ste
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 08:20 AM |
|
|
This thread needs pictures!
|
|
|
|
|
JC
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 08:46 AM |
|
|
OK, well here's the inspiration (from Pistonheads)
[img]
 
Supersprint
[/img]
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 09:38 AM |
|
|
if you really want the classic looks and handling then the classic ranges from the likes of Vredestein and Michelin might give you a few options -
most ar at least an S or H speed rating too
as you say above some of the Michelin ones can be harder to get, but not impossible if its what you really want...
both makes offer skinny tyres in 13" sizes (even some x-ply versions if you really want old fashioned handling - could be a lot of fun on the
right car  )
quote:
Originally posted by JeffHs
Prior to building the Locost I made a 4 wheel 2CV special...
...but FWD understeer spoils it. But with 602 cc and 30 bhp you can screw the nuts off it without troubling speed limits so its great fun
I'm going to stick with my oversized 245/45R16's on the dax - I'm just not as much of a fan of the skinny wheel look, but there is a
lot to be said for the fun you can have with low power, low weight and skinny tyres - my 1st and 2nd tin-tops both had 145 wide tyres
the first weighed ~730kg and had 52bhp (mk1 fiesta)
the second weighed ~760kg with 45bhp (S1 106)
my overriding memory of the fiesta is understeer - lots and lots of understeer not helped by the poor (sideways across wet roundabouts at 10mph)
choice of 145/82R12's at the time  (2003)
and the fact it was fords first first attempt at FWD
the 106 on the other hand was actually pretty good - I didn't even get much of the famed liftoff oversteer which I put down to it being such a
poverty spec model that it didn't have any anti-roll bars which gave it almost as much body roll as the old fiesta 
[Edited on 2/2/2018 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 09:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JC
The Suzuki engined 160 was sold with 155/65/R14 ZT5 tyres !!!!
Maybe the way to go for low grip low power is to loose a wheel! Buckland B3 anyone?
I keep looking at the Sylva Striker and remembering a comment by Steve Hole. He had a discussion with Jeremy Philips about the ‘sweet spot’ in the
range and AFAIK it was a low powered cross flow version...
How about a Striker with a K series and nice skinnier tyres?
What were the 1100 and 1.4 single cams like - I presume they aren’t as Revvy and sweet as the twin cam?
My apologies, their table doesnt run in size order!
http://www.avon-tyres.co.uk/car/zt5
In which case there is a reasonable range of skinny sizes there in both 13 and 14! Looking at the reviews however they dont rank much better than most
budgets.
If you wanted ~80bhp which is where caterham pitched the 160 and where the crossflow might have sat, why would you go for a K?
The 1100 16v made 75bhp and the 1400 16v made 105 (apart from a couple of versions with inlet restrictors). Surely it makes sense to plump for
something altogether more modern? Something like the 1.4 Zetec-SE has to be worth a look?
If you were going that far back in history, then something like the Swift GTI engine with an SJ box would be a nice light revvy alternative!
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alistairolsenLooking at the reviews however they dont rank much better than most budgets.
Once again, I'd question why you'd want to fit skinny tyres, then go looking for trackday levels of grip?
The whole point for me would be to reduce the limits to a level that became fun and challenging at sensible speeds on public roads: that's the
thing that has made my Elans the best roadgoing sportscars I've ever owned.
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 08:50 PM |
|
|
165/40R16 might be an idea, you can get Nankang NS2 and Federal 595 in that size.
Or Bridgestone RE040 and the Nankang NSs2 in 165/50R15
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 10:23 PM |
|
|
I'm not looking for trackday levels of grip, but a tyre offering a sensible wet braking distance would be a good start in a car with no ABS, no
crumple zones and no airbags.
Lowering the lateral grip to allow a little more fun is one thing but you still want it to be safe and predictable if you're caught out in a
shower
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 2/2/18 at 11:05 PM |
|
|
You drive to the capability of the car - wet or dry.
I've done many thousands of miles in Elans on Michelins or Dunlops and lived to tell the tale (not to mention Sevens on Yokohama A008R's,
whose cold and wet weather performance is just comically bad).
