It would be nice to know what OP/Voltmaster actually did and what the results are.
How bad is it to put smaller tires on?
- Thread starter Voltmaster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
If you meant to say the following:
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/55 18", but non sport package is 225/45 17", is it a downsize going to 225/45 18"?
Then, some further info is necessary.
The "Sport Package" 225/55-18 tire is 27.74 inches in diameter (726.93 Revolutions/mile)
The "Non Sport Package" 225/45-17 tire is 24.97 inches in diameter (807.61 Revolutions/mile)
This >11% difference in Revolutions/mile strikes me as highly unusual. I doubt any manufacturer would spec these two sizes for the same vehicle. And the idea that a "Sport Package" tire would be >11% larger in "rolling" diameter than a "stock" tire just doesn't make sense.
The 225/45-18 tire you ask about is right between the two "spec" tires as follows:
The 225/45-18 tire is 25.97 inches in diameter (776.52 Revolutions/mile)
This is
So, without more specific info, this looks like a nonsensical question to me.
Info based on Tire Size Calculator found here: Tire Size Calculator
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
If you meant to say the following:
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/55 18", but non sport package is 225/45 17", is it a downsize going to 225/45 18"?
Then, some further info is necessary.
The "Sport Package" 225/55-18 tire is 27.74 inches in diameter (726.93 Revolutions/mile)
The "Non Sport Package" 225/45-17 tire is 24.97 inches in diameter (807.61 Revolutions/mile)
This >11% difference in Revolutions/mile strikes me as highly unusual. I doubt any manufacturer would spec these two sizes for the same vehicle. And the idea that a "Sport Package" tire would be >11% larger in "rolling" diameter than a "stock" tire just doesn't make sense.
The 225/45-18 tire you ask about is right between the two "spec" tires as follows:
The 225/45-18 tire is 25.97 inches in diameter (776.52 Revolutions/mile)
This is
So, without more specific info, this looks like a nonsensical question to me.
Info based on Tire Size Calculator found here: Tire Size Calculator
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gaijinnv
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
If you meant to say the following:
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/55 18", but non sport package is 225/45 17", is it a downsize going to 225/45 18"?
No, what i meant was: if the car has staggered setup, non sport package is 225 wide 17" front 245 wide 17" rear, and the sport package is 225 wide 18" front 255 wide 18" rear, and I use 225 wide 18" front and 245 wide 18" rear, is this "downsize"?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
If you meant to say the following:
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/55 18", but non sport package is 225/45 17", is it a downsize going to 225/45 18"?
No, what i meant was: if the car has staggered setup, non sport package is 225 wide 17" front 245 wide 17" rear, and the sport package is 225 wide 18" front 255 wide 18" rear, and I use 225 wide 18" front and 245 wide 18" rear, is this "downsize"?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
This is about load carrying capacity, not diameter.
The tire sizes you mentioned are incomplete. There has to be an aspect ratio in the size.
But if I ignore that and assume you are talking about the same aspect ratio, then going from 225 / 17" to a 225 / 18" is going down in load carrying capacity - unless we factor in Standard Load / Extra Load as part of the equation - and then the inflation pressure has to be higher - so in some respects an SL to XL change is also going to down in load carrying capacity.
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
This is about load carrying capacity, not diameter.
The tire sizes you mentioned are incomplete. There has to be an aspect ratio in the size.
But if I ignore that and assume you are talking about the same aspect ratio, then going from 225 / 17" to a 225 / 18" is going down in load carrying capacity - unless we factor in Standard Load / Extra Load as part of the equation - and then the inflation pressure has to be higher - so in some respects an SL to XL change is also going to down in load carrying capacity.
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
This is about load carrying capacity, not diameter.
The tire sizes you mentioned are incomplete. There has to be an aspect ratio in the size.
But if I ignore that and assume you are talking about the same aspect ratio, then going from 225 / 17" to a 225 / 18" is going down in load carrying capacity - unless we factor in Standard Load / Extra Load as part of the equation - and then the inflation pressure has to be higher - so in some respects an SL to XL change is also going to down in load carrying capacity.
