I'm currently running 195/60-14 tires on 6" wide rims. I have run 185/70 and
185/60 tires on the same rims. It's probably obvious that I prefer a wider wheel
for a given tire size than a lot of other people, but that's based on my driving
style (rather vigorous) and my autocrossing experience.
Usually an aluminum rim will measure about 3/4"-1" wider on the outside than the
actual rim width, depending on the design of the wheel and where you take the
measurement, but the only way to tell for sure is to dismount a tire and measure
it. This diagram should explain why that is the case:
http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/Images/wheel_csect.jpg
Start with this page at the TireRack Web site:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/sidewall.htm
It has a lot of good general information about tires, sizes, etc. Then look at
the tire size conversion chart for some interesting comparisons.
Gordon Glasgow
Renton, WA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Chris Doutre
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:46 PM
> To: Gordon Glasgow; datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: FW: Original Tire height
>
>
> Gordon,
>
> This tire discussion has been extremely helpful. One of the things I haven't
> seen discussed is what wheel size you are using. Is that a valid question? I
> have some 165/SR14's that I need to replace on 6" (outside-width) aluminum
> wheels. Is that what everybody else is running? Is it really OK to run a
> 185/65/14 on a 6" wheel, probably 5.75" inside-width at the bead edge? It
> seems wide to me, but I'm really in the dark about this stuff.
>
> Thanks.
> Chris Doutre
> Scottsdale, AZ
> 1967 1600
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>
> To: <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:53 PM
> Subject: RE: FW: Original Tire height
>
>
> > A tire's effective radius is different than the calculation from it's
> diameter.
> > R&T's test reported revs per mile and I calculated back from that.
> >
> > Gordon Glasgow
> > Renton, WA
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John F Sandhoff [mailto:sandhoff@csus.edu]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:08 AM
> > > To: Gordon Glasgow
> > > Cc: datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > Subject: RE: FW: Original Tire height
> > >
> > >
> > > Gordon writes:
> > > > My calculations were based on an aspect ratio of 82%, which might
> > > > not be correct.
> > >
> > > I HAVE a 5.60x14 on the rim. I know its circumference is at least 3
> > > inches larger than the calculated 73.1 (5280 ft/mile * 12 in/ft / 866
> rev/mi).
> > >
> > > Maybe R&T was running their tests using flat tires :-)
> > >
> > > -- John
> > > John F Sandhoff sandhoff@csus.edu Sacramento, CA
> >
> > ///
> > /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> > /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> > /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> > /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > ///
>
> ///
> /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> ///
///
/// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|
