these two images are scaled the same and taken from portions of the tire without any load, and mounted on their respective rims. measuring the length of segments of the red line show that the actual contact area of the two tires is virtually identical. the stock tire is much more "square shouldered," and also has narrower rain grooves.

on the other hand, if you went by the data tire-rack has for the tread width of the bfg gforce t/a kd 245/40/17 you would expect it to have less rubber on the road than the stock tire. this is clearly not the case, and it's pretty obvious just looking at the two on opposite sides of the vehicle without measuring everything.

with the combo i have now (245/40/17 and 225/40/17) i don't believe the car oversteers any more than it did on the stock rubber. when my fronts wear out (probably not anytime soon) i might go for a slightly smaller size than the 225/40/17 i have now in hopes of making the car slightly more neutral and getting a bit of mileage back. i would not go bigger in the back because i value my acceleration in a straight line too.

 

If you go with smaller front, 215/45/17, would it make it even less oversteer? Cuz the rear would have more traction relatively to the front.

 

schwett,

That is a pretty cool approach to measuring contact patch...but are you taking account for tread width? Is the tread width the same on both tires?

 

the g-force is much wider... the pictures are both the same "scale." the good thing about the s-02 is that it achieves the same contact area with a narrower tire. i assume narrower also = lighter.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Unicron
[B]schwett,

That is a pretty cool approach to measuring contact patch...but are you taking account for tread width?