89blues

iTrader: (1)

Anyone use hub centric wheel spacers, are they worth the extra money, whats the real difference between the two?

Thanks

HPE

I had some custom machined. They are worth the safety. What hub centric does is carries the load on the hub rather than the wheel studs when under extreme forces. I run ARP 1/2 inch racing studs(not factory 12mm studs) as well as hubcentric spacers.Non hub centric spacers or adapters can break wheel studs when lateral strain is applied to the stud due to the spacer making the thread mate surface of the lugnut further from the hub. A hub centric spacer basically acts as an extension of the hub and thus the wheel stud is braced as it passes through it. Non hub centric spacers still allow the studs to leverage and flex inside them- thus leading to potential breakage.

BMmonteSS

Just to clarify HPE, you are talking about slip on spacers correct? With bolt on spacers the studs are stressed right at the mounting flange. Slip on spacers are a bad idea in anything over a 1/4" no matter if they are hub centric or not.

MrDude_1

a hub-centric wheel is centered only by the hub (or middle) of the wheel. the lugnuts are only there to hold the wheel to the hub and to allow it to turn.


a lug-centric wheel is centered by the wheel studs.. our stock rims are lugcentric. the angle cut on the "acorn style" lug nuts centers the wheel on the studs as they are tightened.

technically, thirdgen hubs (both front and rear) are not designed for hubcentric rims.. they are not a strict size, nor is the machining perfect on them..
however, if the rim (or spacer) matches the size and everything is ok, then it will most likely work. the discbrake hubs and rear axles are made on a lathe, so they are most likely centered.

if you wish to mount hubcentric rims on a thirdgen that require a spacer, the spacer should use a lugcentric pattern to mount to the thirdgen, and have the proper hubcentric pattern to match the rim(and be the correct thickness). this will ensure it works correctly for both.


as far as stress and spacers go, assuming you're using rims of the correct offset to match the spacers, there is ZERO ADDITIONAL STRESS on the wheelstuds.
the spacer is bolted like a rim to it. and it uses its own studs to attach itself to the wheel.
anyone who debates this needs to ask themselves one thing... how can any one sit in this chair?:

HPE

If I wasn't then I would have used the term adapters- I was talking spacers.I assume when you say 'bolt on spacers' you really are meaning adapters?
Even adapters can break from lateral strain- they have quite frequently over the years- this is a known fact. It is always a result of them not being hub centric and cracking due to the overall wheel force being bolted on into a greater leverage zone further out on the scrub radius so to speak. ex: lets say offset wise the hub face is 3" out in the scrub rdius profile. This is the mount surface of the wheel. from this point, it is only wheel studs that are holding the car's weigh from slaming to the ground- unless the wheel is hubcentric. NOW- you bolt on an adapter(that is not hub centric) and you move the whole new mount surface outward 2 more inches in the scrub pattern offset- YOU STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL SURFACE THAT IS BEING LEVERAGED even though you have a 2nd new outer mount surface with the bolt on adapter. And generally what cracks on an adapter is the aluminum in between the mount surfaces because they at leveraged and not supported by hub centricity-Thank you, By the way- this is Dean
What the hell is wrong with this site now? You can't even type stuff and have it post correctly. Boy have they screwed things up will I have been gone.
And before anyone argues further- please explain to me why my front 13/16 inch thick hubcentric SPACERS, not adapters, have not broken my wheel studs especially with the cornering forces I exceed????? My spacers were machined with .51 tolerances over the .50 studs and need to be tapped on with a rubber mallet. This makes it imposible for my studs to flex and break within the boundries of my spacers due to the spacer becoming one with the hub due to its hub centric marraige.

camarojustin

From what I have read you guys are both right.
All the weight of the car is supported by the wheel studs because they are lugcentric and no weight is transfered to the hub exept through the wheel studs. By adding a spacer you move the stress further away from the part of the wheel stud that is supported causing more leverage for the stud to break. To make a hubcentric spacer actually make a difference the stud would have to be threaded through the spacer or at least have a very tight tolerance on the studs and the hub so that it could transmit the stress from the extra levage on the studs through to the hub.
If the spacer is only tight on the hub and loose on the studs it will have absolutely no effect.

BMmonteSS

I think you're leaving out one very important factor in all of this. The wheel centerline is vital in how the weight of the vehicle acts on the hub, as well as how cornering forces are also distributed.

I won't argue with you that slip on spacers are a bad idea, they are. They absolutely will cause a very bad bending load on the studs if they aren't supported by both a hub centric fit and a close fit on the studs. Hubcentricity (is this a word?) will just garantee forces are distributed through the spacer and not the studs.

I will however argue that bolt on spacers / adapters or what ever you want to call them are not near as bad as you are making them out to be. I myself have never seen a documented case of wheel adapters breaking either in the field or on the net. So highly doubt failures are as common as you make them out to be. The type of failure you speak of is going to happen because of increased corning loads, not just because there is more wheel on the outboard side of the hub. This is depended of course on if you kept the scrub radius some where near stock....which you should have. Then loads at the hub face shouldn't be artificially increased like it would if you spaced out the scrub radius 2" more than stock. All this proves is that you are not going to be breaking wheel studs. Like you said if it was going to break it would be in the body of the adapter. If an adapter fails in this area it's because of crappy materials or bad design that makes it too thin.

