Has anyone thought of using 4 'donut' tires?

[onegammyleg]

Hi Ryland -?why are amaricans obsessed with big cars, wide tires, and poor gas mileage??

Are they ?
,, Or are they just buying what they are allowed to get ? . perhaps the decision has already been made for them and that it is a sellers driven market not a buyers market as people believe.
Remember , the more gas you burn , the more tax money the government gets.
The more taxes they get the happier they are.

I dont think any government wants gas economy cars untill they have worked out how to tax the heebyjeebies out of a new fuel source and then they will push a move toward that and abandon gas.

Either way , we are well and trully .....

[rh77]

Post-War 1950's brought a boom of suburb home building, and the consequent system of roads. The automobile was/is a symbol of independence. Over time, people liked the luxury of big cars, even if they could get one cheap.

LSS, tradition has kept a majority of buyers, from this generation, to buy big cars (large percentage of the population). Without mass transit, younger generations follow the same pattern and tradition still holds. Fact is, most Americans don't care about gas mileage until it hits them hard in the wallet. A survey shows that we're getting "Greener", but is it a phase, and what will it produce?

Luckily, Honda and Toyota changed some minds in the '80s onward to shift the paradigm to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Then the SUV craze started (incorrect perception of safety, convenience, and dominance). Companies had to follow the trend to keep profits up.

It can be argued: but if more people demand smaller cars, do you think we'll get them??? I'm thinking so...

RH77

edited for grammar, punctuation

[Matt Timion]

Originally Posted by onegammyleg

Hi Ryland -?why are amaricans obsessed with big cars, wide tires, and poor gas mileage??

Are they ?
,, Or are they just buying what they are allowed to get ? . perhaps the decision has already been made for them and that it is a sellers driven market not a buyers market as people believe.
Remember , the more gas you burn , the more tax money the government gets.
The more taxes they get the happier they are.

I dont think any government wants gas economy cars untill they have worked out how to tax the heebyjeebies out of a new fuel source and then they will push a move toward that and abandon gas.

Either way , we are well and trully .....

THis hits it on the head, and perhaps we're in need of a new thread as to not hijack this one.

I'm working on an article right now that will be syndicated about how most of Americas problems are due to the auto manufacturers not allowing us to have a better selection. Part of it I'm sure is due to the gov't safety regulations... which is another important article that must be written. Have fatalities gone DOWN as a result of stricter safety laws?

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by theclencher

The way I see it, ultimately it's the buyer that has the control, they make the purchase decision and fork over the money and they don't have a gun to their head. But the seller does everything in their power to influence the sale.

Buyers do have options; for example they could have been choosing crx's, sprints, metros, etc. for years and in vast numbers instead of F150s, Explorers, Suburbans, etc.... but they didn't. They could have but they didn't.

They opted to buy into the line the manufacturers were selling them- "safety", convenience, capability, status, all that. Never mind that it's largely a crock.

I noticed that during the 10 year (?) run of U.S. Metro sales, I never saw a single TV ad for them. Not one. Nothing in the newspapers either. I might have seen one in a mag, but it could have been a story about that ad and not the actual ad? HOWEVER, turn on the TV, open a newspaper, or read a mag and you will see a deluge of adverts for suvs and 4x4s.

I think the U.S. national fleet is composed of more gas hogs than necessary. (understatement of the year!) I blame the buyer for choosing to be selfish, gluttonous, and willfully ignorant. I blame the manufacturers for enabling that line of thought.

AMEN! I agree. Honda killed the Insight this year and I don't ever remember seeing an ad on TV, or anywhere for that matter, for the Insight.

[MetroMPG]

Trucks and SUVs make the automakers vastly more profit than sub-compact cars. It's no surprise which they are flogging harder for the sales.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by jolt-tsp

While that made you look smart, you are incorrect. It is not a guess. When racing you deal largely with altering your contact patch and dealing with the effects. I'm not going to come on here and argue the fundamentals of traction. I gave my two sense, if you choose to ignore it, that no blood on my hands. If someone would like to bring a logical counter-argument to my attention, I will be more than happy to indulge them with my side of the argument.

