The new 535i are offering a lot more for the money

[Submariner]

What I don't get, is why you feel the need to put 11 inch wide tires on your 325 HP luxury saloon.

With some sedans, I could see this to be a logical choice.  For instance, my dad is looking to fit 10.5 inch wheels on his S-600.  But that has a torque output of 590 lb-ft, and a BHP rating of 493.  That car needs the wide rubber to put down those numbers.  Your 7, on the other hand hardly needs wide tires.  The stock setup is perfect.

Another reason to fit wide rear (and front) tires, is to improve lateral grip.  Thats fine, but then again, if you were concerned about sports car grip, you wouldn't have bought a 4400+ pound executive sedan, nor would you have placed it on 22 inch rims.

Besides, we all know only people who can actually form a logical sentence in their native language should be concerned with something as monumental as "lateral grip" 

And I really hate to say it, but the difference between 18 inch wheels and 19 inch wheels are fairly significant.  I have no idea how you can say that there is little difference between 19 inch and 22 inch wheels.

[Catman]

Childish insults will not be tolerated at CarSPIN.  Those that insist on insulting other members will be banned temporarily or even permanently.

[Submariner]

I agree.  That's why I try and keep mine fairly sophisticated. 

Just kidding naturally, but I'll make sure to refrain from any of it.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Yes, sir!
I must learn to restrain myself.

[dazzleman]

Yes, sir!
I must learn to restrain myself.

Nick, if you don't behave yourself, Greg will 'cuff you at the next GTG.....

[Eye of the Tiger]

Nick, if you don't behave yourself, Greg will 'cuff you at the next GTG.....

[JYODER240]

Once again you are not understanding the entire plus sizing concept. The overall diameter of wheel and tire stays appx. the same.?

As in this case the overall diameter of 19" wheels with 275/40 size rears is appx. 24.5 inches where as the 22" wheels have overall diameter of 25 inches. The difference is nearly negligible. So the overall distance from hub on each side is no where near 1.5" for the entire wheel/tire package.

So overall with greater offset and deeper setting and lighter weight the advantage is still with the newer set of 22" wheels vs the stock 19" wheels.

Okay, I'll try again. I'll try to make it really simple this time. Wheels weigh more than tires. Because you're new wheels are 3" bigger that means that the edge of your 22" wheels are 1.5" further away from the hub on each side. Even if your new wheels are lighter than the stock 19's. There is more weight further out from the hub than there was before. It requires more to turn a wheel the further the weight gets away from the hub.



This should help illustrate what i'm trying to say. On one side there is the 100kg ball which represents your old wheels. On the other side is the 5kg ball which represents your new wheels.

[LonghornTX]

Everyone has just got to be a hater these days  .....

[Catman]

I know from cycling and the weight weenies that are always vocal about keeping their bikes light, that rotational weight is three times greater than static weight.  The greatest benefit you'll see on a bicycle related to performance is lightweight wheels.  Why would this be different on a car? 

[Champ]

I'm going to help out JYO here because you guys are ENTIRELY missing the point.

I know from cycling and the weight weenies that are always vocal about keeping their bikes light, that rotational weight is three times greater than static weight.  The greatest benefit you'll see on a bicycle related to performance is lightweight wheels.  Why would this be different on a car? 

It isn't different.  The fact that EVEN THOUGH the rim is lighter, SINCE the weight is FARTHER away from the hub, it takes more rotational force to get it moving and keep it moving (And also to slow down - you're braking distances will increase).  If you want to think in bike terms, if you had a SUPER heavy hub, with a SUPER light rim, it would rotate extremely easy.  Now if you inversed it and took a SUPER light hub, and a SUPER heavy rim (but the same weight as the other combo!), it would be SIGNIFICANTLY harder to start it in motion - and stop it.  Overall weight is important, AS WELL AS location of weight.  This is why my co-worker who races his Porsche uses 3-piece 15 or 16" racing wheels, but uses a larger 17" street wheel for non-track.  So his racing wheels are much lighter AND the weight is more towards the center.

Because your rims are roughly the same weight, it's why your ride hasn't been affected, but if you watch your acceleration and braking times they will be slower.

