But is it just the look or is it the physics. I coppied this article from PH " The principle advantage of lowering unsprung weight (at least the one most people are talking about) is about how the wheel assembly deals with imperfections in the road surface. On a mirror-smooth surface you wouldn't notice, but even on the Silverstone circuit there are little dips and bumps that have to be managed. Then consider grazing those sawtooth kerbs. The critical area is the contact patch - rubber to tarmac. You want to keep this as constant as possible. If it suddenly spikes higher, you are not going to be able to react fast enough to use the extra grip generated (and you might be damaging the tyre). If it drops suddenly, you're going to lose grip and you're not going to be able to react to that (even if it's brief and minor, it's going to unsettle the car and you're going to waste time doing something about it). So the less it varies, the closer you can run to the optimum average grip available. With more grip you are going to be faster, and the car is going to remain more settled. So how does this work? First of all, remember that as you hit bumps, dips and kerbs, there's a displacement input - the road surface rises (or drops), your tyre has to move with it, and everything else has to sort itself out to deal with the new location of the road surface. Secondly, basic physics tells us that how quickly the system deals with this is determined by the stiffness of the spring (higher means faster), and the mass at the other end (less means faster). And the third point is to remember that we have several springs and masses. First, the tread area of the tyre (we could even separate the tread blocks from the rest of the carcass if we wanted to get really technical). Secondly the tyre sidewalls (and remember that each of these has mass as well as elasticity), then the major unsprung mass of the wheel and hub. Then the actual spring/damper. And finally the mass of the bodyshell. Now it helps here is you have done the O-level science experiment with springs and masses in series. If you have, you'd know that at the intermediate points between springs, all sorts of weird effects happen. Those points can move in ways that seem to bear no relation to the input (road surface) and far end (bodyshell). The main point is, though, if we consider the first stage from contact patch to unsprung mass (major part: wheel & hub), reducing the unsprung mass means that mass can move more quickly, and the load/pressure variation can be much smaller. The pressure variation at the contact patch is smaller, so the change in grip is smaller, so it's more predictable, so you can run closer to the limit (ie corner faster). And that's the principle benefit of reducing unsprung weight. Other benefits include: Damper settings: the damper works not only to control the movement of the bodyshell, but also to control the movement of the wheel/tyre. Reduce the unsprung mass, and you can probably reduce the amount of damping you need. This also (effectively) softens the whole springing system, amplifying the main benefit Noise/vibration/harshness: Think of a Range Rover crossing a sleeping policeman at decent speed. As the tyre hits the ramp, that huge mass of wheel gets hammered up into the air. The spring/damper tries to manage that load, but there's a huge load spike into the chassis that will be felt by the driver as a bang & thump. But if we replaced the wheel and hub with lightweight plastic ones, the input load to the spring/damper will be less (as this is now a force input), and we also have the possibility of siftening the damper setting. As a result, the load spike into the chassis is less, the bump/thump is less, and might even be reduced to that situation of the chassis gliding over the obstacle with the driver barely noticing. Chassis loads: As above, smaller load spikes are created at the chassis mounting points. That means less risk of failure, and particularly of fatigue failure. Good news for durability on a road car, but on a racecar it means you could save a bit of weight with a smaller mount. Rotational inertia: I'm always a bit skeptical of this, but I've heard several reports of it being noticeable. Rotational inertia is a product of the mass, and how far it is from the the axis of rotation. So using the rotational equivalent of F=ma, less rotational mass means less force for the same rotational acceleration. Of the total force (what the engine or brakes are providing), less is being spent on building rotational inertia, so more can be spent on accelerating the vehicle. Which means fitting carbon fibre wheel rims would provide an increase in vehicle acceleration. But most important of all is it's effect on how the suspension copes with variations in the road surface, and how little variation that induces in grip."
But still loving the R and quickly racked up 6k miles since making the jump. Spec wise, again , got to be buckets and Spyder wheels with AC. And def think about paying a premium for a PCCB car if one crops up. Our new car arrives Tuesday , so cannot wait to get driving that 
