Track forum general chit chat.

[StripclubDJ]

Helping my best buddy copy everything on my car lmao

Wing coming this week

[Bimmer Barney]

Originally Posted by StripclubDJ

I like a rotatable car
And balance

I fought so long driving staggered, and square is life

The schirmer cars run staggered 🤔

Ugh more reading to do I guess

[StripclubDJ]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Barney

The schirmer cars run staggered 🤔

Ugh more reading to do I guess

They are also fully alien custom 100k built cars with one off suspension and dynamics

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Barney

I do like the idea of being able to rotate tires. Concerned about changing up the dynamics of the car. How many people in this thread are running square?

Square is very nice, and very easy to control still. I've never tracked staggered, but I don't feel like I need any more rear grip bias.

Originally Posted by StripclubDJ

They are also fully alien custom 100k built cars with one off suspension and dynamics

Alien af haha

[rhyary]

Originally Posted by StripclubDJ

I like a rotatable car
And balance

I fought so long driving staggered, and square is life

Square is nice when you have fixed (OEM) suspension. It allows you to dial back the inherent understeer.

With adjustable suspension you can run staggered and stiffen the rear to dial back the understeer as the track and situation calls for.

There is no one answer and forget it. The topic is way more complicated.

[OG Shark]

An 18x10 (or 18x10.5) square setup gives you a lot of options in tires. Pretty much every level of tire has good options to fit these wheels. The handling is excellent as well. I see no reason to run staggered in this case since you can fit more than a 9.5" wide wheel in front with better results.

If you do go staggered I have found 20mm to be the about the sweet spot for me. Handling is still on point & the extra bit of grip in the rear is noticeable. I'm also in the process of optimizing my wheel setup right now & will stay with staggered to get the max tire in the rear during competition. If I wasn't competing with the car though I would likely try to run a square setup. But since we are racing we are going to see just how much tire can really be stuffed on to these cars.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Barney

I do like the idea of being able to rotate tires. Concerned about changing up the dynamics of the car. How many people in this thread are running square?

I run 10.5 square on the F80 CS and the E92 M3 and the E90 M3 for their track setups.

They fit perfectly. I wouldn't do it any other way.

If you were to maximize the wheels that fit on an E9X without doing strange modifications you could use 10.5 front and 11 rear, but what is the point of the additional 0.5" extra you could fit in the back? A 10.5 tire correctly seats any tire that can fit into the rear anyway.

Rotating tires at the track is very convenient, maximizes flexibility and reduces fuckups. KISS principles, always

I struggle to understand staggered track setups... I can't see any benefit. The car's weight split is 50/50 and if you look closely at front vs rear wear, the fronts wear more at the track.

Some people really want to complicate their lives. More power to them, but for anyone who is normal, it is extremely simple because the E9X is an old car and has been tracked up the wazoo. Just get 10 or 10.5 square in an 18" wheel, end of story.

[Richbot]

Originally Posted by //steve\\

This is what I'm wondering as well. I'm not looking to ask for anything illegal, just trying to get by within the limits so that I can avoid a yearly swap.

It's illegal to run catless on the street, full stop, deosn't matter if you can "pass" a smog check without cats, removing them puts you (and the shop doing the installing if you use a shop, and the seller of the product you use to delete the cats, and the manufacturer) at risk of fines or worse

You have to replace with an cat of equivalent performance to stock to avoid committing a crime

People get away with it all the time. I'm not casting judgment one way or another, but those are the inconvenient facts

[Richbot]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I run 10.5 square on the F80 CS and the E92 M3 and the E90 M3 for their track setups.

They fit perfectly. I wouldn't do it any other way.

If you were to maximize the wheels that fit on an E9X without doing strange modifications you could use 10.5 front and 11 rear, but what is the point of the additional 0.5" extra you could fit in the back? A 10.5 tire correctly seats any tire that can fit into the rear anyway.

Rotating tires at the track is very convenient, maximizes flexibility and reduces fuckups. KISS principles, always

I struggle to understand staggered track setups... I can't see any benefit. The car's weight split is 50/50 and if you look closely at front vs rear wear, the fronts wear more at the track.

Some people really want to complicate their lives. More power to them, but for anyone who is normal, it is extremely simple because the E9X is an old car and has been tracked up the wazoo. Just get 10 or 10.5 square in an 18" wheel, end of story.