Now to add to this, since you are getting wider contact patch (wider tires), you are also losing drivetrain power to that, another negative.  Sure the grip is up, lateral grip will be up, but gas mileage and highway power will be down.

In closing, what is being talked about here is DISTANCE of mass from the CENTER of rotation outwards towards the rubber.  Not left or right - no offsets or deep dish is even being discussed here.

Distance from the lugnuts, to the ground.  Not lugnuts to the outside of the rim.

p.s. you also mentioned Indy cars and the tires they use.  Notice they don't use 22" rims with 1" sidewalls (which you are arguing FOR), they use a much smaller rim, with a taller rubber.  You are right about the left/right placement of weight within a rim, but no one is even talking about that.

[ArchBishop]

I will say this on the matter. My stock Wheels were about 18lbs, and around 32lbs with rubber. I went With OEM wheels as an Upgrade. The weight jumped up to 26lbs, and around 45-50lbs with tires. Acceleration suffered at around .3 or more. It is a big deal.

[Catman]

I will say this on the matter. My stock Wheels were about 18lbs, and around 32lbs with rubber. I went With OEM wheels as an Upgrade. The weight jumped up to 26lbs, and around 45-50lbs with tires. Acceleration suffered at around .3 or more. It is a big deal.

It wouldn't bother me as long as it looked good.

[TBR]

The concept of torque seems to be misunderstood, that is all we're talking about here. Torque=FR (where F is force parallel to the radius r). The weight applies more torque the further away from the wheel it is, so wheels with a larger diameter provide more torque worth of resistence (I am sure that is not the book explanation, but it will do).

[sportyaccordy]

The concept of torque seems to be misunderstood, that is all we're talking about here. Torque=FR (where F is force parallel to the radius r). The weight applies more torque the further away from the wheel it is, so wheels with a larger diameter provide more torque worth of resistence (I am sure that is not the book explanation, but it will do).

I think the term you're looking for is 'rotational inertia', which is the rotational equivalent of mass... two wheels can weigh the same, but like you said, the one with more material closer to the edge will take more energy to accelerate.

[Raghavan]

Kayani's just trying to justify blowing so much money on his rimz, so he's going to disagree with all of you guys disagreeing with him.

[TBR]

I think the term you're looking for is 'rotational inertia', which is the rotational equivalent of mass... two wheels can weigh the same, but like you said, the one with more material closer to the edge will take more energy to accelerate.

Yes, I suppose I was sort of looking at that backwards. The equation, in case anyone cares, for angular momentium is L=MVR (taking SAT2 Physics test tomorrow, really should be studying).

[1 BAD 7]

Let me explain this to you Joyrider at this point you are only hating and nothing more. First you came and made the following Silly childish comment for no apparent reason ?So Kayani gives all this talk on how BMW's are so great because of their performance and he slaps heavy 22" wheels on his 7er.?

The funny thing is you made this ignorant comment without even knowing the full details about my wheels. You did not know what type of wheels I had. So When I disproved your childish comment about ?heavy wheels?. Instead of realizing your mistake and saying ?my bad I did not know that your wheels were overall lighter? then your old ones you in your jealous hate jumped band wagon to static mass which was never even your original argument. Your original childish comment was that my wheels are heavy?. At least before making childish insults learn a bit more about other peoples wheels.

Second thing is even though you refuse to admit that you have been disproved already and jumped bandwagon to different aspect of the argument. Let us take a look at your entire theory that is based on the idea of greater diameter from the hub. Your whole arguement has very little proof and has too many assumptions as I will show you below.

