PDA

View Full Version : Tires - please explain?


car_for_mom
01-08-2003, 09:44 AM
Okay, I did a search on this topic, but didn't quite find the answers I'm looking for.

Karl Bimmer (325i) has 205 55/R16 91H tires; some folks have said I should get some speciality rims and put 18" tires in order to enhance his appearance (I think he's quite handsome as he is! :) )

What effect will the larger tires have? I've heard about rotation, etc - but will the gas mileage be adversely affected? The braking, handling and shifting?

If there was a previous thread someone could point me to on this subject, that would be cool, too!

Thanks!

Nick325xiT 5spd
01-08-2003, 09:52 AM
18" rims will be heavy and slow the car down. Additionally, the ultra low profile tires will wander BADLY.

On the plus side, steering response will be VERY snappy, and grip should be better.

If you want performance, go with 17" wheels. They are a good compromise between wander and steering response. Additionally, make sure you buy light wheels, such as OZ Superleggeras and BBS RKs.

Above all, don't buy anything if you don't really want it. Buying large wheels exclusively to make the car look better is just plain stupid, IMHO.

car_for_mom
01-08-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Nick325xiT 5spd
18" rims will be heavy and slow the car down. Additionally, the ultra low profile tires will wander BADLY.

On the plus side, steering response will be VERY snappy, and grip should be better.

If you want performance, go with 17" wheels. They are a good compromise between wander and steering response. Additionally, make sure you buy light wheels, such as OZ Superleggeras and BBS RKs.

Above all, don't buy anything if you don't really want it. Buying large wheels exclusively to make the car look better is just plain stupid, IMHO.

Cool, Nick325xiT5spd - just the answer I was looking for - thanks!

I'll keep Karl as he is - I appreciate performance, but I'm not at a point in life that I can indulge all that much (oh, I'll go out to Bonneville once the baby turns 19 in about 9 years! :lmao: )

Nick325xiT 5spd
01-08-2003, 10:04 AM
You're welcome.

If you wind up wanting better performance, all you really need to do is buy a set of Bridgestone Potenza S-03s in the stock size. You'll be amazed at what that does for the car.

The HACK
01-08-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by car_for_mom
Cool, Nick325xiT5spd - just the answer I was looking for - thanks!

I'll keep Karl as he is - I appreciate performance, but I'm not at a point in life that I can indulge all that much (oh, I'll go out to Bonneville once the baby turns 19 in about 9 years! :lmao: )

Keep in mind, a lot of the performance benefits Nick325XiT5spd mentioned above for 18" wheel/tire combination CAN be achieved without going to a larger wheel/tire combination.

I see you're running H rated touring tires. By switching to a slightly wider tire (225) and Z or Y rated summer tires and a good, sticky brand (I highly recommend Bridgestone S-03s), you will get all the performance gain without any of the performance loss...You will get sharper, better turn-in without significant loss in ride quality, little next to no increase in tramlining, and no loss in acceleration/braking/fuel economy.

Besides driving schools, tires are the single biggest return anyone can make on modifying a car.

beauport
01-08-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Nick325xiT 5spd
You're welcome.

If you wind up wanting better performance, all you really need to do is buy a set of Bridgestone Potenza S-03s in the stock size. You'll be amazed at what that does for the car.

I wish you'd quit spouting raves about S-03's. I'm trying to wear out my RE040's as it is just to really see if there's all the difference you keep talking about. :)

TD
01-08-2003, 11:23 AM
Aside from my personal opinion of naming cars and then using personal pronouns to refer to them, I think you've received solid advice. 18s have no place on street cars as they have gobs of negatives and really no positives to them besides (in some people's eyes) improved looks.

I second the idea of going with 17s. 17s will look better and perform better than 16s without really adding any negatives. Other than the cost of buying new rims, there is no downside to 17s (unlike 18s).

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by TD
18s have no place on street cars as they have gobs of negatives and really no positives to them besides (in some people's eyes) improved looks.


