BFG Rival availability

[Whiskey11]

That 18x12 that fits up front with the long strut ears is all fine and dandy. The issue is that the same wheel does not fit in the rear. And that is clear in the photo you posted.

Depends on your level of comfort with spacers but yes. I wonder if an 18x11 would fit better with less spacer (if any necessary at all).

The photo I posted of the 18x10.5's the tire pokes some but not the wheel it self. Minor point, I know, but it is a point regardless! Just goes to show that 315's are crammed on the 10.5" wheels. Certainly better than the ET38 variation of the same wheel.

 

[neema]

Depends on your level of comfort with spacers but yes. I wonder if an 18x11 would fit better with less spacer (if any necessary at all).

The photo I posted of the 18x10.5's the tire pokes some but not the wheel it self. Minor point, I know, but it is a point regardless! Just goes to show that 315's are crammed on the 10.5" wheels. Certainly better than the ET38 variation of the same wheel.

Assuming the 12" et38 wheel (et56+18mm spacer) I used up front is dimensionally correct, an 18x11 et50-51 would fit up front (barely) with no spacers. Mounted in the rear, that 18x11 et 50 would sit farther inboard compared to the Enkei PF01 et38 but 6mm father outboard compared to the typical square 18x10 et43 wheels most people get. 315s mounted on the 11" et50 wheel would be positioned better relative to the fender than the same tire on a 10.5" et47 wheel, even though the 11 sits 3mm farther outboard.

Whiskey, I think you could get away with making a square/rotatable 11" wheel work with a Cortex strut but only with a stretched tire on it. A beefy tire and/or something with a big rim protector would probably need a 5mm spacer.

 

[Whiskey11]

Assuming the 12" et38 wheel (et56+18mm spacer) I used up front is dimensionally correct, an 18x11 et50-51 would fit up front (barely) with no spacers. Mounted in the rear, that 18x11 et 50 would sit farther inboard compared to the Enkei PF01 et38 but 6mm father outboard compared to the typical square 18x10 et43 wheels most people get. 315s mounted on the 11" et50 wheel would be positioned better relative to the fender than the same tire on a 10.5" et47 wheel, even though the 11 sits 3mm farther outboard.

Whiskey, I think you could get away with making a square/rotatable 11" wheel work with a Cortex strut but only with a stretched tire on it. A beefy tire and/or something with a big rim protector would probably need a 5mm spacer.

A 5mm spacer is hardly damning IMO for a square setup that can be rotatable. IIRC the Strano 18x10.5 ET38 PF01's required a 5mm spacer up front too, or at least he recommended one and sold them with the wheels.

 

[kcbrown]

Depends on your level of comfort with spacers but yes. I wonder if an 18x11 would fit better with less spacer (if any necessary at all).

Sometimes even when the wheel has been tested and is known to be good on at least some of these cars, you might have to use a spacer on other cars.

My 19x10 Forgestar F14s turned out to need 3mm worth of spacer up front to clear the 4-piston Brembo calipers on my car. We weren't expecting that, but changes in production, tolerance stacking, etc., can sometimes produce this effect. When you're fitting large parts from different manufacturers together with so little clearance, you sometimes have interference issues like this. I consider it to be part of the game. I was hoping to not have this issue, but Vorshlag made it right (really excellent service!), and hooked me up with some very nice spacers which they've since begun offering for sale on their web site, so I have since bought a spare set from them.

Less positive offset might or might not have worked for getting the spokes to clear the calipers (less offset would yield a steeper spoke angle), but it would have caused the wheels to poke in the rear, and that would defeat the whole purpose, which is to get a set of identical wheels that all fit properly on the car and are as wide as possible without causing interference issues.


Anyway, the bottom line is that as nice as it would be to eliminate the need for spacers, you'll sometimes need them anyway even if you don't expect to. As long as they're good spacers and aren't too large, I don't see any real problem with them.

 

[Arustik]

A 5mm spacer is hardly damning IMO for a square setup that can be rotatable. IIRC the Strano 18x10.5 ET38 PF01's required a 5mm spacer up front too, or at least he recommended one and sold them with the wheels.

Yeah 5mm is nothing really. A ton of race teams use spacers on their cars without any issues. Square setups FTW hence me keeping my Apex 18x10s. Would prefer a 10.5 or 11 though.

 

[neema]

A 5mm spacer is hardly damning IMO for a square setup that can be rotatable. IIRC the Strano 18x10.5 ET38 PF01's required a 5mm spacer up front too, or at least he recommended one and sold them with the wheels.

I agree. My dilemma is figuring out how much spacer I think is getting into iffy territory. 10mm? 15mm?

