View Single Post
      04-02-2012, 12:41 PM   #295
New Member
mikesis's Avatar

Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 BMW M3  [5.00]
Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
Dear Mikesis,

Thank you very much for your concerns, I'm sure that everyone here can appreciate your questions. This was brought to my attention by one of our staff members and I obviously was more than happy to respond. Please see my comments below:

Nice post. However I have a few questions:
You speak about "originally tested 2000lb / corner rating". What are you referring to? Are you referring to the forged blanks? A forged blank doesn't have a load rating! They have a material thickness, allowed tolerances, etc. But they do not have a load rating because it is a BLANK! It doesn't have any designs in it, any shapes, any finalized dimensions, any patters, it is a piece of aluminum, with a rough surface, with extreme run-outs, because it hasn't been finished! So how is ADV.1 certifying this? This doesn't make any sense.

Good question Mikesis, actually the blank is not tested. Each new forging, in each diameter is actually tested as a machined wheel based on what is determined to be the thinnest possible style that would be used on this forging and engineered around the heaviest possible load rating that the forging is intended for use on. In most cases we'll run a large SUV or RR Phantom for the test subjects. This way we know that any style wheel in this size which is engineered around the minimum thickness tolerances used on the test subject and for use on any vehicle which weighs less than the initial application was based on, would not require further testing unless we were trying to reduce material / weight for a specific vehicle for any reason.
So, you would test the wheel around a 800-900kg load rating per corner, for example, and if it passes then you can safely use that same wheel design on a BMW, per say, since it has a load rating of around 650-750kg. That actually makes sense, however, the wheel weight at 900kg will be much higher than a weight optimized wheel no?. This is why your ADV10 weigh 28-29lbs on a BMW application when others weight 22-24lbs. That makes a lot of sense now. Thank you for clarifying that.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
How are you:
1. Determining this sample has a load rating of 2000lb / corner?
Explained above

2. Testing and certifying a forged blank?!?
Explained above

You also say that as long as the wheels are designed at less than 2,000lb per corner they don't need any testing? Are you serious? Please tell me I misinterpreted that.

Correct, the initial test subject covers a wide range of vehicles under the certification. So long as the vehicles load rating does not exceed the certified test subjects parameters and as long as the engineering follows the required material thickness minimums, there is no additional testing required. Material thickness can only violate the guidelines set initially by the first test sample if new testing will be completed.
So at what load rating do you test your wheels? 750kg? 800kg? 900kg? You mentioned above that you use GTs or SUVs rating. I don't think a performance vehicle should be using wheels engineered for an SUV.

When you say required, I assume this is regarding ADV.1's own parameters?

Do you have any pictures of your test subjects? Are wheels that STL labs has tested that you can post pictures of?

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
In regards to your SL product line, this is the only product line that you actually make the wheels weight optimized, you also make a physical wheel that is presumably structurally tested at STL Labs and certified. However, for this SL product line you charge $24,000 for a set of wheels. That's right. $24,000! So can we assume that you do not physically test your other products since they are sold for much less than $24,000 for the set? If you do test your other products, do you have any physical wheels that have been tested that you can post pictures of? Why do you test your SL product line but do not test your other product lines? Why do you pass on the cost of R&D and Engineering/Testing to your customer instead of ADV.1 being the one carrying that cost as part of product development?

The details on our SL line are explained here for anyone who wishes to learn more about them.
You really did not answer any of my questions. That links describes something that is called weight optimization. Other companies do this and they don't charge $24,000 for a set and ask the customer to incur the R&D cost.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
This is where it gets REALLY interesting.
This is a STL labs certificate/documentation for a testing done a 18x12" Porsche 5x130 wheel correct? It surprises me that the paperwork does not say ADV.1 Wheels or MHT Wheels anywhere as other documents from other companies do have the name but that's beyond the case. My point is, this wheel is a Porsche 18x12" wheel. For a Porsche rear you are looking at a load rating of at least 650kg. For the front you can go much lower, but for the rear since the engine, differential, axle, and everything is in the rear you need a much higher rating. On this certificate, you can see the test load rating is at 1200lbs or 545kg. 1200lbs! But yet the weight is listed at 23lbs? An 18x12" wheel with a 23lbs weigh will have a load rating of about 1600-1700lbs. So either you are making a Porsche wheel with a 1200lb load rating which is extremely underrated for that car or either you are making a Porsche wheel that based on 23lbs should have a load rating of around 1600-1700lb and are testing it at only 1200lbs per corner, of course it's going to pass!!!

I can see how this may have been confusing. The examples shown in which you refer to above were actually posted in another thread as examples of our testing procedures and some documentation. The actual weight of the wheel and load rating specified have nothing to do with one another as the 23 lb figure is actually a test wheel engineered around the usual umbrella certification explained above. The reason for this was the test was only a baseline run on the newest style at that time which was the 5.21SL. That particular test was only intended to provide us with a base figure in terms of the breaking point of that wheel so that we could begin re-engineering for weight reduction. By knowing the breaking point at it's 23lb state we were able to further reduce material and continue to test additional wheels until the load rating of the 997 exceeded the strength requirements of the wheel. This is how we verify the minimum amount of acceptable material needed for the vehicle, which is exactly what our SL series is based on and this is the reason for the costs. There may be 2 or even 3 fronts / rears destroyed in the process of minimizing weight plus the time involved in doing so. Yes FEA analysis will provide this information however a physical test is still required no matter what.
Do you have pictures of all this wheels that you have test?