:rolleyes:

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
:rolleyes:

Roll them all you want. That doesn't make him any less right. :flipoff:

TD
01-08-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
:rolleyes:

Just because BMW's ///Marketing division sells them, doesn't mean they are better. It's an image thing. There is the perception that "performance" cars of a certain caliber need 18s. The r*ceboy culture perpetuates this misconception. And manufacturers that are offering performance packages feel the need to go with 18s on those packages.

But point me to any objective source that would suggest even a single advantage to 18s over 17s on a street vehicle where 17s are still big enough to clear the brakes (as the ONLY legit reason for 18s is that your brakes are too big to fit 17s).

nate
01-08-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by The HACK

I see you're running H rated touring tires. By switching to a slightly wider tire (225) and Z or Y rated summer tires and a good, sticky brand (I highly recommend Bridgestone S-03s), you will get all the performance gain without any of the performance loss...

As someone who has done this, I can say:

Originally posted by The HACK

You will get sharper, better turn-in TRUE Originally posted by The HACK
without significant loss in ride quality, WRONG Originally posted by The HACK
little next to no increase in tramlining, WRONGOriginally posted by The HACK
and no loss in acceleration/braking/fuel economy.

TRUE

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
Roll them all you want. That doesn't make him any less right. :flipoff:

It's odd then that BMW's best performing/fastest car of all time comes with 19's

TD
01-08-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
As someone who has done this, I can say:

TRUE WRONG WRONG TRUE

Let me add that S-03s tramline like a mofo.

nate
01-08-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
It's odd then that BMW's best performing/fastest car of all time comes with 19's I thought the US spec E36 M3 came with 17s :dunno:

TD
01-08-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
It's odd then that BMW's best performing/fastest car of all time comes with 19's

Again, point to any facts beyond that these sizes are used to foster an "image" of high-performance.

TD
01-08-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
I thought the US spec E36 M3 came with 17s :dunno:

:rolleyes:

And I figured you'd be here arguing for 16s.

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by TD


But point me to any objective source that would suggest even a single advantage to 18s over 17s on a street vehicle where 17s are still big enough to clear the brakes (as the ONLY legit reason for 18s is that your brakes are too big to fit 17s).

Please list for me the gobs of negatives involved in having 24 pound 18 inch wheels versus 24 pound 17 inch wheels

Nick325xiT 5spd
01-08-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by TD
Let me add that S-03s tramline like a mofo.

225/45 on 17x8 is pretty good.

They don't glide like the HTR+, but...

nate
01-08-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Nick325xiT 5spd
225/45 on 17x8 is pretty good.

They don't glide like the HTR+, but...

My 225/50 (same contact patch) on 16x7s do tramline a lot

The HACK
01-08-2003, 11:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The HACK

You will get sharper, better turn-in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRUE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The HACK
without significant loss in ride quality,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRONG
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The HACK
little next to no increase in tramlining,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRONG
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The HACK
and no loss in acceleration/braking/fuel economy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRUE


Well, maybe I over simplified it a little...

When you go to 17" or 18" tires, even with H rated touring tires, you will experience dramatice increase in tramlining and decrease in ride quality. The tire's impact on these two are not as dramatic as going up in size.

For "Karl" the best combination would still be 17"x8" all around with 225.45.17 Z rated tires. If tramlining and ride comfort is a big issue then get ContiSportsContact IIs or Sumitomo HTZ IIs...Those seem to be a little more comfortable with slightly softer sidewall than the S-03s.

EDIT: Not trying to nit pick Nate, but I've run tires and wheels of all combinations on the same chasis, ranging from 16" to 18", and rating from H, W, ZR, and Y. Tire makes the biggest difference in improving handling and acceleration without impacting tramlining and ride comfort as much as upping wheel size.

Nick325xiT 5spd
01-08-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
Please list for me the gobs of negatives involved in having 24 pound 18 inch wheels versus 24 pound 17 inch wheels

IF they are the same weight, then you have more expensive tires, more tramlining, and you've probably moved the majority of the mass further out from the wheel hub.

