We live with outcomes as a result of success or failure. The subject of this debate has been defining that failure and perhaps using that knowledge to result in a success. Some configurations being better than others. I would hope we all would strive for success.


Slang? Again I don't live with my foot stuck in the past... The term you're calling slang is commonly used to describe a very common configuration change because its relevant to living in today's world. And the stance is also relevant to the suspension the camber, toe-in/toe-out, and the distance between wheel on each axle. all which will have a profound effect on performance in combination with the wheel and tire.


Again...if its relevant to looking up dated material and a reference to where successes from the PAST have influenced the direction we're heading in the future. Okay. Again... times are a changing.


No but, it must have scared you? If you read too deep into it then I guess you're either really looking for something to argue about or really not understanding that even in plus sizing you can go beyond the threshold of intelligent design to what amounts to a garish FAILURE in both design and function.


SO the fact that Engineering has been driven by these cars to the benefit of our own cars is now translated into a given speed rating for you. You are really digging deep here to get the last word.



You know your rebuttal here is really not surprising.

1. You're on a forum for Mustang aficionados not an industry reference for retired Engineers
2. If the word Carapace bothers you...replace it with Carcass you'll feel better
3. Ten dollar word is a derogatory reference to intelligence, but that's only if you really dig deep into it and are either...

A. Elderly and set in your ways
B. Stubborn and elitist

or

C. Both A & B


No I just took it at what was written. If different compromises takes into account the physics involved with high G loads and taking an acute apex and the limits then I guess Drag tires really are made for Autocross(Not). Again continuing to look really DEEP for something to argue here would really be like beating on a Carcass.



Well here's where you're digging deep again. I gave no timeline. I only offered a summary. And dropped the dates as they relate to the USA. Of course steel belted radials were already in the UK prior to the 50's and 60's. But, where it relates to US history... it really starts in the 50's and 60's. And I also gave no date for the Fuel crisis. But, I do know this history and I know Goodyear tried to market things first prior to it and failed due to the wrong concept at the wrong time.... Michelin... was in the right place at the right moment.... therefore on the tail of the fuel crisis it was to their advantage. If you want a full report. it's going to require more than a few sentences where your knowledge will run far deeper than what can be conveyed. For example you offer the gentleman who patented it as a baseline for how mighty and intelligent you are on the topic. But, nobody really asked did they? Or questioned your knowledge.
(sigh)
If you're gonna go to a pissing contest where there is no contest well you're gonna come off as grandstanding and ...well... as if you were born with some undeserved sense of entitlement.


I'll take that Slip Angle and raise you a Slice of time to use it.


I understand. I've had my share of ruptured tires. So I REALLY DO UNDERSTAND.


If progress is driven by improving on what we have today by learning from where we were in the past then the goal is to always stretch that limit and improve the behavior to better serve us humans in the future.



---

 

Are these the AMR's or the Forgestars? I have the Forgestar's in 20's in Gunmetal as my summer wheels. Also known as Anthracite

 

Mine are AMRs.

 

Two fold...

1. The difference in wheel size helps to adjust the rake angle of the vehicle while providing a firmer suspension on the rear of the vehicle, otherwise it would look slightly "Nose up" and will impact the aerodynamics of the vehicle and the performance of all the OEM functional aerodynamic treatments.

2. As a performance vehicle that can still be tweaked for even more torque and power this wheel size in the rear will also allow for future modifications that allow for a larger brake and rotor combinations on the rear of the vehicle. for normal driving the provided brakes are adequate.

There's a reason why Ford offers a complimentary track day event with the purchase of a brand new Shelby Cobra GT500, A Boss 302 and now a GT Premium with the track pack. They know the audience buying these vehicles will eventually put more performance enhancements into these vehicles. And are going to want to use them for what they are capable of.

 

So let's go back to this. Are you trying to say that "failure to achieve some arbitrary goal" constitutes "catastrophic failure" (your words and initial use of the "failure" word, not mine)?

If I was on a tire development team I'd certainly consider not meeting, say, a 1.05g goal by 0.01g or 0.02g to be a disappointment. But not abject failure as you suggest.

As a customer, I have been disappointed in at least one tire not living up to its initial billing. But that tire never failed in its basic purpose even when driven pretty hard. Mostly, it just didn't provide a very satisfying experience. For the record, Falken themselves eventually downrated their own advertising from "performance all-season" to "all-season performance", the sequence of terms indicative of priority. ZE512, in case you're curious.


