Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i do it for cost and so the wheels sit better in the guards

ive got 205's on a 8.5" on the front and 225's on a 9.5" for the rear.

looks depend on the tyre also, previously i had a set of dunlops that were 235 on the rear and they looked like they were stretching more than my current 225's

i do it for cost and so the wheels sit better in the guards

ive got 205's on a 8.5" on the front and 225's on a 9.5" for the rear.

looks depend on the tyre also, previously i had a set of dunlops that were 235 on the rear and they looked like they were stretching more than my current 225's

I've also had the same thing with dunlop and bridgestone 235/45/17's being quite different on my 9in rim. The Bridgys look stretched and the dunlop sat square.

I like the look of it and the less sidewall flex.

from a grip standpoint, your getting less tread on the road though

Not exactly true. The tyre width does not determine the size of the contact patch. All else being equal, a 225 tyre will have the same surface area touching the ground as a 245 width tyre.

Not exactly true. The tyre width does not determine the size of the contact patch. All else being equal, a 225 tyre will have the same surface area touching the ground as a 245 width tyre.

Huh? Am I missing something? skinny tyre=less surface contact, fat tyre=more surface contact?

I always had 235's on 10.5" rims. Same reason as said before, any bigger would rub.

That's pretty good fitment mate.

Not exactly true. The tyre width does not determine the size of the contact patch. All else being equal, a 225 tyre will have the same surface area touching the ground as a 245 width tyre.

Any chance you can explain?

With your 14x10 Longchamps, you've dumped it till sparks off man holes and with as much camber as you can dial in the tyre still hits the guard, you need to stretch. This is where the fad all started ladies and gentlemen.

And here it is, 195/60/14 on 10inch.

post-18999-1187349610_thumb.jpg

Any chance you can explain?

I had another read of the post, and in the context it was posted I'm probably wrong. With an ultra-stretched sidewall, that doesn't flex as much as one with a "proper" fitment, the contact patch will be smaller.

Which is probably why didn't reply to his post the first time......

But if you run two tyres of different sizes on rims that they're "suited" for (like say a 215 width tyre vs a 245 width tyre on a 7.5" wide rim) then the difference in contact patch between them is minimal.

right australian manufacturers know everything...

ahhhh this is why in germany cars such as porsche and mercedes come with stretched tyres from the factory....

that's right, it's PORSCHE that know nothing., ah keyboard warriors were right the whole time, should've known...

Any chance you can explain?

contactpatch1hk3.gif

"Imagine driving on to a glass road and looking up underneath your tyres. This is the example contact patch (in red) for the situation I explained above. The narrower tyre has a longer, thinner contact patch. The fatter tyre has a shorter, wider contact patch, but the area is the same on both."

Because you now have more space the weight is less per cm so the contact patch decreases. Of course all sorts of factors change this, eg tyre pressure, how much its stretched etc.

Stolen from http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/tyre_bible_pg2.html

ahhhh this is why in germany cars such as porsche and mercedes come with stretched tyres from the factory....

that's right, it's PORSCHE that know nothing., ah keyboard warriors were right the whole time, should've known...

They might stretch them but its not ridiculous stretch eg a 195 on a 9.5" rim.

Edited by Rolls

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
    • There is a guy who said he can weld me piping without having to cut chassis, maybe I do that ? Or do I just go reverse flow but isn’t reverse flow very limited once again? 
    • I haven’t yet cut the chassis, maybe I switch to a reverse flow. I’ve got the Intercooler mounted as I already had it but not cut yet. Might have to speak to an engineer 
    • Yes that’s another issue, I always have a front mount, plus will be turbo plus intake will big hasstle. I’ve been told if it looks stock they’re fine with it by a couple others who have done it ahahaha.    I know @Kinkstaah said the stock gtt airbox is limiting but I might just have to do that to avoid a defect so it atleast looks legit. Or an enclosed pod so it’s hidden away and feed air from the snorkel and below Intercooler holes like kinstaah mentioned. Hmm what to do 
×
×
  • Create New...