To stagger or not to stagger?

[Audi403]

I've been doing some research on this topic and need a little help to decide what to do here. First I will say that my car is on stock suspension and I don't want to lower it yet because of warranty. However, I will be potentially lowering in the future.

The wheels I'm interested in look awesome with 20x10 in the back because they have the perfect amount of concavity IMO. However, I feel like they are too concave for the front. I really like 20x9 on the front with 20x10 on the back. I have read all the matters is the rolling diameter so if I size the tires properly it will not be an issue. The offset on these wheels is 35. Would it cause any issues if I size them correctly?

If I were to do 20x10 (et35) front and back at stock height would it fit and be rub free without have to fit stretched tires or would I need to run 245's? I'd really like to go with the staggered setup but could use some feedback.

Thanks!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Hugh@EuropaParts]

1 inch difference doesn't matter... you can use the same size tire. I run a 8.5 in front with a 9.5 on the rear with a 225/35/19 on both. It's the side wall that stretches not the contact area...

[Fast05stang]

I have a staggered setup on my Mustang. But that's also a RWD car. 20x9 up front with 20x10 out back. And the rears have relatively large meats (295). It looks great, but gets very expensive, as I go through tires more often since I can't rotate them. A 245 on a 10" wide wheel seems crazy to me, but I'm sure people have done it. Hopefully you don't get that look where the entire lip of the wheel is sticking out past the sidewall of the tire. That looks Cheese Factor 5 in my opinion.

I can't attest to this (as my S4 has a non-staggered setup), but some people stay away from staggered setups an AWD cars. I was in the same boat as you though. I thought about it, but ended up keeping all wheels the same width.

[helix139]

wider tires on the back will cause understeer. Same size tires results in more stretch on the back which looks stupid, IMO.

[catch]

I would stay square with the wheels. I always say if a car came with square, leave it like that. Could just be me though.

As for tires, a 245 on a 10" wheel will leave the whole lip of the wheel exposed. I ran that for 3 days and went 255. The 255 is stretched but not lip exposed stretched

just my $0.02

[AudiDTMA4]

Skip.....because:

1. Adding more understeer to a car that already understeers is just asking for a new front bumper
2. Loss of ability to rotate tires
3. It's AWD....the added grip is pointless, get better tires to start with
4. Harder to sell wheels/tires if you need to
5. Looks dumb

[Audi403]

I would stay square with the wheels. I always say if a car came with square, leave it like that. Could just be me though.

As for tires, a 245 on a 10" wheel will leave the whole lip of the wheel exposed. I ran that for 3 days and went 255. The 255 is stretched but not lip exposed stretched

just my $0.02

Will 255 fit the S4 on 20x10" ET35? With ET35 am I more concerned with rubbing on the fender or inside of the wheel well? I'm not lowered so if I can run a larger tire without rubbing I'd like to

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Skywagon]

FWIW, I am running a staggered set up on my 2014 S4. Had the set up for about 3500 miles, zero problems. 20x9 in front, 20x10 rear. Very high offset, put Brembos all around, minimal concave, barely cleared the rear brakes. 265/30 front, 295/25 rear, Michelin PSS tires. Don't forget you have 40/60 power distribution so bigger tires in the rear no big deal. Understeer....are you going to road race it?

[will13k7]

not

[Audi403]

FWIW, I am running a staggered set up on my 2014 S4. Had the set up for about 3500 miles, zero problems. 20x9 in front, 20x10 rear. Very high offset, put Brembos all around, minimal concave, barely cleared the rear brakes. 265/35 front, 295/25 rear, Michelin PSS tires. Don't forget you have 40/60 power distribution so bigger tires in the rear no big deal. Understeer....are you going to road race it?

Not worried about a 1" wider tire in the rear causing understeer just don't want to stress the quattro system which is why I've been told to make the rotational diameter the same front and back for a staggered setup by adjusting the tire size appropriately. What offset are you running? Is the 2014 fitment the same as 2012? Pics of your setup? How is the ride?