"Stance" is at best a nontechnical descriptive term for the appearance side of car design, and it has no place in engineering or vehicle dynamics discussions. None. It's too vague and too subject to individual interpretation, and as far as vehicle dynamics is concerned it's nothing more than the consequence of front and rear ride heights. Like I said before, that one needs to stay in the appearance sections/discussions.


Let me know how it goes when you try to plot things like camber change or bumpsteer against . . . "stance". I mean, if you're going to talk about these things like you know what the link between them and "stance" is, you ought to be able to define the relationship either numerically or with a plot. Ball's in your court.


What's relevant is acquiring a better understanding of tires and their behavior than you're ever going to find if you limit your "study" to internet sites and enthusiast magazines.


The words "white knuckled" and "near death experiences" have a strong scare content. If you didn't mean it that way you shouldn't have typed it that way. People aren't going to revise their understanding of those words to suit your desire to redefine them either.


"Beyond the threshold of intelligent design" is off topic here. If you want to discuss donks and extreme plus-sizing, start another thread.


Just holding you to the immediate conclusion of what you posted about the top speeds that a few cars can currently achieve. The rating system exists. Don't ignore it, and don't expect it to not be mentioned.


There is no reason to keep the average enthusiast ignorant of the terms used in the industry. Especially when the word "carcass" itself is within most folks' vocabulary.

As an engineer yourself - what could possibly be your objection to using the established terminology? If you don't know it - either use what was put right in front of you or learn it on your own. "Carapace" is wrong. Admit it to yourself and move on.

I used "ten dollar word" intentionally. You used the ten dollar word itself.


Did you really miss the concept that all tires are subject to forces (loads) along all three axes, no matter what use they are primarily intended for? Or that compromise means that you maximize some attributes for your intended purpose at the expense of those that don't matter as much for that purpose?

FWIW, I know that drag radials have been used at autocross. By active choice at the time, if I recall correctly.


And your summary was incomplete and incorrect. If something is worth posting at all, it's worth taking the time to be correct about.

And if you'd stop being Mr. Teflon (I peeked at one or two discussions that you managed to extend using similar tactics) long enough to learn anything you'd realize that I brought Mr. Savage into the picture as evidence that the radial tire was not a Goodyear introduction, which you had claimed was the case. Goodyear was a latecomer to the radial tire market.


If you're going to quote me, quote the entire terms.
It's Ranges of slip and slip angle that you work with to keep your car under control, not time. Slip and slip angle correlate to tire contact patch forces, which is what car control requires, but which are variable with pavement conditions and driver input. Time is related, but only loosely so and is related more to whether any given tire breaks away gradually or suddenly (i.e. can the human link in the chain keep up?).


OK. So can you think of any reason why my RWD car never threatened to spin violently out of control during the maneuvers described with a rear tire at or near zero psi? Something other than the tire make and model was involved, care to guess what it was and explain how it helped? Extra credit if you can identify anything unusual.


Norm

 

Agreed that it makes a specific rake easier to obtain, although 285/40-19 would have given essentially the same result (in which case I think 19x10 or 19x10.5 wheels would be better rear wheel choices).

The rear suspension stiffness is unaffected by wheel size, although the combined effect of suspension and tire vertical stiffnesses is. Is that what you meant? Any idea what the magnitude of vertical tire stiffness might be?


If 19" wheels are big enough for 15" front rotors, they're big enough for 15" rear rotors should anybody produce rear rotors in that size for this car.

The upcoming Z/28 fits 390mm rotors inside 19" wheels and runs 305-wide tires (which are 20mm or so wider than the GT500's OE 285/35's). All I see here is Ford's appearance crew having a bigger voice than engineering and got the final say their way. As a function over form engineer that does bother me.


I don't have any problems taking your word for it on the complimentary track day although I couldn't find anything on it while trying to 'build' a GT Premium a few minutes ago.

Yes, it's a good idea, great even, and more than for any downstream performance enhancements I think Ford is interested in getting people started off right with these particular cars. In the absence of any performance driving education, one wouldn't have to be too careless for very long to get in over one's head with any of those.


Norm

 

Bottom line is if you have taller side walls as with the 18 inch wheels you will have a larger footprint. Which means more surface area. So if you plan on drag racing you will get better traction. The taller wheels with less side wall should be stiffer and should be able to handle cornering a little better.

