Moderator: The Mod Squad
TRDmod wrote:i have 17inch 8 inch wheel, speedline ...
my main purpose is circuit
TRDmod wrote:i want to get extremely lightweight wheels, mostlikely 16 inch the original diameter that the car came with
now, quesitons
firstly, what is the WIDEST wheel i can put in a 205, also, i wanna know effects in terms of width versus thin, also, the effects and difference of the smalle rdiameter.........
TRDmod wrote:i want to basically know what ppl have found by going back to the 16 inch, im told that it gives more grip on the circuit than the 17 inches...and according to some articles , i do agree.b ut never tried it, so wanna know if i should buy the new wheels......
i wanna know the widest tyres and wheels i can put, it will be 16 inch i will be buying ..... i wann a know difference in effects from my current wheel size to the 16 inch
thanks
The width of your tyre doesn't have an effect on grip levels as the equation of friction doesn't involve surface area, only the coefficient of friction and the weight of the car.
Kiddy wrote:The widest tyres you can have on the 7" is 235, but it would look like a bleeming off roader. 215 would be the best option. Give you a little bit of curb protection and a bit more rubber to hold it down.
THA SHZ wrote:please enlighten me how a 235 goes on a 7 inch wide rim ! If u do this eventually once u get it on , and it will be a mission , then it is going to flower out the sides causing worse handling as the tyre isnt doin wot its designed to do . The widest u should go on a 7 inch wide is a 215 , but wot rim width are ur 16 's tht u are lookin at gettin ?
Perky wrote:The width of your tyre doesn't have an effect on grip levels as the equation of friction doesn't involve surface area, only the coefficient of friction and the weight of the car.
Aha! Or so you would think.
This is true as far as it goes, but the equation to which you refer is not a general description of the behaviour of two surfaces in contact but only of one aspect of that relationship. For a constrained set of materials and conditions -- namely hard (that is: inelastic) surfaces -- it is quite easy to model behaviour using the coefficient of friction. Though even in these cases we have to deal with two coefficients (static and kinetic). For elastic surfaces, like rubber tyres, the relationship is a lot more complicated and frictional coefficients are not so easy to understand.
The main issue, I take it, involves the deformation of the rubber by the road surface. This contributes to friction by dissipating energy and so increasing the force required to move the surfaces relative to one another. But, as a result of the shape of the road surface there is an upper limit to the amount of deformation possible. Once the variations in the road surface have been filled by the rubber, they can produce no more deformation even if the force on the rubber is increased (by making the car heavier). However, if the contact area is increased there can be more deformation and so more friction, even if the physical qualities of the rubber remain the same (same compound).
There are other factors that further complicate the physics of the tyre-road interface -- such as transitions between static and kinetic friction, the changing properties of rubber with varying temperature and the molecular physics of 'stickiness' -- which I won't pretend to understand. The point is that a simple model of static friction will not allow us to explain how tyres work and, for a number of complicated reasons, you can sometimes increase grip by fitting wider tyres.
This has the potential to become a controversial thread with a lot of anecdotes thrown around. It would be good if contributors could support their claims with physical explanations.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests