Sheesh! Let's get emotional over this! hahah! We're talking about car wheels here fellas!
The centerbore of the OE and the T. Rex Weld wheel both fit snugly around the hub.
If the centerbore of the wheel fits snugly around the hub, will the wheel be more correctly aligned or less correctly aligned with the axle's center of rotation?
If the centerbore of the wheel fits snugly around the hub, will there be more surface area to distribute various shocks and loads or less surface area to distribute shocks and loads?
Is more surface area stronger or weaker than less surface area?
Are vertical loads the only forces a wheel sees? When you turn a corner in your 8000 lb. truck you've got to have more clamping force than four 9/16" lugs could provide, even though the hub is supporting some weight.
Also, let me clarify something - a lugcentric wheel on a Dodge truck that came with hubcentric wheels may not be "dangerous" as I stated in a previous post. Most consumers will never put enough load on their aftermarket wheels to damage anything. Towing a 15000 lb. fifth wheel toy hauler down a ten mile dirt road in Lucern Valley with aftermarket lugcentric wheels hanging out of your fenderwells by two inches, magnifying leverage forces on everything could cause problems.
Or it may not.
Some racers use lugcentric wheels. Some have been towing and hauling for years with no problems from lugcentric wheels. Personally I think that hubcentricity on an eight lug truck is much less important than the correct offset.
Incorrect offset causes bump steer like you read about, not to mention accelerated component wear. Off road, stuff like steering boxes, ball joints, and rod ends get destroyed by the increased leverage - especially when combined with greater traction offered by the large tread on oversized off-road tires. For normal street use, it's probably a non-issue - the average commuter probably won't notice any accelerated wear. He or she just bought the wheels for aesthetic purposes anyway. For them "performance optimization" means every time they look at their truck, they like what they see. A very real consideration. Everyone wants their truck to look cool.
In all our design we seek optimized performance in _all_ realms, meaning towing, cornering, off-road, longevity, service interval, braking, road feedback - the list is endless. And all of this is very broad for a truck that does many things. A truck is a jack of all trades, so it can't master any one thing. Everything has to be a compromise. Example - we're using an 18" wheel with a 35" tire for off-road racing. Optimal for off-road is a 17" wheel with a 37" tire. Why? The aspect ratio is greater on the latter example - better for absorbing bumps and the larger diameter provides slightly more ground clearance. Can we go faster with the 37" rubber - yes. Much faster - no - because we can corner faster, brake harder and accelerate more quickly with the 35" tires. In addition the Toyo Mud Terrain tires we're using offer a smoother and quieter street ride and greater tread life expectancy than any other aggressive off-road tire we've tested. Important for racing? No. Important for optimized all-around performance - yes.
Hubcentric? Lugcentric? Positive offset? Negative offset?
Who cares? It's just up to the consumer - some love the way a truck looks with the tires poking way out of the fenderwells. Anyway, for years the lift kit companies have been saying "go out as much as you go up" - meaning, use wide wheels to increase track as much as you lift the truck in order to offset the raised CG. I suppose this makes sense to their insurance companies.
In sum, we just feel it's always best to engineer something as closely as we can to the OE design. The only functional deviations we are willing to take are very slight dimensions and immensely upgraded component quality. The factory has good reasons for what they do - reasons we may not even know about. When one starts straying from the original design, one gets into a philosophical "no mans land" where the possibility of failure is multiplied exponentially. The slightest change can have catastrophic results that can't be foreseen by computer analysis or even "real-world" testing. I mean, our "real-world" testing - hundreds of thousands of miles data gathering (much of it concentrated by doing stuff off-road that nobody sane would do) just can't compare to the factory's hundreds of millions of miles of data gathering in all possible world wide conditions.
That's why, no matter what we know, or think we know, we don't try to out think the factory. We stick with the design principles and numbers _they_ generate. We don't like the "one size fits all" mentality used by many aftermarket companies. One size may _fit_ but that doesn't mean it's going to be optimal.
I mean, were not trying to reengineer the wheel here, fellas!
hahahahahah!
Cheers,
Kent