If you want a safety net, stick with wide wheels and modern tyres. Better yet, stick with a modern production car, with ABS, DSC, crumplezones and
airbags?
|
|
|
TRX
|
| posted on 5/2/18 at 02:50 PM |
|
|
I like the "skinny wheel" look too, but I compromised with 195/50-15s since there are still (some) high performance tires made in that
size.
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 14/2/18 at 10:12 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
You drive to the capability of the car - wet or dry.
I've done many thousands of miles in Elans on Michelins or Dunlops and lived to tell the tale (not to mention Sevens on Yokohama A008R's,
whose cold and wet weather performance is just comically bad).
If you want a safety net, stick with wide wheels and modern tyres. Better yet, stick with a modern production car, with ABS, DSC, crumplezones and
airbags?
Agreed, but in my experience good tyres have a small difference between dry and wet weather grip and poo tyres have a massive gulf. Less rear grip
for slightly tail happy antics is fine, no front end grip and increased braking distances less so.
I'm not suggesting balling up in cotton wool, it's just acceptable risk at the end of the day. I ride motorbikes, but I wouldnt willingly
leave my helmet and gloves at home.
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 14/2/18 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alistairolsen
Agreed, but in my experience good tyres have a small difference between dry and wet weather grip and poo tyres have a massive gulf.
Hmmm... not sure I agree at all. Just the opposite, in fact.
Certainly, by your definition, tyres like the Yokahama A0048R would very definitely fall in to the 'poo tyres' category.... their dry
grip, when warm, is phenomenal; their wet grip, or on cold roads when you can't drive hard enough to get heat into them, is either comical or
scary, depending on your perspective.
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 14/2/18 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by alistairolsen
Agreed, but in my experience good tyres have a small difference between dry and wet weather grip and poo tyres have a massive gulf.
Hmmm... not sure I agree at all. Just the opposite, in fact.
Certainly, by your definition, tyres like the Yokahama A0048R would very definitely fall in to the 'poo tyres' category.... their dry
grip, when warm, is phenomenal; their wet grip, or on cold roads when you can't drive hard enough to get heat into them, is either comical or
scary, depending on your perspective.
Now you're just being argumentitive for the sake of it.
Race/track tyres have specific applications for which they are excellent. Obviously this is at the expensive of other areas. Likewise extreme off road
tyres, flotation tyres and snow tyres for instance.
We were discussing road tyres, for road use, on british roads, where the key is all round capability.
Clearly something like a uniroyal rainsport or goodyear eagle is a far better quality tyre in those terms than a landsail ditchfinder and whilst
smaller sizes offer less lateral grip, it's predictable and wet braking performance is good.
Other than being perverse, I really cant see how you can compare an A048R which is specifically designed with the goal of great dry weather
performance when hot, and in most sizes isnt even E marked for road use, to some budget road tyres which have average dry weather performance and
awful wet weather performance simply because theyre not very well designed.
This is however getting silly, we both agree less grip is good, and going back to the lower powered style of 7 on skinny tyres is good. We both agree
modern tyres arent common, but can be found. You are prepared to accept tyres from last century, I'm not.
Cheers
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 14/2/18 at 02:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alistairolsen
Now you're just being argumentitive for the sake of it.
Not at all; I was merely trying to be realistic about the sorts of tyres used on 'our' kind of sports cars.
Even the crappiest of crap tyres are probably a good deal more progressive in their (low) performance than the specialist tyres that most people
aspire to or fit on these sorts of cars. If you can adjust your driving to the lower overall limits, I don't see that the difference between wet
and dry performance would be at all dramatic, in comparison.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 14/2/18 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
I think you are actually agreeing with each other without either one realising it... 
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 15/2/18 at 04:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
Even the crappiest of crap tyres are probably a good deal more progressive in their (low) performance than the specialist tyres that most people
aspire to or fit on these sorts of cars. If you can adjust your driving to the lower overall limits, I don't see that the difference between wet
and dry performance would be at all dramatic, in comparison.
You seem to miss the fact that the only person who wants to draw comparisons with trackday tyres is you. Sure, I agree that an A048 thats a foot wide
is terrible in the wet, as a tradeoff to being great in the dry, which is why no one uses them in the wet, you either leave your summer road car in
the garage, or fit your other set of wet wheels and tyres.
This thread started, discussing narrower road tyres than those typically fitted, which are 195/205/225 and my initial point was that the choice of
quality road tyres was somewhat limited.
