steering and traction protection
- Thread starter Luis G
- Start date
But...isn't all that matters if she's getting new rims the total size of the tire itself??? Like, couldn't she put larger rims with tires with smaller sidewalls? or vice versa?
Professur
Well-Known Member
No. The sidewall starts where the rim ends. So a 195/70/14 has a 14" hole in the middle, and 136.5mm sidewalls around that. A 195/70/15 has a 15" hole in the middle and 136.5mm sidewalls around that. Total wheel diameter is different (obviously) by a full inch of height.
Yes, so your snow tires wouldn't work on my mom's car...but what I'm asking is if one increased rim size and decreased sidewall by the same amount then that would be acceptable...I guess what I mean is I could have different size tires than P195/60R15 as long as total diamater was the same...and I obviously couldn't use my current rims...
Professur
Well-Known Member
Yup. It's called "plussing" A 'plus 1' would be a 16 inch rim, with a corresponding reduction in sidewall. The question is do you really want that. A shorter sidewall makes for better cornering with less tire flex, but it also reduces the weight carrying capacity per tire, and dramatically increases the chance that a pothole will wreck the rim.
Case in point
Case in point
A.B.Normal
New Member
Yes
As an example a 195/55R16 is only .12" greater dia. or 1% increase ,a 195/65R14 is .12" smaller dia. or -1%,we are allowed by Store policy not to exceed =/- 3% in replacement tire size.You also have to make sure the new tire has the same load rating as the original factory tire.
Altron
Well-Known Member
My car has ABS. It's attached to the bottom of my right leg.
I also have traction control. That system is a bit more complicated, involving both arms and my right leg. (or both legs, if I'm in the max)
It's also got a very advanced stability control, called "low center of gravity."
I hate it when my friends give me shit about my car not having those things. It's like, I don't need them. I've had the brakes lock before, and I've unlocked them before, without anyone's help. I've gotten into slides by accident and on purpose, and gotten out of them without traction control.
I also think it's physically impossible for my car to flip over. It's so wide, long, low, and heavy that it would take an extreme amount of force to flip it.
I also have traction control. That system is a bit more complicated, involving both arms and my right leg. (or both legs, if I'm in the max)
It's also got a very advanced stability control, called "low center of gravity."
I hate it when my friends give me shit about my car not having those things. It's like, I don't need them. I've had the brakes lock before, and I've unlocked them before, without anyone's help. I've gotten into slides by accident and on purpose, and gotten out of them without traction control.
I also think it's physically impossible for my car to flip over. It's so wide, long, low, and heavy that it would take an extreme amount of force to flip it.
Agree. Add to all that, all vehicles sold since (I think) 2003 have a black box. A computer to disallow you to make decisions & a box to tell the insurance adjuster what you did wrong.
Sharky
New Member
My car has traction control, but there is a button on the dash to turn it off if you so desire. I like it on - with rear wheel drive and a V8, turning right onto a wet or sandy road with traffic coming at you at 60 mph can get very exciting if you get out there and mash the gas and just sit there with the back tires spinning, like my truck tends to do. The traction control retards the throttle just enough to keep the wheels from spinning.
I have a datsun 74, it is RWD, you'd be surprised at how well it handles if you do it properly. It has no traction control, abs nor hydraulic steering. That doesn't make me hate those features, they are simply a comodity.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
The 1962 Fairlane not only has manual brakes... it's got drums on all four wheels. It's also pre-split braking, so if I break a hose or a line at one wheel then I have no brakes. It won't stop as fast as the Neon will, but that's more the 1962 drum brakes than the lack of power assist. It does have power steering, though.
But power steering and power brakes are in the same category as far as living without them. If the car has manual steering and/or manual brakes, you can get by just fine. But with power brakes and/or power steering, if the power goes out it's a bitch to drive.
But power steering and power brakes are in the same category as far as living without them. If the car has manual steering and/or manual brakes, you can get by just fine. But with power brakes and/or power steering, if the power goes out it's a bitch to drive.
chcr
Too cute for words
Actually, if there weren't power assisted braking, there wouldn't be disc brakes on anything heavy. The effort of clamping the (relatively) small surface area of the brake pads down on the disc is too high without assistance. It's the reason drums were more prevalent until power assist became widespread. Drums have more surface area and therefore less effort. Discs are more efficient and stop you faster but the effort is much higher.
The brake system is hydraulic nevertheless. The datsun has no power (booster?) brakes, has discs on the front wheels and it brakes just fine.
The steering is hard and I can assure you it is one hell of a heavy car.
Nothing a real man could not drive
