Apart from the aesthetic appeal. Are alloy wheels really worth getting?

That is do they have any other benefits?

I have a stock TJ Sries II Exec.

save up the money and get something you'll really appreciate. I have stock alloys and they're pretty cool. But I prefer something individual. I dont see much point in having rims that you will see on every other car on the road, but each to their own.

remember the golden rule... chrome = cool

:cool:

I'll probably get hassled for saying so, but I actually like the stock alloys...

rims are cool

http://www.iinet.net.au/~simonrod/AM-pics/rims1.jpg

Well yours certainly are but jeez, how hard are they to keep clean [THUGDOUT]? mine are just standard CSA alloys and they are annoying to clean
http://neilk.customer.netspace.net.au/magside.jpg

yes. you need alloys to be assoiciated with the "modified" scene...

unless you want to be a "sleeper" then save up and get some neat rims... 18"+ earns street creed :cool:

inline with everyone else's post.. here are my mags. Volk Kaotic 19x8"

http://www.booyamotorsport.com/57.jpg
http://www.booyamotorsport.com/58.jpg

only had them on for 6 hours, so give me 2 weeks ill tell u :D

Booya, i dont think anyone looks at your mags mate, they just look at that bloody HUGE FMIC! Its so dominating on the cars appearance!

Booya, i dont think anyone looks at your mags mate, they just look at that bloody HUGE FMIC! Its so dominating on the cars appearance!


Is that a good thing :confused:

On a personal note, I'd love a set of neat looking rims. On a financial note, I can't justify the money - Big$$ for decent wheels and rubber ('cmon $1500 is big money, $2500 is just OTT for my budget, $4K :shock: )
On a practical note I go offroad too much for anything much bigger than 15" anyway, and 15" alloys look crap IMO
But back to the top, a good set of rims look real nice. They just have to match the car.

I ran out and put 17 x 7s on and wish I'd done the exhaust,headers, ported the heads and throttle body etc 1st!!!! :cry: :cry: :cry:

However, I luv my wheels.

For the money, the advantages of alloy wheels aren't really worth it. Most people don't feel any difference from normal steel ones. Even if you went for bigger and wider wheels, there wouldn't be a dramatic difference in handling or grip considering the cost, that is. But there are still reasons to getting alloys. It's just that most people do it for the looks. A nice set of wheels with a little lowering can drastically improve the looks of almost any car.

Even if you went for bigger and wider wheels, there wouldn't be a dramatic difference in handling or grip considering the cost

your crazy. a set of wider rims can help in traction. can help in high speed stability. can help in cornering ability.


if you had a high powered car, the last thing you'd run is a set of 15x6" rims on 165 rubber :nuts:

on the strip you'd prolly see people running 16" steelies.. but i bet they are are a x9 or x10 running like a 285 profile.

you'd get nowhere

Is that a good thing :confused:


Ummmmmm, YES! :D

your crazy. a set of wider rims can help in traction...

Quick picky point, not flaming, afaik wider rims does not always equate to more traction. As you increase the surface area, you decrease the amount of weight for each unit of surface area in contact with the road. Thus decreasing traction. (If wider rims meant more traction then a racing bike which has hardly any tread on the road would have very little traction compared to say a mountain bike)

Lowering, tread compound, tread design, spoilers for more downforce etc do increase traction.

/anal

Quick picky point, not flaming, afaik wider rims does not always equate to more traction. As you increase the surface area, you decrease the amount of weight for each unit of surface area in contact with the road. Thus decreasing traction. (If wider rims meant more traction then a racing bike which has hardly any tread on the road would have very little traction compared to say a mountain bike)

Lowering, tread compound, tread design, spoilers for more downforce etc do increase traction.

/anal

Traction Force = Miu * Normal Force

Normal Force = constant
Miu is proportional to the surface area (as long as the material is uniform)

therefore, greater surface area = greater traction

hmm doesnt normal force decrease as surface area is increased?

hmm doesnt normal force decrease as surface area is increased?

nop, normal force is purely a function of the weight of the object, it has nothing to do with the surface area

a 10kg object with 1cm^2 of contact area has the same normal force as a 10kg object with 1m^2 of contact area

dudelove: On a purely street car, alloys are just an asthetics thing. If you like the stock alloys, that's fine, stick with them.