1.   Please before talking about wheels & tires go learn few things about plus sizing concept.


2.   Because the overall diameter for wheels + tires which you pretend has increase by 1.5? has not increased by that margin. So you are wrong once again. I explained to you that overall diameter of 19? wheels + tires combo = 24.5? vs. 22? wheels + Tire combo = 25?. Which is almost negligble and is no where near your false 1.5" inch. Like I said earlier I don?t think you understand the concept of plus sizing and keep pretending that only wheels matter and not the tires. In plus sizing the overall diameter for the entire package of wheel + tire stay the same from the hub. Thus the difference is no where near you?re over exaggerated and false 1.5? inches from the hub that you keep basing your entire argument over. A car does not ride on wheels alone pal and instead it rides on wheels + tires. So you don?t just calculate the diameter of wheel and call it the entire equation. Once again it proves that your whole theory is flawed as it only accounts for the wheel and doesnot consider the tires. The diameter of the wheel increase but the diameter of the tire decrease to compensate for that difference. It is the basics of plus sizing concept. Which you are bent on ignoring in your false assumptions.


3.   Third those pics that you keep posting are based on the fact that the smaller mass is placed a lot further away then larger mass. In the case of 22? lighter wheels vs. heavier 19? wheels you have no clue or solid proof of how the overall weight is distributed on these wheels vs the stock 19? wheels. For all you know the 19? wheels might be carrying more bulk of their weight toward the farthest outside from the hub compared to the 22? wheels. Thus, in all actuality causing the 19? wheels to have greater mass away from the hub. So there you go another big flaw in your weak theory that is based on no proof and bunch of false assumptions. What you fail to realize is that 22? lighter wheel/tire package can potentially have less rotational mass then the heavier 19? wheel/tire package based on there specific weight dist %. As the overall diameter is appx. the same for both 19? wheel + tire combo and 22? wheel + tire combo. Once again all this goes to show that you have an agenda of hating and nothing else.


4.   If your theory was so flawless why don?t you make a bet with me and put some heavier but smaller 14 inch rims/tires on your 350z instead of your lighter 17? wheels/tires. Then we will take both cars to the track and prove you wrong for once and for all.? Because man o man you would be truly reducing the rotational mass by a huge margin with your tiny heavy 14 inch wheels vs the lighter but larger 17? wheels. LOL?give me a break man your theory is full of false assumptions in which you are basing things on very little actual proof. By the way if you are so confident in your theory why don?t you replace your 17? inch larger lighter wheels for heavier but smaller 14 inch wheels + tires. LOL?..man now that would be seriously funny.


5.   Overall the benefits of this upgrade out weigh the negatives which you don?t want to admit. The general rule of thumb is that for removing every 1 Ib. of unsprung mass from wheel/tire package. It is almost equivalent to removing about 10 Ibs. of mass from the car itself. Thus, figure this that four 22? wheels/tire that saved appx. 14 Ibs of unsprung weight would be equal to removing 140 Ibs pounds from the car itself. So again overall benefit is far greater both in braking, acceleration, and lateral grip.


6.   Last but not least the lower profile tires reduce tire wall flex and increase directional stability and steering feel. Also with the wider/bigger/ lighter overall wheels & tires combo the overall lateral acceleration gets enhanced, braking ability increases, acceleration at launch enhances thanks to increased grip and lack of tire spin when DSC is fully disengaged.


7.   The point is plain and simple that at this point you have drank plenty of haterade my friend and for no apparent reason are venting your hate. Why don?t you go substitute it for some Gatorade and be a man and admit that you were wrong in making silly comment without any prior knowledge that my wheels are heavy or not. I know that you will come back repeating the same song instead of admitting your error and show your immaturity. But what is new.

[1 BAD 7]

That is where you are seriously mistaken I have no need to justify anything to you or anyone else. It is my car and my money. I will spend it as I care. I dont need yours or any one elses approval for that matter.

I think that was an uncalled for and childish comment by you Raghavan.

I disagree with the opinion of few that believe for some reason that the heavier smaller wheels are still better then larger and lighter wheels .? Specialy without any proof of how weight dist% of both set of wheels is in comparison to one another.

Oh and I would love to see those guys that truly believe this arguement to go swap their lighter larger 16" or 17" wheels and tires for more heavier yet smaller 14" wheels & tires. After that go to track and see who is right and who is wrong.?

I know the benefits and disadvantages of my wheels. While haters will be jealous I know that I not only love the looks of my wheels but I also like how they have enhanced my braking, lateral acceleration and grip as well as my launch characteristics thanks to wider contact patch and greater grip. Also the steering feel is more accurate and sharper and  thanks to less tire wall flex of ultra low profile tires the directional stability is enhanced. Last but not least it has allowed me to effectively shave the equal of appx. 140 Ibs off of my cars weight. All that unsprung weight is off and every bit helps.

