Does a C still 'hamdle' on 17 inch alloys....

[scoobyd00 0]

I'm looking at a few options at the moment ... given the C came on 15 inc alloys and most probably hamdles best on them can I hear the pro's and con's against them - granted for many big brake kits they are essential - interested to hear how people find them day to day... not really into 'hamming' just for the sack of it as living with such a car can be a pita and ultimately make it terrible for those more spirited driving moments - I am a driver and have little interest in polish btw.

 

Let me know 8)

[catch_twotwo 0]

I had 17's on my old rado.... it drives ok, but can and often does hamline quite a lot.

 

I think 16's are a better option for all round....

[Bendy 0]

Yeah as catch_twotwo said, 17's do tramline esp wide 1's. i remember someone on here sayin (think it was trigger my son) that 17's for looks and 16's for a better ride. so if u enjoy ya spirted driving moments then i'd go with 16's. and you can still fit the tt 312mm setup behind 16's afaik.

[M15 VW 0]

Depends how wide the 17s are and what size tyre you have on them. I had 17" TT comps on mine with 205/40/17 tyres on them, and coilovers, Never had a problem. Hamdled well.

[double-6s 0]

Yeah it depends exactly what you mean really. With 17s you don't get any of the rolling on the tyre sidewalls, so the car feels much more precise. And loads of grip from the squarer-shouldered tyres.

 

The RIDE is better with 15s but thats fek all to do with the hamdling. !7s are a fair bit harsher in terms of ride comfort.

 

Personally I like 17s best.

[Tempest 0]

Must say that when I dropped from my 17x7 BKs with 205/40 tyres to 16x7.5 Momos with 205/45 Uniroyal tyres I noticed what I perceived to be a huge improvement in hamdling and even acceleration.

 

Tempest

[double-6s 0]

I really don't get the acceleration thing. The percentage difference in overall size is so small. I never notice any difference in acceleration going from 17's to 15's tbh.

 

The only thing I really notice improving is the suspensions ability to control the wheels due to the weight difference (and the ride).

[double-6s 0]

Must say that when I dropped from my 17x7 BKs with 205/40 tyres to 16x7.5 Momos with 205/45 Uniroyal tyres I noticed what I perceived to be a huge improvement in hamdling and even acceleration.

 

Tempest

 

Define 'hamdling' please.......

[Tempest 0]

Define 'hamdling' please.......

 

Hamdling as in going around corners at what I perceived to be higher speeds without tendencies of the car breaking away. Hamdling as in being able to make directional changes rapidly (eg. object avoidance) and the C following my commands instantaneously - this I also felt had improved with the 16s compred to my previous 17s. I thought I perceived minor improvements in acceleration, which is most likely due to having to accelerate a little less weight.

 

Mind you, a proper test would have taken into consideration things like weighing the wheels (which I haven't), and various other repeatable tests.

 

Tempest

[double-6s 0]

You reckon you can tell the difference in acceleration due to your car weighing less on 16's???

 

Horse mate. That is like saying you can tell the difference in acceleration when you put the shopping in the car. I can't.

 

TBH i found the opposite to your points above when going from 17's to 15's (never tried 16's). I find way more grip, cornering speeds, responsiveness etc with 17's.

 

Wierd :)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Hamdling is about how the car behaves and how it affects your confidence to explore the limits.

 

17" wheels themselves don't cause hamlining. It's the lower profile of the 17" tyre that causes that.

 

The biggest problem with 17s is weight and arch clearance.

 

Get a very light 7x17 (8Kg or less) and a soft tyre like the Rainsport or Continental Sport Contact and that is the best compromise for me, plus it allows for massive brakes as and when the power increases.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

You reckon you can tell the difference in acceleration due to your car weighing less on 16's???

 

Horse mate. That is like saying you can tell the difference in acceleration when you put the shopping in the car. I can't.

 

It's not horse, it's motoring fact mate :lol:

 

He's not saying the car weighs less with 16s, he's saying that the driveshafts have less rotational weight to spin up. What you put on the ends of your shafts are basically flywheels. 17s are heavier to spin up, slower to react to steering inputs and heavier for the brakes to slow down.

 

As I say, weight is the main problem, not size ;-)

[double-6s 0]

You reckon you can tell the difference in acceleration due to your car weighing less on 16's???

 

Horse mate. That is like saying you can tell the difference in acceleration when you put the shopping in the car. I can't.

