Team Banded Brothers.

So the question is do I go 17” GP or 18” Amarok from Duchy now. On the 18” 9-9.5 what’s the best tested tyre size? 235/35/18?
 
So the question is do I go 17” GP or 18” Amarok from Duchy now. On the 18” 9-9.5 what’s the best tested tyre size? 235/35/18?
Personal choice really…. I guess it depends on how much you want to spend and what he’s got available (the Amaroks aren’t always readily available)?

You can go 8.5” or 9” for your fronts, it all depends on how low you want to be and what size tyre you choose if you want to avoid any rubbing? My setup is 8.5” front and 9.5” rear with 255/45/18 Goodyear Eagle F1’s all round and I am very happy…. no rubbing and nothing ‘catches’ the inner wing as it did with my 20’s!

235/50/18 works with 9” fronts…. check out this post from @Wilmur


Some photos of the 9-9.5s on solows and 235 50. No rubbing and plenty of scope for more lows

View attachment 113353

View attachment 113354

View attachment 113355

View attachment 113356
 
Personal choice really…. I guess it depends on how much you want to spend and what he’s got available (the Amaroks aren’t always readily available)?

You can go 8.5” or 9” for your fronts, it all depends on how low you want to be and what size tyre you choose if you want to avoid any rubbing? My setup is 8.5” front and 9.5” rear with 255/45/18 Goodyear Eagle F1’s all round and I am very happy…. no rubbing and nothing ‘catches’ the inner wing as it did with my 20’s!

235/50/18 works with 9” fronts…. check out this post from @Wilmur
Both setups look good! I think the 18” will work better for me. Hopefully Duchy gets back to me at some point. I’ve tried all methods with no luck all week.
 
I don't disagree, but the Holeys are really nice and obviously fully legal, but banded do have a soft spot for me.

As for sending them to Jamie @RedUn there's no room to band them unless you banded an 8.5 which is pointless because the 10" does the same anyway.

However, he will be having a set of mine to go my usual Chrome. The Silver is stunning in the sun with a mega metallic bling, but too standard for me.
Tyres legal as well? What’s the profiles?
 
Okay so on. Setup with nice front rake, may lower the rear abit yet we shall see as
I imagine the rear will settle into the rubbers then may lower a little...

For the numbers.

9/9.5j 235_50_18
350mm fronts
365mm rears
T28 little to no weight

No rubbing lock to lock or on the move so far.

View attachment 110122

View attachment 110123

View attachment 110124
Duchy recommend 255/45/18 on the 9f and 9.5r setup to me. Any reason why you didn’t go for this? Van looks great, is that just a standard silver/chrome finish?
 
Duchy recommend 255/45/18 on the 9f and 9.5r setup to me. Any reason why you didn’t go for this? Van looks great, is that just a standard silver/chrome finish?
Mainly because I was on Solow suspension and I knew I would be near the highest setting with no scope to make higher if rubbing. So I went with a smaller width to allow for clearance on the arch. I think it worked out perfect and could easily go lower without rubbing issues. However I do go to bike parks which can be quite rough gravel roads so still needed to be practical low.

Yes just reflex silver.
 
Duchy recommend 255/45/18 on the 9f and 9.5r setup to me. Any reason why you didn’t go for this? Van looks great, is that just a standard silver/chrome finish?
In reality Mike how low is your van? What width are your current front wheels and size tyres?

The 9” banded amarok paired with the 255 tyres is going to be wide at the front and you might risk some rubbing, but it depends on how low you are and the look you are trying to achieve?
 
Duchy recommend 255/45/18 on the 9f and 9.5r setup to me. Any reason why you didn’t go for this? Van looks great, is that just a standard silver/chrome finish?
If you are talking about Amaroks, 9" fronts don't work on mine, they poke out too much, meaning they rub on my height and look like they don't fit properly.
I've mentioned this before, but there is a difference in some T6 fronts that make the offset a little strange. Myself and @T6180 had this problem with a pair of RRs that poked out around 10mm on the front of his old 2016 T6 and looked daft, but the exact same wheels tucked on the front of mine and the difference between poke and tuck is quite considerable, but we've never been able to work out what made his T6 poke and mine not, the only difference was manual and DGS and 2016 and 2017 vans.

All 3 sets of my banded steels have been different and I've now got the sizes perfect on all of them, but it's been trial and error.

17s has to be 9" and 9.5" because the 10s Jamie made for mine were way too wide and rubbed my arches on road dips.
18s has to be 8.5" and 9.5" because the 9" poke on the front of mine, but the 9.5" rears tuck lovely and look the nuts that deep.
19s has to be 9" and 10" which sit perfectly and tuck under absolutely spot on.

Several people run 9" fronts, but they are not daft enough to be as low as mine, so it's not quite so obvious, but even the set of 9" fronts that @DWS had off me didn't quite work on his T6, and now he's moved to 8.5s I think.
 
In reality Mike how low is your van? What width are your current front wheels and size tyres?

The 9” banded amarok paired with the 255 tyres is going to be wide at the front and you might risk some rubbing, but it depends on how low you are and the look you are trying to achieve?
I'm running 9.0 x 20″ ET 45 with a 255/35 on STX coils wound all the way down without any issues.

So my maths would be;

Current 255*35 = 89.25
Duchy suggest 255*45 = 114.75
so a delta of 25.5 (1 inch)

Dropping form 20"-18" so i'm going gain 1" of arch gap.

If i went 255*55 i would be on the same gap but with .5 poke on the rear which a lot of people run on spacers with the cells anyway as they dont offer a staggered fit.
 
I'm running 9.0 x 20″ ET 45 with a 255/35 on STX coils wound all the way down without any issues.

So my maths would be;

Current 255*35 = 89.25
Duchy suggest 255*45 = 114.75
so a delta of 25.5 (1 inch)

Dropping form 20"-18" so i'm going gain 1" of arch gap.

If i went 255*55 i would be on the same gap but with .5 poke on the rear which a lot of people run on spacers with the cells anyway as they dont offer a staggered fit.
Yeah that all looks good…. on willtheyfit it’s bang on….

0DFF4A03-4035-4848-97C7-4A458599AF9A.png

The only concern is the offset of the banded Amarok and how much it will ‘poke’? I don’t know what the offset is?

Also look at the difference in the arch gap…. surprising eh?
 
Yeah that all looks good…. on willtheyfit it’s bang on….

View attachment 124084

The only concern is the offset of the banded Amarok and how much it will ‘poke’? I don’t know what the offset is?

Also look at the difference in the arch gap…. surprising eh?

Yes that is surprising!
I think i will have to ask Duchy on the inset and poke, right now it looks BANG on.. the chances are slim but i like it a lot! Wheels off, wheels on and away :)
 
Yes that is surprising!
I think i will have to ask Duchy on the inset and poke, right now it looks BANG on.. the chances are slim but i like it a lot! Wheels off, wheels on and away :)
@T6ARF

9j et26
9.5j et20

So completely different, Duchy said don't head#uck yourself and just trust him.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top