Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[mikesis]

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

ADV.1 Testing Procedures and documentation
Due to the recent rumors circulating the internet we felt it was necessary to explain our testing, engineering, and warranty procedures for those interested.
[/color][/font]

Nice post. However I have a few questions:

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

All of our forgings are initially engineered around a certain range of vehicle fitments / load ratings. Normally we design the forging die itself around a 2000lb. per corner load rating umbrella. This means that so long as all wheels using this forging are engineered around the tested / certified material thickness minimums based on the test certification, no further testing is required unless an order violates these guidelines for any reason.

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. How are you:

1. Determining this sample has a load rating of 2000lb / corner?
2. Testing and certifying a forged blank?!?

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.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

For any wheels which do in fact contain material in some areas which is less than the tested / certified guideline minimums, we then use our in house xxx testing equipment. An example of this would be on wheels like our new SL series where they are engineered for the exact vehicle the order is intended for thus the material thickness tolerances may be too conservative for the subject vehicle in question. For example, if we're engineering a set of SL's for an R8 like the schematic below illustrates, the load rating of the vehicle is much less and the necessary material needed for safe use on this vehicle may be much less than the originally tested 2000lb / corner rating. With this being said, we use FEA analysis software to effectively determine the necessary material needed for this car. Once finalized, a physical test wheel is made for destruction testing on our radial and fatigue testing equipment which we've obtained for this exact purpose. Based on the resulting data of the test we then are able to confirm or deny the file which leads to either production of the wheel. revisions to engineering and re-testing, or additional reduction of material in order to further tweak the file for maximum weight reduction.

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?

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

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!!!

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Darth One]

[db71]

On the STL testing I noticed a lot if stuff but just kept to myself. But I will point out even if tested low at 1200 pounds it was tested twice and did not fail. On the MORR STL sheet it is tested at a heavier load but tested once. I am not saying it would not do 2 tests and pass but just stuff I noticed.

I did a little digging and came up with the SAE test procedure. It is 7 pages so if someone wants it to make it a sticky I will email it.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by mikesis

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. How are you:

1. Determining this sample has a load rating of 2000lb / corner?
2. Testing and certifying a forged blank?!?

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.

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?

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!!!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Mmmm... interesting. Thank you for your insights.

[Alan l.]

I've seen quite a few companies that test at a much lower load rating than they should be.

[db71]

I could tell you how tire size and offset add or subtract from the test standard also. I will say it does not take a degreed engineer to make wheels that pass tests. That would be like saying its takes an architect to build a house.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by db71

I could tell you how tire size and offset add or subtract from the test standard also. I will say it does not take a degreed engineer to make wheels that pass tests. That would be like saying its takes an architect to build a house.

Well, I wouldn't buy an expensive house (any house) that wasn't built by an architect or constructional engineer... the same goes for wheels, if you spend a lot of money and you have the choice of wheels designed by someone with a doodle pad, or an engineer - which one would you be more comfortable with?

[db71]

Originally Posted by SehrSchnell

Well, I wouldn't buy an expensive house (any house) that wasn't built by an architect or constructional engineer... the same goes for wheels, if you spend a lot of money and you have the choice of wheels designed by someone with a doodle pad, or an engineer - which one would you be more comfortable with?

I'm trying not to throw this thread off track but a wheel is round with x amount of spokes they are all under the exact same loads they have been the same since they were on conastoga wagons round with x amount of spokes.

Most of the guesswork and structural stuff is done already in the forgings/rim halves. All you have to do is the spoke design.

If it passes the proper tests who cares who designed it.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by db71

I'm trying not to throw this thread off track but a wheel is round with x amount of spokes they are all under the exact same loads they have been the same since they were on conastoga wagons round with x amount of spokes.

Most of the guesswork and structural stuff is done already in the forgings/rim halves. All you have to do is the spoke design.

If it passes the proper tests who cares who designed it.

[mikesis]

Originally Posted by db71

I'm trying not to throw this thread off track but a wheel is round with x amount of spokes they are all under the exact same loads they have been the same since they were on conastoga wagons round with x amount of spokes.

Most of the guesswork and structural stuff is done already in the forgings/rim halves. All you have to do is the spoke design.

If it passes the proper tests who cares who designed it.

Every wheel will have a different load based on the design, spoke thickness, barrel thickness, material selection, etc.

Let's wait for ADV.1 response to my post.

[ADV.1 Jordan]

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.

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.

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.
http://www.adv1wheels.com/adv1wheels/slseries.php

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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 jordan@adv1wheels.com

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.

[rickhunter]

ADV1 Jordan, interesting response. But I don't think you really answer the questions. Been looking for wheels nd started read this thread and the cracked 22" thread.

