piledriver

There is 25mm to an inch, for all practical purposes. This is not exact, but the difference is all but immeasurable.
So a 225 tire is 9" wide, a 275 tire 11" wide, etc.

POISND U

25.4 mm per inch. What's your point?

piledriver

Don't listen to anything Wikipedia says, it's not a real encyclopedia.
Anyone can put anything in there that they want, it is not checked for accurancy by anyone.
Otherwise good post bro.

piledriver

Cassie asked how wideher 235mm tireis, so I told her.My point?? My point is answering a question, not acting like a jerk trying to prove which one of you is the most stupid. Is that OK with you, boy??

POISND U

Lay off the testosterone, tough guy.

I asked because your post was random and you didn't refer to a specificquestion. Using the quote button helps people know wtf you're talking about, especially when there's 40+ posts before yours.

POISND U

True, but....

I'd be willing to bet that article was plagiarizedout of a physics textbook. People who are typicaly familiar with those principals don't usually go around making stuff up for giggles.

What I'm saying is they shouldn't be disregarded due to lack of credibility, they should be considered, but in the real world there's other factors that should be as well.

GhostRider02GT

pwned

Sxynerd

Getting tough on the internets like beating up a retard... It may feel good while you're doing it but in the end; You still only beat up a retard!

piledriver

That would be you, nerd, and learn how to hold a rifle.

2000GT4.6

I dunno how the hell (or why) physics entered into this, let alone wikipedia (or as i know it, wrongipedia) however...

Tire width has a direct effect on traction. Simply because you can exert more pressure over a smaller tire does not mean that the smaller tire will have the same traction. Its about surface area, not just pressure exerted.

To your way of thinking, I could take the tires off my DD geo prizim and run a 165 on my stang... but it just isn't going to work. no doubt a 165 would have more pressure exerted per square inch of tire surface touching the road, but there is simply a limit to how much the tire will stick regardless of pressure exerted.

I bought a set of V6 mustang wheels for my car about a year ago (traded for stock GT rims acutally) so I could run a 275 MT ET street at the track. For the hell of it, while we had the mufflers off (doing suspension work) I bolted them on and drove it around. It was like driving on ice skates... the car would do a 2nd gear launch and burnout almost indefinatly (until you just lifted throttle). It would simply not catach traction at all in 2nd gear (let alone 1st) and that was with the suspension setup for weight transfer.

Obviously the 315 nittos are much more sticky (soft) but the width also has alot to do with it. If I were to get the same tire that were on the V6 rims (falkens) in a 315 tire and bolt them onto the 10.5 rims it would get MUCH greater traction than the 185s or whatever the hell was on there.

I do agree that you will NOT see a large difference going from a 245 to a 275 with the same tire compound, but it will be there. Within reason, the larger the width the better the traction. It is however true that if you do not have sufficent suspension work to put weight on the tires at some point a wider tire will not help any further, but it is a LONG way to that point (larger than what will fit under the stock wheelwell anyway).

This is not a debateable point, simply because it has been proved time and again. You say that your theory does not apply to a slick, but a drag radial is not essientially different in design than a regular radial tire (hence the DOT approval and the "radial" part of drag radial). There is a reason that there are drag racing classes that limit tire size, like the 10.5 drag radial class... its because increasing tire size further would increase traction, and throw off results.