15x10's

[Ziegelsteinfaust]

I should hopefully have my 54 Chevy Delux 2 door or lower spec Bel Air in my possession in about 3 weeks. The goal is to be my new daily in a couple months afterwards. It only needs some suspension work, and new tires to be ready. The tires are narrow bias ply's. So tires are definitely on the short list.

The car appears from my initial look to have enough room for 15x10's, and atleast 275/60r15 should fit. 295's if I get crazy with the sheet metal.

As I look through the wheel catalogs for 15x10's. I can get from 2 nches of back spacing to 5 inches. On the steel rims I want.

So when I get the car, and finalize the plans. Since I need to.do the axle up at the same point.

Is there any advantage to a 2 vs a 5 inch back spacing wheel. Or disadvantages?

I think removing the wheel with a low backspace would be easier. Is this true?

[theastronaut]

2" of backspace on a 10" wheel is going to put a ton of extra load into the wheel bearings.

[leegreen]

10" rim on a '54 seems pretty optimistic, they did not allow that much room between frame and fender back then. 215s or 235s on 7 inch rims would be more typical. Depending on ride height I bet even with 235s you have to jack the rear axle down for more droop to get the tire on.

With a narrow axle like from a S10 you would need less backspace. Something like a camaro would be closer to '54 stock width. Narrow axle and low backspace may make tire change easier, but it is harder on axles and bearings as noted.

Unless you are planning on moving frame rails, building wider fenders or both, I'd defer buying rims and tires until you have the car in your possession

[theastronaut]

Originally Posted by leegreen

Depending on ride height I bet even with 235s you have to jack the rear axle down for more droop to get the tire on.

I have 15x8's with 235/75s and 3.25" bs on my '66 C10, stock axle and drums, lowered with bags and relocated shocks. The axle almost doesn't drop enough to get the tire off without removing the shocks for more axle droop. On mine its not the backspacing, its the room between the bedside and drum.

[Richard]

I personally do not think load on bearings really changes that much one way or the other. Say something like 10" wheel with 2" backspace or 8" backspace (high positive offset, like new trucks). Both have same amount of rim on either side of bearing. Keep in mind less backspacing pushes the outer part of wheel and tire out from knuckle swing point causing it to swing in a wider arc. Requiring more clearance while turning.

Not talking about the newer trend which I do not care for of real wide negative offset wheels with spacers. A GM truck came in next door like this. In the accident the other vehicle hit the tire trashed the 24" rim and literally broke and ripped the entire suspension on that side.

Had to work with what is availble and what i like. Even searched custom ,read real expensive wheels. Have 17x10's with a 4" backspace for my 72 4x4. That is pretty standard for a 10" wheel. Wish they were 17x9's with 4.5 bs or had 5" backspace on the 10s. Running a 37x12.5x17 tire. What I have should put tread on tire pretty even with upper edge of fender. The narrower wheel and or more backspace would allow more clearance while turning with suspension compressed and I could have set my truck a bit lower while retaining suspension travel.

[leegreen]

Originally Posted by Richard

10" wheel with 2" backspace or 8" backspace (high positive offset, like new trucks). Both have same amount of rim on either side of bearing.

that needs fact checking

[theastronaut]

Originally Posted by Richard

I personally do not think load on bearings really changes that much one way or the other. Say something like 10" wheel with 2" backspace or 8" backspace (high positive offset, like new trucks). Both have same amount of rim on either side of bearing. .

A 10" wheel with 2" of backspacing has 8" of leverage to the hub face and the bearings sit a few inches behind that. Lets say 2" wide drums, and the bearing is maybe an inch behind the inside of the drum, so 11" of leverage on the bearing.

A 10" wheel with 8" backspace has 6" less leverage on the bearing. That's a significant difference in weight multiplication on the bearing.

[scottofksu]

I have always started with the tire size I want to fit based on the use model of the vehicle. For example, to run 35's on my 2012 Jeep Wrangler all the way around and without rubbing lock to lock on the steering or to run as wide a rear tire as I can on my '65 C10. Width of the tire dictates rim width and total targeted height of the tire - as either the final step of my gearing puzzle (i.e., C10) or based on the ground clearance I am wanting (i.e., Jeep). I then take my tire width and compare it to the wheel-well and measure to see what backspacing I need for the space available to center the wheel - mostly an issue on my truck and other vehicles without wide open wheel-wells like my Jeep. As a rule of thumb I want the wheel as centered above the hub for the sake of front and rear bearings and front ball joints given that backspacing acts as a lever that can torque these components to an early death.

