Staggered Stance vs. All-Around

[unlearning]

Another question for the experienced, really what is the benefit of running a staggered stance on a S13 Chassis other than it's easier to fit wider tires in the rear than in the front. I've been reading for days and haven't found a definitive answer besides something like "I wouldn't run a 2" stagger unless you like under-steer"

I see people trying to run like 17x10s and 18x10s all over but is there gonna be any real performance difference doing some like 17x10 All around vs either 17x8.5 All-around or 17x8.5/17x9.5 stagger

I'd prefer to try and flush out the wheels as naturally as possible without the use of spacers, and obviously not rubbing suspension and wheel wells without modifications. Yeah sounds kinda redundant I know but is a decent offset good and safe enough as far as performance is concerned.

[hai1206vn]

supposedly wider rear tires should help against the rear kicking out. If you only upgrade the rear, the front will slip more --> understeer

i would go with the same width all around. S-chassis understeers quite a bit due to slight front weight bias, but if you shift the weight too much it starts oversteering. I haven't tried any staggered setup though.

[Slappy]

Staggerd = looks

Same all around = faster lap times

[unlearning]

So assuming I'm gonna be running an all-around setup would there be much difference between running somewhere 17x8-17x9.5. Is the only real performance difference depending on width going to come down more to tire selection than anything else?

I hear things like wider wheels=more grip, and better handling. Then read articles about how wider tires don't necessarily mean more grip. The former is most usually referring to the contact patch of a tire, however is their going to be a drastic change in handling going from say anything 17x7 to 17x9.5, since the tires will obviously have to compensate from something like 205-235.

[Eddie]

I hear things like wider wheels=more grip, and better handling. Then read articles about how wider tires don't necessarily mean more grip.

I think they were saying don't put wide stupid tires like nankang, nexen, or something like that. You would be better off buying a better tire in skinnier size then trying to go cheap on the widest possible tire. You are also right about the contact patch. The tire has to fit the rim properly, like a tire to wide for the rim.

Like slappy stated staggered fitment is more for looks. A lot of auto manufacturers employ staggered fitments on sport sedans and coupes. I think they want the cars to have more understeer for safety reasons. Mid-engine and rear-engine cars may need staggered fitments more because of there rear biased weight distribution and throttle-off oversteer.

[unlearning]

I appreciate all the replies first off.

So the question still comes down to basically how wide of a wheel should I be looking at/for. Is an 8" width just fine, or should I be shooting for something higher?

I started looking into some light 6 spokes, SSR Type C to be more specific, and the mechanic recommended that I run 17x9+22//17x10+15. Given the offsets on the SSR wheels are limited to none in choices for the S13, I would still need to run a 5mm spacer on the 9's to clear suspension.

So everything said and done, basically...and again, how wide of a wheel should I be looking for as well as how wide of a wheel can I run and still clear suspension and wheel well rub. Fender roll isn't to much of a concern, I just don't really like the idea of using spacers. So are my options for 6 spokes basically coming down to whatever lightweight wheel I can find with the correct offsets?

[Slappy]

Why do you want wheels that big?

[unlearning]

I was led to believe having a wider wheel leads to better handling, loosely speaking, in cornering and things of that nature. More so even than that, most wheels that come in offsets +0 through +25 are at least 8 inches wide minimum.

When I looked into wheels I thought that 8.5"-9"s would what I would be shooting for, but that was based of no factual evidence, experience, or generally knowing anything at all.

What I do know is that lately, and when looking around, people have been trying to run as wide a wheel as seems feasible. Why, no definitive answer has been given to me. So please slam me, .

As far as what seams like a good place to start, and what I referred to in the last post, is to start by just looking at tire size. For example if I want something with a small sidewall I'd be looking at say a 225/40/17 and just look for the widest wheel I can (with a decent offset) that will accommodate that tire.

If I am way off base or starting in the wrong place just say so.

As far as use, if it helps, I'm basically rebuilding from scratch simply for course use. Looks aren't as important as performance, although I'm not completely void of the "superficiality" of a good aesthetic. Hell, 16" 17" 18" rim size doesn't matter, what is going to perform best under a situation for faster track times is what I'm looking for.

[Slappy]

Wheel size should depend on HP. If you have a 90hp car , and you have 19" wheels.......

I have 16x7 -30et and my car handles like its on rails. Tires matter to , since they are the only part of the car that touches the ground. Its up to you really , experiment with different wheel / tire sizes and gather your own conclusion.

