Printable View
I have run Compos for a couple of years and they have a number of score marks where I assume small rocks have been caught for a few rotations. It's never caused an issue, has always self-cleared. I have measured the clearance between the front calliper and the rim for both Compo and Tuffant (measured on the vehicle with tyre etc). The Tuffant rim had marginally more clearance. Yes both rims are pretty close, approx 2-3mm .
Cheers,
Scott
Put it in context.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbotron
If a small rock can catch in a 2-3mm gap..
A slightly larger rock can catch in a 4-5mm gap [emoji41]
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
Exactly! - if you had a 25mm clearance gap then there is a chance you could jam a 25mm rock in there too - the smaller stuff goes straight through and the bigger stuff won't go in at all.
Yes, I had the same thought process. Obviously any size gap, you may get a rock stuck in that size gap. Makes logical sense!
I was just interested to see what actual experience people have had with this specific clearance. Scott’s response was what I was looking for. Thanks guys.
Also just wanted to give a shout out to Andrew from TuffAnt. Great service throughout the whole process!
Agreed. Great communication and care. Thanks Andrew.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbotron
You don't think that the taller gearing has anything to do with slower acceleration?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scallywag
Newly fitted Tuffant wheels with 265/60R18 D697s and an ARB Summit bar colour-coded in Yulong White.
Now we head off to the high-country for a few weeks towing a (rented) offroad hybrid camper/caravan.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...018/03/129.jpg
Thinking about the effect that heavier wheels and tyres would have on Terrain Response, admittedly with not a lot of Disco driving experience behind me. Intuitively a wheel with more mass is harder to spin up and slow down, though that does depend on the centre-to-rim distribution of that weight. But what I'm wondering about is whether that even matters for the purposes of TR.
When the brakes are applied to a wheel which has lost traction, say it's up in the air, it's not because the car can't move while one wheel is moving faster than the other. The problem is one wheel has nearly no resistance to offer the diff and so the torque from the driveshaft is funnelled into more useless spinning instead of turning the wheel that's on the ground. Applying a brake to the spinning wheel will present a resisting force to that side's axle rotation *right from that very moment*, without having to wait until the wheel stops spinning. Whatever amount of frictional torque the brake can apply to the wheel directly increases amount of torque the diff is then able to transfer from the driveshaft to the wheel on the ground, I think:
The maximum torque which can be applied to one wheel equals the rotational inertia/resistance (including braking effects) of the other wheel. Heavier wheels actually work in favour of that equation.
So if TR is going to struggle with heavier wheels it's not because they make it harder to apply torque, it would only be because the computer is surprised that the spinning wheel doesn't change rotational speed as quickly as the algorithm expects it to given the inputs from engine and brake that it is calculating.
Does that sound right?
Essentially correct.
The TR won’t be so much surprised but rather will be asked to work a bit harder to bring that rotating wheel to more of a stop (TR can stop a wheel completely).
What is the most likely noticeable impact will be (for regular off-roading) an increase in brake wear and tear.
On the same thought, I would imagine a change to non OEM pads/rotors, which I have read can give a less direct braking feel, would equally change the effort required by the TR system to adjust wheel spin?
Admittedly, TR may not often need to pull up a wheel spinning at 100km/hr, as the standard braking would need to. May not be so pronounced at lower wheel speeds