Your power VS tyre width ratio

Your power VS tyre width ratio

Author
Discussion

jon-

Original Poster:

16,511 posts

217 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Re-watched the Harris "C63 on space savers" video last night, and it got me wondering what is the worst (best) tyre VS power ratio? ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPh90yNX-mY ), and what do we all have?

His claim of the C63 AMG being one of the best was based on:

480bhp / (255*2) wide tyres = 0.94bhp per MM.
368 lb/ft / (255*2) = 0.72 lb/ft per MM.

Only the driven wheels count. We should categorise super exotics separately from sub 100k cars.

My M3 has 358 / 255, so a lowly 0.7 bhp/MM. Something like a supercharged VX8 must be in with a good shout?

Edited for Mike.

Edited by jon- on Tuesday 11th December 10:35

Mr2Mike

20,143 posts

256 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
jon- said:
His claim of the C63 AMG being one of the best was based on:

480bhp / 255 wide tyres = 1.88bhp per MM.
Shouldn't that be 480/(255*2) = 0.94 bhp/mm as there are two driven wheels?

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

247 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
I hope Harris did the "wet road" sums as well.

Wide tyres can be pretty exciting with a powerful car on a wet road.

jon-

Original Poster:

16,511 posts

217 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
jon- said:
His claim of the C63 AMG being one of the best was based on:

480bhp / 255 wide tyres = 1.88bhp per MM.
Shouldn't that be 480/(255*2) = 0.94 bhp/mm as there are two driven wheels?
Lets not make this too complicated wink

Truckosaurus

11,373 posts

285 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
Shouldn't that be 480/(255*2) = 0.94 bhp/mm as there are two driven wheels?
I might be the loser here (in the 'car' category, I'm sure there are trucks/4x4s that are worse)

Volvo V60 1.6d R-Design (small engine, big wheels)

235/40R18 and 115bhp

gives 115 / (235x2) = 0.25 bhp/mm

ETA: I don't even know if I have traction control as I haven't managed to spin the wheels yet.

papercup

2,490 posts

220 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Well, the RX7 has 520bhp and 530ft/lb and runs a 255 at the rear.

520bhp / 255 wide tyres = 2.04bhp per MM

530 lb/ft / 255 tyres = 2.08 lb/ft per MM

Its quite lively.

threesixty

2,068 posts

204 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
295/510 = 1.73Bhp/mm

rj1986

1,107 posts

169 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
'07 X5.
231 BHP and 315/35

So that's 231/630=0.37

Where did i put DMS's number??

Edited by rj1986 on Tuesday 11th December 10:35

Captain Muppet

8,540 posts

266 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Both my cars have 160bhp, one uses 185 rear tyres, the other is currently on 235 (up from the standard 225).

MX5 Turbo: 0.865bhp/mm
Elise 160: 0.681bhp/mm (0.711bhp/mm standard)

My old 535 was 0.974bhp/mm

The one with the middle score is the only one that ever has traction problems. Odd.

Cheburator mk2

2,998 posts

200 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
Shouldn't that be 480/(255*2) = 0.94 bhp/mm as there are two driven wheels?
i agree

mine is 0.92bhp/mm

507bhp and 275 rears

kambites

67,643 posts

222 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Surely it should be power/weight/tyre width? Absolute power means nothing. Plenty of low-powered Caterhams, etc. out there that can light up their rear wheels easily enough. smile

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 11th December 10:39

Captain Muppet

8,540 posts

266 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
threesixty said:
295/510 = 1.73Bhp/mm
Your maths is upside down, but your result is right

MondeoMan1981

2,358 posts

184 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
I used to have a Fiesta with 195s and 68bhp = 0.34 !

Just changed the car so its now 0.79 at the front and 0.72 rear !

TVR Tommy

614 posts

226 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
TVR T350
342 / (235*2) = 0.73

Landrover 90
80 / (265*4) = 0.07





Edited by TVR Tommy on Tuesday 11th December 20:11

darren f

982 posts

214 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
kambites said:
Surely it should be power/weight/tyre width? Absolute power means nothing. Plenty of low-powered Caterhams, etc. out there that can light up their rear wheels easily enough. smile
Indeed, some interesting results-

C63 AMG: 256bhp per T / 2x255mm = 0.50
Caterham Roadsport (1.6 Sigma) 227bhp per T / 2x185mm= 0.61
Caterham R500: 520bhp per T / 2x215mm = 1.21 eek

The C63 should be on some 155s laugh

jimxms

1,633 posts

161 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
450bhp/(225*2) = a nice round 1bhp/mm

or 2bhp/mm the way that others seems to be calculating it.


Can we also factor in wheel circumference, tyre pressure and the contact patch on the floor? wink

Edited by jimxms on Tuesday 11th December 12:06

s_zigmond

1,138 posts

187 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
BHP 300 /(2*215) so only .7
But LbFt 400/(2*215) = .93

Parsnip

3,122 posts

189 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
289/245

1.18 BHP/MM

Didn't notice the edit to two tyres, half that then to .59 smile

shirt

22,656 posts

202 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
jeep on imperial tyres:
190/317.5 = 0.6bhp/mm

not as bad as i thought. Only wish those 190horses weren't so bloody lame!

J4CKO

41,680 posts

201 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
I would love to contribute to this thread but I have to go and collect my anorak from the dry cleaners, I managed to get my Egg butty on it when I was out spotting buses.