Why is it that most tuners from Japan use wider tires in the front than rear......
...and they use higher spring rated for the fron than rear? They seem to like to use 225/40/16's for the front with 195/55/15's for the rear. I was thinking it was to get more rotation but why not just put the higher spring rates in the rear than the front, bigger rear sway and more rear tire pressure? Is there something they know that we don't?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jonnybravo »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Is there something they know that we don't?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Both get the job done, really. Difference in setup, types of tracks they drive on.
Both get the job done, really. Difference in setup, types of tracks they drive on.
Turn in response was why I figured it was done.
A lot of the top autox car setups follow a similar pattern.
Cheers,
Roy
A lot of the top autox car setups follow a similar pattern.
Cheers,
Roy
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rapid_roy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A lot of the top autox car setups follow a similar pattern.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Only in stock class which requires you to retain the stock wheel width and suspension. It is hardly an ideal solution.
Only in stock class which requires you to retain the stock wheel width and suspension. It is hardly an ideal solution.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Both get the job done, really. Difference in setup, types of tracks they drive on.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Has anyone here on the board had experience with their setup?
Both get the job done, really. Difference in setup, types of tracks they drive on.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Has anyone here on the board had experience with their setup?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
It is hardly an ideal solution.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you referring to the tires, or springs, or both?
I'm not sure why so many fwd people feel obligated to run the same size tire all around. The RWD people have never had that hangup.
It is hardly an ideal solution.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you referring to the tires, or springs, or both?
I'm not sure why so many fwd people feel obligated to run the same size tire all around. The RWD people have never had that hangup.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JeffS »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Are you referring to the tires, or springs, or both? </TD></TR></TABLE>
I was referring to the stock-class autocross FWD car 'solution' of shoehorning a 225 hoosier on 6" wide wheels with stock springs.
I was referring to the stock-class autocross FWD car 'solution' of shoehorning a 225 hoosier on 6" wide wheels with stock springs.
Trending Topics
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jonnybravo »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Has anyone here on the board had experience with their setup?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I race on 225s in front and 205s in back....suits me just fine...
Has anyone here on the board had experience with their setup?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I race on 225s in front and 205s in back....suits me just fine...
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JeffS »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm not sure why so many fwd people feel obligated to run the same size tire all around. The RWD people have never had that hangup. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I thought running wider wheels/tires in the rear on a FWD car (sorry to sorta get OT) made the car understeer more.
I thought running wider wheels/tires in the rear on a FWD car (sorry to sorta get OT) made the car understeer more.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jonnybravo »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...and they use higher spring rated for the fron than rear? They seem to like to use 225/40/16's for the front with 195/55/15's for the rear. I was thinking it was to get more rotation but why not just put the higher spring rates in the rear than the front, bigger rear sway and more rear tire pressure? Is there something they know that we don't?</TD></TR></TABLE>
From what I've seen they like to play with alignment settings alot too, notice how most cars they run radical neg camber
From what I've seen they like to play with alignment settings alot too, notice how most cars they run radical neg camber
I drove on Wai's 20k F 16k R with 225 front 205 rear setup yesterday. Car feels <u>much</u> different then mine. TURN-IN IS AWESOME. The car rotates very well yet is difficult to get the rear end all the way out even when trailbraking hard. I believe he runs -4* camber in front.
ttt,i asked this question a few weeks ago and didnt get much. what would be better setup, the rear spring method or rear tire method?
dude, you'll get different answers from all of us
there is no best set-up. you go with what works for you.
for instance, i set my car up a bunch softer than other people in my class, while following the rear spring bias approach.
there is no best set-up. you go with what works for you.
for instance, i set my car up a bunch softer than other people in my class, while following the rear spring bias approach.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sackdz »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe he runs -4* camber in front.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Really?!?
Wai, care to chime in here? That's a LOT. I use 2.3 or so front, 2.0 back, and the tire temps (as Rinde likes to remind me) look great. Why so much camber?
Hopefully this isn't too much of a thread hijack...
Really?!?
