Jump to content
M3AN

My Fun 130i (E87 LCI Motorsport Auto)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jacko said:

Gah that sucks, will wheels clear the gaurd when compressed with +5mm spacer? 

It does suck. But yes, +5mm will clear. The BBS wheels I had on are ET38 and cleared easily, these are ET49 up front so I have some room to play with.

To be honest, I want spacers on the rear actually to fill out the guards but couldn't justify a new cert just for that, this might be enough to tip me over the edge. I might be able to squeeze +10mm in the rear, +8mm might be better though if I can get that.

Not 100% decided so brake project postponed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few new findings regarding the brakes.

Multiple people in the UK have since confirmed their Style 208's fit the m-light brakes... yet my calipers and wheels (and hubs and rotors) seem true. There's a small possibility the rotor hats are too thin but, being Zimmerman, that seems unlikely.

I visited a LVV certifier today, and aside from being quite derisory about NZ Transports entire LVV programme, he was very helpful. He pointed out that certification, quoting NZT, was required because "you need to get an LVV certification if you heavily modify your vehicle" (emphasis added). He couldn't speculate on why slim spacers are considered a "heavy" modification.

He also mentioned that NZT costs have gone up and a new cert could be between $1000 and $1500, 75% of which is administration and fees, not 'on vehicle' time. This is just more BS NZ hidden taxes. He suggested that at a fixed cost of $200 per certifiable change, more people would come through the door exposing dangerous mods rather than just skipping the cert altogether.

Anyway, he answered these questions which are either ambiguous, misleading or simply missing from the certification standard, leaving it up to the certifier and customer (if you're lucky) to interpret it and sort it out.

1. a spacer can have more holes in it than required for the application (e.g. a spacer that suits both a 4 and 5 stud car, so 9 holes, is fine). This is not clear in some parts of the requirement and ambiguous in others. 

2. A spacer must affix to either the wheel or hub (rotor) but, since there's no method specified and most can't be affixed, then simple heat resistant adhesive is good enough to stick it to the rotor hat (it's not load bearing and, being hub centric, can't move about). It's just to stop the spacer falling off when the wheel is removed and some numpty forgetting to put it back on.

3. All spacers must end up being wheel-centric (regardless of vehicle type) and this is real tricky in some applications. For a BWM we must use hub-centric spacers that have a wheel-centric flange on the outside unless...

4. The spacer is thin enough to allow the hub flange to extend beyond the spacer and engage with the wheel.

5. With <5mm spacers you probably don't need new wheel bolts but check they turn fully 6 times before torqueing them up.

The good news is with 3mm spacers I will both clear the brakes and have heaps (~7mm) of the original hub flange engaging with the actual wheel to ensure wheel centricity. 

His final bit of advice? If you already have a cert (I do) then don't bother with a new cert if you're using 3mm spacers, it's a waste of time and money because most WoF shops won't ask to see the cert or even know what to look for on a cert. Since my last warrant never even required sighting of the cert I can understand this advice, regardless of how prudent (read: legal) it actually is. But he did emphasis that you must use high quality wheel bolts or studs and nuts and never, ever aluminium.

Anyway... I'm ordering some high quality 3mm slip on spacers this evening and will attack the front brakes again when I get the time. The LVV guy said to take it in to him for a quick look-see after I've done the work to get his opinion on whether it's safe and roadworthy. 

I'm not really sold on a particular long-term path yet but will change the brakes out and use a slim spacer in the short term. If worst comes to worst I have confirmed my BBS RC's clear the calipers without spacers.

Edited by M3AN
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 The spacer is thin enough to allow the hub flange to extend beyond the spacer and engage with the wheel.

??? That pretty much means anything over about 5mm isnt able to be certed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jacko said:

??? That pretty much means anything over about 5mm isnt able to be certed?

~10mm... unless it has it's own flange to centre the wheel on which a lot do. Basically, if you can't engage the actual hub flange, the spacer itself needs to have a comparable (same diameter) flange, flat faced spacers are a big no-no (apparently) and lug/bolt centric solutions are also unacceptable.

