Just had a tire balance with ZERO weight added
- Thread starter d00df00d
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SilverFusion2010
I've got mixed feelings about bigger rims. On the one hand you get better cornering because the tire is lower profile, but man are 17" tires pricey.
I don't like cars that go past 18". Expensive and impractical for a street car.
Saw a Camaro driven by an African-American in town. It was lifted on what must have been 35" or more wheels. Why a person would choose to spend thousands to ruin the ride and handling characteristics of their car I don't know.
My other chief complaint is I'll see cars on giant rims out in front of a run down trailer with a gaggle of kids running around. You'd think they would spend those thousands on improving their families situation.
It's a "style" or "scene" thing. Same as the lowered to the ground European cars on low offset wheels or lifted trucks on low profile mud terrain tires. No different. Just a trend.
I've got mixed feelings about bigger rims. On the one hand you get better cornering because the tire is lower profile, but man are 17" tires pricey.
I don't like cars that go past 18". Expensive and impractical for a street car.
Saw a Camaro driven by an African-American in town. It was lifted on what must have been 35" or more wheels. Why a person would choose to spend thousands to ruin the ride and handling characteristics of their car I don't know.
My other chief complaint is I'll see cars on giant rims out in front of a run down trailer with a gaggle of kids running around. You'd think they would spend those thousands on improving their families situation.
It's a "style" or "scene" thing. Same as the lowered to the ground European cars on low offset wheels or lifted trucks on low profile mud terrain tires. No different. Just a trend.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Michelin Pilot Sport 4S. Hunter Road Force balance machine, so they may have re-mounted the tire on the wheel per the procedure.
Either way, I've heard about this happening, but only once, and never on one of my tires. Pretty awesome IMO!
Anyone had this happen on one of their tires?
Happens all the time. A couple times, have had all four wheels on the same vehicle require zero weights.
Michelin Pilot Sport 4S. Hunter Road Force balance machine, so they may have re-mounted the tire on the wheel per the procedure.
Either way, I've heard about this happening, but only once, and never on one of my tires. Pretty awesome IMO!
Anyone had this happen on one of their tires?
Happens all the time. A couple times, have had all four wheels on the same vehicle require zero weights.
Interesting thread.
The Focus in my sig recently had a new set of Motomaster SE3's installed 205 55 16's. Never noticed so many wheels not having weights on them after being installed and balanced. Clearly a superior tire to the Conti DWS's I had prior.
The Focus in my sig recently had a new set of Motomaster SE3's installed 205 55 16's. Never noticed so many wheels not having weights on them after being installed and balanced. Clearly a superior tire to the Conti DWS's I had prior.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
This is why vehicles designed to run on the autobahns typically have large brakes. The rear brakes on my 1er are about the same size as the front brakes on a new MDX, it is about speed, not weight.
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: knerml
In general, Michelins have the best tire uniformity.
That said, wheels with TPMS can be more out of balance than most premium tires.
Add Pirelli to your short list. I know I'm going to be accused for being a tyre snob but, overall, those two simply are better.
Continental is great too, however they are German... and aren't as cool.
In general, Michelins have the best tire uniformity.
That said, wheels with TPMS can be more out of balance than most premium tires.
Add Pirelli to your short list. I know I'm going to be accused for being a tyre snob but, overall, those two simply are better.
Continental is great too, however they are German... and aren't as cool.
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
This is why vehicles designed to run on the autobahns typically have large brakes. The rear brakes on my 1er are about the same size as the front brakes on a new MDX, it is about speed, not weight.
KE = 1/2 m v^2. Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity to the second power, not the fourth. Were you thinking of wind resistance, perhaps?
Either way, yes speed is a bigger deal, but we're not talking about race use here. This is for public roads, where the high end of the speed range (say, the 90th percentile) is more or less the same for most cars in most contexts. Mass may represent a smaller part of the equation than velocity does, but it accounts for most of the variation.
Also... don't your 1er's brakes fit under 17" wheels?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
KE = 1/2 m v^2. Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity to the second power, not the fourth. Were you thinking of wind resistance, perhaps?
