12-04-2009, 06:04 AM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
|
As with most things, it depends on your usage. if you're hard core about Autocross, 17's will probably be best. Will you be doing serious track days, or just spirited street driving/moderate track running? 19's should give slightly sharper steering response, but I don't know that ultimate grip goes up over 18's, which to me have great response, but I've never driven on 19" wheels.
I would suggest test driving cars with each wheel size 17-19", then decide which suites you. The OEM 17" wheels/tires are narrower, so will have less grip than the larger sizes.
Having said that, I think 18's are the best for me, though I would like try a car on 19" wheels.
Steve
P.S. Oh yeah, The highest ultimate grip will come from stuffing the widest tires/wheels possible under the fenders, without raising the ride height, which you would actually want lower, regardless of wheel diameter.
Last edited by stephen wilson; 12-04-2009 at 06:12 AM.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 07:22 AM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Madison, Georgia
Posts: 1,012
|
It all boils down to physics. Turning is a product of tire deflection and the balance is struck between sidewall height and grip. I personally think that ultra thin sidewalls look bad and they have less ability to deflect due to the physical limit imposed by their smaller size. That being said a huge sidewall is not going to necessarily going to turn better because of the forces will not be as efficiently transfered to the wheel as with a moderate sidewall. Like I said it is a balance.
A practical example of this is modern racing tires. If tiny thin sidewalls were faster then every F1 car would be on wheels with rubber bands glued to them but they are not. Look at racing cars for the most efficient tire construction in terms of wheel size to sidewall/contact patch.
F1 rules state that the front tire must be between 305-355 mm wide with a maximum diameter of 660 mm. These are on 13" rims. The ratio of width to diameter is roughly 1 to 2 with the rim being roughly equal to the width. In short the tires are square. The sidewall height of the F1 tires is roughly equal in proportion to that of a "50" street tire.
So the most badass cars in the world are running on schweet 330/50/13s, how is that going to hang on the street?
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 08:13 AM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
|
I agree, except for the F1 reference. They use such tall tires because the rules limit wheel diameter to 13". Race cars are actually a poor indicator of best practices, because important design aspects are dictated by the regulations.
Last edited by stephen wilson; 12-04-2009 at 08:39 AM.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 08:22 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Madison, Georgia
Posts: 1,012
|
I think the key bit of info from the reference is that a 50 is where it is at. In my mind you start with a 50 then work it backwards to your wheel size, height diameter etc.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 08:41 AM
|
#5
|
|
Porscheectomy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 3,011
|
I may be in the minority, but I'm really happy with my 17s. There's more than enough grip for the roads, the ride is stiff but not painful with the M030, the risk of bending a wheel on a pothole is relatively small, and tires are cheaper. I prefer a little narrower tire for minimizing tram-lining and somewhat increased feedback.
I'm not entirely happy with the style of the stock 2000S wheels, but I actually don't think 18s+ enhance the car's looks given the same wheel style, but that's subjective, of course.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 08:48 AM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
|
In this area, racing tells us Nothing about our "ideal" tire selection. That can only be determined buy comprehensive testing.
For F1 it's easy, build tires to match the maximum allowed height and width, to fit the maximum allowed wheel diameter. Whatever profile that works out to is purely coincidental.
Using your max. diameter and width numbers, the profile would be between a 46 and 54 "series", depending on tire width. Racing tires usually just use a diameter X width designation, such as 26"X13"-13.
Last edited by stephen wilson; 12-04-2009 at 09:01 AM.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 08:50 AM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
|
Yeah, I didn't think about that issue, my 18's do "tram-line", but I find it acceptable.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 09:06 AM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South FL
Posts: 253
|
blue2000s - I may be in the minority, but I'm really happy with my 17s. There's more than enough grip for the roads, the ride is stiff but not painful with the M030, the risk of bending a wheel on a pothole is relatively small, and tires are cheaper. I prefer a little narrower tire for minimizing tram-lining and somewhat increased feedback.
I'm not entirely happy with the style of the stock 2000S wheels, but I actually don't think 18s+ enhance the car's looks given the same wheel style, but that's subjective, of course.
I am going to have to agree with you on this one. I like the 17s for function and asthetics. Tires are cheaper, that is for sure. I just got a new set of wheels for the summer, and again, I went with 17s (though in the BoxS II design).
I love that everyone has their own opinion though. I enjoy seeing what other owners put on their cars in the pics.
__________________
1984 - 944 - The first one.
1984 - 928S - The loudest one.
2001 - Boxster - The best one.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 11:00 AM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Du Monde
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by landrovered
I think the key bit of info from the reference is that a 50 is where it is at. In my mind you start with a 50 then work it backwards to your wheel size, height diameter etc.
|
Well except that the sidewall height isn't a set height, it is a percentage of tire width.
A 50 series tire has a sidewall which is 50% of the width of the tire. And tire width brings you back to the wheels because, as has already been mentioned, the smaller wheels do not generally come as wide.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 11:17 AM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Madison, Georgia
Posts: 1,012
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lil bastard
Well except that the sidewall height isn't a set height, it is a percentage of tire width.
A 50 series tire has a sidewall which is 50% of the width of the tire. And tire width brings you back to the wheels because, as has already been mentioned, the smaller wheels do not generally come as wide.

|
I don't disagree with you and my comment was not meant to advocate smaller wheel sizes necessarily. Stock 17 OEM tire size is 205/50/17 front and 255/40/17 rear from what I understand. So if you stick with a 50 or a 40 for handling then you must increase diameter with a larger wheel, or you must choose a lower profile tire which will have different characteristics. Otherwise you are opening a can of worms by running larger or smaller diameter tires than stock. Trust me, I know all about the ramifications of tire size changes from my Land Rovers. We have to re-gear two diffs to maintain drivability with 35" tires.
For my purposes though, the stock boxster profile is fine. I am confident that I will get the best compromise of comfort and handling with these sized tires. The fallicy is that lower profile is better, that is what I was addressing.
|
|
|
12-04-2009, 01:49 PM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 312
|
I believe 18's provide the best compromise on asthetics, ride quality, cost & performance.
__________________
2004 550 SE #1081 of 1953 (sold)
1997 911 Targa (sold)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:14 PM.
| |