Thread: Legality of aftermarket 17" rims for D3

If a wheel fell off or broke I guess they would notice that.

Originally Posted by Ashes

Hey guys, great reading

I read a lot about potential insurance claims being denied because of modification X...

How often in reality does this actually occur. Anyone definately, absolutely, genuinely, absolutely really know of a claim being denied due to 3 nut revolutions on a stud?

I don't know of any. I have checked with the insurers, two of them, and here's a quote:

"Insurers MAY not deny a claim if the unroadworthy component was not a prime cause of the accident. I.e. Bigger tyres but hit in rear while at traffic lights - very few would seek to deny.But if have illegal lift kit and rolled on corner - expect issues"

So...under what circumstances could missing 3 turns of a wheelnut become an issue? Only if the wheel came off the vehicle. Not unknown, but hardly the case of being involved in a smack and then having it denied.

It's an interesting issue and I'll be waiting to see what Performance Wheels have to say.

At the end of the day, if the thread engagement is illegal then the product cannot be used 'for the purpose for which it's intended' and therefore the manufacturer must rectify.

I've never had an issue with mine, but then I carry my torque wrenches under the back seat and check the wheel nut torque when I check the pressures.

(I had a stud stripped once when the BB6 were on, but that was due to an overzealous workshop apprentice wielding a rattle gun!)

Should also point out that the insurer could choose to deny a claim, but then again pretty much every car on the road may have some roadworthy problem, even if it's a blown globe which instantly makes you illegal.

Performance don't actually market the BB-6 for the D3, unless I'm mistaken, so they may say "we sell the wheels at this spec and haven't warranted it for any given vehicle". But then the onus goes on the fitters, who usually promote themselves as "tyre professionals" and thus people who should know this stuff inside out.

We'll see.

Spoke to Performance today, then emailed them VSI8 and VSI26 and excerpted the wording.

Seems the LR nut is a barrel nut, designed such that the rim rests on the body of the nut itself. Apparently the industry is moving away from that design, and Performance followed suit, and their testing has worked. However the issue is not the safety of the wheel per se -- it is compliance with the regulations. Pointed out the BB-6 is is not legal on D3s.

I'll post here when I get a response.

Wow this is quite an interesting thread.

I'd say Jamo and I were pretty much the first around to find that BB6 rims suit the LR design with small hub flang, adequate load rating and acceptable wheel offset. I remember the dilemina at the time was just finding a rim to suit the flang and load rating then making sure the offset was allowalbe and now to find out the nuts are 3 turns short is mind boggling.

Like Jamo I've done many thousands of km's (sealed and unsealed) without a wheel nut ever coming loose - let's hope it stays that way in the future.

Chris

The trouble with regulations is that it is a one size fits all. A safe modification gets caught up as well.
The nuts are unlikely to come off I would think and all the nuts do is hold the rim to the hub the wheel is held by friction between the two (like bolting structural timber sections together) the surface area is what determines the load rating.
If you got an engineer to say it was as safe as the original, would it be legal?

Maybe the wheel suppliers should go for a type approval.

Could you not have longer studs fitted?

On my old drag car I ran Moroso wheel studs that came in a variety of different lengths. Not certain about the legality but it could be an option.

Mark