Tinting is illegal in Alberta, doesn't mean we don't tint. You know - Pay to play.

I guess? I've been driving cars with wider wheels/tires and lowered for the past 15 years and I have never had a single ticket.

same in PA. i just never tinted because it's not worth the hassle here.


now straight pipes on the other hand you'd think would draw more attention than tint.....obviously not the case lol

Now you jinxed it.

Yeah, its all about location. I grew up in so cal, so you can only imagine all the BS that cops put people through out there just to get revenue for the state. I've gotten mud flap tickets (lifted truck obviously), tint, stereo too loud, exhaust too loud, on a street bike even, if you can believe that garbage!

But 49% of a 315/40 18 is still more contact patch than 51% of 175/80 15 econo-box tire?

Right, but are you forgetting that tires are made to perform flat on the ground. Sidewalls stretch and grip the road, grooves in the tire divert water to better handling in rain. With half the tire off the ground, it cant do those thing, not to mention putting twice the stress on the inside sidewall (which is only designed to handle a certain weight limit) So, ill take 100% of a 175/80 over 30% of a 315 any day.

also throw in the fact that typically the outside 1/3 of the tire tread block is the real part designed for traction.

on a stance vehicle thats the first part that gets pulled away from the pavement.

:tiphat:

:iagree: WOW... twice in one day :rofl2:

well when you actually make GOOD points i cant help but to agree and also add extra info that you missed :tiphat:

:stirthepot:

They outlawed it like 2 weeks ago...

The US should make it a felony

That's how they're going to measure.

If an officer can comfortably rest his nut sack on your side mirror while remaining flat footed on the ground, your stance is too extreme and you're getting towed. :nutswinger::ughdance:

^^^
Another reason not to lower your vehicle. I don't want anyone's nuts on my mirrors.

"Tons" needs a definition, and the definition needs to be demonstrably unsafe.

My Z runs between 2.5 and 3 degrees of negative camber for track use. That amount is safe in my application and effective for handling purposes as well as mitigating outside-edge tire wear from traction-limit turning.

My camber is out of spec from Nissan's recommended range. OEM specs may become the definition of "safe" limits if these laws come our way.

I have no experience with going with a wheel that's wider than the tire specs. But I have ran tires that were (one size) too wide for the wheels I mounted them on (according to tire specs)

I suspect that nailing down "safe" with tire seals and the beads may be easier than defining "unsafe" camber.

The only way to get "no give" would be to use solid materials all the way to the pavement. (No tires, no bushings etc)

I don't think "no give" is the legal definition you are looking for.


Again, I'm not a fan of "stance" I think it's a waste of money. However I take great care not to demand laws that outlaw things just because I don't like them or think they are stupid.

If we can come up with definitions that go to someone endangering others on the road, great.

But banning tastelessness is a very slippery slope. I think it's particularly unwise for automotive enthusiasts set foot on such a slope.

As they should! :icon17: :mad:
That and Southwest Airlines.

Your face is a felony. :hello: