When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Wheels and TiresNeed help with wheels or tires? Got fitment issues? Have questions about tire performance and handling? Ask all of those questions here!
Hey Paul,
I have a few questions for you (Some of this I know, but wanted to start the discussion):
What’s the ETA?
If two of us wanted to team up and by a set of 8’s and a set of 9.5’s in order to each run 8’s up front and 9.5’s in the rear, would the track width still be equal? Same exact design?
With a big brake kit pushed out a little, could I find a way to use a flatter cap? This would give me more finishing options on the wheel w/out a mismatched center cap. Are there any cap options? Are the caps aluminum and painted, too? Do you have any dimensions to share?
If I strip the paint, polish the lip, would kind of paint/finish should I consider – anodize the centers? Paint – what type?, Brushed vs Polished? Clear coat everything (mid-gloss vs high-gloss)? How sharp are the perimeter edge spokes without the paint on? – good spot for accent color?
ETA is when we order our next shipment of wheels. Right now that is looking to be late this year - we need to clear out inventory to make space for new inventory at our new location.
An 8" version would have 1.5" less backspace - the reduction in width would be from the barrel on the inside track width would increase a bit (about 1.5" by my calculations). Wheel would still fit flush with the outside wheel wells.
Center caps are included (you can certainly omit or substitute. Need to try out some OEM caps to see if they fit the same. The caps come in silver or satin black to match the wheel finishes. You can paint the caps - they are plastic with metal clips for attachment. In theory you may be able to find a flatter cap, but there really aren't that many options - we took the best option (clearance wise and looks) on the market when we designed them.
The great thing about our wheels is that if you don't like the colors we offer, you can strip them and do a few things: 1) repaint them, 2) powdercoat them, 3) polish them up (and clearcoat if you like), 4) anodize - we haven't had customers do that so far - but it is quality alloy so it should work fine. Aircraft stripper followed by a neutralizer works like a charm.
Originally Posted by TEDSgrad
Hey Paul,
I have a few questions for you (Some of this I know, but wanted to start the discussion):
What’s the ETA?
If two of us wanted to team up and by a set of 8’s and a set of 9.5’s in order to each run 8’s up front and 9.5’s in the rear, would the track width still be equal? Same exact design?
With a big brake kit pushed out a little, could I find a way to use a flatter cap? This would give me more finishing options on the wheel w/out a mismatched center cap. Are there any cap options? Are the caps aluminum and painted, too? Do you have any dimensions to share?
If I strip the paint, polish the lip, would kind of paint/finish should I consider – anodize the centers? Paint – what type?, Brushed vs Polished? Clear coat everything (mid-gloss vs high-gloss)? How sharp are the perimeter edge spokes without the paint on? – good spot for accent color?
An 8" version would have 1.5" less backspace - the reduction in width would be from the barrel on the inside track width would increase a bit (about 1.5" by my calculations). Wheel would still fit flush with the outside wheel wells.
Thanks, Paul,
So I take it that Track Width (outside, thin lines) would be equal with 8 fronts and 9.5 rears, but that the distance between the inside fronts (thick line) would be approximately 3" total. Same design for both.
This is acceptable for a mainly street car and 500 rwhp.
Get the slow boat moving!
One may certainly do the 8"/9.5" staggered on their 3rd gens once the 8" wheels become available, but they will also fit many other GM cars from the 60's onward.
One thing we do try to steer 3rd gen customers away from is the staggered wheel/tire combinations. The effect of a front heavy car with a 245 up front and a 275 in the rear is a recipe for mechanical oversteer. By changing the fronts from a 245 to a 275, you increase front grip leading to better handling, braking, and turn-in. The only cars we like saggered setups
is rear/mid engine cars where the handling balance would be off by going square. Even our BMW customers love having square setups on their cars - which are 50:50 weight balanced from the factory.
Originally Posted by TEDSgrad
Thanks, Paul,
So I take it that Track Width (outside, thin lines) would be equal with 8 fronts and 9.5 rears, but that the distance between the inside fronts (thick line) would be approximately 3" total. Same design for both.
This is acceptable for a mainly street car and 500 rwhp.
Get the slow boat moving!
Any more info on the possibility of 18X10's anytime soon?
Originally Posted by paul_huryk
Brian,
ETA is when we order our next shipment of wheels. Right now that is looking to be late this year - we need to clear out inventory to make space for new inventory at our new location.
