Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (YellowSpoonEG6)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YellowSpoonEG6 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am planning to get new tires for my GSR blades. What's a better tire size 205 or 195? and why?</TD></TR></TABLE>
205 b/c you have a greater footprint of rubber meeting the road.
205 b/c you have a greater footprint of rubber meeting the road.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
Likes: 0
From: CA
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Threatcon13)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Threatcon13 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">205</TD></TR></TABLE>
why?
why?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
Likes: 0
From: CA
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Bill Hook)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
205 b/c you have a greater footprint of rubber meeting the road.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Hmm.. okay so it's just better overall ayE?
205 b/c you have a greater footprint of rubber meeting the road.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Hmm.. okay so it's just better overall ayE?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (YellowSpoonEG6)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YellowSpoonEG6 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Hmm.. okay so it's just better overall ayE?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You may find turn-in doesn't seem as crisp, but increasing tire pressure around 3 PSI or more over OEM would mitigate this somewhat. Otherwise, you'll start, stop and handle better.
Hmm.. okay so it's just better overall ayE?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You may find turn-in doesn't seem as crisp, but increasing tire pressure around 3 PSI or more over OEM would mitigate this somewhat. Otherwise, you'll start, stop and handle better.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
Likes: 0
From: CA
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Bill Hook)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You may find turn-in doesn't seem as crisp, but increasing tire pressure around 3 PSI or more over OEM would mitigate this somewhat. Otherwise, you'll start, stop and handle better.</TD></TR></TABLE>
ahh that's what i wanted to hear, start stop, and handle better...cool thanx
You may find turn-in doesn't seem as crisp, but increasing tire pressure around 3 PSI or more over OEM would mitigate this somewhat. Otherwise, you'll start, stop and handle better.</TD></TR></TABLE>
ahh that's what i wanted to hear, start stop, and handle better...cool thanx
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Bill Hook)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">205 b/c you have a greater footprint of rubber meeting the road.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Changing the treadwidth doesn't change the size of the contact patch ("footprint"); it only changes the shape of the contact patch, making it wider (side to side) but narrower (front to back). The size of the contact patch is a function of the weight of the car and the pressure in the tires. A 2640 pound car with 33 psi in the tires will have four contact patches totalling 80 square inches, regardless of whether the tires are 255 mm wide or 175 mm wide.
Advantages of 195/55-15 tires: Less expensive (for example, $56 vs $72 for Yokohama ES100); lighter in weight; better traction on wet pavement; accurate speedometer (since it's the stock size); better gas mileage (due to effective gearing differences); 205 may have a bulging appearance on stock wheels
Advantages of 205/50-15 tires: Slightly better acceleration (due to effective gearing differences, with outer diameter 1.6 percent smaller than stock); slightly better cornering; wider selection of tires
Most of the differences are going to be pretty minor though.
I use 195/55-15 tires on the street, and 205/50-15 on the track.
Changing the treadwidth doesn't change the size of the contact patch ("footprint"); it only changes the shape of the contact patch, making it wider (side to side) but narrower (front to back). The size of the contact patch is a function of the weight of the car and the pressure in the tires. A 2640 pound car with 33 psi in the tires will have four contact patches totalling 80 square inches, regardless of whether the tires are 255 mm wide or 175 mm wide.
Advantages of 195/55-15 tires: Less expensive (for example, $56 vs $72 for Yokohama ES100); lighter in weight; better traction on wet pavement; accurate speedometer (since it's the stock size); better gas mileage (due to effective gearing differences); 205 may have a bulging appearance on stock wheels
Advantages of 205/50-15 tires: Slightly better acceleration (due to effective gearing differences, with outer diameter 1.6 percent smaller than stock); slightly better cornering; wider selection of tires
Most of the differences are going to be pretty minor though.
