Stance

96DXCivic wrote: I do not understand. What is hella flush? I haven't got a clue what this thread is about.

It's kinda like this:

only with tires.

So, dropped until E36 M3 scrapes the ground but with out the camber reset to any reasonably close spec? Is that right?

MCarp22 wrote:

96DXCivic wrote: I do not understand. What is hella flush? I haven't got a clue what this thread is about.

It's kinda like this: only with tires.

It hurts when a whole bottle of beer goes through your nose at once.

96DXCivic wrote: I do not understand. What is hella flush? I haven't got a clue what this thread is about.

http://www.drivendaily.org/owners/helladumb/

Hella The word “hella” is an adjective. It supposedly originated in the San Francisco Bay Area, and judging by the overuse I see every day, I’m inclined to agree with that. It can mean anything from “very” to “lots of” (this car has hella power, this car is hella powerful) and is sometimes even an adverb (he’s hella runnin’ from the cops!). In my native tongue (Boston-language) we’d overuse “wicked” in place of “hella”, and we often do. Flush Flush generally refers to the fitment of wheels and tires with the chassis and fender flares. The closer the wheels are to being flush with the bodywork, the more “hellaflush” that car is. This generally requires an obscene amount of camber combined with a stretched tire, which changes the angle of the sidewall of the tire. Bonus There are a few ways to score extra points in the hellaflush world. * Get your car as close to flush with the ground as possible * Increase the backspacing of your wheels. More. * Stretch the narrowest tires possible on the widest wheels (don’t forget your backspacing!) possible. * Shave door handles, trunk latches, keyholes, gas tank covers, and everything else that keeps the body of the car from being “flush”. * Try to tuck your entire wheel and tire into the wheelwells. Ideally, it should all be shoved up where nobody can see it.

Junkyard_Dog wrote: It hurts when a whole bottle of beer goes through your nose at once.

Hurts even more if it's still in the bottle.

here's an example.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3538377140_54fcc1bf12.jpg

or you could just type in hella flush and search the images there.kinda like mini trucks "Hated it!!!"

Kind of my guilty pleasure in the car world.

Too man people take it wayyyy too far, which sucks because it makes the entire "scene" look like idiots. (Well, I suppose that's subjective anyway) I hate excessive stretch, stupid camber, and so on as much as the next guy... but I also cringe when I walk up to my car and see the wheels sunken several inches into the fender. However, I also like to drive my cars more than I like to look at them. This is also a bit of a personal dilemma, and this week I'm going to the driveability side.

Maybe the key word here is moderation. Most of us would agree that cars look good when lowered. However, we do tend to draw the line when the rockers are below the tarmac. (Rinse, repeat, etc.)

Anything's better than mini-truckin.

Not sure if I get it. Is this 1953 Nash Ambassador "hella flush" because you can't see the tops of the tires? Is that what this is all about?

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1952-1954-nash-1953-ambassador-country-club.jpg

RoosterSauce wrote: Not sure if I get it. Is this 1953 Nash Ambassador "hella flush" because you can't see the tops of the tires? Is that what this is all about? http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1952-1954-nash-1953-ambassador-country-club.jpg

Not quite. Wheels outside, tires inside.

Like so:

that sentra looks hot btw!

I would rather look at the current stance oriented cars

than the body kitted trash that used to be so common

^Wholeheartedly agree there!

Also, I'm just gonna leave this here....

thestig99 wrote:

RoosterSauce wrote: Not sure if I get it. Is this 1953 Nash Ambassador "hella flush" because you can't see the tops of the tires? Is that what this is all about? http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1952-1954-nash-1953-ambassador-country-club.jpg

Not quite. Wheels outside, tires inside. Like so:

OHHH... so if you have any suspension travel at all, your wheels will crash into your fenders. That's pretty cool. Now I get why all the kids are into it.

thestig99 wrote: ^Wholeheartedly agree there! Also, I'm just gonna leave this here....

Looks neat, but I can't overcome the reality that a Honda Odyssey handles better than that thing. And it's an old BMW, so it actually bothers me that somebody would so willingly ruin the driving characteristics that so many brilliant people worked so hard to engineer.

thestig99 wrote: ^Wholeheartedly agree there! Also, I'm just gonna leave this here....

No, no thanks, you can take it away now.

thestig99 wrote: ^Wholeheartedly agree there! Also, I'm just gonna leave this here....

Dont litter please

In reply to David S. Wallens:

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, as I was too lazy to rear every reply. In general, I'm a form follows function guy. But, a car with a good stance does get my heart beating at times. What's a good stance? It depends on the vehicle, but I usually like a car where the fender opening lip is concentric with the tire. A perfect example is your 911. That IMO is the perfect stance for that car. Which leads me to this question/observation. Admit it, this was all just a front for giving you the chance to show off your new "Stance", right?

^Exactly. That 911 looks awesome, and I bet it's still useable.

The problem, or at least what these guys try to get away from, is when the wheels are "sunk" wayy back into the body. I'll use my car as an example... see how bad that is in the back?

thestig99 wrote: what these guys try to get away from, is when the wheels are "sunk" wayy back into the body. I'll use my car as an example... see how functional that is in the back?

fixed that for you

Functional, but ugly. And it's not the car I track, so...

Also, if I had wheels wider than 6.5" that filled out wheel wells, wouldn't that give me more contact patch? ;)

Now, see, this car also needs more wheel... but only so I can get a decent amount of rubber in there. 205's on 6" wide steelies cannot cope with what that pig throws at them.

9000s are particularly odd aren't they? Unarguably a well handling car and instantly recognizable but not a great stance really.

stock:

my hella un flush look at the concours... I didn't realize how horrible it looked in person and was too busy to care either, but at least everyone in attendance understood the functionality.

Lowering it almost 2" finally got closer to that concentric look that I also prefer for a daily look:

but some guys like this:

yes, the rims do chip the paint ... but the guy loved it. I asked if he worried about ruining the finely tuned suspension and he just kinda looked blankly. The only concern was the look, absolutely nothing else. Possibly myopic, but who isn't sometimes?

speedblind wrote:

thestig99 wrote: ^Wholeheartedly agree there! Also, I'm just gonna leave this here....

Looks neat, but I can't overcome the reality that a Honda Odyssey handles better than that thing. And it's an old BMW, so it actually bothers me that somebody would so willingly ruin the driving characteristics that so many brilliant people worked so hard to engineer.

Knowing the history of that car, it doesn't even matter anymore. It's been berkeleyed so many times that on a certain level, a part of me is glad that it's even still alive, let alone with a 1jz swap in it.

It was never what most would call a "clean" or "solid" car.

Anyways, i like "flush" from a purely asthetic viewpoint.

I don't like huge wheel gap, and i don't like sunken in wheel/tire packages.

But what i REALLY don't like is stretched tires.

I honestly DID go for a package on the Celica that would completely eliminate the sunken-in look. It's gone. But you bet your ass the first thing that's going to hit that curb is my tires. Not my $370 apiece wheels.

It's HELLAflush, just not in the trendy way where the wheels are outside of the damn fenders.