Front skinnies?
- Thread starter driller
- Start date
RE: Front skinnies?
How 'bout these?
Description
175R16 - Dunlop Trident Taxi Blackwall
Details
SKU: 66235
Construction: 6 ply rated poly/steel tubeless
Load Capacity: 1653 @ 54 psi
Overall Diameter: 26.97
Tread Width: 4.60
http://www.universaltire.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=24755&substring=175R16
How 'bout these?
Description
175R16 - Dunlop Trident Taxi Blackwall
Details
SKU: 66235
Construction: 6 ply rated poly/steel tubeless
Load Capacity: 1653 @ 54 psi
Overall Diameter: 26.97
Tread Width: 4.60
http://www.universaltire.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=24755&substring=175R16
RE: Front skinnies?
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
I asked my local tire shop about this same thing and the best hecould find was a 215-70x16. He thought it was too tall & would rubwhen you turned.
[/div]
Not to mention, 215mm is not very 'skinny'.
I may need to adjust the front suspension height with these, since the diameter is slightly larger. I'm going to find out more specs before I place an order if I don't find something else.
I'll post the details I find.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
I asked my local tire shop about this same thing and the best hecould find was a 215-70x16. He thought it was too tall & would rubwhen you turned.
[/div]
Not to mention, 215mm is not very 'skinny'.
I may need to adjust the front suspension height with these, since the diameter is slightly larger. I'm going to find out more specs before I place an order if I don't find something else.
I'll post the details I find.
RE: Front skinnies?
The Dunlop website says to call a place called Vintage Tyres Limited.
I googled "vintage tyres" and found a bunch of british sites.
One listed those Dunlops as having a speed rating of 87 mph.
Is a 100mph trap speed going to hurt a 87mph tire????
If you search some of the sites for 165 or 175 or 185hr16, they
have them good to 130mph, but the load rating is around 1200 lb.
I did not find anything S or H rated with a 1600 lb load rating.
Also, their prices were over $200.
Mel C.
93 garnet/grey
Garage Queen
The Dunlop website says to call a place called Vintage Tyres Limited.
I googled "vintage tyres" and found a bunch of british sites.
One listed those Dunlops as having a speed rating of 87 mph.
Is a 100mph trap speed going to hurt a 87mph tire????
If you search some of the sites for 165 or 175 or 185hr16, they
have them good to 130mph, but the load rating is around 1200 lb.
I did not find anything S or H rated with a 1600 lb load rating.
Also, their prices were over $200.
Mel C.
93 garnet/grey
Garage Queen
RE: Front skinnies?
I haven't received any reply from a email to Universal Tire. If I don't hear from them soon, I will call them and see what I can find out.
I don't think the speed rating would be quite as important as the load rating in a 1/4 mile application since the time above the speed rating would be quite minimal in terms of tire life. But a load rating of 1200 lbs at 130 mph would be a better fit IMHO than 1600 lbs at 80 mph.
Has anyone weighed the front end of a Mark VIII for weight distribution? I know what the car weighs overall. If I knew the weight distribution, I could calculate the actual load on the front tires. For the 1200 lb rating to suffice, the F/R distribution would need to be no more than 63/37. Surely the Mark VIII has a better weight distribution than that being a RWD chassis?
Weight of the tire and section width would be a concern as well since ideally I would want the least rolling resistance at the lightest weight.
I haven't received any reply from a email to Universal Tire. If I don't hear from them soon, I will call them and see what I can find out.
I don't think the speed rating would be quite as important as the load rating in a 1/4 mile application since the time above the speed rating would be quite minimal in terms of tire life. But a load rating of 1200 lbs at 130 mph would be a better fit IMHO than 1600 lbs at 80 mph.
Has anyone weighed the front end of a Mark VIII for weight distribution? I know what the car weighs overall. If I knew the weight distribution, I could calculate the actual load on the front tires. For the 1200 lb rating to suffice, the F/R distribution would need to be no more than 63/37. Surely the Mark VIII has a better weight distribution than that being a RWD chassis?
