on the front wheels. So an ideal (zero camber) result can only be for a specific degree of turn, more or less than that can result in positive or negative camber. However, caster only comes into effect when the wheel is turned. So during a straight, the wheel would have less camber, during turns it would have more. Make sense?
In summary, I’ve talked myself into trying a low camber setting (-0.2 to -0.4) with a higher caster setting (6.5 to 7), while leaving the rear wheels at an extremely low caster (-0.1 to -0.2). Meanwhile, I’ll have the ride height at stock or slightly higher than stock to allow for more suspension travel. The sway bars will set a bit stronger than usual to keep the tires planted to the pavement. Spring rates will be set a bit softer to absorb the bouncing at the last turn, while allowing for more lateral grip due to more suspension travel. I’ll let you know how it works out.
DesigningLeek47, thank you for the pun! Having done some autocrossing, I know exactly what you’re talking about. Most of the course is concrete and this is broken concrete. I’m not entirely confident that T10 did not implement different frictional coefficients for different surfaces. After all they HAVE implemented a gargantuan level of physics, take a look at my store front for a closeup picture of a tire. You can actually see the tire rolling over and the tread being disfigured as my car went through a turn. What I can tell you is that there have been times when I have been watching the gravitational force telemetry page and compared to other tracks, there were no differences in the maximum g’s that were attained during the turns. Except that during the last turn the g’s are extremely erratic. However, you do have an excellent point and is something I’ll take much closer look at. I believe though that the frictional differences are most notable between road and non-road surfaces. While concrete may only have 65-70% of nice clean asphalt, it still allows for vastly more grip than dirt or grass. If there is a difference I think it’s negligible.
In general, I think Silverstone and Hockenheim have the same “character” as Sebring, except for the broken concrete that is. Being so flat should allow for lower ride height, stiffer suspension and less negative camber. However, you’ll want to especially watch out for the berms in the turns. With your suspension being tighter it’ll be easier to roll over. Bound and rebound have A LOT to do with that, but a stiff suspension will do it too.