Correct diameter of centering hole in Mopar wheels?

[TUFCAT]

Your post answers the question----Which few people do you hope are listening?---

No, it doesn't. The answer to the question should have been obvious due to my use of the word "imagine". In other words, there are no "few" that I "hope are listening"; that idea simply came from your imagination, as opposed to reality. That happens a lot with you, due to your residence in deep, deep left field.

Why would you bother speaking to idiots?  We are just something to be endured. Pesky little us.

Because arguing is entertaining, even though it is a lopsided argument when idiots are involved.

Maxim you are so demoralizing and socially inept. Do you have any friends on this planet? 

This isn't a social hall, simple fellow. You and your ilk come across as "socially needy" when trying to find social fulfillment from nameless, faceless strangers on an internet forum.

Better yet, have you ever found a woman that would even talk to you - without paying her first? 

Tufcat Presents: Amateur Hour: Live From the Peanut Gallery

.... Once again you nailed it! 

[JB400]

Just correcting you on one issue:


This is a social hall.  There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year. This forum is their way of staying in touch with each other, but still living their own lives in their own backyards.   Even Tufcat has held a party or two for members here.  So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

[TUFCAT]

This is a social hall.  There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year. This forum is their way of staying in touch with each other, but still living their own lives in their own backyards.   Even Tufcat has held a party or two for members here.  So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

Thanks Justin!  

[JB400]

You're welcome Tom   As far as I'm concerned, Maxim can put us all out in left field.  We'll have one heck of a party.

[MaximRecoil]

Just correcting you on one issue:


This is a social hall.

No, it isn't. This is the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum. The subforums which could be considered a virtual "social hall" are Off Topic Discussion and The Lighter Side.

There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year.

Yes, and the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum is not one of those social events, at least, it is not intended to be.

So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

They all started out that way, except in the unusual cases of people who knew each other in real life prior to "meeting" on the internet.

[TUFCAT]

No, it isn't. This is the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum. The subforums which could be considered a virtual "social hall" are Off Topic Discussion and The Lighter Side.

There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year.

Yes, and the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum is not one of those social events, at least, it is not intended to be.

So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

They all started out that way, except in the unusual cases of people who knew each other in real life prior to "meeting" on the internet.

Are you serious?  Well if we can't be social here....maybe there should be a special subforum for guys like you?  

[MaximRecoil]

Are you serious?  Well if we can't be social here....maybe there should be a special subforum for guys like you?  

Most of the subforums here already are for "guys like me", i.e., they are intended as an information exchange on specific topics. They are not intended to cater to your budding online "bromances". 

[JB400]

For someone that is a stickler for the particular, you sure did veer this discussion off course.

[MaximRecoil]

For someone that is a stickler for the particular, you sure did veer this discussion off course.

That's your well-established reading difficulty talking. All of my posts have been perfectly relevant to whichever post I replied to, which means the people who authored the posts I replied to "sure did veer this discussion off course", you being one of them with your irrelevant nonsense about tenths of an inch and machining tolerances. Ws23rt, with his typical out-of-left-field ramblings, veered this thread toward the current talk about socializing.

[TUFCAT]

That's your well-established reading difficulty talking. All of my posts have been perfectly relevant to whichever post I replied to, which means the people who authored the posts I replied to "sure did veer this discussion off course", you being one of them with your irrelevant nonsense about tenths of an inch and machining tolerances. Ws23rt, with his typical out-of-left-field ramblings, veered this thread toward the current talk about socializing.

[JB400]

For someone that is a stickler for the particular, you sure did veer this discussion off course.

That's your well-established reading difficulty talking. All of my posts have been perfectly relevant to whichever post I replied to, which means the people who authored the posts I replied to "sure did veer this discussion off course", you being one of them with your irrelevant nonsense about tenths of an inch and machining tolerances. Ws23rt, with his typical out-of-left-field ramblings, veered this thread toward the current talk about socializing.

Feel free to reread this thread from the beginning.  WS23RT's post at the start was based on a comment of how you randomly round up or down on measurements, something the factories wouldn't do.  My mentioning of tenths of an inch was to introduce a measurement of manufacturing that wasn't being mentioned, but needed to be.  It was you that spiraled this downhill when you started putting people out in Left Field.  Just because you consider something irrelevant, doesn't mean others share your opinion.

