The reason I am posting this picture is to hope that who sold me these will tell me who is the maker of them. I believe they are Helo but am not sure.
Now here is another picture
What size ring am I going to need to put these on my car?? When im driving my car shakes at about 55 MPH and I have had them balanced 3 times now. Thanks.
First off, they're Hubcentric rings..
2nd, don't the wheels have the maker labeled anywhere on them? Usually the center cap has their logo? They look like something KMC makes, just not sure of the style.. And I believe hubcentric rings are wheel specific.. Find out the maker and contact them..
Mark
I could not find the making on the rims at all.. i looked all over on the rim
Originally posted by starjammir:
I could not find the making on the rims at all.. i looked all over on the rim
Is there a big K on the centercap? If so, I'm guessing they are KMC..
Mark
There is nothing on the center cap. Just chrome and plastic. I looked on the back and only found a few letters and numbers but no brand name
Sorry, I'm definitely not a pro when it comes to wheels.. I'd drive to your local tire/wheel shop and see if they can't figure it out for you.. They'll most likely be able to tell you who made the wheels, and even order you some hubcentric rings if you want..
Mark
I just a called up the local Belle Tire and they said that the "rings" would not cause it to vibrate at 55 its just that they are out of balance. What do you think about this?
Hubcentric rings are unnecessary. They're there to make even torquing of the lugs easier when installing the wheels. They carry no weight of the car and are not part of the problem. You probably threw a wheel weight, and can look on the inside of the wheel and can see where it used to be (it'll be a clean rectangle)
Originally posted by starjammir:
I just a called up the local Belle Tire and they said that the "rings" would not cause it to vibrate at 55 its just that they are out of balance. What do you think about this?
dude, i work at belle tire.
ive spent countless hours rebalancing wheels, all the while telling the salesman that hub rigs were needed. but it is very likely that they are out of balance, just dont be suprised if it still shakes. get some rings. and by the way, what belle tire did you call?
Originally posted by weargle:
Hubcentric rings are unnecessary. They're there to make even torquing of the lugs easier when installing the wheels. They carry no weight of the car and are not part of the problem.
lies.
they are there to center the wheel on the hub, or at least do a better job of it. torqued is torqued. no matter what. it cant really be easier by placing a plastic ring between the inside of the wheel hub and the actual hub.... think about it.
get rings.
take it from someone who balances custom wheels everyday.
I called two belle tires, one of them in Flint Mi and the other in Burton Mi.
It's a lie that they're unnecessary or a lie that they carry zero weight of the car? (Actually they're both true statements)
weargle is right but wrong at the same time. the rings are made to help even torquing of the wheel, this is true. however, without them, the idea that the wheel went on a little bit not cenetered certainly isn't unheard of. i'd get the rings and see if it doesn't fix it. they're not much money even if it doesn't, and it certainly doesn't hurt to have them. i'm a belle tire employee also. 63.36mm hub size is the size you'll need
How much approx for the set??
Originally posted by RyeLou:
weargle is right but wrong at the same time. the rings are made to help even torquing of the wheel, this is true. however, without them, the idea that the wheel went on a little bit not cenetered certainly isn't unheard of. i'd get the rings and see if it doesn't fix it. they're not much money even if it doesn't, and it certainly doesn't hurt to have them. i'm a belle tire employee also. 63.36mm hub size is the size you'll need
true statements.
what store you at? #51 representing.
no idea off hand. something like $12 if that. i dont know why that price is stuck in my mind, but it could easily be cheaper. call any belle tire and ask, all of them should have that size...its fairly common.
i'm from store 33
Hubcentric rings as the name implies, centers the wheel onto the hub. Lug nuts alone cannot do this sufficiently enough to remove the out of alignment inherent when you try to line up a big hole over a slightly smaller shaft (i.e. the wheel hub bore over the hub mounting ring).
Once the rings align the wheel centrally to the hub the FRICTION between the wheel face and the hub face is what actually carries the weight of the vehicle, NOT the rings and NOT the studs either.
The point of ths post is that without the rings you will NEVER be able to align the wheel to the hub properly and you will get virbration, not matter how perfect the wheel and tire balancing may be.
End of story.
With flat lugnuts maybe not, but with any taper in the seating there will be no problem whatsoever. Or I'll let you drive my Miata that has never had hubcentric rings on the ATS Comp Lites (or on the Contour either for that matter) and let you try and find a shimmy up through 100mph.
