[APEXRaceParts]

UPDATE: Great news - our Group Buy is now live! Please view the Group Buy site HERE.

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out directly or submit them through the Group Buy platform.

As you might have seen in our recent survey thread, APEX is working with the Porsche community in an effort to produce track wheels that offer unprecedented value. We have received 800+ survey responses from fellow community members offering feedback and fitment requests. The 987 chassis represented approximately 15% of the surveys submitted, so we’d love to hear more from this community. If you haven’t chimed in yet, you can still provide valuable feedback by taking our Porsche wheel survey here.

Before we can move forward, we need to fine tune certain fitment specifications for the 987 chassis. So, we’re seeking your expertise and need detailed feedback on the specs we believe should be produced.

Below is a list of all widths and offsets we’re looking to create for a variety of Porsche chassis in the first round of production. Fitments specific to the 987 chassis can be seen listed below. In accordance with the survey results, these will be produced in 18” sizes first and 19” thereafter. Survey data and community feedback will directly determine what will be produced, and when. Please note that both the SM-10 and EC-7 designs are being reviewed for feasibility. In your comment, please include tire sizes, tire model, and alignment settings if you have a change request so we can track developing trends.

Proposed Wheel Specifications

Front:
18x8.5” ET50
18x8.5” ET42
18x9” ET46
18x9.5” ET42

Rear:
18x10” ET60
18x10” ET36
18x10.5” ET40
18x11” ET60
18x11” ET36
18x11.5” ET63
18x11.5” ET42
18x12” ET65
18x12” ET45
18x12.5” ET46

Proposed Fitments for 987

F: 18x8.5” ET50
F: 18x8.5” ET42
F: 18x9” ET48

R: 18x10” ET36

On-Car Rendering GALLERY

I’d like to invite you to view new on-car imagery which help depict concavity profiles, finishes, and designs. The first round of images shown are the SM-10 design, however, the EC-7 design will follow.

If you would like to view all of our high-res versions, please click the embedded images.


987 Cayman R - 18" SM-10
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 2 (medium concave)

Race silver -


Anthracite -


Satin black -


987 IMSA ST Boxster - 18" SM-10
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 2 (medium concave)

Race Silver -

Anthracite -

Satin Black -

981 Cayman GTS - 18" SM-10
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 2 (medium concave)

Race silver -

Anthracite -

Satin black -

More Porsche On-Car Images

997 GT3RS - 19" SM-10.
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 3 (most concave)

Race silver -


Anthracite -


Satin black -


997 GT3 - 19" SM-10
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 3 (most concave)

Race silver -

Anthracite -

Satin black -

996 GT3 - 18" SM10.
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 2 rear (medium concave)

Race silver -


Anthracite -


Satin black -


996 GT2 - 18" SM-10.
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 3 (most concave)

Race silver -


Anthracite -


Satin black -


996 GT3 - 18" SM-10 wheels
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 2 (medium concave)

Race silver -

Anthracite -

Satin black -

BRRacing’s 997.2 GT3 - 18" SM-10 wheels
Front: Profile 1 (least concave)
Rear: Profile 3 rear (most concave)

Race Silver -

Anthracite -

Satin black -

Over the course of the next few months, I’ll be posting pre-order details, availability updates, brake diagrams, more visuals, etc.

Please revisit this thread frequently and feel free to reach out with any questions!

 

[FFaust]

Will keep watching for some SPC wheels.

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Will keep watching for some SPC wheels.

We're absolutely set on launching sizes that will be legal and competitive in SPC. Seems like our offsets seen above will work perfectly with the tire size/compound that's typically run (245/285?), but please let me know if and where we've missed the mark on our specifications!

 

[FFaust]

Filled out the survey; above specs are probably ok for SPC, which uses 245 and 285. Will need at least one set before next season, so will look further once ready.

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Filled out the survey; above specs are probably ok for SPC, which uses 245 and 285. Will need at least one set before next season, so will look further once ready.

Thank you, sir! I look forward to working with you in the future. Please feel free to reach out any time.

___________________

As we make progress on engineering, please continue to share your thoughts on the wheel specifications listed above!

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Since this is a very communal project, the wheel specifications that are proposed and/or collectively agreed upon by enthusiasts have a heightened chance of being produced.

Let us know your thoughts!

Cheers,

 

[Arch]

Sorry if it’s been mentioned, but where are they made? Any consideration of brushed finish? Thanks!

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Sorry if it’s been mentioned, but where are they made? Any consideration of brushed finish? Thanks!

Both great questions - thank you for inquiring.

