Who has the Widest rims on their Teg

[kikxz]

hey guys im just curious atm as to who has managed to fit the widest rim on their integra be it new DA6, DA9, DC2, DC4 , DC5 with pics if available because i dont think ive seen many with like decent sized rims like 10 inch etc lol and if someone is gona give me shit for this thread please leave it.

[chargeR]

Mugsee and I have the widest rims.

[Q_ball]

LOL in aust maybe,
But not quite internationally as yet :p

[SHOGUNOVDDRK]

There are a few DA3/DA1's running 13 and 14x9's in the states (AutoCross)

There is a 1G CRX NOW Running 13x10's (wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin)

Rocky, what are you plotting?

[chargeR]

LOL in aust maybe,
But not quite internationally as yet :p

Okay you got me there ;). Probably only in Australia. Also I have the widest lowest offset front fitment on stock guards I have ever seen.

[Q_ball]

I think this calls for pics to back up your statement haha.
Not to me, i already know u do haha... but to everyone else :p

[SHOGUNOVDDRK]

Pics Charger or else the Offset gods will smite.

[chargeR]

Pics Charger or else the Offset gods will smite.

The offset gods would never smite me, I am one of their most loyal disciples.

Crap pic but you get the idea:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7360/frontsji2.jpg

[JunYu]

specs?

[Dreams]

offset ftw!

[Chi]

Cars too high.

Needs more slammage.

[chargeR]

Cars too high.

Needs more slammage.

Your car is too parked.

Needs more trackage.

[chargeR]

Specs on front wheels are 17x9.5 +15. Pictured are 245/40s, now have 255/40, might move up to something bigger in the future. Need to roll and pull the front guards, at the moment they are completely stock with fenderliners still in place.

[SHOGUNOVDDRK]

The offset gods would never smite me, I am one of their most loyal disciples.

Very nice, no smit-age will be done onto you.

[Q_ball]

Your car is too parked.

Needs more trackage.

Well said haha.

[Chi]

Well said haha.


Maybe I should track like you then make a bet and lose by 0.05 secs in a track day challenge.

[chargeR]

Ooooh burn.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/1050/schoolsarecoolte5.jpg

[Q_ball]

Maybe I should track like you then make a bet and lose by 0.05 secs in a track day challenge.

a) i didnt make the bet, i simply agreed to the challenge.
b) at least i tracked and bettered my existing PB by shaving close to 3 seconds off on only my 2nd outing and using the same setup.
c) considering the amount of times youve been to wakie and the type of mods you had on the car, ur PB is quite weak which puts u in no position to boast about tracking superiority

case closed ;)

[Chi]

a) i didnt make the bet, i simply agreed to the challenge.
b) at least i tracked and bettered my existing PB by shaving close to 3 seconds off on only my 2nd outing and using the same setup.
c) considering the amount of times youve been to wakie and the type of mods you had on the car, ur PB is quite weak which puts u in no position to boast about tracking superiority

case closed ;)

a) no one held a gun to your head to take the bet ( obviously were so sure of yourself winning which is why you took it )
b) I shaved 4 secs off my last outing compared to that one, whats your point?
c) I never boasted anything about my tracking superiority mate, only stated you lost by 0.05 secs to someone.
d) Im more than happy to take you up on a challenge any time "sir gag alot".

[chargeR]

Less whining, more wheel fitment.

Can I join in on this challenge? I will be at Oran park on the 29th of March if anyone wants to come compete? :)

[kikxz]

damn they look meaty those tyres lol looks very tracked spec but that is a very wide rim for a Teg did you have to adjust anything? and lloyd im not plotting anything haha *looks innocently* nah i was just wondering because of the 8inch im soon to put on im just wondering who actially have decent widthed rims on their tegs. haha

come on guys more pics

[chargeR]

My front camber is -5.3, rear is -2.8ish. My suspension is very stiff: 14kg/mm front and 24kg/mm rear.

[vippy84]

My front camber is -5.3, rear is -2.8ish. My suspension is very stiff: 14kg/mm front and 24kg/mm rear.

that is as stiff as rock.. lol.. good one Tom..
will get my rims fitted pretty soon too..

[Bludger]

My front camber is -5.3, rear is -2.8ish. My suspension is very stiff: 14kg/mm front and 24kg/mm rear.
why stiffer at the rear??

stock its softer at the rear i'm led to believe.

[Mr_will]

why stiffer at the rear??

stock its softer at the rear i'm led to believe.


you could read arguments either way till your blue in the face.

in essence stiffer rear is designed to keep more weight over the front wheels when cornering, because they have all the accelerative/steering force

not saying I agree with it, but thats the justification

[chargeR]

why stiffer at the rear??

stock its softer at the rear i'm led to believe.

Stock is also slow ;).


you could read arguments either way till your blue in the face.

in essence stiffer rear is designed to keep more weight over the front wheels when cornering, because they have all the accelerative/steering force

not saying I agree with it, but thats the justification

Not quite. No amount of rear spring rate is going to keep more weight over the front wheels. Cornering load transfer is a function of track width, CG height and not a lot else. However more rear roll stiffness will make the car more inclined to oversteer as the outside rear tyre in a corner is more heavily loaded.