You're wrong. Bolts, tapered or not are NOT sufficient for wheel centering. That's why in engineering design we use bore pilots on components that need to be aligned raidally!
Have you even checked to see if the bore of the wheels you have possibly is already the correct size, thus eliminating the need for rings?
I bet when you're wheel is put onto the hub there is litle to no radial play in the interface thus you're set. But in the rest of the cases, wheel manufacturers will make the bore of their aftermarket wheels the largest size to suit the largest hub size of the vehicle that same bolt pattern, and then use hubcentric rings to resize the wheels to suit all the cars with consequently samller hub diameters.
your a super genius.
Originally posted by Stazi:
You're wrong. Bolts, tapered or not are NOT sufficient for wheel centering. That's why in engineering design we use bore pilots on components that need to be aligned raidally!
Have you even checked to see if the bore of the wheels you have possibly is already the correct size, thus eliminating the need for rings? I bet when you're wheel is put onto the hub there is litle to no radial play in the interface thus you're set. But in the rest of the cases, wheel manufacturers will make the bore of their aftermarket wheels the largest size to suit the largest hub size of the vehicle that same bolt pattern, and then use hubcentric rings to resize the wheels to suit all the cars with consequently samller hub diameters.
you said what i wanted to say but im not as gifted in the art of debate.
way to stick it to him stazi
Originally posted by Stazi:
You're wrong. Bolts, tapered or not are NOT sufficient for wheel centering. That's why in engineering design we use bore pilots on components that need to be aligned raidally!
Have you even checked to see if the bore of the wheels you have possibly is already the correct size, thus eliminating the need for rings?
Have you seen the hub size of a Miata? It ain't big. Please explain to me why four tapered bolts (remembering that three define a plane) are insufficient to centering a lugnut onto a stud? Because, after all, that's what we're truly doing. Even a hub centering ring only sets the radius, the lugnuts still could be several degrees off radially until they're torqued down.
Some calculations here: http://www.idsfa.net/miata/lugnuts/page1.jpg and http://www.idsfa.net/miata/lugnuts/page2.jpg
oh gezzzzzzz. calculations?! are you serious? here is my calculation...me before hubcentric rings=
me after hubcentric rings=
solved.
Originally posted by weargle:
Originally posted by Stazi:
You're wrong. Bolts, tapered or not are NOT sufficient for wheel centering. That's why in engineering design we use bore pilots on components that need to be aligned raidally!
Have you even checked to see if the bore of the wheels you have possibly is already the correct size, thus eliminating the need for rings?
Have you seen the hub size of a Miata? It ain't big. Please explain to me why four tapered bolts (remembering that three define a plane) are insufficient to centering a lugnut onto a stud? Because, after all, that's what we're truly doing. Even a hub centering ring only sets the radius, the lugnuts still could be several degrees off radially until they're torqued down.
Some calculations here: http://www.idsfa.net/miata/lugnuts/page1.jpg and http://www.idsfa.net/miata/lugnuts/page2.jpg
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.
Three parallel lines do not set up any plane perpendicular to them. Where did you learn your GD&T.
To create a plane you need three points and if all the points do not have a common coordinate (X,Y or Z) the plane will not be parallel to a certain axis.
The the tapered lug and seatss will center themselves to a point where they cannot overcome the contact friction anymore, so if the loci of two circles are off as the torque is applied the will never coincide. Youy are purely LUCKY if you get them all to center. If this were not true why on earth do you think wheel manufacturers would make pilots on hubs and also hubcentric rings for wheels. No one does anything for free or for sh!ts and giggles. Everything has a purpose!
LUG NUTS and/or STUDS are not toleranced (geometrically) accurately enough to provide the correct centering of a wheel to a hub. don't make to scan a hub print to prove it!
Dude, I design hubs and wheel bearings for trucks. I think I know.........
So let me get the straight, Stazi. What you are saying is that the friction from the hub/wheel interface (that he just proved to be so strong) will overwhelm the centering force that the tapered lug nuts have, and leave the wheel off-center, just a little bit? That without a hub-centric ring to get that position right before the nuts are tightened, the tapered nuts get it close, but not close enough, since they lack the leverage to center the wheel that last little bit once they start squeezing the wheel on the hub? Makes sense to me. As a matter of fact, I could prove that this happens, using the equations he gave, if he feels you have too little experience with wheels to know what you are talking about.
