Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[coder]

Never had this happen on any other car I've owned , though admittedly this is the first low profile set I've driven around with



So my question is - what sorts of things can I do (other than the obvious don't hit potholes/moving out of detroit) to make this less likely and/or mitigate the expense should it happen again? Hopefully without harming performance or looks too much...

-- edited to add:

After some reading I think I can ask some more specific questions:

Are all tires of the same profile have more or less the same susceptibility to damage?
Is run-flat a factor? (pro or con?)
Is this just bad luck and probably won't happen again?
Should I drop to 17s? Just get the road hazard protection at tire rack?
Is there any magickal incantations or occult ceremonies I can perform? =]

[potxoli]

FWIW I had this happen to me a year ago. I've been driving for a year with the bulge with no problems. My theory is since they are run flats, even if the bulge ends up breaking, I can make it home on the runflat. I'm almost out of tread now so due for new tires, but I lived with this for a while.

[coder]

I already put on my winters ... I didn't want to be thinking about what if I have a blowout the hole time.
I only had 15k on the wheels, not even

Anyways not sure how much runflats would help me unless I was in the middle of nowhere or in a questionable area.. I'd just call for roadside anyways

[coder]

googling for "bubble sidewall runflat" turns up some interesting stuff ...

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...le-in-run-flat

it seems like I'm not the only one who feels like this might be more common with a runflat. But I don't have much to go on yet.

[coder]

"And lastly, run-flat tires stand a much higher chance of developing a bubble blister in the sidewall when hitting a bad pothole because of their harder rubber compound." - http://www.examiner.com/article/run-...nda-usa-agrees

[Stohlen]

The bubble is due to a cut on the inside of the tire when pinched up against the wheel after hitting a pothole. I agree its less likely to happen on a normal tire than a runflat, so that would be your first step. But it happens commonly on the non-runflats too. I see this on my work fleet all the time, its detroit that does it to you. Crappy roads.

I'd suggest a higher profile tire if you can fit it. Thats what would help the most. Being said I run a 285/30 and haven't had any problems with that profile.

[coder]

Can you put higher profile tires on 18s?

[VMRWheels]

Originally Posted by coder

After some reading I think I can ask some more specific questions:

Are all tires of the same profile have more or less the same susceptibility to damage?
Is run-flat a factor? (pro or con?)
Is this just bad luck and probably won't happen again?
Should I drop to 17s? Just get the road hazard protection at tire rack?
Is there any magickal incantations or occult ceremonies I can perform? =]

1.) More or less, yes. If you are running a lower profile tire, it will be susceptible to damage like a bubble in the sidewall whether it's a RFT or non-RFT.
2.) I would definitely say it is bad luck, as a tire (at least from my experience) will not bubble on its own. It happens when you run through a pothole or crack in the road. It can happen to any tire though.
3.) 17s may help protect your wheels, however 17s can still develop a bubble. Just depends on the particular tire, and the road hazard in question.
4.) If only it was that easy!

Originally Posted by coder

Can you put higher profile tires on 18s?

I would not go this route. If you're concerned with getting another bubble in the sidewall, sizing down the wheels may help, but they can still develop if the road hazard is bad enough.

Unfortunately there's nothing that you can do to a tire like that to save it. Just gotta replace it flat out, and I wouldn't even bother trying to drive on it, aside from getting to the tire shop. The only way to avoid getting bubbles in the sidewalls is to avoid potholes and whatnot.

[coder]

thanks VMR

I definatly realize this can happen on any tire, I guess I was just paranoid if I just replaced with the same tires I'd have to be doing again it every few seasons.
I've calmed down a bit down. =]

[Freon]

I had a cut in the sidewall of a front factory RFT after hitting a pothole. It was on the outside and visible right near the bead at about a 45 degree angle, maybe 3-4 inches long. Went to zero pressure very quickly, wouldn't hold air at all when I got it home and off the car. I do give the RFT credit for getting me home with no issue.

I didn't think the pothole was that bad, so I can sort of see how people think it may be more common with RFTs to begin with. I've hit potholes like that before and it hasn't caused damage. Granted, that is anecdotal evidence so don't take my personal experience as gospel.

[PrematureApex]

Pretty common on our cars because of BMW stupid decision to put such low profile tires on our cars. I've have 3 on teh 1er in 6 months of city living, and none in the past 4 years on my M3 running 255/40s.

I'm surprised more people don't convert to nice looking 17s. Improve the ride, save some weight, and some money...

[VMRWheels]

Originally Posted by coder

thanks VMR

I definatly realize this can happen on any tire, I guess I was just paranoid if I just replaced with the same tires I'd have to be doing again it every few seasons.
I've calmed down a bit down. =]

I know how that goes. I've had multiple tires bubble on me before, and I'm very careful about what roads I drive on. Luckily I caught all of them before the tire gave out though.

[coder]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

I'm surprised more people don't convert to nice looking 17s. Improve the ride, save some weight, and some money...

Like this? (my winter set)




17x8 MOTEGI RACING MR118 BLK PAINT 215/45R-17 Dunlop SP Winter Sport M3 X

[coder]

Took a closer look at the treads, it looks like I had less life on them then I thought. The rears had maybe 10% life left, the fronts closer to 50% ... leaning towards picking out a new summer wheelset anyways. I like the black on black, curious about gunmetal or grey

[Freon]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Pretty common on our cars because of BMW stupid decision to put such low profile tires on our cars. I've have 3 on teh 1er in 6 months of city living, and none in the past 4 years on my M3 running 255/40s.

I'm surprised more people don't convert to nice looking 17s. Improve the ride, save some weight, and some money...

