Dont buy cheap wheel spacers...or else!

[rufusgti]

These are mine. I think the other end of the spectrum to op's budget ones.
These are made by H&R and I think original costs were somewhere near £180 quid. TUV approved. Fitted using a torque wrench to whatever the manufacturer stated. I sleep at night.

[Driver101]

1602Mark said:

Motech (and others) have been offering wheel spacers and suspension components for the M135, M140 and M2 for the past few years. I can't recall them having any issues or complaints from customers. My understanding is that they realign the geometry after fitting to make sure there are no adverse effects from the wider track etc.

But if it's a real mans spacer you want... https://youtu.be/96AGEugR3-o?t=321

They were caught out not realigning the geometry after fitting springs and spacers. Some drivers did notice their cars were handling all wrong.

I wouldn't let them near any of my cars.

[ddom]

Tommo87 said:

Why do you always have total meltdown everytime anyone disagrees with your personal opinion?


There are countless posts where you have done it, many of which had to be closed because you act like a toddler.

A ‘meltdown’, lol. Whatever you say Mandalore.

[Mave]

Heaveho said:

They would still be inherently safer than the ones the op used. Because they're aren't under the same duress as the ones we're talking about.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make the design in this thread safe, but I don't see the need when bolt throughs eliminate the problem the op suffered.

What is it you think is causing this additional duress? What do you think the problem the OP actually suffered is? Because most of the risks associated with this design type are the same for a bolt through design type.

The only extra problem I see with the OP design that may have contributed to his failure is the accuracy of the stud position

I don't see anything fundamentally different between the OPs spacer and the TUV approved spacer further up this page

Edited by Mave on Sunday 1st November 15:54

[anonymous-user]

Oh dear, another thread poisoned by ddom.

Now where where were we? Ah yes, spacers.

Can properly engineered spacers be useful in some circumstances? Yes.
Are there loads of wide and cheap rubbish spacers for da looks, innit? Yes.
Are non-standard spacers a modification that insurers would be interested to know about? Yes.

[Heaveho]

Mave said:

What is it you think is causing this additional duress? What do you think the problem the OP actually suffered is? Because most of the risks associated with this design type are the same for a bolt through design type.

The first question is fair enough, it's gut instinct for me if I'm honest. I don't like the idea of the studs having so little meat behind them compared to how far they stick out. I accept that the central spigot should take the stress out of the studs, so then I come to the conclusion that they possibly weren't torqued correctly. Apologies to op if that's wrong.

However, given that bolt throughs eliminate this possibility through design, it then falls to the owner to fit the correct bolts. As said, I can't see how the spacer can be to blame should the bolts fail in that instance.,

[Mave]

Heaveho said:

The first question is fair enough, it's gut instinct for me if I'm honest. I don't like the idea of the studs having so little meat behind them compared to how far they stick out. I accept that the central spigot should take the stress out of the studs, so then I come to the conclusion that they possibly weren't torqued correctly. Apologies to op if that's wrong.

However, given that bolt throughs eliminate this possibility through design, it then falls to the owner to fit the correct bolts. As said, I can't see how the spacer can be to blame should the bolts fail in that instance.,

I understand the first paragraph, but I don't think it would have contributed to the failure we're looking at unless the thread is inadequate (by design, manufacture, or material). How far they stick out shouldn't matter, and neither should the spigot (except for during assembly). The studs are (or they should be!) in tension, not bending.

I do agree that assembly torque (or relaxation due to something in the stack moving or yielding ) could be a problem.

However, the through bolt design doesn't remove the risk of incorrect torque, or the risk that inappropriate bolts are used

It would be interesting to see the fracture surfaces in detail to get a better view of what the failure mechanism was.

[milu]

The reason both types exist is because the studs can’t be easily lengthened to accommodate the spacers. So bolt ons are required.
It’s much easier with bolt on wheels because longer bolts are readily available.
I’ll say again I’ve used both without issue.

[anonymous-user]

JimSuperSix said:

Elatino1 said:

ddom said:

Elatino1 said:

Just read the bits you want to read yes? Not the bits when I said "assuming the car is aligned to suit" implying everything else being equal.

Case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing

You can poat idiotic emojis all you like but it is only highlighting your misunderstanding. It's very basic physics but seems you don't understand even that. All things being equal a wider base makes ANYTHING that is on top of level even hard ground more stable.

It does, watch those videos I posted , the guy even does the maths for you.
Consider why huge cranes deploy outriggers when they are lifting stuff.

As a thought experiment - imagine a typical 4x4 with a track of 1.8m or whatever it is - now imagine you add huge spacers and move the wheels out 2m on each side - ignoring whether the physical properties of the spacers and suspension could survive , do you think the vehicle is now more , less or equally likely to roll over when cornering?]

Still waiting for a reply DDom...

[Skyedriver]

Still can't get my head around the fact that the OP and two supposed professional garages looked at the problem and didn't spot the missing wheel nuts/bolts.....

[FA57 VWT]

ddom said:

Tommo87 said:

Why do you always have total meltdown everytime anyone disagrees with your personal opinion?


There are countless posts where you have done it, many of which had to be closed because you act like a toddler.

A ‘meltdown’, lol. Whatever you say Mandalore.

He has a point though, meltdown is the wrong word, but you frequently appear on threads like a bad smell wafting of grandiose.

[anonymous-user]

Skyedriver said:

Still can't get my head around the fact that the OP and two supposed professional garages looked at the problem and didn't spot the missing wheel nuts/bolts.....

As I understood it I don't think the wheel nuts were missing when it was taken to the garages, they left the scene later.

[njw1]

Heaveho said:

...... I don't like the idea of the studs having so little meat behind them compared to how far they stick out.

You'll find this picture of bog standard wheel studs that have been fitted to millions of cars everywhere for many decades particularly scary then;



The funny thing with bolt on spacers is that more often than not they'll be thicker than the hub they're bolted onto hence the studs in them are actually better supported than the studs in the hub itself.

I'd bet a large sum of money that the spacers in the OP's case haven't failed as a result of poor materials but because they haven't been torqued properly.

[gazza285]

njw1 said:

I'd bet a large sum of money that the spacers in the OP's case haven't failed as a result of poor materials but because they haven't been torqued properly.

The OP's first photo should give you a clue as to why, you can still see the copper slip in the threads of the remaining studs.

[Starfighter]

A wet thread would need the applied torque reducing by between 30-50% to give the same load in the bolt. If the threads were lubricated with copper grease and torqued to the full amount then that would significantly over load them. Any problems with the space would just compound the load issue.