Jetfire
01-08-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by TD

But point me to any objective source that would suggest even a single advantage to 18s over 17s on a street vehicle where 17s are still big enough to clear the brakes (as the ONLY legit reason for 18s is that your brakes are too big to fit 17s).

I would suggest taking into account tire width. Take something like the C5 or Viper, both of which have very large meats in back. I don't have the number in front of me but they're quite wide, in the 285 range. In cases like this, it may be wiser to go with a lower profile than usual in order to keep the sidewalls nice and firm. And in order to have a wide tire with a lower aspect ratio, you need larger wheels. The C5 has 17" wheels in front and 18" in back.

The majority of "tuner" boy racers out there who put 18"ers on their rides are not doing anything except enhancing their cars' looks. You're right, in that an 18" wheel on something like a 225/30 tire is pretty silly. BUT...if you're putting down a lot of power to the ground, you need more rubber to maintain some semblance of traction, which can justify larger wheels. Let's face it - at 350HP, the Vette isn't going to cry from the added unsprung weight.

nate
01-08-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Nick325xiT 5spd
IF they are the same weight, then you have more expensive tires, more tramlining, and you've probably moved the majority of the mass further out from the wheel hub.

How exactly does the same contact patch tramline more on 18s vs 17s?

Tires are not light, do you think that bit of extra rim is heavier?

Wouldn't it be beneficail to have less sidewall to flex and more metal that does not flex?

I would say that if the sidewall flexes less, a minor rotational mass penaly isn't bad...

TD
01-08-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
Please list for me the gobs of negatives involved in having 24 pound 18 inch wheels versus 24 pound 17 inch wheels

Ride harshness
Ease of rim damage
Ease of tire sidewall damage
R*ceboy look

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
It's odd then that BMW's best performing/fastest car of all time comes with 19's

Yeah, it is odd...especially when you consider how much better performing it would be with lightweight 17's. :rolleyes:

nate
01-08-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by TD

R*ceboy look

R1cey?

http://bmwnation.com/images/gallery/3/e46/e46_m3csl_15_s.jpg

nate
01-08-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
Yeah, it is odd...especially when you consider how much better performing it would be with lightweight 17's. :rolleyes:

Nice speculation, maybe you should have some facts to back it up.

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by TD
Ride harshness
Ease of rim damage
Ease of tire sidewall damage


you've got to be kidding

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
Please list for me the gobs of negatives involved in having 24 pound 18 inch wheels versus 24 pound 17 inch wheels

The bulk of a 24 lb 18" wheel mass is further from the rotational center of a 24 lb 17" wheel. Everything else being equal, give me the 17s.

nate
01-08-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
The bulk of a 24 lb 18" wheel is further from the rotational center of a 24 lb 17" wheel.

How do you know that makes any difference?

And is the rotational seperation more important than potential increased sidewall flex under load. (metal resists flex much more than rubber)

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
Nice speculation, maybe you should have some facts to back it up.

Physics are all the facts I need.

nate
01-08-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
Physics are all the facts I need.

Does rubber flex more than metal?

Jetfire
01-08-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by atyclb
you've got to be kidding

Those might not be gobs of negatives, but they're negatives...and legitimate ones at that. I wouldn't survive for two weeks in some parts of D.C. if I had to drive on 19s.

Even when you take in the HP argument I provided earlier, I think 19 is more of a marketing gimmick on the CSL - 18" wheels are plenty sufficient if you ask me. But i'm not a professional racer...what do those boys in the Ferrari cup (which is really more "rich men" and not pure racing) run for wheels? Or maybe the DTM crowd?

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Jetfire
Those might not be gobs of negatives, but they're negatives...and legitimate ones at that.

Even when you take in the HP argument I provided earlier, I think 19 is more of a marketing gimmick on the CSL - 18" wheels are plenty sufficient if you ask me. But i'm not a professional racer...what do those boys in the Ferrari cup (which is really more "rich men" and not pure racing) run for wheels? Or maybe the DTM crowd?

