sjohnson@kcnet.com said
>Brian Priebe <priebe.4@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Whoever pointed out the width differences are right to say that had some
>>variable in the times. The weight differences also needed to be
>>calculated in also, which I think could offset the widths some. The
>>widths could have been closer, but I do not feel they were as big a deal
>>from feeling the differences of turn in. The turn in was the key to
>>make the car work. I would attribute that to side wall flex, since a
>>wider tire should decrease turn in. The side wall flex was minimized as
>>you went up in wheel size. The 16s and 17s almost felt like driving on
>>R tires. That is what I was most impressed with.
>
>>WHoever said they woudl assure the 15s would be the best are wrong in my
>>opinion after driving on all. THey were the fastest in straight line
>>acceleration yes, but you could never use any of the acceleration!!!
>>(just as in most solo courses) Also the 15s had an advantage of being a
>>lighter wheel brand than the 16s or 17s which were faster.
>
>I wanted to see a 225/50-15 vs 225/45-16 vs 225/40-17 R-tire test on
>identical make 8 inch wide wheels, and I said I thought the 15's would be
>fastest (on a real auto-x course, not one where half the course is a
>big circle). The 15's would be the lightest combo, and sidewall height
>would be less of a factor (almost none) with a stiff R tire.
But that wasn't the point of the article. They were comparing plus
sizing, so the diameter wasn't as much of an issue. The sizes you mention
wouldn't be correct for the car, as there would have been clearance
problems. You have to keep in mind that they were testing street tire
applications in an autox enviroment, not testing autox size applications.
----------------------------------------
Bill Ozinga - webmaster@tirerack.com
Webmaster - The Tire Rack
http://www.tirerack.com
Ph.(888)362-8473 or (219)287-2345
Order your tires online!
----------------------------------------
|