Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[arrutled]

Only had a chance to mount a rear and take a look. I have not installed my camber plates yet so no fronts on yet. Those are gonna go on Tuesday (thanks mike) and I will add more pictures then!

So heres some cool information about the rear wheels

stock 8.5" wheel w/225/40/18 weighs = 52.4 lbs (these are my snow tires)
Arc-8 9.5" wheel w/275/35/18 weighs = 50.6 lbs (direzza star spec z1)

So, larger wheel and larger tire and still weighs less!!!!

Then I mounted the rear on and raised the opposite corner to see what kinda clearance we are looking at. take a look.

[acivick]

Nice. Can't wait to get mine on. Still waiting for my V plates to come in, but I still got a few weeks before I'll be comfortable switching out the snows.

Kinda wish I went with 275s in the back instead of 265s, but I guess we'll have to wait and see how they fit in the end.

[larryn]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Yea, proove me wrong with facts....Ill be here when you come back with more smart ass remarks. Im not saying this set up sucks, I am simply saying that you guys are saying the car will acc faster(traction excluded) when it won't due to where the weight is now placed (outside)

First, this is a thread about a guy paying over a few thousand in new tires and wheels, and being proud of it (I would be too, and I'm sad I helped to degrade the thread - sorry, Andy). However, YOU felt it necessary to immediately post a bash (for what purpose, I do not know), based on BS wrong information, trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, when you were talking out of your ass. That was an unprovoked dick thing to to do, especially ending with, the "Just saying. lol", as if you are making fun of him for making a mistake... That's the reason for my tone in response to you.

Second, again, you are (again) asserting totally wrong information about rotating mass.

The tires weigh the same and the remaining rotating mass 8lbs less at each corner. Since the tires weigh the same, you are incorrect. There is 16lbs of less mass at the drive wheels that will need to be spun. This will make braking and accelerating easier for the car, not to mention the 30+ pounds less mass needing to be moved.


As a very simple braking example, if you try to stop two very similar equally rotating (rpm) gyroscopes that weigh 60lbs and 52lbs (where the furthest ring of the gyroscope is same weight and diameter) , it will take less energy to stop the lighter setup. This lesser force needed to slow the rotating mass is multiplied x4 on our cars. Yes, I know it is also stopping mass (the rest of the car), but that is a constant.

The same is true for the force to get those gyroscopes spinning again.

So, you need less energy to make it spin, and if you apply more energy to get it to spin (because you can with wider and stickier tires - added friction between pavement and tire), you can get it to spin faster sooner. It's not a dramatic difference, but it is easily perceptible, as seemingly better throttle response. I've witnessed this on many of my cars and sets of much lighter-than-stock wheel swaps.

I believe this explanation is a liberal ripoff of the rules of rotational kinetic energy, and Newton's 2nd law (if I remember correctly).


Btw, you also totally missed the "quicker around corners" and lateral stability part of arrutled's purchase. As he said, we autocross, and this setup will be MANY seconds faster than the stock setup on any run... same car... same driver... same course.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by larryn

First, this is a thread about a guy paying over a few thousand in new tires and wheels, and being proud of it (I would be too, and I'm sad I helped to degrade the thread - sorry, Andy). However, YOU felt it necessary to immediately post a bash (for what purpose, I do not know), based on BS wrong information, trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, when you were talking out of your ass. That was an unprovoked dick thing to to do, especially ending with, the "Just saying. lol", as if you are making fun of him for making a mistake... That's the reason for my tone in response to you.

Second, again, you are (again) asserting totally wrong information about rotating mass.

The tires weigh the same and the remaining rotating mass 8lbs less at each corner. Since the tires weigh the same, you are incorrect. There is 16lbs of less mass at the drive wheels that will need to be spun. This will make braking and accelerating easier for the car, not to mention the 30+ pounds less mass needing to be moved.


As a very simple braking example, if you try to stop two very similar equally rotating (rpm) gyroscopes that weigh 60lbs and 52lbs (where the furthest ring of the gyroscope is same weight and diameter) , it will take less energy to stop the lighter setup. This lesser force needed to slow the rotating mass is multiplied x4 on our cars. Yes, I know it is also stopping mass (the rest of the car), but that is a constant.

The same is true for the force to get those gyroscopes spinning again.

So, you need less energy to make it spin, and if you apply more energy to get it to spin (because you can with wider and stickier tires - added friction between pavement and tire), you can get it to spin faster sooner. It's not a dramatic difference, but it is easily perceptible, as seemingly better throttle response. I've witnessed this on many of my cars and sets of much lighter-than-stock wheel swaps.

I believe this explanation is a liberal ripoff of the rules of rotational kinetic energy, and Newton's 2nd law (if I remember correctly).


Btw, you also totally missed the "quicker around corners" and lateral stability part of arrutled's purchase. As he said, we autocross, and this setup will be MANY seconds faster than the stock setup on any run... same car... same driver... same course.

First of all, I never bashed, iI stated a fact.

