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.
As far as how the ride was judged. On the 16s the interior rattled from
bumps. THe 17s did not. I really wished they put that in the article.
ANd you should have seen the road they used for ride comfort, trust me
you could tell a difference.
I always wondered if Guy Ankeny was hindering his miata on the 16s and
now figured out he was not.
--Brian Priebe
|