Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires? - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
ยป Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.autos.ford
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-09-2005, 17:01   #1 (permalink)
Nomen Nescio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

This new fad of larger wheels and how-low-can-we-go tires just might be
scaring off the middle-aged bread and butter customers.

Not too long ago, -75 and -80 tires were the norm. Wheels were mostly 14
inch for typical family cars and station wagons. Those sizes and profiles
must have evolved by the application of good engineering sense. They
delivered fine performance and durability.

What's driving the recent trend? Today's cars look like they're riding on
their rims. Could it be this is a cheap and dirty way to lower the cars?
Intuitively, they look like a hard ride and easily subject to impact damage
from road hazzards. Also, being as wide as they are, it would seem
difficult to get them to wear evenly across the tread and equally difficult
to achieve alignment angles which are always calculated to the center of
the wheel. Is there a bonafide reason to these new designs, or is it just
stylists' whim?

A popular theory is these low and wide tires provide better cornering and
traction. Is that really the case or just advertising hype? How about
hydroplaning? If wide tires hydroplane earlier, then there is no merit in
the traction claim. As for cornering in a passenger car, its hard to beat
a VW Scirocco and those typically were equipped with -80s.

Frankly, oversize wheels and undersized tires turn me off esthetically.
Eyeball engineering tells me they are all wrong. My guess is a sizeable
minority feels the same and are avoiding the new models solely for that
reason.

Manufacturers need to offer reasonable tire options. Particularly, the 14
or 15 inch wheel with -80 profiles. Keep in mind there are buyers out
there who remember 6.70-15 wheels and tires and that roughly corresponds to
-90 profiles.

  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-09-2005, 18:01   #2 (permalink)
Berkshire Bill
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?


"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:1c8e8e247a818e9ca1ee320d4b838d40@dizum.com...
> This new fad of larger wheels and how-low-can-we-go tires just might be
> scaring off the middle-aged bread and butter customers.
>
> Not too long ago, -75 and -80 tires were the norm. Wheels were mostly 14
> inch for typical family cars and station wagons. Those sizes and profiles
> must have evolved by the application of good engineering sense. They
> delivered fine performance and durability.
>
> What's driving the recent trend? Today's cars look like they're riding on
> their rims. Could it be this is a cheap and dirty way to lower the cars?
> Intuitively, they look like a hard ride and easily subject to impact
> damage
> from road hazzards. Also, being as wide as they are, it would seem
> difficult to get them to wear evenly across the tread and equally
> difficult
> to achieve alignment angles which are always calculated to the center of
> the wheel. Is there a bonafide reason to these new designs, or is it just
> stylists' whim?
>
> A popular theory is these low and wide tires provide better cornering and
> traction. Is that really the case or just advertising hype? How about
> hydroplaning? If wide tires hydroplane earlier, then there is no merit in
> the traction claim. As for cornering in a passenger car, its hard to beat
> a VW Scirocco and those typically were equipped with -80s.
>

Will these rim and tire combinations accept snow chains ?

Bill


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2005, 20:01   #3 (permalink)
Spike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:32:15 GMT, "Berkshire Bill"
<bkitterm@berkshire.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
>news:1c8e8e247a818e9ca1ee320d4b838d40@dizum.com...
>> This new fad of larger wheels and how-low-can-we-go tires just might be
>> scaring off the middle-aged bread and butter customers.
>>
>> Not too long ago, -75 and -80 tires were the norm. Wheels were mostly 14
>> inch for typical family cars and station wagons. Those sizes and profiles
>> must have evolved by the application of good engineering sense. They
>> delivered fine performance and durability.
>>
>> What's driving the recent trend? Today's cars look like they're riding on
>> their rims. Could it be this is a cheap and dirty way to lower the cars?
>> Intuitively, they look like a hard ride and easily subject to impact
>> damage
>> from road hazzards. Also, being as wide as they are, it would seem
>> difficult to get them to wear evenly across the tread and equally
>> difficult
>> to achieve alignment angles which are always calculated to the center of
>> the wheel. Is there a bonafide reason to these new designs, or is it just
>> stylists' whim?
>>
>> A popular theory is these low and wide tires provide better cornering and
>> traction. Is that really the case or just advertising hype? How about
>> hydroplaning? If wide tires hydroplane earlier, then there is no merit in
>> the traction claim. As for cornering in a passenger car, its hard to beat
>> a VW Scirocco and those typically were equipped with -80s.
>>

