S2000 Racing and Competition The S2000 on the track and Solo circuit. Some of the fastest S2000 drivers in the world call this forum home.

Steets of Willows

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 08:49 AM
  #221  
davepk's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
From: Santa Cruz, CA
Default

Dave, Its the extra grip that makes the difference. On a turn like riverside it can provide the confidence inspiring traction needed to go an extra 5+mph faster, not to mention the extra braking advantage.

Keep in mind that its the wider tread width my 18s support that provides the advantage. If I had 9 x 17 and 10 x 17 wheels I could run the same sized dunlops in 17". Dunlop makes them, they are just very hard to come by.
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 09:00 AM
  #222  
slick rick's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
From: la
Default

Ok, cool.

That was exactly what I was thinking/hoping.

FYI I tried 275's in the back and the car stuck like glue. It was no fun!

I also think that you need more power than stock to really take advantage of bigger wheels. Right?

PS you should be receiving something later.
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 09:04 AM
  #223  
jzr's Avatar
jzr
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,821
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Default

Originally posted by davepk


Jason, If memory serves it was the 17" dunlops that gave you the fastest laps at Pahrump when we tried both during the day and it was the 18" dunlops that gave you 1:27.xs at WS while the 17s where slower. During OTC it became clear to me that its important to match the tire size used to the track being driven. But it also seemed to me that the 17s would only provide an advantage at 2 tracks, Pahrump and SOWS. I dont think i'm giving up too much by sticking with the 18s on those tracks but i'm certain i would be giving up alot by running the 17s at tracks like BW, LS, SP or TH. The extra speed you can maintain with the 18s through high speed turns is very hard to make up for with the slight advantage the 17s have in the tighter technical areas of a track.
True, true. But I think at Pahrump we ran 18" Yoks vs. 17" Dunlops, and by the time we got to WSIR the 17's were probably past their prime. Or not, hard to really say.

David, Turn 8 in Dave's car with my wing was a piece of cake on 17's or 18's. I tried going through turn 8 on the 18's with the wing trimmed flat for extra speed, and the experience was a bit sketchy; only did that once. Glad I didn't try it on the 17's. On 18's the car had noticeably more mechanical grip through Turn 5, but the 17's felt like they accelerated better through 6 and 7. The gearing change makes it deceptive, as I was seeing redline in 5th before braking for 9 on the 17's but never hit it on the 18's. In the end I was 2 seconds faster on the 18's, and it's hard to argue with that.

The "rear" 17x9 Volk will fit on the front of the S2K with a spacer. Not sure if a 17x10 would clear the control arms, but if it would and somebody could make a really lightweight one with the correct offset/caliper clearance, it might be a good way to go. Of course finding the right tires in 17" is always going to be a challenge...

U2-winner Scott Smith was running $70 take-off 235 Dunlops at all 4 corners for the duration of OTC. Don't recall if they were 17" or 18", but I'd take a 235 Dunlop slick over a 275 DOT-R any day...
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 09:16 AM
  #224  
krazik's Avatar
Thread Starter
Administrator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,004
Likes: 7
From: Santa Cruz, CA, US
Default

the 18"s are ~5% taller than stock while the 17s were near stock ratio. Going to the 4.44 RE would put the 18's back near the 17's gearing.
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 09:25 AM
  #225  
slick rick's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
From: la
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by krazik
[B]the 18"s are ~5% taller than stock while the 17s were near stock ratio.
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 09:26 AM
  #226  
davepk's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
From: Santa Cruz, CA
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by slick rick
[B]Ok, cool.

That was exactly what I was thinking/hoping.

FYI
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 09:31 AM
  #227  
SoCal Craig's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
From: Mission Viejo
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jzr
[B]Bryan, any time you spend out of VTEC in the S2000 may as well be spent in a Civic.
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2003 | 11:25 PM
  #228  
Asura's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,754
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, Orange County
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jzr
[B]True, true.
Reply
Old Aug 7, 2003 | 12:08 AM
  #229  
krazik's Avatar
Thread Starter
Administrator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,004
Likes: 7
From: Santa Cruz, CA, US
Default

Can't run rear wheels on the front the hub sizes are wrong.

You need 18's to run slicks.
Reply
Old Aug 7, 2003 | 09:02 AM
  #230  
The Reverend's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,560
Likes: 0
From: Studio City, CA
Default

Originally posted by krazik
Can't run rear wheels on the front the hub sizes are wrong.
No they're not. They're all 5 x 114.3. Just the offsets are different, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T run them, it just means they'll stick out kinda far if you put them on the front.

In fact, it was designed that way on purpose because you can't run a spare on the rear of the car (it will destroy the diff) - so you need to be able to swap any wheel to any corner in case of a blowout.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 AM.