Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

you are, offset is very different to width.

for example James Vahoumis S14.5 has 40mm overfenders on the rear, his wheels hang out of the guards, with something like a -15 offset, but they are only 10s on the rear.

having dish, and hanging out of a guard doesnt always correlate to wheel width.

You picked .5" by eye, based only on the fact that they hung out of the guards too much?

C'mon, they could have just as easily been +17, then they would have been 10" instead of 10.5.

on another note, seems strange that the rears are +24 (104.6mm from wheel outer edge) and fronts -10 (120.25 from wheel outer edge). Would make more sense if it was the other way around - giving much greater dish on the rears than the fronts. (edit: as per pic above)

if u read the above post u'll find that the front offset comes to -10 im GUESSING after the 40mm spacers, hence they would be 30+ offset which yes would make much more sense...im just regurgitating what i was given...when did i ever say i based the fact they were larger because they hung out of the gaurds? :S

... and i very much doubt they are 10" and 9"...with that amount of wide body im sure there bigger...

thats where, offset will determine how much dish, not spacers. If you look at the wheels, the rears have more dish than the fronts, therefore, given they are the same wheel, it would be logical to assume that the rears are the -10, not the fronts - regardless of how much spacer there is.

by saying "with that amount of wide body im sure there bigger" i was refering that it could handle much more offset and hence bigger wheels...ie. not put some pizza cutters on with huge negative offset...

and i agree with u on the offset looking weird, but this is what wiplsh himself told me...with the front offset im sure he meant the offset came to -10 once the spacer was put on...because yes there would be a ridiculous amount of dish if it was -10 on a 9" wheel...

"I think i got the offset written around the right way."...he may possibly have written it around the wrong way lol

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 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...