I use 195/55-15 tires on the street, and 205/50-15 on the track.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
Likes: 0
From: CA
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Changing the treadwidth doesn't change the size of the contact patch ("footprint"); it only changes the shape of the contact patch, making it wider (side to side) but narrower (front to back). The size of the contact patch is a function of the weight of the car and the pressure in the tires. A 2640 pound car with 33 psi in the tires will have four contact patches totalling 80 square inches, regardless of whether the tires are 255 mm wide or 175 mm wide.
Advantages of 195/55-15 tires: Less expensive (for example, $56 vs $72 for Yokohama ES100); lighter in weight; better traction on wet pavement; accurate speedometer (since it's the stock size); better gas mileage (due to effective gearing differences); 205 may have a bulging appearance on stock wheels
Advantages of 205/50-15 tires: Slightly better acceleration (due to effective gearing differences, with outer diameter 1.6 percent smaller than stock); slightly better cornering; wider selection of tires
Most of the differences are going to be pretty minor though.
I use 195/55-15 tires on the street, and 205/50-15 on the track.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
wow thanks, i made my choice to get the 195. and yes you are correct the 205 does look a little bulging. Thanx for the info
Changing the treadwidth doesn't change the size of the contact patch ("footprint"); it only changes the shape of the contact patch, making it wider (side to side) but narrower (front to back). The size of the contact patch is a function of the weight of the car and the pressure in the tires. A 2640 pound car with 33 psi in the tires will have four contact patches totalling 80 square inches, regardless of whether the tires are 255 mm wide or 175 mm wide.
Advantages of 195/55-15 tires: Less expensive (for example, $56 vs $72 for Yokohama ES100); lighter in weight; better traction on wet pavement; accurate speedometer (since it's the stock size); better gas mileage (due to effective gearing differences); 205 may have a bulging appearance on stock wheels
Advantages of 205/50-15 tires: Slightly better acceleration (due to effective gearing differences, with outer diameter 1.6 percent smaller than stock); slightly better cornering; wider selection of tires
Most of the differences are going to be pretty minor though.
I use 195/55-15 tires on the street, and 205/50-15 on the track.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
wow thanks, i made my choice to get the 195. and yes you are correct the 205 does look a little bulging. Thanx for the info
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
Likes: 0
From: CA
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (kendogg)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kendogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">15x7 = 205/50
15x6.5 = 195/50
i just heard that they fit better this way.. so im just going by that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
IC
15x6.5 = 195/50
i just heard that they fit better this way.. so im just going by that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
IC
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
From: 187015, posts
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (kendogg)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kendogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">15x7 = 205/50
15x6.5 = 195/50
i just heard that they fit better this way.. so im just going by that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
unless you're talking about falken azenis, then 205/50 = 15x7, 7.5, 8
heh
15x6.5 = 195/50
i just heard that they fit better this way.. so im just going by that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
unless you're talking about falken azenis, then 205/50 = 15x7, 7.5, 8
heh
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (kendogg)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kendogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">15x7 = 205/50
15x6.5 = 195/50
i just heard that they fit better this way.. so im just going by that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Most tire manufacturers publish specs for each size of each of their tires. The specs include the approved rim widths, so this can be considered the minimum and maximum for this particular size of this particular tire. The narrow end of the range tends to make the tires look like they bulge out, and the wide end tends to make the tires look like they are stretched onto the rim. They also include the "measuring rim width", which is the width that they use when determining the other tire measurements; I think of this as the optimal rim width, although anything within the approved range is permissible.
For example, looking at the specs for the Yokohama ES100 (a very popular tire these days, and comes in all the sizes mentioned here), here are the range of the approved rim width and the measuring rim width, in inches:
195/55-15 approved 5.5-7.0 measuring 6.0
195/50-15 approved 5.5-7.0 measuring 6.0
205/50-15 approved 5.5-7.5 measuring 6.5
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lustedp »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">unless you're talking about falken azenis, then 205/50 = 15x7, 7.5, 8</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not according to the folks at Falken. The rim width specs for the Falken Azenis Sport in 205/50-15 are the same as the ones above for the ES100 (6.5 inch measuring rim width, with an approved rim width range of 5.5-7.5).
