[MikeeM3]

Hello

[Fundguy1]

Looks like it'll scrape on a runway.

[MikeeM3]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Looks like it'll scrape on a runway.

for real?

[screaminfast]

Originally Posted by MikeeM3

Hello

[Jacblack]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Cool. Thx. Should still be pretty concave. Front should press in about 2", rear 3" approximately. I'd like more but that's what I need to fit the rears. What did you have? Brushed antique Bronze?

I think the powder color was called mocha. I had 8.5/9.5 at first but switched to a 9.5/11 set up.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Jacblack

I think the powder color was called mocha. I had 8.5/9.5 at first but switched to a 9.5/11 set up.

Nice. Because I'm using such wide rear tires, I went 8.5 so the fronts don't look more stretched than the rears.

[Digitalize]

Originally Posted by Forever Fly

You can do this easily. 235 and 265 will be stretched and expose a little wheel lip front and rear. If you don't need to run stretched then go for a 9" wheel with a higher offset like et30. Rears can go high 30s et and fit a 275 with that minimal amount of camber. Shave your rear fenders and roll your fronts flat with a little pull if they are metal like the e90. But if you go 9.5" in the front you will need the extra camber to not rub. As far as the spring rates go... I run 18k/28k and STILL rub in the back at times. The e9x platform is super soft and bouncy. That just comes with the territory.

From what I've seen a 235/265 May/may not show a little lip depending on brand really. A tiny amount is fine by me to be honest.

Whilst I can spec the offset, I can't decide width without changing concavity, so really want to go 9.5/11 if possible. Yeah the E91 front wings are metal like E90, will make them as thin as possible but I don't want their outside appearance to change, pet hate of mine when you can see the flat edge of the arch has been pulled out.

My cars a workhorse, lugging gear around, used every day which is why I spec'd soft rates really, why I'm hoping they'll tuck up inside the arches. I need to pull off my current wheels and do some measuring, see how far up in to the arches each wheel can go. Like I said arches are gonna be above the tyre, little to no gap, so hopefully I'll have more travel than most.

Maybe it won't work with my spring rates, tyre sizes, minimal camber or no arch pulling, I've got a feeling it's gonna be pretty tight.

[Fundguy1]

May show a little lip??? 235 best fits 8.5. 265 best fits 9.5. You're going 9.5 and 11. So wide they're beyond manufacturer safe specs. I know people do it but you're showing more lip than a New Orleans whore. I have 245 on 8.5 and 305 on 11 and that's a solid proper fit. Lol.

[Digitalize]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

May show a little lip??? 235 best fits 8.5. 265 best fits 9.5. You're going 9.5 and 11. So wide they're beyond manufacturer safe specs. I know people do it but you're showing more lip than a New Orleans whore. I have 245 on 8.5 and 305 on 11 and that's a solid proper fit. Lol.

I'm actually fairly sure these are a member on here's. I wouldn't mind a 275 on the back but I just don't think it would fit without arch work, and added cost.

In the UK as long as the bead of the tyre sits up against the inner lip of the wheel it's legal, so those should both be fine. I don't consider it much stretch tbh, I wouldn't go any more but I know people running much smaller on similar sizes.

You're going meat and thats cool, I love that look too, I get you're posting in here because no one has done the sizes you're on about really in the meaty thread.

[Fundguy1]

It's not a question of legality. It's a question of how the tire will perform. The manufacturer states the correct rim size for their tires. This is expressed in a range of acceptable size wheels and the ideal size. Breaking out of this you have uneven and faster tire wear, more prone to failure, poor handling, and questionable speed ratings. If your intent is to use them for normal driving and don't care about the additional expense of replacing tires more frequently, then if the look is something you like it's probably not a problem. If you intend to drive pushing your car I would advise against it. For a 265,/30-19 tire, the wheel range recommend is 9" to 10" with ideal width being 9.5". An 11" is 2 sizes larger than recommended, three sizes larger than ideal. The sidewalls will be at a bad angle and this will affect the handlind, speed rating, etc. This look is the current "in" thing and has been popular for only a couple years if that. I expect it will go away like all the others such as multiple trunk wings, triple neon windshield wipers, huge exhausts on unmodified 4 cylinder cars, etc. But until then it's good to know what you're getting into.

