Diamonds Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 See, when I see a wheel/tire combo with the lip completely exposed it just screams "Oops! I bought rims that were too wide and now I have to make them fit." to me. Same goes when the wheel is poking well outside the fender. Ultimately, it just looks like a half-assed job to me. The red car above looks good, though it also looks like it'd suck to drive. I can't tell how much the rear tires are stretched, but hopefully not much. The R32 and the Porsche on the other hand don't look good. The width and stretch of the R32's wheels make them look like the owner just bought the cheapest set of rims that looked good off craigslist and didn't bother with fitment. The Porsche looks silly because that's a good 2 inches+ of rubber that could be put down PER CORNER for more grip. It looks like he's too cheap to buy the right tires. I know it's for looks and some people like that look. I'm just saying what it looks like to me. You dont really think that, you are just trying to make a point. But, I realize that most people don't adhere to that culture. Please understand that the S-Chassis culture is "just different". It doesn't make it right (i realize this)/ http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m590h1drPf1rsdlqyo1_500.jpg http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/4125/s15silviaspecrimg600x45df1.jpg http://www.stancenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/93.jpg the truth.... http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5mjef9qTN1r5f59bo1_500.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 All of those cars would look better if the tires actually fit the wheels. That silver car, if it had tires that fit and just a smidge more ride height, would be one sweet ride. The S13-S15 are good looking cars with a couple mods. One of my favorite combos is a S13 fastback with a S15 front end. Sexy. And yes, I do think it looks half-assed to have the lip of the wheel exposed from stretching a tire that's too narrow. $1000 wheel with a $100 tire. I think it's really dumb looking. But that's my opinion. I'm not going to walk up to Farkas or Biggu at C&C and tell them to go buy wider tires. It's their cars, their scene. Just not mine. You know what I just realized? It's the same concept as the Donk. Rims too big for the car needing modified suspension and tires. Except in the stretch and poke deal, it's about width rather than diameter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 You know what I just realized? It's the same concept as the Donk.. Oddly enough, i'm not going to argue that if you expand on it. But isn't that true for a lot of cars (the underlying theory). People modify cars to perform better and look better (though not always meeting the latter per differing opinions). The donk is just a more blatant way of saying "look at meeeeee". Believe me, i'm deff not the guy who says "i only mod my car if it helps it perform better". I want performance and aesthetics. Call me a ricer, doesn't bother me one iota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Oddly enough, i'm not going to argue that if you expand on it. But isn't that true for a lot of cars (the underlying theory). People modify cars to perform better and look better (though not always meeting the latter per differing opinions). The donk is just a more blatant way of saying "look at meeeeee". Believe me, i'm deff not the guy who says "i only mod my car if it helps it perform better". I want performance and aesthetics. Call me a ricer, doesn't bother me one iota. Every person balances performance and appearance. I like to have my Form and Function too. Some people however go fully to one or the other. If I was purely function over form, I'd be getting a set of RPF1s for the BRZ. That's pretty much the best price/weight ratio. Tint doesn't help me go faster either. But on the flip side, I want my mods to have function as well. The tint blocks UV and heat to preserve my interior, and the wheels I'm getting are still 15lbs. I feel there's a balance to strike, and when someone fully upsets that balance it just mystifies me why they would. Like my comments about the silver S14. Just a couple small changes and he'd have 95% of the look he has now, but also a functional car at the same time. But again, it's their scene, not mine. I'll just quietly shake my head and hope they come to their senses at some point. ..like those kids that wear their pants around their thighs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkas Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 The width and stretch of the R32's wheels make them look like the owner just bought the cheapest set of rims that looked good off craigslist and didn't bother with fitment. The amount he paid for those wheels is 2x USED what you just paid for the new wheels on your BRZ... just FYI. But again, it's their scene, not mine. I'll just quietly shake my head and hope they come to their senses at some point. ..like those kids that wear their pants around their thighs. lol, not a chance Everyone is about to HATE the wheel/tire setup I'm running on my R32, as soon as I get it all together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Borgen Posted June 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 I prefer hella-functional over hella-flush. I prefer optimal suspension geometry for corner speed, over stance yo. amen....fuck stretch, poke n all that stupid non-functional crap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Jones Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Kids today.