Agreed. Used to like staggered, now I think it's pointless, especially on an NA car. I could see going staggered with double the power like some of these nutty blown setups have, or if the car just simply must go fastest and testing budget is unlimited to get the tire/aero balance right

I mean, cost no object, you set the car up around the absolute most tire you can fit under it and go from there but that's no fun for the tire budget

I think the point of the additional tire in back is you can use a significantly bigger tire in back without hitting stuff. It's not just the rim width, you can use a much taller tire as well back there. Then you have to deal with the rake and are, realistically, probably going to need to be thinking about a real diffuser to get the most out of it, but a bigger rear tire can also handle more aero load. Getting the car to work right on that setup is the hard part, and the staggered setup is a much easier button to push, and most people just won't ever care to go the other way, nor should they

[Richbot]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Barney

I do like the idea of being able to rotate tires. Concerned about changing up the dynamics of the car. How many people in this thread are running square?

It's great. And if you don't like the balance, adjust with a rear spacer.

I use a 5mm rear spacer with my square setups. It is a noticeable improvement in power-down

[turbo_joe]

Originally Posted by Richbot

It's great. And if you don't like the balance, adjust with a rear spacer.

I use a 5mm rear spacer with my square setups. It is a noticeable improvement in power-down

Same here, 18x10.5+22 square with a 5mm rear spacer

Square is the way to go, better tire options, the ability to rotate, not having to carry more spares, lots of benefits with no down side

[kyippee]

I'm very happy with my square setup. Currently on 18x10.5 ET22 295/30/18 Nankang AR-1, will try same sizing Toyo RR later.

Needs the right suspension and negative camber to fit. Currently on negative 3.25 to 3.5 front camber and negative 2.0 rear.

[//steve\\]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I run 10.5 square on the F80 CS and the E92 M3 and the E90 M3 for their track setups.

They fit perfectly. I wouldn't do it any other way.

If you were to maximize the wheels that fit on an E9X without doing strange modifications you could use 10.5 front and 11 rear, but what is the point of the additional 0.5" extra you could fit in the back? A 10.5 tire correctly seats any tire that can fit into the rear anyway.

Rotating tires at the track is very convenient, maximizes flexibility and reduces fuckups. KISS principles, always

I struggle to understand staggered track setups... I can't see any benefit. The car's weight split is 50/50 and if you look closely at front vs rear wear, the fronts wear more at the track.

Some people really want to complicate their lives. More power to them, but for anyone who is normal, it is extremely simple because the E9X is an old car and has been tracked up the wazoo. Just get 10 or 10.5 square in an 18" wheel, end of story.

Learn something new every day. I didn't realize the M3 weight distribution was that good. For whatever reason I had just assumed it was a fair bit front biased closer to a 60/40 kind of split.

Makes a lot more sense for running a square wheel setup then. hmmm.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I run 10.5 square on the F80 CS and the E92 M3 and the E90 M3 for their track setups.

They fit perfectly. I wouldn't do it any other way.

If you were to maximize the wheels that fit on an E9X without doing strange modifications you could use 10.5 front and 11 rear, but what is the point of the additional 0.5" extra you could fit in the back? A 10.5 tire correctly seats any tire that can fit into the rear anyway.

Rotating tires at the track is very convenient, maximizes flexibility and reduces fuckups. KISS principles, always

I struggle to understand staggered track setups... I can't see any benefit. The car's weight split is 50/50 and if you look closely at front vs rear wear, the fronts wear more at the track.

Some people really want to complicate their lives. More power to them, but for anyone who is normal, it is extremely simple because the E9X is an old car and has been tracked up the wazoo. Just get 10 or 10.5 square in an 18" wheel, end of story.

I'd like to play devil's advocate here: why does every performance car run staggered from the factory if square is superior? Wheel and tire sizing by the OEM is not arbitrary.

[Bimmer Barney]

I don't use the TPMS system. Thus can I forgo running TPMS on the new wheels and turn the light off? The light on would be a deal breaker but on the 335i I didn't run TPMS and I was able to turn the light off.

[turbo_joe]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Barney

I don't use the TPMS system. Thus can I forgo running TPMS on the new wheels and turn the light off? The light on would be a deal breaker but on the 335i I didn't run TPMS and I was able to turn the light off.

You can code the light out

[tdott]

Originally Posted by dparm

I'd like to play devil's advocate here: why does every performance car run staggered from the factory if square is superior? Wheel and tire sizing by the OEM is not arbitrary.

It's a way to build in under-steer for safety, at the expense of performance and tire wear.

Common on RWD cars since they tend to be written off by novice drivers which gives them a bad name.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by dparm

I'd like to play devil's advocate here: why does every performance car run staggered from the factory if square is superior? Wheel and tire sizing by the OEM is not arbitrary.

