Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

just about to purchase my 1st set of Rays and was calculating sizes and offsets with a buddy from Musecret.

we calculated for the rears there would be a total for 127mm of dish and the fronts 87mm. with offsets of +15 and + 8 respectively

he also mentioned they were type B (something to do with the amount of dish and break clearance)

he also mentioned that having smaller offsets puts more strain on the car and results in lower handling, performance ect ect

was quite surprised but some how it makes sense.

was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the topic.

oh also do u guys rkn the dish is to much?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/188265-offsett-affect-performance/
Share on other sites

Type A, B, etc mainly refers to the face of the wheel and sometimes spoke curvature/dish, where certain types are designed to clear big brakes, while others arent.

A lower offset putting more strain on the car doesnt make any sense. Perhaps more strain on the wheel itself if the offset is something mad like -20.

The way I see it, the only way a lower offset can affect performance is that the wheels sit further outwards, giving the car a wider base, making it more stable, sorta.

On a side note, for those offsets you're gonna need guard work or some massive camber.

Edited by Yawn
A lower offset putting more strain on the car doesnt make any sense. Perhaps more strain on the wheel itself if the offset is something mad like -20.

The way I see it, the only way a lower offset can affect performance is that the wheels sit further outwards, giving the car a wider base, making it more stable, sorta.

not true. basically the further out from the hub the wheel centreline is the more strain is put on the hubs, suspension and most of all the wheel bearings.

I agree with BB, lower offset, means widening the track width = changing the center of gravity of your car and hence putting additional strain on suspension parts eg bushes etc....

That said, there is an optimal range of offsets which will be bugger all impact on the above...+8 might be pushing it or anything with a -ve offset...

not true. basically the further out from the hub the wheel centreline is the more strain is put on the hubs, suspension and most of all the wheel bearings.

True, makes sense :)

Is it a noticeable strain though? Like handling affected, suspension components failing more frequently, etc.? Or more of a theoretical strain?

Edited by Yawn
not true. basically the further out from the hub the wheel centreline is the more strain is put on the hubs, suspension and most of all the wheel bearings.

thats what i was worried about......with those specs do u think i would be risking serious damage or anything? i have plans of 300+rwkw.....so im a little worried about low offsets doing some dmg

How wide are these wheels with the +15 and +8 offsets?

19x11 on the rears and 19x9 on the fronts

True, makes sense :)

Is it a noticeable strain though? Like handling affected, suspension components failing more frequently, etc.? Or more of a theoretical strain?

would like to know this aswell. im getting a suspension kit from sydneykid to better the handling.....i hope having these wheels wont make it worse off

Edited by R34NRG

most notable stress would be on wheel bearings IMO. bigger offset = wider track. wider track means the car *should* be more stable through corners, cant really see any drawbacks in relation to handling, unless your alignment is thrown out by something

well basically the further out you go the bigger the problem. if you started with your stock 17X7 +38s or whatever they are. and you go to 19X11 +20 off the top of my head that's about 65mm further out. plus they are much heavier (even if the rims are lightweight there is no such thing as a light weight 19inch tyre) so yeah it will be putting more strain on suspension and bearings. but a wheel in that size is all about looks anyway as they would be useless from a performance point of view so I wouldn't worry about it too much. probably the only consequence you will find is that you flog out wheel bearings much faster than normal.

thats what i was worried about......with those specs do u think i would be risking serious damage or anything? i have plans of 300+rwkw.....so im a little worried about low offsets doing some dmg

you'll crash it anyway so what's the point?

also you should note that changing your track can make you car illegal. in VIC, you can only widen the rear track on an independant rear suspension car by 25mm (front is also 25mm), so that is 12.5mm per wheel. so that means you can only change the offset of the wheel by 12.5mm.

also having a wider rear track than front track can make the car a bit more unstable going into corners under brakes, and slightly easier to roll. having a wider rear track makes the dynamics a bit more like a trike.

also you should note that changing your track can make you car illegal. in VIC, you can only widen the rear track on an independant rear suspension car by 25mm (front is also 25mm), so that is 12.5mm per wheel. so that means you can only change the offset of the wheel by 12.5mm.

That's f**kin gay. I always thought it was 25mm on EACH side, but it's all together. Everything's f**kin illegal.

Would those wheels rub against your coilovers? They're pretty wide wheels on such a high-ish offset.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...