In Germany the price for the 4-rims-set incl. Scuderia titanium bolts is EUR 9.877,-- incl. 19% VAT rear: 10,5x20 H2 ET front: 8,5x20 H2 ET Painted in canna di fucile. Rims are approved by Ferrari.
thanks any website that i can check on it. i'm thinking to order the standard rims and when my 458 deliver to me then i can change to this rims. any suggestion?
Credit Iain for sharing this image in another thread> Factory option for your 458. CH Image Unavailable, Please Login
email [email protected] The guy's name is Heiko. He's solid and can ship you those wheels for under 10k I have done lots of business with him.. Good guy.
They look pretty good. The standard OEM wheels which weigh about 40lbs more than the sport wheels add the equivalent of about 40X6 = 240lbs of unsprung weight the 458 has to move. Would be informative to know how much lighter these wheels are versus the standard and sport wheels.
40 pounds per wheel? Doesn't sound even remotely possible. Where did you find that number? And why would there be 6 wheels on the car?
It's 40lbs for all 4 wheels. When interpreting the significance of an extra pound of unsprung weight -- in terms of additional weight the car has to move forward -- one multiplies each pound by a factor of 6. A little known 'rule of thumb', rarely ever talked about when people consider switching one wheel for another. Another way of saying this is that 458 buyers who spec'd the sport wheels, which are about 40lbs lighter than the standard wheels, presumably did so because the reduced weight the car has to move forward (40X6=240lbs) improves performance. (Don't expect to see those 0-60 acceleration times of 3.0-3.2 seconds by a 458 with standard wheels.) And this weight saving associated with the wheels alone outdoes almost all the combined weight savings from lighter seats, no radio, no fire extinguisher, and all the carbon fibre jazz.
That rule does not meet the logic test. If you are referring to rotating mass, that would assume all the extra weight was on the outside of the rim at the max distance from the center of rotation, which is not true. And a 6:1 ratio for unsprung weight is unrealistic. Do you have a source that explains that rule of thumb? Taz Terry Phillips
Thanks for this. I am referring to rotating mass and, yes, there are qualifications to the 'rule' and it gets a bit complicated. But I still think the 'rule of thumb' applies to a large extent -- especially to the extent folks should ponder it when deciding on switching wheels. I've cited a source before that I'll try to locate and post later, as well as some posts which discuss elements of the 'rule of thumb' itself.
Regarding the multiplier of '6', see article below. http://www.content4reprint.com/cars-and-trucks/a-review-on-the-oz-superleggera-wheels.htm Regarding discussion of the multiplier and location of rotational mass (also calipers), see prior Fchat post "Optional and Special Rims for the 458"
i think Ferrari came out with a very reasonable MSRP for the 458 but they took the Porsche approach, in making everything a pricey option
This turns out to be incorrect. I recall doing the calculations in M&E back in college, but that was a while back; fortunately, someone's taken the time to reproduce the steps and post them. http://hpwizard.com/rotational-inertia.html At any rate, the multiplier is 1.6 for wheels (that is, 60% more effect than static weight alone would suggest). 10 lbs for all 4 wheels is still significant, but is not going to make a material impact to acceleration times in a 3300# car.
Notwithstanding the OZ review, from a physics point of view, I doubt if saving unsprung weight does much for acceleration except possibly in a wheelspin situation without traction control. But it does do wonders for ride and handling. And it is very noticeable. I once drove two 911 GT3s which were identical in every respect including brake size, except that one had ceramic rotors and one had iron, saving about 50 lb of unsprung weight. The difference in ride and handling was very apparent. But the car certainly did not behave as if it was 300 lb lighter in terms of acceleration.
That I can believe - 12 lbs is a material fraction of the total weight of wheel+tire+brake, so the suspension would react differently.
As another Mechanical Engr, I like the second article far better. The first article is a great example of the "bench racing" inaccuracies like "torque gets you going and HP keeps you there......" Heard this all the time as a young man hanging around cars. Or maybe they just were not careful in the editing....
I agree that the second article makes sense. The basic idea is that you not only have to acclerate a wheel in a strainght line, you also have to make it spin faster at the same time. This takes more energy. But the difference is not a factor of 6.
Check me on this. When you increase the diameter of the wheel and keep the overall tire+wheel diameter the same, the total weight of the wheel-tire unit increases (because the wheel weighs more than the tire for the same marginal volume). If this is right, going to larger wheels hurts ride and acceleration (slightly). Simply going to wider wheels at the same diameter is worse.
