End of the square vs staggered

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

11-05-2018, 08:01 PM

#121

s2000Junky

Community Organizer

Join Date: Jun 2007

Posts: 31,053

Likes: 18

Received 551 Likes on 503 Posts

Reply Like

11-05-2018, 08:13 PM

#122

DavidNJ

Join Date: Apr 2006

Posts: 1,959

Likes: 31

Received 51 Likes on 44 Posts

But an interesting dead horse. The ability to fit really big shoes with a little effort in a car that starts 50-50 with a relatively low CG puts the S2k in an interesting place. Many other cars just don't have the rubber available in the right sizes...or the fender issues are bigger. And the S2k starts with VTEC which uses roller lifters that allow aggressive cam profile the flat tappet cars (2JZ, Nissans) can't touch.

Reply Like

11-05-2018, 08:55 PM

#123

s2000Junky

Community Organizer

Join Date: Jun 2007

Posts: 31,053

Likes: 18

Received 551 Likes on 503 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidNJ

Maybe we should hold our horses on that one. Has anyone made the rear tire smaller to go square? I've only heard of one case where that was done. It was a B/Street autocross car and the rear was reduced to 245 from 255. However, that class doesn't allow any ride height adjustment to compensate for the taller 255. And the size difference is minimal.

Would a car 255 front and 275 rear go faster as 255 square even with a free choice of springs, anti-roll bars, and ride height?

Yep id say 9 times out of 10. The curve ball is the 275 is a taller tire effecting the gearing in reducing trq multiplication, and could in some cases not be as effective, but in other instances could be more beneficial if the added gearing helps mph in a gear that would normally run short before the next turn. In a perfect world more tire width/added grip means an increase in cornering speed, which could mean a taller gear/more mph would be beneficial. If you really want the fastest set up, it would all be based on the specific track anyway. If you are running a short course or auto x, you may never get much opportunity to stretch the cars legs enough to see much benefit in a 275 rear vs a 255.

A 315/35/17 has the same overall diameter/gearing as a 275/40/17, so to me it just makes more sense to run the 315, and I do, no matter whats up front (within reason) Suspension tuning balances the traction.

Last edited by s2000Junky; 11-05-2018 at 09:04 PM.

Reply Like

11-06-2018, 05:28 AM

#124

DanielB

Join Date: Jul 2015

Posts: 556

Likes: 24

Received 75 Likes on 45 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mugen_is_best

After finally squaring away my square wheel/tire issue I can now confirm the OP's sentiment: square is better in every possible way. The only thing I miss about a staggered wheel/tire setup is the on-center steering feel. Going square on this car should be considered a religion, or at the very least a cult

I'm quite happy with my choice to go square 255 and on the track haven't experienced any downside. I also noticed the reduction in steering feel as Mugen_is_best says. On the track I don't really care, but on the street I'm driving the car for the fun of it so went with staggered 225/255 using a relatively narrow tire (Firestone 500). There's still plenty of front grip for driving on the street.

But I think we've conflated two issues:
1) The S2000 is faster on the track with more rubber in front so upgrading 225 to 255 delivers real benefit with no downside. I haven't seen anyone disagree with this.
2) Is it because the setup is square that the car performs better, or is it because there's more front grip? There's debate left on this one as others have found 255/275, or even wider, to be a good combination for their setup. I don't think this one can be decided for certain without some form of controlled testing.