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So it's NOT a good idea to go down in tire size.
Just wondering: if the OEM has a sport package that is 225/255 18", but non sport package is 225/245 17", is it a downsize going to 225/245 18"?
This is about load carrying capacity, not diameter.
The tire sizes you mentioned are incomplete. There has to be an aspect ratio in the size.
But if I ignore that and assume you are talking about the same aspect ratio, then going from 225 / 17" to a 225 / 18" is going down in load carrying capacity - unless we factor in Standard Load / Extra Load as part of the equation - and then the inflation pressure has to be higher - so in some respects an SL to XL change is also going to down in load carrying capacity.
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
That is going down in load carrying capacity and that is NOT a good idea.
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
That is going down in load carrying capacity and that is NOT a good idea.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
The OEM Load Index (which I have emphasized in bold above) is what's important, not the "SL rating."
The OEM Load Index of 95 indicates a Load Capacity of 1,521 pounds.
The Load Index of your proposed replacement is 93 which indicates a Load Capacity of only 1,433 pounds.
Replacing a tire with a Load Index less than the OEM recommended rating is NOT recommended.
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
The OEM Load Index (which I have emphasized in bold above) is what's important, not the "SL rating."
The OEM Load Index of 95 indicates a Load Capacity of 1,521 pounds.
The Load Index of your proposed replacement is 93 which indicates a Load Capacity of only 1,433 pounds.
Replacing a tire with a Load Index less than the OEM recommended rating is NOT recommended.
Originally Posted By: gaijinnv
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
The OEM Load Index (which I have emphasized in bold above) is what's important, not the "SL rating."
The OEM Load Index of 95 indicates a Load Capacity of 1,521 pounds.
The Load Index of your proposed replacement is 93 which indicates a Load Capacity of only 1,433 pounds.
Replacing a tire with a Load Index less than the OEM recommended rating is NOT recommended.
And I would add that in some of these, there is the difference between Standard Load and Extra Load - and that would require a change in inflation pressure. So be careful about that.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What if the OEM rear is 255/40-18 95Y for sport package or 245/45/17 95V for regular, and I put 245/40-18 93W on the sport package?
But the OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Tourenza ER33 255/40-18 95V and the new rear tire is Fuzion ZRi 245/40-18 93W. The alternative non sport package OEM rear tire was Bridgestone Potenza RE050 245/45-17 95W, all of them SL rating.
The OEM Load Index (which I have emphasized in bold above) is what's important, not the "SL rating."
The OEM Load Index of 95 indicates a Load Capacity of 1,521 pounds.
The Load Index of your proposed replacement is 93 which indicates a Load Capacity of only 1,433 pounds.
Replacing a tire with a Load Index less than the OEM recommended rating is NOT recommended.
And I would add that in some of these, there is the difference between Standard Load and Extra Load - and that would require a change in inflation pressure. So be careful about that.
Thanks.
So what impact would the reduction in load rating in the rear be on a RWD car that is not very powerful? (i.e. never spin the tire out of traction)?
The reason I'm asking is the car (IS250) share the same tire spec with its bigger engine brother (IS350), and is driven by a commuter only (not accelerating or driving any way atypical).
So what impact would the reduction in load rating in the rear be on a RWD car that is not very powerful? (i.e. never spin the tire out of traction)?
The reason I'm asking is the car (IS250) share the same tire spec with its bigger engine brother (IS350), and is driven by a commuter only (not accelerating or driving any way atypical).
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Thanks.
So what impact would the reduction in load rating in the rear be on a RWD car that is not very powerful? (i.e. never spin the tire out of traction)?
The reason I'm asking is the car (IS250) share the same tire spec with its bigger engine brother (IS350), and is driven by a commuter only (not accelerating or driving any way atypical).