An 8" version would have 1.5" less backspace - the reduction in width would be from the barrel on the inside track width would increase a bit (about 1.5" by my calculations). Wheel would still fit flush with the outside wheel wells.
Center caps are included (you can certainly omit or substitute. Need to try out some OEM caps to see if they fit the same. The caps come in silver or satin black to match the wheel finishes. You can paint the caps - they are plastic with metal clips for attachment. In theory you may be able to find a flatter cap, but there really aren't that many options - we took the best option (clearance wise and looks) on the market when we designed them.
The great thing about our wheels is that if you don't like the colors we offer, you can strip them and do a few things: 1) repaint them, 2) powdercoat them, 3) polish them up (and clearcoat if you like), 4) anodize - we haven't had customers do that so far - but it is quality alloy so it should work fine. Aircraft stripper followed by a neutralizer works like a charm.
We are hoping to get these in inventory in the next 12 months.
A few things: a) have a space problem for inventory - we order 300 wheels at a time and need to make room and b) these need to be created, including the dies for the flow forming - 17" dies do not work for 18" wheels. Dies can take up to 8 weeks to create and test.
Originally Posted by Dreambird
Any more info on the possibility of 18X10's anytime soon?
This would be good timing for me likely anyway. Thanks for the info!
Originally Posted by paul_huryk
We are hoping to get these in inventory in the next 12 months.
A few things: a) have a space problem for inventory - we order 300 wheels at a time and need to make room and b) these need to be created, including the dies for the flow forming - 17" dies do not work for 18" wheels. Dies can take up to 8 weeks to create and test.
No - they should be flush with the wheel wells, just like our 9.5", 5.25" BS version we sell now. The difference would be 1.5" less wheel barrel - so the BS would also decrease by 1.5".
No reason to re-engineer a superior design when we can just modify what we have already for a new application. They would also be a bit less expensive than the 9.5" wheels.
Originally Posted by Rayzor32
Will they stick out? Wasn't the factory BS 4.5 on the 16x8s?
One may certainly do the 8"/9.5" staggered on their 3rd gens once the 8" wheels become available, but they will also fit many other GM cars from the 60's onward.
One thing we do try to steer 3rd gen customers away from is the staggered wheel/tire combinations. The effect of a front heavy car with a 245 up front and a 275 in the rear is a recipe for mechanical oversteer. By changing the fronts from a 245 to a 275, you increase front grip leading to better handling, braking, and turn-in. The only cars we like saggered setups
is rear/mid engine cars where the handling balance would be off by going square. Even our BMW customers love having square setups on their cars - which are 50:50 weight balanced from the factory.
Wouldn't that be mechanical understeer, or are we going off the excessive front loading? And if you're all about cornering grip, which I like, then why not get going on some 18x11s, since we've seen that 18x10.5s are an easy tuck front and rear? Offset them for tucking with big brakes on de-rotored 1LE hubs, let the other buyers add thin spacers until they upgrade.
No - they should be flush with the wheel wells, just like our 9.5", 5.25" BS version we sell now. The difference would be 1.5" less wheel barrel - so the BS would also decrease by 1.5".
That would make an 8 with 3.75" BS, which can't tuck, I've tried 8s with 4" BS and they don't tuck, even on standard 10.5" brakes. I was trying 235-width tires, by the way. Most guys try 245s on 8s.
Wouldn't that be mechanical understeer, or are we going off the excessive front loading? And if you're all about cornering grip, which I like, then why not get going on some 18x11s, since we've seen that 18x10.5s are an easy tuck front and rear? Offset them for tucking with big brakes on de-rotored 1LE hubs, let the other buyers add thin spacers until they upgrade.
Yes, but 245 front and 275 rear is not that great - my comment was for street. IMHO, 275 is the most for highway ruts; but someone will say their 315's don't grab at all! I still vacillate, but this stagger is not bad. It also helps rear acceleration on the street. I plan on h/c/i to net 490 rwhp with the LS2.
On the track, accelerating from say 35 mph corner, it could have a small effect, but going to a better 17 tire is going to improve me from the 16 selection, too! I have better front roll center than most (2" drop spindles). It is consistent tire patch, not just throw wider at it! Also, I have a heavier 12 bolt in back with Raamat covering entire trunk. I have lots of compensations - unsprung weight!
I'm still thinking I can use my stock 16 with a used R compound (plentiful in 245 x 16); then run the stagger on street (if I absolutely need 4 square). I do think it is a good aesthetic if not overdone (slicks and skinnies type). I don't care about competition; I'm out there to learn weight control and have fun.