The negative once again is that they are very expensive and I have developed a great deal of pothole phobia thanks to super low profile of the tires. I also believe that the turning circle is slightly greater and rolling friction is a bit more. The good and bad is that the ride is nearly as smooth as it was with 19" wheels and you can often get carried away and easily start driving more care free in an area that might be full of potholes and end up bending your wheels.

Kayani's just trying to justify blowing so much money on his rimz, so he's going to disagree with all of you guys disagreeing with him.

[JYODER240]

wow

[Eye of the Tiger]

[1 BAD 7]

What I dont get is why you feel the need to tell me that I should not put 11 wide wheels in rear.

I know your daddy's got a torque monster and you cant stop bragining about it. But that doesnot mean that only he has a right to upgrade his wheels. By the way I think he would benefit more from going with 11 inch wide wheels as 10.5 inch is only half an inch more width vs stock. That is assuming that he had 10" wide rears from the factory on it to begin with.

First 335 Ib-ft of torque and 325hp is nothing to sneez at. It is very healthy and with DSC completely off can easily spin the 19 X 10 rears with 275/40 aspect ratio tires. I could have gone with 10.5 inch wide wheels in rear and even thought about doing it. But the fact of the matter is that the 10.5 inch wheels only came with 5" lip in rear and I wanted 6" wide lip. Which made me go even more with the 11 wide wheels. I love the fact that I did that as they look far more aggressive and sexy. Also the 11 inch width allows me to go with much bigger contact patch. I plan to get the inside of the fender trimmed a bit by a good shop this summer. So that in future when I buy new set of tires I can go with upgrade to 305-315 range tires vs 295.

Also for your comment about 4400 Ib 745i and what is the point of making it corner better makes no sense to me. Why did your dad buy a 400 plus hp S600 with over congested roads of today and 70mph speed limit. Do you really need all that power to just reach 70 mph. Maybe you dont realize that people do things because they want to and because they like it that way. After all you upgrading your 7 er with few mods were not planing on going to break any speed records or were you. But you did it any way because you wanted to and thought you like how it drives now vs how it drove stock.

If I wanted to I could have bought a sports car. But I wanted a fast and capable sporty luxury sedan and not a sports car to start with. As it allows me to have the best of both worlds. It is a very nice luxury sedan and it has great sporty feel. Oh and without a doubt BMW 7 series is the equal of sports car among its class. If you dont believe me go read a few reviews each review will echo the same thoughts that the steering feel, and handling as well as acceleration is excellent for the car of this size. This thing can nearly run the figure 8 track in dead heat with much smaller and lighter BMW 330i. It is no slacker when it comes to handling and sporty feel. Yes it weights 4400 Ib but it does an excellent job of hiding its weight on twisty roads.?
?

I hope that you got the answers to your questions.? ?

What I don't get, is why you feel the need to put 11 inch wide tires on your 325 HP luxury saloon.

With some sedans, I could see this to be a logical choice.? For instance, my dad is looking to fit 10.5 inch wheels on his S-600.? But that has a torque output of 590 lb-ft, and a BHP rating of 493.? That car needs the wide rubber to put down those numbers.? Your 7, on the other hand hardly needs wide tires.? The stock setup is perfect.

Another reason to fit wide rear (and front) tires, is to improve lateral grip.? Thats fine, but then again, if you were concerned about sports car grip, you wouldn't have bought a 4400+ pound executive sedan, nor would you have placed it on 22 inch rims.

Besides, we all know only people who can actually form a logical sentence in their native language should be concerned with something as monumental as "lateral grip"?

And I really hate to say it, but the difference between 18 inch wheels and 19 inch wheels are fairly significant.? I have no idea how you can say that there is little difference between 19 inch and 22 inch wheels.

[TheIntrepid]

When/why did you change your name...when you don't even have a 7er in your sig?

