Anyone running a true square (width+offset) setup?

[Sprintamx]

Don't let my annoyance suggest that standards for a proper wheel setup are not important. They certainly are.

So we can all hopefully be on the same page, the type of spacer / adapter I am referring to--and the only kind I would ever use--is a hubcentric "pass through" adapter. Mounting studs / bolts are NOT mounted to the adapter plate. If that's what jasonstang thinks is the only option for an adapter is, then I'll retract my annoyance. But, it's still a product of ignorance.

A proper hubcentric adapter fits tightly on the lip of the wheel hub (presuming that the OE hub has a lip) and the mounting studs are fixed to the hub and pass through the spacer. The spacer itself has a lip that the wheel sits on. The mating surfaces of the adapter are properly dimensioned to fit precisely on the hub and fitment to the wheel. Clamping and stress forces are therefore properly distributed throughout the hub and wheel. That's a proper adapter setup.

What is annoying here is that literally thousands of track cars AND race cars use a proper hubcentric adapter without issue. It is not engineering / structural / material failure waiting to happen, any more than s--- happens on track with ANY part. Period.

Now, the point of this thread--as I mentioned in post #1--was not to debate the use of spacers / adapters, but to get data on a square setup wheel fitment options. If someone doesn't want to use a spacer, great. Please start a separate thread on that.

Sponsored

 

[TheDeadCow]

I agree.

I think a good place to start is determining the wheel offsets (without spacers) for 19X11 wheels front and back.
Then determine how thick the spacer in the front needs to be in order to keep the wheel offset the same from front to back.
Then determine the length of front wheel studs.

 

[Sprintamx]

Those are pretty straightforward numbers:

19x11 et55 is the consensus among the resident wheel merchants for a good rear fitment.
25mm spacer for mounting the et55 on the front.
3" studs necessary for the front fitment (I would convert all 4 corners to new studs in any case).

All of these options are available today. I'm just trying to find some field reports and user recommendations one way or another before dropping $$$ on a package.

 

[TheDeadCow]

Those are pretty straightforward numbers:

19x11 et55 is the consensus among the resident wheel merchants for a good rear fitment.
25mm spacer for mounting the et55 on the front.
3" studs necessary for the front fitment (I would convert all 4 corners to new studs in any case).

All of these options are available today. I'm just trying to find some field reports and user recommendations one way or another before dropping $$$ on a package.

Why increase stud length in the rear?

 

[combustor]

I'm in the same process. Want to run a square setup with spacers. I've ordered the R front hubs which have long enough studs included. Having a hard time deciding between 11 or 11.5" width. I think a 305 is probably the narrowest tire I'll be running up front. I've heard a 315 will fit too. going with the 11.5" rim would allow an even wider rear tire as an option, but still could run all 305s if I wanted. 11.5 is nominally heavier than 11 of course. I think I've decided on the CCW TS12 wheel and at $925 its almost a "bargain" with it's high load rating.

So 11 or 11.5" width?

 

[crazymayhem]

Also - what does it look like if you mount the OEM 10.5x19 +30mm wheel on the front with longer studs? I guess you need longer/deeper nuts?

 

[krt22]

Those are pretty straightforward numbers:

19x11 et55 is the consensus among the resident wheel merchants for a good rear fitment.
25mm spacer for mounting the et55 on the front.
3" studs necessary for the front fitment (I would convert all 4 corners to new studs in any case).

All of these options are available today. I'm just trying to find some field reports and user recommendations one way or another before dropping $$$ on a package.

Id personally got 19x11+50...that will give you the same stance as the stock R 19x11.5+62. Then +50 with a 25mm spacer will match the R front offset

 

[krt22]

It seems to me a plate type spacer (not a bolt on type) with extended studs would be the way to go. This setup would require open end lug nuts when switching back to the stock wheels with no spacer.

Agreed. And that spacer looked really thin, so likely just a few mm of material behind the actual nuts, no wonder it failed, especially on a 4000lb GTR

 

[TheDeadCow]

I'm in the same process. Want to run a square setup with spacers. I've ordered the R front hubs which have long enough studs included. Having a hard time deciding between 11 or 11.5" width. I think a 305 is probably the narrowest tire I'll be running up front. I've heard a 315 will fit too. going with the 11.5" rim would allow an even wider rear tire as an option, but still could run all 305s if I wanted. 11.5 is nominally heavier than 11 of course. I think I've decided on the CCW TS12 wheel and at $925 its almost a "bargain" with it's high load rating.

