17x10+70 for track/street use
02-28-2013, 10:41 AM
#11
Registered User
It's not only offset and width that affects BBK fitment. The pad and spoke design play a huge role in that. Look at the 17x10 +45 Ce's that everyone is running...the pad for the sunk face is too low to clear anything bigger than stock brakes.
i think SoS would need to figure out what their face and pad design will be like before they can nail down the appropriate offset compensation to clear BBK's. It's probably beneficial to draft a face design first to gauge interest anyway because potential buyers are going to be heavily influenced by how the wheel looks, regardless of the wheel spec. (even if they are track junkies).
i think SoS would need to figure out what their face and pad design will be like before they can nail down the appropriate offset compensation to clear BBK's. It's probably beneficial to draft a face design first to gauge interest anyway because potential buyers are going to be heavily influenced by how the wheel looks, regardless of the wheel spec. (even if they are track junkies).
02-28-2013, 11:57 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enkei RC-T4 style would be fine and or 8 spoke + is good. I like the 17x10 +52 to +55 option
If you can pursuade Enkei to make the 17x9+60 face with a thicker pad and add 1" to the inside of the hoop, that would be dope. reference 17x9+35 face sits at the same spot a 17x10 +47 does. 17x9+45 face sits at the same spot a 17x10 +57.7 would. the higher the offset, the better odds of getting more sales for people that don't want to roll fenders. +55-57 would require a slight roll with -2.5 deg camber I think.
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=463142
http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-sal...7x9-stock.html
If you can pursuade Enkei to make the 17x9+60 face with a thicker pad and add 1" to the inside of the hoop, that would be dope. reference 17x9+35 face sits at the same spot a 17x10 +47 does. 17x9+45 face sits at the same spot a 17x10 +57.7 would. the higher the offset, the better odds of getting more sales for people that don't want to roll fenders. +55-57 would require a slight roll with -2.5 deg camber I think.
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=463142
http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-sal...7x9-stock.html
02-28-2013, 12:55 PM
#14
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
1. spoke design: this would be a multispoke motorsports design, think Advan RS or Rays 57Xtreme.
2. the consensus seems to be than 17" is better than 18".
3. it is unclear to me that there will be enough demand to do both a 17x10+70 (for the rear) and a 17x10+mid-low fifty for the front due to demand. Once we get some more feedback, we will conduct a poll.
4. wheel hitting control arm - this will be nearly impossible to prevent on either 9" or 10" front wheel due to the geometry of the suspension. It is easy to fix however with relieving the casting line on the front of the suspension.
5. the CE28N 17x10.0+70 pair we have in stock - please e-mail or call about this, we don't have PM due to the volume of inquiries we receive.
Please keep feedback coming.
-- Chris
2. the consensus seems to be than 17" is better than 18".
3. it is unclear to me that there will be enough demand to do both a 17x10+70 (for the rear) and a 17x10+mid-low fifty for the front due to demand. Once we get some more feedback, we will conduct a poll.
4. wheel hitting control arm - this will be nearly impossible to prevent on either 9" or 10" front wheel due to the geometry of the suspension. It is easy to fix however with relieving the casting line on the front of the suspension.
5. the CE28N 17x10.0+70 pair we have in stock - please e-mail or call about this, we don't have PM due to the volume of inquiries we receive.
Please keep feedback coming.
-- Chris
02-28-2013, 01:31 PM
#15
My thinking is this:
If people don't want to roll fenders, they shouldn't be running 17x10s...
Rolling fenders is an easy fix - we're talking mild middle ground 45s to 50s offset, not hellaflush poking 1 foot out and need a wide body kit to fit +22 offset...
High offsets make brake clearance difficult (even with the correct spoke design) and make suspension, control arm, and inner fender clearance even more difficult, to which there is no easy fix.
Yes, you can run spacers, but for a track vehicle, i'd rather not. It causes extra wear and tear on bearings/hubs and is one extra thing you have to check up on and worry about. ARP studs are not an easy install for our cars - it requires undoing the whole hub/bearing assembly and having to replace that stuff due to potential damage from removal/install. DRM spacers are not an option on the track.
Spacers are fine for street cars, but what street s2000 really needs 17x10s other than for some hellahard parking...
As far as autocross people are concerned, STR limits wheels to 17x9 along with fender rolling limitations. Since we're talking about a 17x10, there's no need to cater to that crowd.
BSP, FP?, and all the other classes running 17x10s and bigger allow all sorts of crazy fender mods and cut/trimming.
As I said before, the 949 6ulr in 17x10 +52 was almost perfect (maybe a +48 to make it perfect) as far as price, spoke design for bbk clearance, and offset for suspension and bbk clearance. If they were still being made, i'd already have a set. It could have used some extra strength, but that would have cost more money or increased weight (the later I'm fine with, the former not so much).
The whole point of these discussions with this vendor and previous vendors is for an affordable 17x10 wheel. If we're going to ask for, light weight, pretty, and strong, it's not gonna be cheap - at which point you might as well go to ccw, volk, bbs, ssr, fikse, kenesis, etc. etc. - there are enough options in that market.
I want a strong wheel with bbk clearance - I don't care that much about weight, it's a 17x10, it's cast, it's cheap, it's gonna be heavy - it just better be decently strong/durable.
And don't someone chime in something about RPF-1s and how light and strong they are, because they're anything but strong. At the last s2k challenge event - 4 guys on rpf1s reported bending wheels. Long time participants in the s2k challenge have slowly been shifting away from that wheel due to how weak it is - not good for tracking - auto-x is a different story, strength of the wheel can be sacrificed for weight.
