Suspension/Wheels/Tires/Brakes

FD Wheel and Tire Sizing

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 27, 2005 | 11:04 PM
  #26  
RCCAZ 1's Avatar
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,367
Likes: 86
From: Phoenix, AZ
For those who just want a .pdf of the spreadsheet

Here you go! Enjoy!!
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
FD Wheel and Tire Sizing.pdf (14.5 KB, 4424 views)
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2005 | 01:38 AM
  #27  
RX7_Fanatic's Avatar
R.I.P. DAVE
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
From: Newport Beach, California
35 offset on 5-zigen wheels

OMFG my first post...

The only offsets offered on the 5-zigen fn01rc wheels that i want are +15 and +35. naturally i need the +35 on both the 17X9 front and 17X10 rear that i want but it yeilds a -.13 clearance front and rear. Could i solve this by rolling the fenders...probably a dumb question but i needed to know if fender rolling was taken into consideration. THANKS!
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2005 | 03:20 AM
  #28  
SpeedKing's Avatar
Power Trippin'
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,129
Likes: 1
From: Land of The Quick
Originally Posted by RX7_Fanatic

OMFG my first post...



The only offsets offered on the 5-zigen fn01rc wheels that i want are +15 and +35. naturally i need the +35 on both the 17X9 front and 17X10 rear that i want but it yeilds a -.13 clearance front and rear. Could i solve this by rolling the fenders...
No. A +35 offset will not work w/ either a 9" or 10" wide wheel.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2005 | 10:41 PM
  #29  
RX7_Fanatic's Avatar
R.I.P. DAVE
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
From: Newport Beach, California
When you pop it into his calculator it yeilds that -.13" clearance, im wondering if fender rolling will make some clearance. I guess im wondering is, how much clearance can you get in addition to the clearance stated on the calculator from fender rolling =p
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2006 | 03:59 PM
  #30  
tom.jelly's Avatar
Full Member
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: clermont, georgia
18" WHEEL & TIRE FITMENT CHART

I'm trying to put together a chart that will use the calculator and manufacturer tire and wheel size data to help me select 18" wheels and tires for my car. Please help me by emailing me data that I can add to the matrix, and/or correcting any errors. Someone who has dealer catalogs would be especially helpful. I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes and this is a work in progress, but once I get good data for 18's I'd be happy to do 17's and I will post periodic revisions as others add data. Otherwise feel free to use this as a starting point for something better, because I'm certainly no expert!

Tom
Attached Files
File Type: zip
18 INCH FD WHEELS AND TIRES.zip (5.7 KB, 1399 views)
Reply
Old Feb 20, 2006 | 09:18 PM
  #31  
SAMIboarder's Avatar
JGTC every day.
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
From: Olympia, WA
Great thread!

On the spreadsheet I noticed that some of the inside clearences went into the negatives, but usually only around 1/4 inch. would running coilovers be enough to fix that clearence issue?
Reply
Old May 4, 2006 | 12:17 AM
  #32  
1234567's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: VA
19x9.5 +17 & 19x10.5 +18 would that fit? and what do i need to do to make it fit?
Reply
Old May 4, 2006 | 12:49 AM
  #33  
rynberg's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 10
From: San Lorenzo, California
Originally Posted by 1234567
19x9.5 +17 & 19x10.5 +18 would that fit? and what do i need to do to make it fit?
Why would you post a question like that in a thread containing a spreadsheet showing fitments???

No, they won't fit. Period. No way, no how.
Reply
Old May 13, 2006 | 01:41 AM
  #34  
kandycemitchell's Avatar
Junior Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Oklahoma City
My 17-year-old son is doing some mods...tokico illuminas all the way around with 'blue super-downs' my understanding is that the 7 will be lowered by 1 3/4". Will this affect tire/wheel size we should purchase? If we stick with 16" wheels will tires rub?
Reply
Old Sep 23, 2006 | 05:45 PM
  #35  
mcfly's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
Originally Posted by rynberg
Why would you post a question like that in a thread containing a spreadsheet showing fitments???

