thick tire sidewalls or thin thin sidewalls?
why?
thin tire*
Depends on the car.
Street car ? Not under a 50 series unless it's quite wide.
>>13834016
Depends on the application as far as performance, depends on the car as far as appearance.
Low profile tires certainly seem to help on track cars or cars running on tarmac, the higher profile tires are a necessity on rally cars going offroad etc.
>>13834060
>Low profile tires certainly seem to help on track cars or cars running on tarmac
Lower aspect sidewall = less contact patch. Cars run low profile tires because they have big wheels to clear big brakes, not because there are advantages to having less sidewall.
Thin but there's a functional limit, you should also never buy larger wheels just for lower profile tires.
A larger profile tire on small wheel weighs less than a larger wheel with a lower profile tire.
Most modern 'sport' style tires have very thick sidewalls to stiffen them and act closer to a lower profile tire.
Biggest sidewall you can get that will not rub with enough wheel to clear your brakes.
That's from a pure grip performance standpoint. If you're going for looks than that's totally subjective.
>inb4 le turn in meme
You don't need thin sidewalls to get turn in. That's what camber and sway bars are for.
>>13834081
Stiffer sidewalls generally help with body roll, which is great for performance... best way to stiffen a sidewall is to have less of it.
>>13834382
Jesus you couldn't possibly be more ignorant if you were trying.
>>13834382
u dum f.am?
>>13834382
>>13834390
So if we had two tires made of similar materials, but one had a bigger sidewall and one had a smaller sidewall, that wouldn't affect the performance of the car they were on?
>>13834407
No.
>>13834431
Because tire flex doesn't effect body roll at all? And a proportionally taller sidewall doesn't flex more... rriiiiiighhhttt...
Lrn2physics plz.
>>13834439
Suckmydick plz.
Thick because I'm not a dubsfag or a stretchfag.
Isn't it interesting how the car subcultures obsessed with razor thin sidewalls treat the car as nothing more than a status symbol that is also an appliance. Particularly one that is both less efficient and less comfortable to drive after it has been "modified." It's almost as if they're women inside, showing off a new washer dryer combo.
>>13834407
Yes it would affect the car. The one with the bigger sidewall would have more grip. see above.
>>13834439
This. The tire is unsprung. Meaning it can't affect suspension or body roll.
>>13834443
Let me dumb it down a bit.
Bodyroll is bad, because that means the weight of the car shifts mid-corner which causes the car to handle poorly and less predictably.
Shorter sidewalls mean there will be less bodyroll. When something of any material becomes shorter, while retaining the same thickness, it will automatically be stronger.
Let's do some practical physics. Take a stick and break it in half. Now take one of the halves you created by breaking the original stick and try to break that in half, and continue doing that. Eventually, and probably pretty quickly, you'll encounter a piece that you cannot break by hand. That's because the shorter pieces are stronger and will flex less.
>>13834463
>The wheel, which is attached to the suspension, can't affect the suspension
depends on the car and setup
THICK BUT NOT TOO STRETCHED
>>13834016
thin for maximum curbing
obviously you do not want bias ply with 80% aspect
>>13834478
Through reduced unsprung weight sure, but not fundamentally in the sense that you're implying.
>>13834472
Body roll isn't bad, it's natural. Weight shifts regardless of how much body roll you have.
Excessive body roll like on old suvs is bad, sports cars have quite a bit of roll but not as much old boat old suvs etc
You really have no understanding of anything. smaller sidewalls does not improve strength, what the fuck are you even trying to say.
>>13834439
>>13834472
This guy has really enlightened me. Someone has to let every single racing series on earth know this information! They have been doing it wrong all along, they should be using these tires! In fact they should also do away with suspension, because suspension allows body roll. Who needs contact patch when you have 0 body roll and all the weight savings from no tires or suspension?
>>13834498
do tires weigh more than wheels ?
>>13834514
Minimizing weight shift is the whole idea of having stiffer suspension. You're trying to affect a moving mass, which has a tendency to want to go in a straight line. All you're doing when you tweak your suspension and tire compound is fighting the tendency of a mass to want to roll in a straight line. Removing as many variables from that is how you develop stable handling characteristics.
You think you can have a stiff suspension without having shorter sidewalls?
I'm not talking about having wigger sidewalls and flashy rims, just not excessively tall sidewalls.
>>13834520
I mean if you wanna have a jiggaboo racing series...
>>13834607
..........................
stiffer suspension increases "weight shift".
holy shit stop typing.
>>13834629
I didn't say a stiffer suspension increases weight shift.
Then again, basic reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strongest asset.
>>13834607
How could anyone have seen this coming, short sidewall guys is ALSO a stiff suspension = better guy.
I guess it depends on the race, whether it's tarmac, black, Caucasian, Mexican... It's all connected.
>>13834649
Wait... you're implying that you should make the suspension buttery soft like in a 70's Lincoln Town Car to set blistering lap times?
>>13834649
Leave the thread and go back to doing grocery runs in your mom's Miata.
>>13834700
What he's trying to say, and doing a very poor job of conveying because he's a gigantic tripfaggot tool, is that it's a far more involved and complex matter than simply "stiffer suspension = better handling".
>>13834646
I know you didn't.
You said it decreases it. Which is wrong. It actually doesn't do anything to weight shift, but what it does is converts weight shift into mechanical leverage. So essentially it increases weight shift, among other things.
