Important: The following is a text only archive!
For full features; Go to Wide Tires Best For Grip?
What do you think about this...
All other variables being equal, will a wider tire produce greater grip in
the form of lateral g forces than a tire that is not as wide? Some people
argue that race cars only run wider tires in order to promote cooling of
the tire and are therefore able to use softer compound rubber. Some of
these people also believe that the size of the contact patch has nothing to
do with the "grip" produced. Some people believe that the width of the
tire does not change the contact patch. Some people believe I'm going to
jail for posting marijuana pictures. People believe all sorts of things,
what do you believe? Why are the Veyron's tires so wide?
http://www.1010tires.com/images/tires/Falken/falken_Ziex_large.jpg
VShttp://www.mickeythompsontires.com/images/products/indy_profile.jpg
What
Wide tire = more grip (given that the compound and such are good)...so you
wont spin at the line. Also, a wide tire is capable of better handling as
long as the compound and sidewall and such are good...
newyorker
Yes, it will.
rudypoochris
the only bad part relating grip and the width of the tire, would be the
ability to change direction fast.
but skinnier tires up front can make that better so its not a huge deal
im willing to bet that if you put 275's all around an elise it will drive
considerably slower ( assuming it even fits, which it probably doesnt lol)
nighthawk
Well yeah, larger tires mean more rolling resistance, more moment of
inertia (since they would be heavier), more mass in general to move around.
On a car like an Elise 275mm is probably excessive for its practical
limits. I do recall from somewhere that the Elise uses a considerably
smaller front tire than rear to make it understeer and be easy to drive.
Apparently there is alot of performance to be gained by increasing that
tires size. Same is probably true for the rear if you increase the power of
the vehicle.
Below is a portion of Mark Ortiz write up on the subject where he sums up
the conclusions:
rudypoochris
Perfect examples of why you can't trust "information" received on a forum
like this. Too many damn Google experts, not enough experience and
knowledge based answers.
Are you sure about that answer little fella? Of course not. Surprise.
Perfect, an answer that's so ambiguous that it leaves a hole wide enough
for an elephant to wiggle out of. Good job.
Finally answer that took some thought... Just not enough. However,
because you took some time and have some correct information, we'll give
you an "E" for effort. The other two are "Fs".
The very short answer to your question is a definite maybe. After that is
gets a bit more complicated. The main problem comes in when you begin to
talk about all the other variables remaining the same. They won’t. You
can in theory control the tire’s construction, the rubber compound, the
wheel offset (or back spacing) and the tread design. What you can’t
control is the added weight of bigger tires and wheels, the fact that the
aspect ratio will have to change from size to size to maintain something
resembling the original tire circumference and ride height and most
importantly how all of that affects the suspension geometry and action.
Someone who claims to be an engineer should realize this.
The first of the above three responders only seems interested in launch
capability, probably due to the fact that he doesn't know the meaning of
lateral. Nighthawk began to get it but then got lost. Again, at least he
gave it an honest try.
So where does that leave us? Let's see.
1. The answer to the first scenario is still a definite maybe, even
probably, but the variables make this an impossible question to give a
concrete answer to. It's really something I'd expect from my niece's fifth
grade class. What I can tell you for sure is that if you're specifically
comparing Falken Ziexs with MT Indys, the Falken will always win going
around a corner.
2. I believe the people who think you're going to jail for posting the
dope pics are as lame as the ones who insist its oregano. Seeds in
oregano? Please, Louise.
3. The Veyron's tires are so wide as much for a fashion statement as for
any good performance reason. Besides, they're not appreciably bigger than
a Viper or a Z06, so I think the question is moot.
Have a nice day.
vwhobo
Some people believe I'm going to jail for posting marijuana pictures.
People believe all sorts of things, what do you believe? Why are the
Veyron's tires so wide?
During launch, supposing that the car has enough power to spin out, then
wider tires will have a bigger contact patch (it's common sense), and more
rubber will be on the road, creating more friction. The wider tire might
add some rotational mass, but it's probably not gonna be enough to
significantly slow the car down. Wider tires would heat up slower and cool
quicker, so that would result in more traction. It depends how thick too;
you probably won't notice a difference in grip between a tire with
thickness 350 and 700 (unless you're dealing with massive amounts of
power). The Veyron has wide tires for grip especially during
acceleration.