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkas Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 amen....fuck stretch, poke n all that stupid non-functional crap Stretch is functional... to a point. But fuck it, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 The amount he paid for those wheels is 2x USED what you just paid for the new wheels on your BRZ... just FYI. I'm sure. Back to the Donk thing, it's about baller wheels. I'm just saying what it LOOKS like to me. Everyone is about to HATE the wheel/tire setup I'm running on my R32, as soon as I get it all together. It's the same as the BRZ/FR-S. The hate means you're doing something right. (I"m just not sure what that is when it comes to stretch/poke. :lolguy:) There is a point to mild stretch. But not that much stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGGU Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Street flashy bling bling wheels and track wheels. Come at me bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Stretch is functional... to a point. But fuck it, right? Explain, please. Curious to know your logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 A mild stretch will increase sidewall stiffness and increase responsiveness. This is about the most stretch you would want: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/JDM180/tire.jpg However. If you have a tire with a stiff sidewall already, you don't need the stretch and can go to a wider size with more square sidewalls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 A mild stretch will increase sidewall stiffness and increase responsiveness. This is about the most stretch you would want: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/JDM180/tire.jpg However. If you have a tire with a stiff sidewall already, you don't need the stretch and can go to a wider size with more square sidewalls. That tire is not stretched for 2 reasons... 1. The rim protector is oversized and giving it the illusion of looking stretched. 2. That's a 7 or 7.5 inch wide knockoff wheel, what tire would stretch on that especially since it is easy to see that the sidewall is most likely a 40 or 45 AR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Explain, please. Curious to know your logic. Sidewallflexduh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Street flashy bling bling wheels and track wheels. Come at me bro. explains my life exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boosted98gst Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 I love well put together cars , I just can not stand shitty fiberglass body crap. The whole hella flush is so played out here in california. Every 18 to 22 year old kid with skinny jeans, flat brim hats, colorful af1s has some type of busted car with 3rd hand blown coilovers and 4k rims lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkas Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Explain, please. Curious to know your logic. It's not my logic, it's proven fact that stretch does provide tractional benefits. On solid rear axle cars, like my corolla for instance, a little bit of tire stretch on the rear would have much the same effects as adding a static negative camber because of the stiffer sidewall and the new geometry of the sidewall from the stretch. Stretching tires originated from this very same idea, long before people really did it as an 'aesthetic' thing. People were putting wider wheels on cars while keeping the same tire size, only to find that the new stretch was increasing their skidpad numbers. One study found that a tire that was manufactured for a 7" wide wheel, saw an increase from .96Gs to .99Gs, when it was mounted on a 9" wide wheel. Take a good look at F1 cars They're known to run around -5 degrees of camber and if you look, there's plenty of tire stretch present. People argue up and down Camber is stupid as well, but it has it's reasons aside from the common myth of just destroying tires. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/web630-rb7.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmuckingham Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 It's not my logic, it's proven fact that stretch does provide tractional benefits. On solid rear axle cars, like my corolla for instance, a little bit of tire stretch on the rear would have much the same effects as adding a static negative camber because of the stiffer sidewall and the new geometry of the sidewall from the stretch. Stretching tires originated from this very same idea, long before people really did it as an 'aesthetic' thing. People were putting wider wheels on cars while keeping the same tire size, only to find that the new stretch was increasing their skidpad numbers. One study found that a tire that was manufactured for a 7" wide wheel, saw an increase from .96Gs to .99Gs, when it was mounted on a 9" wide wheel. Take a good look at F1 cars They're known to run around -5 degrees of camber and if you look, there's plenty of tire stretch present. People argue up and down Camber is stupid as well, but it has it's reasons aside from the common myth of just destroying tires. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/web630-rb7.jpg uuuuhhhhh F1 cars camber things out because they actually turn at high rates of speed, grip is a very needed thing. A slammed on its ass VW doesnt need any camber to drive to work in the morning, a drift car might but its really a mute point since the car is steered with the rearend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 ^ sort of, it's called camber gain. Suspension geometry dictates it and based on the design you set - camber such that in your highest loaded turn you reach a zero camber, utilizing full tread impact. F1 cars that have high static negative camber will lose that in a high speed corner due to the mathematical geometric relationship, to get maximum contact patch. A dumb ricer with stupid camber, 99.9999999999% of hte time will only be reducing contact patch in a turn with a high static negative camber, because the geometry does not supply a lot of camber gain while turning. regarding "stretch", 1) the added 'effective' sidewall stiffness (not actual tire stiffness) is good to a point, but also a negative, sidewall give has advantages. 2) sidewall absorption allows the contact patch to stay under the friction limit without sliding in high G cornering, so there is a balance between responsiveness and friction limit. 3)Stretching itself causes instability in the tire / suspension (reducing the thought of inherent responsiveness) in corner entry and exit as the sidewall was not designed to receive the loading in the direction it is at that point. 