1 2
92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
4/27/11 5:03 p.m.

Rampant ignorance being passed off as fact, given as advice to someone with a legitimate question. Hopefully they don't take said advice.

I just don't understand. How do people come up with stuff like this?

I have seen as wide as 255 (235 is a rare size anyway) but really there is no point unless you really think a much more expensive tire is worth the looks. Even on a properly sized wheel a 255 has no more contact patch than a 225 (or a 205 or 195 for that matter) and they are more sensitive to bad camber changes. I would rather have traded my PGT swirlies for some mazda6 swirlies and run 215 or 205 tires instead of the ones I just bought. It would have saved a ton of money and have performed as good or better on anything other than a fast road course. Its fact , look it up. If you put 195s on you car and measured the contact patches and then installed 255s and measured the patches they would work out to very nearly the same size. Different shape but same square inch number. Also a larger patch will in no way increase traction! It goes against common sense but then so dose the idea that brakes with more surface area dont generate any more brakng force than smaller brakes. As for why more powerful cars wear larger rubber... its the same reason they have larger rotors and pads. Heat capacity and disipation. Eli, I bet your 205s tires are not remotely the same as your 245 tires. Am I right? Have you considered that compound, tread and carcass construction might play a role in how the tires perform compared to one another? At he risk of over simplifying things I would suggest running the absolutely smallest tire (width wise) you can without running into heat issues. If you only ever drive to and from work and possibly some light to light fun then you dont need the largest possible tire. If you race at a track or autoX and find the tires getting greasy during the race/run then first consider the brand and compound then look at up sizing. Not for "added traction" but extended traction through better heat management. Its a common thing for high level racing efforts to find a performance edge by down sizing a bit to reduce drag, both aero and through reduced mass. The better teams size tires to the specific track, tracks with longer straights or higher average speed need larger tires while shorter tracks can benefit from narower tires.
RealMiniDriver
RealMiniDriver Dork
4/27/11 5:09 p.m.

ransom
ransom GRM+ Memberand Reader
4/27/11 5:11 p.m.

aircooled
aircooled SuperDork
4/27/11 5:26 p.m.

Cool! Now I can finally go for maximum performance (as long as I drive in colder weather) and get the large spoked look I want:

mad_machine
mad_machine GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
4/27/11 6:01 p.m.

I have heard that drivel before..

ValuePack
ValuePack Dork
4/27/11 6:15 p.m.

[/PC]

Who IS this retard?!

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
4/27/11 6:24 p.m.
ValuePack wrote: [/PC] *Who* IS this retard?!

Someone on ProbeTalk. (Insert witty joke about going to those forums in the first place.)

oldtin
oldtin Dork
4/27/11 6:52 p.m.

I knew there was a logical explanation for my attraction to cycle cars - it's their superior traction through skinnier tires

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
4/27/11 6:59 p.m.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
ValuePack wrote: [/PC] *Who* IS this retard?!
Someone on ProbeTalk. (Insert witty joke about going to those forums in the first place.)

You sure it wasn't a dj guy who owns a Miata and drives around in 4th gear?

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
4/27/11 7:03 p.m.
Javelin wrote:
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
ValuePack wrote: [/PC] *Who* IS this retard?!
Someone on ProbeTalk. (Insert witty joke about going to those forums in the first place.)
You sure it wasn't a dj guy who owns a Miata and drives around in 4th gear?

While that would be ironic, it's not to be.

However, many stereotypes could be made considering the poster's online handle is "LS6."

A certain demotivational poster comes to mind, involving an LSx, mentally challenged individuals, and viagra.

Jay
Jay SuperDork
4/27/11 7:16 p.m.

The bit about the size of the contact patch not changing is actually true; as long as the air pressure is kept constant and the weight of the car is kept constant the total tyre area that is supporting it won't change. The rest of his argument is completely invalidated by the fact that tyres operate on a lot more than just Newton's law of friction as according to a high school physics textbook.

He took a real fact and followed it through using a misguided chain of logic and came to a bad conclusion. I don't think the post is retarded, it's just wrong.

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
4/27/11 7:19 p.m.
Jay wrote: The bit about the size of the contact patch not changing is actually true; as long as the air pressure is kept constant and the weight of the car is kept constant the total tyre area that is supporting it won't change. The rest of his argument is completely invalidated by the fact that tyres operate on a lot more than just Newton's law of friction as according to a high school physics textbook. He took a real fact and followed it through using a misguided chain of logic and came to a bad conclusion. I don't think the post is retarded, it's just wrong.

Now that it's coming from you... i'm somewhat intrigued.

With the knowledge that i was convinced that contact patch meant width of the tire in contact with the ground.... explain how a 195width tire has the same contact patch as a 275width tire, making any and all necessary adjustments to keep the same diameter, as well as safe wheel width to mount said tires.

I feel like i'm missing something.

fritzsch
fritzsch New Reader
4/27/11 7:21 p.m.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Now that it's coming from you... i'm somewhat intrigued. With the knowledge that i was convinced that contact patch meant width of the tire in contact with the ground.... explain how a 195width tire has the same contact patch as a 275width tire, making any and all necessary adjustments to keep the same diameter, as well as safe wheel width to mount said tires. I feel like i'm missing something.

Yeah I would also like to learn more. maybe you could point us somewhere to learn more?