1. Who's your engineers? What type of engineering degrees do they hold? Being a Computer Engineer is not the same as a Mechanical Engineer (etc), but I wouldn't want to see a CE working on wheel engineering. Why wouldn't you disclose the information? I would think you should be proud to have an engineer? Does he have a relevant engineer degree from a real school or did he go to a local college or something?

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

Our engineer used to engineer for MHT for years and we just hired him on full time to do our wheels as our volume increased. And yes, he has an engineering degree.

2. And why is the STL testing not have any mention of ADV1/MHT. Is it even STL testing for any of your wheels? The MORR STL testing shows their name, why doesn't the one ADV1 posted?


3. It looks like ADV1 has been claiming TUV for months, yet according to this statement paperwork was just signed recently.

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

Guys we'll post all of our certifications and numbers as soon as we get it back from TUV. The papers were just signed a week and a half ago when our German dealer was in town and I know they have submitted everything to TUV. We're just waiting on the official documents to be sent back in the mail and we'll post everything up for you to see.

I'd really like to purchase some of your designs, but from these 3 points above, it sounds like you are hiding a lot. Are telling the truth or lies? I would like to see 3 things.

1. Where did your structural engineer go to school and what engineer degree does he hold?
2. Proof that you even have a real STL testing document.
3. Truth about your TUV certifications. When will ADV1 really be TUV certified? Next month? 5 years from now? Never?

Please answer the questions instead of responding with a "roundabout" answer that doesn't answer anything asked.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ADV.1 Matt

From a structural and quality standpoint there is NO difference between the 20X10.5, and 20X11 wheel - the only difference is the paperwork.

^Patently, unequivocally false.

This is what happens when you let non technical folks make statements on technical topics.

This also gets to one of the issues discussed by a few in this thread already.

Now I would be a fool to argue that the exact same wheel design that passes a TUV test with some considerable margin of safety would likely fail if simply made in a 1/2 inch different width. Any betting man would bet that it would indeed pass. However, to answer this question without doubt takes either real engineering or real testing or both. Again the engineering should be done by a degreed and experienced Mechanical Engineer. Where does one draw the line? 1/2", 1", 2", 4" of width, 5 mm of offset or 75 mm? See the point? Sure testing the wheel that appears to have the most material removed from the forging at the highest possible load rating is a pretty decent approach but there is always a judgement call involved with such an approach which should ultimately be made by an Engineer. The potential for a slippery slope is simply too great. Like brakes and tires, wheels are critical safety items in a car. One who cares about performance, quality and safety should do some of their own investigations about the company they may send their money to.

One must find a balance between excessive and perhaps wasteful type testing and certification and reckless abandon. Unfortunately there is a very large grey area in between. I am comfortable letting a sharp, degreed and experienced Mechanical Engineer turn that grey area to 99% clear with his/her judgement, without formal type testing/certification as long as a very similar wheel in that line has it.

BTW, just FYI, my degrees are Physics and Math and I have worked as a Mechanical Engineer doing work quite similar to wheel engineering.

[db71]

Swamp,


All good points but the test is stated as such that if you use the most extreme offset and width which put the spokes at the least strength. Then all wheels inside that realm pass also. Now that is assuming you are testing to the amount of weight you need to be. I would think wheels tested at 1750# and twice that for cornering fatigue would be more than adequate for just about any small body car.

Once again I have the SAE test in PDF if anyone wants to see it.

Another thing is that testing of the rim widths is done by the rim manufacturer. The only thing that is really being tested is the design in the forging.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^Patently, unequivocally false.

This is what happens when you let non technical folks make statements on technical topics.

This also gets to one of the issues discussed by a few in this thread already.

Now I would be a fool to argue that the exact same wheel design that passes a TUV test with some considerable margin of safety would likely fail if simply made in a 1/2 inch different width. Any betting man would bet that it would indeed pass. However, to answer this question without doubt takes either real engineering or real testing or both. Again the engineering should be done by a degreed and experienced Mechanical Engineer. Where does one draw the line? 1/2", 1", 2", 4" of width, 5 mm of offset or 75 mm? See the point? Sure testing the wheel that appears to have the most material removed from the forging at the highest possible load rating is a pretty decent approach but there is always a judgement call involved with such an approach which should ultimately be made by an Engineer. The potential for a slippery slope is simply too great. Like brakes and tires, wheels are critical safety items in a car. One who cares about performance, quality and safety should do some of their own investigations about the company they may send their money to.

One must find a balance between excessive and perhaps wasteful type testing and certification and reckless abandon. Unfortunately there is a very large grey area in between. I am comfortable letting a sharp, degreed and experienced Mechanical Engineer turn that grey area to 99% clear with his/her judgement, without formal type testing/certification as long as a very similar wheel in that line has it.

