New shoes... 205/55/16 Michelin Hydroedge
#42
06-08-2011, 07:23 AM
I was wanting to order 205/55 but was concerned about clearance issues. Probably should have ordered the Michelin Hydroedge, but they were more money than I wanted to spend, plus my wife seemed not too please when I mentioned the 4% spedo error that would result. I ended up ordering Yokohama Avid EnVigor tires in the 195/55-16 size, which are about 2% larger (taller) than stock. No way was I going with the stock 185/55 size. I'll post some pics when mounted. Just placing the unmounted new tire next to the existing stock tires I can see a significant size improvement. My goal is to have more tire between the road and the car, so that the ride is improved.
#43
06-08-2011, 11:46 AM
Got them mounted today. Fit great no rubbing issues... a bit larger OAD and width obviously. Crazy how much less road noise and softer it rides. Still seems to handle well, but I drive fairly soft in the Fit so I don't know how it performs near the edge.
Coincidentally it started raining here hard this afternoon (hard for PHX) and they seem to do really well in the wet. I'll post up in a few weeks/months w/ long-term thoughts. Like them a lot so far.
Coincidentally it started raining here hard this afternoon (hard for PHX) and they seem to do really well in the wet. I'll post up in a few weeks/months w/ long-term thoughts. Like them a lot so far.
Let us know how the mpg is. And on-ramp acceleration.
#44
06-08-2011, 07:38 PM
I can't feel a difference in the acceleration, and have seen a slight increase in mpg but not very much (less than 3%, around 1mpg).
#45
06-09-2011, 06:23 PM
<a href="Honda Fit pictures by spacecoastz - Photobucket" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...t/100_8870.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Photos of my new tires...unmounted...for size comparison. Sorry if I didn't upload photos correctly...
these are 195/55-16...If I have been sure that the Yokohama's Touring 205/55-16 would fit I would have ordered those (and saved money too).
Photos of my new tires...unmounted...for size comparison. Sorry if I didn't upload photos correctly...
these are 195/55-16...If I have been sure that the Yokohama's Touring 205/55-16 would fit I would have ordered those (and saved money too).
Last edited by Spacecoast; 06-09-2011 at 06:28 PM.
#46
06-09-2011, 06:27 PM
Space, html is disabled, you have to use "["img"]" and /img without the quotes.
Don't worry about the height, it looks worse in those photos than it will be in real life probably, since half will be below the axis and the other half above.
Post them up mounted when you get them mounted.
Don't worry about the height, it looks worse in those photos than it will be in real life probably, since half will be below the axis and the other half above.
Post them up mounted when you get them mounted.
#47
06-09-2011, 06:35 PM
Don't worry about the height, it looks worse in those photos than it will be in real life probably, since half will be below the axis and the other half above.
Yep, understand...they are still slightly smaller than the tires on my Toyota Corrolla.
Post them up mounted when you get them mounted.
#48
06-11-2011, 10:37 AM
Ok, my 195/55-16 tires are now mounted. Ride and road noise quality went from horrible to excellent. I can’t detect any difference in acceleration, and I doubt if gas mileage (combo of city/highway) will change, but that would required some long-term testing. The old tires felt like I was driving on gravel. No way would I ever go back to the 185/55 size. While I was waiting on the garage to open I saw some 205/55-16…would have preferred that size had I been certain that the make/model of tire would work. Also looked at some 205/50 and essentially the height is identical to stock…not my desire to have such a small diameter tire. Pictures to follow…
Last edited by Spacecoast; 06-11-2011 at 10:53 AM.
#49
06-11-2011, 10:47 AM
#50
06-11-2011, 12:04 PM
Ok, my 195/55-16 tires are now mounted. Ride and road noise quality went from horrible to excellent. I can’t detect any difference in acceleration, and I doubt if gas mileage (combo of city/highway) will change, but that would required some long-term testing. The old tires felt like I was driving on gravel. No way would I ever go back to the 185/55 size. While I was waiting on the garage to open I saw some 205/55-16…would have preferred that size had I been certain that the make/model of tire would work. Also looked at some 205/50 and essentially the height is identical to stock…not my desire to have such a small diameter tire. Pictures to follow…
Having been an old tire engineer I can assure you that both acceleration and mpg are affected unless you drive only on interstates at constant speed. Granted the Mich's are much better tires than OEM Fit tires but their weight is a pound heavier and with a diameter nearly one half inch greater physics says both are reduced. And thats before rolling resistance tho it could be a wash with the Mich's.
