Big Wheels < Small Wheels

Mmadness wrote: Here's a (free) link to the article everyone mentioned above: https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/speed-holes/. I personally don't care for uber low profile tires either in terms of looks or driving experience. I wish GRM tested only sidewall width and only tread width in separate tests, they didn't exactly follow the scientific method.

Agreed. I was disappointed in that article - they changed way too many variables at once. What kills me is they changed the diameter too. The sidewall height is the same for all 3 tires - the overall diameter grew by 1" each time the wheel size when up.

The only combo I could think that would be a good test is to take a car with a 25" diameter tire, and run a 225/50-16 a 225/45-17 and a 225/40-18 of the same tire (the ZII is made in all of these sizes). All on the same width wheel, and ideally on the same type of wheel. (Enkei makes a 16x8, 17x8 and 18x8 RPF1 in very similar offsets (which could be equalized with small spacers)

and this?

iceracer wrote: Nascars run 15" wheels. wonder what the aspect ratio is. ?

the 2011 season tires were probably between 50% and 60%

http://www.stockcarscience.com/blog/index.php/tires_and_the_cot

That was written in 2009, though, so things may have changed a lot....and not necessarily in the way things were predicted.

Flight Service wrote: and this?

Looks like a Porsche with tires that have been prolapsed to fit the wheels.

ProDarwin wrote: The only combo I could think that would be a good test is to take a car with a 25" diameter tire, and run a 225/50-16 a 225/45-17 and a 225/40-18 of the same tire (the ZII is made in all of these sizes). All on the same width wheel, and ideally on the same type of wheel. (Enkei makes a 16x8, 17x8 and 18x8 RPF1 in very similar offsets (which could be equalized with small spacers)

The problem with that is as aspect ratio goes down, tread width goes up. The nominal width is the width of the whole shebang, and low aspect ratios make the tire more squared off, so more rubber on the road for a given width.

And that's why I put 17s on my rallycross car.... It looks incredibly stupid, but if it works, it can look as dumb as it wants. It's too bad nobody seems to make a 275/50-15 snow tire, can't imagine why not

Flight Service wrote: and this?

Hrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg

Flight Service wrote: and this?

I think I figured it out. The show car people are afraid of hydrocarbons.

They tuck the underhood wires so you can't see them.

The eliminate all of the vacuum hoses possible, and cover the rest with stainless mesh or leather. (Yes, leather wrapped hoses. It was ugly.)

They put huge wheels on, the bare minimum of tire on the wheel that will still hold air, then shove the wheel up into the fender lip so you can't even see that.

Then they proceed to not ever actually drive the cars because that requires hydrocarbons too.

Further evidence: When was the last time you saw a "stanced" Saturn or Corvette? Never, that's when.

Aspect ratio being a percentage, the wider the tire the taller. that can be seen on the red car.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

codrus wrote: These are 35-aspect ratio tires. :)

Is that a 275 15" Hoosier? Does that car eat up that much tire that easily? Look super.

Yes, they're 275 15" Hoosiers on 15x10 6ULs. The car belongs to a friend of mine, it's a lot of fun to drive! The fenders have been cut/flared to get the tires to fit.

codrus wrote:

b13990 wrote: I said "45% or more." Yeah, 45% itself is pretty thin... but as a lower limit, it's semi-reasonable. I'm not going to say that any 45% tire looks ridiculous. I did basically say that about 40% and lower.

It's really about the sidewall height vs the rim diameter, not about the sidewall height vs the tire width. These are 35-aspect ratio tires. :)

That's true. But it's easy to talk about aspect ratio because it's printed on the side of the tire.

I would have guessed 55s for that picture, maybe 60s.

Knurled wrote: Further evidence: When was the last time you saw a "stanced" Saturn or Corvette? Never, that's when.

I'm sorry you were saying something?

I was about say... I've seen quite a few stanced vettes.

Too much of anything isn't a good thing. I want so badly to stay with 15" tires, but decent ones are getting hard to find. waddyagonnadooo?

Try finding 13s.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: Try finding 13s.

Agreed. That's the ONLY reason I moved up to 15's. A 195/50/15 is a BIG tire on a car that came with 155/80/13 as the upsize option

A 195/50/15 is a BIG tire on a car that came with 155/80/13 as the upsize option

Uhh, those are the same diameter. But if it's really bothering you, try 195/45, or if it's the width that bothers you, try 165/50s. Both are shorter than 155/80/13 and exist in the USA.

In reply to Vigo:

It's not the height, it's the width. The only way I fit a 195 on this car is with a zero offset and fender flares. plus, There is a difference between existing, and actually finding them for a decent price. I based my choice on availability wherever I may be driving. The 195/50/15 was arguably the most popular size for the budget import tuning crowd a few years back, and even those are starting to have meager selections in actual tire stores. My last set of daily driver 15's cost me nearly as much as ordering a set of Star Specs for the S2000.

