-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
wider tires
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
drnickriviera
Platinum Member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Both wrong.
A "Plus Zero" fittiment is any tire that has essentially the same diameter as the stock setup.
A "Plus One" fittiment is essentially equivalent to a single step up in diameter.
A "Minus One" fittiment is essentially equivalent to a single step down in diameter.
Example:
Stock: 195/60 R15 (117mm sidewall height)
Plus Zero: 215/55 R15 (118.25mm sidewall height) Difference is so small in sidewall height that it's not important to speedometer/odometer accuracy.
Plus One: 195/65 R15 (126.75mm sidewall height)
Minus One: 195/55 R15 (107.25mm sidewall height)
ZV</end quote></div>
Eh? These sites disagree with you
http://www.streetdreams.org/wheel_tire_plus_sizing.php
http://www.hogantire.com/tcplussizeChart.htm
http://www.yokohamatire.com/utplus.asp
http://www.dunloptire.com/care/plus.htm
http://www.toyocanada.com/tireinfo/plus_one.aspl
Both wrong.
A "Plus Zero" fittiment is any tire that has essentially the same diameter as the stock setup.
A "Plus One" fittiment is essentially equivalent to a single step up in diameter.
A "Minus One" fittiment is essentially equivalent to a single step down in diameter.
Example:
Stock: 195/60 R15 (117mm sidewall height)
Plus Zero: 215/55 R15 (118.25mm sidewall height) Difference is so small in sidewall height that it's not important to speedometer/odometer accuracy.
Plus One: 195/65 R15 (126.75mm sidewall height)
Minus One: 195/55 R15 (107.25mm sidewall height)
ZV</end quote></div>
Eh? These sites disagree with you
http://www.streetdreams.org/wheel_tire_plus_sizing.php
http://www.hogantire.com/tcplussizeChart.htm
http://www.yokohamatire.com/utplus.asp
http://www.dunloptire.com/care/plus.htm
http://www.toyocanada.com/tireinfo/plus_one.aspl
Zenmervolt
Elite member
Huh. I've always heard it referred to as referencing the overall diameter of the wheel/tire combo.
ZV
JEDI
Lifer
ah.. so the added water channel doesnt overcome the additional surface area of thw wider tire.
so thinner is still better, and cheaper, and a little lighter (thus a little less gas).
So if thinner is better, why is everyone going to bigger? (16" tires are beginning to be standard now whereas my 93 Sentra had 13".)
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
wider tires MAY be of some benefit in the snow. while narrow tires do kinda sheer through it that dosen't do you any good once you've got more snow than ground clearance. i think the front axle on my explorer was designed to double as a plow. wider tires may let you 'float' a little higher.
imported_Truenofan
Golden Member
does anyone in here watch wrc....does anyone that watches wrc pay attention to what kind of tires they have when they are in specific conditions. narrow tires in the snow, wide tires in the concrete/tarmac, and tread in the rain......if it works for them, i dont see why it wont work for us.(they're cars are about half the weight of your average car)
edit:
http://www.irancar.com/images/..._206_wrc_2002_01_m.jpg
http://racing.webcindario.com/...20a%20dos%20ruedas.jpg
good example
http://www.7extrememotorsports.../peugeot_206wrc_12.jpg
very narrow tires in the snow, but they do have stubbed tires at that as well. narrow tires cut through the snow alot better than wide tires floating over it. and these are cars that have 300whp with 300ft/lbs of torque at all times, because they're designed that way.
edit:
http://www.irancar.com/images/..._206_wrc_2002_01_m.jpg
http://racing.webcindario.com/...20a%20dos%20ruedas.jpg
good example
http://www.7extrememotorsports.../peugeot_206wrc_12.jpg
very narrow tires in the snow, but they do have stubbed tires at that as well. narrow tires cut through the snow alot better than wide tires floating over it. and these are cars that have 300whp with 300ft/lbs of torque at all times, because they're designed that way.
Gillbot
Lifer
This is debateable. Ideally you only want to run as wide of a tire as you NEED. Addind wider tires increases rolling friction and thus drivetrain losses.
Adding wider tires does NOT always improve lateral grip. If there is too much sidewall flex, a wider tire will still buckle in cornering.
Also, Plus sizing usually refers to adding to the rim diamater.
Stock on my car is 245/50/R16, plus one is 275/40/R17. The tires are the same overall diameter and height but the 17's are much wider in tread width.
imported_Truenofan
Golden Member
i'll ask this, for better braking you'll need either wider tires with the same gripping potential as your previous([edit]making them wider will actually add grip), or the same width with better gripping potental but unable to cover the same distance. the amount of friction caused by wider tires, which is what tires are FOR.
unless your able to do the math and proove that it will reduce gas milage by a significant amount, then it comes down to user value, how much do you value stopping quicker, or turning out of the way of somthing in your path. when it comes down to it, most people believe simply, wider tires help grip no matter what, which is not the case, if you were this anal about tire width and traction, you would have more than TWO sets of tires and TWO sets of rims for a given year. but since thats a major inconvenience to anyone and kind of a waste of money if you dont live in all the seasons, why would you go and do that.
on the other hand, someone like myself, i am going for more than one set of rims with one set of tires, i will have at least one set of all season tires, and one set of summer only tires and rims.
edit: and if you really wanna get into it, you need to count your rims for weight that will actually slow your car down more, than your tires do. because if you didnt know, for every 1lb of unsprung weight, you must add 1.5lbs of sprung weight, so those nice shiny stock rims that weigh a 25lbs or so, do the math they are 37.5lbs, then multiply that by 4 and you come up with 150lbs of sprung weight added to your car. thats going to effect you more with acceleration and stopping than your weight and friction from wider tires. go ahed and google that, it will show up, and its true.