[1 BAD 7]

I was not aware that I had to have a 7er pic in my sig. to change my name. Hmmm.....I must have missed the memo

When/why did you change your name...when you don't even have a 7er in your sig?

[Champ]

First off, this is amazing and I don't even know where to start.  Kayani has missed the point so many times it seems almost intentional now.  JYO's "wow" summed it up quite nicely, but I am going to beat the dead horse.

1.   Please before talking about wheels & tires go learn few things about plus sizing concept.


2.   Because the overall diameter for wheels + tires which you pretend has increase by 1.5? has not increased by that margin. So you are wrong once again. I explained to you that overall diameter of 19? wheels + tires combo = 24.5? vs. 22? wheels + Tire combo = 25?. Which is almost negligble and is no where near your false 1.5" inch. Like I said earlier I don?t think you understand the concept of plus sizing and keep pretending that only wheels matter and not the tires. In plus sizing the overall diameter for the entire package of wheel + tire stay the same from the hub. Thus the difference is no where near you?re over exaggerated and false 1.5? inches from the hub that you keep basing your entire argument over. A car does not ride on wheels alone pal and instead it rides on wheels + tires. So you don?t just calculate the diameter of wheel and call it the entire equation. Once again it proves that your whole theory is flawed as it only accounts for the wheel and doesnot consider the tires. The diameter of the wheel increase but the diameter of the tire decrease to compensate for that difference. It is the basics of plus sizing concept. Which you are bent on ignoring in your false assumptions.

No one is arguing that you have the incorrect diameter tire.  1.5" comes from taking 22" - 19" = 3", take that and divide it by two for 1.5".  He is saying more of the weight of your rim is 1.5" farther away from the center than before.  We ALL understand that by getting a smaller sidewall tire it retains the same overall diameter/circumference.

3.   Third those pics that you keep posting are based on the fact that the smaller mass is placed a lot further away then larger mass. In the case of 22? lighter wheels vs. heavier 19? wheels you have no clue or solid proof of how the overall weight is distributed on these wheels vs the stock 19? wheels. For all you know the 19? wheels might be carrying more bulk of their weight toward the farthest outside from the hub compared to the 22? wheels. Thus, in all actuality causing the 19? wheels to have greater mass away from the hub. So there you go another big flaw in your weak theory that is based on no proof and bunch of false assumptions. What you fail to realize is that 22? lighter wheel/tire package can potentially have less rotational mass then the heavier 19? wheel/tire package based on there specific weight dist %. As the overall diameter is appx. the same for both 19? wheel + tire combo and 22? wheel + tire combo. Once again all this goes to show that you have an agenda of hating and nothing else.

Here is the situation, you need to realize that MOST of a rims METAL and WEIGHT are near the outer edge of the rim.  That is fact, and just because you paid more for them doesn't mean they can change the laws of physics.  Just look at a picture of a rim, all the metal is on the outside where the tire gets mounted to.

For comparison, let's take a look at the picture that you posted of your rims:


WHERE DOES IT LOOK LIKE MOST OF THE METAL IS?  ROFL how are you even arguing that the weight "could" be near the center of rotation?  Amazing.

4.   If your theory was so flawless why don?t you make a bet with me and put some heavier but smaller 14 inch rims/tires on your 350z instead of your lighter 17? wheels/tires. Then we will take both cars to the track and prove you wrong for once and for all.  Because man o man you would be truly reducing the rotational mass by a huge margin with your tiny heavy 14 inch wheels vs the lighter but larger 17? wheels. LOL?give me a break man your theory is full of false assumptions in which you are basing things on very little actual proof. By the way if you are so confident in your theory why don?t you replace your 17? inch larger lighter wheels for heavier but smaller 14 inch wheels + tires. LOL?..man now that would be seriously funny.

First a few things flawed with this.
A) he couldn't put 14's on because I wager they wouldn't clear his brakes.
B) I already gave you examples of how indy cars and my coworker (races Porsches') use smaller diameter rims because they have less rotational inertia.  I also will tell you my snow tires weigh the same as my summer tires, but are 16" instead of 17" and they accelerate faster on the highway.