No, they won't fit. Period. No way, no how.
really?

what would be the limiting factor?
fender or inside spacing between shock?

i know 18x10.5's will fit with a +30.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2006 | 04:29 PM
  #36  
ImStillOnJava's Avatar
Oompa Loompa Doopity Doo!
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,131
Likes: 0
From: So Cali
I'm running the spreadsheet to try and calculate what options I have with offsets and rim widths for 18" TE37s when used against Feed front and rear fenders, however ...I haven't been able to locate the actual addtl width the Feed rear fenders will add over stock, and info for the front Feed fenders I'm getting differing information of it being 25mm over stock or 30mm over stock. Does anyone know what the actual numbers are?
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2006 | 09:02 AM
  #37  
RX72NR's Avatar
paying to play
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 2
From: Renton,WA.
Feed fronts 25mm rears 20mm
Reply
Old Dec 18, 2006 | 03:01 PM
  #38  
Necros's Avatar
Junior Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: Arvada, CO
Originally Posted by SpeedKing
Nice, Jim, however, you know the lazy ***** are still going to ask fitment questions anyway.

And BTW, under, "Front Wheel Offset", last two sentences of the first paragraph, "A larger offset will move the outer face or edge of the wheel towards the outside of the car. A smaller offset will move it inward."

Isn't that backward?

A larger offset (+50) moves the wheel inward, a smaller offset (+30) moves it outward, hence rubbing issues w/ low offset wheels.
In light of this post, I'm going to ask a fitment question. Hopefully I'm not too much of a lazy ****. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around how this works.

I see on the spreadsheet that with a 18x9 in the rear (for example) that one should run offset of +31 with a tire size of 255/30/18s. I also see that for 18x9.5 that a +38 with 265/30/18s is appropriate.

Now, I know lots of people running 265/35/18 in the back. My question, is twofold: If I wanted to use this size tire, can I use an 18x9 wheel? Advantages/diadvantages?

Also, if the wheels do not exist in a +31 or +38 offset, is it better, with the 265/35/18s, to err toward the +31 side, the +38 side (for 9.5 wheels), or smack dab in the middle? It looks like there are 29, 34, 35 and 36 offsets (plus others, but those are the closes to the specified numbers).

I really hope I'm not being dumb.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2006 | 01:11 AM
  #39  
Aeka GSR's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 31
From: Riverside, CA
ignore me whoops
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 03:40 AM
  #40  
SystemsWizard's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
The wheel and tire sizing spreadsheet really helps me in experimenting and understanding. A question though, if sticking with near-stock sizes, say 17x8(F) and 17x9(R), which would fit either at the stock +50 offset or at the lower default offsets in the spreadsheet (which bring them closer to the fender), which option is preferable?

My understanding of lowering the offset to move the wheels out has benefits (wider stance for possibly better handling, better looks) and drawbacks (greater suspension wear, more bump steering, possibly worse handling).

My concerns are performance first and looks second. I'm thinking of a slightly wider back tire to deal with upgrades I expect to bring the car to the 310 RWHP range. If this increase in HP is insignificant to the stock 8 inch width, I'd like to know that, too.

Some relevant info may be that the Spirit cars had 17x8 and 17x8.5 rims at +50 offset and a link, that while possibly inconclusive, was fun to read:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/arch.../t-385857.html

Thanks everyone. This is my first post, so be kind. I have read the forum for a couple of weeks and tried the best searches I knew how on the subject...
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 04:37 PM
  #41  
rynberg's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 10
From: San Lorenzo, California
You guys need to read better.....the offsets that Jim lists are the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, NOT THE RECOMMENDED. The recommended offset is always +50 (as close as you can get to that), to maintain stock scrub radius.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 06:41 PM
  #42  
SystemsWizard's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Rynberg - I'm new, you're a moderator, and I'm pretty sure I've learned stuff from your posts on many of the threads here, so I don't wish to argue. But, I quickly read over the posts of this thread and the spreadsheet (this being probably the fourth or fifth time over) and if I really missed that one of the main points was to stick near the stock offset, I keep missing it - maybe a mental block... A counter-point is in the spreadsheet itself, which defaults to giving everything about 1/4" outer clearance and states near the top, "please note that the numbers shown are recommendations".

You, Jimlab, and a lot of others here have more experience with suspensions, in particular with this vehicle. I've seen the benefits/drawbacks of stock offset vs. pushing the wheels out argued inconclusively (on this forum and others) to my non-expert mind, that I thought I'd ask people with experience having tried the different choices.