Quite frankly I'm not real sure what you are arguing, sure hub centric is better, but the general didn't deem it necessary and as long as you use a high quality spacer it's going to be as strong as the wheel you bolt it to. The area you are saying will break will still break even if it's hub centric. Unless you're central mounting lug extends clear through the adapter and engages the wheel you are going to have to rely on the body of the adapter to take the load of the car.

89blues

iTrader: (1)

I was trying to use the correct wording and was calling them adapters. But you could say 2 inch bolt on spacers as well.

I went with the hub centric ones any way. I figured the extra flange helps to center the wheel more on the hub.

Do you still use conical shaped lugs when bolting the wheel to the spacer?


Thanks for all the great input

BMmonteSS

You still use the conical lug nuts. Depending on the vendor you may have to machine the hub centric ring on the adapter on the front to get them to work. My brother got some cheapy ebay spacers and they would not fit over the nose on the front hubs.

MrDude_1

BMmonteSS:
hes arguing because thats what Dean does.... even if theres nothing to argue about, he wants to let his opinions out in a agressive manner. right or wrong, debate or not is irrlevent.

in anycase, you nailed it on the head when you said wheel centerline.. thats exactly what i was talking about..

BMmonteSS

Ohh trust me I know how Dean is....what is that quote I'm thinking of????

Something about arguing with ignorance......

" Don't argue with ingnorance, they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"


or somthing like that


So Dean, how does that steering feel with an extra inch of scrub radius?

HPE

This guy gets it- Said the same thing I did. Wish others understood instead arguing nonsense..Let itgo.... just let it go.
You guys too are right some, but can be wrong some also and I'll explain why- it depends on the circumstance. You guys make the claim that as long as the centerline is the same the studs have zero additional stress- This is TRUE if the car has the same width rims OR if the car has wider rims but is sitting stagnant. This is false if it has wider rims and cornering loads are applied-WHY?- because regardless of where the centerline of the wheel is, a wider wheel has a further outer and inner footprint-ewhen a corenring load is placed on it the tire rides more pressure on the outer edge on a normal/sport street car alignment so as to not have abnormal tire wear and mileage longgevity of tires. Its THAT outer stress that makes your statement have a FALSE in it, so again, sometimes yes sometimes no.Still think I am argueing? no , I am educating and explaining facts- Get off your high horse.
Now yes, a thirdgen comes without hub cnetric wheels- but they are a certain width and tires were not as grippy as they are now. Combine the two with wider wheel and grippier tires everyone adds now to a 20 year old engineered car and the necessity of hub centricity does come to play. Adding an adapter generally is MOST CASES does not mean retaining the same width facoty specs. Those wider specs leverage the studs more and even on an adapter that is non hubcentric those studs liking will NOT break but the non hubcentric body of the adapter(aka- bolt on spacer) can and has broken on many people in past years. most now use either stell adapters (which are cheap but vibrate) or use high quality billet aluminum AND try and utilize a hubcentric center portion to hold presure off the original wheelstuds with the added leverage of wider tires during cornering.Yet again, I explain with facts, but not argueing needlessly-Might you people try and do the same and lay off my ***.

MrDude_1

so the cliffs of all that comes down to:
if you put wide tires on, with sticky rubber, its possible to overstress the lugnuts until they sheer... and a possible fix for this is to use a hubcentric mounting method to move the stress from the lugs.

i think if you're generating stresses at this point, you shouldnt be running regular lugs anyway, and you would be stupid to do it with spacers anyway.


making all of that a moot point unless someone here was putting 315 autoX tires on their daily driver.

i still disagree with you on moving the stresses to the hub, since you can go measure brake rotor company X and get one size hub, then measure company Y and get another size.
there are plenty of cars running lugcentric rims, some of them with 1/2" studs.. id reccomend anyone doing that kind of abuse upgrade to ARP or equiv studs and be done with it.

Guest

Putting a hubcentric spacer/adapter/ring on is kind of a redundant 'safety feature' if you want to look at it that way. The idea of the studs and nuts is to apply adequate torque to stretch the bolt so that there isnt any sliding between the wheel and the hub. That prevents any bending forces from being transmitted, its all axial force within the stud itself. I'm sure in a racing situation like nascar or some other series that uses multiple lug nuts a centering hub and wheel is a huge benefit because the torque on the fasteners is... questionable. On a car you can check readily, just added safety in case you left something loose or something came loose without your knowledge. Thats likely why large spacers arent allowed in racing (you guys can tell me which, I dont know) because with the spacer you cant see or easily check the 5 nuts holding the spacer to the hub. I'd say in the case of a large spacer that hubcentric would be a really good idea, if possible given the lousy tolerances mentioned above. More chance of loose nuts causing problems without your knowledge in that case. If you want to run hubcentric though, and can, I dont see any problems with a properly designed part.