That's my blurb on the whole wheel thing as far as offsets, bbk clearance, strength, weight, price. Looks are subjective. Just don't make it look ugly as sin like the 17x9.5 NT03+M with the convex face...
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but rather a re-hash/iteration of points made and brought up in previous wheel discussion threads.
If people don't want to roll fenders, they shouldn't be running 17x10s...
Rolling fenders is an easy fix - we're talking mild middle ground 45s to 50s offset, not hellaflush poking 1 foot out and need a wide body kit to fit +22 offset...
High offsets make brake clearance difficult (even with the correct spoke design) and make suspension, control arm, and inner fender clearance even more difficult, to which there is no easy fix.
Yes, you can run spacers, but for a track vehicle, i'd rather not. It causes extra wear and tear on bearings/hubs and is one extra thing you have to check up on and worry about. ARP studs are not an easy install for our cars - it requires undoing the whole hub/bearing assembly and having to replace that stuff due to potential damage from removal/install. DRM spacers are not an option on the track.
Spacers are fine for street cars, but what street s2000 really needs 17x10s other than for some hellahard parking...
As far as autocross people are concerned, STR limits wheels to 17x9 along with fender rolling limitations. Since we're talking about a 17x10, there's no need to cater to that crowd.
BSP, FP?, and all the other classes running 17x10s and bigger allow all sorts of crazy fender mods and cut/trimming.
As I said before, the 949 6ulr in 17x10 +52 was almost perfect (maybe a +48 to make it perfect) as far as price, spoke design for bbk clearance, and offset for suspension and bbk clearance. If they were still being made, i'd already have a set. It could have used some extra strength, but that would have cost more money or increased weight (the later I'm fine with, the former not so much).
The whole point of these discussions with this vendor and previous vendors is for an affordable 17x10 wheel. If we're going to ask for, light weight, pretty, and strong, it's not gonna be cheap - at which point you might as well go to ccw, volk, bbs, ssr, fikse, kenesis, etc. etc. - there are enough options in that market.
I want a strong wheel with bbk clearance - I don't care that much about weight, it's a 17x10, it's cast, it's cheap, it's gonna be heavy - it just better be decently strong/durable.
And don't someone chime in something about RPF-1s and how light and strong they are, because they're anything but strong. At the last s2k challenge event - 4 guys on rpf1s reported bending wheels. Long time participants in the s2k challenge have slowly been shifting away from that wheel due to how weak it is - not good for tracking - auto-x is a different story, strength of the wheel can be sacrificed for weight.
That's my blurb on the whole wheel thing as far as offsets, bbk clearance, strength, weight, price. Looks are subjective. Just don't make it look ugly as sin like the 17x9.5 NT03+M with the convex face...
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but rather a re-hash/iteration of points made and brought up in previous wheel discussion threads.
02-28-2013, 03:46 PM
#17
Just wanted to point out, for the control arm clearance issue, I've installed steering rack spacers on either side of the rack. This limits the extension of the rack to the point where it doesn't hit the wheel. I'm using the steering spacers off the Mustang and it's a perfect fit. It was less than $20...easy & cheap
03-14-2013, 10:56 PM
#19
1. spoke design: this would be a multispoke motorsports design, think Advan RS or Rays 57Xtreme.
2. the consensus seems to be than 17" is better than 18".
3. it is unclear to me that there will be enough demand to do both a 17x10+70 (for the rear) and a 17x10+mid-low fifty for the front due to demand. Once we get some more feedback, we will conduct a poll.
4. wheel hitting control arm - this will be nearly impossible to prevent on either 9" or 10" front wheel due to the geometry of the suspension. It is easy to fix however with relieving the casting line on the front of the suspension.
5. the CE28N 17x10.0+70 pair we have in stock - please e-mail or call about this, we don't have PM due to the volume of inquiries we receive.
Please keep feedback coming.
-- Chris
2. the consensus seems to be than 17" is better than 18".
3. it is unclear to me that there will be enough demand to do both a 17x10+70 (for the rear) and a 17x10+mid-low fifty for the front due to demand. Once we get some more feedback, we will conduct a poll.
4. wheel hitting control arm - this will be nearly impossible to prevent on either 9" or 10" front wheel due to the geometry of the suspension. It is easy to fix however with relieving the casting line on the front of the suspension.
5. the CE28N 17x10.0+70 pair we have in stock - please e-mail or call about this, we don't have PM due to the volume of inquiries we receive.
Please keep feedback coming.
-- Chris
Any decisions on this yet? How many interested people woud it take to develop the most voted option?
03-14-2013, 11:59 PM
#20
10" +60 seems like the best compromise. Roll and pull the front fenders, has enough inner clearance and can be BBK friendly given a convex face. Its roughly the same as 8.5 +40 fyi and that fitment takes a roll and 10mm pull with -2.5 camber to clear outer fender. The rear 10" +60 only requires a roll. At +70 it would work too, just plan on running sizable spacers up front.
You would have to flare out the front fenders nearly flat to run a 10" at +45. Not sure everyone is down for that, but anyone would be easily willing to add a 3-15mm spacer if they wanted. You can always add offset with spacers, you cant put it back if you start out with too little.
You would have to flare out the front fenders nearly flat to run a 10" at +45. Not sure everyone is down for that, but anyone would be easily willing to add a 3-15mm spacer if they wanted. You can always add offset with spacers, you cant put it back if you start out with too little.