What's the importance of alumunim wheels on your RV

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by booster

Please remember that folks are talking about multiple "kinds" of weight here, and mixing up some of the stuff that goes with that, I think.


Weight of the wheels is apparently being used toward the total GVWR of the vehicle, which is a factor as it is weight, but it doesn't have as much effect on as many things as weight of cargo, etc, because it is not sprung weight--it is only seen by the axle ends and tires.


The wheel weight is also being referred to as unsprung weight, which is how the above is explained, and unsprung weight is any weight not supported by the suspension. Unsprung weight can affect the wheel bounce, shock response, wheel bounce, etc. For big vans I don't see it as much of an issue, though.


The rotational mass alluded to is what uses extra energy to accelerate or decelerate an item in rotation and heavy stuff is harder to speed up and slow down. Again compared to the mass of the van itself, I think a small issue.


Personally, on a big van, I think the most important thing to consider with the weight of the wheels and tires is if they get too heavy for you to readily put the wheels on and off, if you do that yourself. The other stuff would likely not show a difference for 98% of drivers.

First, zero to 60 times on an RV is a ridiculous point.. it's not important... unless you don't have the right sized engine...the Mercedes Benz Sprinter is fine for it's size....

Second... with 325 foot pounds of torque.. and the axle ratio it moves the whole vehicle very nicely.

Third, someone already pointed out that the "heavier vehicles" like my dual wheels 3500 would benefit from the steel wheels....

Fourth... it's NOT important for me and overall weight compared to the price of changing them out.. I would have to change all 7 tires including the spare..NOT happening.

And 5th reason.... I NEVER work on my vehicles... Always call the AAA.... that's why I have a membership..
They know what to do and have the tools for doing it right..
I would no sooner change a tire than jump off a building.

Enough said on this subject for me..

[booster]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

First, zero to 60 times on an RV is a ridiculous point.. it's not important... unless you don't have the right sized engine...the Mercedes Benz Sprinter is fine for it's size....

Second... with 325 foot pounds of torque.. and the axle ratio it moves the whole vehicle very nicely.

Third, someone already pointed out that the "heavier vehicles" like my dual wheels 3500 would benefit from the steel wheels....

Fourth... it's NOT important for me and overall weight compared to the price of changing them out.. I would have to change all 7 tires including the spare..NOT happening.

And 5th reason.... I NEVER work on my vehicles... Always call the AAA.... that's why I have a membership..
They know what to do and have the tools for doing it right..
I would no sooner change a tire than jump off a building.

Enough said on this subject for me..

Where did it say that any of my comment was directed at you or your van? The post was to clarify that numerous posters referring to weight have been referring to different types of weight and to clarify the differences. No need to take any offense

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by booster

Where did it say that any of my comment was directed at you or your van? The post was to clarify that numerous posters referring to weight have been referring to different types of weight and to clarify the differences. No need to take any offense

No worries.. I'm fine with your comments and what I'm sticking with..
If a "professional" advised me to change my wheels, I would probably listen to that.. until that happens or there's some "compelling reason" to change, I'm fine with the current arrangement.

I really liked your earlier comment when you said,

"The steel wheels do have some advantages like holding lug nut torque better without periodic retorqueing and they definitely absorb rock hits and such better. For a heavy hauling van like an RV, the steel wheels are more practical, I think."

[BBQ]

.

I don't think you have a choice.

You get whatever comes with the RV.

Premium RVs will come with all AL wheels.

For other RVs, if it is an option, most people would prefer not to pay the extra money if they don't have to.

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Here's my question to you..... would you pay hundreds of dollars to change them all to aluminum if they were standard steel wheels on your rig.?



I have beautiful aluminum polished rims.... they are very nice...

In the picture you posted - you don't have aluminum polished rims. You have standard Sprinter steel wheels with aluminum trim rings added by Roadtrek. Basically like old fashion hub caps.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by Boxster1971

In the picture you posted - you don't have aluminum polished rims. You have standard Sprinter steel wheels with aluminum trim rings added by Roadtrek. Basically like old fashion hub caps.

They're old fashioned... but, I like them fine.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Boxster1971

In the picture you posted - you don't have aluminum polished rims. You have standard Sprinter steel wheels with aluminum trim rings added by Roadtrek. Basically like old fashion hub caps.

(extra characters so posts)

[JohnnyFry]

Wheels are unsprung weight. Unsprung weight influences handling and ride far more then the same weight carried above the springs.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

You really think its worth changing all my wheels for this....? REALLY?

Just out of curiosity, where did I (or anyone else for that matter) ever suggest that you should replace your wheels?

You started this thread with a question. As is common this list, folks attempted to answer it using mostly factual arguments, and by clearing up technical misconceptions (e.g., "weight is weight"). I just don't see where anyone even expressed an opinion about your particular wheels, much less said anything that could be reasonably interpreted as criticizing your (apparently pre-made) decision.

Sorry for the rant, but there seems to be kind of a pattern here.

[<<B-Guy>>]

Originally Posted by avanti

Just out of curiosity, where did I (or anyone else for that matter) ever suggest that you should replace your wheels?

You started this thread with a question. As is common this list, folks attempted to answer it using mostly factual arguments, and by clearing up technical misconceptions (e.g., "weight is weight"). I just don't see where anyone even expressed an opinion about your particular wheels, much less said anything that could be reasonably interpreted as criticizing your (apparently pre-made) decision.

Sorry for the rant, but there seems to be kind of a pattern here.

