Ruminating about Rims
Submitted: Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:36
ThreadID:
51952
Views:
1991
Replies:
2
FollowUps:
4
This Thread has been Archived
Member - Oldbaz. NSW.
If your favourite tyres suddenly gave you 30 to 50% less wear
would you be annoyed. I would. Yet we accept that manufacturers have increased our dollars per kilometre cost by
increasing rim diameters. The reason being that 17" plus tyres
appear to cost around that much more than the very common
16" of the past. What is the reason for this ?. I concede that
increased size may allow for larger brake components ,but do all
such vehicles have larger brakes?. I dont know. Is it to annoy those who converted to their choice of aftermarket rims intending
to carry them forward to replacement vehicles ?, Or is it part of
the overall trend to big rims shod with rubber bands, that both
seem expensive & of little true value? Get a price for an extra
alloy for your new 4by, & see what I mean.
Anyway ,can the wheel & tyre gurus enlighten me please ?
cheers...oldbaz.
Reply By: Kiwi Ray - Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:57
Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:57
Hi Oldbaz
most of the time the increase of rim diameter is to improve handling, as the same size tyre has a lower wall height there fore less flex when cornering hence road holding and better feel.
Whether this is of benefit to those of us who drive the larger 4x4s would be open for discussion.
I suppose the amount of black top driving we do will also have an influence
Ray
AnswerID:
273579
Follow Up By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 14:33
Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 14:33
If lower profile improves handling & road holding I am a bit
surprised that V8 supercars dont appear to run them. May be a
heat dissipation problem. I just cant see why 17' or bigger tyres
cost 1/2 as much again as 16". Doesnt appear to be very much cost benefit & the rim cost is out of all proportion.....oldbaz
FollowupID:
537143
Follow Up By: Off-track - Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 15:20
Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 15:20
Cost per unit is higher because of limited volume compared to 16" tyres. Remember when 16's were very expensive because of a low demand but now almost every car has them standard.
FollowupID:
537151
Reply By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 19:45
Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 19:45
Most people use their 4wds as highway and city cars. For better bitumen driving low profile tyres are better for steering and handling. Areas where big 4wds are lacking. Plus they also look cool, showing off to blokes driving SS Commodore utes.
These big 17" alloys are expensive. If I was to buy a 4wd with these on I would sell the rims and buy 16" steel
wheels.
Could probably get 5 steelies with new tyres for what you would sell the alloys for s/hand, and still have money left over!
Barnesy
AnswerID:
273652
Follow Up By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 14:40
Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 14:40
I agree totally , Barnesy. The only problem may be that 16'' wont
fit because of component changes. I reckon blokes with flash utes
that run those bleep ty looking chrome rims & rubber bands make
a good lookimg vehicle look like a Billy cart. Judging by the response I can only conclude most blokes are more than happy to
pay the big bucks for tyres to go on the larger rims. If lower
profile means better handling how come I dont see rubber bands
on V8 Supercars.....oldbaz.
FollowupID:
537145
Follow Up By: Andrew from Vivid Adventures - Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 15:35
Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 15:35
yep - "they look good" is the only explanation.
They surely cost the manufacturer more.
Nothing else would matter to them - handling or performance on a 4x4 - hardly! It would not be appreciably different anyways.
And as has been pointed out, they are sure to cost anybody going offroad, a bucketload one way or another.
FollowupID:
537153