Essentially, if the only thing stopping the spacer (or wheel) moving around is clamping force then it can't be certed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, hubcentric then :D 

This is whats on mine - https://spurverbreiterung.de/product_info.php?k=Sp&info=p396228_ 10mm.html&cat=c1024_BMW.html&bezeichnung=1er&typ=(E81, E87) - 187, 1K2, 1K4

The back of the spacer is machined to take the lip of bore, and then duplicates it on other side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jacko said:

So, hubcentric then :D 

No actually, that was something I learnt. It's called wheel centric if you're using a spacer... sort-of makes sense because there's no hub-to-wheel interface. Most places refer to them as hub centric only but, since you can have a hub centric spacer that's not wheel centric (i.e. it has a flat outside face) then referring to them simply as hub centric doesn't give you enough information to correctly identify them. In "proper" terms the required spacer is both hub and wheel centric (if the wheel can't engage the hub sufficiently).

The LVV engineer was quite particular about this! 😇

I used to also think that hub and wheel centric were the same thing, now I know they're not.

Edit: yes the ones in your link are hub & wheel centric.

Edited by M3AN
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id call the other flavour "wrong" but, semantics  :D 

I had a wheel shop lose one of the hubcentric rings on my wheels once and then just bolt the wheel straight up thinking no one will notice the fact that wheel doesnt turn in a circle anymore....

Edited by Jacko
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jacko said:

Id call the other flavour "wrong" but, semantics  :D 

I tend to agree actually... shouldn't it be "spacer centric" rather than "wheel centric"? LVV guy didn't look like he'd have the inclination for, as you say, such a semantic debate... I took my free advice and ran. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, M3AN said:

Anyway, he answered these questions which are either ambiguous, misleading or simply missing from the certification standard, leaving it up to the certifier and customer (if you're lucky) to interpret it and sort it out.

1. a spacer can have more holes in it than required for the application (e.g. a spacer that suits both a 4 and 5 stud car, so 9 holes, is fine). This is not clear in some parts of the requirement and ambiguous in others. 

2. A spacer must affix to either the wheel or hub (rotor) but, since there's no method specified and most can't be affixed, then simple heat resistant adhesive is good enough to stick it to the rotor hat (it's not load bearing and, being hub centric, can't move about). It's just to stop the spacer falling off when the wheel is removed and some numpty forgetting to put it back on.

3. All spacers must end up being wheel-centric (regardless of vehicle type) and this is real tricky in some applications. For a BWM we must use hub-centric spacers that have a wheel-centric flange on the outside unless...

4. The spacer is thin enough to allow the hub flange to extend beyond the spacer and engage with the wheel.

5. With <5mm spacers you probably don't need new wheel bolts but check they turn fully 6 times before torqueing them up.

His final bit of advice? If you already have a cert (I do) then don't bother with a new cert if you're using 3mm spacers, it's a waste of time and money because most WoF shops won't ask to see the cert or even know what to look for on a cert. Since my last warrant never even required sighting of the cert I can understand this advice, regardless of how prudent (read: legal) it actually is. But he did emphasis that you must use high quality wheel bolts or studs and nuts and never, ever aluminium.

Figured I'd pitch in here, since I've spent a lot of time looking over LVVTA's standards for wheels, brakes and spacers recently. 

Most of those points are all highlighted here: https://www.lvvta.org.nz/documents/standards/LVVTA_STD_Wheels_&_Tyres.pdf
Granted, that's dated 2016, but I don't see any of these points being laxed, and if changed, would expect them to be tightened.

1. It can, for pressed steel wheels. However, for cast aluminium wheels: see 2.5(2) a: the spacer is designed to fit only one stud configuration.
This is clarified in the notes:  ‘Configuration’ means, within the context of 2.5(2)(a), that whilst a spacer can be of a multi-fitting design in that it fits varying pitch circle diameters, it must be of a type that will fit either a four-stud wheel or a five-stud wheel, but not both. Spacers that will fit both four-stud and five-stud wheels must not be used in any situations.

2. There is a method is pretty clearly spelt out in 2.5(1) f: be set-screwed or attached by another secure method to either the wheel or hub face; 

3 and 4, I think that's pretty spot on in 2.5(1) e: be fitted as to ensure the wheel locates snugly over the hub spigot so that the hub carries the weight of the wheel assembly instead of the wheel studs, or where there is a mis-match between the hub spigot and the wheel centre, a close tolerance fit center bore locator must be provided

5. I'll just nitpick on this one, it's 6.5 turns: 2.4(4) b, i: in the case of a 12 mm metric stud or bolt with a 1.5 mm coarse thread pitch, 6.5 turns OR in 2.4(4) c "in the case of an unmodified hub assembly, not less than that originally provided for the fitment by the original vehicle manufacturer." , but given that you've spaced it out, I'd say b would be applicable. 