Ride harshness? Okay, TD can go buy a Buick then

Easier to bend rims? Uh, I highly doubt that, unless you abuse your car or just don't pay attention.

Easier sidewall damage? I assume he means curb rash? Again--pay attention.


And I don't think 18's would be sufficient on the CSL, since it has 18 inch brakes :p

nate
01-08-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
Ride harshness? Okay, TD can go buy a Buick then

Easier to bend rims? Uh, I highly doubt that, unless you abuse your car or just don't pay attention.

Easier sidewall damage? I assume he means curb rash? Again--pay attention.


And I don't think 18's would be sufficient on the CSL, since it has 18 inch brakes :p

It doesn't matter, the CSL is too ricey for TD anyway...

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
How do you know that makes any difference?

The further from the center the mass is located, the more force it takes to make it change the mass' speed and/or direction. That part of it that simple.

And is the rotational seperation more important than potential increased sidewall flex under load. (metal resists flex much more than rubber)

Depends on how much more flex is introduced. The only objective test that would satisfy any of us would be lap times and pretty much every other variable being kept equal. Let me know when you're ready to disprove my statement.

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
It doesn't matter, the CSL is too ricey for TD anyway...

as long as he's happy with his US-spec E36 "M3", that's all that really matters.

nate
01-08-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
Let me know when you're ready to disprove my statement.

Disprove what statement?

Jetfire
01-08-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
Easier to bend rims? Uh, I highly doubt that, unless you abuse your car or just don't pay attention.

Easier sidewall damage? I assume he means curb rash? Again--pay attention.


And I don't think 18's would be sufficient on the CSL, since it has 18 inch brakes :p

You can be the most attentive driver in the world, there are plenty of roads I encounter every day that just plain suck. I'd have to hire three friends to help me carry the car over the rough patches if I wanted to avoid them. There's being a careful driver, and there's having to be an absolutely paranoid drivers.

18 inch brakes?! Holy cow! :eeps: Well, as stated earlier, that is a compelling reason to get 19" wheels. So let me say right now that if you have 18" brakes on your car, you would be smart not to get wheels that won't fit over your rotors.


....oh, wait. How many cars have 18" brakes again? Oh.

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
Disprove what statement?

The one that you're arguing with.

nate
01-08-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
The one that you're arguing with.

I'm not arguing with any statement.

I would just like to know if you think that the slight change in the location of rotational mass is more important than probable inclreased sidwall flex...

My 16s seem to flex more than 17s on other E46s, btw. Why shouldn't it apply to 17 v 18...

TD
01-08-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
as long as he's happy with his US-spec E36 "M3", that's all that really matters.

Okay, I have to ask this-

Why is it, everytime we disagree on something relating to facts, you redirect the thread to make it personal? This can't be about 17s vs 18s (or 19s). It has to be about E36 M3s and "TD", etc.

WTF?

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by TD
Okay, I have to ask this-

Why is it, everytime we disagree on something relating to facts, you redirect the thread to make it personal? This can't be about 17s vs 18s (or 19s). It has to be about E36 M3s and "TD", etc.

WTF?

ask Alan F

car_for_mom
01-08-2003, 12:23 PM
Gentlemen and BMW Enthusiasts,

I truly appreciate the wealth of information given; I hope this is more of a frank exchange of views, and not a "flame"? :D

I live in The Land Of Constant Traffic, aka, Southern California; it rains, periodically, roughly between October and May; I'm not a skier, so I don't drive in snow.

I like the idea of performance, but not to the enthusiast level, just yet, because performance, to me, encompasses man (or woman :D ) and machine - right now, I'm just getting comfortable with washing my car (sorry, TD, I find it comforting to refer to my 325i as 'Karl'! ;) ) and the like - I haven't reached the AC Schnitzer-Dinan-Autocross, etc (although I do know that AC Schnitzer and Dinan are tuners/performance enhancers :angel: ) level yet!

I'd also need some time in the Driving School, to really exploit the abilities of the car to the max!

Peace be upon you all!