The 205/55x16's are worse yet.
The general rule when the tire width is increased so is the weight, and a reduction in diameter is needed to keep the same mpg and accelewration.
PS any meaningful measurement of acceleration is done carefully with a stopwatch and at least a radar gun for before and afterstates on that vehicle.
#51
07-05-2011, 10:01 AM
Having been an old tire engineer I can assure you that both acceleration and mpg are affected unless you drive only on interstates at constant speed. Granted the Mich's are much better tires than OEM Fit tires but their weight is a pound heavier and with a diameter nearly one half inch greater physics says both are reduced. And thats before rolling resistance tho it could be a wash with the Mich's.
The 205/55x16's are worse yet.
The 205/55x16's are worse yet.
#52
07-05-2011, 12:08 PM
Having been an old tire engineer I can assure you that both acceleration and mpg are affected unless you drive only on interstates at constant speed. Granted the Mich's are much better tires than OEM Fit tires but their weight is a pound heavier and with a diameter nearly one half inch greater physics says both are reduced. And thats before rolling resistance tho it could be a wash with the Mich's.
The 205/55x16's are worse yet.
The general rule when the tire width is increased so is the weight, and a reduction in diameter is needed to keep the same mpg and accelewration.
PS any meaningful measurement of acceleration is done carefully with a stopwatch and at least a radar gun for before and afterstates on that vehicle.
The 205/55x16's are worse yet.
The general rule when the tire width is increased so is the weight, and a reduction in diameter is needed to keep the same mpg and accelewration.
PS any meaningful measurement of acceleration is done carefully with a stopwatch and at least a radar gun for before and afterstates on that vehicle.
Read the above arguments. A larger diameter tire reduces the rotational velocity of the tire, wheel and driveline. This offsets some of (not all) the increased mass, and I think based off of both calculations and real world observation, at cruising rpm, results in better mpg.
#53
07-05-2011, 12:09 PM
No, because we buy tires not only for mpg or performance but for price, I have personally bought virtually every brand of tire there is. As soon as I find the tests, ratings, track results, and customer reviews on the tires in my size I buy the cheapest ones that best meet specs. Long time engineering practice just won't go away. There is no such thing as a single choice.
Its probably easier to list the ones I haven't bought cause I can't think of any. When you've owned over 160 vehicles thats what happens.
But generally speaking, I buy Mich's for lonevity unless their price is significantly higher than another brand and thats decided on a case by case instance. Pretty much the way others do, too.
But here are the tires currently on my vehicles:
Michelin
Yokohama Avids and Sforce
Dunlop Direzza st and Sforcears
Pirelli P4
Sumotomo
Falken Azenis on the CRX
and doesn't include the winter tires. That help much?
Last edited by mahout; 07-05-2011 at 09:42 PM.
#54
07-05-2011, 12:27 PM
But I understand what you are saying. What would help me is to hear your response to dustin's comments on offsetting radial velocity. You are a tire engineer, Dustin is an engineer, but I am not. I have enough background in physics to follow the discussion though, and it would help me to hear your answer since I'm interested in the 205/55/16 tire idea. Please be as technical as necessary because that's the only way we will get to really understand this.
#55
07-05-2011, 12:38 PM
We need a "beating a dead horse" smiley.
Read the above arguments. A larger diameter tire reduces the rotational velocity of the tire, wheel and driveline. This offsets some of (not all) the increased mass, and I think based off of both calculations and real world observation, at cruising rpm, results in better mpg.
Read the above arguments. A larger diameter tire reduces the rotational velocity of the tire, wheel and driveline. This offsets some of (not all) the increased mass, and I think based off of both calculations and real world observation, at cruising rpm, results in better mpg.
