where to start?
#43
As sure as I can be based on 3 sets on my Fit (including one at 40 mm and 195/40x17 tires) and 30-40 sets on customer cars, including a couple of sets replacing 40 mm and less offset wheels mounting 205 section or bigger tires.
Using offsets less than 40mm means choosing small diameter tires and even then its not guaranteed. The stock Fit has 53 or 54 mm offset and 45mm is as low as reasonably safe especially when lowered. btw 195 section tires are all the Fit needs unledss you're competing.
#46
#48
Continue to think that…I’ve got a 2007 Sport and a 2011 Sport. I got the 16” Accessory Wheels for my 2007. So I took off the all season tires off of the OEM 15-inchers and put on snow tires. I later got another set of 16” Accessory Wheels and mounted snow tires on them too. I got to run them back-to-back. I will never go to thinner snow tires again…you can.
Thinner *or narrower* when it comes to snow tires is better.
But why trust engineers?
Please take the unsupported subjective anecdotes of some random dude on the internet.
Edit: You're welcome, Ken
Last edited by DiamondStarMonsters; 10-12-2012 at 02:47 PM.
#50
This discussion has been had, you were a part of it, and it was demonstrated that you have a thorough deficit in understanding when it comes to even remedial physics.
Thinner when it comes to snow tires is better.
But why trust engineers?
Please take the unsupported subjective anecdotes of some random dude on the internet.
Thinner when it comes to snow tires is better.
But why trust engineers?
Please take the unsupported subjective anecdotes of some random dude on the internet.
#51
In addition to being able to do the basic math required to figure out why you are wrong, and the fact there is industry wide consensus on the matter...
I have tried it. On my RAV4 (215 vs. 245) as well as a GST (195 vs 235).
But please, go run a 315 tire in the snow. You'll sure show us silly eggheads!
Your opinion is equally as valid as our facts!
I have tried it. On my RAV4 (215 vs. 245) as well as a GST (195 vs 235).
But please, go run a 315 tire in the snow. You'll sure show us silly eggheads!
Your opinion is equally as valid as our facts!
#52
typically...
thinner = shorter sidewall tire
narrower = less width tire
typically i would go with a narrower & taller tire snow set while staying around the stock total diameter or circumference.
but this year im going the other direction using 205/50/16's instead of staying 185/55/16.
thinner = shorter sidewall tire
narrower = less width tire
typically i would go with a narrower & taller tire snow set while staying around the stock total diameter or circumference.
but this year im going the other direction using 205/50/16's instead of staying 185/55/16.
#53
Jodele: This is why you fail:
Increase the normal force here by:
A.) Adding mass to the vehicle
B.) Decrease the contact patch
You can achieve B.) in two ways:
1.) Increase tire pressure
2.) Decrease tread width
Pressure = Force / Area
Then you multiply that by the Coefficient of Friction which is a unitless ratio that is used as a constant in this instance, and in the case of a rotating tire, you would use static friction.
So effective friction would be "u" (CoF-Static) multiplied by F-normal.
"u" for a slick surface like snow, ice, dust, blueberry jam, etc. on top of the road surface will have a smaller coefficient than a dry ashphalt/cement/tarmac surface. And you have to cut through the snow or blueberry jam to get to the road surface.
So in addition to the compromised surface friction you have windage from having to plow the tires through a medium other than air.
This parallels what I have to do for the salt flats quite nicely. Those LSR tires are 26" x 4" with a 3.x" contact patch depending on pressure and temperature for the same reasons, basically. The mass of the car plus a small downforce vector (just greater than neutral where possible) will push me into the salt surface, which does not have a solid base underneath and I need to cut through that as well.
Ta-Da
Stop being a dumbass. This is the most simple I could make this for you. And I'm all out of crayons.
Increase the normal force here by:
A.) Adding mass to the vehicle
B.) Decrease the contact patch
You can achieve B.) in two ways:
1.) Increase tire pressure
2.) Decrease tread width
Pressure = Force / Area
Then you multiply that by the Coefficient of Friction which is a unitless ratio that is used as a constant in this instance, and in the case of a rotating tire, you would use static friction.
So effective friction would be "u" (CoF-Static) multiplied by F-normal.
"u" for a slick surface like snow, ice, dust, blueberry jam, etc. on top of the road surface will have a smaller coefficient than a dry ashphalt/cement/tarmac surface. And you have to cut through the snow or blueberry jam to get to the road surface.
So in addition to the compromised surface friction you have windage from having to plow the tires through a medium other than air.
This parallels what I have to do for the salt flats quite nicely. Those LSR tires are 26" x 4" with a 3.x" contact patch depending on pressure and temperature for the same reasons, basically. The mass of the car plus a small downforce vector (just greater than neutral where possible) will push me into the salt surface, which does not have a solid base underneath and I need to cut through that as well.
Ta-Da
Stop being a dumbass. This is the most simple I could make this for you. And I'm all out of crayons.
Last edited by DiamondStarMonsters; 10-12-2012 at 02:56 PM.
#60