Help me understand "wheel gap"

Depends on the use. Dedicated race car, put it in the weeds. As in: I'm currently doing my best to figure out how to drop the Jensenator another inch without boogering up the steering geometry, and that's going to involve modifying the front subframe and the top front mount for the upper link on the 3 link in the rear.

A DD which will see potholes, RR crossings, speed bumps etc, leave it at a reasonable height. So to me a car at normal ride height on a racetrack = goofy looking, yet just fine on the street. A car slammed to (or below) race spec on the street = goofy looking.

But I'm a function over form kinda guy, anyway.

EvanR wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Oh god, that blue Miata is teh sexxorz!

See, and I like the look of the targa car better. I guess I've solved my own problem here. It's theoretical. I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look. I wouldn't want car designers to tell me I do my job poorly. They don't know my craft. To me, lowering a car (solely for appearance purposes, mind you) is akin to telling the car designer that he/she did a crappy job. Since I don't know car design, I feel I couldn't say that.

Thanks for coming down here with us philistines to educate us!

There is an abstract aesthetic component as well, but fundamentally, for me:

• Bigger tires are associated with pure-function race cars.
• Tall ride heights (on pavement vehicles) suggest higher than necessary CoG.
• Excessive room around the tire (on pavement vehicles) suggests to me unnecessarily soft suspension, chosen to sell as many of this Camry transportation unit as possible to people who do not wish to be disturbed by the world going by.
• On the flip side, a street driven car with no room at all suggests someone who has taken a noble area of function, and made a cartoon of its aesthetic components without understanding what the point was.

But to each their own. I do some dumb stuff because I just like it. I do actively dislike the hellaflush thing done to cars, but it's much worse when the guilty party attempts to babble something about it working better that way...

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

EvanR wrote: I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look.

You could use that argument against *any* modification of *any* car. In 1993, Toyota put 15" wheels on the MR2. Otherwise, it looked the same. Almost everyone thinks it looks better. I got a set of '93 wheels for my '91 just 'cause I thought it looked better. What's wrong with that?

I bolded the part that I found important.

I don't think either of the MR2s pictured looks any better or worse than the other. If you (and "almost everyone") thinks it looks better, the reason is that I simply to not possess the training or innate "designer's eye" that "almost everyone" possesses.

There needs to be proportions involved. There's magic in the distances between the rockiers and the beltline, and the relationship between the top of the wheelwell and the beltline, otherwise you could just as easily get the "wheelwell gap spec" by adding metal to the fenders, and your car won't look like a family of Shed-A-Beds uses it to commute.

The funny thing is, actual racing cars aren't lowered nearly as much as these jewelry cars. You need suspension travel in some form in order to have good handling, after all. And if the cars are lowered to the point where the wheelwell gets close, what gets done? The fenders are OPENED UP. You know, with flares, which we can almost all agree look awesome in the proper context.

EvanR wrote: I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look.

Cars very often get designed with big wheels (and the arches to acommodate them) and low suspensions (because it looks good), and then the engineers and accountants spec cheaper smaller wheels and brakes, then jack the suspension up so people don't whine about scraping over speed bumps or bottoming out on whatever poor excuse for a road that they tried to drive it down. I suppose you also think every building looks exactly like the architect wanted it to...

I listened in on a conversation with an engineer who worked on the new Camaro. One of the problems they had was that styling insisted on 20" wheels, which caused all sorts of ride and handling problems, which they partially dealt with by soft gooshy subframe bushings, which are part of why the Camaro sucks.

So if they allowed even "small" 17" or 18" wheels, handling could be improved while still meeting NVH targets...

Note that the Saturn, a car that many GRMers think highly of, was specifically designed with 14 and 15" wheels and tallish sidewalls, because it allowed the engineers to have non-isolated subframes and steering racks and as-small-as-possible suspension bushings, and still meet NVH. It was a net win over rubberband tires and all of the chassis isolation needed for that to work in the real world.

And if you want, you can put stiffer tires on it, and not have to take out a second mortgage for solid bushings for the subframe(s) and everything else...

Josh wrote:

EvanR wrote: I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look.

Cars very often get *designed* with big wheels (and the arches to acommodate them) and low suspensions (because it looks good), and then the engineers and accountants spec cheaper smaller wheels and brakes, then jack the suspension up so people don't whine about scraping over speed bumps or bottoming out on whatever poor excuse for a road that they tried to drive it down. I suppose you also think every building looks *exactly* like the architect wanted it to...

Thank you, Josh. Yours is the answer I can finally wrap my brain around.

And yes, I am one of the people who whined when my car bottomed out or the front lip scraped on everything. That's why I took the lowering springs off.

I'm just a function over form guy, I guess. Why else would I drive a Gen1 xB?

I see wheel gap like this. If there's too much of it (say, more than an inch or so, especially with larger wheels) it breaks up the flow of the lines of the side of the car. If you look at a stock ms3, there's a good 2 inches of gap over the 18" wheel. TOTALLY breaks the side of it apart. Drop it down some, stick some wider wheels on it, and you have a car that (theoretically, if the suspension math's been done right) handles better, and is more visually appealing, because it looks...filled out.

GameboyRMH wrote: I think the wheel arch should be roughly concentric with the wheel in the resting position, too low or especially too high just doesn't look good to me. The wheel arch should frame the wheel not just float above it like an afterthought.

