whitekingsnake

SleepR1,

In talking about tire and wheel size along with side wall thickness, would I be correct in assuming that a 245/45-16 tire would give me worse performance and handling than a 225/50-16. My FD is still stock w/16" wheels, but I am debating between these two sizes for maximum handling. Sorry if its a little off topic to the main thread but you brought up some statements that would go into my debate.

later...Scott

SleepR1

I'd say not worse, but no better than the stock 225/50-16. A 245/45-16 is a WIDE tire, and really needs to be on a 9 or 9.5 x 16 wheel. Stay with 225/50-16 if you have the stock 8 x 16 wheels.

Chronos

Regarding the fitment of the 10.5"+ tires: wouldn't wider wheels enable you to corner better since not only are you getting more contact patch, but the dimension of your car is now wider bringing the center of gravity of the car down...You would be able to house the super wide wheels (up to 13") under Chuck's RE Amemiya Widebody kit which will fit 13's in the back and 11's in the front.

Do you guys think the added contact patch and wider dimensions would outweigh the adverse characterists: un-sprung weight, increased stress to the chasis?? I'm assuming that money is no object here because with wheels that big you'd have to pay some high dollars, especially if they're going to be as light as possible (forged Magnessium or Al alloy).

ShortBusRiot

bah me too but i think im learning

DavidDeco

I switched from Michelines on the stock setup to
S-03's 245/45's a few months ago and it seemed to help significantly. Maybe because of the tire although the Micheline's were more expensive...they weren't very old either.

I notice I don't slide around turns as easily with some juice.

I still can't gun it in 1st or 2nd though without serious traction issues.

SleepR1

This isn't necessarily true. You can only the cg if you lower ride height. You can only increase track width by pushing the wheels more outboard.

Quote:

You would be able to house the super wide wheels (up to 13") under Chuck's RE Amemiya Widebody kit which will fit 13's in the back and 11's in the front.

IMO 13s are too wide. There's no reason to have wheels wider than 10.5 in back of an FD. Contact patch is a function of weight transfer, and because our FD is so light, you could never transfer enough weight (under acceleration) on the 13 wide to make any more stick from that wide a setup. Would look cool though!

Quote:

Do you guys think the added contact patch and wider dimensions would outweigh the adverse characterists: un-sprung weight, increased stress to the chasis??

There comes a point of diminishing returns, where wider isn't necessarily better, but becomes a detriment. [/B][/QUOTE]I'm assuming that money is no object here because with wheels that big you'd have to pay some high dollars, especially if they're going to be as light as possible (forged Magnessium or Al alloy). [/B][/QUOTE]Are you kidding? Money's ALWAYS AN ISSUE. Everything's relative.

SleepR1

This isn't necessarily true. You can only the cg if you lower ride height. You can only increase track width by pushing the wheels more outboard.

Quote:

You would be able to house the super wide wheels (up to 13") under Chuck's RE Amemiya Widebody kit which will fit 13's in the back and 11's in the front.

IMO 13s are too wide. There's no reason to have wheels wider than 10.5 in back of an FD. Contact patch is a function of weight transfer, and because our FD is so light, you could never transfer enough weight (under acceleration) on the 13 wide to make any more stick from that wide a setup. Would look cool though!

Quote:

Do you guys think the added contact patch and wider dimensions would outweigh the adverse characterists: un-sprung weight, increased stress to the chasis??

There comes a point of diminishing returns, where wider isn't necessarily better, but becomes a detriment. [/B][/QUOTE]

Quote:

I'm assuming that money is no object here because with wheels that big you'd have to pay some high dollars, especially if they're going to be as light as possible (forged Magnessium or Al alloy).

Are you kidding? Money's ALWAYS AN ISSUE. Everything's relative.

SleepR1

This isn't necessarily true. You can only lower the cg (center of gravity) if you lower ride height. You can only increase track width by pushing the wheels more outboard (by decreasing offset to smaller number).

Quote:

You would be able to house the super wide wheels (up to 13") under Chuck's RE Amemiya Widebody kit which will fit 13's in the back and 11's in the front.

IMO 13s are too wide. There's no reason to have wheels wider than 10.5 in back of an FD. Contact patch is a function of weight transfer, and because our FD is so light, you could never transfer enough weight (under acceleration) on the 13 wide to make any more stick from that wide a setup. Would look cool though!

Quote:

Do you guys think the added contact patch and wider dimensions would outweigh the adverse characterists: un-sprung weight, increased stress to the chasis??

There comes a point of diminishing returns, where wider isn't necessarily better, but becomes a detriment.

