Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

could end badly

the attessa is sensitive enough to play up with worn rear tyres, so running a staggered offset you's have to get tyres that are really close in rolling circumference/diameter

offsets would probably be ok, is it for an auto or manual? i forget now

its a manual, and after using a rolling diameter calculator, icame up wiht the following.

these are the wheels combos.

19x9.5 +11 with a 275/30 tyre, overall diameter = 647.44 mm

19x8.5 +11 with a 235/35 tyre, overall diameter = 646.93 mm

so they are quite close, if i sit down im sure i can work out some difference in pressure to bring it even closer together.... the attessa isnt that sensitive is it haha... 1.49mm difference.

YES IT IS THAT SENSITIVE. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. Having a slight flat tyre is enough to set off the attessa, just but wheels in IDENTICAL sizes. It's not a hard concept.

Actually no. Just ignore my post again. I want you to f**k your car, maybe then you will listen.

so to get this correct in my head for when i finally buy a decent set of rims. buying rims that are different widths (ie 8.5 and 9) with different width and sidewall height (ie 235/40 and 265/40,35 or watever) will f**k it up but if i get both as for example 19 inch by 9 inch with 245/40 tyres but have the fronts as +22 offset and rears as +11 offset won't. Ignoring the fact that i've pulled these numbers out of...well you know where as far as if they will fit in the guards. The fact that the only difference is the offset means they will work....yes? because the only difference is how far the outside of the rim sits from the hub?

sigh, dont post if you have onthing imformative to say

the reason im asking questions is because i need answers, otherwise, my car would have the wrong wheels by now, there no need to be a wanker. i understand the rolling diameter issue, thats fine, i just want to see how sensitive it is. now whats wrong with changing the tyres.... couldnt i just run 245's all round, im pretty sure u can go down to 235 on a 9.5 inch rim??? so a 245 should be fine, but it would be stretched on the 9.5 so again would that change the rolling diameter???

how are there others running staggered offsets?? ive seen other stages with it done.

Edited by OMY31T

so to get this correct in my head for when i finally buy a decent set of rims. buying rims that are different widths (ie 8.5 and 9) with different width and sidewall height (ie 235/40 and 265/40,35 or watever) will f**k it up but if i get both as for example 19 inch by 9 inch with 245/40 tyres but have the fronts as +22 offset and rears as +11 offset won't. Ignoring the fact that i've pulled these numbers out of...well you know where as far as if they will fit in the guards. The fact that the only difference is the offset means they will work....yes? because the only difference is how far the outside of the rim sits from the hub?

thats correct, you can run different offsets, but not a different overall rolling outer tyre diameter. the problem ive got is finding somthing unique in my budget that suits the car

Off sets don't matter, just rolling diameter, I have 18x8 with +35 fronts and +6 rears on my rs4s, I didn't realize that the manual needs same offset front and rear and the auto needs staggered offsets when I bought my rims. I'm putting 30mm spacers on my front rims when I get the time.

f**k it, i decided to buy some KOYA Endless rims. 19x8.5 and they are blanks so i can choose the offset i want. $290 a rim with whateva offset i desire.

so, to make it simple, what offset should i run all round on 19x 9.5's on a RS4S to have the wheels sit just under the guards in the rear without pumping the guards. i will most likely buy 245x35's all round for the rubber.

lol im sick of hunting, its easier to get somthing made.

ok no wories, i hope ur right hahaha.... otherwise i will be wasting over a grand :P

going off a calculator this is what ive come up with

from the stock 6 spokes which are a 7" +30 offset

with a 19x8.5 at +6 offset

i will have and extra 5mm clearance on the inner side

and have a the wheels 43mm wider on the outside.

that sounds right, because as u could see in the original pics, that the wheels sit in quite a bit. so 43mm should bring them basically inline with the guards. but im just wondering if i should go a bit higher in offset to be on the safe sifde because i dont want to get them and not beable to lower the car, and i will more than likely put in some adjustable camber items to fix up bad camber from lowering, so i think i might go a +11, because i know for a cact i have 5mm extra on the inside of the wheels from where they fit now, so the inside will be sitting the same and the outside will be 38mm wider, whcih should give me a few mm of clearance for camber correction.

Edited by OMY31T

i wouldnt go +6, u will almost certainly have clearance issues once lowered. anywhere between +10 and +15 would be the go. ive got 18x8.5+23 on mine and they could use a 5mm spacer, but im not gonna use 1 cos its illegal.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...