S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

larger wheels = worse performance?

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 29, 2001 | 02:32 PM
  #1  
malachi's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
From: SF
Default

VERY interesting issue in the Spring 2001 issue of 'Honda Tuning' about the effect of larger wheels on power.

First the background:

They dyno tested a car (civic dx) with stock wheels and tires (185/70R-13 weighing 29 lbs).
They then swapped out the stock wheels and tires for 17" wheels and tires (205/40ZR-17 weighing 38.5 lbs).
Upgraded combo added 9.5 lbs (@33%), and increased circumference by 1.75" (@.25%).

At peak HP dropped from 113.6 HP to 109.8 HP (-3.8HP) with the largest difference being 7 HP. That's a loss of between @3% and @5%.

They conclusion was that this loss was caused by BOTH increased size AND increased weight. The size changed the effective gear ration resulting in increased effort to turn the wheels and decreased acceleration. The weight caused the car to struggle at the moment of inertia and to use more power to keep the drive wheels turning.

Extending this to the S2000, with similar increases in weight and size we would see a loss of somewhere between 9 HP and 12 HP.

I, for one, would love to see results that differentiate size related power loss from weight related power loss.

Regardless, if this is (in fact) correct it's a thought provoker for sure.
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2001 | 04:26 PM
  #2  
rocketman's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
From: Rockville
Default

That's why I got the supercharger - to overcome the power loss from my 18" wheels/tires
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2001 | 04:56 PM
  #3  
josh3io's Avatar
Registered User
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
From: Mountain View
Default

IMHO

i'd say more due to the changing ratio. compare to what people have said about changing final drive gear ratio, or like randy who put in a whole new gear set.

gears are like levers, have the right ones and you can move the earth!
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2001 | 05:04 PM
  #4  
TurboVtk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,054
Likes: 0
From: Bronxville/NY
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by josh3io
[B]IMHO

i'd say more due to the changing ratio.
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2001 | 06:34 PM
  #5  
Unicron's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,419
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Default

malachi,

That's why you get lightweight wheels and tires of the same diameter.

Stock 16x7.5 with 225/50/16, S02's
-24.8 inch diameter
-42lb.

Volk Racing TE37 18x8.5 with 245/35/18, Toyo Proxes T1-S
-24.8 inch diamter
-38lb.

Scott and I swear we can feel a difference in acceleration between stock and our TE37's. ITR has driven my car and he tells me that it feels a bit faster that his. The lightweight wheels make a difference when I am already mooving, but the downside is that I get a better launch out of the stock tires.
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2001 | 06:38 PM
  #6  
malachi's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
From: SF
Default

or better, go with the 16" spoon wheels...
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2001 | 06:44 PM
  #7  
Unicron's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,419
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Default

Spoon wheels look pretty cool.

If you really want the lightest 16's on the market...check out the Racing Hart CP035's.

The 16's weigh ~ 10 pounds. But, I have heard that the Racing Hart wheels dent easier...but, with 16's...I don't think that will be a big problem.

http://www.racinghart.com/wheel.asp?mkid=20&mdlid=113

They have 16x7 (front) and 16x7.5 (rear). I called them up one day to check if they had high offsets, and they said they could get them.
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Mar 30, 2001 | 12:51 AM
  #8  
RT's Avatar
RT
25 Year Member
Liked
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,269
Likes: 42
From: Redmond, WA
Default

Keep in mind boys, were talking about polar moment, not just straight weight (how the weight is distributed matters).
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2001 | 05:32 AM
  #9  
Sime's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 865
Likes: 0
From: Ex-pat f/Melbourne, Au. Now in
Default

No, no, no!!!

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the stock Civic wheels only 13"? And the aftermarket wheels they tested were 17"?

That's a +4 increase!!!!

We are only talking a +1 (to 17") or +2 (to 18") increase on the S2000 here, so the differential loss between the two wheels should be MUCH lower than what they gotin the magazine test. This test is a good indicator, but I'd likely half the figure they got, maybe even less.

In my own opinion, I'd much prefer the extra grip and steering response provided by wider tires/thinner sidewall, plus the aesthetic improvement, and lose a few HP, than have the smaller wheels.

Cheers,
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2001 | 08:07 AM
  #10  
malachi's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
From: SF
Default

+1 or +4, the increase in wheel circumferance was (unless my math is incorrect) only 0.25% - i've seen similar increases for people going from 16 to 17.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:01 AM.