Here's the issue. The risk of a tire failure goes up the more load you put on it. A tire running at 80% of its rated load is more prone to failure than one running at 70% of its rated load. While tire failures are rare, the results can be very tragic. I call this low risk/high consequences. Like a plane crash.
Something to consider is that the difference between an IS250 and an IS350 is the engine. The car is only capable of handling a certain amount of weight - and that doesn't change just because the engine changes.
Thanks.
So what impact would the reduction in load rating in the rear be on a RWD car that is not very powerful? (i.e. never spin the tire out of traction)?
The reason I'm asking is the car (IS250) share the same tire spec with its bigger engine brother (IS350), and is driven by a commuter only (not accelerating or driving any way atypical).
Here's the issue. The risk of a tire failure goes up the more load you put on it. A tire running at 80% of its rated load is more prone to failure than one running at 70% of its rated load. While tire failures are rare, the results can be very tragic. I call this low risk/high consequences. Like a plane crash.
Something to consider is that the difference between an IS250 and an IS350 is the engine. The car is only capable of handling a certain amount of weight - and that doesn't change just because the engine changes.
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Something to consider is that the difference between an IS250 and an IS350 is the engine. The car is only capable of handling a certain amount of weight - and that doesn't change just because the engine changes.
So rated load has nothing to do with horse power or torque? as in, weight transfer during acceleration or deceleration?
Something to consider is that the difference between an IS250 and an IS350 is the engine. The car is only capable of handling a certain amount of weight - and that doesn't change just because the engine changes.
So rated load has nothing to do with horse power or torque? as in, weight transfer during acceleration or deceleration?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So rated load has nothing to do with horse power or torque? as in, weight transfer during acceleration or deceleration?
Pretty much.
So rated load has nothing to do with horse power or torque? as in, weight transfer during acceleration or deceleration?
Pretty much.
And cornering I would think....
What about RWD vs AWD of the same car? The AWD version has OEM tires that are 225 45 17 91V rated (instead of RWDs 255 40 18 95V or my "smaller" 245 40 18 93V).
So if HP and weight transfer has nothing much to do with rated load, then if a heavier AWD (3651lb) use a lower rated load tires (91V) means the lighter RWD (3455lb) using a lower (93V) than OEM (95V), but higher than AWD rated tire (91V) should be safe in theory, right?
So if HP and weight transfer has nothing much to do with rated load, then if a heavier AWD (3651lb) use a lower rated load tires (91V) means the lighter RWD (3455lb) using a lower (93V) than OEM (95V), but higher than AWD rated tire (91V) should be safe in theory, right?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What about RWD vs AWD of the same car? The AWD version has OEM tires that are 225 45 17 91V rated (instead of RWDs 255 40 18 95V or my "smaller" 245 40 18 93V).
So if HP and weight transfer has nothing much to do with rated load, then if a heavier AWD (3651lb) use a lower rated load tires (91V) means the lighter RWD (3455lb) using a lower (93V) than OEM (95V), but higher than AWD rated tire (91V) should be safe in theory, right?
Rather than guessing ... please provide the following and I will tell you exactly what Load Index and Cold Tire Inflation pressure(s) you should be running:
From sticker on DS door jamb:
OEM tire size (ALL the tire info)
Recommended tire inflation pressure(s) Front/Rear
GAWR Front/Rear
From you:
What brand/size tire (exactly) do you want to put on?
I'll crunch the numbers and report back to you.
HTH
What about RWD vs AWD of the same car? The AWD version has OEM tires that are 225 45 17 91V rated (instead of RWDs 255 40 18 95V or my "smaller" 245 40 18 93V).
So if HP and weight transfer has nothing much to do with rated load, then if a heavier AWD (3651lb) use a lower rated load tires (91V) means the lighter RWD (3455lb) using a lower (93V) than OEM (95V), but higher than AWD rated tire (91V) should be safe in theory, right?
