What are folks doing with their Paradise Magstars as far as balancing i.e. lug or center-centric, hammer or stick-on weights? I would guess hammer-on weights would be more appropriate for the period?
Thanks -
DGSOH
hammer on weights and balancing over the lugs with a adapter in my opinion the best way to do it
I had mine done with the old school system, can't remember what that's called and glue on weights on inside, not Concours correct, but I didn't want the Chrome rim marked up with outer wheel weights either. No balance problems going down the road.
Quote from: Kent on March 19, 2019, 06:27:14 AM
and balancing over the lugs with a adapter
Not sure what this means?
the wheel/tire assembly can be balanced by attaching the assembly to the balancer at either the center opening of the wheel (Hub Centric) or the lug holes (Lug Centric). Not all shops (very few) have an adaptor to do the Lug Centric method which is recommended by either the auto manufacturer or the wheel maker.
Ah, of course. ;D
I just today dropped off my wheels off to get the new repro speedway 350's installed and yes had a hard time finding a place to do lug centric balancing but for your info older Ford Dealers (currently named Paoil Ford ) like the one I used seem to be the ticket. I also didn't want to mar the chrome and used stick on weights.
The Ford 8 & 9 inch axles (and others) present in its' original engineering intent, a register at the flange for the purpose of locating or 'registering' the drum or disc and the original factory mounted steel wheels 'on-center' and thus are considered 'hub-centric' by design; and I feel should be balanced as such.
The problem arises, as many aftermarket wheels ignore this register to simplify engineering efforts (and costs) by the wheel maker for a more universal wheel center, with only concerns for bolt pattern, titling them as 'lug-centric' installations, and with "Uni-Lug" systems even this eliminates specific applications further.
I have not found these so called 'lug-centric' wheels to be very dependable or repeatable on their locating themselves 'on-center' when installed, leading to an every variable some of vibrations emanating. We have therefore in an effort to correct this deficiency, found ourselves fabricating a spacer-register which is generally heat-shrunk on to the original factory axle register and engages the wheel center (generally one will find it to present a machined surface which was apparently utilized by the manufacturer in the production process, but not always) to provide correct and more repeatable hub-centric location, and generally better results. ;)
I'm am unknowing of who one would attribute as the inventor of "Lug-Centric" or "Lug-Piloted" wheel installation, but the most common would seem to be Budd Wheel, as was (and still is on older vehicles) a very popular option to the Dayton spoke units on trucks from the 1930's to 1980's; but keep in mind with the use of ten lugs on a larger bolt circle, mounting a wheel & tire of greater circumference, and attached to a commercial vehicle and perhaps less than an ideal ride was more acceptable, but note more recently have relinquished to 'hub-piloted' engineering since, for the better engineering. :)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on March 19, 2019, 01:20:28 PM
The Ford 8 & 9 inch axles (and others) present in its' original engineering intent, a register at the flange for the purpose of locating or 'registering' the drum or disc and the original factory mounted steel wheels 'on-center' and thus are considered 'hub-centric' by design; and I feel should be balanced as such.
The problem arises, as many aftermarket wheels ignore this register to simplify engineering efforts (and costs) by the wheel maker for a more universal wheel center, with only concerns for bolt pattern, titling them as 'lug-centric' installations, and with "Uni-Lug" systems even this eliminates specific applications further.
I have not found these so called 'lug-centric' wheels to be very dependable or repeatable on their locating themselves 'on-center' when installed, leading to an every variable some of vibrations emanating. We have therefore in an effort to correct this deficiency, found ourselves fabricating a spacer-register which is generally heat-shrunk on to the original factory axle register and engages the wheel center (generally one will find it to present a machined surface which was apparently utilized by the manufacturer in the production process, but not always) to provide correct and more repeatable hub-centric location, and generally better results. ;)
I'm am unknowing of who one would attribute as the inventor of "Lug-Centric" or "Lug-Piloted" wheel installation, but the most common would seem to be Budd Wheel, as was (and still is on older vehicles) a very popular option to the Dayton spoke units on trucks from the 1930's to 1980's; but keep in mind with the use of ten lugs on a larger bolt circle, mounting a wheel & tire of greater circumference, and attached to a commercial vehicle and perhaps less than an ideal ride was more acceptable, but note more recently have relinquished to 'hub-piloted' engineering since, for the better engineering. :)
Scott.
https://us.hubcentric-rings.com/why_hub_centric_rings/?src=intpopup
Quote from: tonys_shelby on March 19, 2019, 12:19:49 PM
I just today dropped off my wheels off to get the new repro speedway 350's installed and yes had a hard time finding a place to do lug centric balancing but for your info older Ford Dealers (currently named Paoil Ford ) like the one I used seem to be the ticket. I also didn't want to mar the chrome and used stick on weights.
