Wheel Weight and Tire Size Info
10/4/05, 08:30 PM
#1
I talk to cones.
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted this over on Corral and thought it would be some good info.
Originally posted by softbatch@October 4, 2005, 9:33 PM
If your going to be running SCCA in the FS class then you have to stay with the rim sizes available from the factory.
Dave Schotz, the guy that won FS in '04 ran on bogart race wheels 17x8 on his mach 1 with 275/40/17 Kumho Ecsta V710. Also running this size tire with 3.55 gears would equal 3.76 gearing. This would be great if it were only a track wheel and tire since the speedo could not be recalibrated at least not in the 05 because you cannot change computer settings.http://sccaforums.com/forums/57319/ShowPost.aspx
Stock rims are 21.6lbs if you dropped that to say 14.5 or the SSR Competition 17x8 wheels it would be like adding 25rwtq(at least according to the spread sheet I found for the loss in weight).
This article has the spread sheet look at the updated one. I am trying to add in drive shaft specs on it right now. Does anyone know the stock weight and size of the stock 05 Mustang GT flywheel, and drive shaft?
http://www.mazda6tech.com/Articles/Mainten...id=16&Itemid=50
If you go up to ESP you can run any size wheels you want. When I move up I will be sticking with a 17x9 or 17x10 rim and probably trying to get a set of bogart light racing wheels to add that extra power or at least keep the weight the same.
That mazda6 website has a lot of good info that I couldn't find anywhere else shy of asking a race team.
If your going to be running SCCA in the FS class then you have to stay with the rim sizes available from the factory.
Dave Schotz, the guy that won FS in '04 ran on bogart race wheels 17x8 on his mach 1 with 275/40/17 Kumho Ecsta V710. Also running this size tire with 3.55 gears would equal 3.76 gearing. This would be great if it were only a track wheel and tire since the speedo could not be recalibrated at least not in the 05 because you cannot change computer settings.http://sccaforums.com/forums/57319/ShowPost.aspx
Stock rims are 21.6lbs if you dropped that to say 14.5 or the SSR Competition 17x8 wheels it would be like adding 25rwtq(at least according to the spread sheet I found for the loss in weight).
This article has the spread sheet look at the updated one. I am trying to add in drive shaft specs on it right now. Does anyone know the stock weight and size of the stock 05 Mustang GT flywheel, and drive shaft?
http://www.mazda6tech.com/Articles/Mainten...id=16&Itemid=50
If you go up to ESP you can run any size wheels you want. When I move up I will be sticking with a 17x9 or 17x10 rim and probably trying to get a set of bogart light racing wheels to add that extra power or at least keep the weight the same.
That mazda6 website has a lot of good info that I couldn't find anywhere else shy of asking a race team.
[post=]Quoted post[/post]
10/24/05, 11:05 PM
#2
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 25, 2005
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acording to the spread sheet my 20's are like adding 250lbs of weight to my car by the amount of torque it takes to accelerate the 20" rims vs. the stock 17" rims. Thats huge in the qtr mile!!!
11/6/05, 01:25 AM
#4
Cobra Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 1,292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really shouldnt look at it as gaining rwtq, it should be looked at as only removing unsprung weight. For every 1 pound removed from the mass of the suspended equipment is the equivalent of removing 8lbs anywhere else from the car. By switching over to a lightweight like the Bogarts from the heavy stock wheels you can shave a 1/10 or 2 off your quarter mile
supposedly, this translates into much more for autocross and the like.
Defined: Unsprung weight is a term used to describe that part of a vehicle's mass that is directly connected to the wheels, and not isolated through the suspension. Unsprung weights typically consists of the weight of the wheels, tires, brakes (if within the wheels), spindles, bearings, and a portion of weight of the half-shafts, springs, and suspension links.
Im not really disagreeing here since more power is needed to move more weight but I think it could send the wrong message to some. I could imagine overhearing some kid saying that switching out his wheels netted more power.
-Dan
supposedly, this translates into much more for autocross and the like.