Weight of the tire and section width would be a concern as well since ideally I would want the least rolling resistance at the lightest weight.
RE: Front skinnies?
Go figure - for some reason I thought I remembered Sleeper posting weight distribution:
http://www.lincolnsclub.org/forum/d...opic_id=7611&mesg_id=7611&listing_type=search
Go figure - for some reason I thought I remembered Sleeper posting weight distribution:
http://www.lincolnsclub.org/forum/d...opic_id=7611&mesg_id=7611&listing_type=search
RE: Front skinnies?
Don't forget about weight transfer during braking.
I don't know how much reserve there is in these ratings, but
a tire rated at the static load could fail under hard braking.
I'd want a tire with about the same as stock load rating.
I showed that Dunlop to my neighbor, who manages a large commercial
tire shop. He said that for 1/4 mi runs the 87mph would be fine and
he noted the 1653lb load rating was about stock.
You may have found a winner!
All that's left is, will it fit on a 4" rim?
I'll do some research on that.
Mel C.
93 garnet/grey
Garage Queen
Don't forget about weight transfer during braking.
I don't know how much reserve there is in these ratings, but
a tire rated at the static load could fail under hard braking.
I'd want a tire with about the same as stock load rating.
I showed that Dunlop to my neighbor, who manages a large commercial
tire shop. He said that for 1/4 mi runs the 87mph would be fine and
he noted the 1653lb load rating was about stock.
You may have found a winner!
All that's left is, will it fit on a 4" rim?
I'll do some research on that.
Mel C.
93 garnet/grey
Garage Queen
RE: Front skinnies?
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Is a 100mph trap speed going to hurt a 87mph tire????If you search some of the sites for 165 or 175 or 185hr16, theyhave them good to 130mph, but the load rating is around 1200 lb.I did not find anything S or H rated with a 1600 lb load rating.
[/div]
A tire speed rating is its maximum speed for long durations of time, and it also indicates its level of balance. An 87mph tire should be fine for dragging, though it may vibrate somewhat at 100mph.
And load rating is also used for driving long periods of time. A 1200 lb tire will do fine for dragging.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Is a 100mph trap speed going to hurt a 87mph tire????If you search some of the sites for 165 or 175 or 185hr16, theyhave them good to 130mph, but the load rating is around 1200 lb.I did not find anything S or H rated with a 1600 lb load rating.
[/div]
A tire speed rating is its maximum speed for long durations of time, and it also indicates its level of balance. An 87mph tire should be fine for dragging, though it may vibrate somewhat at 100mph.
And load rating is also used for driving long periods of time. A 1200 lb tire will do fine for dragging.
RE: Front skinnies?
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Don't forget about weight transfer during braking.I don't know how much reserve there is in these ratings, buta tire rated at the static load could fail under hard braking.
[/div]
The load rating takes into account weight transfer during braking.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Don't forget about weight transfer during braking.I don't know how much reserve there is in these ratings, buta tire rated at the static load could fail under hard braking.
[/div]
The load rating takes into account weight transfer during braking.
RE: Front skinnies?
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Looks like Universal killed the link to that tire.[/div]
Probably after they realized they didn't have any when I inquired about them! They expect to have 11 in stock at the end of Novemeber.
My next choice is a 185R16. I'm checking on them.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Looks like Universal killed the link to that tire.[/div]
Probably after they realized they didn't have any when I inquired about them! They expect to have 11 in stock at the end of Novemeber.
My next choice is a 185R16. I'm checking on them.
RE: Front skinnies?
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]I may need to adjust the front suspension height with these, since the diameter is slightly larger.[/div]Raising your front end is not going to help your launches...
[/div]
I'm trying to keep the diameter as close to stock as possible. With my sensor lowered '93, a larger tire may rub? If so, I may need to raise the front end slightly. But that's a double whammy as the tire will also be taller as well.
I have some more feelers out and am trying to be patient.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]I may need to adjust the front suspension height with these, since the diameter is slightly larger.[/div]Raising your front end is not going to help your launches...
