Clio 172
I'm selling some 17" alloys off my Clio , somebody has put that 17 are no good for clios ...... I don't get it .... Why not ?
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Why are 17s not a good idea , anybody ??
- Thread starter fishmitten
- Start date
- Status
I think with the right alloys 17s look nice on a clio 
Problem is there abit too big for a straight forward fit without modding the arches and adding spacers and such like, if it's lowered aswell rubbing and body bouncing could be a issue , I'm no expert by all means but could be the reason ,
I've got laguna 16's on my mk1 , lowered 30mm all round and they rub at speed with 'large people' in the back
Problem is there abit too big for a straight forward fit without modding the arches and adding spacers and such like, if it's lowered aswell rubbing and body bouncing could be a issue , I'm no expert by all means but could be the reason ,
I've got laguna 16's on my mk1 , lowered 30mm all round and they rub at speed with 'large people' in the back
182
Flol... Someone please go into depth and explain the main differences etc between 15's and 17's .. Not just the usual "they look s**t and they ruin handling. If so how.
If you have a lightweight 17" alloy which is the same weight as a 15" and lighter than the standard heavy wheels say on a 182. So many folk just jump on the band wagon and follow what the other person said.
Could well become a decent thread/read providing the usual dicks don't wreck it
If you have a lightweight 17" alloy which is the same weight as a 15" and lighter than the standard heavy wheels say on a 182. So many folk just jump on the band wagon and follow what the other person said.
Could well become a decent thread/read providing the usual dicks don't wreck it
R26
Well most aren't interested if they are factually better etc if they look s**t. Which they do.
here we go again? have you driven a Clio 1*2 on 17's???? thought not
all people who say 17's are crap just join the CS band wagon as usual
Flol... Someone please go into depth and explain the main differences etc between 15's and 17's .. Not just the usual "they look s**t and they ruin handling. If so how.
If you have a lightweight 17" alloy which is the same weight as a 15" and lighter than the standard heavy wheels say on a 182. So many folk just jump on the band wagon and follow what the other person said.
Could well become a decent thread/read providing the usual dicks don't wreck it
its already been explained so many times just search it! I cant be boved explaining it everytime
yet another who knows nothing !!!
17's do not wreck the arch liners! how many times?...........
sure I have said to you before if you put the incorrect offset on a wheel arch what do you expect?
182
I already know the differences etc. Just seeing how many of the folk who slate 17's actually know wtf they are on about
Looks like its just going to become a massive slanging match again so im out.
Your a right miserable git lately! Are you on the rag? Or is this normal?
literally every reply you post is attitude!
davo172
ClioSport Club Member
TCR'd 172
[OQUOTE=plymcl172;9839000]here we go again? have you driven a Clio 1*2 on 17's???? thought not
all people who say 17's are crap just join the CS band wagon as usual[/QUOTE]
So true ^^
There is so much bollox on here from people who have never driven on 17s or maybe seen some chavvy wrong offset wheels on std springs ! I run 17 turinis with Eibachs and also run 16" std wheels on mine 17s are lighter as they are flowformed even lighter th turinis the overall diameter of 17s with correct tyres and 16s with correct tyres is about 7mm !
17s handle better look better to if they suit the car , then again don't have a different opinion to the cs sheep FFS ! Just go and fit some 16s or 15s and everyone will tell you how great and OEM FTW you car looks lol
all people who say 17's are crap just join the CS band wagon as usual[/QUOTE]
So true ^^
There is so much bollox on here from people who have never driven on 17s or maybe seen some chavvy wrong offset wheels on std springs ! I run 17 turinis with Eibachs and also run 16" std wheels on mine 17s are lighter as they are flowformed even lighter th turinis the overall diameter of 17s with correct tyres and 16s with correct tyres is about 7mm !