To the human eye and mind concentric circles are a pleasing design. When that concentricity is not there it just doesn't look right. My wife who could care less about wether a car is lowered, raised, etc. will comment about how a car doesn't look right. When I question her many times her dislike is related to "wheel gap".

I was talking to a designer (might have been Derek Jenkins of Mazda or Ralph Gilles of Dodge) about wheel wells at one point. Apparently different manufacturers have different requirements on clearance. Mazda requires enough room for two sets of tire chains. Someone else (Toyota?) requires room for three. That's part of where your fender room comes from.

EvanR wrote: I don't think either of the MR2s pictured looks any better or worse than the other. If you (and "almost everyone") thinks it looks better, the reason is that I simply to not possess the training or innate "designer's eye" that "almost everyone" possesses.

Well, remember what the Zen philosopher Basho once wrote. "A flute without holes is not a flute. A donut without a hole is a danish."

I think that clears it up. At lest that's what I, and "almost everyone" think.

RealMiniDriver wrote: Oh man, I can't wait to see Anti-Stance's response to this.

Here's my position(not that it matters), if you want to lower your car lower it. Do what you want to your car, you should do what you like, not to keep up with the Jones'. Personally, when I see a car lowered so much that it is nearly un-driveable without having to dodge speed bumps and road reflectors, I think it looks stupid. Wow, you are tucking wheel, cool, everyone else thinks you are an shiny happy person when you are holding up traffic at a railroad crossing trying to go over them as close to 45* as to not rip your oil pan off.

With that said, That BMW looks FANTASTIC to me. Of course it looks a little better lower than stock. But the suspension geometry is still there, I am sure the a-arms are not statically inverted and probably doesn't suffer from bumpsteer issues. I am also willing to bet the owner of the BMW also doesn't go to car meets and criticize people for being "4x4 status yo".

I still reserve the right to make fun of the stance kiddies, just as they reserve the right to rip their oil pans off.

Anti-stance wrote: I am also willing to bet the owner of the BMW also doesn't go to car meets and criticize people for being "4x4 status yo".

I did, when I still owned it.

z31maniac wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: I am also willing to bet the owner of the BMW also doesn't go to car meets and criticize people for being "4x4 status yo".

I didn't, when I still owned it and I completely agree with what you said!

Shhhhh!!!! Don't knock me off my soapbox!

I feel the same. I gave up on the kids in their new BMWs (I guess their parents keep them in the latest models) due to not only their ever increasing worship at the "stance" altar, but also for their hatred of the Ti.

While moderate lowering will always be around,the wheel gap kids are just another fad, like gassers or rat rods or vans with murals on the side. The open-minded among us will remember the lowriders that became so popular in the 90's, the idea was the same, drop the car to the ground. Of course those guys at least put them on hydraulics (or bags) so they could lift the car back up to drive.

It is fun to see them come autocross though, clearly some in that group have come to believe that low=fast and are shocked when their riding-on-the-worn-out-bumpstops GTI doesn't win FTD!

Knurled wrote:

EvanR wrote: But I fail to see how a normal suspension in a normal wheel arch is visually offensive. I expect a more insightful response here than on the blog where I originally found it. I'm not a designer, and I don't have a designer's eye. What is so offensive?

It's a form of ocd to fixate on one minute aspect of something, while completely ignoring everything else. For example, slamming a car to get rid of the wheel gap at the very top of the fenderwell, while ignoring the 3-4" of gap at the sides. Me, I see slammed cars and think they look awful, because the proportions get destroyed. It's like the same effect as jacking a car up two feet to put 28" wheels on it.

FTFY

EvanR wrote: I guess I've solved my own problem here. It's theoretical. I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look. I wouldn't want car designers to tell me I do my job poorly. They don't know my craft. To me, lowering a car (solely for appearance purposes, mind you) is akin to telling the car designer that he/she did a crappy job. Since I don't know car design, I feel I couldn't say that.

I think it has more to do with compromise and safety regulations then the designers choice. One you have to have the headlights and other parts so far of the ground to meet safety standards. And two a lot of people want a softer ride then a lower ride and so designers give the car plenty of suspension travel with softer springs.

EvanR wrote: So I guess this... Must be the height of automobile design!

That is the ultimate stance.

I agree with Keith..

It is not the size of the wheel, but the tire that is mounted on it.

Lowering has one purpose. To lower the center of gravity.

iceracer wrote: Lowering has one purpose. To lower the center of gravity.

Bzzzzt. Improves aero, too.

Luckily beauty is subjective, and you don't have to like what we do. Personally I hate stock wheels on anything, and almost everything rides too high.

Maroon92 wrote: Luckily beauty is subjective, and you don't have to like what we do. Personally I hate stock wheels on anything, and almost everything rides too high.

^This

/end thread...............

For me, ANY car will look better lowered. Wheel gap gives me the heebie jeebies.

I think the biggest (and hackiest) automotive foul is when someone puts aftermarket wheels on a car without lowering it. If they're +1 or +2, even worse. For some reason, it really points out "HEY GUISE!!! LOOK AT THIS GAP!!!"

The stance thing of needing it so low that you're wrecking oilpans by driving over a quarter that was in the road is a bit much. They look good sitting still, but make no sense for actual driving.

Also note that a lot of cars in car ads are lowered. I've noticed this for years. The automakers know that their product looks longer and sleeker when it's sitting lower. The general public likes it in the photo and doesn't notice that it's a 4x4 in the showroom.