BTW, just FYI, my degrees are Physics and Math and I have worked as a Mechanical Engineer doing work quite similar to wheel engineering.

Thank you for this!

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by rickhunter

ADV1 Jordan, interesting response. But I don't think you really answer the questions. Been looking for wheels nd started read this thread and the cracked 22" thread.

1. Who's your engineers? What type of engineering degrees do they hold? Being a Computer Engineer is not the same as a Mechanical Engineer (etc), but I wouldn't want to see a CE working on wheel engineering. Why wouldn't you disclose the information? I would think you should be proud to have an engineer? Does he have a relevant engineer degree from a real school or did he go to a local college or something?


2. And why is the STL testing not have any mention of ADV1/MHT. Is it even STL testing for any of your wheels? The MORR STL testing shows their name, why doesn't the one ADV1 posted?


3. It looks like ADV1 has been claiming TUV for months, yet according to this statement paperwork was just signed recently.


I'd really like to purchase some of your designs, but from these 3 points above, it sounds like you are hiding a lot. Are telling the truth or lies? I would like to see 3 things.

1. Where did your structural engineer go to school and what engineer degree does he hold?
2. Proof that you even have a real STL testing document.
3. Truth about your TUV certifications. When will ADV1 really be TUV certified? Next month? 5 years from now? Never?

Please answer the questions instead of responding with a "roundabout" answer that doesn't answer anything asked.

This is all so f@cked up... I know ADV.1 loves photoshop (I really liked that photoshopped ADV.1 sticker on the testing machine), but if they photoshopped these testing documents they'll be out of business in a hurry.

[db71]

Originally Posted by SehrSchnell

This is all so f@cked up... I know ADV.1 loves photoshop (I really liked that photoshopped ADV.1 sticker on the testing machine), but if they photoshopped these testing documents they'll be out of business in a hurry.

Yeah you think they photoshopped the dust on the floor from where they mounted it also.

If you gonna compare the testing sheets why don't you compare the real numbers the rotary test load, the over torqued lugbolts or the number of cycles. You guys are reaching with so much bs. First you wanted testing they posted it then you grill it and try to make shit up about it.

I mean the MORR test sheet does not have a job number maybe they made theirs up!!!!!! You know no reference to the STL data base.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by db71

Yeah you think they photoshopped the dust on the floor from where they mounted it also.

If you gonna compare the testing sheets why don't you compare the real numbers the rotary test load, the over torqued lugbolts or the number of cycles. You guys are reaching with so much bs. First you wanted testing they posted it then you grill it and try to make shit up about it.

I mean the MORR test sheet does not have a job number maybe they made theirs up!!!!!! You know no reference to the STL data base.

I agree, that to some extent photoshop is the norm and totally OK... I just found that grey ADV.1 sticker on the testing machine a little cheesy - no big deal.

And yes, we asked for proof... but it turns out that some members found some serious issues with some of the statements and documents. I also respect swamp2's opinion on that matter.

There is nothing wrong with scrutiny... especially on a public forum that is used to sell very expensive wheels. That's the price you pay as a vendor when using an online community for marketing and promotions.

Do we know if these documents have been altered? Absolutely not! But considering the track record of ADV.1 with coming forward with information and proof, it does leave a sour taste in my mouth.

[db71]

I understand the scrutiny but why only them not anyone else.

On the sticker thing I completely agree on being cheesy.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by db71

I understand the scrutiny but why only them not anyone else.

On the sticker thing I completely agree on being cheesy.

Cause and effect... ADV.1 opened a can of worms when they claimed being TUV certified in another thread, when in fact they aren't. To make matter worse, they made some serious mistakes when they tried to clarify things on this forum, and made false statements regarding testing procedures.

I have no way of knowing what is correct and what is not... I hold a degree in applied mathematics, so I don't know anything about wheel design. But I respect swamp's assessment on that matter, since he is very well respected on this board for his technical knowledge.

ADV.1 is making matters even worse by posting items that have been photoshopped... it's a slippery slope at best.

[db71]

Ok I understand the TUV stuff and what went wrong there but what have they posted that has been photoshopped besides car photos???

I would be questioning MORR on the testing sheet they posted as there is no tech named from STL or any numbers. I will tell you for a fact though that John Heigel works there.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by db71

Ok I understand the TUV stuff and what went wrong there but what have they posted that has been photoshopped besides car photos???

I would be questioning MORR on the testing sheet they posted as there is no tech named from STL or any numbers. I will tell you for a fact though that John Heigel works there.

I agree, all the testing sheets look inconsistent... but I think only STL can actually answer this to everybody's satisfaction. And to be fair, I wouldn't mind knowing what poster 'mikesis' credentials are, since he does seem to know a lot.