Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I need some advice. I am going to start doing some track days for fun, maybe the NSW Super Sprint series next year.
I have a set of 16" wheels which would be suitable to use, but I'd be restricted to a 225/45 or 225/50 r16 tyre size.

Is this a disadvantage at all compared to using a 235/45r17 tyre? This would mean I would need to buy new wheels as well as tyres.

The 16" tyres are generally a little bit cheaper too, in Kumho V70A or similar as discussed in this thread.

Is it OK to stick with my 16" wheels and buy some tyres, or am I better moving to a 17" and bigger tyre from the start?
Thanks very much.

Edit:
Car is S14 Silvia with stock engine/power. At best I will have coilovers, that's about all.

the most important thing about a tyre is....can you afford to buy it :)

wider tyres in the same brand and compound would almost always be faster. but the difference may not be worth the money.

even weirder is that same width tyres for larger rims are more expensive. (eg 235/16 vs 235/18) despite there being less rubber. :wacko:

As "the checkout" would say......SCAM!

  • 4 weeks later...

It may well be a scam, but consider this. The 18 inch option will out sell the 16 inch option say for arguments sake 20:1. The cost of the 16 inch is higher therefore becaus the factory has to stop production of the 18, retool the machines to cast 16s in a small amount. Therefore the costs are higher. Economy of scale.

The exact same thing happens with brake pads. Do a set of racing pads have triple the cost of materials in it than a set of boggo stocks? Nup, but the producer has to stop production of the pads that sell 98% of the market, and start making "Motorsport" pads.

  • 1 month later...

The best bang for buck atm imo is the Hankook Z214 2 groove tyres. Not a true semi though, so it depends if what you do allows them to be used.

They're cheap (similar to the FZ201s were in 17" sizes) and extremely quick.

Otherwise, in true semi slicks, there is probably no standout bang for buck options. The cheap options like Toyo and Nitto are lower performance than the FZ201s were, and the fast rubber like Hankook, Yokohama and Dunlop are more expensive. The Hankook Z221 is probably the fastest true semi available now, and its cheaper than the Yokohama and Dunlop rivals so it's probably the best value.

I didn't mention Kumho because they seem a bit hit and miss - on cars they suit they are really fast, on cars they don't suit they're just average, and on some cars they tend to delaminate or blowout - like my 180SX using the same geometry that the R888 and FZ201 didn't have any dramas with.

So far I only be doing track days and the odd super sprint. Would I get knocked back with the Z214's at a supersprint?

And where are you buying your tyres from?

And would these be ok for competition?

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Pilot+Sport+Cup&partnum=635YR8SPORTCUP&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes

Track days are unlikely to have any problem with them.

Supersprints - depends. NSW supersprints have their own rules which are very different to the rest of the country.

the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tyres... I don't know anyone who buys them for motorsport here. Can't say what they'd actually be like. I think they're OE on some Porsches though. Maybe talk to someone in a Porsche Club at sprints?

I liked them. Were on my mx5 and tyres before we're r888s

Best I could do with r888s was a 1.13.7 at wakie then with same mods a 1.12.3 on the v70s

Lasted over a year (bought them around may 2012) and did 9 race meets

  • 3 weeks later...

I've got a set of 245/40 R18 Nitto NT01's tracked once on my Soarer. And by once I mean one 5 lap session before the car had a problem and I had to park it. I'll sell them for $950 the set of 4 + freight. Can get pics tonight. Happy to drop them at an e-go depot.

I'm building a Datsun track car now and have no real need or desire to track the Soarer anymore, and 18s aren't going to be any good for my 120Y!

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...