[MaximRecoil]

Feel free to reread this thread from the beginning.

I don't need to. Reading isn't a problem for me, and you've already established that it is for you.

WS23RT's post at the start was based on a comment of how you randomly round up or down on measurements, something the factories wouldn't do.

1. That's not the post I was talking about.

2. I wasn't "randomly rounding up or down on measurements"; I was pointing out that 70.5mm doesn't convert to any commonly used fractional inch measurement, not even with rounding:

Or the metric dimensions are just "rounded off" to the closest even number.

No. 70.5mm is somewhere between 2-3/4" (69.85mm, which would be rounded to either 69.9mm or 70mm) and 2-13/16" (71.4375mm, which would be rounded to 71.44mm, or 71.4mm, or 71.5mm if rounding to the nearest half-mm).

3. His comments about rounding were out of deep left field, as usual, proving that he, like you, didn't even understand what the discussion was about.

My mentioning of tenths of an inch was to introduce a measurement of manufacturing that wasn't being mentioned, but needed to be.

No, it didn't need to be, because for a car manufacturer to call for a part to be manufactured to tenth-inch (or multiples thereof) dimensions in the 1960s would be just as bizarre as them using the metric system; in fact it would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system, because tenths/hundredths/thousandths/etc. of an inch measurements are normally the result of converting from the metric system, which nearly always translates to a non-standard inch measurement, so it is left decimalized.

It was you that spiraled this downhill when you started putting people out in Left Field.

That's hilarious. I can't "put" anyone out in left field; when someone posts something irrelevant, they are coming from out in left field by definition.

Just because you consider something irrelevant, doesn't mean others share your opinion.

Irrelevance isn't determined by opinion. Something is either factually irrelevant or relevant; it is determined by definition. Someone who can't read properly obviously can't correctly determine relevance/irrelevance, of course.

Make that a plug nickel.

[ws23rt]

Good grief maxim.  Tenths/hundredths/thousands/etc. of an inch measurement are not "normally" the result of  converting from the metric system. These are two separate systems and from the beginning they were both working independently. Conversions happened as needed.  

The reason we use base ten with the inch system is because of the cumbersome issues using fractions to measure dimensions to the precise degree needed in nearly all manufacturing. As you pointed out in an earlier post it would be absurd to use something like --for example--197/256". It hasn't been done that way from the beginning of the industrial age.

You are a relative newbe to this world and apparently new to the world of machining and manufacturing.  To make an assumption or state as fact that using base ten for measuring is or was normally a result of converting from one unit of measure to another just shows that you need to go back to google and study some more.

I'm used to you doing your homework better than this.---The up side is you are learning lots of new stuff with the time you must spend researching.

You can perhaps state that using base ten for measurements is metric but that is not the case.

An inch is an inch and a meter is a meter.

[ws23rt]

Feel free to reread this thread from the beginning.

I don't need to. Reading isn't a problem for me, and you've already established that it is for you.

WS23RT's post at the start was based on a comment of how you randomly round up or down on measurements, something the factories wouldn't do.

1. That's not the post I was talking about.

2. I wasn't "randomly rounding up or down on measurements"; I was pointing out that 70.5mm doesn't convert to any commonly used fractional inch measurement, not even with rounding:

Or the metric dimensions are just "rounded off" to the closest even number.

No. 70.5mm is somewhere between 2-3/4" (69.85mm, which would be rounded to either 69.9mm or 70mm) and 2-13/16" (71.4375mm, which would be rounded to 71.44mm, or 71.4mm, or 71.5mm if rounding to the nearest half-mm).

3. His comments about rounding were out of deep left field, as usual, proving that he, like you, didn't even understand what the discussion was about.

My mentioning of tenths of an inch was to introduce a measurement of manufacturing that wasn't being mentioned, but needed to be.

