Low offset stance VS regular stance debate
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Low offset stance VS regular stance debate
I'm just gonna ask a simple question since it seems to be a very hot topic from the threads I've read and seen.
Why is it that guys who are into the stretched tires low offset pokage look can easily admit that their specific style isn't really meant for performance and taking corners at max speed, but the performance guys with meaty tires and tucked wheels can never man up and admit low offset stretch style looks better than theirs.
and I ask this question not to start a flame war, but because through all the threads I have read I've seen a lot of stretch guys admit it's mostly for looks, but I've never seen one performance guy admit that the style looks better than their meaty tires tucked in look.
Why is it that guys who are into the stretched tires low offset pokage look can easily admit that their specific style isn't really meant for performance and taking corners at max speed, but the performance guys with meaty tires and tucked wheels can never man up and admit low offset stretch style looks better than theirs.
and I ask this question not to start a flame war, but because through all the threads I have read I've seen a lot of stretch guys admit it's mostly for looks, but I've never seen one performance guy admit that the style looks better than their meaty tires tucked in look.
That's your opinion.
My opinion is the meaty tires look is much better that stretched.
I'm not into the whole VIP, stretched tires up in the fender with 30* of camber look at all. That is my opinion
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
we're not talking about stretched tires vs meaty tires buddy, we're talking the whole package..... here's a comparison of the 2 different styles I'm talking about.
VS
BTW, aggressive FAT fitment FTW
simple answer to your question is because looks are an opinion, but reduced performance of running bigger wheels/negative camber/etc is a fact.
people with meaty tires will more than likely tell you they think it looks better than the alternative route, other wise they would have gone that other route.
your basicaly assuming that all the people with meaty tires have them for performance reasons but wish they could have the look of low offsets/stretch. your completely wrong, theres plenty of people with F/Id cars that are running stretched tires negative camber and low offsets even though it takes a bit away from the thousands they dropped in the engine, why? because thats their preference
people with meaty tires will more than likely tell you they think it looks better than the alternative route, other wise they would have gone that other route.
your basicaly assuming that all the people with meaty tires have them for performance reasons but wish they could have the look of low offsets/stretch. your completely wrong, theres plenty of people with F/Id cars that are running stretched tires negative camber and low offsets even though it takes a bit away from the thousands they dropped in the engine, why? because thats their preference
I'm in between.
I do like the tuck but not a fan of -23 degrees (ex) of camber.
I like the rim to be flush with the fender with the tire slightly tucked in as posted in the last picture of the IP G.
I like the tire to have a USABLE contact patch. Not a fan of the people who use too much neg camber and so much stretch that equals up to a contact patch of a spare tire.
Also not a fan of the hot rod look on a G. Example is when people use too wide of a rim, wide tire and a tall sidewall in the rear almost resembling a drag car on tall racing slicks.
Just my opinion.
I do like the tuck but not a fan of -23 degrees (ex) of camber.
I like the rim to be flush with the fender with the tire slightly tucked in as posted in the last picture of the IP G.
I like the tire to have a USABLE contact patch. Not a fan of the people who use too much neg camber and so much stretch that equals up to a contact patch of a spare tire.
Also not a fan of the hot rod look on a G. Example is when people use too wide of a rim, wide tire and a tall sidewall in the rear almost resembling a drag car on tall racing slicks.
Just my opinion.
Trending Topics
Or it's never about that. Maybe someone doesn't feel it's that important to get the most aggressive look possible. Some of us even think it looks kinda stupid. But that has nothing to do with the size of my sack. Some of us drive our cars year-round, including winter, and a super-aggressive setup would be ridiculously impractical.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 101
From: Southern Cali --> 818
Who says you can't have both? I have a lot of respect for guys that balance both of them out properly.
I like the low-offset look to a limit. As long as you can have a flush look, with moderate to little negative camber, and enough tire, you have a thumbs up from me
The reason you don't see this often is because its harder to execute then the other [the low-offsets & stretched tire or high-to-moderate offsets and meaty tires]
I like the low-offset look to a limit. As long as you can have a flush look, with moderate to little negative camber, and enough tire, you have a thumbs up from me
The reason you don't see this often is because its harder to execute then the other [the low-offsets & stretched tire or high-to-moderate offsets and meaty tires]
it's not a matter of "manning up".
Sorry to say, this thread is pretty stupid. Looks are subjective. Performance is quantifiable.
Everyone has their own preference for what they run themselves on each of their cars, as well as what they do/don't like on other people's cars. In this case, it is possible for someone to like both, or even strike a balance with both.
Everyone has their own preference for what they run themselves on each of their cars, as well as what they do/don't like on other people's cars. In this case, it is possible for someone to like both, or even strike a balance with both.
