Help: Trojan wheel question

[thomast]

Got the Trojan wheels back from the sandblaster today, I only just noticed I got narrow and whide wheel rims??? I then thought one of each makes a set but I have narrow ones and whide ones both with a hole for the plug   Anyone?

[steven mandell]

I'm sitting next to my spare at this moment.
Both split rim half sections measure 1and a half inches deep, and only one has a hole for the tube's valve stem.
I think that means that you have a mismatched set.
Hopefully one of them is the correct depth, andyou get to match it with another that has no valve stem aperture.

[Big Al]

Goggo rims look very similar to Treinkel rims. They do not interchange as the stud pattern and diameter are just different. The Goggo rim comes in two cross sections for Saloon, 4.40 by 10, or Coupe, 4.80 by 10. The Treinkel wheel has all round holes in it. The Goggo has four round and four square for the blind rim nut. You will not be the first to have gained some wrong rims.
I have no knowledge of differing Heinkel/Trojan rim sizes but it might be. It seems Trojan made there own rims. So not the same source as Heinkel. Indeed we are led to believe that Peel sized wheels where pressed out of the unwanted centers of Trojan wheels. These were fittred to Tro Kart and Tro Bike etc.
Even the four wheeler might see a narrower rim. However as far as I was aware they always quote the same tyre size, 4.40 by 10.
There is a split scooter rim that is similar too. That I think is narrower for 4.00 by 10.

Now an offset larger outside rim would allow a larger section tyre to go on the car. There is no room on the inside. But to go from 4.40 to 5.20 is a lot of offset and that is the only tyre at 10 inch I could see as advantageous in availability and price. I have seen a car with offset rims and a spacer running Mini tyres. It was a slow car as the drag was so greatly increased by the radial tyres and the handling was little better save it tipped onto two wheels without any warning. The old crossplys normally get distressed at the limit so you know your going to fast. The radials had hardly got started before the car toppled.

[thomast]

Thanks for that, They are not Goggo as I have one of those with the junk-bits. They are Dunlop stamped, will post picture later. They fitt okay but still something is wrong!

[steven mandell]

May I repeat my suggestion that you look to match the 1 and a half inch offset for both rim halves that I see on my stock appearing rims.
I f you do so but still have an extra vale stem hole in one of them you might try some heavy tape from the inside to reduce possible chafing, or have them welded in to do it right.  Alternatively the shortest short stove bolt with it's tapered head edges and a single thin jam nut would probably do as long as you rotated it 180 degrees from the valve stem hole that you are using, to allow the job of balancing your wheel and tire assembly to not get overly encumbered.

Al brings up some interesting points as i have seen 4.00, 4.40, 4.80 and 5.20 x 10" tire sizes.
What is the recommended rim width for each?
I was surprised to find that the wheels that came with my Zeta Sport Coupe prototype were only 3" in width as Fred Dixwell, the head of the Zeta Sport Club, said that the 5.20 x 10" tires that came on my car were indeed stock, and "almost impossible to find".
I would like to locate some reasonably priced new tires of this size, with radials possibly preferred as it is a 4 wheeled car with full and equal track widths front and rear so tendency to increase forces leading to a roll over should not be of any concern.

However once I gain knowledge of requisite recommended rim widths for the various tire sizes mentioned above, I will begin experimenting with larger sizes, and even radial types of the widths quoted above for my 8" Nobels tires.  Once I get the new rubber bushes in place to compliment the new bronze bushes that I had made and installed in the hubs at great expense of labor,combined with the new springs and shocks that i can thank Bob Purton for- things should be tightened up enough to hopefully allow a top speed of at least a little greater than its presently indicated 40 m.p.h., w/o feeling like wander is pushing the limits of safety first.

On a three wheeler, it is best to have a better adhering tire on the rear than the fronts, which you would rather have wash out than have the binding of lateral kinetic forces to the road surface translate into roll.  This means that a wider section width, better sticking (radial?) tire at significantly higher pressure should be run at the rear.  From my own successful experiments with my HMV Freeway, I know that this plus putting a tire with the lowest aspect ratio and stiffest available sidewall in the rear can work wonders in reducing the side to side sway that often is found in three wheelers, as the rocking couple that requires the constant sawing back and forth at the steering wheel can be traced back to the flexibility of the side wall of the rear tire.  You can demonstrate this for yourself by rocking your three wheeler sideways from a vantage point towards the end of your vehicle with the single wheel, and watching the corresponding changing of the bulge in the tire's sidewall.
That tire is being called upon to do in it's section width, the roll resistance of 2 tires on opposite sides of a proper axle.  It can work well enough if compensating measures are appropriately maximized.
One of the many modifications that I performed on my Freeway was to replace the  3 stock 78 series section ratio 1.45x 12'' tires with 1.65/ 70 x 10" Dunlops in front, and a "stiffest sidewall in the industry" (at the time) 1.75 / 50 series Michelin P7 out back squeezed on to the minimum recommended aluminum rim of only 5 and a half inches, and inflated to 38 psi to further enhance side wall stiffness and road adhesion - thus reducing both the annoying tendency to wander, and the tendency of the vehicle to roll.   

