Tall and skinny or short and fat?

[300bhp/ton]

......


tyres that is?


For a 'sporting' road car (whatever connotation you want to apply to that term )


Do you prefer the look and/or performance of tall rims with narrow pasted on rubber, or wider fatter tyres?


e.g.

245/50R16 vs 195/50R18?? Both offer the same rolling radius.



I believe something like a 70's Ferrari would have run a 225 or 215/70R15 for instance, as did many muscle cars (or wider like 235's).

[Codswallop]

I like fatties more and more lately.

Something like this;



The tyres are nice and plump, and look great in a retro sort of way. I think the curve of the sidewall goes well with the roundedness of the bodywork. You just know the car will be far more fun to drive too with those tyres, with more progressive breakaway, more suppleness, and more scope for fun at lower speeds (even if outright cornering ability may suffer).

[kambites]

It does depend on the car, but generally higher profile, narrow tyres tend to give better ride and handling, in my experience. Looks... I don't really care.

[RobM77]

I find that smaller side profiles do give a better initial response to direction changes, but usually the loss of ride comfort isn't worth it. I've never been sure if BMW, Merc etc re-tune their suspension for 19" low profiles instead of the standard 16" balloon profile tyres that I prefer. If they don't (which I strongly suspect), then that might explain at least part of it, rather than the tyres themselves being guilty. The M3 is fine, so that adds weight to that theory. Either way, I'd always spec a non-M BMW with 16s.

[redgriff500]

300bhp/ton said:

......

Do you prefer the look and/or performance of tall rims with narrow pasted on rubber, or wider fatter tyres?
e.g.

245/50R16 vs 195/50R18?? Both offer the same rolling radius.

Hmm thats not normally what happens.

Usually 215/50/16 would be replaced with 245/30/18
(haven't checked that "works" but you get the gist most modern cars go bigger wheels and WIDER tyres)

And the answer is it depends but I've never run 18's on anything - although I have removed them so I guess I'm old fashioned.

My Mk1 MX5 I upgraded from 185/60/14 to sticky 195/50/15 and that made it much better in every way except "fun" it was more fun on smaller tyres. I later tried 16" and that was no better and the tyres cost more and the weight increased so I went back to 15"

On my BMW E46 it came with chinese 18" copies which weighed a ton, destroyed the ride and quality tyres cost too much. I moved to 17" OEM M sports with narrower tyres (but still 225 and 245) and it was much better.

[WeirdNeville]

UK roads require a bit of section to do the bulk of the suspension work.
I can't see the tyres when I'm in the car, so give me fatties any day - so long as you retain the feeling of being connected to the tarmac.

[kambites]

RobM77 said:

I find that smaller side profiles do give a better initial response to direction changes, but usually the loss of ride comfort isn't worth it. I've never been sure if BMW, Merc etc re-tune their suspension for 19" low profiles instead of the standard 16" balloon profile tyres that I prefer. If they don't (which I strongly suspect), then that might explain at least part of it, rather than the tyres themselves being guilty. The M3 is fine, so that adds weight to that theory. Either way, I'd always spec a non-M BMW with 16s.

Ah but is that because the M3 has suspension tuned for the extra weight of the wheels/lack of size-wall flex, or because M3 wheels can cost significantly more and so have been made as light as the smaller wheels from normal 3-series?

If you put M3 wheels on a standard 3-series (or vice versa), how does it drive?

[300bhp/ton]

redgriff500 said:

Hmm thats not normally what happens.

Usually 215/50/16 would be replaced with 245/30/18
(haven't checked that "works" but you get the gist most modern cars go bigger wheels and WIDER tyres)

lol, but that wasn't the question...

And I think it depends on the car. I remember back in the day, well 1990's when 17" rims where just becoming popular as aftermarket items. But most cases they where put on ordinary cars so ran narrow widths in order to fit.

redgriff500 said:

And the answer is it depends but I've never run 18's on anything - although I have removed them so I guess I'm old fashioned.

My Mk1 MX5 I upgraded from 185/60/14 to sticky 195/50/15 and that made it much better in every way except "fun" it was more fun on smaller tyres. I later tried 16" and that was no better and the tyres cost more and the weight increased so I went back to 15"

On my BMW E46 it came with chinese 18" copies which weighed a ton, destroyed the ride and quality tyres cost too much. I moved to 17" OEM M sports with narrower tyres (but still 225 and 245) and it was much better.

[braddo]

Tall and fat.

[RobM77]

kambites said:

RobM77 said:

I find that smaller side profiles do give a better initial response to direction changes, but usually the loss of ride comfort isn't worth it. I've never been sure if BMW, Merc etc re-tune their suspension for 19" low profiles instead of the standard 16" balloon profile tyres that I prefer. If they don't (which I strongly suspect), then that might explain at least part of it, rather than the tyres themselves being guilty. The M3 is fine, so that adds weight to that theory. Either way, I'd always spec a non-M BMW with 16s.

Ah but is that because the M3 has suspension tuned for the extra weight of the wheels/lack of size-wall flex, or because M3 wheels can cost significantly more and so have been made as light as the smaller wheels from normal 3-series?

If you put M3 wheels on a standard 3-series (or vice versa), how does it drive?