[Kalypso]

what benefit do you get from having wider wheels in the front,

also to the OP -

stiff rear suspension and soft fronts - gives more aggressive handling and makes it easier to drift and kick out the rear.

I read that in an SCCA article about suspension tuning. let me look for it.

[unlearning]

supposedly wider rear tires should help against the rear kicking out. If you only upgrade the rear, the front will slip more --> understeer

By this logic, if you are only "upgrading" the size of the rear tires, you will have essentially "more grip" on the rear making under-steer as opposed to the kickout and over-steer of a drift type situation.

Don't hold those words to literally.

what benefit do you get from having wider wheels in the front,also to the OP -

stiff rear suspension and soft fronts - gives more aggressive handling and makes it easier to drift and kick out the rear.

I read that in an SCCA article about suspension tuning. let me look for it.

As far as having wider wheels in the front, in theory it makes just as much sense as having wide wheels in the rear. Think that basically you can only have so much traction in a mechanical type situation. If having a wider wheel in the rear is going to give more traction as far as accelerating in a RWD vehicle, upgrading the front tires to a wider size is going to do the same, just in the aspects front wheels are used for in a RWD application, steering and breaking.

I'd like very much if you found me that article, much appreciated.

The Chassis I'm sitting on is all stock atm, however I have noticed quite a bit that when making sharp corners that the front does seam to roll more so than most other vehicles I've driven, or maybe more so than the rear in proportion. Interesting that you brought that up. I'm not necessarily looking to drift, looking more so for a more "grippy" type application, just want to take those corners as smooth and come out as fast as possible.

Wheel size should depend on HP. If you have a 90hp car , and you have 19" wheels......

Shoot for roughly 500~ HP. On a lower scale even high 300s to low 400s if I went with my KA in the meantime. Didn't ever think I'd really need anything larger than a 17".

And did you really mean -30 offset? or +30?

[Slappy]

And did you really mean -30 offset? or +30?

Oops yea.

[Nismo_Freak]

Staggerd = looks

Same all around = faster lap times

No.

[Nismo_Freak]

What I do know is that lately, and when looking around, people have been trying to run as wide a wheel as seems feasible. Why, no definitive answer has been given to me. So please slam me, .

People primarily run wide wheels for the look.

If you want good handling in a relatively slow 240SX then I would opt for 17x8 or 17x9 all around with a 235mm tire. The small diameter will help keep the gearing more effective since the car is underpowered. When you get a bit more power you might want to up the tire size, not because of the power, but because of the speed you will gain between corners. That requires more braking force, faster cycles between events, and the bigger surface area on the tire will reduce overheating as well as increasing the load index.

For an R-Compound the 235mm tire will work perfectly for you. Anything smaller and you will wash out the tire, and anything bigger and you won't really gain much. There is such a thing as too big a tire.

Things that affect peak G like alterations to the geometry, suspension, weight, braking power, and aerodynamic aids will increase the demand for a larger tire.

[Slappy]

No.

Wrong.

Depends if its a RWD , FF or AWD. Use staggerd on a FF or AWD and it will handle like ****. Some RWD cars come from the factory with staggerd fitment but when you only have 150hp your just draggin extra weight and rubber around that you cant use. The only real way to answer your question is to try different size wheels and tires and come up with your own conclusion like i said before.

If you want good handling in a relatively slow 240SX then I would opt for 17x8 or 17x9 all around with a 235mm tire.

You would think tires and wheels that big on a "relatively slow 240" is useless. I think 16x7 and sticky's will work just fine.

[Nismo_Freak]

Depends if its a RWD , FF or AWD. Use staggerd on a FF or AWD and it will handle like ****. Some RWD cars come from the factory with staggerd fitment but when you only have 150hp your just draggin extra weight and rubber around that you cant use. The only real way to answer your question is to try different size wheels and tires and come up with your own conclusion like i said before.

Um, you size tires for the dynamic weight load. There is no cookie cutter methodology to tires. Increasing spring rates, track, ride height, etc. all effect what is optimal for the car.

The best handling cars ever to be produced have ran staggered fitments. The Z06, S2000, NSX, 911, GTR, etc. This is because of the understanding the engineers have of dynamic load.

You would think tires and wheels that big on a "relatively slow 240" is useless. I think 16x7 and sticky's will work just fine.