You forgot to use the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] code.
PS did I not state that the friction of the two forces was the load bearer and NOT the studs and NOT the hub pilot?
It works like this:
Hub pilot and wheel bore center the wheel to the hub
Lugs provide the clamp force
The frinction between the wheel back-face and the hub face carry the load.
End of story.
Originally posted by Stazi:
It works like this:
Hub pilot and wheel bore center the wheel to the hub.
Lugs provide the clamping force.
The friction between the wheel back-face and the hub face carries the load.
End of story.
FAQ that, so we never hear this again!
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.
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!
Oh, so I look dumb? Whatever. Having a ring there only makes sure that the radius from center of ring to center of wheel is the same on all four lugs. There still is an angle phi that exists between the center of the stud, the center of the hub and the center of the wheel until the lugnut is tightened, forcing phi --> 0. Can you see that? OK then, if one holds the wheel onto the hub, supporting from below as I have done on countless autocrosses, and then apply all four lugnuts, then torque them down in a diagonal fashion, a centering ring is simply unnecessary. QED.
http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/centerb.jspQuote:
If you have non-hubcentric (lugcentric) wheels, they should be torqued correctly while the vehicle is still off of the ground so they center properly. The weight of the vehicle can push the wheel off-center slightly while you're tightening them down if left on the ground.
I realize that the ring does not center the studs, but they don't need to be centered. And if you hold a wheel (tough with a contour wheel/tire package around 50lbs) up while you do it, so the weight on the nuts is very small, then yes, you can get it centered. Sorry I was rough, nothing personal. You just stated some things that had already been covered. So I believe that you could (say, on a Miata) get wheels centered without rings, if you were very careful, but he is bringing his to a shop to get them done. They are going to throw the wheel on, let it rest on the studs, and crank it down with an air wrench. I use rings on my car, so maybe I'll do an experiment. I usually put on the wheel, and incrementally tighten with a tq wrench, but maybe I'll try to get them misaligned if I skip the rings. Here is my guess as to what will happen:
With rings: There will be nothing I can do to screw it up. The ring does the job of holding the wheel up.
Without rings, being careful: They should be fine. If I use my standard procedure and hold up the wheel, I imagine there will be no imbalance, like you say.
Without rings, tire-chain style: I won't air-wrench them on, b/c I'm not an idiot. I like my rotors straight. What I will do is not hold the wheel, and see if the nuts will center it. I think they won't, even if torqued evenly and properly.
Give me a few weeks, I'll get around to it.
My thought: If you bias your experiment to fail without rings then it will obviously fail. But if you don't "NASCAR" it on there you will be surprised. Just make sure that you don't bind the wheel against the stud if it is at an angle.
The vibration argument is not about the wheel face to hub face angle not being coplanar. The angle between them (within realistic reasoning due to tolerancing) is basically zero when you tighten the
f@$Ken bolts. The reason why factory wheels do not use hubcentric rings is because factory wheels have the bore sized to fit the hub pilot.
Aftermarket wheels are a different story!! They usually have ONE bore size and then use the rings to fit them to each car within that wheels bolt pattern family with subsequently smaller hub pilot diamters.
Just because some dufus wrote a web page doesn't mean he can make something gospel. You can try and refute engineering design rules all you want, but it doesn't mean squat. If your so called theory was true then hub faces could be pefrectly flat with no piloting button whatsoever. Damn, this means every car manufacturer out there is wasting billions of dollars machining this feature in. You should patent it and become a millionaire!
Like I said before, it works like this:
Hub pilot and wheel bore center the wheel to the hub
Lugs provide the clamp force between the wheel back face and the hub
The friction between the wheel back-face and the hub face carry the load. NOT THE LUGS AND NOT THE RINGS.
End of story.
[Monty Python] Bring me another moron, this one's brain exploded![/Monty Python]
So the people at The Tire Rack are morons? Please.
No, that's why they supply hubcentric rings with the wheels they sell!
And for the record, last time I checked you didn't need an engineering degree to sell tires.
Good gosh, I'm cheating death without my hubcentering rings!!! Look at the several mm gap between hub and wheel!!! Holy Crap!!!
But if you had the rings you wouldnt need to do the silly bolt tightening procedure of rotating the wheel 50x times and tightening each lug half a turn at a time to try and center the stupid wheel. And thus a lot of people who don't do that with aftermarket wheels and no hub-cnetric rings end up with steering shake bacuase of non alignment.
