wider tires

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: JEDI
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: npoe1
I wanted to know what difference could make to get wider tires for a car. Does somebody know?
</end quote></div>

worse in stopping in rain/snow. (more surface area = more chance of hydroplaning)

good for stopping in dry pavement. (more surface area in contact w/dry pavement)

if u live in vermont (lots of snow), try to get a car that can handle motorcycle width wheels

edit:

the p190 width Traction T/A tires have 5 water grooves.

The p205 width Traction T/A have 6 water grooves :Q

hm...

not so sure about hydroplaning now...

The width of that water groove is less than the width added to the contact patch.

 

[drnickriviera]

<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

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: drnickriviera
<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

You are correct, the plus concept refers to changes in wheel diameter, as measured in inches.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Apex
You are correct, the plus concept refers to changes in wheel diameter, as measured in inches.

Huh. I've always heard it referred to as referencing the overall diameter of the wheel/tire combo.

ZV

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Huh. I've always heard it referred to as referencing the overall diameter of the wheel/tire combo.

ZV

That's entirely possible, but the standard definition (and most commonly used by manufacturers, retailers, merchants, etc) relates to wheel diameter.

You can google "wheel plus size" to get hundreds of examples from Tire Rack, and other sources.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: exdeath
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JEDI
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: npoe1
I wanted to know what difference could make to get wider tires for a car. Does somebody know?
</end quote></div>

worse in stopping in rain/snow. (more surface area = more chance of hydroplaning)

good for stopping in dry pavement. (more surface area in contact w/dry pavement)

if u live in vermont (lots of snow), try to get a car that can handle motorcycle width wheels

edit:

the p190 width Traction T/A tires have 5 water grooves.

The p205 width Traction T/A have 6 water grooves :Q

hm...

not so sure about hydroplaning now...</end quote></div>

The width of that water groove is less than the width added to the contact patch.

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".)

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: JEDI
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: exdeath
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JEDI
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: npoe1
I wanted to know what difference could make to get wider tires for a car. Does somebody know?
</end quote></div>

worse in stopping in rain/snow. (more surface area = more chance of hydroplaning)

good for stopping in dry pavement. (more surface area in contact w/dry pavement)

if u live in vermont (lots of snow), try to get a car that can handle motorcycle width wheels

edit:

the p190 width Traction T/A tires have 5 water grooves.

The p205 width Traction T/A have 6 water grooves :Q

hm...

not so sure about hydroplaning now...</end quote></div>

The width of that water groove is less than the width added to the contact patch.</end quote></div>

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".)

Who said anything about it being better? There are specific advantages and disadvantages to wider or narrower tires. You simply pick what works better for you.

Thinner normally refers to tire width. You're quoting 16" vs 13" diameters. Completely different.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Apex
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JEDI
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: exdeath
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JEDI
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: npoe1
I wanted to know what difference could make to get wider tires for a car. Does somebody know?
</end quote></div>

worse in stopping in rain/snow. (more surface area = more chance of hydroplaning)

good for stopping in dry pavement. (more surface area in contact w/dry pavement)

if u live in vermont (lots of snow), try to get a car that can handle motorcycle width wheels

edit:

the p190 width Traction T/A tires have 5 water grooves.

The p205 width Traction T/A have 6 water grooves :Q

hm...

not so sure about hydroplaning now...</end quote></div>

The width of that water groove is less than the width added to the contact patch.</end quote></div>

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".)</end quote></div>

Who said anything about it being better? There are specific advantages and disadvantages to wider or narrower tires. You simply pick what works better for you.

Thinner normally refers to tire width. You're quoting 16" vs 13" diameters. Completely different.

usually, the bigger the diameter of the tire, the wider it is, no?

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Pirelli ftw!

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: JEDI

usually, the bigger the diameter of the tire, the wider it is, no?

There's a general correlation due to the size & purpose of the vehicles that use them, but one does not really speak to the other.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

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]

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.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Riverhound777
More surface area for better traction.
Lower gas mileage due to increased drag.
Higher replacement cost.

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]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: Riverhound777
More surface area for better traction.
Lower gas mileage due to increased drag.
Higher replacement cost.

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.

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

 

[SVT Cobra]

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.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Truenofan
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.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
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 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?

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
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 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?

 

[drpootums]

Actually, your gas mileage and acceleration suffers because of more rolling mass, not increased drag.

EDIT: sorry if this is a repost, my browser showed there was only one page, then i responded and it showed there were 3....

 

[imported_Truenofan]

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.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Truenofan
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.

So why do you think they usually have 17" wheels?

Here's a hint: It's the same reason F1 cars use 13" wheels.

 

[imported_Truenofan]

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.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Truenofan
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.

Sorry, the reason is because of regulations. F1 vehicles are limited to wheels of 13" in diameter, Champ cars to 15". Going larger would allow them to perform better, but would get them DQ'd.

 

[imported_Truenofan]

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.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Truenofan
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.

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.