I thought about if the car had an air dam/spoiler/etc., which would result
in more grip, while requiring less of a contact patch, but wouldn't that
result in the car being slower, because those things would create friction?
chris_knows
No wider tires do not have a larger contact patch unless you run less
PSI.
vwhobo stop being such a forum warrior. My response "Yes it will" is
completely valid. It was a direct reply to the OPs question. He didn't ask
"How?" so I gave a direct answer rather than multiple paragraphs and
citations of useless information.
Below is the complete Mark Ortiz write up which I believe to be a rather
good one. Tire technology is always changing though and we definately do
not know everything. I have even heard of success stories using resistors
to increase grip. In any case here is somthing useful if the OP wanted to
know WHY, which was not the original question, but never mind.
rudypoochris
Here:
rudypoochris
Didn't all fit in one:
rudypoochris
While your response may had been valid, it was also incorrect. Even the
gentleman who wrote the article you provided, can get no closer than most
of the time under most circustances, and those circumstances are tightly
controlled. Of course, for you to understand that, you'd have to be able
to comprehend and analyse what the man wrote, along with having a
functional understanding of the word can. The words can and does are not
interchangable.
rudypoochris, quit being such a forum moron.
vwhobo
Yes im sure of that...I have schoolwork to do though but even if i didnt,
obviously you know everything, give him a nice long post of INFORMATION not
just critique of other posts...thanks scrotum
newyorker
Bound and determined to make yourself look stupid at every opportunity.
Good for you. You have a position in civil service waiting for you as we
speak.
BTW, if you had the ability to read above the second grade level, I did
give him plenty of information along with the critiques. Of course it
would take intellectual honesty your part to admit it. Scratch civil
service. Make that the Democratic party or a job with CNN/NBC, which are
all really the same anyway.
Yo!
vwhobo
No, it is not. I read the article you didn't.
Blatent, under ALL circumstances INCLUDING COLD. It isn't open to
interpretation. Right there second line "do" that would be the 1st person
of the word "does". Can you comprehend that I supplied a perfectly valid,
and infact good answer? Do you?
rudypoochris
There is little doubt that they do under certain circumstances. Surely
you're not so ignorant as to think they do in every instance. If they did,
why would he say this in the very first sentence of the article?
"It has been recognized for about 40 years now that wide tires provide more
grip, at least when we are not limited by aquaplaning."
If you can't figure it out, it goes back to what I said earlier about
comprehension and the ability to analyze. Most, many and all are also
words that are not interchangeable.
You're a genius in your own mind. Too bad nobody else agrees.
vwhobo
Got me on the hydroplaning. Let me rephrase, wider tires always provide
more grip unless hydroplaning. I assumed the OP was talking dry conditions,
but you are right, if it is wet a wider tire will be more likely to
hydroplane. Does it change what the article is saying? No. It just means I
mistated a fact that does not typically apply when trying to find a cars
maximum grip. And then???
rudypoochris
No. If I put my 205 40 Kumho ecsta supra tires against some 255 50 cheapo
tires from pep boys, I will still grip harder...thats why my original post
said it also depends on the tire compound, and sidewall. Falken RT615 tires
are some of the best non R compound tires because they have a great
compound, and a super stiff sidewall...as far as hydroplaning, yes a wider
tire is more bound to hydroplane, but it also depends on the tread
pattern...these are my tires, they hardly ever hydroplane..look at the huge
cut in the middle, made especially to ejecting water
http://www.1010tires.com/images/tires/Kumho/kumho_ecsta_large.jpg
newyorker
He said all other variables being equal... Thus the same tire.
The RT615 is a decent autocross tire but it sucks at road race and any
other longer course event. They don't get rid of heat very well, hence why
alot of people complain about them sweating. I was considering it as a low
buck tire, but I have since decided I will probably just pony up the $255
per tire and go with the BFG KD's. I might still go for the RT615 since it
is so ridiculously cheap at $151 per tire. At that point though I might as
well get G-Force sports since they will be lasting alot longer then buy a
set of race tires for the rest of the time.
rudypoochris
Missed where he said that...in that case, yes a wider tire will offer more
grip, but will hinder things as well
acceleration in a line
acceleration out of corners
lose speed during corners
yea.its not that easy to pick tires
newyorker
Not necessarily... If your traction limited acceleration in a line
increases, same for out of corners. Speed during corners should increase as
well provided the larger width tire didn't add an excessive amount of
weight (which is unlikely).
