[jdk81]

want33s wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

With the non bolt wheel spacers, the stress on wheel studs remain the same if you have a 10mm wheel spacer, 10 mm offset wheels.

No no no.......
The "non bolt" spacers place the nut further out on the stud allowing it to flex. Flex is fatigue which leads to failure.

Offset rim makes SFA difference to wheel studs. It will shorten wheel bearing life however marginally.

I assume you mean flex as in strain (elongation).
Providing the nuts are done up correctly, it falls within yield strenght of the steel.

Alloys also move the wheel nut out further, so by your logic it will fail too?

EDIT: so the brake rotors on the front are causing fatigue on the wheel nuts too?

EDIT #2: adding picture (gross over simplifcation using a truss).
But note, the total load on the system doesnt change, because the total load on the wheel is same between a 10mm wheel spacer, or 10mm more offset.
However how the spacer changes the load types, it reduces maximum shear load on the bolt at the top, and increase shear load into the bottom.
We arent generating forces from nowhere.
If the spacer was a tight fit (press fit), it would be less of an issue. As the loads would then be the same as no spacer.

Also note, that once we use a wheel, we bolt a face to up directly, such that they all share the vertical load.

jdk81 wrote:

With the non bolt wheel spacers, the stress on wheel studs remain the same if you have a 10mm wheel spacer, 10 mm offset wheels. The issue of failure, I suspect is due to slop etc, once it gets a bit loose, it will tear it apart (like anything else really). Prone to issues I suspect due to mating surfaces being hard to keep really clean.

The issue is due to slop in the system and the lack of the recessed lip on mating surfaces etc. This is what cause the bolts to fail.
If the red plate has some slack in it, it can move etc, which will cause the bolts to bend slightly. So as per my other post, the total loads on the bolts doesnt change, its only when there is slop in the mating system.

NOTE: the bolt up type have the tapered faces to pick up the taper on the nuts to allign themselves and fully removed slop and become fully located.

[jdk81]

Zook_Fan wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

If rotors and drums were made up to function correctly, whilst providing the same effect as wheel spacers, I would suspect this would fall into the grey area of legality.

There is no grey area, it is illegal

Pull your front wheel off, and have a look.
Your brake rotor and brake drum are effectively wheel spacers.
But they are legal.

[cairns27]

I,ve decided to leave to just leave my my rims reversed, they sortof look like steel mags , but without valve stems.


bye

[jdk81]

What about the taper on the rims to suit the nuts?

[TZAR]

wolf_rt wrote:

Pretty sure the spacers with bolts in them are illegal in QLD (may be possible to get engineered?).. But you CAN use the ones the studs go through, as long as they are attached (with a dob of silicone or something) to the wheel or axle...

bloody ridiculous.

The fitting of spacers or adaptors between wheels and
hubs, additional to those provided by the vehicle
manufacturer, is not permitted.

Top of page 19 of qld transport guide to modiications

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c792a ... icles2.pdf

[got_bar_work]

Just get a new axle made there cheap as then u will not have any drama

[christover1]

jdk81 wrote:

What about the taper on the rims to suit the nuts?

Many stock Sierra rims have a taper both sides.
I ran mine backward on the rear for ages.
Front hit my calipers, so had them offset modified by a wheel man.

Once tired of airing down under the car, I had rears done, too.

[want33s]

Wow.. pictures and everything... must be right.

[atari4x4]

cairns27 wrote:

I,ve decided to leave to just leave my my rims reversed, they sortof look like steel mags , but without valve stems.


bye

i asked back on page 1, but i'll ask again... what size trailer is it?

[cairns27]

The inside of the box ix 3'5" X 4'11".

I got it from the dump for $50.oo, it had old ford mags on it.I also bought a frame off a 1tonner,$10oo,and cut it to suit.

F100 stubbs,160.oo,Hitch,$160.oo,LED lights $38.oo,Rego $90.oo.

