Originally posted by weargle:
Originally posted by 95Sleeper:
I assume that you think you know something because you showed up someone else's math... I see nothing in there that proves anything about hubcentric rings. That lengthy calculation shows that the friction between the wheel and the car will hold the wheel on once the nuts are tightened.

It has nothing to do with centering the wheel whatsoever.



Good Lord, would you like for me to do my own math instead? That math proves that the rings do not hold any of the weight load of the car. Period. Ergo, a properly torqued wheel does not need them. This argument has been hashed and rehashed elsewhere on the internet time and time again.

Also, I defy you to find hubcentering rings for my ATS Comp Lites that have a *tapered* inner bore. (I'll give you a hint, there aren't any) Not every automobile manufacturer uses hubcentric wheels and/or hubcentering rings. The only application where I can say that they are necessary is for Bimmers et al that use lug bolts.

Needless to say, going back to the OP's question, hubcentricity is not responsible for his vibration.




NO! I see what the math says! It states that the rings hold zero weight AFTER THE LUGS ARE TIGHT. No one ever said anything different here. We are not saying that the rings are needed after the nuts are on. It's just that the nuts themselves don't provide enough centering force. Read the thread before you post a rebuttal and make yourself look even dumber!

-Philip Maynard '95 Contour [71 STS | Track Whore] '97 Miata [71 ES | Boulevard Pimp] 2006 autocross results