Wheel Weights for Almost Every Wheel!!!
04-28-2002, 10:01 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheel Weights for Almost Every Wheel!!!
Finally, a site that lists down what different wheels weigh -- including the stock setup for almost every car!!
http://www.wheelweights.net/
For the S2000 -- click on Wheels (by Size) and scroll down to the 16x7.5 sizing...that's where we fall...I found it very interesting that our stock 16's are 18.6 lbs!!
And that the JDM stock rims are SIGNIFICANTLY lighter!!
Hope you guys find this link informative -- I know I did!
http://www.wheelweights.net/
For the S2000 -- click on Wheels (by Size) and scroll down to the 16x7.5 sizing...that's where we fall...I found it very interesting that our stock 16's are 18.6 lbs!!
And that the JDM stock rims are SIGNIFICANTLY lighter!!Hope you guys find this link informative -- I know I did!
04-28-2002, 10:06 PM
#2
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify, I'm not sure where this guy got all his data, but he was bang-on for a lot of the rims! I'm assuming the weights listed on that site are accurate!
04-29-2002, 05:12 PM
#4
Registered User
You will notice with a 10lb difference at each wheel. Total of 40lb's in extra dead weight, the car feels like it lags more off the line. And when going up hills, you will notice that your car may not pick up the speed as quickly.
04-29-2002, 06:08 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reno
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unsprung weight is the most critical on a car. You'll smash over bumps, as well.
The trend to go one inch diameter larger in wheels and one sidewall/profile size smaller makes little sense to me, the wheels will weigh more and the tires at least as much which will more than overcompensate for the slightly stiffer sidewall that results. Keep the wheel size the same and go to a lower profile and you'll get slightly better acceleration ( but your speedo will be off).
The trend to go one inch diameter larger in wheels and one sidewall/profile size smaller makes little sense to me, the wheels will weigh more and the tires at least as much which will more than overcompensate for the slightly stiffer sidewall that results. Keep the wheel size the same and go to a lower profile and you'll get slightly better acceleration ( but your speedo will be off).
04-29-2002, 09:41 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: JDM Land
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow... great find, Shamu!
The listing is very comprehensive... it even has the Import Development wheels there!
Glad to see I didn't go wrong by sticking with "all-things-Spoon"... at 11.9lbs and 12.9lbs, the 16" SW388's are only about 2/3's the weight of the stock wheels!
Reducing unsprung weight is a proven way to increase the performance of any car. It allows the suspension to react faster to bumps, resulting in a more sure-footed, agile car... and a better ride to boot! Reducing the weight of the wheel reduces the overall rotating mass, and thus will improve both acceleration and braking.
Still... bigger wheels look NICE... so it all depends where your priorities lie. But DAMMMMMN... those 17" forged Volk Racing CE28N's are just CRAZY LIGHT!!!
Hmmm...
The listing is very comprehensive... it even has the Import Development wheels there!
Glad to see I didn't go wrong by sticking with "all-things-Spoon"... at 11.9lbs and 12.9lbs, the 16" SW388's are only about 2/3's the weight of the stock wheels!
Reducing unsprung weight is a proven way to increase the performance of any car. It allows the suspension to react faster to bumps, resulting in a more sure-footed, agile car... and a better ride to boot! Reducing the weight of the wheel reduces the overall rotating mass, and thus will improve both acceleration and braking.
Still... bigger wheels look NICE... so it all depends where your priorities lie. But DAMMMMMN... those 17" forged Volk Racing CE28N's are just CRAZY LIGHT!!!
Hmmm...
04-30-2002, 02:40 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Land of the landeaus
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, this is a repost from a thread some time ago:
I've done exhaustive research on this topic and after a few years, have finally settled on a 2.5x factor for tire/wheel weight differences. Over the course of three years, in several forums featuring highly educated enthusiasts whose degrees are in physics, that figure seems to be most consistent. I've read in other forums adjusted #'s as high as 10x and that is simply ridiculous. To sum it up, for every 1-lb of "rolling" weight gained per tire/wheel or combination of the above, it is equal to 2.5-lbs of static weight. I weighed my OEM combination of tire/wheel before changing over and came to 43 and 41-lbs (rear/front) respectively. My 18/17-inch combo (rear/front) only increased to 46 and 43-lbs respectively and this slight increase was due more to tire weight savings (less sidewall and less contact patch). Total weight according to my above formula is 10x2.5=25-lbs.