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=21810
Generally you don't get wider tires unless you cannot hook up.
I have 315 BFG drag radials back, 275's front, to save weight and keep tracking to a minimum. Wider tires add more weight, but when you have so much horsepower you just spin the wheels in 1st, added width is always appreciated.
I have 315 BFG drag radials back, 275's front, to save weight and keep tracking to a minimum. Wider tires add more weight, but when you have so much horsepower you just spin the wheels in 1st, added width is always appreciated.
Gillbot
Lifer
I actually went to a skinnier tire to reduce my 60' times at the track. Wider does NOT always mean better, that is my ONLY point and sure there are MANY other circumstances.
Plus, if we are talking straight 1/4 mile traction for tire width, why are there guys running well into the 7's on a measly 10" wide tire? If 10" of width is plenty for them, it'll handle my slow POS.
Now if you want to flip this and worry about braking, wouldn't it make sense to run the widest tire on the FRONT since that's where the majority of your braking energy is?
imported_Truenofan
Golden Member
larger diameter rims, have more weight, requiring more energy to get them moving, and they have worse acceleration due to that as well. your top speed will increase due to the fact that your tires/rims are covering more distance each revolution. they also require more to stop as well. when you see all those race cars,(lemans series) they dont have 20's, they dont have 19's, at the most they usualy have 17's. but they also have very wide rims, as well as carbon brakes and brake pads for quick stopping that are water cooled(calipers).
thing im getting to is the tires arent the only thing that can slow a car down or speed it up. im going to agree with drpootums.
thing im getting to is the tires arent the only thing that can slow a car down or speed it up. im going to agree with drpootums.
imported_Truenofan
Golden Member
for all things, they have bbs rims, very very light rims. 17 inch rims, weigh around 17lbs, 17lbs. 17.2x1.5=25.8x4=103.2lbs...much less weight but cost 570usd per rim. the 18's would add i'd estimate, around 5lbs more. the reason why f1 cars have such small rims, and such huge sidewall, is due to the fact that the suspension they have has such little give up or down, the tires do what a suspension does on a normal car, it compensates for the little bumps in the road. you dont have to have that on a normal vehicle because the suspension actually has movement to it. they may have 13 inch rims, but the diameter of the wheel itself is far larger than that.
if you havent noticed, they do use bbs rims, magnisium forged rims that are extremely light, i personally will be using a set for summer/track purposes myself. and i will keep stock rims for regular day to day use. oh and the fact that they have extremely lightweight cars, and quite a bit more hp/torque to take advantage of the larger diameter rims, most people dont think about that and only go for aesthetic purposes.
if you havent noticed, they do use bbs rims, magnisium forged rims that are extremely light, i personally will be using a set for summer/track purposes myself. and i will keep stock rims for regular day to day use. oh and the fact that they have extremely lightweight cars, and quite a bit more hp/torque to take advantage of the larger diameter rims, most people dont think about that and only go for aesthetic purposes.
imported_Truenofan
Golden Member
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0612023.htm
the tire works as part of the suspension, kind of like how that explains in the beginning of the article, it obsorbs part of the roads bumps and such, since the suspension doesnt move for the most part on a formula one car. as we all know, large sidewall increases lateral movement and ability to take impacts with softer tire compounds. dont believe me, figure this, those cars with the super low profile tires, and extremely hard suspension, ever ridden in one? remember how rough the ride is?
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/1
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/39
the tires in fact, have to compensate for the hard suspension as well as groves in the road. if you ever watch it on speed, when they have the camera positioned high on the car, yes the vehicle vibrates, but mostly due to the engine.
when they hit large bumps, like the side strips, the suspension see's movement, but you dont see the suspension move most or at all during turning, braking, and acceleration do you, at least not as much as a normal car. just because its a formual one car, doesnt mean the tires arent effected like a regular car, the tires yes are designed for 200mph and the likes, and to withstand high lateral/vertical g's. but they are still tires none the less. they are there not only for grip. but for also to handle the small bumps in the road that the suspension doesnt compensate for.
the tire works as part of the suspension, kind of like how that explains in the beginning of the article, it obsorbs part of the roads bumps and such, since the suspension doesnt move for the most part on a formula one car. as we all know, large sidewall increases lateral movement and ability to take impacts with softer tire compounds. dont believe me, figure this, those cars with the super low profile tires, and extremely hard suspension, ever ridden in one? remember how rough the ride is?
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/1
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/39
the tires in fact, have to compensate for the hard suspension as well as groves in the road. if you ever watch it on speed, when they have the camera positioned high on the car, yes the vehicle vibrates, but mostly due to the engine.
when they hit large bumps, like the side strips, the suspension see's movement, but you dont see the suspension move most or at all during turning, braking, and acceleration do you, at least not as much as a normal car. just because its a formual one car, doesnt mean the tires arent effected like a regular car, the tires yes are designed for 200mph and the likes, and to withstand high lateral/vertical g's. but they are still tires none the less. they are there not only for grip. but for also to handle the small bumps in the road that the suspension doesnt compensate for.
Yep, they try to compensate for the small wheel diameter using increased sidewall stiffness and suspension tuning.
Regardless though, it's the regulations that limit the size of the wheel, not the fact that smaller wheels are superior.
It's the same reason composites are not used it the wheels. It's not because metal is superior to carbon fiber in this application, it's regulations.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