Alex Baumann
01-08-2003, 12:24 PM
I'm guessing that the 'R1cer Look' comment is negative, right ?

So, people who have cars with 18" wheels are poor, worthless, second-class owners, who are to be pointed at in the public and yelled at "Look, what a poser"

Isn't it a bit harsh ?

AB
01-08-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
ask Alan F


:lmao: :lmao:

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
I'm not arguing with any statement.

I would just like to know if you think that the slight change in the location of rotational mass is more important than probable inclreased sidwall flex...

My 16s seem to flex more than 17s on other E46s, btw. Why shouldn't it apply to 17 v 18...

In that case... :D

Everything else being equal, of course there's going to be more flex, but the question is whether that flex is more detrimental than the location of the mass. The fraction of speed that you might lose through a turn due to compensating for the greater amount of flex versus the fractions of time you lose when on the gas/brakes. Plus there's any time loss/pickup at turn in (the only place where sidewall flex is directly interacting with the gyroscopic force of the rotating mass of wheel and tire). All bull**** aside, while I would expect to see the smaller wheel result in lower lap times on a given track/autocross course.

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by TD
Okay, I have to ask this-

Why is it, everytime we disagree on something relating to facts, you redirect the thread to make it personal? This can't be about 17s vs 18s (or 19s). It has to be about E36 M3s and "TD", etc.

WTF?

I'm assuming this is not to be taken literally, as you have so often warned us about whenver you make silly comments like this. I mean, this has to be a joke, right?

I'd have to say that you are guilty, more than anyone else on this board, of purposely leaving a discussion when faced with facts that go against your original assertion.

TD
01-08-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
Ride harshness? Okay, TD can go buy a Buick then

Easier to bend rims? Uh, I highly doubt that, unless you abuse your car or just don't pay attention.

Easier sidewall damage? I assume he means curb rash? Again--pay attention.


And I don't think 18's would be sufficient on the CSL, since it has 18 inch brakes :p

There may not be pothole is Texas, but drive in Virginia sometime. These things get big and deep. Try hitting the back side of a 4 inch deep pothole at 50 MPH. It's like hitting a short curb at that speed. It WILL bend your rims if you don't have enough sidewall to absorb the impact. And if the sidewall is short, you will also end up pinching the sidewall and causing a bubble. And that's unsafe and also not covered by your tire's warranty.

And I already mentioned that using larger rims because they are needed to fit over the brakes is a legit reason for larger rims. But, IMO, it's the only legit reason.

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by TD
And I already mentioned that using larger rims because they are needed to fit over the brakes is a legit reason for larger rims. But, IMO, it's the only legit reason.

My understanding has always been that this is the only reason for using larger wheels on real race cars.

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by TD
There may not be pothole is Texas, but drive in Virginia sometime. These things get big and deep. Try hitting the back side of a 4 inch deep pothole at 50 MPH. It's like hitting a short curb at that speed.

wow--what are they using those exorbitant tax rates for out there?

We don't have potholes like that here. Almost all potholes are avoidable here, and they aren't that big.

Nick325xiT 5spd
01-08-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
wow--what are they using those exorbitant tax rates for out there?

We don't have potholes like that here. Almost all potholes are avoidable here, and they aren't that big.

I need to take some pictures of the DC roads I've driven on for you.

Let's not forget the COBBLE STONES!

TD
01-08-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
wow--what are they using those exorbitant tax rates for out there?

We don't have potholes like that here. Almost all potholes are avoidable here, and they aren't that big.

In Virginia, they use the money to give tax breaks to companies to relocate here then use those tax dolalrs to lue more companies all the while NOT building a drop of additional infrastructure resulting in the current condition of decaying (and severely overcrowded) roads and highly overcrowded schools.

When business leaders (fearing a mass exodus due to standard of living concerns) proposed a $0.005 local sales tax increase to pay for needed roads and schools, the voters shot it down by like 80/20.

And I have to pay TOLLS for the privilege of dodging potholes on my commute. But all of the jobs are here because teh businesses were essentially bribed to come.