Using another formula of mine which reads:
10-lbs of weight = .0023 performance difference in 1/4 mile (all other factors being equal), then the weight gained from my tire/wheel combo would normally result in a gain in the 1/4 of .06 seconds.
FWIW, another formula to convert HP from time is: time/ .023 = hp
so .06/.023 = 2.6hp or roughly 3hp lost from the newbie tire/wheel combo.
All of these formulas have worked for me going on two decades now and are backed up with more than 100 accelerometer runs over the past three years with five different vehicles. Not entirely scientific to the nth degree, but pretty darn accurate for my own purposes. My recent acceleration tests done with the suzuka revealed a loss of performance wholly in line with my projections (about 3hp) following the tire/wheel switchover. The stock wheels are quite heavy actually, at least for a 16-inch size.
I make no assertions of the affect tire track, contact patch, tread compound or other factors (beyond weight) might have in these formulas , but for straight line acceleration (I don't address handling variances) , you're not going to lose too much performance in say, the 1/4-mile going from an 18-lb wheel to a 21-lb wheel but I have noticed some owners who have purchased aftermarket wheels that are as heavy as 28-lbs each. On wheel weight alone, that is akin to adding a small passenger to your vehicle (10 x 4 x 2.5 = 100-lbs) and the performance variance definitely will/can be felt and noted.
I've done exhaustive research on this topic and after a few years, have finally settled on a 2.5x factor for tire/wheel weight differences. Over the course of three years, in several forums featuring highly educated enthusiasts whose degrees are in physics, that figure seems to be most consistent. I've read in other forums adjusted #'s as high as 10x and that is simply ridiculous. To sum it up, for every 1-lb of "rolling" weight gained per tire/wheel or combination of the above, it is equal to 2.5-lbs of static weight. I weighed my OEM combination of tire/wheel before changing over and came to 43 and 41-lbs (rear/front) respectively. My 18/17-inch combo (rear/front) only increased to 46 and 43-lbs respectively and this slight increase was due more to tire weight savings (less sidewall and less contact patch). Total weight according to my above formula is 10x2.5=25-lbs.
Using another formula of mine which reads:
10-lbs of weight = .0023 performance difference in 1/4 mile (all other factors being equal), then the weight gained from my tire/wheel combo would normally result in a gain in the 1/4 of .06 seconds.
FWIW, another formula to convert HP from time is: time/ .023 = hp
so .06/.023 = 2.6hp or roughly 3hp lost from the newbie tire/wheel combo.
All of these formulas have worked for me going on two decades now and are backed up with more than 100 accelerometer runs over the past three years with five different vehicles. Not entirely scientific to the nth degree, but pretty darn accurate for my own purposes. My recent acceleration tests done with the suzuka revealed a loss of performance wholly in line with my projections (about 3hp) following the tire/wheel switchover. The stock wheels are quite heavy actually, at least for a 16-inch size.
I make no assertions of the affect tire track, contact patch, tread compound or other factors (beyond weight) might have in these formulas , but for straight line acceleration (I don't address handling variances) , you're not going to lose too much performance in say, the 1/4-mile going from an 18-lb wheel to a 21-lb wheel but I have noticed some owners who have purchased aftermarket wheels that are as heavy as 28-lbs each. On wheel weight alone, that is akin to adding a small passenger to your vehicle (10 x 4 x 2.5 = 100-lbs) and the performance variance definitely will/can be felt and noted.
Trending Topics
04-30-2002, 04:05 AM
#8
Registered User
Thanks for the post shamu. The site not only had both my S2000 sets (stock and JDM forged wheels,) but it also listed my '93 VTEC cast wheels which, by the way, are about five pounds per wheel heavier than my stock S2000 wheels and about ten pounds per wheel heavier than my JDM S2000 wheels.
10-20-2002, 09:30 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boca Raton,Old Folks Ville
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OZ SL's are really good rims, at a good price for wheel of that quality. My 18" volk le37t plus yoko avs (255/35) rear tire combo weighs 48 lbs, and 46 lbs front (225/40) , I did'nt notice a difference in acceleration of the butt dyno. Hopefully a turbo kit (when I might be able to afford one) will make up for any power loss.