Why don't you have 8 inch wheels /o/?

the brakes on my 30 year old shitbox are bigger than that

28 inch is the superior choice.

I don't drive a Honda so I can spin larger wheels in 1st gear

File: March_701_(Tyrrell)_rear_oil_tank_Heritage_Motor_Centre,_Gaydon.jpg (3MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1920px

>>17105260
>he doesn't have inboard brakes

the smallest acceptable wheel is a 13 incher and the largest is a 17
15 is perfection this is simple fact

File: 1417994362095.jpg (73KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x598px

>>17105391

File: citroen-2cv-charleston-3-1024x679[1].jpg (170KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1024x679px

>>17105375
Even this has inboard front brakes.

>>17105391
16 is best compromise
18 is best overall

15 is just the poorfag option

I mean your chart may be fine for little shitboxes

>>17105375
enjoy your zero airflow and fade

>>17105427
18s can look okay or even pretty damn good modern cars but if you put 18s on an 80s-era sportscar even you're an asshole

stock wheel size is best.

File: DSC_3719.jpg (70KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x533px

>>17105444
disagree entirely

>>17105391
>>17105427
You need to go 14 inch for that real performance look though.

>>17105495
thats also 18s

>>17105501
>just unsprung weight my shit up

>>17105414
>>17105375

Yeah and they are shit as fuck to maintain and repair

>>17105513
do you have some little fag car?

most performance built cars run 18s

>>17105427
i got 17" and they're gay. Getting them replaced for 15".
Anything above and sometimes including 17" is poorfag pretending to be rich and hardcore shit.

>>17105531
thats because you have horrible taste or a little fag car

apparently youre insecure too

File: IMG_2578.gif (1KB, 35x31px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 35x31px

>>17105391
>tfw 17s on my F-150

>>17105537
holy shit that projection
Do you have to subdue your urge to suck all the cocks every time you go out you little closeted fagboi?

>>17105693
now this is projection.jpg

>>17105521
Implying that 2CV's are heavy enough to need the brakes replaced more than twice a decade.

>>17105910
but low profile is a smaller number
thick sidewall wins again

>>17105936
but the overall diameter is larger

thick cant do shit

205/60r15 is the same height as a 285/30r18 and is 28% more narrow lmao

>>17105956
>lower profile tires for the longest time were harder to make wide
>n-no but see you can get large sidewall tires that are thin!
ok

>>17105976
pretty much every performance tire is lowprofile because fat tires are fucking awful for performance

fat tires are garbage so no one fucks with them except for poorfags truckfags and drag cars

>>17105998
most actual race cars have higher profile tires than what you'd see on a performance street car, still not obviously to ridiculous levels but there is some definite value to having the sidewall soak up things so the suspension can be extra stiff

File: main-qimg-1f2f6a39b93e5fad5d92372a288b6c4c.png (374KB, 602x401px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 602x401px

>>17105998
>F1 ultimate track cars
THICC
>Top fuel ultimate straight line acceleration
THICC
>Land speed record driven by wheels
THICC

Now what could be left for low profile to excel at?
>Posing
>Rice
>Sema

File: mercedes-f1-car.jpg (107KB, 671x411px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 671x411px

>>17105998
>fat tires are garbage
O'Really?

>>17106061
F1 is shitty rules so who cares theyd be faster on different tires

drag racing isnt even real racing lmao

most land speed record cars have large wheels with not much sidewall

meanwhile pretty much every major touring car type thing runs low profile

we get it youre a benchracing faggot and think your shitbox is on the same level as purpose built vehicles that dont even classify as cars

>>17106013
This.

Also, wider sidewalls flex and allow more of the tire's width to remain in contact with the pavement under high cornering side force. And as the tire finally starts to flex away from the road, it does so gradually instead of all of a sudden like with stiff sidewalls.

>>17106118
good thing racing tires dont have stiff sidewalls eh

its like you retards pick low profile street tires and compare them against racing tires

>>17106118
b-but the Halfords sales rep told me the bigger more expensive wheels would be better

File: british_gt_championship_silverstone_01_jun_2014_7D_IMG_2494_xgaplus.jpg (153KB, 1152x768px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1152x768px

>>17106109
>meanwhile pretty much every major touring car type thing runs low profile

This just isn't correct unless you think this ginetta gt4 car's tyres are "low profile".

File: Tire 4.jpg (96KB, 478x640px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 478x640px

>>17106174
hey look a car that uses 18s (like every touring car just about)

I wouldnt exactly call these big

>>17106191
I wouldn't call them low either though.