Either way, yes speed is a bigger deal, but we're not talking about race use here. This is for public roads, where the high end of the speed range (say, the 90th percentile) is more or less the same for most cars in most contexts. Mass may represent a smaller part of the equation than velocity does, but it accounts for most of the variation.
Also... don't your 1er's brakes fit under 17" wheels?
Originally Posted By: chrisri
Originally Posted By: knerml
In general, Michelins have the best tire uniformity.
That said, wheels with TPMS can be more out of balance than most premium tires.
Add Pirelli to your short list. I know I'm going to be accused for being a tyre snob but, overall, those two simply are better.
Continental is great too, however they are German... and aren't as cool.
Tire snobbery would be if you treated tire brands like tribal affiliations and looked down on people who buy "lesser" brands.
When you point out that Michelin and Pirelli have better track records than other brands, that's just a statement of fact.
(don't think Pirelli is as good as Michelin in this respect though)
Originally Posted By: knerml
In general, Michelins have the best tire uniformity.
That said, wheels with TPMS can be more out of balance than most premium tires.
Add Pirelli to your short list. I know I'm going to be accused for being a tyre snob but, overall, those two simply are better.
Continental is great too, however they are German... and aren't as cool.
Tire snobbery would be if you treated tire brands like tribal affiliations and looked down on people who buy "lesser" brands.
When you point out that Michelin and Pirelli have better track records than other brands, that's just a statement of fact.
(don't think Pirelli is as good as Michelin in this respect though)
Recently had some Nokian eNTRYRES installed and one wheel didn't need any weights. The other 3 wheels had a very small amount of weight on each wheel. No tpms on the car so that probably helps a little.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
This is why vehicles designed to run on the autobahns typically have large brakes. The rear brakes on my 1er are about the same size as the front brakes on a new MDX, it is about speed, not weight.
KE = 1/2 m v^2. Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity to the second power, not the fourth. Were you thinking of wind resistance, perhaps?
Either way, yes speed is a bigger deal, but we're not talking about race use here. This is for public roads, where the high end of the speed range (say, the 90th percentile) is more or less the same for most cars in most contexts. Mass may represent a smaller part of the equation than velocity does, but it accounts for most of the variation.
Also... don't your 1er's brakes fit under 17" wheels?
The sole reason of big brakes on your 1 series is that is RWD. You see with RWD there is a lot of inertia from prop shaft, differential, half shafts, even gearbox. All of this are stopped by front brakes on a FWD. Plus there is a weight distribution difference. Speed as such isn't as relevant. Fast FWD cars still have relatively modest rear breaks.
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
KE = 1/2 m v^2. Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity to the second power, not the fourth. Were you thinking of wind resistance, perhaps?
Either way, yes speed is a bigger deal, but we're not talking about race use here. This is for public roads, where the high end of the speed range (say, the 90th percentile) is more or less the same for most cars in most contexts. Mass may represent a smaller part of the equation than velocity does, but it accounts for most of the variation.
Also... don't your 1er's brakes fit under 17" wheels?
The sole reason of big brakes on your 1 series is that is RWD. You see with RWD there is a lot of inertia from prop shaft, differential, half shafts, even gearbox. All of this are stopped by front brakes on a FWD. Plus there is a weight distribution difference. Speed as such isn't as relevant. Fast FWD cars still have relatively modest rear breaks.
I have a friend who owns a performance shop. They mount and balance tons of performance tires for all kinds of race cars and street cars and he is adamant that you can balance almost any tire without weights on a quality wheel by mounting it in the right orientation. Seen it tons of times with super high dollar race tires, to street tires, to Chinese all seasons on drift car's rear wheels.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TinyVoices
I have a friend who owns a performance shop. They mount and balance tons of performance tires for all kinds of race cars and street cars and he is adamant that you can balance almost any tire without weights on a quality wheel by mounting it in the right orientation. Seen it tons of times with super high dollar race tires, to street tires, to Chinese all seasons on drift car's rear wheels.