My opinion the 19 or 20 inch wheels look better. If you plan on drag racing you can always buy an extra pair of 17 or 18 inch wheels with a set of drag radials to take to the strip and run the 19 or 20 wheels on the street.

 

Hi Norm!

A few of my friends had 124s, I really liked the early 1.8l 124s, wouldn't mind finding one to drive on sunny days here in SoCal. Innovative Italian crossflow head DOHC motor in a classic Pinin body, I might even take the lighter, torquier more modern 124's over the older, smaller and peakier but beautiful Alfa spyder. The 124 was everything good about Italian sports cars, the 124s even ran on a regular basis!

The 185s on a 7" wheel must have been hard to mount but they must have turned and ridden like a son a gun and on a Pinto no less! The Pinto got a bad rap, they were pretty good cars for their day in a lot of ways, a lot of guys ran them in parking lots and canyons here in SoCal. Contrary to popular belief virtually all small cars at the time had gas tanks in the same location, heck my '66 fastback Mustang had a gas tank in that same place. The Pinto was just unfortunate to have minimal rear structure to protect the tank and possibly an unfortunate design for filler and pickup, but heck it was the '70's man.

Ha! We had similar taste, the Capri and Pinto were cousins under the skin via Cortina but with a stick axle! The first set of CN36s I had were on my Forest Green '72 2.0l Capri in 205/60x13 on 7" 4 spoke Libre wheels. The Capri was a grown up Pinto with a trunk and even more questionable marketing. As I recall the Capri and Pinto had the same 1.6l Kent pushrod OHV and 2.0l Cologne OHC engine options. I loved that old Capri, I installed a pair of Webber sidedrafts, a hot Racer Brown cam with race springs and alloy retainers, port matched the to the intake and Heddman long tube headers, Koni struts and rear dampers, Delrin bushings wherever possible, a ginormous Addco front bar, mono leaf rear springs with Delrin bushings to improve rear axle location, I raised the axle on alloy blocks to lower the ride height and installed a hidden pair of upper control arms under the rear seat in essence creating a 4-link rear axle. I wish I could have dumped the leafs and used a real 4-link with a Watt's but hey I was young and poor. I ran Mulholland drive in the '70's and '80's but it was getting too developed so we moved west into the county part of Mulholland. But then one day on my highly modified Honda CB590 (yes, 590cc of Pop's best unobtainium engine parts with fully gusseted frame, Ceriani fork, S&W shocks, a fabricated square tube swing arm w/tapered bearings, clip-ons, rear-sets, custom glass tank/seat etc.) I got arrested one day on Mulholland, clocked at well over 140mph and had to give it all up to change where I was headed. Sadly I sold the bike and the car and just put my head to the grindstone and worked like a dog. I focused on photography and long range precision shooting. Don't get arrested of you can avoid it.

brain dump/

Cheers!

 

Easy enough to get the beads over the flange - makeshift "tire irons" was all it took. Getting them to take air, well if you cram one sidewall down to its bead, dig up a bicycle inner tube out of storage and inflate it to seal up the resulting gap on the other side, run the air tower psi up to 90, and have a go at it, they'd seat. Dial back the pressure, set it to whatever and done. It's only been the last ten years or so that I haven't done all my own tire work. A few years post-Pinto - early 1980's - I built my own bead breaker out of scrap steel angle (old bed frame, no less) and plate.

About that little 2.0 four, that was a really nice little engine with a totally inadequate cam belt. After the third one broke I swapped a Mustang II 2.8 V6 into the little car.


Norm

 

(shaking my head here as its getting petty and someone without a tendency to LOOk for points to argue on a forum would have already got it)

Degradation of grip... Is the window of failure and the measure of that degradation within that Window. Catastrophic is the outcome as a result of going beyond that window provided. Such as a Blowout or a sidewall rupture. Etc Etc.


To benefit the end user you would need to over engineer to exceed given targets.

No example needed... It should end the desire for the last word. this one you can have Norm... I'll take your word for it.


I'll repeat for the sake of others...

1. We are on a forum of Mustang aficionados.
2. This is not a reference site for Engineers

In the space we actually live in Norm....Its all relevant. If you choose to diminish its importance then that is subjective from the perspective of that individual. However when it comes to conveying the criteria for the slang term you also wish to diminish then "Stance" is in fact relevant. Take it however you want, but when the rest of the world is making a purchasing decision this is a term which goes hand in hand with the rest of the technical aspects of that decision and will always come up.


