shop-talk
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: <shop-talk@autox.team.net>, <mml@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] vehicle mass, tread width, and hydroplaning
From: "Nolan Penney" <npenney@mde.state.md.us>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:49:04 -0500
More then the width, the tire design itself greatly affects your traction.   Be 
that dry pavement, rain and hydroplaning, snow, ice or whatever else you chose.

Fwiw, my pickup, running various Michlin's, Coopers, Bridgestone and Dunlops in 
the 175 width would hyydroplane nicely (175/70x14).  I'm currently running 225 
Sumitomo HTR4's, and loving life (225/60x15).  These tires don't hydroplane, 
handle quite well, are wearing well, and are dirt cheap.

I've run the Dunlop D60's for years, and been so-so pleased with them.  They've 
got a nice stiff sidewall, which I like.  They wear out quickly though, lousy 
in the rain, horrible in the snow, and that blasted center ridge causes all 
kinds of problems as soon as you wear down to it.

I've got Yokohama AVS on the Fiat.  Nice tire...in the dry.  Not very good in 
the rain, incredibly bad in the snow (I got stuck in my yard because of frost 
on the grass).  But then, I wouldn't expect them to be good in the snow, that's 
not what they're designed for.

Other wizzy wonders like my Gisalved (sp) Frost snow tires that are supposed to 
be the cats meow aren't much better then the generic Michlin MXV4+ in the white 
stuff.

One of the best places to learn some tire stuff is tirerack.com.  Reading the 
feedback on the tire can tell you a lot about how people feel it worked on 
their car.  The tech people on the phones are also quite good.

So, you get 

>>> Matt Liggett <mml@pobox.com> 01/15/02 05:59PM >>>

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?

///  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>