Staggered Wheel Set up. Why?

Duke wrote: If your car doesn't understeer (or you're a drag racer), and you need wider stuff out back to get the power down, then by all means, have at it with my blessing. But that only describes about 1% of the cars out there. And it describes 0% of the FWD cars seen running wider rears. Much hate, no love. Narrower rears for balance on an FWD setup? Much love, no hate.

Look, I'm not saying it's always wrong. I'm saying that it's not a good idea to think that if BMW did it, it must by definition be right, and shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. Note my comment about getting the power down above.

And I'm saying that wider tires on the back of a FWD car is done for looks, period . And stupid looks, too.

I wish there were some sort of organized framework for getting together and comparing how the different philosophies work out... Some sort of competition involving motorized vehicles...

Okay, being silly; there's enough else going on and we're not all in the same geographic place or running similar cars.

Is it safe to say it's not a black and white issue?

• Weight distribution in the car plays a role.
• Which wheels are driven plays a role.
• How much power the car has plays a role.
• Whether the goal is pleasant, balanced handling or a fast lap plays a role.[1]
• Probably other stuff as well...

1: If you've got a bunch of power, you'll want to use that to your advantage on corner exit as possibly your best means of a fast lap. With big rears, this may mean tiptoeing through entry and midcorner and trying point'n'squirt the thing, which may not be as much fun as a car which feels balanced all the way through the corner but goes all oversteer-and-no-drive when you try to exit the corner.

It may be contrived, but how 'bout a relatively tail-heavy FWD car? Could big tires and massive roll stiffness ever be the answer to getting that thing balanced and giving the front tires their best chance at hauling it around?

If I get a clean sheet of paper and a mandate to go around a track fast, if I skip AWD just to avoid confusing my tiny brain and for no other reason, I'll wind up with staggered tires and a rearward weight bias. That gets me tires sharing the work of braking, more weight over the driven tires on acceleration, and tire size more or less matched to cornering load. I may even wind up with the same layout with AWD.

With or without the clean sheet of paper, there will be compromise, and plenty of it.

In reply to ransom:

Your reasonable and logical analysis of the topic has no business on the internet, sir.

In reply to MG Bryan:

That's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all week

Has anyone talked about shape of the contact patch between tire and ground yet?

I also want to not thank Ford for the bizarrely huge rear wheel openings on the SN95, so "square" wheel/tire packages look undersized on the back of the car.

because i can fit 11" wide wheels on the back with 315's and they look like steamrollers from behind?

Duke wrote: Since 99% of all modern cars exhibit terminal understeer anyway, 99% of all staggered setups are making a bad problem worse.

not quite the same...

but my little awd Corolla has a wider track up front then in the rear... almost an inch per side... My little awd Corolla handles pretty darn well for a Corolla sedan

In reply to Duke:

I forgot for a moment that you know more about car design than BMW.

If I had to guess, it's because manufacturers want them to understeer when unwashed masses loose control. The easiest, quickest fix is more rubber on the back.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a Corvette or Ferrari, driven by a overweight, over monied person, loose the front of the car and push off the road even with a staggered setup. They inevitably loose the back and spin off into a ditch or tree. Easy fix? More tire on the back. Personally, I think the best thing you could do for those type of drivers is take away the locking diff. Hard to spin a car, while showing off, with one wheel drive.

The FWD guys just want to look like the super cars of the world. Whatever, I just want to be able to rotate the damn things.

ransom wrote: I wish there were some sort of organized framework for getting together and comparing how the different philosophies work out... Some sort of competition involving motorized vehicles...

Science through the crucible of motorsport?

This pertains to my interests... Just ordered a staggered setup for my SW20 MR2... Carry on

Why? Because I can't fit 305s up front.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Duke: I forgot for a moment that you know more about car design than BMW.

And I forgot for a moment that engineering compromises are never made at the direction of marketing or liability weenies.

dansxr2 wrote: This pertains to my interests... Just ordered a staggered setup for my SW20 MR2... Carry on

Which sounds like, you know, the kind of car that can actually benefit from it.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Duke: I forgot for a moment that you know more about car design than BMW.

Please address what I pointed out about the '95 to '96 M3

235/40/17 square setup to a 225/45 245/40 staggered

The S52 didn't make that much more torque, nor did it weigh less up front.

It might have been for a crisper turn in......oddly enough, the ti fit e46 fitment tires under it. I might consider running an autox at some point with the 18's on the car just to test this theory. I will bet the staggered setup will help the car with its lift off oversteer issue.