- So, is having a moderate-sized wheel at stock offset, as opposed to being out a bit more (lower offset) absolutely clear in performance terms, when either option fits well?

- Also, should one go to a larger width rear for 310RWHP? It's surely a matter of opinion, but I guess my goal is to keep the stock oversteer/understeer feel.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2007 | 12:08 AM
  #43  
fastrx7man's Avatar
Looking for 10's
Tenured Member 20 Years
iTrader: (63)
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,568
Likes: 1
From: Lantana, Texas
If I used the tool right I shouldn't have any problems with 18X8 40mm upfront and 18X9.5 44mm in back...
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2007 | 12:39 PM
  #44  
jimlab's Avatar
Thread Starter
Super Snuggles
Tenured Member 20 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
Originally Posted by rynberg
You guys need to read better.....the offsets that Jim lists are the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, NOT THE RECOMMENDED.
Yep.

As stated in the spreadsheet text box for Tire Clearance, Outside: "Offsets have been calculated to maintain about 1/4" clearance so that rolling fenders should not be necessary unless the car is excessively lowered."

The recommended offset is always +50 (as close as you can get to that), to maintain stock scrub radius.
True.

For those that don't know, the scrub radius is the distance between the extended centerline of the steering axis (where the centerline of the shock would hit the ground) and the centerline of the tire contact patch on the road. To maintain the factory scrub line, using the same wheel offset as stock (+50mm) will put an equal amount of wheel/tire inboard and outboard of the scrubline (maintaining the stock tire contact patch centerline) regardless of the increase in width.

However, that's not always possible due to available offsets and available clearance, so it is more important to come as close as possible to maintaining the stock scrub line while staying within the safe margin of inside and outside wheel/tire clearance. Since most people seem to have trouble understanding the effect that wheel offset has on where the tire and wheel are located on the car, I threw together a quick diagram to illustrate.



In the picture above, the blue lines show the centerlines of the wheels and the red lines show where the wheel mounting flange is located based on the amount of offset for each wheel (the drawings are to scale). The green zone is the "safe" clearance zone. In this case, I used the rear wheel clearance zone for the FD, which is about 7.5" of clearance inboard and about 4" of clearance outboard of the wheel mounting flange.

You can quickly see that having a +50mm offset on all three wheels would put the wheel centerlines (and therefore tire contact patch centerlines) in exactly the same spot, maintaining the stock scrub radius despite the increase in width. I chose to vary the offsets to illustrate where that places the wheel in relation to stock and to illustrate that a small change in offset does not significantly affect the scrub radius (not to mention the fact that aftermarket wheels with a +50mm offset are pretty rare).

The goal of the spreadsheet was to allow selecting a wheel size and offset that is within the safe clearance zone. Once again, the calculated offsets were intended to maintain about 1/4" of clearance on the outside to avoid having to roll fenders. Use as much offset as you can (up to +50mm) by replacing the offset value with a larger number and watch the effect it has on inside and outside clearance as they are recalculated.

Just don't save the spreadsheet after changing the values in calculated cells or you'll need to start over with a new copy.
Attached Thumbnails FD Wheel and Tire Sizing-offsets.jpg  
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2007 | 12:44 PM
  #45  
jimlab's Avatar
Thread Starter
Super Snuggles
Tenured Member 20 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
Originally Posted by fastrx7man
If I used the tool right I shouldn't have any problems with 18X8 40mm upfront and 18X9.5 44mm in back...
True, but you should go with a larger offset in the front if you can.
Reply
Old Jan 29, 2007 | 01:02 AM
  #46  
SystemsWizard's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Jimlab - thanks for more great info. Searching on the net for scrub radius after reading Rynberg's post, one good explanation of the effects of moving the wheels out (decreasing offset) is paraphrased:

-----

Place two sheets of paper side-by-side, like the front wheels. Take two pencils, treat them as the line through the left and right front shocks, touching down to the center of each sheet of paper. Move the sheets forward with the pencils - they move relatively straight forward. Now, keep the pencils where they are, but move the sheets outwards to the side, like decreasing offset. This time, when you try to move the sheets forwards via the pencils, they want to turn outwards on their own.

