Brian Priebe <priebe.4@osu.edu> wrote:
>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.
I wanted to see a 225/50-15 vs 225/45-16 vs 225/40-17 R-tire test on
identical make 8 inch wide wheels, and I said I thought the 15's would be
fastest (on a real auto-x course, not one where half the course is a
big circle). The 15's would be the lightest combo, and sidewall height
would be less of a factor (almost none) with a stiff R tire.
>I always wondered if Guy Ankeny was hindering his miata on the 16s and
>now figured out he was not.
I thought Hoosier didn't have the 245/50-15 out then, that's why the car
had 245/45/16's. Hmmm...
He did win.
-Scott A Johnson
sjohnson@kcnet.com
|