And, as Gordon's diagram shows, "rim width" refers to the inside width. So
my "6 inch" wheels are probably about 5.5 inches or less in reality. I
talked to the guy at Discount Tire around the corner and we selected a
Michelin 185/65-14 as a reasonable street tire. Let's face it, it's gotta be
a lot better handling than the rotted 165's on the car right now. It's
amazing! There's plenty of tread depth left on my old tires, but you can see
strands of nylon exposed down among the cracks in the rubber.
Mike, regarding GRM's 85% rule, that would suggest that a 165 would be the
max performance solution for a 5.5" rim. Hopefully my new 185's will be
suitable for reasonable street operation.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "datsunmike" <datsunmike@nyc.rr.com>
To: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>; <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Original Tire height
> This months Grassroots has an article about rim v. tire width. They say
the
> rim should ideally be 85% of the tires width for maximum performance.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>
> To: <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 11:32 PM
> Subject: RE: FW: Original Tire height
>
>
> > I'm currently running 195/60-14 tires on 6" wide rims. I have run 185/70
> and
> > 185/60 tires on the same rims. It's probably obvious that I prefer a
wider
> wheel
> > for a given tire size than a lot of other people, but that's based on my
> driving
> > style (rather vigorous) and my autocrossing experience.
> >
> > Usually an aluminum rim will measure about 3/4"-1" wider on the outside
> than the
> > actual rim width, depending on the design of the wheel and where you
take
> the
> > measurement, but the only way to tell for sure is to dismount a tire and
> measure
> > it. This diagram should explain why that is the case:
> > http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/Images/wheel_csect.jpg
> >
> > Start with this page at the TireRack Web site:
> > http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/sidewall.htm
> > It has a lot of good general information about tires, sizes, etc. Then
> look at
> > the tire size conversion chart for some interesting comparisons.
> >
> > Gordon Glasgow
> > Renton, WA
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > [mailto:owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Chris
Doutre
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:46 PM
> > > To: Gordon Glasgow; datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > Subject: Re: FW: Original Tire height
> > >
> > >
> > > Gordon,
> > >
> > > This tire discussion has been extremely helpful. One of the things I
> haven't
> > > seen discussed is what wheel size you are using. Is that a valid
> question? I
> > > have some 165/SR14's that I need to replace on 6" (outside-width)
> aluminum
> > > wheels. Is that what everybody else is running? Is it really OK to run
a
> > > 185/65/14 on a 6" wheel, probably 5.75" inside-width at the bead edge?
> It
> > > seems wide to me, but I'm really in the dark about this stuff.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Chris Doutre
> > > Scottsdale, AZ
> > > 1967 1600
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>
> > > To: <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:53 PM
> > > Subject: RE: FW: Original Tire height
> > >
> > >
> > > > A tire's effective radius is different than the calculation from
it's
> > > diameter.
> > > > R&T's test reported revs per mile and I calculated back from that.
> > > >
> > > > Gordon Glasgow
> > > > Renton, WA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John F Sandhoff [mailto:sandhoff@csus.edu]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:08 AM
> > > > > To: Gordon Glasgow
> > > > > Cc: datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > > > Subject: RE: FW: Original Tire height
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gordon writes:
> > > > > > My calculations were based on an aspect ratio of 82%, which
might
> > > > > > not be correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > I HAVE a 5.60x14 on the rim. I know its circumference is at least
3
> > > > > inches larger than the calculated 73.1 (5280 ft/mile * 12 in/ft /
> 866
> > > rev/mi).
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe R&T was running their tests using flat tires :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > -- John
> > > > > John F Sandhoff sandhoff@csus.edu Sacramento, CA
> > > >
> > > > ///
> > > > /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> > > > /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> > > > /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> > > > /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > > ///
> > >
> > > ///
> > > /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> > > /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> > > /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> > > /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > ///
> >
> > ///
> > /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> > /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> > /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> > /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > ///
>
> ///
> /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> ///
///
/// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|
