compared to my 14x5.5" steelies, how much do the hyrbid rims weigh? i have a chance to get 2 for 40 bucks, and i need 2 more rims anyway for my DR's so i figure these two are good, but i dont want them if they are too light because of traction issues (b4 u say blah blah a friend experienced this result)

oh and what width are they?

I didint think having to light of wheel can cause traction issues~ ?

Theyre 14x5.5, rumor has it they're around 12 lbs a piece.
I'm pretty sure that a rim being too light isn't going to cause a traction issue.

Even if they did cause traction problems, correct me if I'm wrong, but lighter wheels equal less rotational mass to move thus making your car accelerate faster...

you got it

i think i herad they are 13.5 lbs so i might just go get them. either way i need 2 more.

and as to how they can cause traction issues? if they are too light they will spin too easy and do it. a friend of mine with a h22 in his eg hatch experienced this.
he has 24" tall drag radials, when mounted on his steel rims he was able to cut a 2.0 sixty foot (quick) and it wasnt too hard. when he bought new wheels that only weigh eight pounds, he spun too mcuh and the best he could ever get is a 2.2 sixty foot. this prob doesnt sound like alot to you but anyone who knows drag racing knows thats a big deal. but with 13lbs i think ill be fine.

thats compareing a car with 160+WTQ vs our civic that is like 85 - 90 WTQ ~

is it really? because my car is turbo, genious.
bottom line is lighter wheel, spin easier. you would think it doesnt matter because of the basics of physics but it goes deeper in than the basics.
some of the most obvious variables would be, torque, diameter, width, weight of rotational mass, centering of that weight, tire composition, acceleration rate, unsprung weight. blah blah blah im sure theres tons. but what im trying to say is when you push something to its limits it will always act differently than you would have expected. and this is just an example.

quick reference. go out and deflate your tires to 12-15 psi. now casually daily drive it. it will feel sluggish and terribly deminish its performance. even slower off the line. but go drop the psi and launch it off the line and you will accelerate faster, and have better traction off the line giving better handling/managability.

I'm really just not buying this whole lighter wheels no traction thing. If you're trying to use a 5.5" rim and get good traction, you got your priorities *** backwards AND you're not using anywhere near the entire contact patch of the tire. You still have the entire weight of the front end pressing down on it, less 5-10 pounds from a lighter rim. You're not going to see an issue of 5-10 (if you get all technical about it, call it 20-40 given that unsprung weight acts as about 4 times sprung weight) lbs out of give or take 1600 sitting on those tires. The torque you push to the pavement is the same given the same tire diameter. There's SLIGHTLY less inertia due to the lighter weight, but the effect is minimal in comparison to the effect of the diameter (I=m*r^2).
Take a really light, 8 or 9" wide rim and strap a slick on it, I'm pretty sure you'll snap the axle before you break it loose.

first, with these tires on a 5.5" rim its measured at 8.3" across. with pressure down to 15ish it will allow the entire contact pacth to see pavement, so your incorrect. and no i am not doing it back asswards. first off, on street nights for ihra dragways, slicks are not allowed. only d.o.t. approved tires (like my DR's) and also yea getting a lighter weight wheel will be fine if i counteract it with a stickier tire like you said, getting slicks. but i need a combo to run drag radials, and lighter isnt always better, as my friend has proven.
and if i went and got 9" wide rims and tires my car would be slower because it doesnt have the power to get those bad boys turning quick enough and it would either snap an axle or cause my engine to really bog off the line. bigger and better isnt always the best route. you need to match everything on your car to the performance of the rest of the parts. i would expect you to know this.

and thats besides the costs of finding a tire that is 9inches wide and still small enough in diameter that i can get a small diameter tire so i wont trap in the low rpm's of a new gear. also that would eliminate driveability and cause rubbing soooo bad.

the only way i could see a heavier wheel making more traction is because the weight is causing more on the engine using more TQ to move the wheel.there for your losing some power ?. shrug i donno just dont make much sense to me.

your friend needs to learn how to compensate for the lighter rims by letting his foot off the gas a little bit.