Wai, care to chime in here? That's a LOT. I use 2.3 or so front, 2.0 back, and the tire temps (as Rinde likes to remind me) look great. Why so much camber?
Hopefully this isn't too much of a thread hijack...
i have done
225/50/15's in front
195/50/15's in rear
with 700lb front and 600lb rear
used this on tighter courses....makes rotation nice.....you really have to watch out and not throttle steer as much, the car will rotate faster than expected
also run 225/45/15 all the way around with 650 front and 750 rear....
to be honest i really can't tell a difference but both were with different engine setup's and suspensions.....
just go out and drive the car....find what you like
225/50/15's in front
195/50/15's in rear
with 700lb front and 600lb rear
used this on tighter courses....makes rotation nice.....you really have to watch out and not throttle steer as much, the car will rotate faster than expected
also run 225/45/15 all the way around with 650 front and 750 rear....
to be honest i really can't tell a difference but both were with different engine setup's and suspensions.....
just go out and drive the car....find what you like
I've seen a bunch of the ep and em front drive cars use wider fronts than backs too. I seem to remember Rodney running the same tire sizes with wider wheels on front than back for a smaller bias.
Look at the radical differences in front to rear tire widths on mid or rear engine cars. Often 4 or more sizes different from the factory. Of course that's at least partially to keep the paying customers from oversteering off the road.
Look at the radical differences in front to rear tire widths on mid or rear engine cars. Often 4 or more sizes different from the factory. Of course that's at least partially to keep the paying customers from oversteering off the road.
well, there are a couple ways that you can tune with wheel/tire size. one way is to do what rodney has done. same size tire, wider wheel up front, narrower wheel out back. in theory this will make turn in "cripser" (due to a squarer shoulder up front) and make the rear break-away more progressive (due to a more rounded shoulder)
the other way is to run the same size wheel, but more tire. theory being more rubber=more stick, but you effectively take away grip (again, in theory) if you run a narrower tire out back than normally.
personally, I'd like to run a 7.5in wheel up front and a 7in out back...but finances don't allow
the other way is to run the same size wheel, but more tire. theory being more rubber=more stick, but you effectively take away grip (again, in theory) if you run a narrower tire out back than normally.
personally, I'd like to run a 7.5in wheel up front and a 7in out back...but finances don't allow
I have some japanese tuning magazine with susp. setups listed around here somewhere. When I get a chance, I'll translate them and post up their settings. Their setups are drastically different than our "USDM" setups, as has been discussed here many, many times. Sackdz mentioned "wai's" setup. -4 degrees camber in the front very front heavy springs, smaller rear tires. Some of the more hardcore jdm coilover setups come with 22kf/ 12kr spring setup. I'll remind myself to come back to this post tommorow.
hmm........
it seems to me that it would be better to use spring rates to alter handling characteristics instead of putting big tires on front or what-have-you.
tires and wheels aren't the lightest things around. and if you're putting big 225's on the DRIVE wheels, you're increasing unsprung weight 5-10lbs minimum i would think.
JDM !> everything else
it seems to me that it would be better to use spring rates to alter handling characteristics instead of putting big tires on front or what-have-you.
tires and wheels aren't the lightest things around. and if you're putting big 225's on the DRIVE wheels, you're increasing unsprung weight 5-10lbs minimum i would think.
JDM !> everything else
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">hmm........
it seems to me that it would be better to use spring rates to alter handling characteristics instead of putting big tires on front or what-have-you.
tires and wheels aren't the lightest things around. and if you're putting big 225's on the DRIVE wheels, you're increasing unsprung weight 5-10lbs minimum i would think.
JDM !> everything else</TD></TR></TABLE>
The more stiffer the spring rates are the better for handling on sterring.
Depending on what - or + chamber setup you have just like .RJ said.
it seems to me that it would be better to use spring rates to alter handling characteristics instead of putting big tires on front or what-have-you.
tires and wheels aren't the lightest things around. and if you're putting big 225's on the DRIVE wheels, you're increasing unsprung weight 5-10lbs minimum i would think.
JDM !> everything else</TD></TR></TABLE>
The more stiffer the spring rates are the better for handling on sterring.

