Joined
·
509 Posts
Plan man has good info. Whatever you do, get hub centric.
Rough Country vs Spydertrax 1.5" wheel spacers.
61 - 73 of 73 Posts
Joined
·
12 Posts
I don't necessarily want to completely discount the results posted, but the fact that their origin is unknown and unverifiable raise a concern. We don't know appropriateness of equipment used to conduct testing nor qualifications of the individual performing the test. Another question is how samples tested were prepared. For example, I see that tensile stress test was done on a sample 0.2520 in diameter. How the specimen was isolated from the wheel spacer you sent? Is it possible that in the process it was subjected to conditions altering its properties?
As far as aluminum coming from cans, I don't think it makes any difference where it comes from. Actually it does, - cost. At the end of the day aluminum is an aluminum, is an aluminum. It's not like atomic structure is being changed turning it into a different element. I am sure it's easier to get aluminum out of cans and use it as a precursor for 6061-T6 alloy, as oppose to extracting aluminum from ore going through extensive purification procedures.
The bottom line, I would NOT take these tests as conclusive evidence on the quality of RC wheel spacers. It would be foolish for RC to misrepresent the quality because it exposes them to a liability. I am sure wheel spacers represent only a small fraction of their total revenue. The reward does not justify the risk.
As far as aluminum coming from cans, I don't think it makes any difference where it comes from. Actually it does, - cost. At the end of the day aluminum is an aluminum, is an aluminum. It's not like atomic structure is being changed turning it into a different element. I am sure it's easier to get aluminum out of cans and use it as a precursor for 6061-T6 alloy, as oppose to extracting aluminum from ore going through extensive purification procedures.
The bottom line, I would NOT take these tests as conclusive evidence on the quality of RC wheel spacers. It would be foolish for RC to misrepresent the quality because it exposes them to a liability. I am sure wheel spacers represent only a small fraction of their total revenue. The reward does not justify the risk.
Joined
·
12 Posts
RC 1.5 5x5 (model 1091 for JKs) spacers ARE hub centric.
Joined
·
2,362 Posts
Spidertrax because they sell 1.75" spacers. If you have stock jeep wheels they have a 6.25" back space. Target is typically listed as 3.75" to 4.5". If you go with 1.75" spacers you'll end up with 4.5" of backspace.
Joined
·
12 Posts
If you need a spacer wider than 1.5" the width of the tire you are planning to run requires at least an 8" wheel, while stock is 7.5".
Joined
·
1,406 Posts
Spacers are not only used with stock wheels. I bought them to run 40s on Walker Evans beadlock wheels that had 4.5" backspacing so that I could turn my jeep without rubbing the paint off the frame.davison0976 said:
Many larger/wider tires for 17" wheels that are run on a JK are stiff, load range D and E tires designed for full size trucks that weigh 1500-2000+ lbs more than a JK. As a result, they have to be run at much lower than max psi levels to get a flat tread pattern. As a result, many people with 7.5" wide wheels get relatively long life, with flat treadwear--even out of a 12.50" wide tire.
Most who run spacers with stock wheels do so to be able to run a taller tire that is 11.5"-12.50" wide.
You have so few posts here.
Why not tell us about your background, who you work for, your experience with jeeps, etc.?
Your initial post in this thread as glowing praise for RC and mocking Spidertrax, followed by some engineering observations, etc., begs the question.
FYI, although RC spacers are hubcentric now, for years they sold non-hubcentric spacers that they told everyone worked great.
Joined
·
2,362 Posts
What part of my post are you not agreeing with?
Typically recommend backspace is 3.75" to 4.5" or 6.25 - 1.75 = 4.5? :dunno:
Joined
·
509 Posts
Ok. I never said they weren't.
Joined
·
639 Posts
Planman, I was sort of thinking the same thing. I want to commend you on all of your explanations & additional details in this thread. You even post scientific proof and the "skeptics" are still not convinced. I might have access to a reputable testing facility if it comes down to it. But would hate to call in a favor just on account of wheel spacers...
Either way, keep the helpful info coming.:thumbsup:Not to add fuel to fire but for years RC has been producing low cost entry level products. There are dozens of threads across many forums highlighting this fact .
If this was a reputable brand offering a lower cost product that seemed identical, I would consider giving them the benefit of the doubt but ...
The quality of aluminum varies just like that of carbon depending on the source, so even both products claim to be made from 6061-T6 does not mean they are of the same quality. Aluminum in general has a much lower fatigue life that steel and in particular 6061 is mid-range for aluminum but it is popular because it is easy to work with and modest in cost. Fatigue cracking is the most common mode of failure for aluminum. The load of the wheel on the spacer is cyclical so fatigue is relevant. The machining of 60161 including surface treatments and preload caused by pressing the wheel lugs can reduce this fatigue life.
I don't know where either spacer is made but the manufacturing process and QA is important and back to my original comment, it's hard for me to give RC the benefit of the doubt for $40.:nono:
If this was a reputable brand offering a lower cost product that seemed identical, I would consider giving them the benefit of the doubt but ...
The quality of aluminum varies just like that of carbon depending on the source, so even both products claim to be made from 6061-T6 does not mean they are of the same quality. Aluminum in general has a much lower fatigue life that steel and in particular 6061 is mid-range for aluminum but it is popular because it is easy to work with and modest in cost. Fatigue cracking is the most common mode of failure for aluminum. The load of the wheel on the spacer is cyclical so fatigue is relevant. The machining of 60161 including surface treatments and preload caused by pressing the wheel lugs can reduce this fatigue life.
I don't know where either spacer is made but the manufacturing process and QA is important and back to my original comment, it's hard for me to give RC the benefit of the doubt for $40.:nono:
61 - 73 of 73 Posts