17s handle better look better to if they suit the car , then again don't have a different opinion to the cs sheep FFS ! Just go and fit some 16s or 15s and everyone will tell you how great and OEM FTW you car looks lol
I already know the differences etc. Just seeing how many of the folk who slate 17's actually know wtf they are on about
Looks like its just going to become a massive slanging match again so im out.
I agree with you, the people who slate it don't seem to know what they are talking about, they cant back it up!
So true ^^
There is so much bollox on here from people who have never driven on 17s or maybe seen some chavvy wrong offset wheels on std springs ! I run 17 turinis with Eibachs and also run 16" std wheels on mine 17s are lighter as they are flowformed even lighter th turinis the overall diameter of 17s with correct tyres and 16s with correct tyres is about 7mm !
17s handle better look better to if they suit the car , then again don't have a different opinion to the cs sheep FFS ! Just go and fit some 16s or 15s and everyone will tell you how great and OEM FTW you car looks lol[/QUOTE]
this
I can see Rob (Plymcl)'s point tbh. There is no way the size of the rim should affect your arch liner or cause rubbing. The outside diameter of the wheel does not change, just the amount of it which is the rim. That is caused by either having a wider rim/tyre, or a different offset.
Furthermore, having less sidewall height means you get less flex, which makes the tyre feel more solid and less wallowy (but also provides less warning of how close you are to losing traction (which is felt by the sidewalls flexing) - the tyre is more likely to 'snap' into a slide). It also means more of the main face of the tyre remains pressed against the tarmac, provided it's smooth.
If you can have the same weight 17' wheel as a 15' one, then you will have a better wheel for handling flat smooth surfaces such as a racetrack. However on bumpy roads the general softness in the tyre on a 15' rim with bigger sidewalls allows it to stay on the ground for longer, and thus provide grip more of the time. Also if you have a lightweight 17' wheel, you can't really compare it with a heavy 15' wheel and say 17's are better. A lightweight 15' wheel will be lighter again, and that's less unsprung weight which is the most important weight to lose as it affects how quickly and how well your suspension responds to bumps. Whether the gain in unsprung weight is an acceptable tradeoff for the larger contact patch is completely application-specific.
Personally I'm not a fan of 17' wheels by looks alone, but that's my personal opinion and I wouldn't want to push it on other people. Rob's look pretty good compared to most I've seen.
I'm fairly confident that's correct.
Furthermore, having less sidewall height means you get less flex, which makes the tyre feel more solid and less wallowy (but also provides less warning of how close you are to losing traction (which is felt by the sidewalls flexing) - the tyre is more likely to 'snap' into a slide). It also means more of the main face of the tyre remains pressed against the tarmac, provided it's smooth.
If you can have the same weight 17' wheel as a 15' one, then you will have a better wheel for handling flat smooth surfaces such as a racetrack. However on bumpy roads the general softness in the tyre on a 15' rim with bigger sidewalls allows it to stay on the ground for longer, and thus provide grip more of the time. Also if you have a lightweight 17' wheel, you can't really compare it with a heavy 15' wheel and say 17's are better. A lightweight 15' wheel will be lighter again, and that's less unsprung weight which is the most important weight to lose as it affects how quickly and how well your suspension responds to bumps. Whether the gain in unsprung weight is an acceptable tradeoff for the larger contact patch is completely application-specific.
Personally I'm not a fan of 17' wheels by looks alone, but that's my personal opinion and I wouldn't want to push it on other people. Rob's look pretty good compared to most I've seen.
I'm fairly confident that's correct.
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
I've never driven a 172/182 on 17s, but I seriously doubt there's any substance to the statement "17s handle better".
As far as I can tell the only reason you'd want 17s would be for the looks because in almost every other way there's no tangible benefit.
Downside is the cost of tyres versus going the other way and using 15s.
As far as I can tell the only reason you'd want 17s would be for the looks because in almost every other way there's no tangible benefit.
Downside is the cost of tyres versus going the other way and using 15s.
