Why low profile tires can hinder performance, most especially traction

What I am talking about is demonstrated superiority in actual performance, not what you may see people do with their cars in some poser showoff category like Pro "Rich Boy Who Got a 1969 Mustang" Touring.

Taller sidewalls on the same-height tire of the same width allow more tread conformity to the pavement, and stiffer sidewalls do NOT help traction, but limit it, instead, by refusing to allow the tread patch size and shape to be maximized for maximum traction. Tire sidewalls switched to the radial paradigm to allow them to be softer while the tread was more able to retain its shape.

Note that I said tires of the same width and overall height, not tires that are narrower and of the same height.

The FACTS are that on the street or the track, on cars with stiff or not so stiff chassis, same-width tires with the same height gain more traction with higher sidewalls than with lower sidewalls due to physics.

Taller sidewalls on same-width tread and same-height tire give more traction due to the sidewalls allowing the tread patch touching the ground to be larger and to retain its contact with the ground with more conformity than a same-width-tread, same-exact-height tire that is lower in profile.

The FACT is that shorter sidewalls are more limiting to tread contact conformity than are taller sidewalls. Obviously, too-tall sidewalls are not desirable, either, but how tall IS too tall? I think it's more relative to width than to absolute height.

Shouldn't Don Garlits be using these? No, FYI, he should not if he actually wants TRACTION.

You can try some 20 or 15-series tires and wheels and demonstrate their superiority. NO racing teams use them. Period.

https://simpletire.com/brands/nexen...urce=top-pick-top-picks&pick=sponsored-brands

Here are some tires with hyper-low sidewalls. You will need some 24" wheels for them, but they match the width and are close to the same height as the standard SRT tires. For better traction, you need more sidwall.


There should be HUNDREDS of people demonstrating the superiority of the tiny sidewalls. Why doesn't anyone in F1, NASCAR, or literally ANY racing series on the planet using super-low-sidewall tires?

Low sidewalls appeal to males for some reason. I know, I've always admired how great they looked in old tire ads.

Low sidewalls have been depicted for DECADES in tire and wheel advertisements. Something about that look seems to thrill people. I always wondered why a 70-series tire was depicted as more of a 40-series in artists' renditions in tire ads in magazines. 50-series tires were depicted as 20-series. The tires depicted in the following picture never once existed, in history. I know. I used to search the tire stores for them, and voila! they were not to be found!

Notice the 40-series-looking monster "Ruffian" third from left.



I noticed that custom car designers would ALWAYS use ridiculously low sidewalls on their renditions, but they could never bring those to life in the real world. For some reason, people find low-profile tires to be glamorous and avante-garde.




https://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/05...ith-worlds-first-15-series-tire/?guccounter=1


They are declared to be "sharper handling." Funny how the sharpest-handling cars on planet Earth, F1 cars, have used tall sidewalls for DECADES. Someone forgot to tell them, evidently.

They are more responsive than skinny 165mm-wide 80-series tires from 1968, maybe. What they are not better than are same-width, same-height tires with shorter rims and taller sidewalls.

As I stated before, Porsche tried super-low-profile tires back in the 1970's, and they just got pulled off of the rims due to their low sidewalls being too low. Their quest was due to the low overall height available on the 935 coupled with 19" wheels for massive brake rotor clearance. Porsche wanted gigantic brake rotors for its iron endurance racing disk brake rotors.

What provides "sharper handling" is "more traction" and you get "more traction" with "taller sidewalls not yanking the tread edges off of the pavement as much as short sidewalls."

You can have maximum fuel mileage or you can have maximum traction. You cannot have both. A tire that allows more of the tread to be deformed/flattened to touch the pavement is going to take more energy to drive, generally, by sheer adhesion if nothing else.

Low profile tires make ride height more predictable, so the car can be a bit lower without risking contact of the underbody with road. What they are, also, is cheaper to make, and thus, more profitable for the same tire makers who push them.

Zero sidewalls are not useful, neither are too-tall sidewalls. Present sidewall heights are somewhat overdone in how short they make them, as it is actually reducing their traction and performance for profit and being able to bray about low fuel consumption is what they are after, along with "curb appeal" to attract buyers.

Notice how hard it is to even FIND a tire that is an 18" wheel or 17" wheel that is 275 in width, a high-performance tire, AND 29 inches tall? When the STREET car, the Dodge Demon, needed more traction, it went with 18" wheels, not 20" wheels. Why would that be?

Larger wheels also allow bigger brake rotors, but how big do they even need to be, when racing cars only use 18" tall wheels? How much brake rotor size do we actually need, compared to how much better it would be to have better traction? In the 1970's, Porsche was hauling down 250mph race cars over the course of 24 hours with iron rotors, aluminum calipers, and it ALL fit in (puny by today's standards) 16-inch wheels.

If gigantic brake rotors were so desirable, why aren't race cars using 24" wheels? Why not 30 inch Lexanis?

I can attest to the truly amazing braking power of the stock brakes on the Hellcat. The 20" wheels DO work, in that regard, but 19" wheels with one more inch of sidewall, total, would have more traction, better ride, and better conformity of the tread to the road surface, AND be able to fit an almost-as-large or as-large braking system.

 

What are you using on your Challenger?

 

Taller side walls also acts as a Spring allowing for softer side and allows for better cornering. In Drag Racing the wrinkle wall Drag Slicks raise up to plant the Horsepower.

 

I'm curious what your using on your Challenger Moparisto?

 

From what I've read recently, if the sidewall actually is taller, you'll get better traction!

 

And yet sometimes you still can't get traction

 

Now isn't this interesting. 40 percent of 275 would yield 110mm, while 45 percent of 245 yields 110.25mm, MATHEMATICALLY. As Nitto and Toyo prove with their "315" tires that are narrower than or as narrow as some other brands' "305" tires, this doesn't prove anything. You may have taller sidewalls on them than had the 245's.

I know lower sidewalls are the Industry Standard For Sexy, but I see no real-world evidence that they are better for traction, ride, or anything else, ultimately, other than making the ride height more predictable for those who love lowering their cars for lower cg or other purposes.

 

I must comment, here, Don Garlits, THE Top Fuel Drag Racer, and the father of modern Top Fuel Dragster, did not use a bird catcher on the front of his engine scoop. He put his throttle blades in the eight injector barrels under the scoop.

I often wondered about that, but the pocket of air over the injector barrels would form a consistent high-pressure zone with far less time, (in milliseconds) between throttle input and engine response change than would a "bird catcher" I would think

Don proved the value of his setup, one way or another, anyway.

 

I am kind of curious why sidewalls seemed to have gone out of fashion in "performance cars."