Hopefully if you used stick on weights you were able to do them on the back side only. ;)
So if the wheel centers fit snug on the "registers" of the flanges and hubs, hub-centric balancing should be ok I'm guessing. The shop can do lug-centric but unfortunately their adapter's studs aren't long enough for the Magstars. I'll check the register fit ahead of time.
As far as choice of weights I'm still conflicted. On the one hand I like the idea of no buggered up chrome and a clean appearance. On the other I've not had particularly good luck with the stick-ons over the years.
We would prefer to use metal vs. plastic(?) for the registers for the greater load impact capability. Keep in mind that another function of this register locating the wheel is to support the wheel, to aid in resisting forces attempting to move the wheel perpendicular to the face of the axle flange and the possibility of shearing the wheel studs, as the fasteners' major strength is not in this plane nor was this load or movement intended to be experienced in the original engineering. ;)
Scott.
Quote from: DGSOH on March 19, 2019, 08:04:30 PM
So if the wheel centers fit snug on the "registers" of the flanges and hubs, hub-centric balancing should be ok I'm guessing. The shop can do lug-centric but unfortunately their adapter's studs aren't long enough for the Magstars. I'll check the register fit ahead of time.
As far as choice of weights I'm still conflicted. On the one hand I like the idea of no buggered up chrome and a clean appearance. On the other I've not had particularly good luck with the stick-ons over the years.
The new tape weights stick pretty good, I always put some duct tape over the weights for added stick.
Quote from: JD on March 19, 2019, 08:47:28 PM
Quote from: DGSOH on March 19, 2019, 08:04:30 PM
So if the wheel centers fit snug on the "registers" of the flanges and hubs, hub-centric balancing should be ok I'm guessing. The shop can do lug-centric but unfortunately their adapter's studs aren't long enough for the Magstars. I'll check the register fit ahead of time.
As far as choice of weights I'm still conflicted. On the one hand I like the idea of no buggered up chrome and a clean appearance. On the other I've not had particularly good luck with the stick-ons over the years.
The new tape weights stick pretty good, I always put some duct tape over the weights for added stick.
+1. Always done on track cars. With that agreement unfortunately renders the stick on weights arguably even uglier then they are prior to the tape use IMO.
One of the problems with the use of "stick-on' weights only on the rear of the wheel, is that one should be attempting to balance the tire & wheel set in both a "force" and "couple" imbalance modes, which is not always ideally possible if ones' correction is restrained to only a singular plane (backside weight installation only); and if one is attempting to cancel an imbalance, particularly a couple value out of plane, then if accomplished, it would generally require excessive material to be added versus otherwise. The wider the wheel, the bigger the problem, as length in the planes and distance between the rotational imbalances increases, the couple imbalance variables become greater.
So, therefore if you have an 1940's M.G. TC (as I do), with a 19" diameter spoke (wire) wheel and a tire with less than 4 inches of tread width, one can establish through a static or really modernize with the use of a bubble balancer and just hang the corrective weights on the spokes (lead fishing sinkers) in the center on the wheel and be O.K. (remember the cars aren't that fast anyway). But as the tires get wider (and the cars faster), then this is where the terms such as 'dynamic' balancing began appearing. c :o
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on March 19, 2019, 09:03:38 PM
One of the problems with the use of "stick-on' weights only on the rear of the wheel, is that one should be attempting to balance the tire & wheel set in both a "force" and "couple" imbalance modes, which is not always ideally possible if ones' correction is restrained to only a singular plane (backside weight installation only); and if one is attempting to cancel an imbalance, particularly a couple value out of plane, then if accomplished, it would generally require excessive material to be added versus otherwise. The wider the wheel, the bigger the problem, as length in the planes and distance between the rotational imbalances increases, the couple imbalance variables become greater.
So, therefore if you have an 1940's M.G. TC (as I do), with a 19" diameter spoke (wire) wheel and a tire with less than 4 inches of tread width, one can establish through a static or really modernize with the use of a bubble balancer and just hang the corrective weights on the spokes (lead fishing sinkers) in the center on the wheel and be O.K. (remember the cars aren't that fast anyway). But as the tires get wider (and the cars faster), then this is where the terms such as 'dynamic' balancing began appearing. c :o
Scott.
Well there goes a black eye for any good looking wheel using stick on weights IMO . ;D
Quote from: pbf777 on March 19, 2019, 08:06:08 PM
We would prefer to use metal vs. plastic(?) for the registers for the greater load impact capability. Keep in mind that another function of this register locating the wheel is to support the wheel, to aid in resisting forces attempting to move the wheel perpendicular to the face of the axle flange and the possibility of shearing the wheel studs, as the fasteners' major strength is not in this plane nor was this load or movement intended to be experienced in the original engineering. ;)
Scott.
