Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've been reading a lot lately about unsprung weight and how beneficial it can be to reduce it for driving on the track, given my semi's only have another day or two in them I am throwing around the idea of some lighter wheels and a square set up.

I have 265/35/19's and 245/40(?)/19 Federal 595's at the moment. The wheels and tyres are super heavy. I looked up my wheel weight online and got 14.5kg naked. Not sure if this was 8.5 (front) or 9 (rear) but that's a lot.

I have also been reading about the benefits of a square setup. Much better rotation and potentially less understeer. 

When I throw these together I'm thinking about a 17x9 or 18x9 square (preferably under 10kgs per wheel) with 245 or 255's. I can get some cheap 17x8.5 BMW M Sport wheels, they weight 10.5 kg's each but at 8.5 wide could probably only get 245's on them? I know they come with 255's from factory but semi's are a bit chunkier.

Otherwise it will be aftermarket wheels in a 9" width. Most of the other BMW wheels are heavy unless you pay a squillion dollars for some M wheels. 

Although, the E46 M3 Style 67's could be good but I'd have to buy 2 sets to square them up. 

My car has a tickle over 400hp and about to put an LSD in also, is 245 a little thin for a square setup? It kinda feels that way to me.

Also, is there any tangible benefit to having 18's over 17's? Is the footprint demonstrably bigger?

From those of you who went to light(er) wheels after heavy buggers, did you notice it much?

49 minutes ago, Murray_Calavera said:

What type of track driving will you be doing? 

Do you have a set of class rules you need to abide by that will limit your rim / tyre width?

Nah, nothing formal, just open track days. Mostly small and tight circuits but I would like to get back out to Eastern Creek at some stage.

24 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

I have Enkei RPF1s in 17x8 that are 7 kg. That's about as light as it is possible to get without going forged.

Apparently 18x9s are only <1kg heavier.

Just the wheel, obviously.

 

Enkei's are what I've been looking at. There were some Enkei 18x9's in my stud pattern that weighed 8.5kg's so similar to what you said.

Did you notice a difference when switching to lighter wheels?

Apex wheels are the go-to for all things BMW. They have quite the level of information on weight, fitment and other things. A friend who had an E36 was extremely happy with the wheels he got from them.

They should answer anything potentially answerable on the subject. :p

https://apexwheels.com/fitment-guides/bmw/3-series/bmw-e90-e91-e92-e93-3-series-wheel-and-tire-fitment-guide

  • Like 1
24 minutes ago, PranK said:

Did you notice a difference when switching to lighter wheels?

Well, yeah, but not so as you'd be able to attribute it to the weight. Went from stock R32 16x6.5s with 225s (ie, a bit bulgy) to 17x8 with 235s. So more rubber with better geometry, along with maybe a weight change. Dunno what the stockies weigh bare.

  • Like 1
2 hours ago, PranK said:

Did you notice a difference when switching to lighter wheels?

I would be very surprised if you could tell the difference between 8kg and 12kg wheels in a blind A B test.

What you will be able to notice is going to wider wheels (+wider tyres). If you don't have to abide by any rules, I'd fit the widest wheels you can get under the guards.

18 hours ago, Murray_Calavera said:

I would be very surprised if you could tell the difference between 8kg and 12kg wheels in a blind A B test.

What you will be able to notice is going to wider wheels (+wider tyres). If you don't have to abide by any rules, I'd fit the widest wheels you can get under the guards.

Ok cool, because I do have some OEM BMW options for light(er) wheels. 17x8.5 M Sport wheels are 11kg and I could put 255's on them. Maybe that's an initial test.

1 hour ago, PranK said:

Ok cool, because I do have some OEM BMW options for light(er) wheels. 17x8.5 M Sport wheels are 11kg and I could put 255's on them. Maybe that's an initial test.

Sounds good. Might be worth double checking what size rim the tyres you are running want. Generally I'd expect to see a 235 tyre on a 8.5 rim. Any possibility of an easy to source OEM 9.5 wide rim?

Also with the thoughts of the square setup, I'd still say wider is going to be better. Say your currently on 235 front and 255 rear. Going to square 255 will be better. But say you could fit, 255 front and 275 rear, that will be better again. 

In hypothetical land there might be a world where you go so wide that performance starts to go backwards, but I don't think you'll ever bump into that situation in real life.

So, the wheels in question come with 255 tyres from factory but I guess semi's are usually a bit fatter, maybe that's too much for an 8.5.

I'm currently running 245 front and 265 rear with Federal 595's on my 19's.

There are no OE square setups so to run square I either buy 2 sets of OE wheels or get an aftermarket set. I was thinking about the OE 17's I have because I already have one set (17x8, 17x8.5) and you can get another set for under $500. 

I do have another set of the same 19's (I have a bit of a wheel problem) so I could put together a 19x9 square setup but I'm conscious of the cost of semi's this size. 255 square on the 19's would be pretty cool though.

 

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...