mx5cartalk.com

I've personally subscribed to the logic of prefering the wheel to break / deform / etc rather than having a strong wheel that survives impact...and transferring all that force to the more expensive suspension components.

Here's a much more credible name who subscribes to that philosophy https://www.facebook.com/WorksEngineeringAustralia?ref=hl#!/WorksEngineeringAustralia

Strong wheels. Your wheel shatters you run into a tree. You bend your suspension, car just drives strangely.

Cart before the horse there. Unless you are talking crap wheels, no wheel is going to just shatter whilst you're driving on the road.

You hit something hard, wheel breaks, car is going to come to a stop anyway. And if you've hit anything that hard, you've lost control of the car so if a tree is in the wrong place, you're going to hit it anyway.

Apu wrote: And if you've hit anything that hard, you've lost control of the car so if a tree is in the wrong place, you're going to hit it anyway.

I've bent strong wheels hitting irregularities in the road - large pothole for example. I'd much rather bend a strong wheel than break a weak wheel in that situation! I'll only be buying strong wheels thanks! I'll take a higher "break threshold" any day.

I think the point is being missed...

NMX - see my opening line, I do make the point "bend / break / deform" over a wheel that retains its shape but transfers all the forces to your suspension components. So what you have encountered is what I would prefer. That said, hitting a pothole typically does cause rims to crack or deform. I'm talking about hitting a kerb for example.

Having encountered several kerbs in my time, I've had the displeasure of having the car in the workshop for weeks whilst the suspension / steering components are replaced...meanwhile, the wheel just needed a new tyre. Having done similar with steelies, they just deformed, car went in for alignment, new steelie and tyre, all good.

Of course, AL doesn't deform - it either cracks / breaks...or transfers that force to the suspension / steering.

I guess the question is not looking for a hypothetical response, but for those who have experienced such a situation, would you rather have paid for a replacement wheel or bear the cost of replacing the suspension components.

Apu, with all due respect, wheels are not designed as a deformable crumple zone. Many people, however, even me, have buckled a wheel through exuberance and have not damaged the suspension.

A mate smashed my car into a gutter. Running some nice forged 6 spokes and the wheels have a mark but are street able and it took 14 hours labour and a whole front sub frame and angle grinding the old suspension out and the chassis will never be the same again.

I'd rather pay for a new wheel any day. Never heard of any wheel breaking catastrophically outside of a crash situation.

I think the question is if you crash do you want to replace a wheel or replace suspension and have an ugly wheel.

Dann

Apu wrote:...Having encountered several kerbs in my time...

well this begs the question, what do you do on the road to "encounter" these kerbs so often that this has become an issue?
I think the issue lies elsewhere than the structural integrity of wheels.

NitroDann wrote:Never heard of any wheel breaking catastrophically outside of a crash situation.
Dann

A few threads on here insist that Rota wheels explode if you look at them funny

All of us adults understand that's BS right? Only try hard kids who want to justify 4000 dollars wheels on a 3000 dollar na6 over at Club Ricer actually pretend to believe that, as far as I'm aware.

Dann

I sincerely hope you are correct.

Apu wrote:prefering the wheel to break / deform / etc rather than having a strong wheel that survives impact...and transferring all that force to the more expensive suspension components.

Sorry but I see this as a false dichotomy. You can't say that a crumbling wheel will definitely save suspension components. And your wheels might be more expensive than the suspension components anyway.

Steampunk wrote:

Apu wrote:...Having encountered several kerbs in my time...

well this begs the question, what do you do on the road to "encounter" these kerbs so often that this has become an issue?
I think the issue lies elsewhere than the structural integrity of wheels.

Seriously...that doesn't need an explanation does it? Hasn't happened in the last 15 or so years, but yes, earlier in my life I had bigger balls than brains.

barge wrote:

Apu wrote:prefering the wheel to break / deform / etc rather than having a strong wheel that survives impact...and transferring all that force to the more expensive suspension components.

Sorry but I see this as a false dichotomy. You can't say that a crumbling wheel will definitely save suspension components. And your wheels might be more expensive than the suspension components anyway.

It's not definite, but if it's been designed to work that way as Ken Block claims the Fifteen52 wheels are, then I would assume that it would more often that not work as intended (hopefully, not necessarily definitely).

bootz wrote:Apu, with all due respect, wheels are not designed as a deformable crumple zone. Many people, however, even me, have buckled a wheel through exuberance and have not damaged the suspension.

That's my point. As Ken Block states, the Fifteen52s he uses are designed to work that way.

And, yes again I would prefer the wheel to break/deform rather than pass that energy to suspension components.