They are made in China, which we discussed below in another thread.

We’ve been in business for 10 years, and we’ve stuck with one supplier in China. We chose them because they already had the equipment to Flow-Form which was rare back then, and their primary customers were big OEMs and other Japanese wheel manufacturers. What’s kept our relationship strong has been their willingness to further increase their QA standards at our request, and to support our extensive crush testing despite our low production volumes.

I can’t speak with any certainty on where another wheel is manufactured, but if they have a history of being soft and low quality, then it is not from our supplier as we’re definitely paying a premium to get the quality we require. As flow-forming became popular, a lot of other manufacturers have popped up offering similar services. If a vendor doesn’t come to a supplier with any of their own standards, and they’re just looking for a wheel, then there are a lot of suppliers out there now that are happy to cater to vendors just looking for another thing to sell.

For anything manufactured overseas, real world testing and independent checks are required to ensure you get quality out of a supplier. Done right, you get an iPhone. Done wrong, you get an exploding hoverboard. This is where the biggest differences start to reveal themselves in the wheel industry. It’s clear that most brands don’t even understand how to keep their suppliers in check as they’ll claim JWL and VIA on product that clearly haven’t been tested. We can tell they’re misrepresenting their products because there is a database that contains all the supplier names, wheel models, and test related data for every wheels that’s ever been certified by the VIA. Most wheels aren’t on that list as they’ve never been tested. Some vendors are novices that and assume they’re tested or they work with suppliers that tell them they’re tested, while others purposefully skip it to save costs. Both make you really worry about what other corners are being cut or missed.

After multiple computer revisions and FEA, we run real world impact, load, and crush tests for every unique wheel spec. Even if the offset change is only 1mm different on a new size, we still do the tests. Since all of this testing is done in-house, we need to keep our supplier in check. When they’re done we send wheels to the VIA in Japan which is a government testing organization. They real world crush test our wheels again and provide 3rd party validation that corners aren’t being cut.

This thorough testing gives us the confidence that we’re producing quality product that’s worthy of being driven at the limits on track. The last 10 years of customers beating on our wheels is proof that we’ve accomplished just that.

Here's a response to someone asking to prove that we're VIA/JWL strength certified:

We understand where you’re coming from. It’s all talk until there is some proof to back up our claims. We’re sickened by the number of companies claiming they’re VIA/JWL certified when in fact they are not, so we always welcome a discussion on the matter. We encourage enthusiasts to do their due-diligence before making an educated wheel purchase as we’re all aware of the failures that can happen.

Posting a video doesn’t prove anything as we’ve seen them already from other manufacturers that lie about their certification(s). Each factory has the equipment in-house to conduct tests, but it doesn’t mean everything is tested or tested to the same standards as what the VIA requires. To us, in-house testing is just like taking a practice SAT test. The only score a college will care about is the officially sanctioned test you took, not the one you did at home on your own. These in-house tests and videos are conducted without regulation, subject to false load quantities, and used solely for marketing purposes. This is where the catastrophic on-track failures occur and the biggest differences start to reveal themselves in the wheel industry.

The VIA in Japan runs the JWL test and there is only one way to conduct that test so a manufacturer can’t game the system. SAE J2530 testing conducted in the USA by some manufacturers can be manipulated. We got into a spat with a competitor many years ago that claimed JWL/VIA/TUV certification. They only did SAE testing and that test allows them to pick any load rating to certify. That brand only tested to 1200lbs when VIA requires 690KG (1521lbs) for the 5x120 bolt pattern. A trend we see lately is brands that use tricky terminology such as “exceeds JWL/VIA”. Translated, that means they have no third party official evidence of anything, they want you to trust that they conducted a legitimate in-house test, and for some good reason they decided not to take that last step.

So how do you know we’re the real deal? There’s two ways to check. One way is online. The VIA maintains a list of every single manufacturer, wheel model, and size that has been certified. Unfortunately, they require a login to view that list which we find odd as we believe that should be a public database. The other way is by looking at the certified test reports that are mailed to them by the VIA.

Although we don’t have a video of the test being run, we noticed the older reports did include a photograph of our wheel in an impact test machine which we’ve attached below. The new reports just include a photo of the wheel on the ground which is not as interesting.
The only things we’ve hidden in these images is our source’s name.