No, it didn't need to be, because for a car manufacturer to call for a part to be manufactured to tenth-inch (or multiples thereof) dimensions in the 1960s would be just as bizarre as them using the metric system; in fact it would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system, because tenths/hundredths/thousandths/etc. of an inch measurements are normally the result of converting from the metric system, which nearly always translates to a non-standard inch measurement, so it is left decimalized.

It was you that spiraled this downhill when you started putting people out in Left Field.

That's hilarious. I can't "put" anyone out in left field; when someone posts something irrelevant, they are coming from out in left field by definition.

Just because you consider something irrelevant, doesn't mean others share your opinion.

Irrelevance isn't determined by opinion. Something is either factually irrelevant or relevant; it is determined by definition. Someone who can't read properly obviously can't correctly determine relevance/irrelevance, of course.

Make that a plug nickel.

Oops----forgot to catch this as a quote just in case

[MaximRecoil]

Good grief maxim.  Tenths/hundredths/thousands/etc. of an inch measurement are not "normally" the result of  converting from the metric system.

Yes, they are. Look at a ruler; it is in 16ths of an inch. The imperial system is not base-10. Decimalizing an inch measurement is either used for calculation purposes (because most calculators don't accept direct input of the fraction format, and this is done even when it is a standard measurement, such as 1/4" [.25"]), or when converting from another system (usually the metric system) and it doesn't convert to any standard 1/16"-increment measurement, such as 6mm to 0.23622". 

The reason we use base ten with the inch system is because of the cumbersome issues using fractions to measure dimensions to the precise degree needed in nearly all manufacturing. As you pointed out in an earlier post it would be absurd to use something like --for example--197/256". It hasn't been done that way from the beginning of the industrial age.

Again with the irrelevance. A standard wheel is 14", or 15", or 16", and so on. Now what if the wheel were 14.1732"? Now it would be obvious to most people that the wheel was specified to be 36cm, rather than arbitrarily specified as 14.1732" which just so happened to convert to a nice, round 36cm. And that is the whole point here; something on a car which measures 70.5mm was specified that way, obviously. The idea that it was specified as 2.775591" which just happened to convert to a nice, round 70.5mm is absurd. For God-only-knows what reason, this causes you tremendous confusion.

You are a relative newbe to this world and apparently new to the world of machining and manufacturing.  To make an assumption or state as fact that using base ten for measuring is or was normally a result of converting from one unit of measure to another just shows that you need to go back to google and study some more.

Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo, as is your non sequitur in general (see above).

I'm used to you doing your homework better than this.

Another non sequitur; dismissed.

---The up side is you are learning lots of new stuff with the time you must spend researching.

I haven't, nor do I need to, research anything for this thread (aside from finding other sources to confirm the 70.5mm center bore measurement on certain '60s Ford wheels).

Remember your claim that most wheels are lug-centric? Remember your irrelevant rambling about aftermarket wheels? Remember when you wondered what size the center bore measurement is on an OEM Ford wheel, in a thread discussing the 70.5mm center bore of an OEM Ford wheel? To refresh your memory read reply #23, it is a shining example of your perpetual state of confusion and permanent residence in the deepest, darkest corner of left field. And even after it is absolutely proven to you that you haven't a clue, you retain the attitude that you're going to teach me something here, which is hilariously ironic.

An inch is an inch and a meter is a meter.

No kidding?

[ws23rt]

Wow talk about rambling on

I responded to a specific point in one of your posts and you rehashed nearly the entire thread.

So I went and looked at a ruler and you are indeed right it did have increments in 16ths of an inch. The one I found even had little biddy ones. I had to get reading glasses so I could count them to find out what they were and I think they represent 64ths of an inch. 

In all the years I've been using things like vernier calipers/ micrometers, dial calipers, dial indicators, optical micrometers, etc. I have yet to use one that uses fractions.  The graduations are decimalized as you call it which is to convert to base ten.  

Maybe this was adopted just incase there was a need to convert from metric.  A direct conversion from metric to imperial would be to fractions of inch and that conversion than can be decimalized.

A hole size  (for instance 2 13/16") is an approximation. The true size of the hole is identified by a tolerance +/- that surrounds that approximation and fractions of an inch are not the way that is done.