Like a bought one.


bye

[Fatzook]

jdk81 wrote:

Zook_Fan wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

If rotors and drums were made up to function correctly, whilst providing the same effect as wheel spacers, I would suspect this would fall into the grey area of legality.

There is no grey area, it is illegal

Pull your front wheel off, and have a look.
Your brake rotor and brake drum are effectively wheel spacers.
But they are legal.

So?

The wheel studs have been sized from the factory and engineered to take any of the extra loads associated with the rotors and brake drums.

So you are saying that because the OEM rotors are there, that its OK to just add some more material as you see fit?

[royce]

Wheel studs are there to clamp the rim to the wheel mounting face, not support the weight of the vehicle or transmit drive, notice how the wheel sits on the hub nice and snug? that does most the work holding stuff up

you have to be insane to think any form of steel is as strong taking a load in sheer where it is fully supporting as it is when the load is applied away from teh base

[Jackson]

royce wrote:

Wheel studs are there to clamp the rim to the wheel mounting face, not support the weight of the vehicle or transmit drive, notice how the wheel sits on the hub nice and snug? that does most the work holding stuff up

Sorry but what about the rear wheel studs then?

My wheel studs are about 10mm diameter and my zook weighs 950kg (say a tonne for easy calcs) and say that weight is evenly distributed on each wheel for the same reason.

The cross sectional area of each stud is 0.00008mm^2 and the force at each wheel is 2500N

The shear stress is 2500/0.00008 which is 31.25 Mega pascals but that is if there was only one stud assuming each stud transfers the same load it would be 6.25MPA

Yield strength of mild steel lets take the lowest shown here http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=098700ed63b24b14bd3bfdbec937489f&ckck=1 is 245 and then multiply 0.5 by the yield strength to give shear stress before it undergoes permanent deformation so 125 MPA.

[royce]

Jackson wrote:

royce wrote:

Wheel studs are there to clamp the rim to the wheel mounting face, not support the weight of the vehicle or transmit drive, notice how the wheel sits on the hub nice and snug? that does most the work holding stuff up

Sorry but what about the rear wheel studs then?

My wheel studs are about 10mm diameter and my zook weighs 950kg (say a tonne for easy calcs) and say that weight is evenly distributed on each wheel for the same reason.

The cross sectional area of each stud is 0.00008mm^2 and the force at each wheel is 2500N

The shear stress is 2500/0.00008 which is 31.25 Mega pascals but that is if there was only one stud assuming each stud transfers the same load it would be 6.25MPA

Yield strength of mild steel lets take the lowest shown here http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=098700ed63b24b14bd3bfdbec937489f&ckck=1 is 245 and then multiply 0.5 by the yield strength to give shear stress before it undergoes permanent deformation so 125 MPA.

Good work at half a story there

So youve made up some numbers but not taken any form of leverage into account, nor made any point?

go use your numbers to determine the change in force from a shear situation to the load being placed 10mm away, but lets call the difference a % so people arent fooled by your flawed loads

[Zook_Fan]

Given the thickness of the brake drum a 10mm spacer would apply approximately double the force on any one wheel stud. Saying that it won't fail sitting still is pretty useless in an automotive bolt. The force will go significantly higher throughout the suspension cycle.

The front disc may act like a spacer but it has also been made and tested to relevant ADR's, something I extremely doubt you would look at if just putting a spacer on and thinking it's all good.

[Jackson]

royce wrote:

Good work at half a story there

So youve made up some numbers but not taken any form of leverage into account, nor made any point?

go use your numbers to determine the change in force from a shear situation to the load being placed 10mm away, but lets call the difference a % so people arent fooled by your flawed loads

Excellent effort at dodging the question of how my back wheels hold the car up without a hub poking through the rim.

Anyway just for you the stress induced from bending. Still well below the limit of mild steel.