For these reason race cars run considerably wider tires than alot of
production vehicles.
rudypoochris
more grip, but less acceleration? how?
more grip = more friction
more friction = more force
more force = more acceleration.
windsonian
straight line=more weight to turn
corner=wider tire slows you down harder because of more resistance
newyorker
I think it is widely understood that to a point a wider tire is going to
provide better cornering. There is an optimal size for every condition. In
most cases a stock factory size is far from optimal, hence why race tires
are larger in width. Alternatively they take more power to move and thus
consume more fuel. That does not mean cornering speed is lower or
acceleration is less at all. Quite the opposite provided you are traction
limited. In a corner you almost always are unless the corner is too tight
for you to turn the wheel fast enough, straightline not necessarily.
rudypoochris
I never said stock size is better than wider..all im saying is that wider
isnt always better...if i race a civic with the same suspension setup as
mine, and it will have 225 40 17 tires instead of 205 40 17 (even if they
strech them onto a 7 wide wheel although a 7.5 would be better there)
coming into a corner, the 225 has more grip and therefore more resistance,
so the car will slow down a bit more than my 205 40 tires will.
On the flipside, if I decide to come into a turn at a high rate of speed
(where my tires will no longer hold) my smaller tires will lose grip and I
will be off the road, whereas the 225 tires will have more grip, and will
more likely keep the car on the road.
Pretty much every mod I can think of has some sort of negative tradeoff, so
you have to take the bitter with the sweet, at least when its concerning
daily driven cars
short shifter=rougher gear lever
high performance clutch kit=heavy pedal
big brakes=bigger wheels needed
bigger wheels=more rotational mass
bigger wheels with low weight=more $$
high grip tires=not usable in winter (most of the time)
tires not usable in winter=another set of wheels
another set of wheels=$$
etc.
newyorker
only if your increase in inertia is greater than the increased force
afforded by the extra grip.
Which I doubt, but that depends on various other factors of course.
windsonian
As I said before, its complex, and I am not going to go into all of
it...with his high power engine, I doubt he will notice much of an
acceleration loss though
newyorker
who will? the guy who puts on wider tyres?
I suspect he'll notice negative acceleration loss.
windsonian
If "What" gets wider tires...unless he is spinning through gears, I dont
see a point...if hes not having traction issues, and gets wider tires this
will happen
more grip=maybe more acceleration
larger size=probbably less acceleration
at that point he will be back at square one, and will have pissed money
away, and I know tires of "mustang" sizes arent cheap, at least not good
ones. although that may be better...hell spend less time online showing us
his herbs in a bag
newyorker
but what i'm saying is that i believe the added grip would outweigh the
added inertia.
You've got to remember that the part of the tyre they're adding will be the
lightest part. There's still only 2 side walls etc.
windsonian
Exactly. That, and since the tire is wider, its covering more ground, which
also makes it harder to turn...duno if you understand what I mean though
newyorker
when ACCELERATING, the ground is used to speed the tyre up, not slow it
down. Thus, the more ground in contact with the tyre, the better.
When DECELERATING, yes, more friction will slow the car down more.
Just remember:
Accelerating is the car applying force to the road
Decelerating is the road applying force to the car
(in a manner of speaking)
windsonian
Well look at it this way...if I get a 50 wider tire and make it fit, my car
will accelerate considerably slower...yet that will be due to the added
weight...i cant explain it but its like what you are saying.
newyorker
These two statements are getting at two different things. You say a 225mm
tire will slow you down more, but it can let you enter the turn at a higher
speed. It will slow you down more inevitably IF your not accelerating
through the corner. If you are accelerating at some point in the corner
which you should be, then your going to have more grip to do that, thus you
can exit the corner faster. Likewise the second statement indicates that
you can also enter the corner faster. Thus you just cornered faster,
regardless of the minimal amount of extra power the tire consumed.
Yes larger tires eat more fuel and consume more power. NO that does not
mean your slower through the corners or the straight line. Everything has
its plus and minuses as indicated. At a certain point though a wider tire
will exceed the ideal size for the suspension. Whether or not you gain grip
at such a size, I don't know, but that size is typically much larger than
stock.
If you accelerating slower due to a wider tire you are not exceeding your
current tires level of grip. The question is do wider tires provide more
grip. Yes they almost always do (except hydroplaning and probably some
other moments that are far from typical). If you had enough power to spin
the tires then you would benefit for a wider tire.
rudypoochris
no...... I'm saying that i believe (in most cases) that a wider tyre will
increase acceleration.