[TUFCAT]

See Maxim, insulting people isn't just fun-n-games... You can actually learn something once you've been "schooled". 

[ws23rt]

See Maxim, insulting people isn't just fun-n-games... You can actually learn something once you've been "schooled". 

Now that you bring up the insults it seems that the vast bulk of his text is to throw barbs
So much so as to make it clear that is his primary intent.

[MaximRecoil]

Wow talk about rambling on

I responded to a specific point in one of your posts and you rehashed nearly the entire thread.

More reading comprehension problems from you. I replied to each of your "points"; the only "rehashing" I did was with regard to a single post. Here it is again, because it's funny:

Remember your claim that most wheels are lug-centric? Remember your irrelevant rambling about aftermarket wheels? Remember when you wondered what size the center bore measurement is on an OEM Ford wheel, in a thread discussing the 70.5mm center bore of an OEM Ford wheel? To refresh your memory read reply #23, it is a shining example of your perpetual state of confusion and permanent residence in the deepest, darkest corner of left field. And even after it is absolutely proven to you that you haven't a clue, you retain the attitude that you're going to teach me something here, which is hilariously ironic.

Still no comment?

So I went and looked at a ruler and you are indeed right it did have increments in 16ths of an inch. The one I found even had little biddy ones. I had to get reading glasses so I could count them to find out what they were and I think they represent 64ths of an inch.  

In all the years I've been using things like vernier calipers/ micrometers, dial calipers, dial indicators, optical micrometers, etc. I have yet to use one that uses fractions.  The graduations are decimalized as you call it which is to convert to base ten.

I said previously:

And in the manufacturing process, extremely tiny increments, whether in multiples of 16 or base-10, are usually only used for tolerances, not for the intended nominal dimensions of a part. For example, a part might have an intended nominal diameter of 3/4" or some other standard fraction of an inch, but with a lathe tolerance of .001". Something like .776" as an intended nominal diameter of a part would be very unlikely for a company using U.S. customary units.

Note the bold text; it is in base-10. The context of this discussion continues to elude you. There is a difference between dimensions an American car parts designer in the 1960s would specify (which is nearly always a nice round dimension, i.e., a dimension which is marked on a standard 1/16" ruler), and machining tolerances (and the instruments used to measure such tiny things).

As for the following text (which again has caused you an untold amount of confusion) ...

No, it didn't need to be, because for a car manufacturer to call for a part to be manufactured to tenth-inch (or multiples thereof) dimensions in the 1960s would be just as bizarre as them using the metric system; in fact it would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system, because tenths/hundredths/thousandths/etc. of an inch measurements are normally the result of converting from the metric system, which nearly always translates to a non-standard inch measurement, so it is left decimalized.

... you once again failed to understand the context, which is measuring an already manufactured part and coming up with an oddball inch measurement that you leave decimalized because it doesn't equal any 1/16" fraction. As I said, this would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system when specifying the desired dimension for that part.

Maybe this was adopted just incase there was a need to convert from metric.  A direct conversion from metric to imperial would be to fractions of inch and that conversion than can be decimalized.

Fractions and decimals are the same thing, it is just a different way of writing them. However, there are certain fractions in the imperial system which are very commonly used (1/16" increment fractions), so when measuring a manufactured part, and it doesn't come out to a commonly used fraction, the dimension probably wasn't originally specified in the imperial system.

A hole size  (for instance 2 13/16") is an approximation.

It is a nominal dimension, and the only relevant thing to know is that it almost certainly was specified by the designer to have a nominal dimension of 2-13/16" if it measures 2-13/16" with a tape measure.

The true size of the hole is identified by a tolerance +/- that surrounds that approximation and fractions of an inch are not the way that is done.

See above; look for some bold text.

See Maxim, insulting people isn't just fun-n-games... You can actually learn something once you've been "schooled".  

You're not remotely qualified to determine who has or hasn't been "schooled", not even in a primary school playground argument.

Now that you bring up the insults it seems that the vast bulk of his text is to throw barbs
So much so as to make it clear that is his primary intent.

So says the admitted internet "troll", which of course is ironic.