This still does not explain why you are testing that wheel at a load rating of 545kg when the wheel is a 18x12" porsche application that should have a load rating of at least 650kg for the rear.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
You have the same issue with your own internal testing rating the BMW wheel at 1200lbs. Of course it`ll pass. Test it at 1600lbs and that's a different case. You are pretty much undertesting your wheels and then claiming they are certified. Does ADV.1 have an actual engineer in their team?

Yes we have several, I assume this is answered above.
Does ADV.1 have an engineer on their team?

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
Also, on your PSA documentation, it says "JWL" in one of the documents. Are you claiming your wheels are JWL certified or built based upon JWL standards? Why does it say JWL on those documents?

It is simply stating that the wheel is acceptable for use under JWL requirements should testing be required / certified for a particular order. We base engineering and testing guidelines around the commonly used parameters such as this and TUV in order to avoid having to engineer something that has already been engineered should the order require these types of certifications.
Why is it acceptable to use JWL standards? Are you using JWL standards to build your wheels? JWL are less strict than TUV. Why would it be acceptable to use JWL requirements for testing?

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
I don't know what to say. MHT is not a performance wheel manufacturer. They don't have any experience manufacturing performance wheels or motorsport oriented wheels, or being subject to strict tolerances and pushing the limits of engineering. MHT makes "bling" wheels. Big and heavy wheels for cruising and looking "good" and ADV.1 product line is reflecting that. It does not matter how many wheels you sell you cannot put yourself in the same level as the other manufacturers that build performance, track proven, and tested and certified wheels. And there is nothing wrong with making "bling" wheels. There is a market for all products but you cannot sell performance wheels when you have no background, prior experience, or proven record of how to do it and especially when you can clearly see that engineering is almost non-existing at ADV.1.

I won't get into a debate with you on this - you obviously feel that this is true and regardless I can respect your opinion. There's really no need for me to say anything more.
Thank you for your response. I would assume you agree with my statement.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
This failure is a result of lack of engineering. You take a forged center, cut it, attached it with some bolts to two different barrels, stamp a $20 aluminum center cap and charge $10,000 for it. If you had tested and properly engineered this wheel based on the vehicle application, style, hardware configuration, size, diameter, bolt pattern, offset, and even the tire used makes an impact, it doesn't matter if it's a 22" or a 26" this catastrophic failure could have been prevented. But with 100 sets of wheels coming each month (I'm right on that number am I not?) it is too much of a workload for ADV.1 to make sure all configurations are tested and properly engineered in just 4-8 weeks lead time and you decide to sacrifice safety instead of sacrificing a sale or extend your lead in other to prevent a 306Forged episode all over again. Engineering is the foundation of a wheel company, not sales. You`ll last a few years and then have to come up with another name unless you start taking engineering seriously.

Noted! Thanks for the advice, it's obvious you have some experience in the wheel industry which is great. Again, no need for me to get into detail or to debate this with you. I'm more than happy to discuss with you the inner workings of this company and what we do and do not take seriously any time. Feel free to contact me directly at the number below or via email below as well. I'm sure that I will be able to explain things a little better for you should you legitimately have any concerns that you feel need to be addressed here.
I was a little rude on that post. My concerns came out too unprofessional and that was not my intention. I`m too old to be arguing over the phone. My intention is to help the community better understand engineering and to take it seriously. My concerns are for the community and not me personally so feel free to respond on this thread so everyone can benefit from your response.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
This is where the wheel industry is heading and it is sad. Anybody with a high school diploma with virtually no startup cost can contact MHT or COR and start a "wheel company" and make expensive pieces of metal and call it a wheel company. No engineering, no testing, no certifications, nothing.

Out of all the wheel companies that are sponsoring this site, have you stop and checked which ones are even registered as a legal business? What's their legal name? Who's behind them? Is it a one man operation? Are they tested? Certified? FEA done? Do they have a physical location or just exist online? Do they have an engineer on board?

Think before you buy. Let's this thread be an example and serve as a knowledge base for your next wheel purchase.

Unfortunately, you are correct in saying that there are no requirements or even any substantial amounts of money needed to open a wheel company.
That is correct. There is also no requirements or any type of quality control set forth by the US Department of Transportation on wheels. SAE is only a suggestion and not a requirement. Japan, China and Germany puts us to shame. It is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Jordan View Post
Again, thank you for taking the time out of your day to address these concerns. Should you, or anyone else like to discuss these matters in further detail with me directly, please feel free to contact me anytime.

My direct office line is 305.251.0200
and my email address is

I'm more than happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. Unfortunately I will not have much time to check back with this thread due to some meetings and show preparations for this weekend, with that being said I'll leave this as is from my end, should anyone have any further questions just give me a call or email as stated above.
Thank you for your time. I'm sure you do have the time to come back and answer a few more of our questions. It is unfortunate that me as a consumer can take the time to follow and post on this thread but you as the owner of the company don't have the time.

Take the time, read the posts, address the questions asked or we can only assume you do not have an answer to our questions.

BUYER'S BEWARE: It is your responsibility to be informed and make an educated decision on your wheels purchase. There are a lot of wheel companies out there. Make sure you purchase your wheels from a company where wheels are engineered, designed, tested and certified and are transparent about it. Where a quality/testing certificate can be issued upon request. Pricing does not determine quality. The most expensive could be the worst, and more affordable ones could actually be better.

After 30 years in the steel industry I cannot see any manufacturing/designing firm operating without an engineer.

I`m out of this thread guys. Everything will come to the light soon enough.