Official Aggressive Wheels & Fat Tires Thread
02-21-2011, 01:10 PM
#1761
Hardest Setting
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MexiCali dodging potholes
Posts: 13,406
Received 130 Likes
on
102 Posts
Kingbaby, you do realize that many time attack cars have custom sub-frame, hubs, moved pick-up points, etc. These allow them to make drastic changes while maintaining optimal geometry. Most of those mods are illegal in most (certainly not all) amatuer racing. There is also substantial cost in terms of resources (both monetary and intellectual) to get those cars to work right. The Z handles very well. On top of the hardware changes....many of those cars have hacked off the fenders and molded in wider flares (but you know this)...
I'm laughing between us not at you in anyway...this is also why I'm surprised you guys shun these types of actions...
like it's sacrilegious
02-21-2011, 01:13 PM
#1762
The cost involved in doing it right is astronomical......that's why most are so quick to dismiss it. You aren't going to have a car that handles, in my definition, worth a damn that is lowered 4" on stance coilovers and a set of SPC rear camber arms........which seems to be the thinking for most.
02-21-2011, 01:28 PM
#1764
hmmmm...bumpy...all the tracks?.....hmmmm
so there is no time attack events?
I'm sure timeattack cars are lower than me, and more purposely built...
so again your avoiding what some of us here are trying to achieve...
stance with a purpose!
I know he is but in the end all his weight is still at stock hieght...
defeats the purpose kinda...
so there is no time attack events?
I'm sure timeattack cars are lower than me, and more purposely built...
so again your avoiding what some of us here are trying to achieve...
stance with a purpose!
I know he is but in the end all his weight is still at stock hieght...
defeats the purpose kinda...
Here is the car under constant throttle:
If it goes any lower, it will scrape in the front under high-G turns (cuz there's that much grip!)
This is an issue for me as well. Buttonwillow is pretty bumpy, as is one of our autox locations. Even though tracks like Laguna Seca and Thunderhill are relatively smooth, their berms are high, and people have bottomed out the suspension travel before by riding over them. This causes a highly-unpredictable, dynamic situation. I have seen cars spin at 120mph from this very same thing (on Koni yellows, not the DAs).
Last edited by scotts300; 02-21-2011 at 01:30 PM.
02-21-2011, 01:29 PM
#1765
Registered User
i was bored so i thought i would figure this out. i did an autocad drawing of 1, 3 and 4 degrees along with how far the wheel pushes. stock at 1 degree is about 0.38" so subtracting that from the 1.19" and 1.53", we get 0.81"(18.71mm) and 1.14"(29.08mm) of a push at 3 and 4 degrees, respectively. so basically measure your current distance from top of wheel to fender and see how much more you want.
ninja edit: this is all theoretical and does not account for how the tire acts under weight. just something to think about. oh, and the drawing is in mm
ninja edit: this is all theoretical and does not account for how the tire acts under weight. just something to think about. oh, and the drawing is in mm
You're measuring from the bottom of the tire to the top, but you're forgetting that the bottom of the tire will also move outward the same amount as the top moves in, therefore doubling your measurement.
You need to measure from a fixed reference point to get the actual clearance number change between the top of the tire and the fender.
If you set your reference point to the vertical center point of the outer edge of the wheel at 0 degrees, then adjusted the camber with that reference point attached you'd be golden.
GOOD IDEA though, I've actually sat down and done this math before to figure out this very thing. Nice to see it "on paper" so to speak.
02-21-2011, 01:31 PM
#1766
Registered User
Driving slammed is great, until you need to perform in a corner that has any kind of bumps. Then it's not so fun.
02-21-2011, 02:14 PM
#1770
King so you cut the inside and then hammered it as flat as possible? U guys lit a fire in my A$$...lol I'm going to go measure how big of spacer I need to push it out more, lol...
ok here's a question if anyone knows,
Every -1 camber frees up how many mm?
U get my question, lol
Also Toby I'm sure hounding know what camber you were @ huh??? Nut can u give me an estimate
King you too, give me an estimat of @ what camber ur @????
I think I'm going to push it too -3
What do you guys think? Too much or too little???
Needs some answers fast so I can order the spacers and get this shot done...lol
Oh and right now I'm around -1/-1.5 camber with 25mm offsets,
I don't remember exactly the camber spec, maybe -2 idk lol... I'm going to measure this bish right now..lmao
ok here's a question if anyone knows,
Every -1 camber frees up how many mm?