 

This is all from the LVVTA standard, though as myself and may others have found, the interpretation is entirely up to the individual certifier, so what one certifier may say is acceptable, another may not.
In particular your local guys notes about using a heat resistant adhesive, some might pass that, and others might not. And then whether you get pulled up on it for a WoF is another story.

As your cert guy says, since you already have a cert, for spacers, it wouldn't be worth going in for a re-cert providing you meet all the criteria above.

 

But in terms of other modifications to your car that vary from it's initial certification:

What does your cert say in regards to your wheel size? Unless it's stamped OEM, most will specify a diameter and width (but oddly never offset, or tyre size)

With regards to brake calliper changes, that also would require a cert as per: https://www.lvvta.org.nz/documents/suplementary_information/LVVTA_LVV_Cert_Threshold.pdf
See section 8-1, as it doesn't list a calliper change there.
How that would be proven given that it bolts on would be another topic, but figured I'd bring it up. 

But you can fit those larger rotors, as I'm assuming they would be "the same size as the OE rotors; and catalogued aftermarket items for that make and model of vehicle (and can include cross-drilled and/or slotted types)"

Edited by nick496
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool.  I looked at it a few months back.  My eyes glassed over and I gave up.
I want to space the rear of my E87 out just a few mm.

I am not looking forward to certifying the Mrs 200sx.  It all sounds like a nightmare these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nick496 said:

Figured I'd pitch in here, since I've spent a lot of time looking over LVVTA's standards for wheels, brakes and spacers recently. 

...

This is all from the LVVTA standard, though as myself and may others have found, the interpretation is entirely up to the individual certifier, so what one certifier may say is acceptable, another may not.
In particular your local guys notes about using a heat resistant adhesive, some might pass that, and others might not. And then whether you get pulled up on it for a WoF is another story.

As your cert guy says, since you already have a cert, for spacers, it wouldn't be worth going in for a re-cert providing you meet all the criteria above.

...

I don't disagree with any of that Nick, indeed that's all the stuff I found amongst others. I think the highlighted bit above is the key... for example my interpretations was similar to your but differ to the LVV engineer guy's, then add in a page like this (including all the comments) and the confusion is just amplified, it's a minefield!

I will double-check my bolts today on the back of your post... stock is 25mm (thread) and I can get 27mm bolts if necessary, 30mm will probably be too long (potentially bottoming out) but I'm not sure. That's one thing I will not skimp on.

Thanks for the post, helps as a good cross reference and sanity check. 👍

Edit: I've asked for non-multi-fit spacers, so 5 holes only, that was one of the things that concerned me most.

Edited by M3AN
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Driftit said:

Cool.  I looked at it a few months back.  My eyes glassed over and I gave up.
I want to space the rear of my E87 out just a few mm.

I am not looking forward to certifying the Mrs 200sx.  It all sounds like a nightmare these days.

Yep, new cert sounds like a 'mare unless you know the engineer.

As for the e87, essentially just make sure your wheel can still securely engage the hub and centre and the complexity and risk decreases dramatically. You have about 10mm to play with (up front at least, I've not measured the rear).

Edited by M3AN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M3AN said:

I don't disagree with any of that Nick, indeed that's all the stuff I found amongst others. I think the highlighted bit above is the key... for example my interpretations was similar to your but differ to the LVV engineer guy's, then add in a page like this (including all the comments) and the confusion is just amplified, it's a minefield!

Oh gosh, a page with comments from 2012-2020

Yeah, that's why I reference the current standard which the modification is being measured to, because I believe your certifier signs off on things, and it then gets submitted to the pencil pushers who if they have any queries, will go back to that standard for any clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nick496 said:

Oh gosh, a page with comments from 2012-202

Yes, that's why I found it so useful. The relevant standard hasn't been updated since 2016 anyway and, to the extent of my research, the spacer regulations haven't been changed since 2003.

The page I linked to is a really good source of information about things that need to be considered, especially because many of these LVV standards are so vague! It certainly helped me to read through the comments considering I was starting with very little info.

Edited by M3AN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...