Depending on what - or + chamber setup you have just like .RJ said.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">hmm........
it seems to me that it would be better to use spring rates to alter handling characteristics instead of putting big tires on front or what-have-you.
tires and wheels aren't the lightest things around. and if you're putting big 225's on the DRIVE wheels, you're increasing unsprung weight 5-10lbs minimum i would think.
JDM !> everything else</TD></TR></TABLE>
You're missing the point, 225s are used in front for better grip in turns and a wider contact patch, 205s are used in the back for smaller contact patch and thus better rotation. Otherwise it would have benn 225s all around, thus more weight.
it seems to me that it would be better to use spring rates to alter handling characteristics instead of putting big tires on front or what-have-you.
tires and wheels aren't the lightest things around. and if you're putting big 225's on the DRIVE wheels, you're increasing unsprung weight 5-10lbs minimum i would think.
JDM !> everything else</TD></TR></TABLE>
You're missing the point, 225s are used in front for better grip in turns and a wider contact patch, 205s are used in the back for smaller contact patch and thus better rotation. Otherwise it would have benn 225s all around, thus more weight.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krshultz »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Really?!?
Wai, care to chime in here? That's a LOT. I use 2.3 or so front, 2.0 back, and the tire temps (as Rinde likes to remind me) look great. Why so much camber?
Hopefully this isn't too much of a thread hijack...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you on RA1's? Wai is. I am. Almost the entire year I was on 205/50s and the ******* overheated after 3 laps and rest of the heat/race was ****. I tried presssures from 28 hot to 50 hot. Same deal. I was getting so pissed off...... This was with about -2 or -2.25* camber in front (stock a arms).
I put the skunk arms on last weekend, dialed in -3* and bam, problem gone.
Really?!?
Wai, care to chime in here? That's a LOT. I use 2.3 or so front, 2.0 back, and the tire temps (as Rinde likes to remind me) look great. Why so much camber?
Hopefully this isn't too much of a thread hijack...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you on RA1's? Wai is. I am. Almost the entire year I was on 205/50s and the ******* overheated after 3 laps and rest of the heat/race was ****. I tried presssures from 28 hot to 50 hot. Same deal. I was getting so pissed off...... This was with about -2 or -2.25* camber in front (stock a arms).
I put the skunk arms on last weekend, dialed in -3* and bam, problem gone.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by El Pollo Diablo »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You're missing the point, 225s are used in front for better grip in turns and a wider contact patch, 205s are used in the back for smaller contact patch and thus better rotation. Otherwise it would have benn 225s all around, thus more weight.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
i understand what you're saying, but i don't think the 225's result in any greater cornering speed than say 205's. if the rear begins to rotate at the same point, then the greater grip in the front doesn't do you any good.
You're missing the point, 225s are used in front for better grip in turns and a wider contact patch, 205s are used in the back for smaller contact patch and thus better rotation. Otherwise it would have benn 225s all around, thus more weight.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
i understand what you're saying, but i don't think the 225's result in any greater cornering speed than say 205's. if the rear begins to rotate at the same point, then the greater grip in the front doesn't do you any good.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i understand what you're saying, but i don't think the 225's result in any greater cornering speed than say 205's. .</TD></TR></TABLE>
They absolutely do. Also better braking performance.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
if the rear begins to rotate at the same point, then the greater grip in the front doesn't do you any good.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It does, at least it does for me. It's not about total loss of grip in the back, but at what point the slip angle becomes large enough to help with the turn in. The speed through the corner will still depend largely on the most loaded tire, which in all cases will be the outside front.
Does that make sense?
i understand what you're saying, but i don't think the 225's result in any greater cornering speed than say 205's. .</TD></TR></TABLE>
They absolutely do. Also better braking performance.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
if the rear begins to rotate at the same point, then the greater grip in the front doesn't do you any good.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It does, at least it does for me. It's not about total loss of grip in the back, but at what point the slip angle becomes large enough to help with the turn in. The speed through the corner will still depend largely on the most loaded tire, which in all cases will be the outside front.
Does that make sense?