[richard]

hi steven do you you have contact details for fred diwell ( no x i think ) i wanted to contact him at one time to enquire whether Lloyd 400's were imported into Australia ever. at the time i first enquired there had been devastating floods and fred had lost a lot of information . i would like to try again . thanks

[Big Al]

Falken do a reasonable 145 by 10 inch tyre. Your importer might have then, but then again might have a minimum order size.

No idea on cross section of rims to differing tyre sections.

Crossplys have a ply rating. Rear tyres want to be 6 ply high speed rating if you can get them. Radials have softer sidewalls so they get stiffer by going low profile. You then loose the element of suspension that offers in ride for better handling performance. A trade off.

The bigger section the tyre, and the softer the sidewall, the more power you need to push it along. Also the bigger the section of tyre on the road the lower the downward pressure of weight, which is spread further. That my not improve handling! Lastly a wider tyre, the more aerodynamic resistance.

Just playing that game with the BX. Are 165 better or 185? So far I think high quality 165 look best as they grip well but do not increase fuel consumption. That said been offered some new Pirrelli Cinturatto 185 by 14 for £40 each, bargain.

[Barry]

Nothing can make a BX look good!

[Big Al]

I have found closing the garage door works as an interim measure.

[thomast]

There's 1cm missing (or to much ;-)

[richard]

Double dutch to me

[steven mandell]

[quote author=Big Al link=topic=3968.msg29802#msg29802 date=1373921652
No idea on cross section of rims to differing tyre sections.
Crossplys have a ply rating. Rear tyres want to be 6 ply high speed rating if you can get them. Radials have softer sidewalls so they get stiffer by going low profile. You then loose the element of suspension that offers in ride for better handling performance. A trade off.
The bigger section the tyre, and the softer the sidewall, the more power you need to push it along. Also the bigger the section of tyre on the road the lower the downward pressure of weight, which is spread further. That my not improve handling! Lastly a wider tyre, the more aerodynamic resistance
[/quote]
I have researched via a representative from the Coker Tire (Choker prices) website.  He says that both the 4.40 and 4.80 x 10 inch size tire manufacturers recommend a 3 inch wide rim.  Less certain of a recommendation for a 5.20 x 10 inch, as they do not stock that size and therefore had no info on it.  My Zeta Sport Prototype has this size tire on only a 3 inch wheel.  Nearest comparisons that I could come up with call for a 3.5 inch with for a 5.20 x 12 inch tire, and somewhat less explicably a recommendation of a 4 inch rim width for a 5.20 by 12 inch tire manufacturer.  So I don't yet know the correct rim width/ rim width range for a 5.20x10" tire.  Have you indeed found a source for these?
I suspect a radial tire on a single rear wheeled vehicle with both the engine and trans mass dampening road irregularities would make lower profile less of an issue. 
Radials have lower rolling resistance, higher powered lightweight race cars benefit from wide tires, and aerodynamic resistance of a tire at the rear of a microcar  at speeds of 45mph are usually considered to be insignificant.

Richard- I passed on your request for contact to Fred.

[Barry]

The main thing is to identify the split rims - are they Trojan (Heinkel).  Heinkel people should be able to help.  My A2 scooter has 5 stud wheels which doesn't help.

I am not keen on welding things up and plugging holes etc. to make them work.  There must be an explanation for the different rim widths (halves).

Should they be narrow with narrow  and wide with wide or  narrow with wide?

Perhaps narrow pair on the front and wide pair on the back or  narrow + wide all round?  (I can't imagine a mixed pair on the back).

My Isetta has 4.80 x 10 tyres on the front and 5.20 x 10 on the back (three wheel).  I don't know if the back wheel is wider but I think it is.  Not split rims.

[Big Al]

  He says that both the 4.40 and 4.80 x 10 inch size tire manufacturers recommend a 3 inch wide rim. 

  Less certain of a recommendation for a 5.20 x 10 inch, as they do not stock that size and therefore had no info on it.  My Zeta Sport Prototype has this size tire on only a 3 inch wheel.  Nearest comparisons that I could come up with call for a 3.5 inch with for a 5.20 x 12 inch tire, and somewhat less explicably a recommendation of a 4 inch rim width for a 5.20 by 12 inch tire manufacturer. 

