On the straight, you have camber steer towards the outside of the track. In the corners, this continues until you pass the 'neutral speed' at which the wheels are normal to the surface, after which you start to have camber steer towards the inside of the track. The neutral speed varies with position on the track (radius) and between tracks, but is typically about 50km/h on the black line. Using a sign convention of +ve being towards the outside, track cyclists can ride at different points on the track at angles from about +35° (riding slowly round the top in the middle of the bends) to -15° (going round the corners well above the neutral speed), for a bicycle which is neutral at a camber of 0°
If you built a bike which was neutral at +15°, it would have to work at +20° to -30° relative to it's neutral camber point, which doesn't seem impossible. However, you're creating a solution to a problem which doesn't exist, since a conventional bicycle with the wheels in the plane of the frame already copes perfectly well with these conditions.
Is this the reason track bikes have such a massive trail and less fork-rake?
Is this the reason track bikes have such a massive trail and less fork-rake?