Relationship between lift and reduction in track width?

[Keith_PDX]

Spidertrax has cosmetic blems in black right now for $158 for 4, plus free shipping on their outlet website. Great deal. They're very clear that its only cosmetic and still comes with full lifetime warranty. Probably anodizing blemishes.
Keith

 

[sovat4r]

Keith,

Just measured my front track vs rear prior to spacers going on tomorrow. With my setup, my front total width is a full inch less than the rear....meaning my front lost 1/2" on both sides when it went up in the air. Definitely noticeable compared to rear.

 

[Keith_PDX]

Awesome, thanks. That's about what I expected looking at the angle differences after the lift. So the spacers will increase width by. 75 x 2 = 1.5".

A mismatched front/rear set from Bora would be the optimal setup.

 

[Ducmonsta]

Awesome, thanks. That's about what I expected looking at the angle differences after the lift. So the spacers will increase width by. 75 x 2 = 1.5".

A mismatched front/rear set from Bora would be the optimal setup.

I'm not overly familiar with Bora but you may have to deal with the factory stud length with only .75" spacers. IE. cut them down so that they don't protrude past the wheel spacer and don't allow the wheel to bottom out on the spacer itself.

 

[Keith_PDX]

Great point!

Motorsports-Tech/Bora is a well respected American manufacterer.
Wheel Adapters, Wheel Spacers, Hub Centric Rings | Motorsport Tech

They sell 1" up to 2" spacers in 1/4" increments. My guess is they don't sell less than 1" for that very reason, but just a guess.

 

[absalom]

For those on the fence with wheel spacers. I've added 1.5" spacers to two separate 4runners, and both times the difference has been obvious. Much more stable, less jostling side to side. I'm surprised these benefits aren't discussed more. Aesthetics are understandable, but understanding the practical reason behind spacers might make them more acceptable.

Also, if you're looking for a visual idea of how much track width changes with a lift or as the suspension cycles, click play below:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ib570wq15gA?start=157" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[LandCruiser]

For those on the fence with wheel spacers. I've added 1.5" spacers to two separate 4runners, and both times the difference has been obvious. Much more stable, less jostling side to side. I'm surprised these benefits aren't discussed more.

And I have the exact opposite experience. With a properly aligned vehicle such a small track width shouldn't make any difference and why I don't run spacers.

Other reasons include generating clearance issues, needlessly stressing the wheel/hub components, and the possible concerns of a dumbass lazy tech not tightening things at the dealership and sending a wheel to infinity and beyond while on the highway.

I'm firmly in the anti-spacer crowd and have never run them on any 4x4 I've owned.

 

[1engineer]

For those on the fence with wheel spacers. I've added 1.5" spacers to two separate 4runners, and both times the difference has been obvious. Much more stable, less jostling side to side. I'm surprised these benefits aren't discussed more. Aesthetics are understandable, but understanding the practical reason behind spacers might make them more acceptable.

Also, if you're looking for a visual idea of how much track width changes with a lift or as the suspension cycles, click play below:

There are many things wrong with your post and [MENTION=92049]LandCruiser[/MENTION] corrected one of them. Another one is the suspension geometry of the race truck is a lot different than our 4Runners so watching that video will only show people that, on that particular truck, the track width changes from full droop to full compression. As far as much more stable? No. What makes a vehicle more stable is dropping the CG not lifting it.

 

[Keith_PDX]

There are many things wrong with your post and [MENTION=92049]LandCruiser[/MENTION] corrected one of them. Another one is the suspension geometry of the race truck is a lot different than our 4Runners so watching that video will only show people that, on that particular truck, the track width changes from full droop to full compression. As far as much more stable? No. What makes a vehicle more stable is dropping the CG not lifting it.

You're obvobviously correct on your statement but you cannot dismiss that as COG raises increasing the width of the vehicles track increases stability. It's the fundamental basis of the triangle. Not Confusing the mechanical integrity of the spacer woth its physics improvement, just sayin.