Thanks for all the responses.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Skywagon]

Below is a link to a shop in Charlotte NC USA. It has all the pictures of the car you may want. I did not ask for this web page to be created, obviously used for advertising. The wheels are custom made with very high offsets.....mid 50s? Forgeline keeps their information secret...why? I don't know. The rear wheels have some concave so when we put the Brembos all around we had to use a 10mm spacer to clear the new bigger rear brakes. The ride is fine, the Michelins are excellent tires. I have found that after about 15K on tires the ride starts to suffer....IMO. I can't remember the difference in the diameter of the tires, I think the rear tires are about 15mm less diameter than the fronts. Go to Tire rack and check the specs. The numbers are there. I don't know about the fitment differences in the 2012. Ignore the naysayers.....it's your car.



https://www.gmpperformance.com/index.cfm?pg=carGallery&makerID=2&mode=displayVehicle&VID=4154#!prettyPhoto[]/6/

[Audi403]

Thanks man I definitely want to run staggered I'll checkout your link when I get home. I found the formula to calculate the actual wheel radius.
Here's an example off another forum:

18x8’s in the front with 225/45
18x9’s in the rear with 245/40

This setup yields the following:

Front:
225(mm) / 25.4(mm/in) = 8.858” <--width
8.858” * .45 = 3.986” <--height
(Assuming ~30-40% deflection at tire/tarmac contact location.)
.65 * 3.986 = 2.591”
(18” / 2) + 2.591 =*11.591”

This is more or less your running radius of the front end.

Rear:
245(mm) / 25.4(mm/in) = 9.646” <--width
9.646” * .40 = 3.858” <--height
(Assuming ~30-35% deflection at tire/tarmac contact location.)
.675 * 3.858 = 2.604
(18” / 2) + 2.604 =*11.604”

This is more or less your running radius of the rear end.

The difference between the two would then effectively be about 0.013” or 13 thousands of an inch. This difference is so small (0.1%) that its effect is negligible. Under/over inflation can easily create differences of 0.500” which is 40 times bigger than the above calculated difference.

So, as long as it is done carefully/correctly it can be quite safe.

[Audi403]

So I guess what I need to do is find out what is the widest tire I can run on a 20x10 (et35) in the back without rubbing on stock height or with a small drop in the future. then I can use the formula to calculate the proper tire for a 20x9. I don't think I've seen bigger than 255 with et 35 (although this was a coilover setup). Would 265 work with a slightly lowered height (say the OE springs)?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[blackfunk]

I say go for it. You can fit right in with the Altima's on staggered wheel setups. [race]

[Skywagon]

So I guess what I need to do is find out what is the widest tire I can run on a 20x10 (et35) in the back without rubbing on stock height or with a small drop in the future. then I can use the formula to calculate the proper tire for a 20x9. I don't think I've seen bigger than 255 with et 35 (although this was a coilover setup). Would 265 work with a slightly lowered height (say the OE springs)?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

You may find a rubbing issue on your coil overs in the rear? I am lowered slightly, .6 in. in rear, .8 in. in front.

[mr shickadance]

there is a lot of misinformation in this thread.

1) drop first, then lower, I think you think it will look nice because of wheels, but larger wheels, on a stock suspension always looks out of place and at worst tacky. lower first, wheels next, a 1 inch drop is not going to be too looney, and certainly will not cause you many warranty issues. (unless your bushings wear out fast, or your shocks blow, but your aftermarket shocks you should not expect a warranty coverage on to begin with)

2) yes, wider rears will increase understeer, marginally. you know what else causing massive amount of understeer? the factory spec alignment design to make you understeer before oversteer, bc statistically, understeer is safer than oversteer. Get a performance, or 'track' alignment, and increase the neg camber a bit in the front, and your car will behave a lot differently.

the difference in understeer from wider tires is like 1% increase, where as your factory-spec alignment is more like 20% (pulling percentages out of my pooper, but you get the idea) it's nothing to worry about, and frankly, porsche has been banking on a more agressive alignment, and wider tires in the back for it's incredibly well handling cars for years. it's not to be scared of, and a one inch increase is largely, not going to be noticeable.

