Someone wrote:
> The one thing not mentioned is the this is for positive offset rims, as most
> (if not all) of the cars that run in STS use positive offset.
The rims I bought were backspace of 5.0 (8" rims) - rather positive offset.
> The reason for light rims goes to the old adage that one pound of rotational
> weight is roughly equivalent to 10 lbs of weight in the car, as far as
> acceleration and braking are concerned..........(snip)
>
> Another factor is reducing unsprung weight, that is the weight not supported
> by the springs of the car (wheels/tires/brakes/suspension arms). What this
> does for you is that it allows the springs and shocks to react faster to
> bumps and transitions............(snip)
Thanks for trying Guys - I tried to make the point that steel *or aluminum* rims
are much more plentiful in the 7.0" or 8.0" sizes. 7.5" is much more uncommon
size to dig up at reasonable cost. Heck, why not make it 7.25" ? :-)
FWIW, the gentleman selling the 7.5" rims mentioned they were rather light for
that size at 'only' either 15 or 17 pounds (I forget) - these lightweight steel
Bart rims were only 19 pounds each at 15x8. $160 for four, shipping included.
Choice of offsets.
Many in the real world with limited $$$ or just starting out, rather than run
the
stock or smaller rims, are still better off with slightly heavier wider rims
than
narrower aluminum alternatives. In my case I can afford the wider aluminum rims,
but this car right now is a "maybe" as far as potential, so I am trying these
steel rim substitutes before going 'whole hog' to try to gauge what that
potential might be. If and when I decide what to do next I will seek the
aluminum
alternative......but finding reasonable 7.5" rims will not be very easy.
That was my original point.
Just my two cents worth (get it?).
Thanks,
Scott Meyers
DSP 200SXSE (maybe)
|