If you're interested in looking for aftermarket ones, grab as MANY brochures as you can, look them up on the net as well www.tyres.com has heaps of rims on there. Photoshop rims on your car to see what they look like (if you can't do that, make a post in the photoshop section and ask someone to do it for you)

I was typing away here and it was getting way too convoluted. Check out this site
http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/index.html?menu.html&tyre_bible.html

Why doesn't friction depend on surface area?
Well, although a larger area of contact between two surfaces would create a larger source of frictional forces, it also reduces the pressure between the two surfaces for a given force holding them together. In this case, gravity is the force holding your car on the road. As I told you above, pressure = weight / area. So it works out that the increase in friction generating area is exactly offset by the reduction in pressure; the resulting frictional forces, then, are dependent only on the frictional coefficient of the materials and the force holding them together.

Now coefficient of friction, is dependant on tyre compound and how it behaves under heat. I agree, a larger tyre will handle heat better. Thus providing you with a greater operational range, and the ability to use a softer tread etc. But larger surface area doesnt always equate to more grip.

This surprised me: larger tyres dont necessarily have increased surface area. The shape of the area in contact changes and the area remains fairly similar.

your crazy. a set of wider rims can help in traction. can help in high speed stability. can help in cornering ability.


if you had a high powered car, the last thing you'd run is a set of 15x6" rims on 165 rubber :nuts:

on the strip you'd prolly see people running 16" steelies.. but i bet they are are a x9 or x10 running like a 285 profile.

you'd get nowhere

Exactly my point. For most people, the money spent on alloys isn't worth it because most people don't need the added traction for cornering at high speed or dragging. I was not saying that there is no extra handling or grip. For regular everyday driving, it would just worsen fuel economy. So like I said, for the cost, not really worth it except for aesthetic purposes.

Re contact patch area/shape what's been posted so far has been correct. Also the people that say upgrading to (larger) alloy wheels yields no benefit, there is one major benefit which is enabling access to ultra high performance compound tyres. There are NO ultra high performance 205/65/R15 tyres for example, compared to say 235/40/R18. Less sidewall roll from larger wheels is also going to be noticeable to some degree for even A to B drivers, through better steering control and road feedback.

don't always believe what you read on the internet. there are not only alot of laymen trying to deceive ppl, but also alot of ppl trying to deceive the laymen. put generally, tyres with WIDER tracks DO increase traction. Normal force on the tyres remains the same but 'Pressure force' changes with contact areas. so yes, 'Pressure force' does decrease with increased contact area (simply due to P=F/A) but the amount of extra grip you get due to larger contact areas far outweigh the amount of grip lost by the decrease in pressure force. if what you said were correct, then the lotus exige and even F1 cars would use less than wide track tyres. saying this, wider tracks also poses a higher risk of aqua-planing in the wet. hence on huge performance tyres, the treads are much more aggressive and larger than normal tyres.

and it would be silly to compare a bicycle to a car because a bicycle goes nowhere near as quick as a car and weighs even less. bicycles go mostly in a straight line and you should know the way a bicycle/motorbike tyre is required to perform around a bend is very different to a car's. racing bicycles are only concerned with speed, and friction to them is mostly a hindrance. they only need enough friction for the tyres to grip the road properly, not any more.

Nah i first heard it off my dad who's been teaching physics for 25 years. Not off the net, I brought it up in another thread and Whitedevil found that site. I didnt believe it at first either. But makes perfect sense in my mind now.

It is true that wider tires commonly have better traction. The main reason why this is so does not relate to contact patch, however, but to composition. Soft compound tires are required to be wider in order for the side-wall to support the weight of the car. softer tires have a larger coefficient of friction, therefore better traction. A narrow, soft tire would not be strong enough, nor would it last very long. Wear in a tire is related to contact patch. Harder compound tires wear much longer, and can be narrower. They do, however have a lower coefficient of friction, therefore less traction. Among tires of the same type and composition, there is no appreciable difference in 'traction' with different widths. Wider tires, assuming all other factors are equal, commonly have stiffer side-walls and experience less roll. This gives better cornering performance.

Tek is on the money too.

Nah i first heard it off my dad who's been teaching physics for 25 years. Not off the net, I brought it up in another thread and Whitedevil found that site. I didnt believe it at first either. But makes perfect sense in my mind now.

It is true that wider tires commonly have better traction. The main reason why this is so does not relate to contact patch, however, but to composition. Soft compound tires are required to be wider in order for the side-wall to support the weight of the car. softer tires have a larger coefficient of friction, therefore better traction. A narrow, soft tire would not be strong enough, nor would it last very long. Wear in a tire is related to contact patch. Harder compound tires wear much longer, and can be narrower. They do, however have a lower coefficient of friction, therefore less traction. Among tires of the same type and composition, there is no appreciable difference in 'traction' with different widths. Wider tires, assuming all other factors are equal, commonly have stiffer side-walls and experience less roll. This gives better cornering performance.