3) same tire size, yes, the rears will look a bitch stretched if you same tire it (especially at stock height), but you do not have to do that. you can mix tire sizes, and you can find a rolling diameter close to the fronts. the width will be the same, the sidewall height will be the same, the sidewall number will be different. (there are a thousand tire calculators online, ok maybe like 3, but there are easy to find)

4) rubbing on stock height? provided the offsets are correct, i would say it's tough to pull off. once you lower, you may have to be more careful.

[mr shickadance]

Thanks man I definitely want to run staggered I'll checkout your link when I get home. I found the formula to calculate the actual wheel radius.
Here's an example off another forum:

18x8’s in the front with 225/45
18x9’s in the rear with 245/40

This setup yields the following:

Front:
225(mm) / 25.4(mm/in) = 8.858” <--width
8.858” * .45 = 3.986” <--height
(Assuming ~30-40% deflection at tire/tarmac contact location.)
.65 * 3.986 = 2.591”
(18” / 2) + 2.591 =*11.591”

This is more or less your running radius of the front end.

Rear:
245(mm) / 25.4(mm/in) = 9.646” <--width
9.646” * .40 = 3.858” <--height
(Assuming ~30-35% deflection at tire/tarmac contact location.)
.675 * 3.858 = 2.604
(18” / 2) + 2.604 =*11.604”

This is more or less your running radius of the rear end.

The difference between the two would then effectively be about 0.013” or 13 thousands of an inch. This difference is so small (0.1%) that its effect is negligible. Under/over inflation can easily create differences of 0.500” which is 40 times bigger than the above calculated difference.

So, as long as it is done carefully/correctly it can be quite safe.


or

http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html

[raudiace4]

Square set ups on Quattro looks best. Staggered is best fit for high power RWD cars.

[Audi403]

Square set ups on Quattro looks best. Staggered is best fit for high power RWD cars.

Yea I'm no longer going to buy rims. 20's look a bit silly on stock suspension, i'll wait until the time comes to drop and do both same time

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[mr shickadance]

Square set ups on Quattro looks best. Staggered is best fit for high power RWD cars.

yes, i can;t think of any cars that are stock awd with staggared set ups

not an r8
not a lambo

[raudiace4]

yes, i can;t think of any cars that are stock awd with staggared set ups

not an r8
not a lambo

Yeah those come from the factory like that with suspension geometry set up for staggered. Did Audi sell you a special S4 with staggered set up?

[mr shickadance]

a inch stagger is nothing crazy, if you think that cars come with this surgical precision built into for which if you modify in any manner the car is going to implode on you then your idea off how cars are built is far off.

These cars a built with certain tolerances, and if you exceed them, yes, you will have problems, but these tolerances are not precision-driven, there are limits, and going 1 inch wider in the rear is not even scraping the surface of the limits.

running a staggerred set up is a debate that carries one as long as aftermarket wheels and AWD cars have been popular. there are a bunch of a opinions, and not a lot off facts, and sometimes opinions are so widely spread that people view them as facts, but that still does not mean its right.

yes, a square set up compared to the a staggered will have an upper hand, slightly, very slightly, so slightly that the differences made could be attributed to a million other things not kept constant, that's how slight of a difference we are talking about here.

so you can certainly share you viewpoints, but ensure that they are accurate, and represent both sides of the story, running staggered has a stigma attached to it that it's the worst thing in the world and it's just not true.

honestly, what fancy suspension geometry do you think is involved here? if anything, the center, F and R diffs would have more of an impact and more likely to be 'special'

[Jojipoji]

yes, i can;t think of any cars that are stock awd with staggared set ups

not an r8
not a lambo

GTR has a 285 tire in back and 255 in front. I actually run a square set up on my GTR as it dials out the understeer and makes it more balanced. So I did the opposite of what the OP wants. (I track my GTR at least 5-10 days a year)

[infinkc]

get a custom square setup with the barrels offset, thats what i have, the lip on the rears are wider than the fronts.