Now we learn that the DHS will be located out this way where there isn't even a subway line.

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by TD

And I have to pay TOLLS for the privilege of dodging potholes on my commute.

My commute looks like this:

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=219633

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=219629

:p :p :p :p

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
My commute looks like this:


:p :p :p :p

I kind of miss the days when my commute was from the bedroom to the other bedroom (aka home office) with a pitstop in the kitchen on the way. :(

Nick325xiT 5spd
01-08-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
My commute looks like this:

:p :p :p :p

You ****!!!!

TD
01-08-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Nick325xiT 5spd
You ****!!!!

Yeah. That's about what I thought too.

nate
01-08-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by TD
Yeah. That's about what I thought too.

Well, since he is driving such a fat pig, I don't think he enjoys it much :p

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by nate328Ci
Well, since he is driving such a fat pig, I don't think he enjoys it much :p

stop the personal attacks!

:D

:angel:

TD
01-08-2003, 12:48 PM
(Google is amazing...)

I found this lovely shot of a part of my morning commute. Just fill all 6 lanes solid with cars doing <15 MPH and you've got it.

http://www.aaroadtrips.com/maryland/i-270_spur_270_sb_split.jpg

TD
01-08-2003, 12:50 PM
More of the trip (into Virginia)...

http://www.skycomp.com/river_crossings/jpegs/029.jpg

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by TD
(Google is amazing...)

I found this lovely shot of a part of my morning commute. Just fill all 6 lanes solid with cars doing <15 MPH and you've got it.


sheesh--now I understand why you D.C. people get so nuts about auto-x and driving events. If I had a great car like we all have (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and was stuck like that 5 days a week I'd be raring to go too.

Seriously--I think that has a lot to do with it.

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by TD
(Google is amazing...)

I found this lovely shot of a part of my morning commute. Just fill all 6 lanes solid with cars doing <15 MPH and you've got it.

http://www.aaroadtrips.com/maryland/i-270_spur_270_sb_split.jpg

If you were sitting in a car in that exact spot and turned your head 90 degrees left, during the winter, through the trees, you could see the house that I grew up in.

When I started driving that was three lanes, with the center one splitting...and the morning commute moved at 15mph. Of course, there weren't as many house farms out the 270/355 corridor then as there are today. :mad:

Alex Baumann
01-08-2003, 12:56 PM
Not that I know the area at all, let alone that highway, but just out of curiosity, what does HOV-2 stand for ?

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Alex Baumann
Not that I know the area at all, let alone that highway, but just out of curiosity, what does HOV-2 stand for ?

HOV=High Occupancy Vehicle

I assume the HOV-2 means you have to have 2 people in the car to use that particular HOV lane. It's a way to encourage carpooling.

TD
01-08-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Alex Baumann
Not that I know the area at all, let alone that highway, but just out of curiosity, what does HOV-2 stand for ?

Restricted use lanes requiring 2 or more people per vehicle. HOV stands for High Occupancy Vehicle. HOV lanes first appeared in California and required 3 or 4 people. In the DC area, they've been dumbed down to 2 or 3. So HOV-2 requires 2 people in the car and HOV-3 would require 3.

Alex Baumann
01-08-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
HOV=High Occupancy Vehicle

I assume the HOV-2 means you have to have 2 people in the car to use that particular HOV lane. It's a way to encourage carpooling.

Danke

Alex Baumann
01-08-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by TD
Restricted use lanes requiring 2 or more people per vehicle. HOV stands for High Occupancy Vehicle. HOV lanes first appeared in California and required 3 or 4 people. In the DC area, they've been dumbed down to 2 or 3. So HOV-2 requires 2 people in the car and HOV-3 would require 3.

Danke auch :)

JST
01-08-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
If you were sitting in a car in that exact spot and turned your head 90 degrees left, during the winter, through the trees, you could see the house that I grew up in.

When I started driving that was three lanes, with the center one splitting...and the morning commute moved at 15mph. Of course, there weren't as many house farms out the 270/355 corridor then as there are today. :mad:

We all know who we can blame for that, right?:D

My commute: 10.5 miles. 45 minutes.