So to illustrate the point, here is a summary of a magazine test of some budget tyres against a premium road tyre (not track tyre). It only covers wet
braking, but the results are clear. 8.5m is bad enough, until you consider it's ~26% more stopping distance.
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/Autocar-Tyre-Test-Budget-Tyre-Performance.htm
And here is a full test of a range of summer road tyres:
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2017-Polish-205-55-R16-Tyre-Test.htm
So taking the Uniroyal Rainsport 3 for example, an inexpensive midrange tyre I'm quite fond of:
Dry braking 39.1m
Wet braking 48.6m
Increase 9.5m
Now take the Nankang Eco 2 plus
Dry braking 39.4m (comparable with the uniroyal)
Wet braking 57.1m
Increase 17.7m
So in an emergency stop, you're going to stop almost 30 feet later, and on a non ABS equipped car it will be worse as you're fighting
harder to stop the poorer tyre locking up.
The handling times look odd in that wet is faster than dry, but assuming that the track used was shorter and the individual comparisons are valid, you
can see that the Uniroyal is consistantly midrange, the Nankang is consistantly last, but look at the hankook, going from first in the dry, to third
last in the wet.
There is a lot of effort every year in figuring out the fastest list 1C tyre for MSA events and its almost always some horiffic budget tyre that has
particularly good dry performance and is then awful in the wet.
This is what I mean by "good tyres". They dont need to have trackday levels of dry grip, but they do need to be consistant, and stop
properly - because as much as you say "drive to the conditions" you'll be sorry one day when someone pulls out on you, a kid runs
into the road or a deer jumps out and you hit it doing 20mph after 50m of braking when the better tyre would have allowed you to stop before it.
Willfully reducing outright grip in order to have fun, especially at the rear, is one thing, but choosing tyres which reduce your ability to avoid a
collision is another matter entirely and for me, that is the difference between wanting skinny tyres, and choosing poo tyres.
[Edited on 15/2/18 by alistairolsen]
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 16/2/18 at 08:23 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alistairolsen
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2017-Polish-205-55-R16-Tyre-Test.htm
Actually, that test illustrates my point admirably (and rather disproves your assertion that " good tyres have a small difference between dry
and wet weather grip and poo tyres have a massive gulf").
The worst tyre on that test (the Nankang Eco 2 Plus) is uniformly and predictably bad in all conditions. You simply adjust your pace and driving style
accordingly. 
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 16/2/18 at 12:44 PM |
|
|
As I've said already, you can adjust your following distance to another vehicle, or your speed when approaching a blindspot, or when driving in
the dark, but you cannot adjust the distance to the dog/cat/deer/child who appears in the road between you and the vanishing point.
Far from disproving my assertion, I've listed the numbers to prove it, the difference between dry and wet weather performance is MUCH greater
for the Nankang than the uniroyal. You're simply looking at the fact that it's last in 3 out of 4 tables, but if you actually read and
understand my last post, thats irrelevant, the point is the increase in stopping distance between dry and wet is almost double for the Nankang, i.e.
it goes from being tolerable in the dry to absolutely terrible in the wet.
So once again:
"good tyres have a small difference between dry and wet weather grip (9.5m) and poo tyres have a massive gulf (17.7m)"
And at the risk of going over further old ground, the point of a skinny wheeled car is to give away lateral grip to make cornering more fun, which is
caused by the change in aspect ratio of the contact patch, the higher aspect ratio of the tyre sidewall etc. Fitting narrower tyres won't have
the same impact on braking in a straight line which is why the idea of a skinny wheeled car with good quality tyres works better than simply fitting
crap tyres, because you want to give away grip in one circumstance without losing it in another.
My Build Thread
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 19/2/18 at 02:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JC
I read it on a Caterham forum then a call to Caterham Midlands confirmed the bad news! They said there were a lot of disappointed people at the news!
I guess it is back from the ashes? With 155 section Avon zt5's?
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/caterham/7/102650/new-cate
rham-seven-supersprint-2018-review
[Edited on 19/2/18 by sebastiaan]
|
|
|
JC
|
| posted on 11/3/18 at 11:20 AM |
|
|
So, if you were going to build a Caterham 160 look-a-like using what’s out there now, which kit would you start with?
|
|
|