[drob23]

a inch stagger is nothing crazy, if you think that cars come with this surgical precision built into for which if you modify in any manner the car is going to implode on you then your idea off how cars are built is far off.

These cars a built with certain tolerances, and if you exceed them, yes, you will have problems, but these tolerances are not precision-driven, there are limits, and going 1 inch wider in the rear is not even scraping the surface of the limits.

running a staggerred set up is a debate that carries one as long as aftermarket wheels and AWD cars have been popular. there are a bunch of a opinions, and not a lot off facts, and sometimes opinions are so widely spread that people view them as facts, but that still does not mean its right.

yes, a square set up compared to the a staggered will have an upper hand, slightly, very slightly, so slightly that the differences made could be attributed to a million other things not kept constant, that's how slight of a difference we are talking about here.

so you can certainly share you viewpoints, but ensure that they are accurate, and represent both sides of the story, running staggered has a stigma attached to it that it's the worst thing in the world and it's just not true.

honestly, what fancy suspension geometry do you think is involved here? if anything, the center, F and R diffs would have more of an impact and more likely to be 'special'

The mathematical definition of understeer/oversteer deals with the relative slip angles of the front and rear tires while attempting to steer the car relative to ackerman. This will change a lot depending on the dynamic state of the vehicle, I think most people here are concerned with aggressive driving or track driving, not getting groceries.

If you run a setup like 265/295, then in a simplified sense, you have increased the rear contact patch area by a relative 30mm / 265mm = 11%. Now we're talking about a car that has driven front wheels (AWD), so when driving the car near the limits under power (such as on a track cornering), you have already traction limited lateral grip on the front wheels due to AWD (increased slip angle now - def of understeer), and have reduced the slip angle of the rear tire by increasing the contact patch by 10%. The tire physics are being over simplified and don't obey simple linear relationships, however, you are clearly preventing relative rotation of the back-end, much more so than your hypothesized 1%. AWD cars generally don't need as much understeer help from the suspension since they already do it naturally based on the drive line.

Wrote up this little cartoon, should make sense, you can see the larger tire has more grip, thus less slip angle (psi), thus less ability to "swing" around like a neutral steer vehicle would. Left side is square setup (just two tires, front and rear like a bicycle) right side is with larger rear tire. Trying to corner to the right, assuming same slip angle on front tire in both cases.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5274/14167919319_95c51ee48e_k.jpg

A 911 or any RWD is a completely different vehicle, since you can change the rear slip angle by simply using your right foot -> reducing rear lateral grip -> oversteer. Those cars need staggered tires both for straight line acceleration in low gear, and all the natural understeer they can get under throttle to prevent one from wrapping them around a tree.

I agree that factory alignment is designed to make the car more predictable and less responsive, and changing things can make the car handle much better (not just changing oversteer/understeer though). Sometimes to the detriment of tire wear, but this is a whole other discussion. But I wouldn't argue that tire staggering has a negligible effect on handling. I think the problem is that everyone wants to understand things through a black/white lens: "coilovers are better than springs?" "the S4 understeers while the 335 doesn't" etc, just vast oversimplifications of pretty complex topics.

[svander]

Nothing personal against staggered setups, but why do it when you can fit 10" wide wheels all around on these cars?

Just go wide all around.

[mr shickadance]

The mathematical definition of understeer/oversteer deals with the relative slip angles of the front and rear tires while attempting to steer the car relative to ackerman. This will change a lot depending on the dynamic state of the vehicle, I think most people here are concerned with aggressive driving or track driving, not getting groceries.

