You wrote:
>>Hey, my wheels were "balanced". But when they were put on the hubs the whole
>>thing became a unit and at that point the unit was not balanced.
Yes, I understand this.
>>Pete, when you have the whole thing balanced (by balancing the wheels on the
>>car) - the WHOLE thing is balanced. If you balance the hubs and then put on
>>the wheel that would not mean that the whole thing (as a unit) is no longer
>>balanced. (And $10 a wheel is cheap IMO). See what I mean? Cheers.
Let's say you were a racer, and you have lots of different wheels with
tires mounted. It would be pain, would it not, to have to have each set of
wheels balanced on the car. This way would be way expensive. Plus, it
would be a chore keeping track of which wheels go on which hubs and in
which orientation. So, the simpler and less expensive way, in the long
run, would be to have the hubs balanced. If a hub is balanced and the
wheel is balanced, I can't imagine that the two units assembled would for
any reason be out of balance. You could theoretically put any balanced
wheel/tire on any balanced hub in any orientation and save a lot of
headaches. Of course, then you have to consider the lug nuts... they might
throw the whole thing off again!! (I guess this doesn't apply to wire wheel
users, though)
Mainly I asked that question just to make sure that I understood the
benefits of having them done on the car. Front hubs would be easy to have
balanced, but rear hubs would be a pain (it would seem) so there goes my
whole hypothetical argument, anyway!!
Thanks much!
Pete Chadwell
1973 TR6
|