15x6.5 = 195/50
i just heard that they fit better this way.. so im just going by that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Most tire manufacturers publish specs for each size of each of their tires. The specs include the approved rim widths, so this can be considered the minimum and maximum for this particular size of this particular tire. The narrow end of the range tends to make the tires look like they bulge out, and the wide end tends to make the tires look like they are stretched onto the rim. They also include the "measuring rim width", which is the width that they use when determining the other tire measurements; I think of this as the optimal rim width, although anything within the approved range is permissible.
For example, looking at the specs for the Yokohama ES100 (a very popular tire these days, and comes in all the sizes mentioned here), here are the range of the approved rim width and the measuring rim width, in inches:
195/55-15 approved 5.5-7.0 measuring 6.0
195/50-15 approved 5.5-7.0 measuring 6.0
205/50-15 approved 5.5-7.5 measuring 6.5
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lustedp »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">unless you're talking about falken azenis, then 205/50 = 15x7, 7.5, 8</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not according to the folks at Falken. The rim width specs for the Falken Azenis Sport in 205/50-15 are the same as the ones above for the ES100 (6.5 inch measuring rim width, with an approved rim width range of 5.5-7.5).
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The size of the contact patch is a function of the weight of the car and the pressure in the tires. A 2640 pound car with 33 psi in the tires will have four contact patches totalling 80 square inches, regardless of whether the tires are 255 mm wide or 175 mm wide.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm going to take slight exception to this. Sidewall rigidity can play a part in this, such that the make/model of tire will matter. It would be possible for the size of the contact patch to vary the inflation/patch area relationship. Run-Flat tires are the example I'm thinking of.
Additionally, I've read a little that seems to indicate you can get greater contact patch area via shaving the tread.
As I requested before, some source info, so we may peruse the same material, would be greatly appreciated.
Lastly, since you've checked the AVS ES 100 specs, you'll see that the difference between the OEM Michelins and the AVS ES 100 in 205/50-15 is roughly 0.5%, IIRC, w/ regard to rolling diameter and revolutions per mile. This would reduce the gas mileage detriments, have little effect on speedometer accuracy (195/55-15 ES 100 are slightly LARGER than OEM Michelins, so they also affect the speedometer), and also diminish the effective gearing changes on acceleration.
The size of the contact patch is a function of the weight of the car and the pressure in the tires. A 2640 pound car with 33 psi in the tires will have four contact patches totalling 80 square inches, regardless of whether the tires are 255 mm wide or 175 mm wide.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm going to take slight exception to this. Sidewall rigidity can play a part in this, such that the make/model of tire will matter. It would be possible for the size of the contact patch to vary the inflation/patch area relationship. Run-Flat tires are the example I'm thinking of.
Additionally, I've read a little that seems to indicate you can get greater contact patch area via shaving the tread.
As I requested before, some source info, so we may peruse the same material, would be greatly appreciated.
Lastly, since you've checked the AVS ES 100 specs, you'll see that the difference between the OEM Michelins and the AVS ES 100 in 205/50-15 is roughly 0.5%, IIRC, w/ regard to rolling diameter and revolutions per mile. This would reduce the gas mileage detriments, have little effect on speedometer accuracy (195/55-15 ES 100 are slightly LARGER than OEM Michelins, so they also affect the speedometer), and also diminish the effective gearing changes on acceleration.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Bill Hook)
The equation - weight of the car (in pounds) divided by tire pressure (in pounds per square inch) equals contact patch area (in square inches) holds up as long as the air in the tires is supporting the weight of the car. The stiffness of the sidewall, even with run-flat tires, doesn't support the weight of the car when the tires are fully inflated (e.g. 25-40 psi). When the tire is flat, for example, due to a puncture, then the equation no longer holds.
