Honda Car Forum

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 |
+-----------------------------------------+

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 |
> +-----------------------------------------+

"halo2 guy" <somewhereovethe@rainbow.com> wrote in message
news:4aqdncG4O9eOk8HfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> 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.

I second the motion of the honourable member.

My god man, how much time have you wasted on these useless calculations? If
you want to cut down on more weight, take the seats out and the glove
compartment cover off. Get rid of the stereo and anything you have in the
trunk. Remove the interior door panels. Don't fill the fuel tank up, just
put in the bare minimum you need to get from one gas station to the next one
and you've saved a lot of weight.

Brian

"halo2 guy" <somewhereovethe@rainbow.com> wrote in
news:4aqdncG4O9eOk8HfRVn-hQ@comcast.com:

> If you were racing at Indy or something you would obviously have
> some good insight here.

I didn't see autox.honda in the group name. Is that in the FAQ
somewhere. Is there FAQ?

> But since your on the roads that we drive on everyday your
> calculations don't make a damn bit of difference.

"your"? Could you mean "you are" or even "you're"?

> 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.

Wow. You can't seem to read either. Every time I have asked a
question about the car, I have emphasized that I am looking for
marginal adjustments in various areas that are cumulative.

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

I will. And do us all a favor. Just put me in your "plonk" file and
ignore my posts if they annoy you. I don't plan to go away.

-- CL.

+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing / Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in
news:R%87e.27272$vt1.24914@edtnps90:

> I second the motion of the honourable member.

> My god man, how much time have you wasted on these useless
> calculations?

I've relied entirely on the calculations of others, who have posted
them all over the internet. What I HAVE done is take note of those
calculations and opinions, and handed them over to other Honda owners
to see if their experiences match up with them or not.

> If you want to cut down on more weight, take the seats out and the
> glove compartment cover off.

Wow. All my posts have been about unsprung weight and rotational
mass, and now you come back with this garbage on SPRUNG weight.
I happen to like those other parts right where they are.

So if you don't like the fact that I love my new car and want to
enhance it's performance without completely changing it's character,
that's fine. Just follow the same *plonk* advice I've given to the
other "honourable member".

-- CL.

+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing / Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

"Charles Lasitter" <check.sig4@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:Xns963766FFF6718clncdmcom@68.1.17.6...
>
> I've relied entirely on the calculations of others, who have posted
> them all over the internet. What I HAVE done is take note of those
> calculations and opinions, and handed them over to other Honda owners
> to see if their experiences match up with them or not.
>
> Wow. All my posts have been about unsprung weight and rotational
> mass, and now you come back with this garbage on SPRUNG weight.
> I happen to like those other parts right where they are.
>
> So if you don't like the fact that I love my new car and want to
> enhance it's performance without completely changing it's character,
> that's fine. Just follow the same *plonk* advice I've given to the
> other "honourable member".

Consider it done.

"Charles Lasitter" wrote

> So if you don't like the fact that I love my new car and want to
> enhance it's performance

its performance, not it's performance. It's = it is. Thus your sentence
would read "...want to enhance it is performance."

Definetly get some lightweight wheels and as far as tires get the goodyears
if they will last a long time. You'll be giving up weight by mounting them
on lightweight rims. I have some Konig rims on my Civic that have the weight
molded on the outer part of the rim. It's 635kg. which is about 13lbs.
pretty light. I recommend Konig for your wheels theyre well balanced and
precision made.



-Jeff
"Charles Lasitter" <check.sig4@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9637658C92D4Cclncdmcom@68.1.17.6...
> "halo2 guy" <somewhereovethe@rainbow.com> wrote in
> news:4aqdncG4O9eOk8HfRVn-hQ@comcast.com:
>
>> If you were racing at Indy or something you would obviously have
>> some good insight here.
>
> I didn't see autox.honda in the group name. Is that in the FAQ
> somewhere. Is there FAQ?
>
>> But since your on the roads that we drive on everyday your
>> calculations don't make a damn bit of difference.
>
> "your"? Could you mean "you are" or even "you're"?
>
>> 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.
>
> Wow. You can't seem to read either. Every time I have asked a
> question about the car, I have emphasized that I am looking for
> marginal adjustments in various areas that are cumulative.
>
>> Just put the damn tires and wheels on it that you like.
>
> I will. And do us all a favor. Just put me in your "plonk" file and
> ignore my posts if they annoy you. I don't plan to go away.
>
> -- CL.
>
> +-----------------------------------------+
> | Charles Lasitter | Mailing / Shipping |
> | 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
> | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
> +-----------------------------------------+

I have never really thought of the differences
between sprung and unsprung weight. What is the
effect (other than when I take fast corners and
it moves to the other side of the trunk) of
carrying a 50-70lb tool box in the trunk?

t

"hondaman" <jeffscomp@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:I2l7e.3268$716.233@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com ...
> Definetly get some lightweight wheels and as far as tires get the
> goodyears if they will last a long time. You'll be giving up weight by
> mounting them on lightweight rims. I have some Konig rims on my Civic that
> have the weight molded on the outer part of the rim. It's 635kg. which is
> about 13lbs. pretty light. I recommend Konig for your wheels theyre well
> balanced and precision made.

635 kg = 77 lb