Second, my information is 100 percent accurate, prove me wrong.

If his stock wheel set up according to his scale weights 52.x lbs and this set up weight 50.x lbs then that is a difference of roughly 2 lbs. Yes I am using a bathroom scale because that i what he posted.

Second, you stated the stock wheels are 26 lbs and the new ones are stated to be 18 lbs. I am comparing this to the STOCK WHEEL SET UP HE IS RUNNING, not the stock wheel and runflat set you are comparing it to. Like i said, reading>you.

So....according to you there is roughly a 8lb difference between the stock wheel and this wheel correct? According to his scale there is a 2 lb difference between the the two wheel/tire combos at hand....where do you think the added weight is on the new set up if it is not in the wheel? THINK HARD. It is on the outside, thus further away from the hub, thus requiring more force to acc, brake, or turn then the stock set up he was running previously. This is simple FACT.

You are using an argument regarding the stock wheel and tire, I am using the argument regarding the stock wheel that HE POSTED A WEIGHT OFF.

btw your gyroscope example was cute, however realize that he is adding weight to the outside, and the new tire set up has a .5 bigger diameter. Like I said, you simple do not realize my back round, Once again, you are wrong.

If you would like to continue this discussion, start a new thread. I will come in there with a pencil and calculator and dumb it down so it is understandable to anyone who feels like taking the time to read it. It will involve math though, so if numbers are not your thing, don't bother.

[larryn]

Let's stop this nonsense. Fine. You're right. Newton was wrong. Andy, run your snows on your stock wheels at autocross, they'll be much faster.

[Lubo]

Only if I wasn't house shopping I would be all over this wheels/tires combo.

[arrutled]

Originally Posted by larryn

Let's stop this nonsense. Fine. You're right. Newton was wrong. Andy, run your snows on your stock wheels at autocross, they'll be much faster.

dang, all this work/money for nothing. Actually Larry, being on the chair and all can you schedule an autocross during the next snowstorm. I might win that one.

[arrutled]

Originally Posted by Lubo

Only if I wasn't house shopping I would be all over this wheels/tires combo.

you cant race a house

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by larryn

Let's stop this nonsense. Fine. You're right. Newton was wrong. Andy, run your snows on your stock wheels at autocross, they'll be much faster.

Newton was not wrong, and if you want to get prooved wrong publically, start a thread instead of sending me pms. Ill give you the same test I give my students.

bottom line, wheel weight is important, but when the weights are close, it is more important to where the weight is located. If you don't agree, then start a thread and I will correct you mathamatically.

[larryn]

LOL No, I'm okay with my version or reality. As I said, you're right. The heavier snow set will kick the lighter racing setup's ass. I'm thinking of selling my set now. I'll STFU now, and suggest you do the same.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by larryn

LOL No, I'm okay with my version or reality. As I said, you're right. The heavier snow set will kick the lighter racing setup's ass. I'm thinking of selling my set now. I'll STFU now, and suggest you do the same.

denail is a bitch....Ill stfu now as well, but if you ever want to run your mouth, I encourage you to make that thread so we can have a discussion about the topic at hand.


OP sorry for the off-topic discussion, sweet wheels, good luck with them.
I was considering them, but could not justify spending over 2k once it is all said and done.

[BForbes]

[larryn]

You can certainly delete all of this drivel.

[arrutled]

When I get them mounted on and what not I am gonna start a new thread, no worries

[ALUFELGEN]

Originally Posted by arrutled

When I get them mounted on and what not I am gonna start a new thread, no worries

Have you measured the rims or the tires width? The way it looks it seems like the rear tires are much more wider than 275 or the wheels are much more narrower than 9.5".

[larryn]

Originally Posted by AluFelgen

Have you measured the rims or the tires width? The way it looks it seems like the rear tires are much more wider than 275 or the wheels are much more narrower than 9.5".

I did, and they are 9.5" wheels. The 275 Star Specs (exact same as these), are supposed to be 11.2" wide, but mine measure 11.6" in width.

[randomquickness]

just saw this thread...looks like I missed the physics debate

Congrats OP, I'm gonna have to agree that your new setup is pretty kickass!

[arrutled]

Originally Posted by randomquickness

just saw this thread...looks like I missed the physics debate

Congrats OP, I'm gonna have to agree that your new setup is pretty kickass!

Thank you kind sir

[arrutled]

Originally Posted by AluFelgen

Have you measured the rims or the tires width? The way it looks it seems like the rear tires are much more wider than 275 or the wheels are much more narrower than 9.5".

The tires are just massive. When I first saw them I was like holy crap that cant be right, but it is.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by larryn

You can certainly delete all of this drivel.

Start the thread young man, I would be happy to show you and the entire boards, just how wrong you are.

[bimmerboy]

Clap, start your own fucking thread! Jeez...

OP, that is some insane rubber you got going on there! Any rear shots? How hard is it to spin rubber in 1st now?

[arrutled]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Start the thread young man, I would be happy to show you and the entire boards, just how wrong you are.

Please leave my thread alone.