TD
01-08-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Alex Baumann
Danke auch :)

Bitte schon.

TD
01-08-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by JST
We all know who we can blame for that, right?:D

My commute: 10.5 miles. 45 minutes.

Mine: ~25 miles 30-75 minutes (AM) 45-180 minutes (PM)

How long depends on exact time of day, weather, day of week, and sheer luck.

Pinecone
01-08-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Clyde@work
My understanding has always been that this is the only reason for using larger wheels on real race cars.

Nope. Sidewall stiffness effects several things.

It effects slip angle. The taller/less stiff a sidewall is, the more the tread direction and wheel direction differs under load.

It effects turn in. Due to the above effect, turn in is slower with taller/less stiff sidewalls since a greater slip angle takes longer to establich.

It effects tread squirm. That is now much control of the tread there is. And tread squirm reduces grip by reducing contact patch.

It effects effective spring rate and shock effectiveness. If you put a very soft tire on a car with a very stiff suspension, the tires become the suspension. On the other hand very stiff sidewall tires permits the suspension to be the point of all movement.

Yes, more weight or larger polar moment of inertia (how far out the weight is) will adversely effect acceleration and braking.

But with a larger rim, the tire is smaller. Typically you go for the same overall diameter. On the E46 M3 stock rear tires are 255/40-18, with 19s you go to a 255/35-19. So the tire is shorter, thus somewhat lighter. I wish I knew of some source of tire weights for various size on any brand.

Another point of input, Bridgestone SO-3s are fairly heavy tires, heavier than most other performance tires. But every measure of performance they do better. So to me, this says that sidewall stiffness is more important than rotational weight and polar moment of inertia.

Of course the best is very stiff sidealls with very low weight. Humm, sounds like Hoosiers to me. :)

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 01:05 PM
mine: 10 miles.

15 minutes AM, 10 minutes PM

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Pinecone
Of course the best is very stiff sidealls with very low weight. Humm, sounds like Hoosiers to me. :)

Was hoping that you'd have something to say :thumbup:

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by TD
HOV lanes first appeared in California and required 3 or 4 people.

Many of them LA/OC/SD only require 2 people. There are still a number of HOV-3s around, but I can only think of a couple. I can't recall ever seeing a HOV-4 in southern CA, though. I remember going to LA with my father once when I was younger. We were heading out somewhere into the Inland Empire and wound up in an HOV-3 lane. My father (driver) was ****ting bricks thinking that he was going to get a ticket. :tsk:

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by JST
We all know who we can blame for that, right?:D


I'm not a big fan of name dropping :D

Jetfire
01-08-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
mine: 10 miles.

15 minutes AM, 10 minutes PM

With roads like yours, I wouldn't mind a 50 mile commute.

Mine is roughly 25-30 miles and now takes 45-60 minutes each way, thanks to carpooling. Before the carpool it took me 90-120 minutes in the morning and 60-120 in the evenings.

So anyway....given our roads and our traffic, maybe you can see why bent rims and bubbled tires are something to worry about around here. And while there is added cornering benefit to bigger rims, there's a point at which the benefits are outweighed by the risks during the daily commute. This would be a non-issue in a dedicated competition car.

Mr. The Edge
01-08-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by TD
HOV lanes first appeared in California and required 3 or 4 people. In the DC area, they've been dumbed down to 2 or 3. So HOV-2 requires 2 people in the car and HOV-3 would require 3.

Actually HOV lanes started in your neck of the woods. 395/Shirley Highway

·clyde·
01-08-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
Actually HOV lanes started in your neck of the woods. 395/Shirley Highway

1971 HOV-4

mwette
01-08-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by atyclb
My commute looks like this:
I saw this and then decided to go spend my lunch hour on Angeles Crest Hwy.

ObD
01-08-2003, 05:43 PM
:rolleyes:

http://www.itchyandscratchy.dk/images/download/iands06.gif