 

It's not horse, it's motoring fact mate :lol:

 

He's not saying the car weighs less with 16s, he's saying that the driveshafts have less rotational weight to spin up. What you put on the ends of your shafts are basically flywheels. 17s are heavier to spin up, slower to react to steering inputs and heavier for the brakes to slow down.

 

As I say, weight is the main problem, not size ;-)

 

Errr..... No!

 

From what he said I think he is saying he can tell the difference in acceleration purely due to the difference in weight.

 

I'm not stupid Kev! :) Read it again mate. I understand the difference the heavier wheels will make, as you describe above, but i think he said the car accelerates quicker with 16's cos it weighs less.

 

Horse

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I thought I perceived minor improvements in acceleration, which is most likely due to having to accelerate a little less weight.

 

Where does he mention the car weighs less with 16" wheels?

 

Does a driveshaft not 'accelerate' up a wheel then?

 

Maybe Eric could clarify what he meant and it's not clear, but I'm putting money on him meaning spinning up wheel weight because I've sat next to him when a bunch of us were talking about in the pub!!

[davidwort 0]

regardless of whether Tempest meant pulling that weight along or rotating that weight, one thing I do know is the Borbet 15's and F1 tyres on my C weigh a hell of a lot less than the 16's on my MK4 golf, so I can totally see why the rotational acceleration (or whatever) makes a perceivable difference from 15's to 17's, probably from most 16's to 17's too.

Same principle as lightening flywheels after all.

[bristolbaron 10]

my car accelerates faster on my 15" wheels than my 17"s..

[double-6s 0]

regardless of whether Tempest meant pulling that weight along or rotating that weight, one thing I do know is the Borbet 15's and F1 tyres on my C weigh a hell of a lot less than the 16's on my MK4 golf, so I can totally see why the rotational acceleration (or whatever) makes a perceivable difference from 15's to 17's, probably from most 16's to 17's too.

Same principle as lightening flywheels after all.

 

 

Is anyone debating that then? I'm not.

[Walesy 0]

Can't say i've ever noticed a difference in acceleration ( I don't rag my cars often enough though! ) but I deffinately prefer the hamdling and ride quality on 15's

[double-6s 0]

I thought I perceived minor improvements in acceleration, which is most likely due to having to accelerate a little less weight.

 

Where does he mention the car weighs less with 16" wheels?

 

Does a driveshaft not 'accelerate' up a wheel then?

 

Maybe Eric could clarify what he meant and it's not clear, but I'm putting money on him meaning spinning up wheel weight because I've sat next to him when a bunch of us were talking about in the pub!!

 

No its not clear.

 

And yes obviously a driveshaft accelerates up a wheel. Like I said I'm not as stupid as your obviously think mate.

 

But saying 'the car accelerates a little quicker' is very different to mentioning anything about drive shafts is it not? !!!

 

Jeez

[double-6s 0]

I think he meant the car accelerates a little quicker as thats what he said?

[Walesy 0]

Take a chill pill Will :lol:

[double-6s 0]

Nope

[double-6s 0]

I don't have any mate - thats the fekin problem! :)

[gsbellew 0]

Two things are going on there, lighter wheels are easier to turn, so they can be spun up quicker, for example, if wheel "A" spins up to x revolutions quicker than wheel "B" acceleration in a straight line on wheel "A" will be that bit quicker than wheel "B".

 

The second scenario relates to the rolling radius of the wheel / tyre combination, the lower the rolling radius the higher the speedo reading for a given actual speed, so it may appear that the car is accelerating faster based on the speedo reading, but in reality the difference could be much smaller.

[Scott 0]

 

It's not horse, it's motoring fact mate :lol:

 

He's not saying the car weighs less with 16s, he's saying that the driveshafts have less rotational weight to spin up. What you put on the ends of your shafts are basically flywheels. 17s are heavier to spin up, slower to react to steering inputs and heavier for the brakes to slow down.

 

As I say, weight is the main problem, not size ;-)

 

Totally spot on 8)

 

I put 17x8 inch alloys on my 200 (chavvy Momo GT2's) and they tram lined badly, slowed acceleration and generally felt terrible... I removed them and installed some 16x8.5 alloys that are forged (300z) and weigh LESS than the standard rims and all the problems went...

 

Weight of the rim is the issue - not the size - find a rim lighter than standard and it will be fine.