Defined: Unsprung weight is a term used to describe that part of a vehicle's mass that is directly connected to the wheels, and not isolated through the suspension. Unsprung weights typically consists of the weight of the wheels, tires, brakes (if within the wheels), spindles, bearings, and a portion of weight of the half-shafts, springs, and suspension links.
Im not really disagreeing here since more power is needed to move more weight but I think it could send the wrong message to some. I could imagine overhearing some kid saying that switching out his wheels netted more power.
-Dan
11/6/05, 09:29 AM
#5
I talk to cones.
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removing unsprung weight is only one part of replacing the wheels and tires with a lighter set.
You also have to think about removing rotational weight. Accelerating 20" rims is going to be much harder than 17" rims even if the 20s are lighter.
The rotational part goes along with lighter pistons, lighter driveshaft and flywheels.
It's really removing driveline loss so in effect it is increasing net (wheel) hp but not increasing gross(flywheel) hp.
You also have to think about removing rotational weight. Accelerating 20" rims is going to be much harder than 17" rims even if the 20s are lighter.
The rotational part goes along with lighter pistons, lighter driveshaft and flywheels.
It's really removing driveline loss so in effect it is increasing net (wheel) hp but not increasing gross(flywheel) hp.
11/6/05, 10:44 AM
#6
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 12, 2004
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gotta agree with Softbatch on this one. While lighter rolling stock doesn't actually add engine power, it does make a difference at the rear wheels that can be measured on a chassis dyno and at the track.
11/6/05, 10:07 PM
#7
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then.....the way to look at a wider tire is that it is detrimental to 1/4 mile, because it is unsprung weight...rather than an advantage because of the wider tires traction properties?
11/7/05, 09:04 AM
#8
I talk to cones.
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mestizo@November 6, 2005, 11:10 PM
So then.....the way to look at a wider tire is that it is detrimental to 1/4 mile, because it is unsprung weight...rather than an advantage because of the wider tires traction properties?
So then.....the way to look at a wider tire is that it is detrimental to 1/4 mile, because it is unsprung weight...rather than an advantage because of the wider tires traction properties?
Are you asking this just for the sake of Argument?:scratch: If that were the case then why would people be running 15 inch wide slicks.
If you can get all the traction you need out of a thinner tire then yes I would say that could be a detriment to your performance, when you car bogs down instead of spinning or hooking up the tires then I would say you have to much.
Also remember a softer compound may be more beneficial then the wider tires keeping the same amount of traction as moving to the wider tire would.
11/7/05, 10:56 PM
#9
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by softbatch@November 7, 2005, 10:07 AM
Are you asking this just for the sake of Argument?
:scratch: If that were the case then why would people be running 15 inch wide slicks.
If you can get all the traction you need out of a thinner tire then yes I would say that could be a detriment to your performance, when you car bogs down instead of spinning or hooking up the tires then I would say you have to much.
Also remember a softer compound may be more beneficial then the wider tires keeping the same amount of traction as moving to the wider tire would.
Are you asking this just for the sake of Argument?:scratch: If that were the case then why would people be running 15 inch wide slicks.
If you can get all the traction you need out of a thinner tire then yes I would say that could be a detriment to your performance, when you car bogs down instead of spinning or hooking up the tires then I would say you have to much.
Also remember a softer compound may be more beneficial then the wider tires keeping the same amount of traction as moving to the wider tire would.
It was a legit question.....not a devil's advocate question.
11/7/05, 11:03 PM
#10
I talk to cones.
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mestizo@November 7, 2005, 11:59 PM
I was just curious..because naturally you think wider tire == more traction, but you neglect the weight aspect.
It was a legit question.....not a devil's advocate question.
I was just curious..because naturally you think wider tire == more traction, but you neglect the weight aspect.
It was a legit question.....not a devil's advocate question.
I'm sure there is a law of diminishing returns but I would say as long as your car is not bogging down fit the widest size you can afford for drag racing.
Remember the shorter the tire and the smaller the wheel diameter the better the torque advantage.
12/20/05, 08:35 AM
#12
I talk to cones.
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dohc97
Suspension, Brakes, and Tire Tech
17
8/14/15 07:12 PM