Based on the information you provided, I would say a 10" rim is about right for the tires you want to run as they are generally good up to 295mm of tire width. 15 inches in height might impact the types of brakes you can run. I believe the starting point for backspacing for this vehicle would be around 4.5" but I would personally measure to confirm first. It's been a couple decades since I ran a tire shop... LOL

[Richard]

Originally Posted by theastronaut

A 10" wheel with 2" of backspacing has 8" of leverage to the hub face and the bearings sit a few inches behind that. Lets say 2" wide drums, and the bearing is maybe an inch behind the inside of the drum, so 11" of leverage on the bearing.

A 10" wheel with 8" backspace has 6" less leverage on the bearing. That's a significant difference in weight multiplication on the bearing.

Okay, but consider that positive caster settings typically transfer the main point of tire contact to the inside of the tire when the wheel is turned. From what you say. To me it seems that an HPO wheel would be harder on bearings than a negative offset wheel. Is my thinking completely wrong?

[Ziegelsteinfaust]

Originally Posted by scottofksu

I have always started with the tire size I want to fit based on the use model of the vehicle. For example, to run 35's on my 2012 Jeep Wrangler all the way around and without rubbing lock to lock on the steering or to run as wide a rear tire as I can on my '65 C10. Width of the tire dictates rim width and total targeted height of the tire - as either the final step of my gearing puzzle (i.e., C10) or based on the ground clearance I am wanting (i.e., Jeep). I then take my tire width and compare it to the wheel-well and measure to see what backspacing I need for the space available to center the wheel - mostly an issue on my truck and other vehicles without wide open wheel-wells like my Jeep. As a rule of thumb I want the wheel as centered above the hub for the sake of front and rear bearings and front ball joints given that backspacing acts as a lever that can torque these components to an early death.

Based on the information you provided, I would say a 10" rim is about right for the tires you want to run as they are generally good up to 295mm of tire width. 15 inches in height might impact the types of brakes you can run. I believe the starting point for backspacing for this vehicle would be around 4.5" but I would personally measure to confirm first. It's been a couple decades since I ran a tire shop... LOL

i Was just going to run 11" drums with the likely hood of Jaguar front K member swap. Or roughly the same breaking power of the 80's light duty C10's.

The axle I didn't mention, but it will be custom to whatever wheel width I choose. The axle the car currently has is the 55 to 57 version which i hopefully will sell to my friend as he wants one for his hot-rod project.

Currently i am leaning towards the Ford 8.8 from a Mustang. Because the upper 4 link ears are mounted lower then the GM versions for more truck space, and wild dreams I may go air bagged this time.

[theastronaut]

Originally Posted by Richard

Okay, but consider that positive caster settings typically transfer the main point of tire contact to the inside of the tire when the wheel is turned. From what you say. To me it seems that an HPO wheel would be harder on bearings than a negative offset wheel. Is my thinking completely wrong?

That's true in a static situation, but when you're actually cornering with dynamic loads the body rolls and the tire flexes and most all of the load is on the outside edge of the tire/rim. The farther out the outside of the rim is from the bearing the more the weight of the body or shock loads from bumps in the road get multiplied into the bearing.

I have to run -4 degrees of camber on my autocross car to get the tires to wear mostly evenly and even then I flip the tire on the rim halfway through the season to even out the wear pattern, that's how much the outside of the tire gets loaded under cornering. We're talking thousands of pounds of load on each corner of the car, with that being multiplied when the wheel width outside of the bearing becomes a lever. Actual load at the bearing increases rapidly when leverage is a factor.

[chris mc bride]

Agree non tghe heavy load on bearing with wheel offset. Kind of like the lil slot car looking things some drive with wheels out side of fender.

I like my offset to place the wheel in as far as can fit with center as far outward. Kind oif like making vehicle thank it has wider track.

I plan to run 18 x 10s on the panel when get everything done. Less side wall flex but noit riding on rubber bands. Heck if not for not cutting truck would go wider on rear. If center was dead center of wheel would be perfect IMO. Then I have been wrong before I was told,niot sure I buy that crap. LOL