But hey, maybe you have a bright future in indy car design because they must not have gotton the memo about using a larger wheel that weighs less.  I'm sure they just missed it.  They should spend more time on the BMW forums!

5.   Overall the benefits of this upgrade out weigh the negatives which you don?t want to admit. The general rule of thumb is that for removing every 1 Ib. of unsprung mass from wheel/tire package. It is almost equivalent to removing about 10 Ibs. of mass from the car itself. Thus, figure this that four 22? wheels/tire that saved appx. 14 Ibs of unsprung weight would be equal to removing 140 Ibs pounds from the car itself. So again overall benefit is far greater both in braking, acceleration, and lateral grip.

6.   Last but not least the lower profile tires reduce tire wall flex and increase directional stability and steering feel. Also with the wider/bigger/ lighter overall wheels & tires combo the overall lateral acceleration gets enhanced, braking ability increases, acceleration at launch enhances thanks to increased grip and lack of tire spin when DSC is fully disengaged.

Hey if you are happy with how they are and the price you paid, that's great it's your car and you can do as you see fit.  I'm not arguing there.
I just want you to realize you are giving up:
A) gas mileage
B) acceleration that isn't traction dependent (i.e. anything over 30-40, especially highway speeds)
C) braking distance that isn't traction dependent (i.e. stopping at highways speeds, but of course you will gain some traction at lower speeds which will help some, but MAY not improve because of higher rotational inertia wheels)
D) resistance to pot holes
E) ride quality (rims will be the same, but with lower profile sidewalls you will have less bump absorption in the rubber)
F) a LOT of money

You are gaining:
A) traction 0-30
B) a different look
C) a slightly better skidpad #


Thanks, hope you can understand this (this is all based off of physics (simple I might add), and nothing some guy on a BMW forum can change that, despite how much you want to believe him).

*note:  Wherever "distance away from center" was used when referring to a rim, it means distance from lug nuts to ground, not lug nuts to the where offset is measured from.

[1 BAD 7]

I am not arguing that the wheel diameter has not changed by 1.5 " maybe you just dont want to understand what I am telling you. The wheel diameter by itself means nothing in plus sizing. ROFL....you dont ride on just wheels. Mabybe you do but not the rest of people...LOL. The wheel + tires are together and not separate from one another thus the rotational mass is calculated by keeping the entire Wheel + tire in prospective not just wheel. Which I have explianed to you is only .5 of an inch. Now divide that by 2 and you would get even less. So stop trying to just calculate the overall diameter based on wheel alone. Once again learn the principal of plus sizing. You cant just calculate the rotation mass of the wheel alone and then base your entire claim on that. You have to take overall diameter when calculating the rotational mass. Dont pick and choose what you want buddy to suit your arguement. In which case the overall diameter has not changed by enough margin to have any negative effect. However, the rotational and unpsrung mass has reduced by nearly 14 Ibs overall which is quite significant in terms of wheel + tires.


First off, this is amazing and I don't even know where to start.? Kayani has missed the point so many times it seems almost intentional now.? JYO's "wow" summed it up quite nicely, but I am going to beat the dead horse.
No one is arguing that you have the incorrect diameter tire.? 1.5" comes from taking 22" - 19" = 3", take that and divide it by two for 1.5".? He is saying more of the weight of your rim is 1.5" farther away from the center than before.? We ALL understand that by getting a smaller sidewall tire it retains the same overall diameter/circumference.
Here is the situation, you need to realize that MOST of a rims METAL and WEIGHT are near the outer edge of the rim.? That is fact, and just because you paid more for them doesn't mean they can change the laws of physics.? Just look at a picture of a rim, all the metal is on the outside where the tire gets mounted to.
WHERE DOES IT LOOK LIKE MOST OF THE METAL IS?? ROFL how are you even arguing that the weight "could" be near the center of rotation?? Amazing.

Once again I know where most of the metal is on 22" wheel. But maybe you dont realize that even far more metal that weighs a lot more is sitting on the edge of the 19" wheels vs the 22" wheels. Thus more mass in 19" is sitting towards the outside vs the 22". Just because you cant see that doesnot mean it is not true. The 19" weigh good 4-5 Ib more and carry most of that extra weight towards the outside. So weight dist% for 19" and 22" could be effectively the same as 19" are carrying more mass away from the hub.