You believe the kinetic energy of a rotating body defines the differences between a heavier weight at a larger radius compared to lesser weight at a lesser radius compared to greater weight at lesser radius?
Does that take into account the force it takes to accelerate or decelerate from one energy level to another? It does not and it is the changes in angular velocity that results in changes in mpg. If you drive at a constant speed about the only differences will be due to aerodynamic losses from wider tires compared to narrow ones. And it that case the reduction in gearing might be beneficialassuming your engine is not running at the minimum fuel efficiency rpm.
Its F=ma that counts when the angular velocity changes. For a given torque the resistance to increasing angular rotation is opposed by the weight at its radius from the center of the torque applied. The greater the mass and the greater the radius the greater the resistance. And so does the reduction in mpg as the greater the horsepower that is required to generate that torque (unless you are operating at maximum hp of course but at that point expect little if any acceleration). So for that reason decreasing the radius as weight increases isthe only way to support wider and heavier tires.
cheers.
#56
07-05-2011, 01:43 PM
You believe the kinetic energy of a rotating body defines the differences between a heavier weight at a larger radius compared to lesser weight at a lesser radius compared to greater weight at lesser radius?
Does that take into account the force it takes to accelerate or decelerate from one energy level to another? It does not and it is the changes in angular velocity that results in changes in mpg. If you drive at a constant speed about the only differences will be due to aerodynamic losses from wider tires compared to narrow ones. And it that case the reduction in gearing might be beneficialassuming your engine is not running at the minimum fuel efficiency rpm.
Its F=ma that counts when the angular velocity changes. For a given torque the resistance to increasing angular rotation is opposed by the weight at its radius from the center of the torque applied. The greater the mass and the greater the radius the greater the resistance. And so does the reduction in mpg as the greater the horsepower that is required to generate that torque (unless you are operating at maximum hp of course but at that point expect little if any acceleration). So for that reason decreasing the radius as weight increases isthe only way to support wider and heavier tires.
cheers.
Does that take into account the force it takes to accelerate or decelerate from one energy level to another? It does not and it is the changes in angular velocity that results in changes in mpg. If you drive at a constant speed about the only differences will be due to aerodynamic losses from wider tires compared to narrow ones. And it that case the reduction in gearing might be beneficialassuming your engine is not running at the minimum fuel efficiency rpm.
Its F=ma that counts when the angular velocity changes. For a given torque the resistance to increasing angular rotation is opposed by the weight at its radius from the center of the torque applied. The greater the mass and the greater the radius the greater the resistance. And so does the reduction in mpg as the greater the horsepower that is required to generate that torque (unless you are operating at maximum hp of course but at that point expect little if any acceleration). So for that reason decreasing the radius as weight increases isthe only way to support wider and heavier tires.
cheers.
#57
07-05-2011, 01:49 PM
If you drive at a constant speed about the only differences will be due to aerodynamic losses from wider tires compared to narrow ones.
Its F=ma that counts when the angular velocity changes. For a given torque the resistance to increasing angular rotation is opposed by the weight at its radius from the center of the torque applied. The greater the mass and the greater the radius the greater the resistance. And so does the reduction in mpg as the greater the horsepower that is required to generate that torque (unless you are operating at maximum hp of course but at that point expect little if any acceleration). So for that reason decreasing the radius as weight increases isthe only way to support wider and heavier tires.
cheers.
cheers.
Please, by all means, do some calculations and show me where I'm wrong if you think I am.
#58
07-05-2011, 04:28 PM
Yes its more correct if you realize it is change in angular rotation that matters, not the actual angular velocity (tire rpm) between a smaller diameter and a larger diameter tire at the same linear velocity.
The force that must be applied to the larger and heavier tire compared to the lighter and shorter tire is the difference in the weights and diameters.
lets compare a 20 lb tire with a tread radius of 11 inches to a 18 lb tire tread (where most of the weight is located) at 12 inch radius. The torque difference is 220 inch lb compared to 216 inch pounds. so the difference to accelerate the wheel is 4 inch pounds less for the heavier but lesser diameter tread tire. That means the wider but shorter tire takes essentially the same force to rotate as the lighter but taller tire.. Thats a total of 16 inch lb for 4 tires, or 1.25 ft-lb. total for 4 tires, and that means whatever torque your Fit produces at a given rpm it takes 1.25 ft-lb less to rotate the heavier but wider and lesser diameter tirecompared to the taller but lighter tire.. And any excess goes to acceleration. Since the torque, based on force x radius, is less than the lighter but taller tire, the acceleration is greater. And the mpg will be better as well because the engine gets more wheel rotation per rpm. So cornering performance is improved without sacrificing mpg or acceleration.
