The place to "speak geek"
-
Ferg
- Posts: 3968
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:56 pm
- Location: Auld Reekie
Post
by Ferg » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:59 pm
I note on the specs for the S1 111S that it has a wider rear track.
Was this acheived purely with different wheel size and offset or was there a different suspension configuration?
I'm just wondering if this is a specific advantage of the 111S or whether any elise can acheive the same improvement.
Cheers

-
mwmackenzie
- Posts: 4314
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Post
by mwmackenzie » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:12 pm
I'm pretty sure it's just the wheels and 225 rear tyres but I'm not possitive so awaiting correction

Mark MacKenzie
BMW Z4 3.0si, [R14 MMK] To be Ring ready soon
Merc family hack [R4 MMK] 85% MacKenzie'd Family Spec
-
campbell
- Posts: 17381
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:42 pm
- Location: West Lothian
-
Contact:
Post
by campbell » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:50 pm
Just the wheels. 7.5J as opposed to 7, or was it 8J as opposed to 7.5J.
No matter.
Many non-111S S1s have 225 section tyres on their original rims. Like mine. These fit fine and Lotus were happy to endorse their use. Think you need to go to 225/45 profile, as opposed to the 50 profile of the 205. Someone will correct me on this if need be.
There are handling balance tweaks to be had depending on the front and rear tyre section sizes you choose (you can also switch between 185 and 195 at the front...in fact if you really wanted terminal understeer I imagine you could stretch some 175s on too...come to think of it, 175 front and 205 rear could give an interesting winter rim setup...studded tyres optional!).
I have run 195 fronts and 225 rears for the bulk of my Elise ownership and have always been happy with the balance.
Note that the 111S and one batch of 135 Sports which had these wider rims on the rear also came with wheelarch "spats" to provide some wider shielding, not sure if this was purely to protect the rear clam edges on the trailing side of the arches, or due to build spec regulations which demand that a tyre is recessed to a min depth within an arch. Whatever, I don't have the spats and it's never been an issue at an MoT. Now I'm getting into anorak mode so I will stop there.
Campbell
-
Ferg
- Posts: 3968
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:56 pm
- Location: Auld Reekie
Post
by Ferg » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:13 am
Do you know, I thought I wouldn't ask about the spats in case it was too much detail.

I do think they were for SVA approval, seem to remember some program from years ago about it.
Great info thanks.

-
Corranga
- Posts: 4383
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:43 pm
- Location: Fundee, Sundee, SCUMDEE!
Post
by Corranga » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:55 pm
I'm fairly certain the spats are a 'requirement' due to the wider wheels.
I run my old Mini on 12x5.5 inch wheels which stuck out beyond the wheel arch extensions. The general thoughts in the Mini community was that the wheels stuck out too much and it could have been an issue with the police. Various people told me this over the 3 1/2-4 years I run the car like that. No MOT issues, and I was never in trouble with the police.
Chris
'16 MINI Cooper S - Family fun hatch
'98 Lotus Elise - Fun day car
'04 Maserati Coupe GT - Manual, v8, Italian...
'18 Mazda Mx5 - The wife's, so naturally my daily
'19 Ducati Monster 797 - Baby bike bike
-
Baggy
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:10 am
- Location: The Deen
Post
by Baggy » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:11 am
They were a requirement for sva for the ltd no of 135s with OZ 111s alloys, 111s s and 160s (victories have the same width and offsets).
As campbell says there are a lot of standard cars out there with no spats fitted with victories or similar and your MOT tester is very unlikely to pick up on it.
Baggy
Silver S1 111s
The Deen
-
BiggestNizzy
- Posts: 8932
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 6:47 pm
- Location: Kilmarnock
-
Contact:
Post
by BiggestNizzy » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:31 am
They also cost a fortune from lotus
Sent from my ZX SPECTRUM +2A