Rather than guessing ... please provide the following and I will tell you exactly what Load Index and Cold Tire Inflation pressure(s) you should be running:
From sticker on DS door jamb:
OEM tire size (ALL the tire info)
Recommended tire inflation pressure(s) Front/Rear
GAWR Front/Rear
From you:
What brand/size tire (exactly) do you want to put on?
I'll crunch the numbers and report back to you.
HTH
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What about RWD vs AWD of the same car? The AWD version has OEM tires that are 225 45 17 91V rated (instead of RWDs 255 40 18 95V or my "smaller" 245 40 18 93V).
So if HP and weight transfer has nothing much to do with rated load, then if a heavier AWD (3651lb) use a lower rated load tires (91V) means the lighter RWD (3455lb) using a lower (93V) than OEM (95V), but higher than AWD rated tire (91V) should be safe in theory, right?
I think you are still referring to the Lexus IS250. If so, let's look at the entire lineup:
AWD - 225/45R17 91V
RWD - Front 225/45R17 91V, Rear 245/45R17 95V
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 255/40R18 95W
I note with interest that all 3 vehicles list a GVW of 4425#. I suspect the weights you quoted were curb weights.
So I think we are talking about wider rear tires and the issue of Load Index is just an artifact of that difference.
What about RWD vs AWD of the same car? The AWD version has OEM tires that are 225 45 17 91V rated (instead of RWDs 255 40 18 95V or my "smaller" 245 40 18 93V).
So if HP and weight transfer has nothing much to do with rated load, then if a heavier AWD (3651lb) use a lower rated load tires (91V) means the lighter RWD (3455lb) using a lower (93V) than OEM (95V), but higher than AWD rated tire (91V) should be safe in theory, right?
I think you are still referring to the Lexus IS250. If so, let's look at the entire lineup:
AWD - 225/45R17 91V
RWD - Front 225/45R17 91V, Rear 245/45R17 95V
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 255/40R18 95W
I note with interest that all 3 vehicles list a GVW of 4425#. I suspect the weights you quoted were curb weights.
So I think we are talking about wider rear tires and the issue of Load Index is just an artifact of that difference.
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
I think you are still referring to the Lexus IS250. If so, let's look at the entire lineup:
AWD - 225/45R17 91V
RWD - Front 225/45R17 91V, Rear 245/45R17 95V
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 255/40R18 95W
I note with interest that all 3 vehicles list a GVW of 4425#. I suspect the weights you quoted were curb weights.
Yes
Quote:
So I think we are talking about wider rear tires and the issue of Load Index is just an artifact of that difference.
Sort of, I was talking about going from
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 255/40R18 95W
to
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 245/40R18 93W
Does that means this change in load index would be ok as it is, like you said, just an artifact of the difference? (does that means they couldn't find a tire that is at minimum load index they need so they are going to a higher load index for the wider tire?)
I think you are still referring to the Lexus IS250. If so, let's look at the entire lineup:
AWD - 225/45R17 91V
RWD - Front 225/45R17 91V, Rear 245/45R17 95V
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 255/40R18 95W
I note with interest that all 3 vehicles list a GVW of 4425#. I suspect the weights you quoted were curb weights.
Yes
Quote:
So I think we are talking about wider rear tires and the issue of Load Index is just an artifact of that difference.
Sort of, I was talking about going from
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 255/40R18 95W
to
RWD - Front 225/40R18 88W, Rear 245/40R18 93W
Does that means this change in load index would be ok as it is, like you said, just an artifact of the difference? (does that means they couldn't find a tire that is at minimum load index they need so they are going to a higher load index for the wider tire?)
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Does that means this change in load index would be ok ...
Provide the info I requested and you will have your answer.
Does that means this change in load index would be ok ...
Provide the info I requested and you will have your answer.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
........Does that means this change in load index would be ok as it is, like you said, just an artifact of the difference? (does that means they couldn't find a tire that is at minimum load index they need so they are going to a higher load index for the wider tire?)
I think I need to correct a misconception. Tire size and Load Index are closely related - the larger the tire, the higher the Load Index (Load Carrying Capacity).