I was rather wondering the same thing and had to go back to see what gt this thread started.

[BBQ]

.

When people post their opinion on a forum,
it is an opinion, just an opinion.
A personal opinion.

If you take it as a criticism, or an advice, or a directive,
it is your choice,

[attermann]

I have aluminum wheels on my 3500 and I wish they were steel. I definitely like the look, but rotating tires is a major PITA. The front wheels can't simply be moved to the back because they are only finished on the outside so can't be flipped around. And what's worse, when this option was ordered from the factory (Winnebago), only the outside wheels on the rear axle are aluminum because *supposedly* the posts aren't long enough for two aluminum wheels on each side of the rear axle. So anytime I have my tires rotated I have to have them unmounted, remounted and rebalanced. Something to keep in mind.

[Timmyd89]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

I bought our van with Al wheels ….. and …. I like it ….. a lot.

What do you like about your aluminum wheels?

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by attermann

I have aluminum wheels on my 3500 and I wish they were steel. I definitely like the look, but rotating tires is a major PITA. The front wheels can't simply be moved to the back because they are only finished on the outside so can't be flipped around. And what's worse, when this option was ordered from the factory (Winnebago), only the outside wheels on the rear axle are aluminum because *supposedly* the posts aren't long enough for two aluminum wheels on each side of the rear axle. So anytime I have my tires rotated I have to have them unmounted, remounted and rebalanced. Something to keep in mind.

Why bother rotating those tires? You spend more on the cost of rotating than you save in tire life. Plus it is a major hassle. The duals on rear of Sprinter, with proper inflation, just wear very evenly. Front are the same if properly aligned. Only other variable is proper balancing.

I now have over 70,000 miles on my Michelins with no abnormal wear. Still have a lot of thread and I've never rotated the tires.

Attached are the three technical papers from Alcoa about the mounting bolt length that caused most RV companies to only mount Alcoa wheels on outer rear, with OEM steel on inner. Problem is very specific to certain years of Sprinter production.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Boxster1971

Why bother rotating those tires? You spend more on the cost of rotating than you save in tire life. Plus it is a major hassle. The duals on rear of Sprinter, with proper inflation, just wear very evenly. Front are the same if properly aligned. Only other variable is proper balancing.

I totally agree. Routine tire rotation is simply not cost effective. I do it occasionally to address specific wear issues, but I mostly just make sure alignment and tire balancing are correct.

This is one of these many bits of conventional wisdom in the automotive world that doesn't hold up to analysis.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by avanti

I totally agree. Routine tire rotation is simply not cost effective. I do it occasionally to address specific wear issues, but I mostly just make sure alignment and tire balancing are correct.

This is one of these many bits of conventional wisdom in the automotive world that doesn't hold up to analysis.

Well.... the place I purchased my Michelin Defenders said... yeah, we'll rotate them for you.... they did it free once ... maybe it's not required.

They are wearing quite evenly.

[RonR]

Depending on the style, an aluminum wheel could be the same weight as a steel wheel (as I discovered when considering this some years ago).
Steel is more durable and more likely to survive a bad curb or rock hit and get you back to the shop.
I'm staying with steel.
Ron

[Coachmen Crossfit owner]

I'm very happy with the wheels option that came with my mini b rv. Coachmen Crossfit. I never thought about the weight factor.

[booster]

Originally Posted by avanti

I totally agree. Routine tire rotation is simply not cost effective. I do it occasionally to address specific wear issues, but I mostly just make sure alignment and tire balancing are correct.

This is one of these many bits of conventional wisdom in the automotive world that doesn't hold up to analysis.

I would agree with this, sort of, kinda, I guess.


How the tires wear are very vehicle dependent and also how and where the vehicle is driven. In the days of single trailing arm rear suspensions in front drive cars, you could easily go through two sets of front tire before the rears were worn. Now with multilink rears they are more even, for instance.


Vans like ours driven long distances on the highway will wear thing pretty evenly unless you are in the mountains and on a lot of curvy stuff, although most of the time you will see some difference in the form of edge wear on the fronts. As much as anything, I like to get the tires rotating the opposite ways at about 50% to keep the tread blocks from wearing tapered and getting noisy.


If the rears don't wear as fast as the front, you just need to do more smoky burnouts...

[Camoman]

Originally Posted by Knit

They save weight at the single most important place — on the wheels that spin and transfer power to the ground. I don’t know the ratio, but I bet pound for pound the lighter wheels are worth multiples of the pounds anywhere else in terms of fuel economy. But they look good too...

200 pounds total, ESPECIALLY ON UNSPRUNG WEIGHT(weight below the suspension) is not going to effect anything unless you are SEVERELY underpowered.
In fact, in a possibly top heavy and certainly side wind unstable(more than a car) vehicle(especially on something narrow like a sprinter), you WANT as much UNSPRUNG weight as possible to counter the vehicles tendency to roll over on corners and also to resist rolling over from sidewinds or the combination of both.
Also, steel wheels are MUCH STRONGER andand are less likely to break and deflate tires if you were to hit a bad pothole.

That said, I have had both on various campers and semi trucks and except for severely underpowered vehicles or tall narrow vehicles like sprinters(or semis that get paid by tonnage), the difference is almost inconsequential and comes down to appearance.
That said, if I had a loaded out single wheel sprinter, I would definitely go with steel wheels for the extra UNSPRUNG weight since they are tall and narrow and not at all underpowered.