14" oem steelies weigh 19 pounds and if he had 8 pound rims, he needs to compensate for the big weight loss.

it's the same idea ... if I had a 200 hp car and a 400 hp car, I can shoot the same 60' by easing on the gas.

yes but do you see what your saying? COMPENSATE
if he compensates by letting off the gas he will go slower. he will get traction, yes but if he has to let off with these rims and the other ones he doesnt have to, he will cut better sixty foots, the fact is that like i said, lighter is not always better, get into drag racign and relaly learn all the tricks they do here and there. alot is the opposite from what common knowledge and common sense would tell you to do.
and for the record he is a good driver, he really knows how to get this ting down the track

Put those same size tires on a 7" rim and maybe you'll see my point. The straighter the sidewall is, the more rubber you're going to lay down flat and keep it there. So you are doing it *** backwards. Run the widest feasible rim the rules permit. The instant you hit the gas and the car rocks back, the tire starts lifting up and the edges start coming up, if the sidewalls were straight, the tire would be much more inclined to sit still rather than squirm around and start to bow up like it wants to on a skinny rim. PM zzyzx, ask him for the picture he has of the Azenis on 6.5" vs 7' wide rims. Its a huge difference in contact patch, even with a 1/2" difference.
Further... as I've often learned, the gas is not an on/off switch. Regardless of if its a straight road or curved, you're only going as fast as the traction you've got. Less rotating mass also requires less power to get rolling.... basically you can do 80-90% and match what you were doing with the heavier rim. The other thing is once you can get yourself to get a lighter rim to hook up, if that is actually an issue but beside the point, once that thing gets out of the hole and traction becomes a non-issue because the car is moving.... you will gain time due to the decreased rotating mass.

hybrid rims are also aerodynamic. maybe that matters.

um, think of it this way. There is a "limit" to getting traction with a given set of tires. If you go beyond that limit, you lose traction. He needs to find that "limit" with the lighter rims.

If you find your "limit" with the lighter rims, you will still be able to cut the same 60' times, yet have a quicker 1/4 mile/trap speed.

anyone can say anyone is a good driver ... it doesn't mean he is. Not saying your friend isn't a good driver, but he should be able to compensate.

again, no. its not that big of a deal so get off that topic. the tire is as wide as it is. according to bfg every inch width of a rim makes only a 0.2 inch width difference on contact patch so get over it, im only losing 2 tenths of an inch at full psi. and tire specs matter so you cant compare any other tires or sizes to this one.

this is one of the benefits of lower tire pressure, again.

i know its not on/off so stop trying to talk like im not seeing the obvious. but once you break traction, you have to decrease speed to a point (to regain traction) below the limits for traction. meaning your gonna be faster launchin at its limits not breaking traction than breaking it and having to let off, that will slow you down alot. and thus, people dont let off enough, because youll bog, you let off compromisingly and let it spin less to a point that it will eventually catch up.

theoretically yes, but this is not in general we are speaking. this is a particular instance, and in this instance the differences in power required(to keep traction) are so great that it does in turn slow you down throught the sixty. (there is proof in my argument, not in yours ) because you seem to not realize im talking 10 pounds less per rim, less than half the steel rim weight.

no because if you drive hard (required in drag) you really punch the gears, you have a lighter rim, they will break loose again, unless you compensate and in turn will go lighter becasue id rather hit 2nd at (lets say) 4500k with alot of torque going to the wheels but still getting traction with steelies, than not punch it and kinda ease into it at a lower rpm with less torque, still grabbing traction but in tern leaving more rpm for you to make up down the road, slowing you down.

im not trying to really question your knowledge in drag racing, but please go hang around a local strip and youll learn that alot of things that theoretically shouldnt work, WORK!
ive said it before and ill say it again, it comes down to not matching the performance of all you parts, the rims are too light, and the tires arent sticky enough, so he has to upgrade his tires, maybe some nittos (theyre stickier than bfg dr's) and then im sure he will get better times due to the ligther wheel and the fact that these tires will grab better.

ive watched him drive the hell out of this several times, he is good.
and he can and does compensate, he doesnt spin throught the sixty foot, on both sets ive seen about the same amount of spinning, yet the steelies prevail with a better 60 foot because he can be more aggressive.

you guys are stating the basics, and your both very right. but not in this case. be more open-minded and think outside the damn box.....he doesnt have the same torque through the whole rpm range correct? so how would you think compensating (lower rpm's essentially at launch) could produce the same results? give it a second thought

the example we are talkin about doesnt involve these rims, these rims where my own concern, but they arent that light so ill be fine. and i WISH my car was fast enough for the aerodynamics of a rimt o make a substantial difference.