Yes, but the difference between Wheel A and Wheel B is not just how big the rim is. If you fit 15's with the wrong offset they could still rub.
Would you make the same argument that anthracite wheels ruined your liners so all anthracite must be bad?
i don't like 17s on a small car like a Clio as I hate feel of very low profile narrow tyres (you'd need 195/40 or 205/35), there just isn't enough sidewall cushion and that's the first link in the suspension chain.
If the wrong offset and tyre choice 14 was on there your liner would get wrecked too
Rolling radius and offset is what matters for clearance.
I didnt say that ALL 17 inch wheels will ruin the arch liners though, i just said the 17s on my car did.
Clio 172
Wish I hadn't asked now lol lots !!!!
Which would be really useful information IF put in the context of what offset and tyre size they were and how low your car was and if it had the increased caster bottom arms or not.
Fiesta ST2 MP215
Think the question for the OP is....... Why do you want the 17's for that exact wheel? or because it's the biggest you can fit on the car before it needs chopping?
Personally it's something you'll regret imo, tyres are twice the price and will be so uncomfortable with tyres thinner than roadkill, Slammed on 15's is the way to go, on a nice set of Ultra Leggeras.
Personally it's something you'll regret imo, tyres are twice the price and will be so uncomfortable with tyres thinner than roadkill, Slammed on 15's is the way to go, on a nice set of Ultra Leggeras.
535d / t5 caravelle
no have i f**k, i would not been seen dead driving a clio with 17's on ffs, although if they can lap the local mcdonalds car park in less than 27 seconds i might consider changing!? ( keep me informed please )
both my mk1 clio and mk2 both came with 16's and both drive better on 15's.
if you like your 17's then thats your choice.
He doesn't want them. That's why he is selling them.
Fiesta ST2 MP215
FFS I need to learn to read, I thought he was buying the ones that for sale here, in that case why the f**k does it matter, someone will buy them they, one mans s**t is another mans treasure, and OP if you're selling them why care? you're selling them for a reason right? getting smaller wheels maybe? Think they look crap?
Maybe he just wants to know out of interest?
I dont NEED to know about 99% of the stuff I find interesting, its never going to be useful to me all the time ive spent learning about Chernobyl for example!
RB 182 cup
when i bought my phase 1 it had 17 O.Zs on it. They looked to big imo, but as the tires were so low profile the overall radius of the tire was only about 2mm bigger than standard + the offset was the same so really, it drove totally the same, if slightly more bumpy.
I also was convinced it followed ruts and camber on the road more with the 17s, but i think it may have just been placebo.
I also was convinced it followed ruts and camber on the road more with the 17s, but i think it may have just been placebo.
With less compliance in the tyre its going to follow ruts and camber more, nothing placebo about it.
Fiesta ST2 MP215
Surely it's no different a discussion to...... I want to get more power from my 1.2 which always gets the answer, Buy a 172? Anyway I was joking.
I'd actually prefer to have a chat on here about stuff Like Chernobyl or the Russian Mega Nuke where the force was so high it sent a shock around the world TWICE, that's interesting,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba wouldn't want this going off in the distance!
how the hell can you say this? you have never driven 1 on 17's (just as I thought!!)
come back to me when you know and can back up what you are saying....
I think with the right alloys 17s look nice on a clio
Problem is there abit too big for a straight forward fit without modding the arches and adding spacers and such like, if it's lowered aswell rubbing and body bouncing could be a issue , I'm no expert by all means but could be the reason ,
I've got laguna 16's on my mk1 , lowered 30mm all round and they rub at speed with 'large people' in the back
17's go straight on a 1*2 btw
as a rule of thumb you can apply this to all cars, although different cars and different set ups will illicit slightly different behaviours; bigger wheels mean using lower profile tyres, lower profile tyres have less compliance so are influenced by imperfections in the road more than higher profile tyres. UK roads are generally acknowledged as shitty so bigger wheels will make for a less settled car and more skittish experience
- Status