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
4/27/11 7:23 p.m.
fritzsch wrote:
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Now that it's coming from you... i'm somewhat intrigued. With the knowledge that i was convinced that contact patch meant width of the tire in contact with the ground.... explain how a 195width tire has the same contact patch as a 275width tire, making any and all necessary adjustments to keep the same diameter, as well as safe wheel width to mount said tires. I feel like i'm missing something.
Yeah I would also like to learn more. maybe you could point us somewhere to learn more?

Maybe Miata.net?

(Joking, wait for Jay.)

tuna55
tuna55 SuperDork
4/27/11 7:39 p.m.

Physics guy here:

He would be nearly right is tires were made out of metal. They are not, and rubber (along with lots of other materials) have a non-constant static and kinetic coefficients of friction - the coefficient goes up as loading goes down. Easy-peasy. Otherwise dragsters would run the skinniest tires available.

Jay
Jay SuperDork
4/27/11 7:57 p.m.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Now that it's coming from you... i'm somewhat intrigued. With the knowledge that i was convinced that contact patch meant width of the tire in contact with the ground.... explain how a 195width tire has the same contact patch as a 275width tire, making any and all necessary adjustments to keep the same diameter, as well as safe wheel width to mount said tires. I feel like i'm missing something.

Yikes! I hope you're not implying that I know what I'm talking about. Those are dangerous waters yer treadin'!

That said, let's see if I can explain this in a way that turns out remotely comprehensible... Let's say you've got a 2000lb car (for the sake of argument, exactly 500lb over each wheel), and you have 155/80 donuts on it inflated at 30 psi. That means each square inch of tyre is holding up exactly 30 lbs of car (think about it for a minute...) so your contact patch at each corner is 500 lbs/30 psi = 16.666 in².

Let's "pretend" that the contact patch is rectangular and spans the entire section width (this isn't true at all, but the argument still works). That means its dimensions are 155 mm = 6.1 in wide by 16.666 in²/6.1 in = 2.73 in long.

Okay, now swap your donuts for 245/40 meats but inflate them to 30 psi again. Each tyre is still holding up 500 lbs of car, and each square inch of tyre is still holding up 30 lbs, so the contact patch is still 16.666 in². But it's now 245 mm=9.65 in wide, and is only 16.666/9.65 = 1.72 in long. The shape has changed but the area hasn't.

If you inflate the tyres more, the size of the contact patch actually decreases. That's not counterintuitive right?

Obviously this is a big oversimplification, which is exactly the problem with the argument quoted in the OP. Tyres aren't simple rubber balloons, they have internal structure and resist deformation due to pressure changes. Also, and more importantly, they don't just obey the Newtonian friction rule of (friction force) = (frictional coefficient)x(normal force), which doesn't scale with area (normal force = pressure x contact area, but pressure = force/area so the area cancels out.) There are a lot more factors like hysteresis of the rubber involved which do scale with area just fine.

Finally, no one in their right mind inflates meaty low-pros to the same pressure as donuts.

So, yeah, he started with a true fact, applied it to a case where it was a gross oversimplification, and then followed it logically to a wrong conclusion by ignoring that it wasn't the only fact. Winnar.

Did that make any sense at all?

Jay
Jay SuperDork
4/27/11 8:03 p.m.

BTW, if any of you chuckleheads feel like chiming in and proclaiming that the answer is 288, I will kill everyone everywhere. So don't.

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
4/27/11 8:16 p.m.

^ROFL!!!

Ahhh... it stems from the fact that "contact patch" is a term that at it's core means area, but we as gearheads tend to only focus on width. That makes sense.

joey48442
joey48442 SuperDork
4/27/11 8:18 p.m.

I remember some book I had somewhere on performance driving said you could only change the shape of your contact patch, not size, I think.

Joey

93EXCivic
93EXCivic SuperDork
4/27/11 8:22 p.m.

That guy is an idiot but There does come a point when a tire can be to wide for a car especially for race cars. Simply because wider tires are can be harder to get up to heat and they can create extra aerodynamic drag.

JThw8
JThw8 SuperDork
4/27/11 8:26 p.m.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Addressed to the quoted posed by the OP....what Jay is saying does make sense.

nderwater
nderwater HalfDork
4/27/11 8:29 p.m.
joey48442 wrote: I remember some book I had somewhere on performance driving said you could only change the shape of your contact patch, not size, I think.

That may be true of a car's total contact area (that of all four tires added together), but not of individual tires. Under loads (particularly braking) you are transferring more than enough weight between the tires to enlarge the contact patch at one end at the expense of the other.

Dr. Hess
Dr. Hess SuperDork
4/27/11 8:42 p.m.

I agree with this guy. 235 width tires are a biatch to find.

tuna55
tuna55 SuperDork
4/27/11 8:43 p.m.

Jay - they do obey Newtons laws, you just have to understand that the coefficients aren't constant.

Appleseed
Appleseed SuperDork
4/27/11 10:29 p.m.

I've read it somewhere as well. I want to say in a prominent chassis book, but hopefully not. Never could wrap my head around the logic.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
DoZiOZyBhVIN6eiQkCk0vGMLsgAqJXtHIU4e1Hb5Wb6qMdP2aSrQbtNx4uJmBVPU