We'll be rolling out with our three known finishes - race silver, anthracite, and satin black. Similarly to how we've introduced a speciality finish to BMW (matte bronze), there is a chance that a brushed finish can be produced in the distant future for Porsche. At the end of the day, specialty finishes are not forefront on our minds as it's not how we bring value to our customers. Chasing finishes to meet ever-changing aesthetic preferences is not the fight we want to fight. We'd rather allot our energy to continue engineering and producing quality, strong, lightweight, and affordable track-oriented wheels that alleviate the current market voids. Another potential issue re: different finishes is how they can be fulfilled in our wheel replacement program. If you're the original owner of your APEX set and your wheels endure any cosmetic or structural damage (from track or otherwise) you can purchase the same wheel at a 50% discount.

With this said, as our development progresses and have wheels throughout the Porsche community, we'll explore the possibility of adding another finish into the mix.

Please feel free to reach out with any further questions!

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Here we have a rendering showing the 18" SM-10 in our three finishes against a Racing Yellow Cayman GTS. The front wheels are profile 1 concavity - the least amount of concave. The rear wheels are profile 2 concavity - medium amount of concave.

Satin black -

Anthracite -

Race Silver -

Please reach out with any questions!

 

[APEXRaceParts]

I hope you all had a joyous holiday season with friends and family.

As we inch closer to production, please continue to share your thoughts here and view our new imagery below!

Here we have a 997 GT3 equipped with APEX SM-10 in our three finishes. The front concavity is profile 1 and rear is profile 3.

Race silver -

Anthracite -

Satin black -

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Happy new year to you all!

I hope 2018 brings you health, happiness, prosperity... and APEX wheels this spring!

Here we have a beautiful Basalt Black 996 GT3 on 18" SM-10 in our three finishes. Similarly to the rest, these front wheels are concavity profile 1 (least concave). The rear wheels are concavity profile 2 (medium concave).

Race silver -

Anthracite -

Satin black -

 

[APEXRaceParts]

To answer the numerous people asking for concavity profile clarification, here’s a general overview of how they’re presented and produced for each application.

We offer our Porsche-specific APEX SM-10 and EC-7 in two or three different concavity profiles. Pending design and final engineering/strength optimization, the wheels will vary in concavity depth from profile one to three; one being the least concave, three being the most concave. Typically, the level of concavity is dependent on the width and offset of the wheel. The wider the wheel and lower the offset, the more concave. Whereas the skinnier the wheel and higher the offset, the less concave. With deeper concavity, the wide(r) width and low(er) offset wheel specifications may have a deeper “pocket” or center pad where the studs/lug nuts attach to the hub.

The varying concavity profiles in the SM-10 and EC-7 ensure that spoke curvature and brake clearance is never compromised due to width or offset changes in the wheel. The SM-10 and EC-7 are of the few 18" VIA/JWL certified wheels on the market that can clear both aftermarket and OEM 380mm rotor 6-piston brake kits.

We are now making our final advancements in the engineering and initial production stages prior to our initial pre-order/group buy next month. We’ll continue to update as production creeps closer and release on-car photography to give enthusiasts a better idea of how some of these proposed wheel designs visually appear on specific chassis. Stay tuned for updates and solidified ETAs!

Please let me know if you have any further comments, questions, or fitment change requests.

 

[[email protected]]

Please let me know if you have any further comments, questions, or fitment change requests.

How about an 18x9 ET 46/47? The 48 is going to be really close to coilovers in the front. I run a 255/35/18 with an ET47 on the front of my Cayman and I'm not sure I could run a ET48. Just a thought

Do you have any weight info on the 18x9, 18x10.5 set for the Cayman? Thanks!

 

[APEXRaceParts]

How about an 18x9 ET 46/47? The 48 is going to be really close to coilovers in the front. I run a 255/35/18 with an ET47 on the front of my Cayman and I'm not sure I could run a ET48. Just a thought

Do you have any weight info on the 18x9, 18x10.5 set for the Cayman? Thanks!

Thank you for chiming in! We came to the 18x9" ET48 conclusion based on enthusiasts who reached out in favor of that specific offset. However, this is still subject to change based on community feedback as we approach the final stages of our engineering. If you don't mind, please share your suspension and alignment settings so I can track trends to see if this change request will be widely adopted across the enthusiast spectrum.

We have estimates, but we do not yet have solidified weights for any of our proposed designs diameters, widths, or offsets. When this becomes finalized, I will surely update!

Our pre-order group buy is right around the corner, so please feel free to reach out with any further questions or comments.

 

[[email protected]]

An ET48 might work, it's going to be REALLY close between the tire and coilover. An ET50 will work fine with a stock strut but not a coilover.

The alignment settings don't matter for these applications (in terms of strut wheel clearance) since the camber is controlled at the upper mount with a camber plate or the LCAs.

