2nd Generation (GE 08-13) 2nd Generation specific talk and questions here.

where to start?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 11, 2012 | 01:26 PM
  #41  
TheKey's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 28
From: Oregon.
Originally Posted by mahout
Wheels, 45 mm offset, and tires keeping OD of new tires slightly less than stock.. Then modest lowering. After that pretty much cosmetic.
45mm offset? Are you sure?
 
Old Oct 11, 2012 | 01:27 PM
  #42  
TheKey's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 28
From: Oregon.
The correct offset is +53, right?
 
Old Oct 11, 2012 | 03:31 PM
  #43  
mahout's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Originally Posted by TheKey
45mm offset? Are you sure?

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.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 10:28 AM
  #44  
Jodele's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 590
From: Cincinnati, OH
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by mahout
... btw 195 section tires are all the Fit needs unledss you're competing.
Well $h!t, my snow tires are 205R50/16 and I don't race my Fits.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 10:35 AM
  #45  
x_25's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 524
From: North West NJ
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Jodele
Well $h!t, my snow tires are 205R50/16 and I don't race my Fits.
For snows thinner is gennerally better as well. That way they don't float on top.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 10:42 AM
  #46  
Jodele's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 590
From: Cincinnati, OH
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by x_25
For snows thinner is gennerally better as well. That way they don't float on top.
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.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 10:47 AM
  #47  
x_25's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 524
From: North West NJ
5 Year Member
I will have to try that when I wear my set out then. They are cary overs from my 97 civic, so they are what they are for now :P (185/65r14!)
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 11:56 AM
  #48  
DiamondStarMonsters's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,428
From: Chicago, Illinois
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Jodele
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.
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 *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; Oct 12, 2012 at 02:47 PM.
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 11:58 AM
  #49  
ThEvil0nE's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,626
From: Illinois
snow... the lesser the "cake" the better
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 01:32 PM
  #50  
Jodele's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 590
From: Cincinnati, OH
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters
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.
Don't knock it unless you've tried it...when you do, then let's talk.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 02:36 PM
  #51  
DiamondStarMonsters's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,428
From: Chicago, Illinois
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Jodele
Don't knock it unless you've tried it...when you do, then let's talk.
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!

 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 02:44 PM
  #52  
kenchan's Avatar
Official Fit Blogger of FitFreak
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 20,289
From: OG Club
5 Year Member
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.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 02:45 PM
  #53  
DiamondStarMonsters's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,428
From: Chicago, Illinois
5 Year Member
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.
 

Last edited by DiamondStarMonsters; Oct 12, 2012 at 02:56 PM.
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 02:46 PM
  #54  
kenchan's Avatar
Official Fit Blogger of FitFreak
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 20,289
From: OG Club
5 Year Member
oh maybe throw some variable in there like tread design, material, driver skill, and swaybar.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 02:56 PM
  #55  
DiamondStarMonsters's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,428
From: Chicago, Illinois
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by kenchan
oh maybe throw some variable in there like tread design, material, driver skill, and swaybar.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 02:58 PM
  #56  
kenchan's Avatar
Official Fit Blogger of FitFreak
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 20,289
From: OG Club
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters

i thought you'd like that.
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 03:23 PM
  #57  
ThEvil0nE's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,626
From: Illinois
don't forget about the gas type
 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 03:34 PM
  #58  
mike410b's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,615
From: .
5 Year Member
Wider snow tyres? Yeah man, WRC guys are all doing it wrong

 
Old Oct 12, 2012 | 03:46 PM
  #59  
kenchan's Avatar
Official Fit Blogger of FitFreak
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 20,289
From: OG Club
5 Year Member
i mean, look at that car. thing needs serious drop and better dampers to keep it on the ground. all wrong
 
Old Oct 13, 2012 | 08:48 AM
  #60  
Jodele's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 590
From: Cincinnati, OH
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters
Increase the normal force here by:

A.) Adding mass to the vehicle
B.) Decrease the contact patch
Hey dumb @$$, decreasing the contact patch does not increase the normal force…your corner weight is your normal force…and that is independent of the tire you have on the car. And yes, increasing the mass of your car will increase your normal force as you said but tires don’t factor into this at all!
 



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 AM.