Honda-Bridgestone practical joke *** a must read ***
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
From: Lisbon
Sorry for being pushy, but IMHO the following findings deserve your undivided attention.
I have measured the width of the tread pattern on my original S02 and on my 2nd set of S02 Pole Position.
Scott from Mugen USA had previosuly mentioned to the group that Honda had asked bridgestone to increase the width of the rear tyres, and decrease it on the front tyres.
When I read that, I though the differences would be noticeable but minimal, after all the designations stayed the same (a bit wider, but not enough to become a 235 or a 195 (R/F), I thought).
Well, how wrong I was.
I measured the pattern from edge to edge. This includes a bit of the side wall. If you inspect the tyre you'll see what I mean.
These are the results:
215/45/17 (Pole Position S02) 225mm
205/55/16 (OEM S02) 205mm (-10mm than what you would expect using the PP S02 as a base)
245/40/17 (Pole Position S02) 255mm
225/50/16 (OEM S02) 260mm (+25mm than what you would expect)
Why oh why did they keep the designation?
I thought I had increased the traction bias to the rear by going wider at the rear (245 vs 225) than at the front (215 vs 205), but in fact the traction bias favoured the front with my change, so potentially increasing the oversteering characteristics of my car. Basically I was misled by the Honda/bridgestone numbering! If I was in America I would sue them!
Be careful when you change tyres. If you keep the stock size but get a different model of tyres you may end up in a situation even worse than mine. You could easily be taking 25mm of track width at the rear and adding 10mm at the front.
For all purposes, although the car comes shod with designated 205/225 tyres (F/R) in fact what is there is a bit more like 195/250.
If you are using non OEM tyres it sounds like you should keep a rear size that is about 30% bigger than the front if you want to keep the stock F/R traction bias (the computed number is 28% but you should add something more as the pattern is tighter in the rear OEM tyres when compared to the front tyres). Next time I change I'll probably go 195 at the front and 255 at the rear.
In the meantime, can someone please confirm my measurements? As I said before, I measured the whole pattern including the bit that is in the sidewall on both sides of the tyre.
I have measured the width of the tread pattern on my original S02 and on my 2nd set of S02 Pole Position.
Scott from Mugen USA had previosuly mentioned to the group that Honda had asked bridgestone to increase the width of the rear tyres, and decrease it on the front tyres.
When I read that, I though the differences would be noticeable but minimal, after all the designations stayed the same (a bit wider, but not enough to become a 235 or a 195 (R/F), I thought).
Well, how wrong I was.
I measured the pattern from edge to edge. This includes a bit of the side wall. If you inspect the tyre you'll see what I mean.
These are the results:
215/45/17 (Pole Position S02) 225mm
205/55/16 (OEM S02) 205mm (-10mm than what you would expect using the PP S02 as a base)
245/40/17 (Pole Position S02) 255mm
225/50/16 (OEM S02) 260mm (+25mm than what you would expect)
Why oh why did they keep the designation?
I thought I had increased the traction bias to the rear by going wider at the rear (245 vs 225) than at the front (215 vs 205), but in fact the traction bias favoured the front with my change, so potentially increasing the oversteering characteristics of my car. Basically I was misled by the Honda/bridgestone numbering! If I was in America I would sue them!
Be careful when you change tyres. If you keep the stock size but get a different model of tyres you may end up in a situation even worse than mine. You could easily be taking 25mm of track width at the rear and adding 10mm at the front.
For all purposes, although the car comes shod with designated 205/225 tyres (F/R) in fact what is there is a bit more like 195/250.
If you are using non OEM tyres it sounds like you should keep a rear size that is about 30% bigger than the front if you want to keep the stock F/R traction bias (the computed number is 28% but you should add something more as the pattern is tighter in the rear OEM tyres when compared to the front tyres). Next time I change I'll probably go 195 at the front and 255 at the rear.
In the meantime, can someone please confirm my measurements? As I said before, I measured the whole pattern including the bit that is in the sidewall on both sides of the tyre.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,288
Likes: 39
From: Nashville
Ya know.... every time i have my 17's near my stock wheels, i always compare the rear tires for width. It seemed awfully strange that my Stock 225 16's appeared to be just as wide as the 245 17's... plus the 17's are on an inch wider wheel!!!!
Scot
Scot
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 7
From: WA
Very interesting observations. Thanks for sharing.
I confirm your measurements with a quick look at my worn tires. About 192/253 which aligns well with your 195/255 estimates. Staying with stock wheels but changing tire brands I am inclined to look at 205/245 sizes. But with a 1 to 1.2 ratio I will still be less than the 1 to 1.3 ratio of the stock setup.
I confirm your measurements with a quick look at my worn tires. About 192/253 which aligns well with your 195/255 estimates. Staying with stock wheels but changing tire brands I am inclined to look at 205/245 sizes. But with a 1 to 1.2 ratio I will still be less than the 1 to 1.3 ratio of the stock setup.
Banned
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
My buddy has a '94 RX7 TT and it wears 225/50's on 16" wheels - same size as our rears.
He got the S-02 PP's this year and when our cars were next to each other my rears looked way bigger than his. We just thought it was the wheel size that was making the difference, but this explains it a bit better.
He got the S-02 PP's this year and when our cars were next to each other my rears looked way bigger than his. We just thought it was the wheel size that was making the difference, but this explains it a bit better.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Boca Raton
Jeez, this should eliminate the age-old question if we can put 245/45-16s on our cars.
Looks like I'm going to Costco for the Michelin Pilots (245/45-16) in another month for a mere $241 out the door per tire.
245s... who'da thunk!
Looks like I'm going to Costco for the Michelin Pilots (245/45-16) in another month for a mere $241 out the door per tire.
245s... who'da thunk!
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
From: The wilds of
Originally posted by Luis:
...Be careful when you change tyres. If you keep the stock size but get a different model of tyres you may end up in a situation even worse than mine. You could easily be taking 25mm of track width at the rear and adding 10mm at the front...
...Be careful when you change tyres. If you keep the stock size but get a different model of tyres you may end up in a situation even worse than mine. You could easily be taking 25mm of track width at the rear and adding 10mm at the front...
In thinking about using different tire sizes on the stock rims, though, I have to wonder why Honda had Bridgestone make special tires instead of simply using different standard sizes as OEM tires. It may be that no matter how carefully you pick the size of your replacements, they still won't work as well as the OEM tires.
Which don't seem to be available. IMO this removes any special reason to buy SO2s at all. If Bridgestone has decided to orphan us with tires we can't replace, we might as well play the field.