Wheel Directory: WedsSport TC105N 17x8.0 +42

[Anthonytpt]

Yessums, my 17x8s appear "flat," but I love them. When I saw @CSG Mike's 17x9s, they appeared to have more curvature. The 17x8s in the photo linked by @df.dima are mine.

[df.dima]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Ya that kinda answered.."nothing"?

I am sorry I did not satisfy your with my answer, sir.

I was hoping the pictures are self explanatory, because 8" and 9" are sitting side by side and at a good angle.

Would you like a CAD drawing of the side profiles so you can compare the concavehz?


I have gone over a dozen of pics of 8 sv 9 and in my research, that picture was most helpful to realize see the diff.

[CSG Mike]

I could probably arrange to shoot the 17x8 and 17x9 side by side, courtesy of @Anthonytpt

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by df.dima

I am sorry I did not satisfy your with my answer, sir.

I was hoping the pictures are self explanatory, because 8" and 9" are sitting side by side and at a good angle.

Would you like a CAD drawing of the side profiles so you can compare the concavehz?

The more important part is if folks are using spacers when lowered some...??
Trying to Invision this 17x8(42) in regards to how flush or rather sunk in it'd be when lowered an inch and brought in with at least say -1 camber.


Anyhow ya pics are hard to tell as far as concave goes but thx to all who have explained the difference in that regards. Sounds that really not much diff for concave.

[df.dima]

Originally Posted by OICU812

The more important part is if folks are using spacers when lowered some...??
Trying to Invision this 17x8(42) in regards to how flush or rather sunk in it'd be when lowered an inch and brought in with at least say -1 camber.


Anyhow ya pics are hard to tell as far as concave goes but thx to all who have explained the difference in that regards. Sounds that really not much diff for concave.

Based on my non-scientific measurement with 3/4 piece of wood put to the stock wheel, with 1" low and 1.25 camberz, x8 will sit close to flush up front, but tiny bit inward. The back would be more inward, so for flush - spacer. For small amount of camber, x8 should be fine, but it won't be hella cool yo. x9 with this little camber will look a bit silly poking imo. You probably need closer to 1.6-2 degrees to make it look good up front. The back should be fine.
I am holding out until next year to decide, but I've been between 8 vs 9 in my mind dozens of time. If I go 9, got to add more camber up front. At the same time I don't feel like I really need 245 sized tires...

Moar evidence:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=677299

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...560849F7CF.jpg

Right now i am running mild camber being -2 front -1.5 rear

So it looks like -2 is pretty much what it has to be.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by OICU812

The more important part is if folks are using spacers when lowered some...??
Trying to Invision this 17x8(42) in regards to how flush or rather sunk in it'd be when lowered an inch and brought in with at least say -1 camber.


Anyhow ya pics are hard to tell as far as concave goes but thx to all who have explained the difference in that regards. Sounds that really not much diff for concave.

I'm lowered 20mm and have around -1 to -1.5 degree of camber in the front. It doesn't poke, it's pretty flush to the top of the fender less a few mm.

Here's a picture I have of the fronts, at stock height without camber correction. Add -1 camber and they'll poke more at the bottom and tuck more in the top. I run these without spacers at -1 camber up front and lowered 20mm without ANY problems.

[OICU812]

Interesting honestly figured a spacer would be needed in rear at least. Thx!

[Anthonytpt]

If the masses want it, I certainly wouldn't mind.

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

I could probably arrange to shoot the 17x8 and 17x9 side by side, courtesy of @Anthonytpt

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Interesting honestly figured a spacer would be needed in rear at least. Thx!

Plenty of inboard and outboard clearance at 8"+42.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Plenty of inboard and outboard clearance at 8"+42.

Your backs are not too sucked in there? Fronts look about perfect indeed!

[Anthonytpt]

I think this is subjective and a matter of personal preference.

Originally Posted by OICU812

Your backs are not too sucked in there? Fronts look about perfect indeed!

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by Anthonytpt

I think this is subjective and a matter of personal preference.

Totally realize that, just trying to understand how much its tucked in rear without spacers here is all. WANT to purchase a light track/spare set this winter and trying to nail down firm options. I hadn't considered the 8" weds till seen this thread actually.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Your backs are not too sucked in there? Fronts look about perfect indeed!

They're tucked a bit.

[OICU812]

Thx Orbital!