Oh, and if you're interested in a web-based technical white paper reference for this, try this one.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Lastly, since you've checked the AVS ES 100 specs, you'll see that the difference between the OEM Michelins and the AVS ES 100 in 205/50-15 is roughly 0.5%, IIRC, w/ regard to rolling diameter and revolutions per mile.</TD></TR></TABLE>
There is a lot of variation in published tire specs for diameter and revolutions per mile. Much of the variation is due to methodology. For example, do the math and you will find that some brands of tire publish specs for rolling diameter and revolutions per mile that are simply doing the math for the nominal tire size, which does not take into account the smaller radius due to the deflection of the tire, whereas other brands do take into account the smaller radius due to deflection. So to that extent, the variation is due to how the specs are calculated, not to actual differences in size between different tires. However, it's also true that some brands and models of tire are larger or smaller than others; for example, the Falken Azenis Sport is notorious for being somewhat larger than other tires of the same nominal size.
However, since the original poster was asking about two different sizes without reference to any particular tire, it's safe to assume that he is referring to these sizes in general, in which case my response was indeed appropriate. The exact figure for the difference in outer diameter is that a 205/50-15 tire is 1.6 percent smaller than a 195/55-15 tire (23.07 inches vs 23.44 inches) - not referring to any particular tire, but simply calculating the outer diameter based on the treadwidth, aspect ratio, and wheel diameter.
Funny how when information is presented here, it sounds like everyone (or, at least, someone
) is more interested in challenging for proof than for trying to help a guy who's looking for a simple answer to a simple question. Even more funny because the differences - ALL differences - between a 195 tire and a 205 tire are going to be so insignificant anyway. Except maybe for that 29 percent higher price tag for the 205, which I guess is not so insignificant (but is only applicable to that one particular brand/model of tire).
Modified by nsxtasy at 2:45 PM 9/28/2003
Oh, and if you're interested in a web-based technical white paper reference for this, try this one.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Lastly, since you've checked the AVS ES 100 specs, you'll see that the difference between the OEM Michelins and the AVS ES 100 in 205/50-15 is roughly 0.5%, IIRC, w/ regard to rolling diameter and revolutions per mile.</TD></TR></TABLE>
There is a lot of variation in published tire specs for diameter and revolutions per mile. Much of the variation is due to methodology. For example, do the math and you will find that some brands of tire publish specs for rolling diameter and revolutions per mile that are simply doing the math for the nominal tire size, which does not take into account the smaller radius due to the deflection of the tire, whereas other brands do take into account the smaller radius due to deflection. So to that extent, the variation is due to how the specs are calculated, not to actual differences in size between different tires. However, it's also true that some brands and models of tire are larger or smaller than others; for example, the Falken Azenis Sport is notorious for being somewhat larger than other tires of the same nominal size.
However, since the original poster was asking about two different sizes without reference to any particular tire, it's safe to assume that he is referring to these sizes in general, in which case my response was indeed appropriate. The exact figure for the difference in outer diameter is that a 205/50-15 tire is 1.6 percent smaller than a 195/55-15 tire (23.07 inches vs 23.44 inches) - not referring to any particular tire, but simply calculating the outer diameter based on the treadwidth, aspect ratio, and wheel diameter.
Funny how when information is presented here, it sounds like everyone (or, at least, someone
) is more interested in challenging for proof than for trying to help a guy who's looking for a simple answer to a simple question. Even more funny because the differences - ALL differences - between a 195 tire and a 205 tire are going to be so insignificant anyway. Except maybe for that 29 percent higher price tag for the 205, which I guess is not so insignificant (but is only applicable to that one particular brand/model of tire).Modified by nsxtasy at 2:45 PM 9/28/2003
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Funny how when information is presented here, it sounds like everyone (or, at least, someone ) is more interested in challenging for proof than for trying to help a guy who's looking for a simple answer to a simple question. Even more funny because the differences - ALL differences - between a 195 tire and a 205 tire are going to be so insignificant anyway. Except maybe for that 29 percent higher price tag for the 205, which I guess is not so insignificant (but is only applicable to that one particular brand/model of tire).