I never said it wasn't possiblle to not be able to center the wheels with your method. It's just not practical nor easily repeatable.
Wrong. Remove old wheel, put new one on. Hand tighten lugnuts one at a time while holding the wheel in place. Tighten with cordless impact wrench diagonally with a torquestick. Lower vehicle. Do other side as above. Lower vehicle, roll forward and aft to remove suspension bind. Torque nuts with torquewrench. The whole procedure, all four wheels, takes less than ten minutes. Whoopdefrickindoo.
Go pull the rings out of your RS-5's on your tour and try that, then tell us how nice she rides.
It rides just fine. I forgot to put them on after an autocross once (left them in the trailer) and just put them on the next time. Why on earth do you believe otherwise? Why would a wheel manufacturer make a difference if all four tapered lugs are torqued down with no load on the wheel?
Dude. Go fight with a wall that's more your intelligence level. There's no point in arguing with you. If you say the sky is red, then by [censored] it's red to you - physical proof or otherwise..
I guess I'll just burn all my engineering books seeing as Mr. Weargle says that design practices for wheel ends are needless, and I'll be sure to call BMW and Ferrair and tell them wheel hub pilots are a waste of their time and money.
Your story simply makes no sense now - why would you have taken the rings off when you removed the RS-5's to put your other wheels (The ATS Comps) on in the first place, they would have had the same size bore in the wheel?
You can say whatewver you want to try and refute me, so it's pointless.
Because they fall out when you stack them up and you throw them in a trailer so that you don't forget them? All that you need to do is show me where it says that hubcentric rings are necessary. Please. Do so.
The inner diameter of the RS-5's != the inner diameter of the Comp Lites. The Comp Lites have a tapered inner seat that will not accept any sort of ring.
why dont you get your dumbass to SZ and i will personally take you for a ride. then we will stop and i will take off the rings. when we are done doing our little test drive if the rings make a huge difference, as i am stating they will, you can pay for my weekend including meals, hotel, beer, strippers, and other various fees. if they dont then i pay for your weekend. deal?
Originally posted by weargle:
The Comp Lites have a tapered inner seat that will not accept any sort of ring.
my hubcentric rings could fit a tapered inner seat. i think that is how my wheels are. there are little triangular fins that are extending from the inner part of the ring to the outter flange.
I'm not going to SZ because I'm not a fanboy. Do the little test yourself if you want to. It ain't hard to do. But I do love the comments calling me dumb. Keep 'em coming.
Originally posted by weargle:
I'm not going to SZ because I'm not a fanboy.
You're not coming because you're a poser! Thanks for being the CEG official assclown of the day. I'm glad you come here and contribute and then piss all over the CEG at the same time.
Fanboy - ok drop-kick.
Poser how? Because I don't worship the Contour? No, I drove the crap out of one last year autocrossing it. Finished second in STS and won Rookie of the Year in it. I've been to local Contour meets. But why drive to a Contour meet? I'd rather spend that weekend working on my Miata or autocrossing it locally.
You see, I'm a car enthusiast. I enjoy cars, I'm just not married to any single one. They're utilitarian. They serve a purpose. That's all.
I find humor in the fact that I offer a legitimate statement of fact regarding wheel installation that runs contrary to someone's opinion that just so happens to have an order of magnitude more posts than I have, and then have my statement summarially disregarded as being bullpucky.
I actually sought out an opinion about this thread from a friend who is Senior Automotive Market Research Analyst and his reply was
Quote:
You are correct. Now, I will say that I like the idea of a hubcenter in order to backup the studs in cases of stud flex.
Yeah, the insults really do hurt my widdle poor feelings too.
Good deal. Your buddy that's in marketing knows more than an senior axle design engineer. Studs aren't supposed to flex you ignoramus. They are not supposed to be load bearing. What does it take to get that through your thick skull? Jesus Christ almighty!
You're a buffoon. I wish you'd just STFU.
My post number could be 1, and I'd still know WTF I'm talking about. Just because you can drive, doesn't make you a f#$king engineer!
I don't worship the Cntour either. But I do enjoy it. So in your books, attendees of SZ are basically gay?
If you don't want to go fine. But don't insult those that do, a-hole!
I never insulted anyone in this thread, don't blame me for having a contrary, valid point to make based on facts.