Get out a Dynamics book and look up Static Friction and Dynamic Friction.
The force it takes to get something moving is NOT the same as what it takes to keep it moving. This is essentially why you can peel out from a stand still, but a rolling start will not break the tires loose. You also start dealing with impact loading (i.e. launch) vs a gradual increase in load (i.e. climing RPMs on the torque curve).
Another little fun things about torque curves..... they're variable and therefore so is the point at which you launch the car. If going at 4700 won't do it, then whats to say there's not sufficient less at 4200 to grab and go. This is a dyno time issue as far as finding the curves and figuring it all out, but given the graph, it is quite possible that launching lower puts more time on the upslope and less time on the downslope up top where the power begins to run out and the times drop as a result. I find this out all the time, its basically the same as hanging in a higher gear coming out of a corner at lower RPMs rather than blasting out nearing 5.5K. The curve keeps building vs. dying off, might as well make use of it. There's also nothing thats stops you from just frigging around with tire pressures.
This is really the same old crap where you start blaming the equipment instead of making it up with better driving. Obviously in drag racing there's far more car than driver involved than there is in road racing, but some of the basics do carry over, where anyone who knows what there doing should be able to make just about anything work, and anyone who really, honestly truly knows what they're doing can get in any car, and beat the car owner's time to shreds, regardless of whats on there.

first part, yea ok....so instead of just listing things, post how you think it relates to this debate, that might make it worth while posting.

im not sure what your trying to say here, at all. your saying 4200 has less torque than 4700?? it depends what car but yea in ours it does, and i know so what are you saying?

again, wtf are you sayin? i never mentioned tire pressure? i did a few times..... use more than one sentence arguments please.

no driver can make a part work better than any other part, they can just use it to its full potential better than other people. that being said, ive seen my friend use both setups to their full potential, as ive said before ( i saw him launch both, barely spinning off the line, both for like 15 feet, and steelies cut a better sixty, and eliminating ALL spinning on a FWD thats so light is very hard so dont say some BS).


ive got lots of respect for ya, tho i dont know ya, since youve helped me in a few areas such as brake company choice and such, but here your just not considering anything other than what you swear buy. and so theres no point in arguing when someone sticks to their guns without really proving it.

you are nuts dude.

why does does the mclaren f1 have magnesium rims then? why don't they use 50 pound steel rims?

you're basing your whole argument on your friend who can't compensate his driving skills for the lighter rims.

can lightweight rims be easier to lose traction? yes ... if the rims you have throws your tires outside of the traction threshold I mentioned earlier ... all you need to do is decrease pedal pressure. Why? because your rims are spinning faster than they would would much heavier rims (in your case, there is an 11 pound difference between the two rims... which is quite a lot).

let's take a stock K20A2 swapped eg hatch for example. You have bitchin tires and you are able to floor it without losing traction because you are still within the traction threshold. a week later, you get a cai, race header, exhaust and kpro installed. Now, you have traction problems in 1st gear... what do you do to aleviate your problem? EASE THE GAS. Why do you have traction problems? you have more torque, so your rims are spinning faster when the same pedal pressure. It's the same **** when you go from a 19 pound rim to an 8 pound rim with the same power in the motor

OMFG! dude get the **** out of the box and go to the track, learn some things about how **** works and limits and such, by watching races then come back here.

you guys arent freakin listening and nothings being accomplished, we are talking a bigggg diff. from 20+ pounds to 8 pounds, and i already stated I WATCHED HIM COMPENSATE BY LEAVING WITH THE SAME RELATIVE TRACTION! i didnt say he couldnt get traction, i said it was harder and cause slower sixty foots.

and how the hell do you think it makes anyyyyyy sense to compare the last part of your post to this? thats retarded.
i understand what your trying to say, but you need not bring in dumb analogies like this, we understand the issue, its the outcome thats in question.

seriously someone lock it cus im done, i dont have time to continue with this, personally i have proof and i understand the results, i could care less if you guys wanna believe me or understand it, sorry if ive offended anyone but i dont care to continue this "debate"

Alright, I did some dirty work, had some PM discussions and here's the best explaination that can be managed. Agreement has been reached as to the sense of it, and the practical correlation to the theory.