Quote:

I'm assuming that money is no object here because with wheels that big you'd have to pay some high dollars, especially if they're going to be as light as possible (forged Magnessium or Al alloy).

Are you kidding? Money's ALWAYS AN ISSUE. Everything's relative.

SleepR1

Hard to know if the increase in traction was due to the tire size or the Bridgestone S-03's "superior" traction characteristics (especially in the wet)? Best way is to tell is to do a back-to-back comparison with SAME tire, but different sizes (225/50-16 vs 245/45-16). My money is on no difference except a ligher wallet (245/45-16s are more money) The reason you break traction in 1st/2nd is because you have more power than stick. Once the tires get warmed up, the stick will catch up, and you'll break away less often. The trouble is you never have a chance to warm up the tires on the street...

DavidDeco

Yeah, it feels better but I can't say for sure.

What I can say for sure though that you mentioned is that the PP S-03's are far superior in the rain than the Michelins. My FD was a death trap in the rain before. I won't even get into the 3 spin outs within 1 hr in the snow when I drove Tampa to Sioux Falls, SD and back. That'll be the last snow that car ever sees....Almost cost me my life on one and cost me a tow job and a 2 day motel layover in Iowa for repairs. NOW THAT's HELL.

SleepR1

^^^Wow you were lucky!^^^

Chronos

I assumed the use of rims with a design that would connect to the chasis in the same place but would extend out and not in, I think they're called "deep dish" or whatever, I'm not sure. And I also assume that the wider the contact patch is the wider the car and therefore the lower center of gravity (even if it's a little tiny bit ) because you now have less heighth per width.

So, I assume what you're saying here is that you need a certain amount of downward force to make the tires stick to the road, and no matter how wide they are it won't matter because vertical force not lateral is what makes tires stick...is this correct? If so, What is the difference on that vertical force between braking/diving into a turn and accelerating out out of a turn? Also, is more vertical force transfered to the front or rear wheels during both??

Mazderati

iTrader: (3)

All things being equal, anytime the wheel is made wider on the outside of the hub, the track of the car is going to become slightly wider. The inverse of this would be if the wheel were to be offset more towards the inside of the car, which would make the track slightly smaller.

As for weight transfer during braking and accelerating; more weight is going to be put over the front wheels while braking and more weight is going to be put over the rear wheels while accelerating.

I think Pettit and Cameron Worth and Panspeed to name just two would disagree with the fact that the FD can't make use of wider than a 10.5" wheel in back.

Regards,

Kyle

SPOautos

My vote is for adjustable shocks set so that you get a good weight transfer to the rear.

Then get some Nitto 555 Drag radials or BFG Drag radials for the back. For the street the BFG's are nice cause you dont have to burn them out to hook decent like the Nittos.....but then again they dont last as long as Nittos either. For the tire size you need Nittos might be the only alternative as they do have a larger selection of sizes.

Anyway, thats pretty much what I would do. The compound is going to make the largest difference and your not going to get better than a drag radial.

STEPHEN

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I'll have to agree here. Just as an example, the old 917 Porsches were approx. 2000 lbs, and carried 18" wide rear tires. I see alot of theorizing on here about how wide is too wide, or even that wider doesn't offer more grip... I'll disagree w/ some of it based on actual experience.

I've run several combos of tires/wheels on my car and i've ALWAYS found that wider offered at least SOMETHING extra with one exception.... when the sidewall gets too short.

Example:
When i bought my car it had stock wheels w/ 225/50/16 SP 4000s. I replaced the fronts and rears at seperate times with 245/45/16s of the same brand, and OF COURSE they had a little more grip... even on the same stock wheels.

When i upgraded to 17", I originally went w/ 17x8" SSRs w/ 245/40/17 RE71s all around. I later added 17x9" rears w/ a 235/45/ front, 275/40 rear combo once again w/ the same brand of tire. OF COURSE they had more grip, even though a 9" rear tire isn't optimal for a 275.

I've swapped rims w/ my friend w/ a supra several times for fun. He has 18x8.5 front AVS wheels w/ 235/40/18 tires. The rears were originally 285/30/18 S02s on 18x9.5s. TERRIBLE grip. A switch to 275/35/18 S03s made it much better on my car AND his 825 HP supra. I'm not a fan of the 285/30/18 size for this reason.

There may be a point at which you reach the end of the envelope as far as wider not offereing more grip or performance, but i don't think your going to get there with anything thats fits under the stock fenders.

TYSON

Your S-03's likely wouldn't have helped in the snow. Mine were very slippery on dry pavement near freezing, but gave severe wheel hop in standing water at 60 degrees.