>Will these rim and tire combinations accept snow chains ?
>
>Bill
>

Even stock classic Mustangs advised against using chains... so I'm
sure they'd be a bad thing with the upgrade on mine.
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2005, 22:01   #4 (permalink)
80 Knight
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:1c8e8e247a818e9ca1ee320d4b838d40@dizum.com...
> This new fad of larger wheels and how-low-can-we-go tires just might be
> scaring off the middle-aged bread and butter customers.
>
> Not too long ago, -75 and -80 tires were the norm. Wheels were mostly 14
> inch for typical family cars and station wagons. Those sizes and profiles
> must have evolved by the application of good engineering sense. They
> delivered fine performance and durability.
>
> What's driving the recent trend? Today's cars look like they're riding on
> their rims. Could it be this is a cheap and dirty way to lower the cars?
> Intuitively, they look like a hard ride and easily subject to impact
> damage
> from road hazzards. Also, being as wide as they are, it would seem
> difficult to get them to wear evenly across the tread and equally
> difficult
> to achieve alignment angles which are always calculated to the center of
> the wheel. Is there a bonafide reason to these new designs, or is it just
> stylists' whim?
>
> A popular theory is these low and wide tires provide better cornering and
> traction. Is that really the case or just advertising hype? How about
> hydroplaning? If wide tires hydroplane earlier, then there is no merit in
> the traction claim. As for cornering in a passenger car, its hard to beat
> a VW Scirocco and those typically were equipped with -80s.
>
> Frankly, oversize wheels and undersized tires turn me off esthetically.
> Eyeball engineering tells me they are all wrong. My guess is a sizeable
> minority feels the same and are avoiding the new models solely for that
> reason.
>
> Manufacturers need to offer reasonable tire options. Particularly, the 14
> or 15 inch wheel with -80 profiles. Keep in mind there are buyers out
> there who remember 6.70-15 wheels and tires and that roughly corresponds
> to
> -90 profiles.


No offence, but I do not like the image of my Bonnie with 14 inch -80's
tires.


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2005, 00:01   #5 (permalink)
Bill Putney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> This new fad of larger wheels and how-low-can-we-go tires just might be
> scaring off the middle-aged bread and butter customers.
>
> Not too long ago, -75 and -80 tires were the norm. Wheels were mostly 14
> inch for typical family cars and station wagons. Those sizes and profiles
> must have evolved by the application of good engineering sense. They
> delivered fine performance and durability.
>
> What's driving the recent trend? Today's cars look like they're riding on
> their rims. Could it be this is a cheap and dirty way to lower the cars?
> Intuitively, they look like a hard ride and easily subject to impact damage
> from road hazzards. Also, being as wide as they are, it would seem
> difficult to get them to wear evenly across the tread and equally difficult
> to achieve alignment angles which are always calculated to the center of
> the wheel. Is there a bonafide reason to these new designs, or is it just
> stylists' whim?
>
> A popular theory is these low and wide tires provide better cornering and
> traction. Is that really the case or just advertising hype? How about
> hydroplaning? If wide tires hydroplane earlier, then there is no merit in
> the traction claim. As for cornering in a passenger car, its hard to beat
> a VW Scirocco and those typically were equipped with -80s.
>
> Frankly, oversize wheels and undersized tires turn me off esthetically.
> Eyeball engineering tells me they are all wrong. My guess is a sizeable
> minority feels the same and are avoiding the new models solely for that
> reason.
>
> Manufacturers need to offer reasonable tire options. Particularly, the 14
> or 15 inch wheel with -80 profiles. Keep in mind there are buyers out
> there who remember 6.70-15 wheels and tires and that roughly corresponds to
> -90 profiles.