Modified by nsxtasy at 2:45 PM 9/28/2003</TD></TR></TABLE>
Your exemplification was incorrect (as you used the AVS ES 100). I think it was worthwhile to challenge it, as it shows that the info was a generalization and that the differences in sizes may be less than what was presented. If the difference are as negligible as you would have us believe, why do you use 205s at the track? The only funny thing is that someone would spend more money on a larger size tire with a neglible difference for an activity that uses tires harder than street driving, all at a greater cost to themselves over the course of a season.
I should note that this "challenge" would be of help to the original poster, as it shows that taking the merits of a particular tire based solely on its nominal rated size is flawed.
Funny how when information is presented here, it sounds like everyone (or, at least, someone
) is more interested in challenging for proof than for trying to help a guy who's looking for a simple answer to a simple question. Even more funny because the differences - ALL differences - between a 195 tire and a 205 tire are going to be so insignificant anyway. Except maybe for that 29 percent higher price tag for the 205, which I guess is not so insignificant (but is only applicable to that one particular brand/model of tire).Modified by nsxtasy at 2:45 PM 9/28/2003</TD></TR></TABLE>
Your exemplification was incorrect (as you used the AVS ES 100). I think it was worthwhile to challenge it, as it shows that the info was a generalization and that the differences in sizes may be less than what was presented. If the difference are as negligible as you would have us believe, why do you use 205s at the track? The only funny thing is that someone would spend more money on a larger size tire with a neglible difference for an activity that uses tires harder than street driving, all at a greater cost to themselves over the course of a season.
I should note that this "challenge" would be of help to the original poster, as it shows that taking the merits of a particular tire based solely on its nominal rated size is flawed.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Bill Hook)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If the difference are as negligible as you would have us believe, why do you use 205s at the track?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because there are lots of different track tires (R compound tires) available in 205/50-15, and none in 195/55-15. And you can't buy what isn't made or sold. Pretty simple, no?
If tires like the RA-1, A032R, Kumho V700 Victoracer, etc, were available in 195/55-15 - and, particularly, if they were 22 percent lower in price like the ES100 is - then I would certainly consider getting track tires in 195/55-15. But, for track use, I might stick to the 205, just because some of the advantages of the 195 (e.g. better traction on wet pavement) are not relevant for dry track use.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I should note that this "challenge" would be of help to the original poster, as it shows that taking the merits of a particular tire based solely on its nominal rated size is flawed.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I should note that this is one of the reasons that knowledgeable people don't post on a forum. When people get flamed for providing good information, they stop posting. Which is one of the reasons that information on h-t.com is sometimes of poorer quality and reliability than it should be.
And your point about nominal size seems to be that the question the original poster asked is flawed. Which, maybe it is, if you're just sitting on the forums looking to poke at people, instead of help them. I thought it was a legitimate question, deserving of a legitimate answer, which I provided. Shame on me for doing that, huh?
Because there are lots of different track tires (R compound tires) available in 205/50-15, and none in 195/55-15. And you can't buy what isn't made or sold. Pretty simple, no?
If tires like the RA-1, A032R, Kumho V700 Victoracer, etc, were available in 195/55-15 - and, particularly, if they were 22 percent lower in price like the ES100 is - then I would certainly consider getting track tires in 195/55-15. But, for track use, I might stick to the 205, just because some of the advantages of the 195 (e.g. better traction on wet pavement) are not relevant for dry track use.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I should note that this "challenge" would be of help to the original poster, as it shows that taking the merits of a particular tire based solely on its nominal rated size is flawed.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I should note that this is one of the reasons that knowledgeable people don't post on a forum. When people get flamed for providing good information, they stop posting. Which is one of the reasons that information on h-t.com is sometimes of poorer quality and reliability than it should be.
And your point about nominal size seems to be that the question the original poster asked is flawed. Which, maybe it is, if you're just sitting on the forums looking to poke at people, instead of help them. I thought it was a legitimate question, deserving of a legitimate answer, which I provided. Shame on me for doing that, huh?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I should note that this is one of the reasons that knowledgeable people don't post on a forum. When people get flamed for providing good information, they stop posting. Which is one of the reasons that information on h-t.com is sometimes of poorer quality and reliability than it should be.