It's a good point! That may be the case as well, but surely the M3 is set up for 19" wheels (are they 19? bigger than 16 anyway!), because that's the standard fit, whereas the bog standard 3 series is set up for 16" wheels. Maybe both come into play? Unsprung weight is indeed a major feature of ride and suspension setup.

[redgriff500]

300bhp/ton said:

redgriff500 said:

Hmm thats not normally what happens.

Usually 215/50/16 would be replaced with 245/30/18
(haven't checked that "works" but you get the gist most modern cars go bigger wheels and WIDER tyres)

lol, but that wasn't the question...

No but I can't think of a single instance where someone has done what you've suggested.

At best they might stick to the same width but usually to buy sensibly priced tyres the bigger diameter the wider and lower profile they become.

[LeoSayer]

Codswallop said:

I like fatties more and more lately.

Something like this;



The tyres are nice and plump, and look great in a retro sort of way. I think the curve of the sidewall goes well with the roundedness of the bodywork. You just know the car will be far more fun to drive too with those tyres, with more progressive breakaway, more suppleness, and more scope for fun at lower speeds (even if outright cornering ability may suffer).

I remember seeing those on a Cayman a few years ago, I think they're 17" wheels. I wanted to buy it just for the way the tyres looked.

[RobM77]

LeoSayer said:

Codswallop said:

I like fatties more and more lately.

Something like this;



The tyres are nice and plump, and look great in a retro sort of way. I think the curve of the sidewall goes well with the roundedness of the bodywork. You just know the car will be far more fun to drive too with those tyres, with more progressive breakaway, more suppleness, and more scope for fun at lower speeds (even if outright cornering ability may suffer).

I remember seeing those on a Cayman a few years ago, I think they're 17" wheels. I wanted to buy it just for the way the tyres looked.

It makes it look more like a proper sports car, rather than a posing machine. I've only ever driven a couple of Caymans on 19s, but I'd love to try one on those smaller wheels

[300bhp/ton]

redgriff500 said:

No but I can't think of a single instance where someone has done what you've suggested.

At best they might stick to the same width but usually to buy sensibly priced tyres the bigger diameter the wider and lower profile they become.

Maybe.

Guess it perhaps comes from earlier motoring days with mates.

2 different cars, both had 13" tyres as stock. Mine were 175/70R13's, think they had 185 13's.

I opted for 225/50R15 as an upgrade as I liked the big sidewall look and wide tyres... they went for 195/40R17 as they wanted the pasted on rubber look.

Ok they did go slightly wider too, but it was mostly a tall rim and a skinny profile and certainly a narrow tyre compared to the height.

Also 40% of 195mm is only 78mm, so tiny sidewalls (and two or three bent alloys iirc )


Also I've never actually owned a car with bigger than 16" rims on - ever!

So was just curious who preferred what and why.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 10th November 12:50

[kambites]

RobM77 said:

It's a good point! That may be the case as well, but surely the M3 is set up for 19" wheels (are they 19? bigger than 16 anyway!), because that's the standard fit, whereas the bog standard 3 series is set up for 16" wheels. Maybe both come into play? Unsprung weight is indeed a major feature of ride and suspension setup.

Well the question is, would 16 inch wheels of the same material as the M3 wheels, would make it drive even better.

[chevronb37]

RobM77 said:

kambites said:

RobM77 said:

I find that smaller side profiles do give a better initial response to direction changes, but usually the loss of ride comfort isn't worth it. I've never been sure if BMW, Merc etc re-tune their suspension for 19" low profiles instead of the standard 16" balloon profile tyres that I prefer. If they don't (which I strongly suspect), then that might explain at least part of it, rather than the tyres themselves being guilty. The M3 is fine, so that adds weight to that theory. Either way, I'd always spec a non-M BMW with 16s.

Ah but is that because the M3 has suspension tuned for the extra weight of the wheels/lack of size-wall flex, or because M3 wheels can cost significantly more and so have been made as light as the smaller wheels from normal 3-series?

If you put M3 wheels on a standard 3-series (or vice versa), how does it drive?

It's a good point! That may be the case as well, but surely the M3 is set up for 19" wheels (are they 19? bigger than 16 anyway!), because that's the standard fit, whereas the bog standard 3 series is set up for 16" wheels. Maybe both come into play? Unsprung weight is indeed a major feature of ride and suspension setup.

M3 doesn't have run-flats either. At one stage my dad had an E9x M3 coupe and 335i Touring. The ride in the M3 was noticeably better, despite running 19" vs 18" wheels.

[12gauge]

Both

[steve_bmw]

I ilke to roll on a 35 profile on an 18" rim.

Lo profile tyres look best on a sports car.
bigger sidewalls are for saloons and offroaders.

[otolith]

When we were looking at MX-5s, I preferred the car we bought - which was basically Sport spec brakes and diff with 15 inch 195/50 tyres - to the Sport which was running on something like 205/40/17s. The Sport had more grip and more immediate response to steering inputs, but ours was more fluid.

[Caulkhead]

A lot of cars come over-tyred for aesthetic reasons - my daily driver comes with 215/45/18 when most of the competition are 235 or wider. As a consequence it is nimble and pointy in a way that much wider tyred equivalents aren't, albeit with a tiny reduction in total grip.

Off-road, a 235/85/16 always beats a 265/75/16!