First a few things flawed with this.
Now few flawed things in your assumptions

A) he couldn't put 14's on because I wager they wouldn't clear his brakes.

A) Then maybe we can put 15" inch smaller more heavier one on his and run it against his lighter 17 inch. So we can disprove you and him for once and for all.


Wow no lie...huh. I know that lighter smaller wheels will be better then heavier and larger wheels and that is why indy cars use lightest possible wheels. So you are not telling me something brand new. Your arguement is that a 14 inch heavier yet smaller wheel would be better in overall performance then the 17" lighter yet larger wheel. I would take you up on that challange anyday. As 14-17 = 3 inch overall and so does 19-22 = 3 inch. So bring your buddies porsche and we will slap a heavier set of 14 inch wheels and run it on track and then swap them with 17 inch lighter wheels and see which track times are better.

For your info you keep talking about your 16 inch vs 17 inch wheels. I can bet you that your 16 inch wheels weigh less then your 17 inch wheels or nearly the same and the overall size difference is only 1 inch. Swap that 17 for a more heavier 14 inch and I would see how your performance doesnot get effected. So just cause you believe that people on a BMW forum are ignorant doesnot make them so ?

B) I already gave you examples of how indy cars and my coworker (races Porsches') use smaller diameter rims because they have less rotational inertia.? I also will tell you my snow tires weigh the same as my summer tires, but are 16" instead of 17" and they accelerate faster on the highway.


More so then you as you will be swaping heavier and much smaller wheels destroying the lateral acceleration ability of their cars by a significant margin.

But hey, maybe you have a bright future in indy car design because they must not have gotton the memo about using a larger wheel that weighs less.? I'm sure they just missed it.? They should spend more time on the BMW forums!


Thank you very much as I am.

I also want you to realize I have gained:

1. Greater grip off the launch.
2. Greater lateral acceleration and grip
3. Increased braking
4. Greater directional stability by effectively reducing the side wall size.
5. The shorter side wall also allows for greater steering response and better overall steering feel
6. I have also reduced the unsprung mass by 14 Ibs. Which translates to nearly equal of reducing 140 Ibs effecitively from your car. This lack of mass is nothing to sneez at and helps in increased braking, handling, acceleration.

7. Last but not least the cars looks amazing and I get thumps up all the time.

8. Oh and I have driven back to back with both 22" vs 19" wheels and the gas mileage has not gotten effected by any significant margin and doesnot bother me.

Over all I am gaining far more then what you are pretending. But if it makes you any happy you can keep pretending that is not the case.


Hey if you are happy with how they are and the price you paid, that's great it's your car and you can do as you see fit.? I'm not arguing there.
I just want you to realize you are giving up:
A) gas mileage
B) acceleration that isn't traction dependent (i.e. anything over 30-40, especially highway speeds)
C) braking distance that isn't traction dependent (i.e. stopping at highways speeds, but of course you will gain some traction at lower speeds which will help some, but MAY not improve because of higher rotational inertia wheels)
D) resistance to pot holes
E) ride quality (rims will be the same, but with lower profile sidewalls you will have less bump absorption in the rubber)
F) a LOT of money

You are gaining:
A) traction 0-30
B) a different look
C) a slightly better skidpad #


Thanks, hope you can understand this (this is all based off of physics (simple I might add), and nothing some guy on a BMW forum can change that, despite how much you want to believe him).

*note:? Wherever "distance away from center" was used when referring to a rim, it means distance from lug nuts to ground, not lug nuts to the where offset is measured from.

[sandertheshark]

Most useless thread ever.

[JYODER240]

Reading comprehension is tough isn't it?

[TheIntrepid]

Yoder, don't even bother. He's not worth your time, and he's mentally challenged.

[nickdrinkwater]

Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean you have to insult them.

[TheIntrepid]

Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean you have to insult them.

Nick, have you even read his posts in this thread? He's just trying to troll BMW without backing up his statements. Hell, even IFFY's let out a few on this guy.