Due to the angle of the front strut and clearance from the inside wheel lip and strut, a 17" wheel would reduce the width of rim and tire you can use.

That is, the strut sits and an angle in the side-to-side direction. The top is further inboard as typical with a MacPherson strut. An 18" wheel will have more room due to that angle. A 17x8.5 +45 wheel would not fit at all. The inner rim lip will touch the strut well before you tighten your lug bolts down. An 18x8.5 +45 wheel fits fine. Lowering offset to try to make the 17x8.5 wheel fit will then put your tire into the outer fender.

I use 17" for my winter setup as well.

[coder]

Freon - great information, I didn't know that. But it explains a bunch of comments about wheel/tire fit on other threads I couldn't quite make sense of.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by Freon

Due to the angle of the front strut and clearance from the inside wheel lip and strut, a 17" wheel would reduce the width of rim and tire you can use.

That is, the strut sits and an angle in the side-to-side direction. The top is further inboard as typical with a MacPherson strut. An 18" wheel will have more room due to that angle. A 17x8.5 +45 wheel would not fit at all. The inner rim lip will touch the strut well before you tighten your lug bolts down. An 18x8.5 +45 wheel fits fine. Lowering offset to try to make the 17x8.5 wheel fit will then put your tire into the outer fender.

I use 17" for my winter setup as well.

Most 17s are around a 40 offset, not 45, which is fine. Plenty of people running 17x8 or 8.5 ET40 up front without issue. It's not especially hard to run 245s up there either, with some camber needed for overly large 245s but not for all. 235s are fine as well.

And I'm not sure having to run a 3-7mm spacer if you have 17" E45 wheels is reason enough not to run them.

In the northeast, the sidewall height of the OEM setup just stinks on these horrible roads.

Soft ass suspension, and a shitty ride! It's the only car I know to accomplish both.


Honestly, I'm thinking 17x8 ET40 or 8.5 with 245s all around would be really nice for most people (sans those who couldn't stand the sight of 17s). Lighter, ability to rotate, better ride, cheaper tires. Most you'd have to do is a little roll in the rear, and a bit of camber up front. But again, some of the narrower 245s will work as-is.

[Freon]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Most 17s are around a 40 offset, not 45, which is fine. Plenty of people running 17x8 or 8.5 ET40 up front without issue. It's not especially hard to run 245s up there either, with some camber needed for overly large 245s but not for all. 235s are fine as well.

You're putting your thumb on the scale.

Any fender rolling, camber, or spacers, offset knuckles, wormholes, etc. you add for your 17" setup could just as easily be done to the 18" for the same gains, but starting from a better position due to the strut clearance difference. You never get the inner clearance back.

I don't mean to overstate it. We're talking a max extra 10mm of tire, but, well, you brought it up. The car is really lacking in front end grip from the factory, so a lot of people are really trying to max out the front tire, and I think that's very justified if you are really performance minded.

Also, there is no rear 17" with a properly high offset for the 1 series, as far as I know. You can get 265-285mm of tire on the rear with a very high offset (around +60) on a 135i. Right now the only wheels available for a 135i with such a high offset are 18". The Apex ARC-8 and EC-7, and I think I saw the other day someone else finally came out with something similar with a +60 or so offset, but it is still 18". They do not need to be 18" to do this, it just happens to be all the high offset wheels are 18". You certainly could run a 17x9.5 +60 in the rear if one were available. But alas, there is not, again as far as I know.

I had been hunting for a 17" setup until I realized the front strut clearance issue.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by Freon

Any fender rolling, camber, or spacers, offset knuckles, wormholes, etc. you add for your 17" setup could just as easily be done to the 18" for the same gains, but starting from a better position due to the strut clearance difference. You never get the inner clearance back.

?

Yes, but you don't get the benefit that is the basis of this conversation: the taller sidewall for ride comfort and tire longevity (from pothole damage). How could you gloss over that? It's what started the conversation.

Maybe I wasn't clear in what I posted...

With a car with roughly 50/50 weight distribution, I'll forgo some extra rear grip for the balance of a square setup. Plus its rotatable.

Realistically, you're limited to 245s up front, 17s or 18s (OK...255s with some more serious work).

So, given that I want a square, rotatable setup and I can only really run 245s up front, 17 or 18... I can run 245s in the rear with a 40 offset without issue. I thought that point was clear.

I'm willing to give up 265s in the rear to get the balance and rotatability.

So, since I'm running 245s anyway, even if I was going with 18s....I'll take it a step further for the ride/weight/$$$ benefits of say, 245s all around on 17x8.5s ET 40.

[PrematureApex]

http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showt...matic+handling


That's all I want, and I'm surprised we don't see more people doing it.

(And no need for 9" wheels, you can skip the spacer with 8.5s)

[Freon]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Yes, but you don't get the benefit that is the basis of this conversation: the taller sidewall for ride comfort and tire longevity (from pothole damage). How could you gloss over that? It's what started the conversation.

You said "I'm surprised more people don't convert to nice looking 17s".

So I responded as to why I think that is. You sacrifice a bit on tire width up front due to the strut. You also posted a bunch of ways you can make a wider tire fit with a 17, but those tricks are not really relevant to the comparison of a 17 to 18 since they apply equally to both.

I understand there are other reasons to go to 17. I have at no point argued that a 17" with a taller sidewall wouldn't generally be more comfortable, have less risk of pothole damage, or be significantly cheaper. I completely agree on those points. That's why I have, at no point, argued that you are wrong or against those specific points.

One point not brought up is that when you get that taller sidewall 17 tire and better comfort you do sacrifice steering response and wheel rate.