True or False

[WDB124066]

A car designed well before the modern energy saver tyres requires less front toe-in when using energy saver tyres. This on account of less drag means less load on suspension that spreads the front wheels apart = less toe-in required.

Silly nonsense or something to be aware of...??

 

[def90cars]

I go with nonsense, but understand your logic.

 

[wheels-inmotion]

False
The static toe position is calculated so that the dynamic toe is zero and that applies to all cars domestically.

 

[WDB124066]

Would the difference between the two be less if the rolling resistance was less...?

 

[hotrodder]

If tyre construction/rolling resistance could have a small effect on stuff like dynamic toe i'd have thought it'd still be irrelevant (if even measurable?) to something designed before energy saving tyres or something fitted with larger wheels & stupidly low profile tyres that was designed around castors and squidgy balloons for tyres... unless the old car has just had new bushes & balljoints fitted throughout any wear in them is gonna have a bigger effect i.e. it's compliance in the bushes that static toe settings is mostly about

While car manufacturers obviously spend a fair bit of time thinking about suspension geometry and things like bump steer i'd bet that virtually none, if any of them, achieve zero bump steer and a lot of them probably make use of it for "handling characteristics", Lotus for example?

 

[wheels-inmotion]

Well said.....

Collectivity there's so many variables with the dynamic geometry rolling resistance is of little concern unless we're talking F1. As said toe is a compliance angle and has no place or part of the dynamic geometry domestically although it is used in certain motor sports.