why did high end sports/race cars used to have tiny 15 inch wheels

File: DONK.jpg (130KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x600px

Why don't F1 cars use donk tires? They are the most responsive tires ever made

>>16398339
Why don't you know how to English? What the fuck

>>16398339
That was back during slavery. Only when we empowered the blacks did we truly understand how dank the donk really was.

can someone answer this seriously, id really like to know

>>16398365

Do you have any information about the fucking barely existent rubber on those?

Who manufactures shit like that? How much does it cost? How long does it last, what PSI do you have to run?

>>16399053
Probably because the cars had to be close wheeled and at the same time, incredibly low to the ground. Even adding another inch to the size of the tire means you need to cut into the bodywork further to keep it close to the ground.

If you're asking why the rims weren't bigger, probably because aesthetics weren't a priority.

>>16399066
rubber bands main...

You run a car like that, you dont care about the price of no fuckin tires white boi

>>16398339
>implying big wheels are better
Yeah nah. Look at f1.

>>16398339
>>16399074
I suspect it was because a big fat tire could handle bumps in the early race tracks that were shitty better than a stiff skinny tire. Maybe it had to do with tire technology and that was the only way they could get a tire wide enough, it had to have thick sidewalls

>>16398339
>Were the aspect ratios just not available?

back in those days 60 aspect ratio was about as low profile as it got so yeah pretty much

>>16399104
This. It's pretty much up to tire technology and racing regulations

>>16399099
This, low profile + lots of width is actually really hard to manufacture/design.

I got another, less niggerly question:

Why did cars like the 330 in OP's pic and the GT40s had a spare tyre on them? I can understand if it was the case of cars that also run the Mille Miglia or the Targa Florio but why on Le Mans-spec cars?

>>16399211
Because track response time could take very long and better safe than sorry.

In regards to the wheel size question, Carroll smith says it was also about weight

>>16399211
I'm guessing because bias ply tires a shit and would puncture more easily, and because the pits are very far away and they didn't have support/tow vehicles like they have today.

The Le Mans of yesteryear was about racing at max speed, and seeing who exploded first. Today, we're trying to finish the race first, then racing fast. It just happens that cars are rather durable these days, so they drive at top speed.

>>16399250
literally the opposite retard

you could drive flat out because the car would explode sometimes in an actual fireball

the only drivers who were driving flat out were the designated "hare" that would push their car incredibly hard to set the pace for the opposition so that their cars would explode with the hare's car so his team mates can win in the end by driving conservatively

The heavier a wheel, the more unsprung mass, the more force required to rotate and to turn.

Smaller wheel = stronger, lighter and less of the above than a larger wheel.

Stock 20" rims are just a customer driven wank-factor.

>>16399099
>Maybe it had to do with tire technology and that was the only way they could get a tire wide enough, it had to have thick sidewalls
I think this for the most part. A taller wheel also means more angular momentum and generally more unsprung weight which means heavier suspension components which also means a heavier car.

Cars then relied on mechanical traction much more than the downforce the have now.

>>16398339
Read this in Mario's voice

>>16398339
because race tracks back then were far harsher on the suspension. But the actual reason was that there is nothing inherently wrong with high aspect ratio tires from a performance standpoint.

The only actual advantage low profile tires have is that by twisting less under cornering, they heat up less so the tire temperature is more stable throughout the track, so you can use more aggressive compounds for grip more consistently, even if the durability suffers. Modern rubber is a lot grippier and durable than old rubber, and it doesn't have to last as long as old tires had to (some of which would last several races in the 60's).

Low aspect tires have a disadvantage in terms of straight line grip since they're not as flexible though, which is why drag racing tires are so thick.

File: 84r4t6QN.jpg (73KB, 720x481px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x481px

>>16398339
old sports cars are tiny.

>>16398339
They look sexier and are more fit for purpose.

File: Porsche 914 and 917.jpg (270KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1280x960px

>>16402955

>>16402972
holy shit the porsche 917 is smaller than a 914

they look fucking ginormous in pictures


C3 corvettes are fucking tiny IRL, and C4 corvettes are even smalller

>>16403070
C4's are not tiny you stupid fucking retard.
C4's are fairly large cars for their time, they're longer and most coupes.

>>16399093
Yeah nah, pirelli ran tests with 18 inch wheels vs the current 13 inch and found out they are almost 9 seconds faster.

>>16399053
I believe it's because the tires acted as part of the suspension, so a thicker tire allowed more variety in suspension tuning.

>>16399066
Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n48RyNTHyz0

Thought it was because the tires flexed under hard cornering and would create a larger contact patch.

>>16404005
This is the correct answer

>>16403270
9 seconds faster in what? A 1/4 mile drag? I call bullshit.

>>16398339
Big sidewalls act as suspension, letting the cars run less suspension travel and therefore less body roll.

File: upaud03[1].jpg (86KB, 700x741px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 700x741px

lol it's still the same in 2016.

You didn't think all those road cars had tiny low profile rubber for performance reasons right? it's so the wheels can be as big as possible for styling reasons.

>>16398339
>>16399053
They would also run at lower PSI to stick to the road/track.

>>16399211
having space to carry spare tire and having seating for an assistant navigator/mechanic persisted all the way into the 1980s
till the regulators said fuck it no one even uses that shit no more

low profile tires were pretty much impossible to do back in the day, so if you wanted THICK you had to also have tons of sidewall. Nowadays you can get away with much, much thinner tires and still have 275s all around so it's no big deal.
To people saying that it was actually more effective than having low profile tires: small wheels = small brakes = terrible heat dissipation
old race cars would fucking kill for modern tires.

>>16405445
another thing is that with the introduction of slick tires
small wheel diameters fell out of favour due to overheating the softer compounds too much
>think wheel rpm per mph

>>16404490
At Silverstone.
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9376543/pirelli-showcase-potential-f1-future-with-low-profile-18-inch-tyres-at-silverstone-test

>>16405852
>http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9376543/pirelli-showcase-potential-f1-future-with-low-profile-18-inch-tyres-at-silverstone-test-and-they-look-fucking-awful

I'm absolutely ashamed that nobody mentioned crossply tyres.

>>16406276

/o/ is full of retards, newfags & stancefags that have no idea what the fuck they're posting.

>>16398339
According to The Grand Tour, GT40s used 15-inches because at 16-inches they became dangerously unstable.

File: lotus-pirelli-big-tyres-concept-18-inch_3170089.jpg?20140709093854.jpg (66KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 768x432px

>>16406167
holy shit that looks so much better too

>>16398339
On top of things like >>16399074 and >>16399099 and >>16399126 you might need to remember that back in the old days ultra light hard metals weren't common. Maybe they were saving weight by using big tires with small rims over giantic rims with small tires.

>>16408363
wat

Magnesium was used everywhere back in the day

>>16408405
Was it lighter than tire compound?

>>16408420
15x7 mag Minilites were 10.5 lbs each
a modern racing tire to fit it (205/50r15) is 20 lb each

I couldnt find vintage tire weights but Id say yeah mags are lighter

>>16403096
Rude

>>16408485
He's a manlet so everything looks big for him

>>16398339
technology