Your Fit only has a maximum of 119 lb ft at max rpm and a lot less with lesser rpm. so pick your rpm and apply the reduction in force available to accelerate - or slow down - and you will see on an accululated basis your engine must work harder, in other words use more available horsepower at rpm less than maximum, to speed up and slow down takes more brakes.
And mpg drops with heavier tires and increased diameter. The revs/mi is not important; its the change in rpm/mi that matters for more weight and bigger diameter.
revised example help?
The force that must be applied to the larger and heavier tire compared to the lighter and shorter tire is the difference in the weights and diameters.
lets compare a 20 lb tire with a tread radius of 11 inches to a 18 lb tire tread (where most of the weight is located) at 12 inch radius. The torque difference is 220 inch lb compared to 216 inch pounds. so the difference to accelerate the wheel is 4 inch pounds less for the heavier but lesser diameter tread tire. That means the wider but shorter tire takes essentially the same force to rotate as the lighter but taller tire.. Thats a total of 16 inch lb for 4 tires, or 1.25 ft-lb. total for 4 tires, and that means whatever torque your Fit produces at a given rpm it takes 1.25 ft-lb less to rotate the heavier but wider and lesser diameter tirecompared to the taller but lighter tire.. And any excess goes to acceleration. Since the torque, based on force x radius, is less than the lighter but taller tire, the acceleration is greater. And the mpg will be better as well because the engine gets more wheel rotation per rpm. So cornering performance is improved without sacrificing mpg or acceleration.
Your Fit only has a maximum of 119 lb ft at max rpm and a lot less with lesser rpm. so pick your rpm and apply the reduction in force available to accelerate - or slow down - and you will see on an accululated basis your engine must work harder, in other words use more available horsepower at rpm less than maximum, to speed up and slow down takes more brakes.
And mpg drops with heavier tires and increased diameter. The revs/mi is not important; its the change in rpm/mi that matters for more weight and bigger diameter.
revised example help?
Last edited by mahout; 07-05-2011 at 10:09 PM.
#59
07-05-2011, 07:32 PM
mahout, there are serious errors in your thinking. Enough to make me doubt you being a "tire engineer".
It's the change in rotational kinetic energy that matters. The angular velocity at a given linear (vehicle) velocity is exactly what we're after.
No, it is not. This is not a linear system. See: Angular acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wow. #1 Your units don't work out. You're confusing power with torque. #2 Gearing? #3 Think about this assumption. Based upon this reasoning, it should take the same amount of 'torque' to accelerate the system from 0-60 in 3 seconds as it does in 12 seconds. That just simply makes no sense.
Wtf is "accululated"?
Yup. It sure does.
The force that must ba applied to the larger and heavier tire is the difference in the weights and diameters.
lets compare a 22 lb tire with a radius of 12 inches to a 18 lb tire at 12 inch radius. The torque difference is 264 inch lb compared to 216 inch pounds. so the difference to accelerate the wheel is 48 inch pounds.
lets compare a 22 lb tire with a radius of 12 inches to a 18 lb tire at 12 inch radius. The torque difference is 264 inch lb compared to 216 inch pounds. so the difference to accelerate the wheel is 48 inch pounds.
So if you want to accelerate the revs per mile you must apply a force of 48 inch pounds, 3 pound feet, i.e. 3 pounds more at a radius of 12" )which is 3 pound feet torque). For 4 wheels thats 12 pounds or 12 lb ft. Your Fit only has a maximum of 119 lb ft at max rpm and a lot less with lesser rpm.
wow. #1 Your units don't work out. You're confusing power with torque. #2 Gearing? #3 Think about this assumption. Based upon this reasoning, it should take the same amount of 'torque' to accelerate the system from 0-60 in 3 seconds as it does in 12 seconds. That just simply makes no sense. Yup. It sure does.
