Tire width versus contact patch vs weight

[Ded Mazai]

Originally Posted By: 92saturnsl2
I'm curious as to why/how manufacturers specify a certain OEM tire size, and the resulting priorities.


It is not too difficult.

1. They evaluate the load capacity of the tire and the maximum speed rating.
2. A wider tire provides better traction so a performance car has better chances to get wider, low profile tires.
3. A narrower tire generally gives better fuel economy. So a small economy car usually gets narrower, high profile tires.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: supton
I thought a dragster used "tall" tires partially to take the shock. The sidewall can "give" a bit, and so the traction surface is a bit less likely to spin. Didn't think about making the contact patch longer, that makes sense too.

I also wonder if the extra mass, being harder to accelerate, also helps. At the line. To take the sudden instant full WOT. Elsewhere it's just a hindrance (have to spin it up).



The "shock" to the tires is managed by controlling the power output of the engine throughout the run, and how it is applied by managing the clutch engagement. Ideally, the tires are right on the verge of losing traction, all the way down the track.

A few years back, Goodyear had some taller and wider tires in the works for TF. Those tires would have allowed quicker and faster passes, once the tweaks to the tuning were figured out to take advantage of their greater traction potential.

The thing is there are a handful of people in the NHRA, and insurance underwriters, who are continually trying to slow the cars down. Personally, I'd like to see most of the restrictions on the cars which are intended to and do slow them down, removed, and have racing return to a full 1320. While improving or removing tracks from the Tour that can't handle such a pass, and then see what a modern TF/D is truly capable of.