The explaination is summed up with this "equation":
The rotating mass of theentire power train, and the amount of pressure you're able to apply to the driven wheels effects the amount of power you're able to put on the ground through a given tire compound.

What is really at issue here is when and how the car moves through the barrier of static friction and into kinetic friction. A lot of factors go into this, and it becomes more complicated as I think about it and more stuff seems to need to sneak in.
The flywheel rotates give or take 4X wheels speed in first. Its inertia is through the roof in first gear, resulting in a big time loss right there. If its one of those light ones, its got that much more on tap right at the crank because of it by the time you push it through the gear set. The rotating mass of the engine also plays into this, but for all intents and purposes to most people, that stays relatively constant as far as trying to cut out weight. The gears weigh something, so do the axles, none of which are really big enough to make a major effect on this. So for the time being the 3 things that matter most are the internal rotating assembly (which we're saying is constant), the flywheel mass and the mass of the wheel/tire.
We've established that the flywheel in 1st is the major source of power sucking inertia, go lighter, you get more torque past it, hence the "free reving" nature of the ultra light FWs.
You take these masses, of which the flywheel weight and wheel weight become VARIABLE. You take the tire's diameter which has an effect on the torque going to the ground, the compound of it and its contact area, which effect how much torque it can put down... all 3 variable.
The point you're looking for is where the car barely breaks traction at the ground and barely slips the clutch (this also means the holding power and Mu of the friction disc is involved). That would be the "target" value. But from one car to the next, one setup to the next, and one driver to the next, these are completely variable. Equate it to suspension tuning for road racing.
Its not a "light wheels create wheel spin" issue. Its an issue of an overpowering drivetrain or underpowered tire depending on which way you care to look at it. Increase the sticking power of the tires (make em wider or change the compound) you can drop the weight of the power train (e.g. Lighter rims).
In the case of the "friend's car":
His car evidently reached its most effecient point on the curve by using an 18 lb wheel with a ~14 lb flywheel to offset the fact that he's got XXX HP in a car that weights YYYY lbs and he's using ZZZ rate springs on the front which is holding up YYYY lbs /% wt over the front axle.
So basically, his balance point is a stock flywheel and steelies with whatever width and height tire he's using.

It boils down to a relationship of different things, and not a carved in stone "lighter is better", but a "balance point of masses" that all factor together and the entire thing is variable and adjustable.
He/you/I may find that a switch in tire compound, rim width, spring rate, etc... alters that point and requires re-adjustment, as would be the same in any racing where you make a change. Whether or not its a good change requires more butt dyno time.
So in the end, no one's right in entirety, but there's the best explaination of the whole situation in as much detail I've been able to muster up in an hour or so of fishing around.
Its not anything a dyno will tell you, other than the butt dyno and a lot of fricking around.
This makes logical sense to me. It would explain by theory why something like a corvette could light up a set of tires mounted on a set of 20 lb rims in 3 or 4 gears, but if you tried that in a CRX (I'll hold the compound of the tire constant and adjust the size accordingly, no way we're getting 305s under a CRX) you'd be lucky to spin 1st. That's too much and too little. If you started adding weight to the corvette wheels... say make em 40 lbs a piece, and you dropped the CRX wheels down to 6 lbs, you may achive a balance in both cars.
You may also however find that you can drop the flywheel weight of the CRX in half and also achieve that balance point. Or you can cut 1/4 off the flywheel and a few lbs off the rims and find it. Its multi-variable dependent.


THIS THREAD IS BACK OPEN, KEEP IT CONSTRUCTIVE

I vote this thread...Best debate ever. Even though there's a lot of words flying around, I've found this quite informative. And somewhat entertaining

i appreciate that, and yea, unfortunately sometimes words get thrown around, ill apologize if i started it (i forget if i did or not), today just hasnt been my day ahaha.

boilermaker's explanation was what I was saying .. except not in so many words ;P

its what i was saying also. that everything has to be matched to each others performance and that throwing in one new variable (i.e. a very light rim) can throw off the balance between parts and cause poorer performance than the original combination.

i agree with what he adds to that post at the end. we all had it but noone was correct in entirety.