U get my question, lol
Also Toby I'm sure hounding know what camber you were @ huh??? Nut can u give me an estimate
King you too, give me an estimat of @ what camber ur @????
I think I'm going to push it too -3
What do you guys think? Too much or too little???
Needs some answers fast so I can order the spacers and get this shot done...lol
Oh and right now I'm around -1/-1.5 camber with 25mm offsets,
I don't remember exactly the camber spec, maybe -2 idk lol... I'm going to measure this bish right now..lmao
camber was set at -2.4 out back.
02-21-2011, 02:30 PM
#1772
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My bad al lol I was curious myself so I did that drawing real quick before the end of work lol I actually have no experience with lowering and real negative camber. Although, I am goint to get some tanabe GF210s here in the spring so ill start to dabble in alignment here soon
02-21-2011, 02:36 PM
#1773
Toby-22,
I am guilty of skimming through the posts, but is anyone really bashing the more aggressive wheels? Whether you (or I) like it.....this thread is all encompassing for larger tire applications at this point. Lets just realize that it is now more of a fat tire thread.
I am guilty of skimming through the posts, but is anyone really bashing the more aggressive wheels? Whether you (or I) like it.....this thread is all encompassing for larger tire applications at this point. Lets just realize that it is now more of a fat tire thread.
02-21-2011, 03:41 PM
#1776
Toby-22,
I am guilty of skimming through the posts, but is anyone really bashing the more aggressive wheels? Whether you (or I) like it.....this thread is all encompassing for larger tire applications at this point. Lets just realize that it is now more of a fat tire thread.
I am guilty of skimming through the posts, but is anyone really bashing the more aggressive wheels? Whether you (or I) like it.....this thread is all encompassing for larger tire applications at this point. Lets just realize that it is now more of a fat tire thread.
this is about looks, if you want "function" in terms of track, theres a track thread for that. This thread's intended purpose is to show that fat tires on AGGRESSIVE wheels can look good. why would anyone want to go with fat tires when people on the stretch thread is doing a better job? then you guys biiitch and moan as to why everyone is going stretch...bcs they show the general public it LOOKS good and it gets attention. Unfortunately in this thread it's all about "track function" and being "conservative" for minimum effort. it's boring and nobody will care....reason everyone is jumping the stretch band wagon.
^take this guy for example, the standards in this thread is so low he actually thinks he's aggressive. a random guy that just bought his Z would think "hmm that looks just like my stock Z, why would i spend money and look just like any other Z on the road. but whats up with those nice stretched/slammed Zs? i've never seen anything like that in person. i think i'll join in on the fun".
i don't think my car is better than anyones, i honestly respect track setups, but this thread needs direction IMO.
Last edited by Toby-22; 02-21-2011 at 03:42 PM.
02-21-2011, 03:46 PM
#1778
Frankly, the thing that turns me off to the other tire thread is the pure surliness its 12-15 posters have towards those cars which are "borderline". I am glad that is kept to a minimum in here. I disagree also that this thread is about looks.....there will always be a function advantage to the "fatter" tires...why not emphasize it here. I have thought about starting a pic thread in the track forum, but haven't yet.
As far as the above quote of me....I was just continuing the discussion/bickering b/w king, myself, and others. It doesn't warrant any further discussion in here, though....at least in my opinion.
As far as the above quote of me....I was just continuing the discussion/bickering b/w king, myself, and others. It doesn't warrant any further discussion in here, though....at least in my opinion.
02-21-2011, 03:48 PM
#1779
Frankly, the thing that turns me off to the other tire thread is the pure surliness its 12-15 posters have towards those cars which are "borderline". I am glad that is kept to a minimum in here. I disagree also that this thread is about looks.....there will always be a function advantage to the "fatter" tires...why not emphasize it here. I have thought about starting a pic thread in the track forum, but haven't yet.
As far as the above quote of me....I was just continuing the discussion/bickering b/w king, myself, and others. It doesn't warrant any further discussion in here, though....at least in my opinion.
As far as the above quote of me....I was just continuing the discussion/bickering b/w king, myself, and others. It doesn't warrant any further discussion in here, though....at least in my opinion.
i guess we agree to disagree then...