I think that the increase in friction coefficient will outweigh the extra
tyre weight.
just look at drag cars.
windsonian
I think your used to a car that can spin the tires easily. I understand
what Newyorker is getting at. A car that can't spin its current tire size
won't gain acceleration from a larger tire. Likewise most sports cars or
cars with decent power can gain acceleration by having a larger tire. A
Mustang or a 300zx twin turbo for instance will benefit from a larger tire
in the rear.
rudypoochris
a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
windsonian
Yep yep
For me, I can spin off the line even if I start in 2nd....if I am coasting
at 15mph and go into 2nd give some gas and drop the clutch, it will spin,
and I easily chirp (only a bit) from 1st to 2nd...I did that with my 14in
steelies, and with my 17in alloys as well. I did notice a loss in
acceleration, but also less torque steer..i guess its like windsonian said
in my case, the rotational mass exceded the added grip (that I didnt really
need anyway) part of the reason I changed was because
a. performance tires are more readily available for a 17x7 than a 14x5
b. curb appeal...car definately looks nicer
c. I got them for practically nothing
There are negatives to the change too though...I guess this is why people
who design cars for race teams make so much money...they can probbably
figure out most of this with forumulas and knowledge...someone like me
understands the concept but would need a lot of trial and error to make it
work, and thats $$
newyorker
Why are you people arguing about linear acceleration. The question
specifies lateral accelertation. I know newbyorker doesn't know the
difference, but I expected the other two of you to.
vwhobo
oops... my bad... didn't even read the initial post.... more than a cursory
glance after reading a few other posts.
will have to consider my response then.... after reading it properly.
:oops:
windsonian
Sure I do...youre just busy sticking your head in your ass to understand
that
newyorker
You sure fooled everyone else. You keep talking about spinning the tires
going through the gears and launching in secong gear. Exactly how often
does one do those things while turning?
That's what I thought. STFU moron.
vwhobo
I can spin the tires through a corner, dingus
newyorker
I'm just trying to think how the rolling vs sliding friction comes into
it.
At first glance you would think that purely lateral "grip" would rely
entirely on sliding friction, which would suggest that the more tyre you
can get on the road, the better.
Whether this still holds true as the tyre is rotating to drive the car
around the corner, all sorts of other material/geometric factors could come
into play.
I suspect that the wider tyre will handle more lateral force, but it will
probably contribute some of its own.
In terms of pure grip, I'll say yes. Whether it makes you faster through
the corner? I think that will depend on other parts of the car, not purely
the tyre choice.
Ambiguous and inconclusive ..... but this is something that would be
interesting to research. .... not that i have the time or means.
windsonian
That's the joys of weight transfer you dipshit. When you corner hard under
throttle, you're shifting the weight, thereby reducing traction on one side
of your vehicle. Lose traction on tires + throttle application = SQUEALY.
Amateur.
dodgerforlife
I have "stumped the schwab".
I believe that a wider tire offers more potential for higher grip than a
slimmer tire, but there are "pros" out there that "try" to argue otherwise.
I believe they are nit-picking.
http://www.carbibles.com/images/lateralforceequation.gif
What does this mean to you?
Anyway, I'm closer to proving myself than some of you mis-informed
bastards. What's the deal with all this "fact" talk? IF YOU DON'T
KNOW....JUST DON'T.
What
to me, that is purely a ratio of vectors.
It has yet to take into consideration the friction or any tyre
properties.
While a useful equation when determining your lateral grip, this on it's
own won't help you determine how tyre width affects it.
windsonian
Isn't that the equation for G-force??? If lateral force is measured in the
same units as the loading of the tire.
rudypoochris
I think it is the equation of whatever the f*ck it says it is the equation
of.
(Lateral Force Coefficient)x(Load On Tire)=Lateral Force<----before
slip?
hmm...
The "load on tire" measurement isn't an exact science and the efficiency of
the load applied decreases with the amount of load. In other words there
is a cap on the amount of grip that will increase as more load is applied.
What
Yes and? Whats your point? Most all tires reach a point where they are
gaining less traction in relation to load.
rudypoochris
I was clarifying the formula.
Stop trying to regain lost pride with smartass-ness. You don't wanna go
that route with me.
What
And I was asking your point. As I still am. Does this thread have a point?
What are you actually asking? You just posted an equation and stated that
you were closer to proving yourself. So what are you trying to prove? Out
with it. I don't need to regain lost pride... I would first have to lose my
pride, then care enough about what you think about me having lost said
pride. Whats the point? I just like cars and like talking about them. You
posed a question and I answered it. Why are you being abrasive over it?
rudypoochris
you've still not mentioned friction etc .... so slip won't really come into
it yet.... unless you're assuming that your coefficient has already taken
all that into account.
windsonian
