|
In some cases I don't think you have much option - "fast" cars tend to have large diameter brake discs and thus you need larger wheels to fit over them, and that means you end up with rubber-band tyres.
It's when you see cars that have 19" wheels and not enough power to pull the skin off a rice pudding that I find amusing - definitely a prime example of looks over practicality.
|
"fast" cars tend to have large diameter brake discs
Which will inevitably perish prematurely through rust rather than overuse. I think the big discs are more show than go (hence the painted calipers).
Car magazines don't help. Once one manufacturer twigged that they could get rave reviews for taut handling simply by giving reviewers a car with cartwheels because it would perform well on a smooth skid pan, the othes were going to jump on the band wagon.
But the biggest factor is still witless consumer aspiration. New car drivers (esp men) like to think that they are sporty drivers and want to impress the salesmen with their need for torque, horsepower, and brembo brakes. Six months' time, it's back to the dealer to whine about grating rusty brake discs and clogging DPFs!
|
|
Part of my car buying analysis is the cost of new tyres.
Yes: I'm sad I know... Lots of speedhumps and potholes here so bling = bang..
|
|
It's not sad. With elastic bands running at £200++ and lasting only 15000 miles, the cost isn't negligible. My little 175/70 R13s are cheap, quiet, never lose tracking, never aqua plane, have perfectly even wear after 25,000 miles, and are great in the snow. The price is a modest loss of dry grip and a wallowy ride in the corners. As trade-offs go, it's a decent one!
|
|
|
|
"fast" cars tend to have large diameter brake discs
Which will inevitably perish prematurely through rust rather than overuse. I think the big discs are more show than go (hence the painted calipers).
I think you need to drive a car with proper big brakes, and see the difference. My Astra Sporthatch was originally fitted wit 308mm fronts. Pretty big as standard. Once it was remapped to 200hp/310lbft, those 308mm fronts didn't really live up to the rest of the car. Upgraded to 322mm VXR brakes, and it was just silly how much better the car stopped. Passing people like they were going backwards coming up to lights or roundabouts, and still getting stopped at the line long before they did. All under OE 17" rims.
Certain OE 17" wheels will fit over a Vectra VXR's 345mm brakes, too.
Heck, my Mondeo has 300mm discs on the front, and I run 16" steels. All Mondeos from the lowly 1.8LX like mine, to the ST220 run the same brakes.
My Lancer had 276mm front discs behind it's standard 18" wheels, rediculous, the brakes faded and went on fire after two roundabouts when pressing on. Whoever in Japan thought 276mm brakes on a 1650kg, 170hp diesel saloon was a good idea needs taken out and shot.
|
308mm fronts didn't really live up to the rest of the car. Upgraded to 322mm VXR brakes
So increasing the diameter of the disc by less than 5% 'transformed' the braking? Probably a different friction material in the pads/discs that made the difference.
In either case, tyre traction is likely to be the limiting factor in retardation force.
When bedding in brakes, I've done several 80-10mph hard decelerations (in neutral) and brake fade was only apparent on the 3rd one. How many people drive like that in the real world? From what I've seen, not many.
|
|
"80-10mph hard decelerations. How many people drive like that in the real world?"
From what I've seen, loads: In the 3rd lane of many motorways, during rush-hours, most days.
;-)
|
"80-10mph hard decelerations. How many people drive like that in the real world?"
From what I've seen, loads: In the 3rd lane of many motorways, during rush-hours, most days.
;-)
True indeed!
|
|
Send them to Cheshire. We can do an exhange for some of our mimsers! I've forgotten what Wide Open Throttle feels like-and with a 1600, that's saying something.
Bobbbin, in keeping with "have you seen anything unusual today?" I saw the rear end of a BMW GT. Nasty. Very nasty. Can see why that didn't take off! It's like an X5, but ugly.
|
Send them to Cheshire. We can do an exhange for some of our mimsers! I've forgotten what Wide Open Throttle feels like-and with a 1600, that's saying something.
Bobbbin, in keeping with "have you seen anything unusual today?" I saw the rear end of a BMW GT. Nasty. Very nasty. Can see why that didn't take off! It's like an X5, but ugly.
I suspect you saw the same one as me..........a 530 GT. He was going north on the M6; I passed him at Chorley! How ugly...?!! It looks b***** ridiculous. I don't even know how much more you'd pay for the uglification over a normal 530.
|
|
Probably! A dark blue one 09 plate I think. There was a solemn faced suit at the wheel. How could anyone look serious while driving one of those? I'd want privacy glass in the front!
The 530 saloon is handsome in a bland sort of way. The 5 series tourer looks gorgeous.The X5 looks as good as that genre gets. What were BMW thinking?
|
What were BMW thinking?
Haha they weren't! There's a 5 series tourer in my road. Never moves. It's wasted on OAPs.
|
|
308mm fronts didn't really live up to the rest of the car. Upgraded to 322mm VXR brakes
So increasing the diameter of the disc by less than 5% 'transformed' the braking? Probably a different friction material in the pads/discs that made the difference.
As usual you're being argumentative about something you know nothing about.
308s with GM "pig pads" were rubbish, fade after 10 minutes. Pads on fire after 15 mins. Standard pads did about 3 laps before fading.
322mm with GM standard pads (no pig pads available), impossible to fade even after 10 laps of Kirkistown. Tyre were down to the wire before the brakes even started smoking.
|
|
Well, all things being equal increasing diameter by 4.5% increases surface area and mass by 9%. Not massive. So clearly some other factor was at play. Besides, track days obviously have extreme brake fade requirements that just aren't relevant on the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but a 19" wheel does not have to have a strip of liquorice around the outside.....
|
|
Well it does if the overall diameter is to be kept reasonable...
|
|
My 1930 car has 19" wheels, but lets the side down as the tyres are 4.00 x 19, ie crossplies. Still with only 42bhp if I'm lucky, plenty good enough.
Contemplating a new car (as well as, not a replacement), but will be a lesser model as I'm not paying more for more expensive tyres and a worse ride.
|
|
Out of interest, Sliding Pillar, what sort of car is it?
|
|
Is it something like a Morgan Super Aero?
|
|
Something like - yes, it's a Morgan Super Sports Aero. (Name incorrect in many books etc)
|
|
There we are you see - decades of refining the design of cars led to their wheels going down and down in diameter, until the majority wore 13 or 14 inch wheels. Now, for some reason, we need much more wheelarch intrusion into the available passenger space, and hugely more unsprung weight.
Similarly, cars evolved to be more and more aerodynamic, and then folk decided they should be driving pickups and 4x4s.
The latest culmination is that laughable Bentley 4x4, which has 23" wheels...
Personally, I'd find it more imaginative, and give it more of a 'hats-off-to-you' nod and wry smile, for Rolls to respond by doing a 1950s Silver Wraith atop a monster truck chassis.
It would be no more ridiculous.
|
hugely more unsprung weight.
It's ok-they're 'alloy', so they must be good!
Yup.Tyre inches are lighter than aluminium inches.
We see similar peculier trends in visibility. As glass moulding technology got better and better, visibility improved and then people decided that being able to see was, like, totally last year, and massive A, and C pillars came into fashion because of hysteria about NCAP safety ratings. *yawn*.
What visibility remained vas further eroded by adding privacy glass. So car makers have started installing expensive, heavy, unreliable panoramic sun roofs so you see the...er...sky. How thoughtful!
|
|
The panoramic sun roofs are so the Sat Nav can see where it's going ...
|
|
|
Define "reasonable".
In this case it wuld appear to mean; "to fit the wheelarch of something designed for smaller wheels". That's not a good reason, just the wrong wheel for the car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