#60
07-06-2011, 11:15 AM
mahout, there are serious errors in your thinking. Enough to make me doubt you being a "tire engineer".
It's the change in rotational kinetic energy that matters. The angular velocity at a given linear (vehicle) velocity is exactly what we're after.
Perhaps you should define your meaning of rotational kinetic energy and the relationship between angular velocity and energy. Tell me just what you mean by those terms cause I don't believe you have a clue.
Kinetic energy has absolutely nothing to do with the work it takes to get there. And it is the work that consumes mpg. Can you state the relationship between horsepower and torque?
No, it is not. This is not a linear system. See: Angular acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
the velocity of the axle of rotating wheel is linear. It doesn't matter how fast the wheel/tire is turning when the axle has a linear velocity of 60 mph other than the circumference is rotating at 60 mph..
wow. #1 Your units don't work out. You're confusing power with torque. #2 Gearing? #3 Think about this assumption. Based upon this reasoning, it should take the same amount of 'torque' to accelerate the system from 0-60 in 3 seconds as it does in 12 seconds. That just simply makes no sense.
Hate to let you know but
Horsepower = torque x rpm/5250. Torque, the force at the radius required to turn a wheel/tire combination, is the deciding effort for determining mpg and acceleration. Determining the work it takes to accelerate a mass from zero to 60 mph is determined by
Force = mass x acceleration. where the mass is the combined vehicle and tires/wheels combination; and acceleration by just how fast you want get from zero to 60 mph. Once finding the force it must be applied to the driving wheels. The rate at which that force is applied at the radius accelerates the wheel/tire rotation. The rate determines the mpg and acceleration.
Wtf is "accululated"?
Bad typing for accumulated.
It's the change in rotational kinetic energy that matters. The angular velocity at a given linear (vehicle) velocity is exactly what we're after.
Perhaps you should define your meaning of rotational kinetic energy and the relationship between angular velocity and energy. Tell me just what you mean by those terms cause I don't believe you have a clue.
Kinetic energy has absolutely nothing to do with the work it takes to get there. And it is the work that consumes mpg. Can you state the relationship between horsepower and torque?
No, it is not. This is not a linear system. See: Angular acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
the velocity of the axle of rotating wheel is linear. It doesn't matter how fast the wheel/tire is turning when the axle has a linear velocity of 60 mph other than the circumference is rotating at 60 mph..
wow. #1 Your units don't work out. You're confusing power with torque. #2 Gearing? #3 Think about this assumption. Based upon this reasoning, it should take the same amount of 'torque' to accelerate the system from 0-60 in 3 seconds as it does in 12 seconds. That just simply makes no sense. Hate to let you know but
Horsepower = torque x rpm/5250. Torque, the force at the radius required to turn a wheel/tire combination, is the deciding effort for determining mpg and acceleration. Determining the work it takes to accelerate a mass from zero to 60 mph is determined by
Force = mass x acceleration. where the mass is the combined vehicle and tires/wheels combination; and acceleration by just how fast you want get from zero to 60 mph. Once finding the force it must be applied to the driving wheels. The rate at which that force is applied at the radius accelerates the wheel/tire rotation. The rate determines the mpg and acceleration.
Wtf is "accululated"?
Bad typing for accumulated.
You're not the first to misapply physics equations but
don't worry. I've flunked smarter people than you from my physics classes.
My students say i was too hard on you and they recommend another chance, say question 3 on their physics final.
OK here it is
;
3. You have a smooth surfaced oval where the banking is 18 degrees and your tires have a limit of 1.12 g and your racer weighs 3216 pounds. You plan on lapping near the outside wall in a smooth circle at a radius of 220 feet. What speed in mph do you plan your suspension to handle to best lap the circle?
Anyone else is welcome to solve too. cheers. Its a practical evaluation that every NASCAR engineer has to solve to start his setup.
Last edited by mahout; 07-06-2011 at 03:57 PM.