That's why when you want more rear grip in a kart you shorten the rear hubs essentially stiffening the rear axle and giving more mechanical leverage on the outside rear tire because of less flex. It's the same thing with stiffer springs.
You opinion is a common misconception. How it works is actually counter intuitive so I can't knock you, but you're just wrong.
>>13834721
You would be correct in saying the weight shift is still, technically, the same amount of weight.
But the suspension and tires are meant to do two things when selected and set properly -- make sure the tires stay in contact with the road with the maximum amount of contact patch on the road, and to minimize unwanted handling characteristics.
Never, in a million years, is body roll a good thing. That's the attempt of the mass of the car to go in the same direction it was going before it got to a corner. It directly affects how your car is going to handle as it goes through that corner.
If you take two tire compounds, and one has a shorter sidewall, that tire will generally reduce body roll. The suspension is not the only factor in that.
When people talk about race cars using closer to normal-sized sidewalls on their tires, what they fail to mention is that they are using much stiffer rubber compounds which eliminate a lot of the need for those shorter sidewalls...
But hey, I'm just a guy on the internet.
>>13834016
Larger than 35. Anything under that is detrimental to ride quality and wheel survivability. You want the largest sidewall you can have for your wheel sie without it being too flexible or rubbing on the car's bodywork.
Rubberband sub 35 section tires = full retard.
>>13834581
i've never seen a tire that weighs less than any performance oriented aluminum wheel on a car.
Mfw people are (possibly?) mistaking sidewall deflection and bodyroll.
Unless you seriously think tire compression under load is a bad thing.
There's a lot of really weird shit going on in this thread.
>>13835849
Thus board is full of retards who don't know anything but spend all day thinking about shit and coming up with random garbage that makes absolutely zero sense outside of their autistic mind
I had a friend irl like that, every time I would go around a corner he'd snicker "huur anon why do you use body roll to turn". I just had no reply Every time, like what the heck how do they even think of shit like that
> autism
>>13834581
My tires weight more than my wheels.
15x8 RFP1's weight 11.3 Lbs.
My Federal RS-R's weigh 20.5 Lbs.
>>13834786
>When people talk about race cars using closer to normal-sized sidewalls on their tires, what they fail to mention is that they are using much stiffer rubber compounds which eliminate a lot of the need for those shorter sidewalls...
Actually this is due to the rules and regulations of the series 99% of the time. See NASCAR, F1, Le Mans Prototype classes, etc. They have small wheels with thick sidewalls because the rules say so.
Race cars that have more lax rules end up having big wheels with thin sidewalls.
More sidewall usually gives your tires' slip angle a wider band, which can be more forgiving but it is not good for finite handling and handling adjustments.
>>13836102
Is there any nonsense that hasn't been spewed on /o/? Let's leave no stone unturned.
>>13834016
Meaty tires.
Better pads and better brake cooling for stopping power, I don't want the weight of huge rotors or the compliance penalty of tiny sidewalls.
If the car looks dumb with 265 section tires on 15x10s, shrink it.
>>13836416
What part is nonsense and who the hell are you?
>>13834607
>You think you can have a stiff suspension without having shorter sidewalls?
Yes. Do you think you can't have stiff suspension with normal sized sidewalls? Not like stiff suspension means anything on its own anyway.
And little sidewalls are fucking trash for street cars. I cannot enjoy any decent back road with no sidewalls, its hell. And not being able to go on dirt roads.. aww shit kill me now. Plus tires cost more.
Tires are basically part of your suspension.
They're rubber, obviously; they absorb bumps in the road and shifts in weight.
The reason you don't want too much side wall is that they don't give you the precisely set up geometry your suspension does. The outside side will squish more with more weight on them in corners, you won't feel the road as much, and they don't react as fast or predictably as your suspension.
But with drag racing you want more since it increases the give in them before they lose grip.
The reason you don't want too little side wall is that you are more likely to break your suspension, and you will greatly decrease the give your tires have, making turn-in worse and decreasing the warning you have before your car loses grip and you spin out.
Race cars without rules on the tire walls tend to have ones that are fairly low profile, but not ricer/donk level of teeny tiny side walls.
>>13837413
>Race cars without rules on the tire walls tend to have ones that are fairly low profile, but not ricer/donk level of teeny tiny side walls.
For, I imagine, much the same reason race cars sometimes use negative camber, but not hellaflush stancefaggot levels of negative camber?
>>13837476
Some negative camber is can be preferable. It evens out under cornering with all that weight on the outside wheels.
But yeah, not like stancefaggot camber.
And also lots of suspensions automatically make that camber when more weight is on the wheel, while they are neutral cambered normally. But you still might want a barely noticeable difference on a certain track. You just don't really notice -1 or -1.5 degree camber.
It's not really related to why you want a small, but not minimal, amount of sidewall, though.
>>13837500
>It's not really related to why you want a small, but not minimal, amount of sidewall, though.
I was meaning to imply more "there's a benefit to be had by doing it that way to a point, but the law of diminishing returns is in full effect so they don't go full retard with it" anyway.
>>13837505
Ah yeah. Maybe. I think they're just autistic and think that looks good regardless.
>>13834016
Low profile tyres have a better slip angle performance and less torsional hysteresis.
They also provide less shock absorption than higher profile.
>>13836102
If anybody has spoken any truth, it's this guy
>>13834016
>thick
Ride
>thin
Handling
>>13838208
Only to a certain extent.