  Have you indeed found a source for these?

  I suspect a radial tire on a single rear wheeled vehicle with both the engine and trans mass dampening road irregularities would make lower profile less of an issue.  Radials have lower rolling resistance, higher powered lightweight race cars benefit from wide tires, and aerodynamic resistance of a tire at the rear of a microcar  at speeds of 45mph are usually considered to be insignificant.

  4.40 by 10 is nigh on obsolete in the UK, I think only Trelleburg were offering a tyre, at a huge price and its not the best rubber. When I last messed with a Treinkel you could buy a Kings tyre 4.00 by 10 that bulked up well. Likewise 4.80 by 10 is limbo land though Uwe Staufenberg offers both, I believe. With the Goggo I was using the Coupe rims to run 145 by 10 Mini tyres, They pinched in a little. So I assume they were 3.5J rims.

  Cannot comment on Frisky/Zeta but 3J sounds a bit skinny for a Mini. I seem to remember Frisky using 4.80 by 10 but without looking in my stack of stashed info I could be wrong.
  Is a 145 by 10 not the same section as a 5.20 by 10 crossply?

  If the above is true then I repeat Falken do 145 by 10. Do not know of a cross ply manufacturer that size, talk to the Isetta trike boys.

  Not sure I follow your logic on fitting bigger tyres. The weight of the car does not alter but the unsprung weight of the wheel might. The less give in the tyre the less it offers to the suspension. A common error of fitment and why so many modern whizzo wonders are so uncomfortable.
  Lightweight racing cars are just that, lightweight racing cars. They are designed with the idea of fitting large specialist tyres. They have fully adjustable suspension. Tyre wear is not an issue over performance. Most humble small cars do not have fully adjustable suspension nor were designed to have wider tyres. It is not a bolt on and go solution. It needs testing to see if the result is satisfactory.
  What I will agree is that a wider profile in common use provide better compounds of rubber and more choice. As a for instance I suspect the best set up for a Messerschmitt will be some good scooter tyres on the front and a widened panzer wheel on the back with a reasonably low profile wide tyre on it. However to get the best from this would require the engine to be tweaked to give of its best to make up for the slightly increased drag on the rear and the front tyres would be worn pretty fast being driven into the bends. The very reason that in fact 4.40 by 8 inch tyres were found to be the pick as they offered the compromise in grip, handling and longevity in normal use. I believe it is even quoted in later literature in Germany for the cars.

  Isettas in the UK used 4.80 by 10 to the front and 5.20 by 10 to the rear, I think. The four wheelers were 4.80 all round? The early car had split rims and might have had narrower but were not trikes. I believe the BMW 600 and Isetta have three none split rim offset version between them and its all got a bit mixed up in some places.

  Back to the thread. As I said there is a scooter rim that is like the Trienkel and I suspect its for a 4.00 by 10 so it will be narrower. The Tourist went on to a fixed rim, none split, with a welded centre before becoming a 5 stud split rim wheel with the Eahrles forks. Dunlop where a wheel manufacturer as well as a tyre manufacturer - see Bond Bug alloys. I have no idea why wheels are still imperial in a metric world, save our dear chums, the French, but maybe Britain claims to have invented them! Certainly many wheels for many cars were, and still are, made in Britain.

  I still have many spare Treinkel rims so gaining an additional one is not a problem over and above logistics.

[steven mandell]

I emailed Fred Diwell requesting confirmation of Zeta Sport rim widths, as 3" does sound a bit skinny for a 5.20 x 10" tire, and I could find no other information source.
I have personally never noticed a single rear wheeled three wheeler transmitting objectionable shock loads upon hitting a bump with its rear tire.
There usually is no adjustment needed or possible for this single rear wheel as it is suspended by a trailing arm without any possibility of camber change.  The geometry of wheel placement allows even the widest and most square shouldered and stiffest sidewall single rear wheel to absorb forces of lateral roll via deflection of its sidewalls.  As a matter of fact, my HMV Freeway experiments, and the very successful suspension design and tire selection for perhaps the best handling three wheeler -the Badsey Bullet show that putting a rear tire with more tread surface and both lower and stiffer sidewalls to be a good way to decrease wander and increase cornering abilities.  The production Badsey Bullet used 1.45SR 10 inch tires on 5 and a half inch x10 inch rims up front, and a massive P295/50R 15 on a 10x15 inch at the rear quite successfully.
While I am not suggesting anything this radical for a microcar, one can at least see the logic and proven track record for putting a wider, lower profile , squarer tread, stiffer sidewalled tire at higher pressure on the rear of a single rear wheeled three wheeler.