I'm looking down the road. The 17's allow brake upgrades larger than Z32's, and also have a much larger options in regard to fitment, track, and tires.

If you want pure performance for a 240SX for something like Auto-X I would run 15's with a fat, short tire. That is a freebie CoG drop without adjusting the roll center to China.

[unlearning]

If you want good handling in a relatively slow 240SX then I would opt for 17x8 or 17x9 all around with a 235mm tire.

What exactly do you mean by "relatively slow". Stock or like <500hp?

Let's say for time being, and understanding that there is no "cookie-cutter build" more-or-less, if I was looking to completely rebuild my KA and throw a turbo on, what would be a good starting point for feeling out tires and wheels as far as size is concerned? Assuming I have coilovers, and a few bars installed. I'm definitely not opposed to 15s or 16s, just thought that later down the road I'd be looking at 17s anyways once the car was completely rebuilt.

If you want pure performance for a 240SX for something like Auto-X I would run 15's with a fat, short tire

What exactly do you mean by short and fat? 325/50/15?

[Nismo_Freak]

What exactly do you mean by "relatively slow". Stock or like <500hp?

Something with near stock power.

Let's say for time being, and understanding that there is no "cookie-cutter build" more-or-less, if I was looking to completely rebuild my KA and throw a turbo on, what would be a good starting point for feeling out tires and wheels as far as size is concerned? Assuming I have coilovers, and a few bars installed. I'm definitely not opposed to 15s or 16s, just thought that later down the road I'd be looking at 17s anyways once the car was completely rebuilt.

If you go turbo on the KA and make lets say, 300whp, then you are going to want something like a 255/40/17 Front and 275/40/17 Rear.

For now a 235 all around should work out for you.

Usually it's best to plan for 300whp and get there, than plan on today and have to revise for tomorrow.

What exactly do you mean by short and fat? 325/50/15?

Short as in the overall height of the tire. Fat as in wide to increase the load capacity of the tire to an acceptable point.

[Slappy]

I say wheel & tire size depends on HP , but what do i know.

[Kalypso]

the answer can be found here,

why do drag racers do it?

[Slappy]

^Wrong

Pizza cutters upfront is to save weight , and maybe help in steering the car forward better for those cars.

[Kalypso]

^Wrong

maybe we do it, for the same reasons. I cant see how slimmer wheels will help steering tho.

but somehow the trend has started and its stuck

[Kalypso]

I found the SCCA suspension tuning guide

http://www.wtrscca.org/tech.htm

[Nismo_Freak]

maybe we do it, for the same reasons. I cant see how slimmer wheels will help steering tho.

Tires are simply the medium that all the load is transferred to the ground. The size of a tire is therefor relative solely to the amount of load placed upon it throughout the dynamic motion of the car.

Power is a variable in the equation, not the determining factorization. The assumption is that with greater power comes greater dynamic load. This is true to a point since you are limited still by the suspension and geometry. If not, a 1000whp Supra with 405mm F1 rubber would be the fastest thing to hit the pavement.

Fact is there is a limit to the amount of load that the chassis can impart on the tires. Load is what pushes the tires into the pavement, producing friction and slip angle, and the resulting steering. The tires size basically shifts it's nature in how it responds to load.



If you look at this you see the linear relation ship of steering angle and slip angle, along with the interaction of load vs. slip angle, which is a curved plot. The plot is curved based upon the tires ability to convert load and steering angle into friction (side force). The larger the tire, generally the more load it can withstand before it begins to return less of a linear response (larger being load index, not tire size). THAT is the benefit in larger tires in terms of grip. Other aspects are heat management and mechanical forces in relation to tire trail, slip angle threshold, etc.

After understanding that, you have to look at the car and understand the dynamic loads it will see. A car with a high roll center, alot of static weight, and a narrow track and wheelbase is going to require SIGNIFICANTLY more tire to handle the same as a car with more preferable attributes.

You could have a really fast straight line car, but it's tire requirements will never match that of braking and handling. Ergo the fallacy of associating a direct correlation of power to tire size. It might seem as if I am doing exactly that, but I am simply trying to state it in a more understandable manner.

That is the long answer to what I suggested.

[mcheddadi]

hum..I run 245/40/19 all around and hope for the best lol

[unlearning]

I found the SCCA suspension tuning guide

http://www.wtrscca.org/tech.htm

Thanks brosef. I actually stumbled upon that before and forgot to bookmark the site, much appreciated.

