Some of you guys should look up the definition of an ad hominem logical fallacy. You're busy trying to argue the person instead of the information and position. Look again at post #18, where I addressed the one and only actual argument against wheel spacers that anesthes made, and tell me what's wrong with the information and position.

 

You cited a webpage and attributed it to someone to give it validity based on their credentials. Only the license you claimed can't be verified and he went to school and apparently worked in a totally unrelated discipline. Hope your sitting down for this: not everything is true just because it's on the internet. When modifying the drive train of a vehicle capable of speeds in excess of 150 mph maybe it would be a good idea to verify the source of information.

 

He may not be licensed in Cali, or may not currently be licensed as an engineer at all at this time. I said he was and I'll retract that. As you noted, he's certainly attained an engineering degree. He was Director of Engineering at NHT (and there is quite a bit of crossover knowledge between that and vehicle engineering, btw). More importantly, Jack's been testing and designing parts for Maximum Motorsports for at least 20 years, and probably more like 30. By "testing," I mean putting parts through actual isntrumented tests to determine what they do and don't do, as well as installing them and actually racing on them.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter much what you think about Mr. Hidley. What matters is the actual content he wrote. So most importantly, everything he wrote is correct according physics and empirical experience. This all started when anesthes claimed that using a spacer would cause the driver to "lose control and die." I said that was alarmist and wrong, and cited a source. I also explained it all myself. I asked him to state in clear terms what he thought was bad about spacers. His one and only concern was that spacers aren't hubcentric, whereas adapters are. Well, that's simply not true: this will be the third time I've pointed out that lots of spacers out there are hubcentric, and that lots of the adapters aren't. The reason he said hubcentricity is critical is that if you drive around with loose lug nuts that will keep your wheel on the car. I pointed out the reasons that is not true, as well as the obvious: don't drive on loose lug nuts. Seriously, what else matters?

If you want more proof that hubcentricity has nothing to do with holding the wheel onto the hub, here is an article on wheel and hub failures. In it, the following quote is found: "A bolted joint, such as a wheel mounting system, works by tightly clamping two surfaces together. The friction of the two mated surfaces and the force created from clamping them together with bolts (Clamp Load) allows the surfaces to resist movement. The amount of friction and Clamp Load determines the level of resistance the joint has to movement." It also says, "Wheel system failures are primarily caused by the improper installation of a wheel that causes it to be loose or become loose. Commonly, a loose wheel causes the wheels studs to break and the wheel and tire to separate from the vehicle. Many root causes lead to loose wheels, but most of them are associated with over-torquing or under-torquing the lug nuts." Here's a book on medium/heavy vehicles that says clamping force from the studs and lug nuts is what holds the wheel in position. The references are out there from other sources.

Speaking of which, I don't think any "dually" truck wheel setups are hubcentric. Are they all going to go out of control and kill people? There have been tens of millions of cars made with lugcentric (not hubcentric) wheels over the last century. Why haven't they been failing at alarming rates? There's no evidence that hubcentricity is a requirement for safe wheel attachment. None. And no matter what you think of Jack Hidley, it's very clear that what he wrote is correct. It's also very clear that anesthes doesn't know what he's talking about. Everything he has said has been blatantly wrong. Again, focus on the information rather than ad hominem arguments.