why is there so much wheel gap?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mcoupe

Function over form.

I think the question is, what is it's function?

[Lonewolf]

Simple fix...give fat people rides

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by fatoni

I think the question is, what is it's function?

Pure conjecture but I'm guessing it's to allow for larger wheels/tires. That makes sense to me more than allowing for "drop" because it would allow for symmetrical gap around larger tires rather than becoming asymmetrical like what you get when folks drop the car to close the "gap".

When you only close the gap at the top or disproportionally at the top, again in my opinion, you ruin the look of any car.

Of course, I don't really think the gap is as bad as folks make it out to be anyway. It's over 2" less in the back and 1" less in the front then our stock '05 Mustang.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Pure conjecture but I'm guessing it's to allow for larger wheels/tires. That makes sense to me more than allowing for "drop" because it would allow for symmetrical gap around larger tires rather than becoming asymmetrical like what you get when folks drop the car to close the "gap".

When you only close the gap at the top or disproportionally at the top, again in my opinion, you ruin the look of any car.

Of course, I don't really think the gap is as bad as folks make it out to be anyway. It's over 2" less in the back and 1" less in the front then our stock '05 Mustang.

im right there with you on they why, but that sounds like form over function. its the only thing that i can think of though other than other economic or ergonomic reasoning that us consumers dont see over the course of the cars development

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by pr086

thats the thing, i don't see myself putting a different suspension in this car since it was designed and balanced with the one it has.

Not necessarily true...

I believe ride height was raised from the optimal for the sake of civility (e.g. you won't scrape those concrete slabs or most curbs when you park) and was probably mandated by some government body. If you look at the Nurburgring test spy pics, the car has Enkei wheels with the same specs as stock (17x7 +48mm) but sits lower. This is where they spent 4 months truly tuning the handling characteristics of the car.



The optimal ride height, if you want to sacrifice some civility to get it to the original tuned spec, is quoted below by one of our esteemed members Moto Miwa (who has been in close contact with this car's chief engineer).

Originally Posted by Moto-P

LOL! Well teasing wasn't my intentions as much as I was just way too thrilled at already curing something that ever so slightly bugged me about the FRS, which is the somewhat harsh city ride, and that politics-legal-PD-induced monster truck ride height....LOL Good thing Tada-san was clever enough to work around it by specifying arms and rods that work over wide range of height, and secure dynamic travel that is consistent through motions. He even touched on the fact that the FRS/BRZ/86 suspension arms are ideal at 20mm drop!!

I'm waiting for the STI springs (in development) which will probably bring this car close to the intended spec.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im right there with you on they why, but that sounds like form over function. its the only thing that i can think of though other than other economic or ergonomic reasoning that us consumers dont see over the course of the cars development

Actually I think its exactly "function" because it allows flexibility depending on your needs. The fact that the manufacturers planned on selling it with larger tires (5Axis kit, etc) seems to also point to that.

I have to wonder if the issue here isn't why did they leave such a gap more so than why the decision to use 17" and Primacy tires rather than a larger size as seen on some of the prototypes.

Again, in the end, as has been illustrated with pictures of other cars all over threads like this, I don't think its an outrageous "stock gap" anyway. Would everyone have preferred they made the car perfectly fit 17" wheels? Then wouldn't we all be complaining about not being able to change to other sizes?

[ThatGuy]

It's for several reasons:

1 - Ride quality. The car has quite soft springs which allow significant wheel travel which gives both grip, comfort and turn-in (soft front rate). Only the front wheel gap is important as that wheel can rotate (steer) as it moves up and down. Rear wheel gap is just for a symmetrical look and fashion. ie - see Citroen DC2, Vauxhall Omega, etc - rear wheels arches do not require ANY gap at all.

2 - The car was made with the aftermarket in mind. They knew this car would be lowered. The front fender requires a large gap for the car to be lowered and not scrub if hitting a large bump while cornering (race tracks anyone?).

3 - They don't want to have to redesign the body if they want to release a lower version in future.

It is NOT because people will fit larger wheels like 18's or 19's. For a start 18" and 19" wheels will not be a significantly larger diameter, instead they will have lower profile tyres which results in a similar size.

It is NOT to do with COG, headlight height or anything of that nature. The wheel well height is entirely arbitrary and not related to those issues.

[DaJo]

I'd leave the gap alone; being my daily commuter, it needs to do well in snow/bad weather, good over speed bumps, etc...

[sho220]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Would everyone have preferred they made the car perfectly fit 17" wheels? Then wouldn't we all be complaining about not being able to change to other sizes?

The grass is always greener...

[sho220]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

It's for several reasons:

1 - Ride quality. The car has quite soft springs which allow significant wheel travel which gives both grip, comfort and turn-in (soft front rate). Only the front wheel gap is important as that wheel can rotate (steer) as it moves up and down. Rear wheel gap is just for a symmetrical look and fashion. ie - see Citroen DC2, Vauxhall Omega, etc - rear wheels arches do not require ANY gap at all.

2 - The car was made with the aftermarket in mind. They knew this car would be lowered. The front fender requires a large gap for the car to be lowered and not scrub if hitting a large bump while cornering (race tracks anyone?).

3 - They don't want to have to redesign the body if they want to release a lower version in future.

It is NOT because people will fit larger wheels like 18's or 19's. For a start 18" and 19" wheels will not be a significantly larger diameter, instead they will have lower profile tyres which results in a similar size.

It is NOT to do with COG, headlight height or anything of that nature. The wheel well height is entirely arbitrary and not related to those issues.

Impressive...it's almost like you were part of the design team...

[Jeff Lange]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

It's for several reasons:

1 - Ride quality. The car has quite soft springs which allow significant wheel travel which gives both grip, comfort and turn-in (soft front rate). Only the front wheel gap is important as that wheel can rotate (steer) as it moves up and down. Rear wheel gap is just for a symmetrical look and fashion. ie - see Citroen DC2, Vauxhall Omega, etc - rear wheels arches do not require ANY gap at all.

2 - The car was made with the aftermarket in mind. They knew this car would be lowered. The front fender requires a large gap for the car to be lowered and not scrub if hitting a large bump while cornering (race tracks anyone?).

3 - They don't want to have to redesign the body if they want to release a lower version in future.

It is NOT because people will fit larger wheels like 18's or 19's. For a start 18" and 19" wheels will not be a significantly larger diameter, instead they will have lower profile tyres which results in a similar size.

It is NOT to do with COG, headlight height or anything of that nature. The wheel well height is entirely arbitrary and not related to those issues.

Agreed.

Jeff

[BAE]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I think with 18'' wheels with a way better offset that the wheel gap will be less noticeable. The stock wheels are too tucked in so its so noticeable. Plus I think 18'' wheels is the best looking size for the FRS/86/BRZ.

I agree with you on the offset, but not with the 18" inch. With less rubber the airgap will look even worse. A design rule of thumb I heard once is that the wheel gap should not be more than the height of the tire. The wheel gap will look more balanced with 16" inch wheels.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=10

[Mikepage]

Bump!

[ZC6BRZ]

... because it was made by Subaru. Subaru likes big wheel gap. Honda on the other hand, doesn't.