My bad, so many sources and I linked one that is plastic only. ::)
Fixed here;
https://www.uswheeladapters.com/aluminum-hub-rings/
Quote from: DGSOH on March 19, 2019, 08:04:30 PM
So if the wheel centers fit snug on the "registers" of the flanges and hubs, hub-centric balancing should be ok I'm guessing. The shop can do lug-centric but unfortunately their adapter's studs aren't long enough for the Magstars. I'll check the register fit ahead of time.
I don't know what the original K/H Magstars were like but the opening where the wheel center meets the hub/flange on the Paradise version is considerably larger than the indexing register - at least what I think is the register - compared to a plain old steel wheel for example. Assuming wheel studs on the hubs/flanges and stud bores in the wheels are precisely located I can see where lug-centric balancing could have an advantage.
Quote from: pbf777 on March 19, 2019, 09:03:38 PM
One of the problems with the use of "stick-on' weights only on the rear of the wheel, is that one should be attempting to balance the tire & wheel set in both a "force" and "couple" imbalance modes, which is not always ideally possible if ones' correction is restrained to only a singular plane (backside weight installation only); and if one is attempting to cancel an imbalance, particularly a couple value out of plane, then if accomplished, it would generally require excessive material to be added versus otherwise. The wider the wheel, the bigger the problem, as length in the planes and distance between the rotational imbalances increases, the couple imbalance variables become greater.
So, therefore if you have an 1940's M.G. TC (as I do), with a 19" diameter spoke (wire) wheel and a tire with less than 4 inches of tread width, one can establish through a static or really modernize with the use of a bubble balancer and just hang the corrective weights on the spokes (lead fishing sinkers) in the center on the wheel and be O.K. (remember the cars aren't that fast anyway). But as the tires get wider (and the cars faster), then this is where the terms such as 'dynamic' balancing began appearing. c :o
Scott.
So, this is why (sort of maybe) I was thinking installing the weights as far outboard of the hub/flange makes the most sense - making the case for the hammer-on weights. Granted, these wheels and tires aren't large by any measure so not sure if it makes a difference.
I'm over-thinking this I know - but everyone needs a hobby right?
Mine are on the inside using standard weights. Tires seem to be balanced correctly as I have not vibration at speed.
Quote from: greekz on March 20, 2019, 06:51:52 PM
Mine are on the inside using standard weights. Tires seem to be balanced correctly as I have not vibration at speed.
By standard weights I assume you mean hammer-on yes?
Thanks.
Yes I do.
Quote from: greekz on March 20, 2019, 06:51:52 PM
Mine are on the inside using standard weights. Tires seem to be balanced correctly as I have not vibration at speed.
Without being hands-on within the specific instance, it is not reasonable for one to imply any specific fault or known results from any technique applied by others. But, if I am allowed to present a thought: it would seem unlikely, but not unheard of, that a weight value applied at a singular location even if clocked correct within the plane of rotation, positioned off center or as described at one end of the rotational mass in its' length, would be the correct solution except if the rotating mass produced a singular couple imbalance which when corrected, also solved an also present force imbalance sum, verses creating one. ???
Again, I would think that if one chooses balance something of the shape presented by a tire & wheel assembly with the correction as indicated above, then I would have to believe that one is only concerned with the force imbalance effect, and only if by luck, addressing the couple solution, if not inducing or compounding such. And this seems the inverse of the previous, but it attempts to indicate the difficulty in addressing what may be more than one imbalance value acting upon the rotating mass. :o
Think of it as, the "Force" balancing solution as a two dimensional observation, and the addition of "Couple" balancing within the solution as making it a three dimensional observation. ::)
But, sometimes, just one, itty bitty correction is all that is required; I just wouldn't count on it! ;)
BTW. if tape is required, the Gorilla Tape brand is generally tougher with superior adhesion vs. regular universal Duck Tape; just my experience anyway. :)
Scott.
That would be applicable with rim edge weights on either front or rear edges. The weights can be installed on the rear center line of the rim. I was fortunate and the rim/tire combination only needed about 1.5 OZ. of weight to balance them.
-Keith
One very critical part of wheel/tire balancing for vibrations is measuring and correcting lateral/radial runout before balancing. Check for bent wheel,etc.I went to many Ford schools for NVH ( noise,vibration,harshness) and as customers got fussier about the cars,the better they had to become. One of the reasons manufacturers started using aluminum wheels was to hold runout of the wheel to a minimum because steel wheels usually had a lot of variances. Then tire quality became more important. Ford had strict quality limits for tires that came on a new Ford. Replacement tires were not quite as good. We used to dismount and rotate the tires on the rim to try and reduce total runout by matching hi/low of rim to tire. Then there were those heavy wheelcovers that could be out of balance to ruin your efforts of balancing. Then there was "road force" effects from hard/soft areas of the tire as it rolled causing vibrations. Some tire dealers had machines to cut/true the outer surface and reduce total runout......best Ford instructor said it best,"you can balance an egg,but it won't roll smoothly". Find a big tire dealer that handles race tires and they understand and have the equipment needed. Picture is of tool we used to measure runout of tire tread.