Suspension wise I'm running Ohlins coilovers, with -2 degrees all around. 255/35/18 ET47 18x9 front and 285/35/18 ET35 18x10 rear. The front strut clearance is really tight, hence my thought on ET48 causing issues. I'll try and get my Cayman on the lift tomorrow and take a picture and measure the actual clearance. Perhaps I'm making a big deal out of nothing..

Thank you for chiming in! We came to the 18x9" ET48 conclusion based on enthusiasts who reached out in favor of that specific offset. However, this is still subject to change based on community feedback as we approach the final stages of our engineering. If you don't mind, please share your suspension and alignment settings so I can track trends to see if this change request will be widely adopted across the enthusiast spectrum.

We have estimates, but we do not yet have solidified weights for any of our proposed designs diameters, widths, or offsets. When this becomes finalized, I will surely update!

Our pre-order group buy is right around the corner, so please feel free to reach out with any further questions or comments.

 

[APEXRaceParts]

An ET48 might work, it's going to be REALLY close between the tire and coilover. An ET50 will work fine with a stock strut but not a coilover.

The alignment settings don't matter for these applications (in terms of strut wheel clearance) since the camber is controlled at the upper mount with a camber plate or the LCAs.

Suspension wise I'm running Ohlins coilovers, with -2 degrees all around. 255/35/18 ET47 18x9 front and 285/35/18 ET35 18x10 rear. The front strut clearance is really tight, hence my thought on ET48 causing issues. I'll try and get my Cayman on the lift tomorrow and take a picture and measure the actual clearance. Perhaps I'm making a big deal out of nothing..

Your second paragraph is correct - they move in unison with one another when camber is adjusted. What matters here with a mildly aggressive front width and offset is the negative camber (alignment setting) necessary to stuff it underneath the fender on the outside; if it's doable with stock LCAs/strut top hats or if aftermarket LCAs/camber plates are necessary to gain the appropriate amount of negative camber.

As you well know, millimeters in wheel offset can make a meaningful difference in the overall outcome. This is where we have habitually seen the benefit of incorporating enthusiasts into product development. I thoroughly appreciate you sharing your thoughts - please do update with any measurements and/or pictures. That'd be fantastic!

 

[[email protected]]

Hey Eric,
Well since the title of the thread is Porsche Track Wheel Development I'm going out on a limb that folks are going to have the upgrades to allow proper alignments I have a set of our camber plates on mine to allow camber changes from the top. The stock camber adjustment in the front is very limited. I did run my current wheels but in ET50 F with stock suspension to test fitment and it was fine at stock ride height.

Your second paragraph is correct - they move in unison with one another when camber is adjusted. What matters here with a mildly aggressive front width and offset is the negative camber (alignment setting) necessary to stuff it underneath the fender on the outside; if it's doable with stock LCAs/strut top hats or if aftermarket LCAs/camber plates are necessary to gain the appropriate amount of negative camber.

As you well know, millimeters in wheel offset can make a meaningful difference in the overall outcome. This is where we have habitually seen the benefit of incorporating enthusiasts into product development. I thoroughly appreciate you sharing your thoughts - please do update with any measurements and/or pictures. That'd be fantastic!

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Hey Eric,
Well since the title of the thread is Porsche Track Wheel Development I'm going out on a limb that folks are going to have the upgrades to allow proper alignments I have a set of our camber plates on mine to allow camber changes from the top. The stock camber adjustment in the front is very limited. I did run my current wheels but in ET50 F with stock suspension to test fitment and it was fine at stock ride height.

That is very true - I cannot fault that logic! This is where enthusiast input is invaluable, so I'm looking forward to your clearance measurements with Ohlins (likely applicable other non-progressive linear spring coilover setups). Greatly appreciate the assistance.

 

[[email protected]]

Hey Eric,
Well I think you might be right. I measure ~2.41mm from the rim to the spring with my ET47 18x9s. So it just depends how much clearance you are comfortable with.. (.055"/1.41mm) with ET48.

 

[APEXRaceParts]

Hey Eric,
Well I think you might be right. I measure ~2.41mm from the rim to the spring with my ET47 18x9s. So it just depends how much clearance you are comfortable with.. (.055"/1.41mm) with ET48.

Hi Josh, thank you for taking the time to do this - very much appreciated. Although 1.41mm may be enough inner clearance with your setup, there is indeed room for improvement. It seems although an ET46 or ET47 can be run without a change in camber settings, so perhaps that offset change can and will be made. I have to verify with other enthusiasts across the board, but will update and/or further consult the community when I have change confirmation. How do the rear wheel specifications look to you?