Also it actually isn't stiffer in the rear if you consider the motion ratios of the suspension. The front suspension Macpherson strut so the motion ratio is nearly 1:1, whereas the rear suspension is multi link with a very poor motion ratio of around 0.6 or something, I am not sure of the the actual figures. This makes the actual wheel rates acting on the suspension less. My spring rates are probably vaguely equivalent to running maybe 18/16k or 20/16k on a double wishbone honda like a DC2.

[Bludger]

interesting.

would you please elaborate more?

[string]

Will: Make no mistake, the rear tyres of a FWD supply plenty of steering force. As a car is rotating through a corner, the rear rims twist the tyre about the contact patch in the same way that turning the steering wheel twists the front tyres about their contact patches. Add some weight to the tyre and you magically get a lateral force generated. This can be quantified by plugging the weight and slip angle (how far you've twisted the tyre around it's contact patch) into the graphs of measured tyre data. The tyre chapter in Milliken's "Race Car Vehicle Dynamics" is an excellent reference and has some example data to visualise the relationship between vertical force, lateral force, and slip angle.

Stock cars are sprung softer in the rear because there is less weight in the rear. The ends are sprung roughly in relation to the mass in a [successful] attempt to maintain ride comfort by means of keeping each corner's rate of oscilation the same.

As we all know, the more equally loaded a pair of tyres, the more lateral force they can generate for the same vertical load - this is called tyre load sensitivity and it's a buzzword that is thrown around all the time. When you spring a front-heavy FWD with soft springs at the rear, nothing terribly dramatic happens when weight transfer occurs during a corner: load comes off the inside front to the outside front and off the inside rear to the outside front nicely proportional to the mass of each end.

Now we approach the rub of factory FWD cars: You have 2/3 of the weight at the front. With stock spring rates in mind, the front tyres literally have to do twice the work of the fronts, therefore when the front tyres have reached their limit, the rear is only half-way. One way to offset this is by adding more tyre to the front, but I don't think it's hard to imagine how silly a FWD would look with tyres capable of literally double the lateral force at the front (I'm thinking 295's at the front and 205's at the rear here).

With a factory setup, you are literally understeering from the moment you turn the steering wheel. The front tyres are being asked to provide double the lateral force (which at double the vertical load, would normally be perfectly fine except it requires a tyre capable of such a feat, which would normally be double the size).

Let us start ramping up the rear roll stiffness. We can do this in a number of ways such as bigger swaybars or stiffer springs. When the chassis moves during a corner, weight no longer transfers neatly inline with the weight distribution. Chassis movements "press down" harder on the outside rear tyre causing the rear axle to suffer more relative weight transfer than the front. For any given ammount of total weight transfer, the front end is now less affected than if it were more stiffly sprung than the rear. Due to tyre load sensitivity, this means you utilise your front tyres more effectively by allowing more total weight transfer due to optimising where the weight is distributed over the 4 (or 3) tyres. Get it right, and you can keep turning in more until the rear tyre is completely overloaded, a state that will exist at a far higher lateral G force than if the rear were softly sprung.

Stiffening the rear can't be summed up as "remove understeer" or "add oversteer", it changes the cornering attitude of the car, where and how it rotates, and the inputs needed to generate various states. A rear stiff car is a completely different beast to a stock "point and shoot" FWD, which after driving one for the past week, makes me sick. The only thing a front stiff FWD is good for, is not spinning out of control; and a rear stiff FWD does that just fine, so long as you have the throttle down :D

A nice RWD feels like it rotates around the outer front tyre (a phenomenon you might hear from old farts as "goes where it's pointed"). A factory FWD tries to mimic this behavior (because it feels nice and predictible) and fails due to the funamental imbalance of weight. A rear stiff FWD feels like it rotates about the outer REAR tyre, considerably changing the manner in which the vehicle is steered with the front wheels. The steering feel changes since you are now steering the floppy end, not the stiff one.

You can achieve a similar result without increasing the rear spring rates. Find a happy medium by running staggered tyre sizes (to increase maximum load potential for the front), increasing the front track width (to further reduce front load transfer), running a large rear swaybar (increase rear roll stiffness without the acompanying ride discomfort) and so on.

If it wasn't for the discovery of the rear biased setup, I would have moved onto a <insert generic rwd car> by now. The rear-stiff FWD is something compeltely different and can be a lot of fun and very challenging to drive fast and unlike common stock f:r ratio setups, can actually utilise all the tyres to their potential, not just the fronts.

Edit: It's not a matter of agreeance, it's all fact. Whether or not you like the changes in dynamics or can utilise them for your needs is where the arguments can form.

[TeMp]

Great post String!

Why am I not surprised to find you in this thread Tom?

[lil_foy]

Great post.
Reped.

[air23box]

I am not suprised too TeMp.....any thread which discuss about offset and rims size you should see Tom.....lol....

[VTECMACHINE]

Me. I do!