I can think of lots of possibilities.

It is clear OEMs do not like putting massive tires on OEM cars.

An M3 comes with tire widths that would fit in a regular 328/335, however they have enough fender flares to accommodate massive, massive tires.

Do you want to homologate your car with a 10.5in 295 tire up front and deal with the terrible results? I know I wouldn't. But by building in fenders that can accept those tires they allow someone to have a nice street E92 like mine with 9" front/10" rear tires which is great for street use and at the same time have a 10.5" square setup on the same car for serious track use.

Square is superior *for the track*. I do not run square setups on my street cars, namely because I do not need to pull 1.4g entering an offramp. I don't like square setups on the street because it makes the steering too heavy for my tastes.

[tsk94]

Both have benefits. Square obviously allows for prolonged tire life from being able to rotate the tires all around. Staggered provides a more stable, planted rear end - more confidence inspiring and arguably easier to drive fast.

I started out on square 275 and really liked it. Then I moved to staggered 275/295 - also liked it. Now I'm moving to square 295 for this season and hoping for an improvement from the previous setup.

There is no right or wrong setup (square or staggered). There is however, an optimal setup for a given driver, car and track combination. Some people will prefer a staggered while others a square. A square setup can be tuned to be neutral or understeer just like a staggered setup can be tuned to be neutral or more oversteer biased. A lot more aspects come into play to determine handling balance then just the relation of front to rear tire size.

In my opinion, the fastest setup will be a staggered setup, where you maximize the widest possible front and rear tire for this chassis. Something like a 295/315 or 305/315. Tuned accordingly this will be faster then a 295 or 305 square setup as you will have more mechanical grip then the square setup counterpart. Since we are able to run a wider rear then front tire with stock bodywork. So for outright lap time and competitive events (racing or TT) this would be the way to go. I believe this is what OG Shark said he was doing with his car earlier.

For your average track day/HPDE guy though, I'd say go square. It's a proven setup that works and your tire life will be prolonged and save you a bit of money in the long run.

[ThunderMoose]

Originally Posted by tsk94

Both have benefits. Square obviously allows for prolonged tire life from being able to rotate the tires all around. Staggered provides a more stable, planted rear end - more confidence inspiring and arguably easier to drive fast.

I started out on square 275 and really liked it. Then I moved to staggered 275/295 - also liked it. Now I'm moving to square 295 for this season and hoping for an improvement from the previous setup.

There is no right or wrong setup (square or staggered). There is however, an optimal setup for a given driver, car and track combination. Some people will prefer a staggered while others a square. A square setup can be tuned to be neutral or understeer just like a staggered setup can be tuned to be neutral or more oversteer biased. A lot more aspects come into play to determine handling balance then just the relation of front to rear tire size.

In my opinion, the fastest setup will be a staggered setup, where you maximize the widest possible front and rear tire for this chassis. Something like a 295/315 or 305/315. Tuned accordingly this will be faster then a 295 or 305 square setup as you will have more mechanical grip then the square setup counterpart. Since we are able to run a wider rear then front tire with stock bodywork. So for outright lap time and competitive events (racing or TT) this would be the way to go. I believe this is what OG Shark said he was doing with his car earlier.

For your average track day/HPDE guy though, I'd say go square. It's a proven setup that works and your tire life will be prolonged and save you a bit of money in the long run.

My favorite was Andy Hollis with 275's front and 245 rears on his FWD Honda.

[ThunderMoose]

Originally Posted by dparm

I'd like to play devil's advocate here: why does every performance car run staggered from the factory if square is superior? Wheel and tire sizing by the OEM is not arbitrary.

I feel fairly confident that the real fast corvette guys in NASA TT are running square setups. Like costas and Mosely. I'll ask Chet what he runs on FB.

Update - Chet runs 345/335 staggered...lol.

[BayE30]

IMO the reason manufacturers run staggered on RWD sports cars is for safety. Which scenario is more dangerous for your average driver? slight understeer, or slight oversteeer?

Obviously slight understeer is more manageable for the average consumer, which is what the staggered setup caters towards.

I have been running 275 square on my m3 for about 2 years now, and i love it. The reason i love it is that i DO NOT like to feel understeer in my RWD cars. Slight oversteer feels much more natural to me. I have not experienced any type of heavy steering, or tramlining as some others have. My m3 is a street car, which at best see winding mountain roads once a month. My track duty is covered by my e30, which obviously is running widest tire possible in square setup.