If the studs are not load bearing, what keeps the wheel attached to the hub then? The Force?
Originally posted by weargle:
If the studs are not load bearing, what keeps the wheel attached to the hub then? The Force?
They exert force on the wheel and the hub face, but it is not the shear-strength of the bolts that support the vehicle. It's the friction between the two surfaces that does that. So, the bolts don't bear the load of the car.
Originally posted by weargle:
If the studs are not load bearing, what keeps the wheel attached to the hub then? The Force?
Are you serious?
link and link which you posted, proves the lugs are not load bearing! That's the whole point of these equations!
Before you pop, remember that "load bearing" means supporting weight, by definition.
Truthfully, I don't take things said on the internet personally. The anonymity inherent in message boards allows people to post things that they would never say face-to-face.
Originally posted by RogerB:
Originally posted by weargle:
If the studs are not load bearing, what keeps the wheel attached to the hub then? The Force?
They exert force on the wheel and the hub face, but it is not the shear-strength of the bolts that support the vehicle. It's the friction between the two surfaces that does that. So, the bolts don't bear the load of the car.
Correction, it is not the studs so much as the stud & nut combination that I was referring to.
So? The stud/nut combination is still not load bearing, per that math you showed us.
Yup, and since the seat is conical, unless something miraculous happens, it will bear that load multi-axial. Meaning (drum roll please) that the lugs play at least a part in holding wheel centered to the hub.
Based on the equations I furnished, which the other recognized as worthwhile enough to site when they saw fit, it is clear that the studs and nuts can hold the wheel centered. Even the "Senior Axle Engineer" said that the studs don't flex, so what is the point of centering rings?
Originally posted by weargle:
Yup, and since the seat is conical, unless something miraculous happens, it will bear that load multi-axial. Meaning (drum roll please) that the lugs play at least a part in holding wheel centered to the hub.
Based on the equations I furnished, which the other recognized as worthwhile enough to site when they saw fit, it is clear that the studs and nuts can hold the wheel centered. Even the "Senior Axle Engineer" said that the studs don't flex, so what is the point of centering rings?
You really just don't get this, do you?
Let me lay it out very simply for you. You are saying that you don't need centering rings because the lugs will center the wheel. You presented us with these math equations to prove it.
The Reality:
1. If you are careful, you can get the wheel, especially a light one, centered without a ring. The nuts have enough centering force that under favorable conditions, they can get it very close. Someone who does this themselves, and takes just a little time to make sure it's correct will not have any problems. This is where you stop being correct.
The Math:
2. That math does not have anything to do with
a) the centering force of the tapered lugs
b) the mounting process whatsoever
It presents the condition of an already mounted wheel, and states that the force of the weight of the car is transfered to the wheels by the friction of the hub/wheel interface, not through the lug nuts. You obviously do not understand the equations at all, because every time you have cited them you have tried to prove a point that is not even mentioned therein.
The Problem:
3. When you mount a wheel, it can be centered uncorrectly for this reason: the friction between the hub and the wheel becomes very great as they are pressed together. Just before they are tight, they stop moving because the tapered lugs are not able to present sufficient centering force. If you keep them centered, then this will not be a problem. You do this by rotating the wheel and holding it up. Most people do this with hubcentric rings.
Stop trying to get in the last word and admit: rings are not 100% neccessary to get a wheel centered, but they are a good idea, because they make centering a sure thing.
Studs don't flex
Studs hold and locate the conical seats on the nuts
The friction between the stud and wheel can and do hold the wheel on
So, unless the hubs are incorrectly drilled or the wheels are drilled wrong, your studs can locate the wheels without any other help.
Me:
Quote:
Hubcentric rings are unnecessary. They're there to make even torquing of the lugs easier when installing the wheels. They carry no weight of the car and are not part of the problem.
You:
Quote:
Stop trying to get in the last word and admit: rings are not 100% neccessary to get a wheel centered, but they are a good idea, because they make centering a sure thing.
You just told me I am wrong but I am right.
Originally posted by weargle:
Me:
Quote:
Hubcentric rings are unnecessary. They're there to make even torquing of the lugs easier when installing the wheels. They carry no weight of the car and are not part of the problem.
You:
Quote:
Stop trying to get in the last word and admit: rings are not 100% neccessary to get a wheel centered, but they are a good idea, because they make centering a sure thing.