A few comments:
(1) Low profile does not automatically (and very seldom does it) mean a
wider tread. Besides, tire manufacturers finally learned that they can
design sipes and wide circumferential grooves in the treads to solve the
hydroplaning issue. For some reason, they were pretty stupid about the
obvious for many years. Nowadays (is that a word?) wider does not mean
inherently susceptible to hydroplaning with half-way intelligent tread
design.
(2) One advantage of larger wheels and lower profile tires is that for a
given tire OD, the brake rotors can be larger - that may be one of the
main drivers to the larger wheels, as attaining problem-free brakes
seems to be a problem on many (most?) cars these days. One of the first
mods I did to my Concorde was to go from 15 to 16" wheels so that I
could convert it to the larger factory rotors - the LH cars really need
those.
(3) One of the biggest downsides of larger wheels is that the rotational
moment of inertia is greater, so straight line acceleration suffers.
(4) Another downside of larger wheels is that tires are priced like
bikinis: As the amount of material in them decreases, the price increase
exponentially (compare prices of 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 inch tires and you
will see what I mean).
(5) As far as the harder ride with lower profile: That can be partially
compensated for with suspension and spring design, although unsprung
weight cannot be compensated for no matter what - and that contributes
to harsher ride.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2005, 02:01   #6 (permalink)
Spam Hater
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

In article <1c8e8e247a818e9ca1ee320d4b838d40@dizum.com>,
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

> This new fad of larger wheels and how-low-can-we-go tires just might be
> scaring off the middle-aged bread and butter customers.
>
> Not too long ago, -75 and -80 tires were the norm. Wheels were mostly 14
> inch for typical family cars and station wagons. Those sizes and profiles
> must have evolved by the application of good engineering sense. They
> delivered fine performance and durability.

I have 70 on my Concord, I believe my wife has 65 on her Sybring.
I feel the 70s are the best compromise.
My cousin has a Volvo with very low profile tires. The only difference
I've noticed is a harsh ride on breaks in the pavement.

>
> What's driving the recent trend? Today's cars look like they're riding on
> their rims. Could it be this is a cheap and dirty way to lower the cars?
> Intuitively, they look like a hard ride and easily subject to impact damage
> from road hazzards. Also, being as wide as they are, it would seem
> difficult to get them to wear evenly across the tread and equally difficult
> to achieve alignment angles which are always calculated to the center of
> the wheel. Is there a bonafide reason to these new designs, or is it just
> stylists' whim?

Yes extremely low profile on street cars is just styling IMO.
>
> A popular theory is these low and wide tires provide better cornering and
> traction. Is that really the case or just advertising hype? How about
> hydroplaning? If wide tires hydroplane earlier, then there is no merit in
> the traction claim. As for cornering in a passenger car, its hard to beat
> a VW Scirocco and those typically were equipped with -80s.

+Better cornering, more positive steering, looks to some.
-Worse for hydroplaning all things being equal, harsher ride, more tires
and rims damaged from potholes.
It has been mentioned that hydroplaning can be made to equal a regular
tire, but I disagree on the conditions I sometimes experience. Like
going up a steep mountain road in heavy rain with a stream of water
coming down in the depressed from traffic roadway- just like driving
up hill on slick ice. I found a 70 tire that will handle this, but
noticed some all season treads from the same manufacturer that obviously
wouldn't.
-They require much more spare wheel well height, so many cars have a
much narrower spare and can't take the flat tire in in the spare well.
>
> Frankly, oversize wheels and undersized tires turn me off esthetically.
> Eyeball engineering tells me they are all wrong. My guess is a sizeable
> minority feels the same and are avoiding the new models solely for that
> reason.

They are extreme styling. Many vehicle models are still available with
65+.
The silliest thing I saw was a large truck based SUV (Yukon or similar)
with extremely low profile tires; 45 I believe. That vehicle would tip
over before the cornering of those tires was effective.
Just kiddy stuff, like those trunk fins that are useless at legal
speeds.
>
> Manufacturers need to offer reasonable tire options. Particularly, the 14
> or 15 inch wheel with -80 profiles. Keep in mind there are buyers out
> there who remember 6.70-15 wheels and tires and that roughly corresponds to
> -90 profiles.

