shop-talk
[Top] [All Lists]

[slightly OT] vehicle mass, tread width, and hydroplaning

To: shop-talk@autox.team.net
Subject: [slightly OT] vehicle mass, tread width, and hydroplaning
From: Matt Liggett <mml@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:59:26 -0500
All,

Apologies for the off-topic material, but I couldn't think of a better
list to ask.  Suggestions to that effect are welcome.

I've got a 2001 Honda Civic LX Sedan.  The car supposedly weighs 2465
lbs and has the factory all-season Firestones in 185-70-14.  I have
been sorely disappointed at how easy it is to get them locked up in
the ice, snow and even plain old rain.  My old SAAB (89 900 Turbo SPG)
was never this bad.  Admittedly, the SAAB had all-season performance
tires, but can this be ALL the difference?

It seems to me that the tires might just be too damned wide.  I ran my
SAAB (about 2900 lbs) on 195-60-15 tires.  It makes sense to me that,
all things being equal (like tire compound, weight distribution and
weight transfer), tread width ought to be proportional to vehicle
weight in order to get similar traction characteristics out of both
cars.  In the SAAB's case, that's 2900/195 or about 14.9.  The Honda
is 2465/185 or about 13.3.  In order to get a similar weight:width
ratio out of my Honda, I'd need to run 165s (fat chance finding a
decent set).

Am I out to lunch here?  Should tread width and vehicle weight be
proportional, or will I be happy as a clam once I buy some better
tires?

Thanks in advance,

 -Matt Liggett

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/shop-talk


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>