If I didn't care about 13mm spacers, I could use the same offset 11.5" wheels and be able to rotate. Or 19-20mm spacers and be able to rotate 12" wheels. Where do you draw the line?

 

[cbass]

Not to throw rocks at giants, but my +45mm offset 19x10.5's with 275/35 nittos fit up front without a spacer on stock struts. Barely a hair of clearance, but I've put three autocrosses and about 6 or 7k street miles on them without issue.

 

[BMR Tech]

Not to throw rocks at giants, but my +45mm offset 19x10.5's with 275/35 nittos fit up front without a spacer on stock struts. Barely a hair of clearance, but I've put three autocrosses and about 6 or 7k street miles on them without issue.

That post made me chuckle. lol

I'll assume the .50" extra height is helping you, in your scenario.

 

[cbass]

When you're playing in the <5 crowd, every half inch counts!

 

[sheizasosay]

annnnd now back to you Bob.

 

[Arustik]

Has anyone tried running the 295 rival on a 9" wheel? I know it'll bulge out and all and also assuming a bit of roll (maybe curable with bumping pressures), but I need a set tires to practice/run on my street setup before slapping on R1S' for a TT this weekend. Thoughts?

 

[csamsh]

Has anyone tried running the 295 rival on a 9" wheel? I know it'll bulge out and all and also assuming a bit of roll (maybe curable with bumping pressures), but I need a set tires to practice/run on my street setup before slapping on R1S' for a TT this weekend. Thoughts?

Use the 275's. The 295's are a squeeze on 10's.

 

[Arustik]

Use the 275's. The 295's are a squeeze on 10's.

Don't have any. I wish. I have an extra set of 295s never mounted if anyone is interested.

 

[Boaisy]

Bah, seems like the 295 Rival's are sold out again, and it is about time for me to order them too.

I know someone said people go 295 on 10" mainly for extra tire, but would I be missing anything by going with a 275 on a 10" vs. 295?

 

[Norm Peterson]

I'd expect there to be some trade-offs. Cornering response vs ultimate grip (your 'timing' of making steering inputs might need to be different), maybe differing needs for spraying them down between runs, peak speed in 2nd gear (about 1 mph more @ 60-ish mph with the 295/35's) vs acceleration in that gear (slightly better with the 275/35's) kinds of things. Optimum camber and toe settings might be slightly different.


On edit, it may well be course-dependent as well, short tight "Miata" courses vs wide-open power courses. Unfortunately autocross is something I haven't been able to keep up with for some time now, so I no longer have a good idea which way the balance should be tipping here.


Norm

 

[Surfergeek]

According to Tire Rack, no 295/35R18 Rivals until the spring. And when those come out, they will be a revised compound.

I have 4, unfortunately, after only a couple of track days one of my 4 has a screw too close to the shoulder to repair and I have been desperately looking for a new / lightly used tire to throw in the rotation since.

I don't want to mix compounds when they come out this spring. So if anyone has 1 to sell or is interested in buying 3, I am all ears.

 

[Arustik]

To anyone wondering how the Rival sits on a 9" wheel (well first and foremost, it fits), take a look attached.

I'm not saying this is an optimal size tire to run on a wheel, but it's DD capable and is also my rain setup for track days

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

I have half a dozen people desperately looking for 295/35/18 BFG Rivals, new or used. Please PM me if you have set(s) available. Waiting for the next batch to be built is too long for some of these cars, which were bult around this size and tire model. BFGoodrich ran out of this size THREE TIMES in 2014. The fact that TireRack had a 2 year exclusive on this tire model didn't help matters, but at least that exclusive contract has run its course. We will be a BFG dealer very soon and will stock more of this and a couple of other sizes, and so will other shops - I hope.

The Rival-S is coming out in the Spring, but I was told it will be made along side the existing Rival compound (like they do with the R-1 and R-1S race tires?). I'm hoping that is the case because we have a lot of folks endurance racing on the existing Rivals in this size/compound.

I think the Rival-S is being made to satisfy autocrossers, to keep up with the softer Toyo R1R and RS-3, which were just "restamped" from the 140 treadwear rating to 200. The SCCA allowed that so BFGoodrich is upping the ante with a new compound - which will also say "200 UTQG".

Street Tire Wars, yo.

 

[dontlifttoshift]

Why would they keep making the Rival (no S)? Just replace it.

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Why would they keep making the Rival (no S)? Just replace it.

I'm not sure either way, but they have a history of making 2 compounds for the DOT race R-compounds, so it is possible.

Why do they make the R-1 and R-1S in the same sizes and molds? Because they have different uses... the R-1 has more track oriented compound and the R-1S is more of an autocross compound (softer, heats up faster). The faster NASA folks tend to use the R-1S, especially in Time Trial or qualifying.