Strong wheels or breakable wheels?

[Apu]

So a question to those who have posted, have you been in a situation where you've hit something hard enough, and damaged your suspension / steering but the wheel survived?

Wouldn't you prefer to replace the wheel that fix the suspension?

...and I'm assuming you clicked through to the Ken Block link?

[barge]

So a question to those who have posted, have you been in a situation where you've hit something hard enough, and damaged your suspension / steering but the wheel survived?

OK my $700 wheel shattered, arguably protecting my $250 per corner suspension so um... but then I doubt any wheel is going to to be 100% true or reliable after any altercation that is hard enough to damage suspension components. So either way, you're replacing the wheel. It's not an either/or situation.

[Apu]

Suspension cost $250?

Once incident cost $5000 in 1994 money. Wheel survived but in my inexperience, I continued to use that wheel as it all looked OK.

Dann's incident is not dissimilar. Wheel survived but if you look into his garage thread, you can see the damage.

I'm not saying suspension will come out unscathed, but I would expect that much of the force would have dissipated and therefore saving the suspension from greater damage.

[Hjt]

It's both ways mate. If your wheel shatters there is a strong chance suspension will be affected. If your wheel survives and the suspension died, your wheels probably still rooted.

[Apu]

Not really. I've seen a number of instances where the us pension was rooted but the wheel survived, well enough such that a good touch up and you could never tell.

No problem right? Until that set of wheels get sold to some unsuspecting buyer.

I'd like to find out how Fifteen52 design the "breakability" into their wheels...or is it just marketing hype.

That said has anyone hear had an incident where the wheel was damaged beyond repair but left the suspension reasonably serviceable?

[sailaholic]

I'd like to find out how Fifteen52 design the "breakability" into their wheels...or is it just marketing hype.

At a guess the use an alloy that has a reasonably small elongation to fracture. Ie something stiff but (relatively) brittle

If they are really serious about it the may have done the design work to ensure the rim is strong in the tire load directions but weak if the spokes have a sideways (impact) loading.

If you look at energy absorption of materials, ductile materials generally absorb more energy even if the peak stress is significantly lower as energy absorbed is an area under the curve function. This is why we have crumple zones instead of shear zones.

The only way I can see breaking rather then say buckling / bending being a saving is by breaking completely its doesn't just absorb energy but removes the contact between the wheel and the object its hitting. Ie bodywork takes the brunt, or that 25 mm less means the car is no longer trying to go through the object.

This might work for block, but the average person is more likely to under / oversteer into a gutter and not clip it by just 10mm. I think it's far more likely the car will be half up on the gutter. Then you might have stronger things like hubs ect coming into play.

Looking at another example you hit a big pothole, wheel buckles, deflates, you pull over and changes it.

Same pothole, wheel shatters, hub/brake assembly now on the ground, front bumper as well. Depending on conditions, you still mange to stop the car OK without going off the road and hitting anything else. Get out and call the tow truck....

I can't imagine a wheel designed to such tight specification would be cheap to buy. It probably works for block where bodywork isn't important, being back out in a short time is and the environment is controlled.

Personally I wouldn't be loosing any sleep by having strong wheels. I think hjt probably got it about right.


Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[project.r.racing]

Stupid duscussion. Really in the end of all this for and against. The best option is to not crash into hard objects with your wheels. If you hit obects hard enough, something is gonna break, and it is gonna cost you money. Whether it be the wheels or suspension components.

[bruce]

It is a silly discussion. Just don't hit things. If you break either you were doing something really silly.

[sailaholic]

It's not just about not hitting things as Hayden's topic shows. Aluminium has no fatigue life, so eventually anything aluminium subject to cyclic loading will fail.

Cast aluminium wheels are also quite tricky to make depending on there design. The mould flow to get thin spokes with thick centre and rim in reasonable production time and costs with out defects can be challenging and pea sized voids in some areas are not uncommon.

[project.r.racing]

It's not just about not hitting things as Hayden's topic shows. Aluminium has no fatigue life, so eventually anything aluminium subject to cyclic loading will fail.

Cast aluminium wheels are also quite tricky to make depending on there design. The mould flow to get thin spokes with thick centre and rim in reasonable production time and costs with out defects can be challenging and pea sized voids in some areas are not uncommon.

There has been no mention about metal fatigue until now. It's all been soft vs hard metal wheels, and the effects on the suspension in a crash.

[sailaholic]

There has been no mention about metal fatigue until now. It's all been soft vs hard metal wheels, and the effects on the suspension in a crash.

Not really true, it's been about strength, and elongation to failure not hardness. With reduced strength come increased stress. With increased stress comes faster fatigue. One aspect can not be looked at in isolation.

On a side note, blocks rims cost more then most mx5s suspension.

[project.r.racing]

That is correct and I understand it. But that again is subject matter that has not come up in this discussion thread. That is subject matter taken from your new thread with the Japanese wheel article in it.

[Apu]

That's the whole point of the forum isn't it? Put up a topic for discussion, seek / share views, brainstorm ideas...

It's not like there are very strict boundaries to what can be discussed in a given thread because an OP has only specified two positions, and we can only discuss those two positions...not any other related subject matter

[project.r.racing]

lol @ me. Yes it is. I had to re read Sailaholics post to realize he wasn't having a dig at the silly discussion comments. Which is why I thought the 2 didnt really mix. While I agree that they are related subject matters, they are only related due to the threads being about wheels. Strong vs weak in a crash situation. Strong vs light in a performance situation. It's the situation that makes them totally different discussions (almost). Lets move on.

It is an interesting fact that Sailaholic's jdm article brought up. If you do decide to purchase weak wheels that will bend in a crash, then you are also buying wheels that have less performance and life span versus the harder stronger wheels. Another negative for weak wheels.

Personally I'd go the stronger wheels. I don't see the point in buying wheels that may protect the suspension in the future. I think it is a bullshit marketing jargon that might attract a few more buyers to their wheels. Like I posted earlier, in a crash situation, the wheel or suspension will break will break. Why spend extra coin on something that is gonna break in that situation anyway.

[vrmmmpshhh]

im going with strong wheels.

i posted this up a few days ago


why try to protect your suspension if everything else could possibly get messed up.. including your suspension