If you run a setup like 265/295, then in a simplified sense, you have increased the rear contact patch area by a relative 30mm / 265mm = 11%. Now we're talking about a car that has driven front wheels (AWD), so when driving the car near the limits under power (such as on a track cornering), you have already traction limited lateral grip on the front wheels due to AWD (increased slip angle now - def of understeer), and have reduced the slip angle of the rear tire by increasing the contact patch by 10%. The tire physics are being over simplified and don't obey simple linear relationships, however, you are clearly preventing relative rotation of the back-end, much more so than your hypothesized 1%. AWD cars generally don't need as much understeer help from the suspension since they already do it naturally based on the drive line.

Wrote up this little cartoon, should make sense, you can see the larger tire has more grip, thus less slip angle (psi), thus less ability to "swing" around like a neutral steer vehicle would. (waiting for stupid flickr to upload from my phone, will update post once it does)

A 911 or any RWD is a completely different vehicle, since you can change the rear slip angle by simply using your right foot -> reducing rear lateral grip -> oversteer. Those cars need staggered tires both for straight line acceleration in low gear, and all the natural understeer they can get under throttle to prevent one from wrapping them around a tree.

I agree that factory alignment is designed to make the car more predictable and less responsive, and changing things can make the car handle much better (not just changing oversteer/understeer though). Sometimes to the detriment of tire wear, but this is a whole other discussion. But I wouldn't argue that tire staggering has a negligible effect on handling. I think the problem is that everyone wants to understand things through a black/white lens: "coilovers are better than springs?" "the S4 understeers while the 335 doesn't" etc, just vast oversimplifications of pretty complex topics.


do not get me started on the coilover vs spring set up.

I agree with everything you wrote, and I prolly should have reasoned that it's not a negligible difference, and for the track guys, if your s4 if tuned for the track you are running a square set-up and most likely willing to sacrifice looks over function, which is another discussion entirely.

for the grocery getting-still-mod-loving person, who values looks over function, the idea of running staggered should not invoke hostility or condemnation that your going to ruin your car, bc the truth is, for a grocery getting DD s4, it's not going to be a noticeable difference and that is where I derived my 'negligible'

we are splitting hairs and getting off topic, OP, you want to run staggered go for it, there is nothing stopping you, my only advice is that you consider lowering your car before you get wheels, who knows, the newer stance may actually bring some new desire to your wheels.

[VMRWheels]

OP - I would probably just go with square wheels and tires. Going with staggered rear wheels on an AWD or FWD car doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would advise just sticking with a square setup.

[MarcWinkman]

Wouldn't it be an option to get the same size front and rear wheels (i.e. 20x9.5 f and r) but get different offsets to give the appearance of a staggered set without actually having to stagger?

[mr shickadance]

^if you do that route, its easier to run square set up, and add a spacer to your rears

[VMRWheels]

^if you do that route, its easier to run square set up, and add a spacer to your rears
This.

[jran76]

Wouldn't it be an option to get the same size front and rear wheels (i.e. 20x9.5 f and r) but get different offsets to give the appearance of a staggered set without actually having to stagger?

I do this, and have different face profiles so I can fit a BBK in the front while having the maximum concave face in the rear. You'd have to go custom wheels if you go this route though....

I think I've expressed how I feel about staggered wheels on the S4; it's not the best idea for all the reasons stated above. If you go that route, I would try to keep the rolling diameter within 1%. Some people say 2-3%, but that is too much for a finely tuned AWD system. Any damage caused by going higher would be more long-term or at the limits, and the people that are saying they have done it, have not done so for long enough to suffer the typical problems. Why risk it, and deal with everything else that goes along with it (understeer, can't rotate tires, throws quattro off, etc.)?

I use this site because the Miata site does not work correctly on my Mac.... http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php

There are not a lot of options to get down to a 1% difference with staggered 20" tires. A 245/35 and 275/30 would do it at 1%, and that is probably your best choice out of a lot of not so great options....