[MaximRecoil]

And to simplify this, here is a question for Ws23rt, and/or JB400, and/or TUFCAT:

You have a set of OEM Ford wheels with center bores that measure 70.5mm in diameter. Type out the dimension for the center bore that you believe Ford intended.

[JB400]

I'll play

2.776 inches.  Assuming that they made the centering hole on the hub 2.750 inches (you can use 2 3/4 if you want  ), that'll allow for a 2 hundredths of an inch clearance, allowing for a snug fit on the hub, but still allow for easy removal of the wheel.  The wheel has to fit on the centering hub tight, or it could allow the wheel to wobble, oblong the bolt holes, and cause the wheel to separate from the vehicle.  (In other words,  it makes it hub centric.  The wheel sits on the hub, not the studs)

I have to assume because I currently do not have a vintage Ford hub to measure.

[TUFCAT]

Type out the dimension for the center bore that you believe Ford intended.

Maxim, isn't that one of them non sequitur's you've been complaining about?  

[ws23rt]

So if I had a bore that measured 70.5mm and I assumed that the hole maker was satisfied with the finished hole than I would further presume that the intended hole was to be about 2 397/512" (speaking in inches)

Of course one may need to know how may miles that is--1/22628th mi.---(about)

[MaximRecoil]

Type out the dimension for the center bore that you believe Ford intended.

Maxim, isn't that one of them non sequitur's you've been complaining about?  

Not even remotely. Exactly the opposite in fact.

I'll play

2.776 inches.  Assuming that they made the centering hole on the hub 2.750 inches (you can use 2 3/4 if you want  ), that'll allow for a 2 hundredths of an inch clearance, allowing for a snug fit on the hub, but still allow for easy removal of the wheel.  The wheel has to fit on the centering hub tight, or it could allow the wheel to wobble, oblong the bolt holes, and cause the wheel to separate from the vehicle.  (In other words,  it makes it hub centric.  The wheel sits on the hub, not the studs)

I have to assume because I currently do not have a vintage Ford hub to measure.

So if I had a bore that measured 70.5mm and I assumed that the hole maker was satisfied with the finished hole than I would further presume that the intended hole was to be about 2 397/512" (speaking in inches)

Of course one may need to know how may miles that is--1/22628th mi.---(about)

When a measurement is a nice round number in one system, and oddball numbers in other systems, the likelihood is that the measurement was originally specified in the system with the nice round number, because people like to build things according to nice round dimensions, and even when they decide to use an oddball dimension, it doesn't usually convert to a round measurement in another system, except by sheer coincidence.

With that said, JB400's latest post alludes to a valid point, i.e., when using the imperial system and you have two parts that have to fit together snugly (such as a cylinder through a hole), they can't both have round dimensions, because the hole has to be slightly larger than the cylinder, and in this size range, 1/16" is too large of an increment for a snug fit between the two (e.g., a 2-13/16" hole is too large to snugly fit onto a 2-3/4" cylinder). If his assumption of a 2-3/4" diameter Ford hub is correct, then the rest of his post is plenty plausible. If correct, it would mean that Ford chose a round dimension for the hub diameter, and then made the center bore of the wheel in a necessarily oddball size to fit it (which was coincidentally close enough to 70.5mm to call it that), while Chrysler chose a round dimension for the center bore of the wheel and then made the hub fit it.

[ws23rt]

This thread started with a simple question and was answered long ago with a simple answer. From then on it's been about fords use of a metric dimension in the sixties. --Awesome---

As to why a manufacturer would chose to make a wheel hub centric to begin with was not so much to carry the load or to have a proprietary fit but to center the wheel for clamping.  In mass production holding precise bolt circles cost more than holding one dimension (center hole dia.).

The hub center hole in the wheel cannot handle the loads seen by the wheel on the road and neither can the lugs alone in shear.

The wheel is held by the friction caused by the clamping force of "properly" torqued lugs. This is why many wheels are not hub centric (it is not required for proper function).

It is also the case that the lugs don't see the shearing force one would expect if not carried by the center hub unless they were loose. Even the normal torque loads from accelerating or braking will not put a significant shear load on the lugs if they are "properly" torqued.