I still assumed that one wheel carries 250kg (2500N) and one stud carries 1/5th of that so 500N

[jdk81]

Keeping it nice, this is purely a discussion, no need to be childish. If I am wrong, I like to learn, please link me to the proven and reviewed work.

want33s wrote:

Wow.. pictures and everything... must be right.

informative retort

Although your terminology in both previous pieces of discussion were incorrect, I believe I did agree with you

want33s wrote:

No no no.......
The "non bolt" spacers place the nut further out on the stud allowing it to flex. Flex is fatigue which leads to failure.

Offset rim makes SFA difference to wheel studs. It will shorten wheel bearing life however marginally.

jdk81 wrote:

If the red plate has some slack in it, it can move etc, which will cause the bolts to bend slightly. So as per my other post, the total loads on the bolts doesnt change, its only when there is slop in the mating system.
With the non bolt wheel spacers, the stress on wheel studs remain the same if you have a 10mm wheel spacer, 10 mm offset wheels.
The total load on the system doesnt change, because the total load on the wheel is same between a 10mm wheel spacer, or 10mm more offset.

Its the slop in the system which introduces the capacity for them to bend slightly.
However remember bending is force x moment arm, if the plate is mounted secure and there is no moment arm, there is no moment thus no bend.

Fatzook wrote:

The wheel studs have been sized from the factory and engineered to take any of the extra loads associated with the rotors and brake drums.

So you are saying that because the OEM rotors are there, that its OK to just add some more material as you see fit?

I was just highlighting the fact, that we use spacers and things dont fail.
If spacers were to be engineered correctly it wouldnt be a problem.

royce wrote:

Wheel studs are there to clamp the rim to the wheel mounting face, not support the weight of the vehicle or transmit drive, notice how the wheel sits on the hub nice and snug? that does most the work holding stuff up

So how do the wheels stay on when you have large offset rims? By the friction on the plate?
Our wheel nuts are mostly under tension, with a small component of shear vertical loading, remember tension has its own component of shear anyway (which is tension/2 in this case).

I assume the friction plays a role in providing drive etc to the wheels, however, I suspect it is ignored in the calculations for sizing wheel bolts (similar to how torque transmitted from shaft to pulley is calculated by the size of the key).

royce wrote:

Good work at half a story there

So youve made up some numbers but not taken any form of leverage into account, nor made any point?

go use your numbers to determine the change in force from a shear situation to the load being placed 10mm away, but lets call the difference a % so people arent fooled by your flawed loads

Royce, using the lack of information to prove your point, is like using the lake of evidence against there being a god, that thus god is real.
So please provide detailed information to justify your arguements.

Zook_Fan wrote:

Given the thickness of the brake drum a 10mm spacer would apply approximately double the force on any one wheel stud.

Please enlighten us, as I call BS on that made up fact.

Zook_Fan wrote:

The front disc may act like a spacer but it has also been made and tested to relevant ADR's, something I extremely doubt you would look at if just putting a spacer on and thinking it's all good.

Correct, I was just raising the concept that the rotor and drum are spacers, which are engineered correctly.
Drum is located by the recessed lip on the axle mounting face, whilst the rotors are near press fit (why theres the threaded holes to drive them off the hub),
Having the spacer located in such a manner removes the issues (of no self locating etc, and/or bit of slop in the assembly).

[Fatzook]

jdk81 wrote:

Fatzook wrote:

The wheel studs have been sized from the factory and engineered to take any of the extra loads associated with the rotors and brake drums.

So you are saying that because the OEM rotors are there, that its OK to just add some more material as you see fit?

I was just highlighting the fact, that we use spacers and things dont fail.
If spacers were to be engineered correctly it wouldnt be a problem.

Agreed. But most engineers would specify a wheel stud upgrade at the very least. Ofcoarse the point is moot. They are Illegal regardless of how much math you have to back up your opinion.

[jdk81]

Lets face it, its easier to do an axle swap than talk this shit and then calculate it.

[just_cruizin]

Or just get offset rims, loading would be the same.

Spacers add another point of failure.

Weight, spacers wouldn't compare to large tyres