crazy offsets only...
Originally Posted by Nick.,Sep 20 2009, 07:40 PM
would 16x8 et11 be TOO crazy for the rear?
Backspacing: Is the distance from the wheels hub mounting surface to the very backside of the wheel.
Frontspacing: Is the distance from the wheels hub mounting surface to the very frontside of the wheel. (this is usually calcualted by taking overall width minum the backspacing)
Overall Width: Is the total with of the rim; backspacing + frontspacing. This measurement will be 1" wider than the rims actual width.
Actual Width: The distance from the wheels bead seat areas.
----
18x10.5 +24
Backspacing: 6.69" (overall width / 2) + (offset / 25.4)
Frontspacing: 4.81" (overall width - backspacing)
Overall Width: 11.5"
Actual Width: 10.5"
----
What does that all mean? By getting these measurements you can figure out how a wheel sits to the suspension as well as to the fender. Camber does play a roll as it's altering the space by angleing the mounting surface. So when your adding more frontspacing and deducting backspacing.
S2000's like 3.25" of frontspacing and can handle 8.50" of backspacing. What everyone on this thread is concerned with is frontspacing as that's how the wheels sit to the fender. 3.25" frontspacing would look weak with any sort of camber however with nothing and non rolled fenders it would sit really close. By rolling the fenders you get about 1/2" more clearance and with some camber you get even more. Seems as if the sweet spot is 3.75" to 4.25" of frontspacing. Which you decide is right for you will determine how much camber you'll have to run. The less frontspacing the less camber. You can also either gain more frontspacing or reduce the amount of camber by pulling the fenders.
----
16x8 +11
Backspacing: 4.93"
Frontspacing: 4.07"
Overall Width: 9"
Actual Width: 8"
Depending on your drop you'd have to run about -3.5 degrees of camber with ROLLED FENDERS to be able to tuck tire at which point you'll have ruffly 3.5" of clearance to the inner fender.