3) any increased pressures also increase effective stiffness, which further reduce effectiveness of high frequency absorbtion, which then carries through shocks and suspension, as well as loss of ideal contact patch. 3a) this causes rough ride, reduces driveline and suspension component life unnecessarily (vibe input to bearings+bushings+seals) I would like to see this data comparing the cornering G's of the same tire on 2 rims. It goes against what I learned from tire engineers at Goodyear while running on their equipment. But I am not saying it isnt real data, I am just interested to see it. And please dont bring formula racing into the equation, any road racing vehicle tries to do everything possible to maximize tire traction, not minimize it by reducing contact patch. And please, sure as hell dont call that "tire stretch" on a f1 car... that is just some ricer bullshit fantasy based on a picture. There is a reason for the visualized stretch you see in that picture, and it goes against your primary argument for why tires are stretched. In fact, let me turn your argument back on you fully. If sidewall stiffness was infinitely important, why dont race cars run super low profile tires with little to no sidewall give? For the classes with lower profile tires, why dont they have a dumb ricer stretch to them? It boils down to this, plain and simple. Ricers do these things because they see something simliar on a race car and think "yea man, I'm going to do that so I can go faster in the twisties" and brag to all his ricer buddies about his 'stance' that is completely non-functional "But fuck it, right?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I love well put together cars , I just can not stand shitty fiberglass body crap. +100. Every 18 to 22 year old kid with skinny jeans, flat brim hats, colorful af1s has some type of busted car with 3rd hand blown coilovers and 4k rims lol Can someone please tell me where the resurgence-of-80s-fashion trend came from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Sorry, I guess I came off harsh, which was not my intent. I am sure there was some reasoning, and I really would like to see that data. It's just as someone who taught the subject on a minimal level, and has a high enjoyment for anything related to race car engineering, it bothers me when I 'perceive' what seems to be a spreading of misinformation. I would like to say some of that stuff has a 'cool' look to it, and that is fine, I just dont want people to try to twist some performance logic into it, especially referencing Formula1 as a defense for it. Just do it, Because Show Car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkas Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Sorry, I guess I came off harsh, which was not my intent. I am sure there was some reasoning, and I really would like to see that data. It's just as someone who taught the subject on a minimal level, and has a high enjoyment for anything related to race car engineering, it bothers me when I 'perceive' what seems to be a spreading of misinformation. I'll get back to you in a bit about this, I'm going to have plenty of time on my overnight shift to find that data for you, and explain that I agree with everything you're saying, yet I wasn't trying to get into an explanation that was just long winded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 ^ sort of, it's called camber gain. Suspension geometry dictates it and based on the design you set - camber such that in your highest loaded turn you reach a zero camber, utilizing full tread impact. F1 cars that have high static negative camber will lose that in a high speed corner due to the mathematical geometric relationship, to get maximum contact patch. A dumb ricer with stupid camber, 99.9999999999% of hte time will only be reducing contact patch in a turn with a high static negative camber, because the geometry does not supply a lot of camber gain while turning. Its quite effective at any considerable speed actually. How can you justify your last statement considering the effects on the roll center of the car pushing the tire into zero or positive canber? That would always force the outside tire increase (or fall into) camber gain (Even the ricer with the slammed car). I cannot stand people who say "if it doesnt make my car perform better then its considered" ricer... that means that the person makign that statement is running away from so other ignorant isntance where an ignorant person once clowned their car. Its almost as if they build cars jsut to prove to others that their mods "CANNOT" be considered "ricer... .because they jettisoned their existing persona amongst the car culture. Whats wrong with your car "looking cool" as a by-product of the process along with being quick and enjoyable? And please dont bring formula racing into the equation, any road racing vehicle tries to do everything possible to maximize tire traction, not minimize it by reducing contact patch. And please, sure as hell dont call that "tire stretch" on a f1 car... that is just some ricer bullshit fantasy based on a picture. There is a reason for the visualized stretch you see in that picture, and it goes against your primary argument for why tires are stretched. so much angst..... remember, you are the one with "juicedh22" as a screen name, embrace your past instead of denying it. call it "what you did". Why not just accept other facets of the automotive culture... ? Expecially if you once conformed to those stigmas. It boils down to this, plain and simple. Ricers do these things because they see something simliar on a race car and think "yea man, I'm going to do that so I can go faster in the twisties" and brag to all his ricer buddies about his 'stance' that is completely non-functional "But fuck it, right?" complete ignorance My car is slammed on 11.5 in wide wheels in the rear... with a 265.35 tire. Its still fun an enjoyable... Thats why I own it. But my build is a self-fulfilling prophecy... as it is exactly what I was hoping for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Since I'm on my phone, I will bypass the long counter post, and just say "read the second post I made" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 My bad, foot in mouth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.