Actually this last rebuttal is another grandstanding effect I see often from elderly and retired friends and family. (its also accompanied by a pause and a head shake as well) If you don't like the description provided then you can just explain for us how your take on how these things which are so important to the overall picture don't affect effect "Stance" Again this is really nit picking. But for the rest of the world... likely not a BIG DEAL.

But for the sake of ending it..your goal is for the final word so ... You may have that, too. So....

Yes Norm...whatever you say.



Yes...hence they should serve as excellent reference material to review what was done yesterday. And compare that to what is being today and how it relates to the push forward for tomorrow.


Apparently you don't Norm so even with all the followup explaining it with more detail...I'm actually surprised you would even continue this. Again this is another on of those I gotta get the last word moments. So once again.

Yes Norm...

You are right


Again..this is your opinion. Its relevant, just not something you find palatable. Again I'm considering the generation gap and find it once again easy to understand where you're coming from. That's part of keeping an open mind and understanding the root of where this concern is coming from is at the moment a voice of one.

So...
Again Norm for the sake of satisfying your personal criteria on what is relevant...

Yes you are right.


Yes one does exist. Thanks for reminding us. When the engineers are testing new tires. I'm sure they are looking at 2 qualifiers... How fast can the car go and how fast can it go on this tire. Once they have answers I'm sure they either fit that to a given ratings category or...for the sake of progress may even create new ones.

I'm not ignoring it...I just find this to be a tangent that deserves its own discussion but certainly not In my opinion (I'm allowed to have one right? Since this isn't really your sandbox Norm) Not relevant.


Technically so is carapace, But odd that you should bring this up again. If it really upsets you I'll call it a carcass. Rather than a reference to a shell or a hull, which descriptively would lend itself as a better descriptive visually than a carcass. Neither here nor there. Either term doesn't bother me. But again for the sake of allowing you the final say here...

Yes Norm you are right.

Actually As I've already said I was simply using a descriptive not a definitive term. But, as luck would have it..you again forgot.

1. This is a forum of Mustang aficionados
2. This is not a site of reference for Engineers

So once again... I'll satisfy that quest for the final word once again.

Yes you are right Norm.


Plus sizing is not a ten dollar word Norm...its actually relevant. Its current is forward thinking. But once again for the sake of allowing the final word syndrome to quell the digital OCD we're encountering here...

Yes Norm you're right.

Or focus your buying to tires that are targeted for a specific performance bracket where the variables you do require are reinforced enhanced. Hence a Drag Application Bias Ply or Radial or a high performance Tire

I'm sure they have. We all have the ability to make choices. Sometimes we're faced with using what we bring to the party. Other times a simple wheel tire swap and you're better off. No one is going to twist a grown man's arms to make them do otherwise.


Yes of course it was incomplete it was a summary. (shaking head once again)

You're the original teflon Norm, I'm not extending anything...you're rebuttals are seeking a response and are phrased in a way to ridicule or belittle the other person. So, if I simply stop responding in the light you've left things in its literally allowing what amounts to a bully to just get his way. I have every intention of allowing you to have your way, just not by simply allowing the grandstanding. You brought up the patent... to qualify your knowledge of the subject. I get it. I never said who created them or invented them just the company that went first into the land of trying to produce and sell it to the public here in the USA. I could have mentioned BF Goodrich and their early foray and failure or Where Michelin came into play or the fiberglass bias belted interim. But if people want a radial tire history lesson there are much better places to get that Norm. Unless of course you feel compelled to do that write up. Or just point to reference sources ... its easier that way.

If you want a timeline, references and a bibliography. Well... that's more than can be conveyed here.

For example. It goes without saying you're likely to respond to the above and add even more information that wasn't requested. At this point that's predictable. No disrespect, its just expected at this point considering your own writing style. Which is to have that last word.



Oh Norm. Really? Now there are requisites for responding to you? For this I have to say.. don't flatter yourself. Seriously. This isn't the Norman Forums or blogspace. (shaking head again) I'll digress...Oddly enough that Slang term...Plus Sizing actually makes changes in tire width as the diameter increases to maximize the contact patch. Once again there is something relevant going on there.

But..

Thanks for once again defining this. Probably a bit much but, considering the source It was likely going to come out anyway. so ..

Thanks Norm...yes you are right.



I volunteered my perspective. Suspecting the type of tire... as a run flat design. But, its clear you're just dying to elaborate even more than you have. So...

have at it.