We're on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Racing tires have a very soft compound, and leave a lot of themselves on the road so to speak. In terms of economy, everyone here, given the chance, is probably running the hardest tire available at above the sidewall pressure rating, because that's where we can minimize rolling friction.
It's two completely different situations. On one hand, racing requires traction for high speed cornering and braking, so a high wear/sticky tire is an advantage, and because it's sticky, the greater the contact patch, the greater it sticks to the pavement, the greater the traction. Otoh, economy requires the minimization of traction (and speed) in order to maximize how well the cars roll. So in this case we're effectively dealing with two solid surfaces, and the difference in traction between a donut and a LRR tire is very small compared (heck, the donut might have better traction) to the LRR tire and the racing tire.

[jolt-tsp]

Originally Posted by theclencher

"I'm not going to come on here and argue the fundamentals of traction"- uh, isn't that exactly what you're doing?

No, that is what you're doing. I just came in and stated quick facts. The only thing I came back arguing was your assumption that I was making guesses.

What the issue may be, as omgwtfbyobbq pointed out was the opposite ideas of how we want our tires to perform. The a skinny tire with less traction will improve efficiency, there is no question about that. So if you're not at all concerned about safely, than my earlier comments can be disregarded, as I was speaking solely from a safety standpoint. I had read previously on this board where people speak against tailgating a semi for safety reasons, so I made the assumption that this was an issue of some importance for this board.

Your argument that a 5000 lbs Microbus stops on a dime with 100mm tires is not something I would consider a logical argument. So, as I mentioned, I will not argue that.

As far as the article you loosely described (that is also 20 years old) there are ways to use the traction of your other tires when one is dead.

-If the tire is on the inside of the car, it is not supporting hardly any weight during a skidpad test, so you would not expect a dramatic change in performance.
-On the outside rear, the LSD will put the torque to the inside where there is sufficient traction.
-On the outside front (this would be the hardest test to pass) the driver would have to use the torque of the vette (of which it has plenty) to keep the car from understeering.

The last test mentioned should show fair reduction in lateral g's, but should still be a street-able number. However, all that test shows us is that driving on one spare is not significantly more dangerous than driving on the four OE tires (on a RWD car with an LSD).

As I said, I was just offering information, I'm not trying to start an argument.

[onegammyleg]

?with an LSD?

Yeah , man , LSD , ime hearin ya .... KOOOL

[jolt-tsp]

Originally Posted by theclencher

That Bus can throw you right out of your seat on those 4 puny contact patches. That is something I can easily prove (to anyone in the Bus anyway) and it is germane to the subject. That the vehicle can stop and corner well with small contact patches is the issue. Millions of motorists in Kei cars and other dinky-tired vehicles can attest to that.

To say the traction is sufficient for your taste is different from saying that the contact patch makes no difference in stopping power. Getting thrown from your seat is no impressive feat and I would more than expect four spares to at least have that much grip.

I'm not saying your car will slide forever when you hit the brake, I'm just saying that your stopping distance will increase when you decrease the CoF (which occurs when using more narrow tires).

I fully understand if you feel the stopping power to be safe. I was only stating I do not feel compact spare tires will yeild a short enough stopping distance over about 35 mph for my taste.

While you know millions are not having problems stopping with their thin tires, a friend of mine running 165's on a 2200lbs Sentra rear ended a truck primarily due to the tires. He was only travelling 30 mph and following about 2 seconds behind the truck. He's a cautious driver that has some racing experiance, so I have no reason to doubt his reaction time.

[jolt-tsp]

Ya, I would expect a decent set of 175s or 185s slightly overinflated would be the norm for most the cars on this board. I ran 185s on my Civic until I turned it track car.

No 315s for me, 255 is going to be the upper limit on my Civic's new wheels