That'a why I like 16's. plenty of tires and sizes to choose from. 13's are terrible 14's are OK 15's are always sold out and 17+ is a bit gangster for me.

My brother has a set of chrome 14in beauty rings off my old Ford Ranger he has put on every car he's owned in the last 2 years. I'm starting to wonder if he just has a thing for 14's.

FranktheTank wrote: That'a why I like 16's. plenty of tires and sizes to choose from. 13's are terrible 14's are OK 15's are always sold out and 17+ is a bit gangster for me. My brother has a set of chrome 14in beauty rings off my old Ford Ranger he has put on every car he's owned in the last 2 years. I'm starting to wonder if he just has a thing for 14's.

Umm 16" sizes suck if you actually want a good(and sorta wide) performance tire that isn't tall(why does everyone make a 225-50-16's?) to replace stock 14/15" oem sizes on e30's etc.I almost had to go to 17's on my E30 to get decent tire options,lucky the ZII just came out in a 225-45-16 which is perfect.

sobe_death wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote: Try finding 13s.

Agreed. That's the ONLY reason I moved up to 15's. A 195/50/15 is a BIG tire on a car that came with 155/80/13 as the upsize option

This is one reason the GT6 project I'm doing is set up around 15x7's. There's just no selection of decent 13" street rubber any more. But that car is to be a fun weekend cruiser, not so much a competition car. I am trying to talk the owner into a set of 13's and a tire trailer.

I have 13's on the Jensenator so I can run a taller (22" OD) sidewall bias ply tire. The reason is the tire can deform more yet still grip which makes it more forgiving at the limit. 22" OD 15" radials under the same car (and yes I have a set) tend to be 'light switch' at the limit. Not a big deal in autocross, but hillclimb?

I also have the option of going way down, like 20" overall diameter, which will change gearing. Of course this brings back the 'light switch' (or it should, need to borrow a set and test).

Yep. 13" is tough for tire choices. 15" is only marginally better. I seriously considered 17" wheels for the E30 for awhile. Mainly to get something wider than a 225 tire and improve the gearing a bit in 2nd. From a few accounts on the E30 forums, a 245/40-17 fits with the right wheel and some mild lip rolling. Doesn't look too bad...

These days when so many cars come with 19" wheels or larger from the factory a 17" wheel doesn't look that big. I don't mind 17's on old muscle cars at all anymore although I'll admit I did years ago when a 17" wheel was considered huge.

One should bear in mind many of the touring cars posted on the first page run a spec tire and wheel size.

Anti-stance wrote:

stafford1500 wrote: There are two ways to approach the issues of wheel size. The first is looks - This is subjective and can not be solved due to personal preferences, ever. The second is performance related in several more ways. 2A - For the same size tire rolling diameter and tread width the larger wheel (shorter sidewall/lower aspect ratio) will lkely be the best performer. Hard launches may be the only place that smaller wheels/larger sidewall will perform better. 2B - The ride quality will get progressively wosre and the wheel/tire inertia will increase with increased wheel size. 2C - Cost generally increases with increased wheel size and decreased sidewall aspect ratio. 2D - Braking capacity (diamter of brakes is increased with wheel diamter), but if making a ture wheel/tire comparison the brake size must be held constant. 2E - Tire compound generally has more performance options (grippier) as the wheel size increases. At the end of the day figure out what tire you want to run (manufacturer and compound), then figure out the wheel that fits it to your car...

"Game. Set. Match." with this post. It's all personal preference and no one will change anyone's mind here. My personal thinking, I run the smallest wheel that will fit over my brakes when it comes to a track car. Usually a 15 inch so I can run a 205/50 or 225/50. Big guy in a little car, but I like my consumables to be cheap. As far as DD goes, I like what is cheap again, but generally bigger looks better in late model cars more. I have a 66 Ranch Wagon that I am putting some 15" Torque Thrusts on but I wish I would have gone bigger. I will eventually. But there are alot of people that put too big or too ugly of wheels on their cars(personal preference of course). I see it EVERYDAY working at a custom wheel shop. I see Asanti and Lexani wheels going on luxury and sports cars all the time. Seriously, super ugly wheels. Seriously, does this E36 M3 look good? I don't get it... Of course, because I don't like 90% of these wheel packages I do, I am considered a hater. Hence the professional hater signature.

The point isn't to look good, it's to look expensive.

Vigo wrote:

Holy CRAP, Vigo. That looks hot as hell, can we see some more?

In the MotorTrend I was reading this morning, the Chevy engineers stated that they downsized the wheels for the new Camaro Z28 to 19" (versus 20" on the SS) for performance and saved 42lbs!

P.S. This is a ghost thread