[/div]
I'm trying to keep the diameter as close to stock as possible. With my sensor lowered '93, a larger tire may rub? If so, I may need to raise the front end slightly. But that's a double whammy as the tire will also be taller as well.
I have some more feelers out and am trying to be patient.
sleeper
Former LOD President
RE: Front skinnies?
higher front end should result in better weight transfer at launch, but will cost you aerodynamically at top end. the larger front tire may have a larger rotational inertia but doesn't have to spin as fast, so it may actually take less energy to get it down the track. if you're talking about a skinny, a slightly larger diameter should be fine.
and consider the rubbing under braking to be the "fender braking mod"
higher front end should result in better weight transfer at launch, but will cost you aerodynamically at top end. the larger front tire may have a larger rotational inertia but doesn't have to spin as fast, so it may actually take less energy to get it down the track. if you're talking about a skinny, a slightly larger diameter should be fine.
and consider the rubbing under braking to be the "fender braking mod"
RE: Front skinnies?
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]higher front end should result in better weight transfer at launch[/div]Not to be argumentative, but then why are NHRA dragsters and funny cars lowered in the front and pointed into the ground?
[/div]
At their speeds, THAT would be for aerodynamics! I'm thinking at their speeds, aerodynamics would be important to keep the front end down at top speed. I don't think I'd have to worry about my front end lifting at my top speed. :+
Seriously, one of these days I need to mod the suspension so I can control the ride height and weight transfer at the track. I'm confident it's at least worth the effort to try.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]higher front end should result in better weight transfer at launch[/div]Not to be argumentative, but then why are NHRA dragsters and funny cars lowered in the front and pointed into the ground?
[/div]
At their speeds, THAT would be for aerodynamics! I'm thinking at their speeds, aerodynamics would be important to keep the front end down at top speed. I don't think I'd have to worry about my front end lifting at my top speed. :+
Seriously, one of these days I need to mod the suspension so I can control the ride height and weight transfer at the track. I'm confident it's at least worth the effort to try.
sleeper
Former LOD President
RE: Front skinnies?
At 300 mph aerodynamics are a lot more important than weight transfer. besides, those things have all the weight on the rear anyway.
On my mark, i played around with the suspension settings. I got the highest trap speed by slamming the car as low as i could. I ran a 15 flat at 100 mph.
Lifting the car up for better weight transfer cost me enough at the top end that i had a worse run overall.
At Ubly, the track was very sticky. I put down 1.9 60' times all day long there. I lowered the car as low as I thought prudent, then made a run. If it hooked off the line, i lowered it more to get more top end out of it. Eventually it was low enough where there wasn't enough compliance in the suspension to give me enough weight transfer, and i spun off the line. I still turned a 100 mph trap speed, but i lifted the rear end back up half an inch or so and made the rest of my passes at that height.
With some kind of fast bag setup, it would probably be the best if you could set it up to have two pre-programmed heights, one for launch and the other for top end. Then somehow program the computer to drop from one setting to the other at 20 mph or so.
At 300 mph aerodynamics are a lot more important than weight transfer. besides, those things have all the weight on the rear anyway.
On my mark, i played around with the suspension settings. I got the highest trap speed by slamming the car as low as i could. I ran a 15 flat at 100 mph.
Lifting the car up for better weight transfer cost me enough at the top end that i had a worse run overall.
At Ubly, the track was very sticky. I put down 1.9 60' times all day long there. I lowered the car as low as I thought prudent, then made a run. If it hooked off the line, i lowered it more to get more top end out of it. Eventually it was low enough where there wasn't enough compliance in the suspension to give me enough weight transfer, and i spun off the line. I still turned a 100 mph trap speed, but i lifted the rear end back up half an inch or so and made the rest of my passes at that height.
With some kind of fast bag setup, it would probably be the best if you could set it up to have two pre-programmed heights, one for launch and the other for top end. Then somehow program the computer to drop from one setting to the other at 20 mph or so.