 

[nb rob]

The track width reduction would be a function of a number of things. Geometry doesn't change much though in terms of 3" of lift. Most likely would be the available caster adjustment afterward, and in many cases also a product of new wheels afterward.


consider the function of IFS and the affect of the radius of your LCA with a 3" lift.

If the LCA pivot point was 18" from the face of the hub (small circle) you would see a reduction of track width of 5/16" each side for a total of 5/8".

The larger circle is 3' in diameter, and you can see that the difference over 3" becomes smaller.

It's a small difference, but add caster and a change in backspacing, it could become greater than an inch easily.

 

[absalom]

And I have the exact opposite experience. With a properly aligned vehicle such a small track width shouldn't make any difference and why I don't run spacers.

Other reasons include generating clearance issues, needlessly stressing the wheel/hub components, and the possible concerns of a dumbass lazy tech not tightening things at the dealership and sending a wheel to infinity and beyond while on the highway.

I'm firmly in the anti-spacer crowd and have never run them on any 4x4 I've owned.

I can understand your stance on wheel spacers. Track width does make a difference. Admittedly, many of the changes they make are not noticeable by many drivers. For example, extending the wheel's position outwards from the vehicle increases the leverage upon the LCA and finally the spring. This can change how the spring compresses due to the increased mechanical advantage. Additionally, increasing the track width also changes the scrub radius which can mimic the behavior of increased camber. Reduced bump steer, heavier snap to center, and a generally more stable feeling over uneven terrain.

Of course, I could be pulling this all out of my ass, and trying to justify a $100 placebo effect. But, hey, don't take my word for it. Drive to Phoenix. I'll remove the wheel spacers, you can drive for 30 mins over varied terrain. Then, we'll reinstall the spacers and repeat. Then you can tell me for yourself if there's a difference.

Finally, I've never trusted a dealer tech (or any mechanic for that matter) to correctly torque my lug nuts and I'm not about to start now. Double checking these values often should be standard practice, regardless of your views on wheel spacers.

There are many things wrong with your post and [MENTION=92049]LandCruiser[/MENTION] corrected one of them. Another one is the suspension geometry of the race truck is a lot different than our 4Runners so watching that video will only show people that, on that particular truck, the track width changes from full droop to full compression. As far as much more stable? No. What makes a vehicle more stable is dropping the CG not lifting it.

I believe you're inferring something I wasn't implying. I simply embedded the video of the race truck to show how track width changes as the suspension cycles. This was the ONLY reason it was linked. I thought it a neat visual reference for those with learning styles such as mine.

As far as CoG being the only variable in vehicle stability, please refer to Keith's refresher course on triangles below.

You're obvobviously correct on your statement but you cannot dismiss that as COG raises increasing the width of the vehicles track increases stability. It's the fundamental basis of the triangle. Not Confusing the mechanical integrity of the spacer woth its physics improvement, just sayin. ��

Just to be clear, my intention was not to make a case for the safety of wheel spacers. I sought only to discuss the myriad of other changes that happen when a driver increases their track width. There are many cons that can't be ignored. Clearance issues are absolutely a fair concern. I actually downsized tires just to make my wheel spacers "work". Safety concerns are valid, though admittedly I see little evidence to support not running them, aside from improper installs. Wear/tear on components is also a very valid point. If track width is increased, hub/bearing wear is increased, no disputing that.

I just sought to highlight some of the potential benefits that come from running a reasonable wheel spacer that's been properly installed.

The track width reduction would be a function of a number of things. Geometry doesn't change much though in terms of 3" of lift. Most likely would be the available caster adjustment afterward, and in many cases also a product of new wheels afterward.


consider the function of IFS and the affect of the radius of your LCA with a 3" lift.

If the LCA pivot point was 18" from the face of the hub (small circle) you would see a reduction of track width of 5/16" each side for a total of 5/8".