So 11 or 11.5" width?

After shopping around for tires I noticed there's a lot of options if you go with a 305/30/19.

Also - what does it look like if you mount the OEM 10.5x19 +30mm wheel on the front with longer studs? I guess you need longer/deeper nuts?

Or open ended lugs. Here's an example:
https://ozmoengineering.com/

 

[tdzee]

^ Above is incorrect, I'm sorry to say.

Numerous road courses are going to eat up tires on one side or corner of your car faster than the other, especially if your camber isn't on point. Road Atlanta will have a field day with your front left. Atlanta Motorsports Park will gobble up that front right and probably rear right. TGPR, a cheap track to get onto, will help you finish off a set of front tires faster than many other tracks just because of all the hard braking on the extremely grainy road surface.

Point being, you rotate tires in a square setup to not wear one or two out entirely while the other two have a few more runs in them... fact.

This is absolutely true. Rotating is required and each track wears differently. Ideally, you need unique alignments for every track to try to even out the wear.

I run only at AMP and run an extra 0.5-0.75 deg neg camber right front and 0.25-0.5 deg neg camber on right rear. I burn thru the outside edge on front right tire. Unfortunately, all my cars run staggered set ups, which is quite costly if you do not consider the OP topic. :doh: :cheers:

 

[TheDeadCow]

Id personally got 19x11+50...that will give you the same stance as the stock R 19x11.5+62. Then +50 with a 25mm spacer will match the R front offset

+1

Agreed. And that spacer looked really thin, so likely just a few mm of material behind the actual nuts, no wonder it failed, especially on a 4000lb GTR

Yeah, the forum where the pic was taken from had suggested that the spacer was a cheap Chinese piece as well.

 

[jasonstang]

Don't let my annoyance suggest that standards for a proper wheel setup are not important. They certainly are.

So we can all hopefully be on the same page, the type of spacer / adapter I am referring to--and the only kind I would ever use--is a hubcentric "pass through" adapter. Mounting studs / bolts are NOT mounted to the adapter plate. If that's what jasonstang thinks is the only option for an adapter is, then I'll retract my annoyance. But, it's still a product of ignorance.

A proper hubcentric adapter fits tightly on the lip of the wheel hub (presuming that the OE hub has a lip) and the mounting studs are fixed to the hub and pass through the spacer. The spacer itself has a lip that the wheel sits on. The mating surfaces of the adapter are properly dimensioned to fit precisely on the hub and fitment to the wheel. Clamping and stress forces are therefore properly distributed throughout the hub and wheel. That's a proper adapter setup.

What is annoying here is that literally thousands of track cars AND race cars use a proper hubcentric adapter without issue. It is not engineering / structural / material failure waiting to happen, any more than s--- happens on track with ANY part. Period.

Now, the point of this thread--as I mentioned in post #1--was not to debate the use of spacers / adapters, but to get data on a square setup wheel fitment options. If someone doesn't want to use a spacer, great. Please start a separate thread on that.

You sound like pass though type spacers don't fail either. Anytime when you use longer studs and more moving surfaces, you are allowing the studs to rotate and bend. Studs are not designed to withstand this kind of force that is why wheels need to be mounted as close to the base of the suds as possible.
You go believe what you believe in but don't call other people idiots because of your ignorance.
Also good luck finding a 25mm shim.

 

[Sprintamx]

Why increase stud length in the rear?

I didn't mean to suggest I would install 3" in the rear; just that I was planning to go studs all the way around.

 

[Sprintamx]

I'm in the same process. Want to run a square setup with spacers. I've ordered the R front hubs which have long enough studs included. Having a hard time deciding between 11 or 11.5" width. I think a 305 is probably the narrowest tire I'll be running up front. I've heard a 315 will fit too. going with the 11.5" rim would allow an even wider rear tire as an option, but still could run all 305s if I wanted. 11.5 is nominally heavier than 11 of course. I think I've decided on the CCW TS12 wheel and at $925 its almost a "bargain" with it's high load rating.

So 11 or 11.5" width?

I'm planning on running a 305/30 square setup, and sticking with 11". That's not written in stone and is one of the purposes of this thread. I do think that 11 up front is plenty of wheel and tire.

Where did you source the R hubs?

Can you let us know where you found the $925 pricing?

 

[Sprintamx]

Id personally got 19x11+50...that will give you the same stance as the stock R 19x11.5+62. Then +50 with a 25mm spacer will match the R front offset

Yep, the et50 is an option and may make the best sense for a true square setup.

Sponsored