And your point about nominal size seems to be that the question the original poster asked is flawed. Which, maybe it is, if you're just sitting on the forums looking to poke at people, instead of help them. I thought it was a legitimate question, deserving of a legitimate answer, which I provided. Shame on me for doing that, huh?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Spare us the histrionics.
You're saying that no one need present a rationale for their information and that anyone who questions it is "flaming" them? Preposterous.
I should note that this is one of the reasons that knowledgeable people don't post on a forum. When people get flamed for providing good information, they stop posting. Which is one of the reasons that information on h-t.com is sometimes of poorer quality and reliability than it should be.
And your point about nominal size seems to be that the question the original poster asked is flawed. Which, maybe it is, if you're just sitting on the forums looking to poke at people, instead of help them. I thought it was a legitimate question, deserving of a legitimate answer, which I provided. Shame on me for doing that, huh?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Spare us the histrionics.
You're saying that no one need present a rationale for their information and that anyone who questions it is "flaming" them? Preposterous.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
Likes: 0
From: CA
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Bill Hook)
whoa guys calm down there, i just asked a simple question. Now for your own opinions which size would you choose just for normal daily driving? thanx.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (Bill Hook)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bill Hook »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You're saying that no one need present a rationale for their information and that anyone who questions it is "flaming" them? Preposterous.</TD></TR></TABLE>
No, I'll spell it out for you. Here's the Cliff's notes version: You're a dick. And a pretty ignorant one, too.
Excuse me for answering someone's question and providing real information. I thought this was a forum where people share information, not act like an ******* towards other people. I'm done replying to your arrogant badgering.
YellowSpoonEG6, I hope I answered your question.
Modified by nsxtasy at 8:57 PM 9/28/2003
No, I'll spell it out for you. Here's the Cliff's notes version: You're a dick. And a pretty ignorant one, too.
Excuse me for answering someone's question and providing real information. I thought this was a forum where people share information, not act like an ******* towards other people. I'm done replying to your arrogant badgering.
YellowSpoonEG6, I hope I answered your question.
Modified by nsxtasy at 8:57 PM 9/28/2003
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Getting NEW TIRES? WHAT SIZE? (YellowSpoonEG6)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YellowSpoonEG6 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Now for your own opinions which size would you choose just for normal daily driving?</TD></TR></TABLE>
It might depend on which tire you're interested in using. Most tires come in 205/50-15, but the selection in 195/55-15 is more limited.
I have two Integras. On one, my priorities are handling and dry traction, with wet traction and price of lesser importance, and I'm using the Bridgestone RE010 in 195/55-15. (That's the one that I switch to 205 track tires for track use.) On the other, the priorities are more varied, with wet traction and price at least as important as handling and dry traction; on that one, I'm using the Yokohama ES100 in 195/55-15.
You might want to start by deciding what your priorities are, then deciding what tire meets those priorities best, and seeing what sizes that tire is available in and what specific characteristics define those tires. (Some sizes of some tires - including the Bridgestone RE010 - are designed for specific cars and even specific corners of those cars.)
It might depend on which tire you're interested in using. Most tires come in 205/50-15, but the selection in 195/55-15 is more limited.
I have two Integras. On one, my priorities are handling and dry traction, with wet traction and price of lesser importance, and I'm using the Bridgestone RE010 in 195/55-15. (That's the one that I switch to 205 track tires for track use.) On the other, the priorities are more varied, with wet traction and price at least as important as handling and dry traction; on that one, I'm using the Yokohama ES100 in 195/55-15.
You might want to start by deciding what your priorities are, then deciding what tire meets those priorities best, and seeing what sizes that tire is available in and what specific characteristics define those tires. (Some sizes of some tires - including the Bridgestone RE010 - are designed for specific cars and even specific corners of those cars.)