Tek is on the money too.

:D yes tyre compounds do play a huge part. but if you want to think that 'The main reason why this is so does not relate to contact patch, however, but to composition', it is fine. you will find out the true answer one day :cool:

but do this simple test at home. get 2 same brand erasers, one bigger, one smaller. slide it along a surface and compare the amount of force you need to exert for the 2. for which eraser do you need to apply more force to push along a surface?

Low Profiles give the car much better handling and traction. If you don't mind feeling a few more bumps, you will never look back and want a car again without it.
From my second car on I have had HP low profiles tyres, I would never own a car without it again. I believe the tyres gave the biggest improvement, more so than the suspension mods.

:D yes tyre compounds do play a huge part. but if you want to think that 'The main reason why this is so does not relate to contact patch, however, but to composition', it is fine. you will find out the true answer one day :cool:

but do this simple test at home. get 2 same brand erasers, one bigger, one smaller. slide it along a surface and compare the amount of force you need to exert for the 2. for which eraser do you need to apply more force to push along a surface?
bigger eraser has more weight. So this doesnt prove much. Try this, eraser and a plank... put eraser on its side on the plank and lift one end till the eraser falls. Then put the eraser on the skinny side and see how much angle is required for the eraser to fall and overcome the coefficient of friction.
mass is constant, gravity is constant. Surface area is greater on the fatter side yet they both overcome their coefficient of friction around the same point.

edit: found some more sites http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/frict3.html#are
This ones a bit more physics basics stuff

thinking back to my yr10 physics and i remember doing pressure and what not, i do remember that one example was a tire in sand if u get bogged let out some air hence flatter tire hence more surface area hence more traction and no more being bogged, also a camels foot it flattens out as they walk on sand

but hey were tlaking sand here not exactly roads, all i kno it when i pumped my old tires up to like 35-36 PSI i could spin them easier then when they were 28 or so

Wider tyres don't directly mean more traction. You can have two tires of the same compound and tread pattern, one a 215 and one a 235.
The traction of the two tyres would be almost the same, it's just that the wider tyre can hold the same level of traction for a longer period of time.

The narrower tyre will initally produce approximatelly the same level of traction as the wider tyre, but will heat up quicker due to the smaller surface area and start to loose some of is road holding abillity as the rubber starts to soften to much.

remember the golden rule... chrome = cool
Heh heh... funny guy.

Chrome isn't cool by default. In fact, there's plenty of cars with chromies and they look crap. Especially thouse cheese grater looking ones which look like something that belongs in the kitchen for chopping vegetables.

intresting read guys.... didnt think id sturr the pot so much. lol

im glad that this debate was kept mature... everyone give yourself a pat on the back :D


BOoya

Chrome isn't cool by default.
I'm sorry YOUR WRONG!!!! :rant:



Chrome is always cool! :cool: (j/k) Mind you I got stock alloys, but I'm yet to find a set of rims that get me wet (I mean handle well in the wet), so my moneys safe in my pocket for the moment. My mates got awesome chromies on his Gemini, they cost heaps, but make the car.

;)


Oh what was that about mature conversations... sorry lol

Yeah I've learnt a bit more about it all so it's all good. I like a constructive conversation.

Since we're on the topic of rims and what's cool I'm surprised no one has brought up the topic of spinners and how cool they are! :bowrofl: BTW, has anyone else seen the ad on TV for the spinners you can get to put on your bicycle? :nuts:

The main advantages of alloy wheels are that as they are generally lighter, they reduce the amount of rotational inertia that has to be overcome, transfering more power to the wheels as a result (less kinetic energy required to accomplish the same task), and they reduce the unsprung mass that has to be handled by the suspension, resulting in a more responsive ride and improved roadhandling.

Of course, offsetting these with heavier tyres will negate such benefits.

Since we're on the topic of rims and what's cool I'm surprised no one has brought up the topic of spinners and how cool they are!
Spinners add upto and beyond 48.3 kw... :)

improved handling, better traction, and ofcourse looks :D

and since we're showing off our wheels. Heres mine.

19X8" ....

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~wtchme/newpiks/Picture-002.jpg

As much as I respect ya wtchme, I am going to have to nick your car one day... nothing personal ok!