You just told me I am wrong but I am right.
Your basic premise is correct. That's why I don't understand all your arguing. The things wrong with that statement are:
Hubcentric rings are unnecessary. - well, yes, but they help a lot. no biggie.
They're there to make even torquing of the lugs easier when installing the wheels. - no, they are there to keep the wheel centered while you torque it. Close, but if that's what you meant, you didn't phrase it well.
They carry no weight of the car... - correct! It's all the friction, just like your math showed.
...and are not part of the problem. - wrong. If you mounted his tires, I bet he would not have an issue. I think that rings would let anyone mount those big, heavy wheels with no problems, and so if he gets rings, he'll be okay. That last sentence is the problem: this thread it about his problem, and rings will probably help fit it.
I'm not arguing, I'm just proving that I'm not wrong. So far I've been called "dumb" "moron" "thick-skulled" and "poser". But I haven't been proven wrong either. One would think that an engineer would be able to cite either a journal or a textbook that states that his premise is true if so.
Originally posted by weargle:
I'm not arguing, I'm just proving that I'm not wrong. So far I've been called "dumb" "moron" "thick-skulled" and "poser". But I haven't been proven wrong either. One would think that an engineer would be able to cite either a journal or a textbook that states that his premise is true if so.
OK smart-ass
Go get the "Handbook of Bolts and Bolted Joints" -Bickford/Nassar
Maybe you can read something and learn how bolted joints work.
And seeing as you only believe in things from the internet , here is a good paper on bolted joints.
http://home.jtan.com/~joe/KIAT/kiat_1.htm
Quote:
The other type of joint is loaded by shear force (Fs). In a joint loaded in shear, the friction between the parts keep them from moving when subject to a shear force. The friction between the parts carries the load, not the fastener
This explains the function of a flanged joint, which is what a wheel and hub is.
Cool. Now that the world knows how bolts work, explain why a hub centering ring is necessary as it hold exactly zero load?
Never said it holds any load. It ENSURES that the wheel will be cented EVERY time the wheel is removed and reinstalled.
Are you a Gold-Fish as you seem to have a VERY short term memory.
You have painted yourself into a corner. If the bolts don't flex and the conical seat is properly engaged, how is misalignment possible? Umm, it isn't. Now, if you put the wheels on wrong and load them up before snugging down the nuts, then sure. But in that case, you are an idiot.
The bolts will bend to a certain degree (to conform to the wheel seats) and then snap if the combination of the bending stress and shear stress due to elngation exceeds the yield strength of the bolt. As such if the bolt location are not controlled accurately enough for on the hub (as there function is not for locating, only for providing clamp-load) then the conical seats in the wheel, which is stiffer than the studs, will force the bolts to bend once enough friction has been created to prevent the wheel face from slipping across the face of the hub. Therefore if you are not centered as the torque is applied, you won't ever be. The rings are an extension of the hub and will provide a stiff enough locator to overcome the stiffness of the studs and thus will ENSURE the the wheel stays centered regardless of the stud misalignment. Consequently, sheaper wheels with poor quality control on the bolt hole tolerancing can cause recurrant stud breakage.
?FYI, I have the prints for the Contour hubs, my company made them (SKF) and they were made in our plant in South Carolina. So I'm CERTAIN I have more info than you n the tolerancing for the studs versus the tolerancing for the wheel hub pilot.
Go f#$k yourself - You're the idiot.
Originally posted by Stazi:
Go f#$k yourself - You're the idiot.
I've never resorted to namecalling. Why the vitriol?
Holy crap! I can't believe you don't get this! Misalignment is possible because the tapered bolts aren't sufficient to center the wheel! There is an opposing force from the wheel/hub friction, and one from the weight of the wheel.
Also, this is not an expensive wheel we are talking about. My cheap Motegis don't have tapers that match the nuts very well. Certainly, if the tapers don't line up, you could get it tight without being centered.
Your idea of the nuts doing the centering would work if
a) there was no friction between the hub and wheel until they were completely engaged
b) there was no friction between the nut and wheel, and the tapers were cut perfectly.
These conditions do not exist. Stazi is pissed, and so am I, because I know the theoretical physics, he knows the real-world parts and how it plays out in this case, and together we have a very good understanding of why this kid should get hubcentric rings. You have a
half-@$$ed understanding of what is going on, a little personal experience that doesn't directly relate, and an extremely stubborn personality.
