Why I LOVE smaller wheels and tires!

[javacontour]

Bigger doesn't have to be heavier.

My former SVT Contour had 16" wheels from the factory at about 18-19# each IIRC. I replaced them with 17" wheels that were about 13.5# each (O.Z. Racing Superleggera)

I'm pretty sure the 17" Firestones I put on there were no heavier than the factory BFG or Goodyear tires you got with the car.

So you can LOWER the wheel weight and get a slightly bigger wheel at the same time.

 

[dailydriver]

^^^True, but you DO pay dearly (coin wise) for those (and most) Oh Zed wheels.

Sadly, for myself, and other 4th gen f body owners, there are almost NO tires still made for our OEM size (245/50-16 or maybe a 255/50-16), base, 16x8 wheel with the proper width and profile.

Even the factory upgraded 17"(x9/9.5) wheel fitting tires are disappearing quickly in the required 275, or 285/40-17 sizes.

So, if I decide to keep this car forever, I may be forced to move up to an 18x10/10.5 wheel, with a 275, 285, or 295/35-18 tire on it.

 

[Bamaro]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Bigger doesn't have to be heavier.

My former SVT Contour had 16" wheels from the factory at about 18-19# each IIRC. I replaced them with 17" wheels that were about 13.5# each (O.Z. Racing Superleggera)

I'm pretty sure the 17" Firestones I put on there were no heavier than the factory BFG or Goodyear tires you got with the car.

So you can LOWER the wheel weight and get a slightly bigger wheel at the same time.

Keep in mind that its not just the total weight but the distribution of that weight. The farther out from the axle the worse it is.

 

[javacontour]

It's been a while since I took physics. So you are saying that a 35#/corner combo could be worse than a 40#/corner combo at some value of more mass at the extreme?

If the tires are the same and the wheel is lighter, I'm not seeing this come into play. But then I'm an EE not an ME, so I can be schooled

Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Bigger doesn't have to be heavier.

My former SVT Contour had 16" wheels from the factory at about 18-19# each IIRC. I replaced them with 17" wheels that were about 13.5# each (O.Z. Racing Superleggera)

I'm pretty sure the 17" Firestones I put on there were no heavier than the factory BFG or Goodyear tires you got with the car.

So you can LOWER the wheel weight and get a slightly bigger wheel at the same time.

Keep in mind that its not just the total weight but the distribution of that weight. The farther out from the axle the worse it is.

 

[2010Civic]

^ I believe it has to do with moment of inertia. If the weight of the wheel/tire is farther out from the center the car has to work harder to accelerate and brake as compared to if the weight is more towards the center.

 

[eljefino]

Javacontour is thinking of unsprung weight.

Bamaro is thinking of rotational inertia. It can be "up to" 3.14 times as bad as weight in the trunk, but you'd need all the mass on the extreme outer part of the circle.

 

[javacontour]

Wasn't really thinking about un-sprung weight. I simply couldn't remember MoI. It has been almost 30 years since freshman physics

I do know about un-sprung weight. I'm just wondering when/how a lower total mass would have a higher moment of inertia. Especially if the mass at the end, the tires are essentially the same.

I understand the mass of the tire is about 1cm further from the axis of rotation on the 17" wheel vs the 16" wheel. Just thinking out loud here.

 

[javacontour]

But since we are on the topic of MoI and rotational inertia:

http://hpwizard.com/rotational-inertia.html

 

[sciphi]

I wish our Fit didn't have its ridiculous 185/55-16 tires. Impossible to find tires in that size, they're expensive, and unless one bites the bullet to get Michelins the available tires are mediocre at best.

Now, a 17" wheel on our Cruze is about perfect, IMO. It fills up the wheelwell while still leaving enough sidewall for a comfy ride. 16" wheels look a little small. 18" wheels ride too rough on the roads around here on that chassis.

 

[BRZED]

There really are only passenger cars with relatively small tires anymore, but no cars with really small tires any longer.

Goggo with small tires.

The Mini used to have small tires.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: BRZED

Goggo with small tires.


The positive camber must make that thing a thrill on the highway...

Kumho makes a passenger all-season in the mini's 10 inch size still.

 

[Bamaro]

Originally Posted By: 2010Civic
^ I believe it has to do with moment of inertia. If the weight of the wheel/tire is farther out from the center the car has to work harder to accelerate and brake as compared to if the weight is more towards the center.

Exactly

 

[DriveHard]

I find it interesting that so many BITOG'ers shout it from the rooftops and mountaintops that you MUST buy the most expensive tires you can, or you will surely die in a horrible accident. Afterall, that piece of rubber is all you have keeping your car on the road. Yet, when a real test is done showing that increasing the diameter of your wheel rim will reduce stopping distance, and increase cornering ability, everybody jumps on the "cheaper and smaller" is better.

Well, which is it? Cheaper and smaller, or premium at all costs?

 

[IndyIan]

Premium, cheaper, and smaller sounds good to me. But I don't think any of our $1k+/set of Michelin tire buyers have posted on this topic. You'll notice that there are many different opinions on BITOG about most things.

 

[Rust_Belt_Pete]

Yeah, I tend to think if you can afford a car that takes 1k plus set of tires you can pay for the associated costs.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: BRZED

Goggo with small tires.


The positive camber must make that thing a thrill on the highway...


I don't mind her camber. Top speed, depending on the model, the car, is anywhere from 47 to 59 mph. But it feels like 150 mph, I'm sure.

 

[threeputtpar]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
^^^True, but you DO pay dearly (coin wise) for those (and most) Oh Zed wheels.

Sadly, for myself, and other 4th gen f body owners, there are almost NO tires still made for our OEM size (245/50-16 or maybe a 255/50-16), base, 16x8 wheel with the proper width and profile.

Even the factory upgraded 17"(x9/9.5) wheel fitting tires are disappearing quickly in the required 275, or 285/40-17 sizes.

So, if I decide to keep this car forever, I may be forced to move up to an 18x10/10.5 wheel, with a 275, 285, or 295/35-18 tire on it.

Have you checked out Coker Tire for those disappearing sizes? I'd agree that if they don't make anything in 245/50r16, then you're screwed.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: BRZED

Goggo with small tires.

The positive camber must make that thing a thrill on the highway...

I don't mind her camber. Top speed, depending on the model, the car, is anywhere from 47 to 59 mph. But it feels like 150 mph, I'm sure.

What are you talking about ? 47 to 59 mph and 150 mph of what ? Are you talking about a car top speed ? Is there a car in the picture ?

 

[HTSS_TR]

Usually +1 wheel/tire(if OEM size is 15-16" or smaller) is the most economical with good pay-back in term of good-look and handling with little sacrifice in term of ride, fuel economy. Plus-two or more is just for look without much performance/handling improvement over Plus-one, also cost is much higher and when time came to replace tires drivers will be in shock for much higher price than stock tires.

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

You actually improve handling on the same shocks and springs if you significantly reduce unsprung weight with lighter tires and wheels. The difference is quite surprising if you have even experienced it, I have.