-----

This would be like bump-steer, requiring a firmer hold on the steering wheel, decreasing straight-line stability, but possibly increasing turn-in ability, right? I've read some people espousing a little of this as a Good Thing (TM), even one guy on this forum - though a lot of people disagreed. I guess also with the front, but more especially with the back, when you move the wheels out significantly, the effects of changing the contact patch (the weight pushing down through the suspension at an angle) could really decrease the benefits of a wider tire. Do you know if anyone has measured the 50 offset and found it to truly center the contact patch or if the number may have possibly been a safety compromise for greater stability?

Just trying to really understand - thanks!
Reply
Old Jan 29, 2007 | 12:10 PM
  #47  
jimlab's Avatar
Thread Starter
Super Snuggles
Tenured Member 20 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
Originally Posted by SystemsWizard
This would be like bump-steer, requiring a firmer hold on the steering wheel, decreasing straight-line stability, but possibly increasing turn-in ability, right?
Well, somewhat.

Bump steer is added toe-in or toe-out of the front wheels as the suspension travels through its range of motion. It is caused by misalignment of the suspension and the tie rod linkage which results in them traveling in different arcs. Something has to give, and in this case, it's the wheel and tire; pulling in when the steering linkage's arc is too short and pushing out when the linkage's arc is too long. Both wheels pull in or push out by an equal amount, assuming the rest of the suspension is properly aligned.

Bump steer causes erratic tracking when driving in a straight line as the builders of the "Supra 7" found out when trying to get a few time slips. The car was all over the place at the end of the track because they'd had to drop the steering rack so far to clear the 2JZ-GTE and hadn't compensated for the change in steering geometry. They finally gave up and as far as I know, the car is now a "shop car" only.

Scrub radius, on the other hand, changes camber as the suspension travels through its range of motion. It is far more critical on front wheel drive cars, in my opinion, but can contribute to a car's tendency to push or pull in a corner while braking, or if one wheel loses traction. However, many race cars run positive scrub radius to give more wheel feedback.

Do you know if anyone has measured the 50 offset and found it to truly center the contact patch or if the number may have possibly been a safety compromise for greater stability?
Not to my knowledge. I'm sure the FD was designed to have 0 scrub radius (as are most, if not all, passenger cars), and +50mm is the offset which places the tire contact patch centerline precisely on the point of the shock centerline. If that's what you mean by a "safety compromise", then yes.
Reply
Old Jan 31, 2007 | 01:42 PM
  #48  
DamonB's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,617
Likes: 8
From: Dallas
scrub radius discussion split:

https://www.rx7club.com/suspension-wheels-tires-brakes-20/wheel-offset-vs-scrub-radius-619446/
Reply
Old Feb 21, 2007 | 09:56 PM
  #49  
wanklin's Avatar
Rob
Tenured Member 20 Years
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,234
Likes: 1
From: Northern Virginia
Lazy man's wheel fitment "yes" or "no" analyzer.

Latest Revision:



An XLS File Based on tried and tested setups. The code is based off of the tried and tested 18x10+50 CCW setup with 2.5" coils and Rotary Extreme Trailing arms, and the proven 18x10+42 on all corners with stock springs and trailing arms. The code will adjust according to your wheel widths, offsets trailing arms and coil setup to provide you with setup verification, and or an explanation of why it won't fit referenced to a explanatory diagram. The XLS will also automatically convert your wheel into metric and provide you with "true" front/back spacing. Please keep in mind that these numbers are based on extremes so don't try to push your offsets to the limit.

We're all tired of the same questions day-after-day. It doesn't get any easier than this.

Latest revision based off this feedback: My father and I both run 18x10, 45mm offset, 285 series tires on the back of our stock suspensioned FD's. They fit perfect and according to that excel sheet they don't. But it is a good tool to get you down to the right area. I'm only running a 245 series tire up front. My father is running a 255. We both have stock trailing arms, 18x8.5" +45 offset.
Reply
Old Feb 22, 2007 | 11:37 AM
  #50  
jimlab's Avatar
Thread Starter
Super Snuggles
Tenured Member 20 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
My father and I both run 18x10, 45mm offset, 285 series tires on the back of our stock suspensioned FD's. They fit perfect and according to that excel sheet they don't.
Looks like someone doesn't know how to read directions.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 PM.