Please note: You have to be careful about how the word "larger" is used here. It is not about overall diameter - although in the gross view of things this is true. The word "larger" used in this context is "wider" (section width- the first number in the tire size), "taller" (aspect ratio - the second number in the tire size, and "rim diameter" (the last number in the tire size). Going up in any one of those values results in a higher Load Index.
So when Lexus selected the rear tires, they didn't have any choice about the Load Index. Going wider resulted in a higher Load Index.
Another note: You will find that there is a difference in Load Index for the same "size" tire - those same 3 dimensions listed above. That's because of the slight (!!!) differences between the tire standardizing organizations and the way each calculates the load carrying capacity. The tire doesn't behave differently, but its behavior is being described differently.
So back to your question: I would be concerned about the handling balance by changing only one tire in a staggered fitment.
When operated under the same conditions, different tire sizes react differently. I don't remember where I first picked this up, but the closer a tire is operated to its max load condition (and max load means for the pressure being used), the less linear the force and moment curves are. OK, I think I need to explain that.
There are tire test rigs where you can subject a tire to a slip angle (the difference between the direction the tire is pointed and the direction it is actually going) and develop a series of curves that describe the forces acting on the tire - like cornering force. Tthese curves would be for varying loads and inflation pressures. The series of curves is called a "Carpet Plot" - because there are 3 independent variables and the 3 dimensional graph looks like a flying carpet.
What is peculiar about these plots is that the edges of the carpet are not very flat (which is why it looks like a flying carpet). Operating a tire near those edges results in vehicle handling that isn't as predictable as it could be.
So here would be my concern about going down in tire size in a staggered fitment - that the tire would start to enter a less linear portion of the force and moment curve and be less predictable.
Overall, I still stand behind my statement that going down in tire size is the wrong direction.
........Does that means this change in load index would be ok as it is, like you said, just an artifact of the difference? (does that means they couldn't find a tire that is at minimum load index they need so they are going to a higher load index for the wider tire?)
I think I need to correct a misconception. Tire size and Load Index are closely related - the larger the tire, the higher the Load Index (Load Carrying Capacity).
Please note: You have to be careful about how the word "larger" is used here. It is not about overall diameter - although in the gross view of things this is true. The word "larger" used in this context is "wider" (section width- the first number in the tire size), "taller" (aspect ratio - the second number in the tire size, and "rim diameter" (the last number in the tire size). Going up in any one of those values results in a higher Load Index.
So when Lexus selected the rear tires, they didn't have any choice about the Load Index. Going wider resulted in a higher Load Index.
Another note: You will find that there is a difference in Load Index for the same "size" tire - those same 3 dimensions listed above. That's because of the slight (!!!) differences between the tire standardizing organizations and the way each calculates the load carrying capacity. The tire doesn't behave differently, but its behavior is being described differently.
So back to your question: I would be concerned about the handling balance by changing only one tire in a staggered fitment.
When operated under the same conditions, different tire sizes react differently. I don't remember where I first picked this up, but the closer a tire is operated to its max load condition (and max load means for the pressure being used), the less linear the force and moment curves are. OK, I think I need to explain that.
There are tire test rigs where you can subject a tire to a slip angle (the difference between the direction the tire is pointed and the direction it is actually going) and develop a series of curves that describe the forces acting on the tire - like cornering force. Tthese curves would be for varying loads and inflation pressures. The series of curves is called a "Carpet Plot" - because there are 3 independent variables and the 3 dimensional graph looks like a flying carpet.
What is peculiar about these plots is that the edges of the carpet are not very flat (which is why it looks like a flying carpet). Operating a tire near those edges results in vehicle handling that isn't as predictable as it could be.
So here would be my concern about going down in tire size in a staggered fitment - that the tire would start to enter a less linear portion of the force and moment curve and be less predictable.
Overall, I still stand behind my statement that going down in tire size is the wrong direction.
- Status
