Stock Negative Camber Intentional by Tesla?

[warrior15r]

Hey Everyone,

So I have had my 2023 Model Y for about 1 year now with the following set up:

H&R Lowering Springs
Tein Enduro Pro Shocks
14MM Front Spacer and 17MM Rear Spacer
20 inch Induction Wheels with stock GoodYear Eagle F 1 tires
I never adjusted the camber specs away from stock after H&R Springs were lowered so it was running at about Negative 2.1 degrees in the rear.

The tires were wearing uneven so the inner of rear tires were completely worn after 15k miles.

I decided to switch over to Hankook ION EVO SUV AS and got camber arms and adjusted the rear camber to negative 1 degrees. It’s been 500 miles and my efficiency seems to gotten much worse.

Thoughts?

I was wondering if the negative 2.1 camber was actually helping efficiency? Maybe that’s why Tesla had a negative camber at stock specs? Or is the rear 17 mm spacer now causing inefficiency since there’s less of a camber now so the tire is probably out a little bit more? I know typically on a gas car, 0 camber is suppose to be better for efficiency but I’m not so sure now about on an EV.

 

[fiehlsport]

Used tires with low tread are more efficient than brand new tires. But at 500mi you should start getting it back again. The EVO AS is more of a touring tire than the Eagle F1, so while it will handle worse, it should be a bit more efficient, like-for-like, once broken in and worn down a bit.

 

[warrior15r]

Used tires with low tread are more efficient than brand new tires. But at 500mi you should start getting it back again. The EVO AS is more of a touring tire than the Eagle F1, so while it will handle worse, it should be a bit more efficient, like-for-like, once broken in and worn down a bit.

I do remember what you are indicated as well about low tread tires however, I wanna say even when my Eagle F1 was brand new from Factory, it did not effect my efficiency and range as much as it is it for my current set up. That’s why its make me very curious about if the less camber or spacers are having an impact.

 

[fiehlsport]

I've never considered it much either, but what you're alluding to does make sense, at least at a cursory glance. More negative camber = less tire on the road. Which may equal more efficiency...

When you square up the camber, there is more rubber on the road in straight line driving, which might cause a drop in mileage. I'm not an engineer, so I have no idea if this actually checks out in the real world, but it sorta makes sense.

 

[warrior15r]

I've never considered it much either, but what you're alluding to does make sense, at least at a cursory glance. More negative camber = less tire on the road. Which may equal more efficiency...

When you square up the camber, there is more rubber on the road in straight line driving, which might cause a drop in mileage. I'm not an engineer, so I have no idea if this actually checks out in the real world, but it sorta makes sense.

Yep. I was thinking this exact same thing. If I had an alignment shop, I would totally test this theory out.

 

[Sweed269]

-1 is about the max you want for a street car. Old tires are smaller and travel less distance per revolution. This messes up the calculation.
New tires are bigger and have higher resistance. Both lower the calculation.