Q's re:fitment and legality of 13x7" mag on LC
#1 _LC2250_
Posted 22 May 2006 - 06:16 PM
The front seems to protrude quite a lot (these rims currently dont have rubber) but the back looks like with rolling of the guards it might just fit. If it's not possible on the front would 6" of the same fit?
Next question is, what type of nuts are needed for these? there doesn't seem to be enough thread sticking out when the wheels are sitting on the stubs for the old nuts to fit ... and the holes seem to be a lot wider (as though they are to accomodate a nut that goes slightly beneath the surface of the mag if that makes sense).
I think I had another question ... I'll come back when I can remember what it is.
Cheers
-Al
#2 _LC2250_
Posted 22 May 2006 - 07:51 PM
The wheel arch as those with LC/LJ's know (prolly the same with most cars really) is furthest away from the center of the car at the top of the arch and as the arch ... arches down towards the ground it angles slightly in towards the center of the car ... does the tyre just have to be concealed by this topmost point? or by the entire arch? If that makes sense ... awesome
Cheers
-Al
#3 _CHOPPER_
Posted 22 May 2006 - 08:08 PM
#4
Posted 23 May 2006 - 12:59 PM
#5
Posted 23 May 2006 - 01:16 PM
#6 _LC2250_
Posted 23 May 2006 - 02:41 PM
Torrietree: sweet, I was kinda scared that they were wrong for the stub on the car, as I'm used to those cone shaped ones from the LC/LJ ...
Makka: so that means on this picture below it would be able to come out to about where the red line is on both front and back (when the wheels are pointing forward for front) [edit:as some vic roads guy was saying it had to be behind the guard all the way around (albeit probably didn't completely understand my description over the phone)]
Cheers everyone
-Al
Edited by LC2250, 23 May 2006 - 02:44 PM.
#7 _CHOPPER_
Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:15 PM
#1 Chopper: Covered by the guards ... is this open to interpretation by who ever is inspecting at the time? or is it fairly definitive?
#2 So that means on this picture below it would be able to come out to about where the red line is on both front and back?
http://www.vicroads....dsafe/VSI 8.pdf
#1 Page 4: " the guard or bodywork of the vehicle must cover the section width of the tyre. "
It only mentions section width. It doesn't mention the rim. So in theory, a rim with a concave centre that protrudes outside the guard or bodywork may be legal.
#2 That would be my interpretation.
However due to the wording, if you have a front end set up with 4.5 degrees of negative camber ( like I did on my LX ) so the top of the tyre is inside the guard and the botom extends past the bodywork, that may be legal.
Please remember Rule #1.
A policeman may issue a defect on a vehicle if it is unroadworthy IN THE POLICEMANS OPINION.
#8 _RCK-914_
Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:59 PM
Cheers Chris
#9 _CHOPPER_
Posted 23 May 2006 - 08:03 PM
#10 _LC2250_
Posted 25 May 2006 - 01:16 PM
Cheers
-Al
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users