You are going too far back with 75+ profile.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2005, 03:01   #7 (permalink)
N8N
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?


Nomen Nescio wrote:
> This new fad of larger wheels and how-low-can-we-go tires just might be
> scaring off the middle-aged bread and butter customers.
>
> Not too long ago, -75 and -80 tires were the norm. Wheels were mostly 14
> inch for typical family cars and station wagons. Those sizes and profiles
> must have evolved by the application of good engineering sense. They
> delivered fine performance and durability.
>
> What's driving the recent trend? Today's cars look like they're riding on
> their rims. Could it be this is a cheap and dirty way to lower the cars?
> Intuitively, they look like a hard ride and easily subject to impact damage
> from road hazzards. Also, being as wide as they are, it would seem
> difficult to get them to wear evenly across the tread and equally difficult
> to achieve alignment angles which are always calculated to the center of
> the wheel. Is there a bonafide reason to these new designs, or is it just
> stylists' whim?
>
> A popular theory is these low and wide tires provide better cornering and
> traction. Is that really the case or just advertising hype? How about
> hydroplaning? If wide tires hydroplane earlier, then there is no merit in
> the traction claim. As for cornering in a passenger car, its hard to beat
> a VW Scirocco and those typically were equipped with -80s.
>
> Frankly, oversize wheels and undersized tires turn me off esthetically.
> Eyeball engineering tells me they are all wrong. My guess is a sizeable
> minority feels the same and are avoiding the new models solely for that
> reason.
>
> Manufacturers need to offer reasonable tire options. Particularly, the 14
> or 15 inch wheel with -80 profiles. Keep in mind there are buyers out
> there who remember 6.70-15 wheels and tires and that roughly corresponds to
> -90 profiles.


IMHO it takes about a 60 series tire to get a good compromise between
ride and handling. However I do see your point, there's a lot of
vehicles out there with much lower profile tires than even that...

nate

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2005, 03:01   #8 (permalink)
oldkid
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

i couldn't agree with you more!!the"play' of all companys just not
tires is to the absurd and over hyped sell on the ignorance and
strupidity of the consumer!!greed is as greed does!!but the tire thing
is mostly a warm and freindly client type of situation.but stupid is as
stupid does makes this an epidemic of national lunacy!!and i thought
the NRA was nuts!!

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2005, 04:01   #9 (permalink)
Bill Putney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

Spam Hater wrote:

> ...-Worse for hydroplaning all things being equal...


Why is everyone insisting on keeping "everything else equal"? There is
nothing - absolutely nothing - inherently more hydroplane-susceptible
about low profile per-se if the tire is sized properly with the lower
profile. I'm not into the extreme either (I have 60's on my Concorde,
and that is "extreme" as I want to go), but when one goes to a different
size (larger wheel & lower profile), one simply specs the numbers to
maintain the same tread width ( => hydroplaning susceptibility) and
tread OD (speedometer/odometer reading).

You could go to smaller OD and *still* maintain the same tread width
(hydroplaning resistance) if you wanted to. There's no reason one
couldn't go with larger wheel, lower profile, *and* narrower tread if
hydroplaning is the concern while maintaining speedo accuracy -
absolutely no reason.

It's ridiculous to list worse hydroplaning as an inherent property of
lower profile - because there's no reason to keep "everything else
equal" - the conversion charts reflect that.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2005, 07:01   #10 (permalink)
Kevin Bottorff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Sales Are Way Off, Could It Be the Tires?

"oldkid" <o2pz5y402@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:1131620346.663849.120400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> i couldn't agree with you more!!the"play' of all companys just not
> tires is to the absurd and over hyped sell on the ignorance and
> strupidity of the consumer!!greed is as greed does!!but the tire thing
> is mostly a warm and freindly client type of situation.but stupid is as
> stupid does makes this an epidemic of national lunacy!!and i thought
> the NRA was nuts!!
>
>


If you think a org. that is for common sence education and fights for a
constitutional guaranted right is nuts, then your other conclusions are
probably pathetly off base also. KB

--
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.autos.ford



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 00:08.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.