You know if you spent your time trying to find a vaccine for AIDS or
something we would probably have a cure by now.

If you were racing at Indy or something you would obviously have some good
insight here. But since your on the roads that we drive on everyday your
calculations don't make a damn bit of difference. You have a Honda with a 4
cyl at that. You do not have a race car. You do not have a high
performance vehicle. You do however have a delusional sense of what your
car is.

Just put the damn tires and wheels on it that you like.


"Charles Lasitter" <check.sig4@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96367AEC8BE55clncdmcom@68.1.17.6...
> I'm already excited about the prospect of new alloys that will shave
> seven pounds off the corners, or a pound or two less depending on the
> plus sizing factor.
>
> Now I'm seeking advice about diminishing marginal returns as regards
> more rubber on the road versus further reducing unsprung weight.
>
> My '05 Accord LX 4Cyl 5M came with Michelin's "CAFE" tires, good for
> fuel economy but not much else, scoring in the bottom half of most
> everything in Performance All-Season category. But they are already
> fairly light for 205/65 HR15 92H tires, at 21 pounds each.
>
> My challenge is to find the best weight to performace ratio for the
> tire. Less unsprung weight means the suspension works better at what
> it does, including keeping that tire on the pavement where it can do
> some good.
>
> Goodyear TripleTreds score very high marks for ride and noise
> comfort, but do they score so well _because_ they're 5# heavier per
> tire? I probably wouldn't pay that price if I could have a pretty
> good ride in a less beefy tire.
>
> It's easy enough to improve the wet and dry traction with better
> compounds. Improving handling and steering response can be done by
> brand selection, but sometimes it means reducing the aspect ratio.
>
> One challenge I face is figuring out how much of (handling/ride) to
> buy just by switching tire makers at the same size. Some tire makers
> score dramatically better than others in Tire Rack's ratings, such
> that just by switching makers, gaining improvements in both areas at
> the same time. (But switching to the top rated Turanza tire in the
> same category adds four pounds!)
>
> Then again it's possible to make improvements in one area by trading
> off against another. The examples below adjust unsprung weight
> changes for plus sizing.
>
> With example (2) below (Kumho ECSTA HP4 716s), I can get 8/10" more
> rubber at the OE TIRE weight, and the sidewall by 6/10".
>
> Matching the stock tire exactly with option (1) would mean giving
> back two pounds in exchange for across the board preformance by
> changing brands.
>
> With option (3) you drop one more NET pound, putting you eight pounds
> lighter overall
>
> 22# Steelies + 21# OE Tire = 43# W+Tire
>
> ------------------->S+W/DIFF/Sect Width
> 1) 205/65 HR15 92H---38--5---8.1"
> 2) 215/55 HR16 91H---36--7---8.9"
> 3) 205/55 HR16 89H---35--8---8.4"
> 4) 205/60 HR16 91H---36--7---8.2"
>
> (16x7 alloys are a pound heavier than 15x7)
>
> If they all satisfied your +/- 3% speedo, and the speed rating was OK
> and the load rating didn't matter, which would you pick for:
>
> Steering response / Handling / Turn-in?
> Ride comfort?
> Throttle response / acceleration?
> Fuel economy?
>
> Seems to me that the 19#/8.4" section width might be the sweet spot
> -- but that depends on the diminishing returns theory of rubber on
> the road vs unsprung weight! (The 65/60/55 differences are probably
> mild enough to be inoffensive.)
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on this.
>
> -- CL.
>
> +-----------------------------------------+
> | Charles Lasitter | Mailing / Shipping |
> | 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
> | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
> +-----------------------------------------+