>>17106209
bruh

a 265/645 racing slick is equivalent to a 265/35r18 road tire

>>17105998
>fat tires are fucking awful for performance

>I've never heard of unsprung mass & rotational intertia: the post

>>17106151
>b-but the Halfords sales rep told me the bigger more expensive wheels would be more expensive
ftfy

>>17106246
yes because weight is all that matters you entry level sperg

sidewalls never flex and make for bad handling ever

>>17105998
Here's your (you)

>>17106271
wow so what you're saying is that depending on driving conditions and the car in question different tire thicknesses may be appropriate in order to balance different positive and negatives of the different tire profiles? so maybe, just maybe, sometimes lower profile is better and maybe sometimes higher profile is better and the retarded statement you made about it always being the best choice to go thin as fuck is, in fact, retarded?
woahhhh

File: 1486506755325.jpg (110KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1280x720px

>>17106292
not an argument

>>17106300
nope

fat tires are never optimum for performance in road racing cars

>>17106271
For racing tyres, sidewalls don't flex as much as their road car equivalent. Also, flex is a part of a well-adjusted suspension setup. You can use the springing effect of the sidewall to run a stiffer coil spring (or with more preload), while still maintaining a good contact patch. Sure, on road cars you can lose a lot of steering feel, but A to B testing on a racecars will usually result in a more sideall being better. So why do some racecars still use small sidewalls? Most of that is regulations (you're required to run x rim size, y OD, and Z width, so you're basically forced into an aspect ratio), or you're simply limited in your OD while still needing to clear brake calipers. F1 is a good example of a racing series that doesn't force you into a low profile tire setup, and testing there time and again proves that F1 competitors really don't want thin sidewalls.

No, you are the spergs.

File: 57c.jpg (193KB, 680x1025px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 680x1025px

>>17106322
>>17106271

>>17106322
so if you waste your time tuning for an inferior tire you do better than untuned

no shit anon

F1 is a shitsport with retarded rules which is why they use what they use

>>17106360
dang someone did it right and put the most retarded option as the most enlightened

good job

>>17106386
>so if you waste your time tuning for an inferior tire you do better than untuned
No, if you tune for a tall tire, it'll outperform a low profile tire with a similar level of tuning. Welcome to physics.

>F1 is a shitsport with retarded rules which is why they use what they use
I agree that a lot of their rules are retarded, but the manufacturers desperately want to stay with tall tires - because it's better. Marketing wants to go to low profile tires, because that makes for an easy connection with road cars, which need bigger and bigger rims to visually compensate for the higher and higher belt lines. Every manufacturer on planet earth has you believing that low profile = better, because they NEED to put low profile tires on cars to make them look halfway decent. Want proof? Go put a set of 16's on a brand new 3er.

File: rodrigo-piquet-brasileiro-de-kart-2012-1_0.jpg (760KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 1920x1080px

>>17106360
>not using your chassis as suspension
>even having suspension

I like phat tires, they are comfy

>>17106405
well no shit if you tune a car for 1 tire its not going to work with another

no matter how you pretend the only thing you have is F1 which is fucked by rules with no evidence on your side even then they use highly specialized tires that have 0 to do with anything on the road or any other racing

>>17106421
Actually, even gokarts are designed to spring a bit, which functions as suspension.

>>17106421
Yo that dude could go like 10 seconds faster around a kart track with lower profiles. I seen all the FnF movies, I know whats up

>>17106445
>Actually, even gokarts are designed to spring a bit, which functions as suspension.
i.e.
>using your chassis as suspension
dingus

File: IMG_1097.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

>>17106444
I'm not even the guy you're arguing with, but you're a complete idiot, and sperging about "F1 tires aren't real tires" is only making you look dumber

every race car in the world uses big tires

>>17106444
>well no shit if you tune a car for 1 tire its not going to work with another
Start reading again.
A well-tuned setup with a tall tire will outperform a well-tuned setup with a low profile tire, assuming an identical tire width and OD.

>with no evidence on your side
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119331
>"Like for like, such tyres will have a lower grip and the weight will go up considerably, so it's not an attractive direction performance-wise.
There's your evidence, from Paddy Lowe, that low profile <<< tall profile.

>fucked by rules
Rules that are sometime decided by the participants, like they did in this case: keep the 13's, and move to a wider tire.

>that have 0 to do with anything on the road or any other racing
>that have 0 to do with any other racing
Please explain how Formula 1 tires have nothing to do with any other kind of racing, because of of now, you're not making any sense. Racing is racing.

>>17106474
youre an ignorant ass nigger and your post says nothing else

even the car you posted has the equivalent of 315/40r18s

>>17106480
hurr durr our big go karts with custom everything is relative to the rest of the world

kek

I realize Im dealing with morons now

notice how karts are literally the only ones with fat tires

>>17106474
no retard, every race car that you are looking at is subject to rules and regulations

they are simply not allowed to use any other kind of tire, they aren't allowed to test with any other kind of tire, they must use what they are given, everyone in that series are using the same exact tires

if they wanted to use bigger tires, smaller tires, it doesn't matter, they are not allowed to

>>17105375
>>17105414
This thread is now suddenly about inboard brakes. If you don't have em, you're a shit.