The larger circle is 3' in diameter, and you can see that the difference over 3" becomes smaller.

It's a small difference, but add caster and a change in backspacing, it could become greater than an inch easily.

I'll admit, this is fascinating but way over my head, so I won't even try to suss out where you are going with it. Love learning new things though, thanks!

 

[1engineer]

I can understand your stance on wheel spacers. Track width does make a difference. Admittedly, many of the changes they make are not noticeable by many drivers. For example, extending the wheels position outwards from the vehicle increases the leverage upon the LCA and finally the spring. This can change how the spring compresses due to the increased mechanical advantage. Additionally, increasing the track width also changes the scrub radius which can mimic the behavior of increased camber. Reduced bump steer, heavier snap to center, and a generally more stable feeling over uneven terrain.

Of course, I could be pulling this all out of my ass, and trying to justify a $100 placebo effect. But, hey, don't take my word for it. Drive to Phoenix. I'll remove the wheel spacers, you can drive for 30 mins over varied terrain. Then, we'll reinstall the spacers and repeat. Then you can tell me for yourself if there's a difference.

Finally, I've never trusted a dealer tech (or any mechanic for that matter) to correctly torque my lug nuts and I'm not about to start now. Double checking these values often should be standard practice, regardless of your views on wheel spacers.

I believe you're inferring something I wasn't implying. I simply embedded the video of the race truck to show how track width changes as the suspension cycles. This was the ONLY reason it was linked. I thought it a neat visual reference for those with learning styles such as mine.

As far as CoG being the only variable in vehicle stability, please refer to Keith's refresher course on triangles below.

Just to be clear, my intention was not to make a case for the safety of wheel spacers. I sought only to discuss the myriad of other changes that happen when a driver increases their track width. There are many cons that can't be ignored. Clearance issues are absolutely a fair concern. I actually downsized tires just to make my wheel spacers "work". Safety concerns are valid, though admittedly I see little evidence to support not running them, aside from improper installs. Wear/tear on components is also a very valid point. If track width is increased, hub/bearing wear is increased, no disputing that.

I just sought to highlight some of the potential benefits that come from running a reasonable wheel spacer that's been properly installed.

And the number one benefit? Looks. Hey, I can't talk though. I've done worse. Much worse.

 

[dieck]

Ok, in an effort to redeem myself, I have actual measurements.

Last night I installed the 3 inch Toytec Boss lift on my 2015 TE.

I used a laser distance measurer that has proven to be quite accurate

Before lift the distance between the bottom of the aluminum TE wheels at stock height with stock tires is 4 foot 6 7/16 inches

After lift the same measurement was 4 foot 5 1/2 inches

Total reduction measured at the bottom of the rim of 15/16 inch

However, the tires I got (cooper ST MAXX are much more square than the stock tires and the actual track width where rubber touches the road stayed exactly the same even though I went from a 265 tire to a slightly thinner 255 tire.

Considering this, I don't think I'm going to invest in spacers or aftermarket rims.

I have read that on IFS vehicles as you lift them the track width decreases, this makes sense to me looking at the mechanics of it. My question is, what is the relationship? Has anyone taken measurements or know? IE - For 3" of lift you decrease the track width by X".

 

[absalom]

And the number one benefit? Looks. Hey, I can't talk though. I've done worse. Much worse.

Oh good god, yes. I cringe when I remember my highschool days and the things I thought were "cool". Don't worry, in 7 years my view will change, and I'll start preferring this look.


That narrow track width ...

 

[Keith_PDX]

I mounted up a set of Spidertrax last night. I left it in the garage overnight to let the loctite fully cure. I took it for a short drive after work and I must say that I am pleased with the improvement in stability. You can also tell that it mimics increased caster, as was mentioned earlier. See how things go. Happy with it today.

BTW, I got the blems mentioned above. If they were, I could not tell.