A 9.5/11 19" set up with the same tires vs a 8.5/9.5 setup you add approximately 12 lbs rolling weight, which equals 120 lbs of gross weight, loose handling, get worse mpg, and will be replacing tires far more frequently. Go for it.

As for going for meat, on an 11" wheel, a 295 or 305 is not meat. It's normal. Meat would be 325 or 335+ then you start to get pucker, i.e meat. Just as bad as stretch but opposite cause.

[Ruddigger]

Lol, not much point in arguing about functionality in the stance thread.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Ruddigger

Lol, not much point in arguing about functionality in the stance thread.

Agreed. But many people seem to think there's no tradeoff and the look is normal, not realizing they're pushing the envelope of their tires. Personally I like a little tire overhang so I don't curb my wheels constantly or have to focus on not curbing them continually. But that's me. This look will probably have the same time span and outcome as spinners. Lol

And before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying be aware of the downsides before doing it.

[Digitalize]

I'm fully aware of all the trade offs. Tyre wear shouldn't be any worse though purely due to a stretched tyre, maybe a negligible amount. With toe settings being correct even a few degrees of camber won't be seeing extreme wear.

It's a 320D estate, I'm not fussed about absolute cornering ability ha.

[Frode D]

Fundguy1 You're in the wrong thread when pointing this out. Most of us know and don't care about the downsides of stretch. We do it because we have to, to make them fit.

[N0Chill 335i]

Originally Posted by Digitalize

I'm fully aware of all the trade offs. Tyre wear shouldn't be any worse though purely due to a stretched tyre, maybe a negligible amount. With toe settings being correct even a few degrees of camber won't be seeing extreme wear.

It's a 320D estate, I'm not fussed about absolute cornering ability ha.

What wheels are you going with? Sounds like Forgestar F14s SDC. Or are you going with another setup that require a 9.5 front versus a 9 for maximum concavity.

Your rears shouldn't be a problem at all. There are members running 11" with decent sized tires like a 275 with zero issues, stock camber and a fender roll that are able to tuck. Granted these are e90/e92 models. IDK how much of a difference in the e91 there is though. Also, LCI cars have a slightly smaller wheel well than their Pre LCI counterparts. The fronts are where I think you may have some issues. Tire stretch and negative camber will fix that easily, but at what cost for a daily driving work vehicle?

I daily my car and average 400 miles per week with my SSRs. I run -2.8 and have no wear issues because I keep my alignment on point. I will flip my tires after this season to get maximum life out of them. If I can get 4 seasons out of them I would be happy. That's the equivalent of 2 years and about 40,000 miles total. I averaged 30,000 on my previous car with similar specs, but I put my foot down a lot more than I do now.

[Digitalize]

Originally Posted by Forever Fly

What wheels are you going with? Sounds like Forgestar F14s SDC. Or are you going with another setup that require a 9.5 front versus a 9 for maximum concavity.

Your rears shouldn't be a problem at all. There are members running 11" with decent sized tires like a 275 with zero issues, stock camber and a fender roll that are able to tuck. Granted these are e90/e92 models. IDK how much of a difference in the e91 there is though. Also, LCI cars have a slightly smaller wheel well than their Pre LCI counterparts. The fronts are where I think you may have some issues. Tire stretch and negative camber will fix that easily, but at what cost for a daily driving work vehicle?

I daily my car and average 400 miles per week with my SSRs. I run -2.8 and have no wear issues because I keep my alignment on point. I will flip my tires after this season to get maximum life out of them. If I can get 4 seasons out of them I would be happy. That's the equivalent of 2 years and about 40,000 miles total. I averaged 30,000 on my previous car with similar specs, but I put my foot down a lot more than I do now.

Looking at Fifteen52's new LTW when it's finally released. They're going to do an 8.5/9.5/11, all with different concavity, the 8.5 being basically none.

It's a Pre-LCI so I can run a lower offset (as far as I know the wheel well is the same size, just the hub is further out?) Most of the cars I see done running fairly big sizes are E92/3s which I'm hesitant to take too much advice from as obviously the entire body is a different shape, so I don't think fitment advice will carry over from them other than as a general guide.