>>17106509
>hurr durr our big go karts with custom everything is relative to the rest of the world

>physics just changed because I put it on a different road!
>physics just changed because I said so!

You've got zero arguments, and now you're just ad-homming yourself into a great position for us to laugh at you.

File: 4991520954_2d2feaf62a.jpg (163KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 500x332px

>>17106532
Sixties hotrods reporting in.

>>17106534
youre too dumb to argue with

the fact that youd rather focus on irrelevant words instead of the content really proves how you dont have shit to contribute

nice to know everything is setup like a F1 car too same materials same compound and everything

lmfao yall got btfo on every front itt

>>17106544
>nice to know everything is setup like a F1 car too same materials same compound and everything
Physics don't change when you change materials.

>>17106551
you heard it here folks

every tire compound is exactly the same

your old 3 inch wide bias ply tires on wooden wheels will perform the same as a 15 inch wide F1 tire

the world is acting upon them in the exact same way and they will handle the forces the same

>>17106565
If you account for it in your suspension (camber, caster, toe in curves) then yes, a fat 3'' bias ply will similarly outperform a thin 3'' bias ply, just like a 13'' F1 tire will outperform an 18'' one.

Physics don't change, even if you go ad absurdum.

>>17106591
>>17106565
Also, on second thought: wooden wheels would only exaggerate the difference between fat/thin, since their unsprung weight is even worse than their metal/carbon fibre counterparts.

>>17106591
yet you have no evidence

Why are you fags even speaking about different types of racing? Tall tires are superior for your shitboxes on the road too because they help absorb road imperfections to give you a smoother ride, and are less likely to let your rim dent from a pothole.

>>17106591
No you're fucking wrong. The tire compound matters a lot for all sorts of shit. Radial tires generally save a driver gas because they're a harder compound that flexes and heats up less than softer summer tires at the expense of traction and gas mileage

You're a fucking retard if you think compound doesn't matter

>>17107556
>The tire compound matters a lot for all sorts of shit.
But it doesn't matter on a clear A to B comparison for tall vs thin tires.

>>17107565
Well it does in a way. Thin tires grip less because they have less contact with the roads surface. I don't know what you mean by "tall tires" you mean physically big tm tires with a large diameter?

>>17105530

Most performance cars run the smallest wheel they can fit over the brakes to keep weight down

>>17107579
We weren't talking about width (narrow vs wide), we were talking about height (tall with a small rim vs thin with a big rim) or aspect ratio.

Of course narrow tires have less grip than wide tires, but the point I was trying to make is that, on a car with great setup, identical tire OD and width, a small rim + tall tire is going to be better than a big rim with a thin tire, since it has less unsprung weight and rotational inertia.

>>17105296
20 eight inch wheels is op

>>17106509

Tyre size is down to series regulations, nothing else.

When you have freedom to choose tyre size is just another thing to tune: for example running a 17/16 front to back stagger lets you use a higher profile tyre in the rear to gain more limit grip at the expense of increased roll and frictional losses.

tl;dr no single tyre is the best tyre for every application

File: 1447418189101.jpg (15KB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x213px

>>17105391
>the smallest acceptable wheel is a 13 incher
nope~
10 incher

>>17105910
See you at the first turn.

>>17105444
>tfw only 19s and up work with my brakes
>tfw 19 is a weird size and 20 is the next best

>>17109759
>Larger rims
>High performance low profile
Where you not listening? That's the perfect setup for cornering performance

>>17105391
all the sizes below 17" are hard to find tires for now

File: Untitled.jpg (98KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x480px

>>17109054
dat 145/68r10 tire size

>>17111167
Lolno. I just changed my 14" and just went to a tire shop in a small village.

>>17111214
most common 14
https://www.wheel-size.com/tire/175/65R14/
most common 16
https://www.wheel-size.com/tire/205/55R16/

and that is just the size
let alone weather it is available in a decent compound or tread given that tiny wheels have fallen out of use in both motor sport and normal road use

I use 12 inch tires and their my last pair. I can't seem to buy anymore

>>17111242
its a pretty common wheel size on Austin mini
mostly because sub 10" disk brakes are so rare
https://www.minisport.com/mini-tuning-and-styling/mini-wheels-and-tyres/mini-12-tyres.html

>>17106109
>meanwhile pretty much every major touring car type thing runs low profile

To be fair, that's mostly for the clearance to install larger brakes, more resistant to fatigue, but there's some full retard cases as well, I know at least some teams use lower profile tyres because muh brands marketing department wants to sell larger wheels.

t.Have an acquaintance that worked at a BMW's BTCC team mid 90's. BMW's marketing dept. forced them to run 19' wheels even though 18's performed better on just about any situation.

>>17105427
15 inch for off-roading.

>>17111158
Not at that ride height it's not. Unless you're intending to roll over like a dog and keep going.