If you go turbo on the KA and make lets say, 300whp, then you are going to want something like a 255/40/17 Front and 275/40/17 Rear.

For now a 235 all around should work out for you.

Usually it's best to plan for 300whp and get there, than plan on today and have to revise for tomorrow.

Agreed and exactly why I'm trying to take my time to fully understand things before I make decisions. When I first picked up my chassis, the sole purpose was to tear it apart and build a track car. Now after various extrenuating circumstances, It seams as though it will take me much longer to put together the funds for the track car than I had originally planned.

So the plan has become: Find a beater. Find another 240, preferably hatch this time, to turn into the summer car. Tear apart Coupe chassis. The problem has become that while I'm looking for another 240 to do work on the Coupe is in some dire need of a few small repairs, mainly suspension and tires. So without going and spending a few hundred dollars on said parts I would like to look for "end-of-the-line" wheels/tires/suspension that I will eventually be putting onto the hatch. I was actually looking into 235/40/17 before you even suggested it for time being, that way I have 17s and can swap the tires later once I have done the work on the KA that is being put into the hatch. The mention for that has eased my mind a little.

I suppose now I can look into some cheapie FN01RCs 17 +15 All-Around for the DD project that can be used on the coupe for the time being. However what I should be looking into and researching for the end-game track car still needs to figured out. I was looking into buddyclub QFs (as an example)but it seems that all the offsets for 15s and 16s are a measly +42 +45. Is this going to be enough to clear suspension breaks and ect. or am I going to be looking more towards suspension components to fix problems like clearance since I will be looking into larger tires? And back to the original question (and don't think that I've forgotten about your opinion Slappy =) ) Should I be looking for a staggered wheel combo for my track car.

Thanks again for all the replies.

[Kalypso]

Tires are simply the medium that all the load is transferred to the ground. The size of a tire is therefor relative solely to the amount of load placed upon it throughout the dynamic motion of the car.

Power is a variable in the equation, not the determining factorization. The assumption is that with greater power comes greater dynamic load. This is true to a point since you are limited still by the suspension and geometry. If not, a 1000whp Supra with 405mm F1 rubber would be the fastest thing to hit the pavement.

Fact is there is a limit to the amount of load that the chassis can impart on the tires. Load is what pushes the tires into the pavement, producing friction and slip angle, and the resulting steering. The tires size basically shifts it's nature in how it responds to load.



If you look at this you see the linear relation ship of steering angle and slip angle, along with the interaction of load vs. slip angle, which is a curved plot. The plot is curved based upon the tires ability to convert load and steering angle into friction (side force). The larger the tire, generally the more load it can withstand before it begins to return less of a linear response (larger being load index, not tire size). THAT is the benefit in larger tires in terms of grip. Other aspects are heat management and mechanical forces in relation to tire trail, slip angle threshold, etc.

After understanding that, you have to look at the car and understand the dynamic loads it will see. A car with a high roll center, alot of static weight, and a narrow track and wheelbase is going to require SIGNIFICANTLY more tire to handle the same as a car with more preferable attributes.

You could have a really fast straight line car, but it's tire requirements will never match that of braking and handling. Ergo the fallacy of associating a direct correlation of power to tire size. It might seem as if I am doing exactly that, but I am simply trying to state it in a more understandable manner.

That is the long answer to what I suggested.

as much as I appreciate such a thorough answer. I spent a while looking up some of the terms you're using instead of being inspired and understanding you.

first off define these four things simply.

side force (Is this the tires lateral grip?) -tire force (Is this load? or rotational force being applied to the ground) -

hitch angle - slip angle -

[Nismo_Freak]

Tire Force - Load (Weight Bearing on Tire)Side Force - GripSlip Angle - Contact patch deflection relative to steering angle. Measured in degrees.

Don't worry about hitch angle. Notice is is 0 throughout the run. It's a means of control on the test should the machine deflect.

[Kalypso]

as the slip angle decreases, the side force goes up? what does that relationship mean.

in a definition that will solve this thread's question once and for all.

( is slip angle the direction of the front wheels? simplify please )

[Nismo_Freak]

Slip angle is deflection caused by the tires friction on the road surface. Thus, it is related to grip. Generally as slip angle increases so does grip, but there is a point where the tire can increase slip angle, but there will be no increase in grip. The graph I posted above shows this.