I will trust Paul that he has designed a strong wheel. The weight is excellent - what I am looking for! The price is excellent, as well - affords me the option to address the only negative, style. It is not a bad style; it's just not great. It's a conservative 5 spoke design. Never out of style, never quite in. That means it will stand the test of time - I'm a conservative guy. The price means I can do something to give them more pizzazz.
There are trade-offs on every decision. Make informed choices.
On the street, it's illegal to do anything that requires 275s anyway, so it's really for looks, and wider is better. That's where you get guys trying to pinch 285/40s onto 17x9s, where they shouldn't be trying to get those 285s onto anything less than a 10, ideally a 10.5, except on the street it's better to run a slight pinch to help protect the sidewalls from broken glass, nails, et cetera.
I happen to enjoy cornering at speed, so there's no reason for me to run any less front width than can fit, and if it costs me half a tenth at the dragstrip, so what? More front width means more front braking, and a junkyard 5.3 with a Chinese turbo can put down 1000 RWHP, so that half a tenth at the dragstrip means nothing anyway, especially if you can't stop it.
I looked at this thread expecting Paul to explain why 8s on the front are pointless, now I see he's giving in to people wanting what they shouldn't, because they'll pay good money for what they shouldn't ask for, let alone buy at any price.
The more I read what Paul types, the more I think him unworthy of any respect.
Whoaa, Cosmick! You do need more braking power, for sure. Get a grip. Different strokes for different folks. Lets have a larger cosmos, Cosmick.
Certain race classes right the rules, not you. Cosmick is not the center of the cosmos. My drop spindles limit me to 8's in front. Others want 8's in front. McStrut suspensions have inherent bad scrub radius. Gas mileage for long distance cruising. I could throw a list at you, but I don't think I could reason you out of a position that reason has not led you into - think about that.
You attack a person's integrity, because you don't hear what you want. Sounds Trumpian to me. Learn to respect others who hold differing opinions. It does not equate to disagreeing with the person.
"I happen to enjoy cornering at speed, so there's no reason for me to run any less front width than can fit" - That not the whole cosmos, sustained contact patch is, along with longevity; or you'll be in the pits changing tires while the winner takes the checkered flag.
Please learn some self-control at the keyboard, before you put lives at risk on the track.
I looked at this thread expecting Paul to explain why 8s on the front are pointless, now I see he's giving in to people wanting what they shouldn't, because they'll pay good money for what they shouldn't ask for, let alone buy at any price.
The more I read what Paul types, the more I think him unworthy of any respect.
Let me be crystal clear...
We are coming out with an 8" version so we can fit our wheels on cars that cannot fit our 9.5" wide wheels on all 4 corners - 2nd gen f-bodies, last gen g-bodies, some of the 60's and 70's GM cars.
They are not specifically meant for the 3rd gens - although they will fit and they will be legal for race classes limited to a 17" x 8" wheel.
We created our wheels for fit specific cars and allow them to get a 275 width tire under all 4 corners on a lightweight, inexpensive wheel. We certainly succeeded in that respect. We also understand that the customer has needs and sometimes we can't fulfill them - as an example an 18" version of our wheel - coming soon, but not fast enough for some.
Now we suggest (and suggest is a relative term) that if one wants to get the best braking and handling performance out of their 3rd gen, it is optimal to run a 275 (or larger) tire on all 4 corners to compensate for the front-heavy weight distribution. having a 245/275 stagger is going to automatically bring about mechanical oversteer.
That said, we don't tell one customer one thing and another something else. We merely try to make customers happy by meeting their needs in a professional manner. I may be long winded talking to customers, but we always tell the truth.
I'm not going to blast you - won't lower myself to do that, but keep in mind that we have many satisfied customers on this board - not to mention several winning and high-placing 3rd gen race cars on our wheels. Those things speak for themselves and earn their own respect.
You can fit a 10.5" up front - problem is the rub under full lock. I could care less about that - people bitch about it, but most cars rub with OEM 245-50-16 up front.
A 3rd gen with a 295 all around is one hell of a car.
Originally Posted by InfernalVortex
If only out steering boxes could reasonably handle 18x10.5s in the front.... 275s are a little bit of a pain sometimes on their own.
A 3rd gen with a 295 all around is one hell of a car.
I have a request; please get the 18's in production as I'm at less than half tread depth now and I'd really like to have me some of them 295's all the way around.
02-27-2016, 12:35 PM