Daily use is basically the reason why I'm trying to get minimum stretch/camber, I like the look but doing 20k+ a year, driving down country lanes etc to locations and the like it just wouldn't be practical. I get about 15k to a set of rears, probably closer to 30k on the front. Sadly my preferred tyre is assymetrical so I can't flip, but wear has been even so far until somehow one sides toe went out and killed a tyre.

I currently run a 8.5 ET35 with a 225/40/18 with -0.5deg, no arch work at all (but I think they're pretty much as folded as possible from factory?) and have about 20mm of space to space out at the moment, hoping with the slight stretch and camber it will fit.

I hadn't really thought about how the front was going to be the issue, I just assumed it was going to be the rear that was going to be a squeeze!

Preliminary thoughts were 9.5x19 ET25 and 11x19 ET30ish. The front should be JUST missing the coilover as I currently can't fit my finger between the tyre and it at the moment, and hopefully the rear won't be touching the inner arch as it's pretty close as is too.

[MikeeM3]

Originally Posted by Ruddigger

Lol, not much point in arguing about functionality in the stance thread.

#WORD

[Frode D]

Digitalize

I ran 9,5" et23 and 11x19" et25 with 225/35 and 265/30 on my E91 a few years ago. I had adjustable camber plates for the front to make them just above 2 degrees. Rear was maxed out with 3 degrees. My fenders were rolled and slightly pulled, and the rear wheel barely touched the fender in dips, tire was not a problem. Front was no issue at all. I ran Bilstein B14 coilovers with ground control camber plates.

This was my daily, it worked out fine for me, but I had to take care in dips and on bridge "connections". Click on the link to see how the fitment and height was. 35mm fender to wheel lip.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/froded...57631591343382

If you go 11x19" et30 I think you should barely tuck the wheels. My wheels went just inside the fender but they touched and left a blue pinstripe around the wheel. :P

[Digitalize]

Originally Posted by Frode D

Digitalize

I ran 9,5" et23 and 11x19" et25 with 225/35 and 265/30 on my E91 a few years ago. I had adjustable camber plates for the front to make them just above 2 degrees. Rear was maxed out with 3 degrees. My fenders were rolled and slightly pulled, and the rear wheel barely touched the fender in dips, tire was not a problem. Front was no issue at all. I ran Bilstein B14 coilovers with ground control camber plates.

This was my daily, it worked out fine for me, but I had to take care in dips and on bridge "connections". Click on the link to see how the fitment and height was. 35mm fender to wheel lip.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/froded...57631591343382

If you go 11x19" et30 I think you should barely tuck the wheels. My wheels went just inside the fender but they touched and left a blue pinstripe around the wheel. :P

Cheers man, I remember seeing your car before I bought mine! Yeah I'm gonna be higher than that by about 20mm all round I think, need to have a good think because ideally it probably is a bit too aggressive for what I'm wanting, taking a look at more photos. I appreciate the advice!

[Doonagoowin]

Still trying to figure out something on the new setup. I have 215/35 and 235/35 tires available to me. Do you think the 215 will fit on a 10" wheel? They're Federals if it matters (I hear Feds run a tad wider). I'm not convinced I can run 235, even tho that's what everybody is running.
Front wheel 19x10 +20.

They messed up my specs, so the new wheels won't be as aggressive as I'd like

[Fundguy1]

215 is 2 15mm. A 10 inch wheel is 254 mm. You do the math.

[Digitalize]

Check out tyrestretch.com, will show you examples.

Basically a sidewall doesn't seem to stretch much past 45deg, use it as a general point because it makes the maths easier (even though it's pointless and just go to the website)

So as pointed out you need 254mm of width. The tread area will be roughly 215mm wide, the sidewall is 35% of that 215mm, which is 75mm. If we say the sidewall can sit at a max of 45deg, it will use half that to go vertically, and the other half horizontally. But as there's 2 sidewalls we can just count one. 215+75 gives us 290mm, so it should fit. Of course some tyres stretch better than others etc. But as a rough guide, maybe.

Actually nah that's probably not at all right, doubt a sidewall would get past 60deg haha.



It's even a Federal.