Sorry, but a tire that requires more weight than the wheel does will always require weight regardless of how they are oriented.
I have a friend who owns a performance shop. They mount and balance tons of performance tires for all kinds of race cars and street cars and he is adamant that you can balance almost any tire without weights on a quality wheel by mounting it in the right orientation. Seen it tons of times with super high dollar race tires, to street tires, to Chinese all seasons on drift car's rear wheels.
Sorry, but a tire that requires more weight than the wheel does will always require weight regardless of how they are oriented.
I hate re-orienting tires on the wheel. It takes a lot of time, and more work when you move it around the wheel 3 times only to end up in the spot you started from. First up have to lift the heavy-assed wheel from the balancer, let the air out, break both beads, and many tires you need to dismount the top bead. Then you rotate the tire, remount the beads, air it up and install it on the balancer again. Then re-spin the wheel, only to find out you made it worse, and you get to do it again. I usually only index tires if I have wheel calling for over 2 ounces on the outer plane so I don't have to use 4 ounce of lead behind the spokes.
I just bought set of 215/40r18 Michelin PSS from Discount tire.
One had no weight, and others have approx 1/2 oz or 2 small connected lead pieces.
Really smooth running tires, and don't look that small for the size on 7.5 x18 Enkei 19# wheels.
It's always best to have this perfect fit instead of stretched or oversized.
Looks don't make traction although they look great.
One had no weight, and others have approx 1/2 oz or 2 small connected lead pieces.
Really smooth running tires, and don't look that small for the size on 7.5 x18 Enkei 19# wheels.
It's always best to have this perfect fit instead of stretched or oversized.
Looks don't make traction although they look great.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
This is why vehicles designed to run on the autobahns typically have large brakes. The rear brakes on my 1er are about the same size as the front brakes on a new MDX, it is about speed, not weight.
KE = 1/2 m v^2. Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity to the second power, not the fourth. Were you thinking of wind resistance, perhaps?
Either way, yes speed is a bigger deal, but we're not talking about race use here. This is for public roads, where the high end of the speed range (say, the 90th percentile) is more or less the same for most cars in most contexts. Mass may represent a smaller part of the equation than velocity does, but it accounts for most of the variation.
Also... don't your 1er's brakes fit under 17" wheels?
They can fit under some 17's, but not many. The front brakes are REALLY tight on the OE winter 17's. I think the only reason they do fit is because they used 6 pot front calipers that barely stick out further than the diameter of the rotor.
Sorry, not sure why I wrote forth power, thank you for the correction above.
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
- If a passenger vehicle needs wheels bigger than 17" to look right, it's too big; and
- If it needs brakes that wouldn't fit under a 17" wheel, it's too heavy.
Speed is a much bigger factor requiring bigger brakes than weight. Kinetic energy is related to the velocity to the forth power, while weight is a linear relationship. Small increases in speed require a big increase in brake thermal mass required. Maybe you need to drive faster cars? (I keed, I keed)
KE = 1/2 m v^2. Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity to the second power, not the fourth. Were you thinking of wind resistance, perhaps?
Either way, yes speed is a bigger deal, but we're not talking about race use here. This is for public roads, where the high end of the speed range (say, the 90th percentile) is more or less the same for most cars in most contexts. Mass may represent a smaller part of the equation than velocity does, but it accounts for most of the variation.
Also... don't your 1er's brakes fit under 17" wheels?
They can fit under some 17's, but not many. The front brakes are REALLY tight on the OE winter 17's. I think the only reason they do fit is because they used 6 pot front calipers that barely stick out further than the diameter of the rotor.
Sorry, not sure why I wrote forth power, thank you for the correction above.
Last edited:
I don't know how Chevy managed it, but the wheels & tires on my brother's 1986 Monte Carlo SS were perfectly balanced without weights. I think they were Goodyear Eagle GTs. Drove the car from VA to FL, not so much as a shimmy. That's the last time I've ever witnessed an entire set of wheels with no weights.
- Status
Similar threads
