I know where you're coming from as far as the Nittos - when they first came out with the 450, my buddy put a set on his '95 Civic and they were HORRIBLE! They felt like jelly around turns and they did squeel - even when driven conservatively. For this reason I was VERY cautious when we bought the 245/40 NT555s for our truck - and I've never been happier with a tire. I selected them for the truck because, at the time, we were spending two grand on wheels alone and I needed a relatively cheap tire. Ill tell you this - if you've never seen an I-beam Ford and its negative camber when dropped, you've not seen negative camber! At ride height our truck is 8" off the ground and we have 2.2 degrees of negative camber - the 555s stick like glue yet I have three of the original four that we bought THREE years ago (lost one to a blow-out from a torn valve stem.) They have barely worn - and this is considering that we've driven the truck to shows in Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Pigeon Forge, TN, and even to Syracuse, NY, on these tires (all the way from ABQ, NM!)
So, when I found-out that my former boss ordered me the 450s for the CRX instead of the 555s, I was a little hesitant too. I decided to cut him a break and take them since he had already mounted them to the wheels. I don't know what made the difference, but they stick as well as my favorite tire of all time - the Yokohama AVS Intermediate, and they have NO indication of the same problems my friend had with his. It's weird. Perhaps this doesn't speak well of their quality control, but I've always been a fan of Toyo Proxes too (parent company of Nitto) and these seem to be every bit as good. No real reason, but I've never been a fan of Falkens. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Crow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brian-SubCultureNM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering about tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Brian-SubCultureNM wrote: > > > I'll admit to what you say - I'm not completely in-tune with the car because > > it's my wife's DD. We'll have to agree to disagree on the street-handling > > issue, however, because I don't feel you're completely correct. As I said in > > a previous post, a well-tuned suspension will allow you to run a 17" > > wheel/tire without too much worry of damage - that's why I run our Konis at > > full soft on a regualr basis. If we're going up through the mountains where > > I know we'll be pushing her a bit then I dial-in some extra resistance. One > > final statement regarding tread design/compound - if you have a tread design > > that adequately evaucuates water from its channels, then the compound can > > come into play. Those 555s never cease to amaze me and we would have them on > > the CRX too if my former boss hadn't ordered the 450s instead (which are > > still a good tire.) > > You talking about Nitto tires? Egad! > > The first (and only) car I have unintentionally lost control of on the > streets was a Miata with Nitto 450's on it. My friend just dumped them on > his Type-R (he also races bikes) and put the Falken's on his car. He > loves the Falkens. The Nittos were horrible. They squeeled around the > easiest of turns. > > > Anyway, I can see that you do know what you're talking about (I knew it > > anyway as I talked with another list member, but I was just trying to goad > > you into establishing your credentials! LOL) You're choice of cars does > > impress me, by the way, as the S2000 is a car that I still haven't gotten to > > drive! > > I absolutely love it. I've driven a lot of cars from variously modded > CRXs, M3's, Z06's, Miatas, etc... and I have to say that it is one of the > best balanced cars I've ever driven. Honda did it right on this one. > > Go to your local Honda dealer and see if you can test-driev one... > > Ricky > > > > > See ya, > > > > Brian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ricky Crow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Brian-SubCultureNM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:24 AM > > Subject: Re: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering about > > tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Brian-SubCultureNM wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for discussing this, Ricky - maybe we can clear the air a bit. > > > > > > > > It's not that I don't understand these concepts, it's just that I don't > > > > agree with your general statement that ALL wheel/tire combos over 16" > > will > > > > negatively impact handling. I also can't seem to make you guys realize > > that > > > > > > That's correct... Not all wheel/tire combos over 16" will negatively > > > affect handling. My M3 that I used to have, had 17" rims from the > > > factory... That's because it needed it to clear the brake calipers. But > > > on a CRX, yes, anything over 16" gives diminishing returns. You honestly > > > cannot dispute this fact unless you drive on nothing but freshly paved > > > roads with no bumps in them. > > > > > > > tire treads and compounds play a much larger part than you are allowing. > > The > > > > > > Tire compounds have little to do with hydroplaning characteristics of a > > > tire. The tread design is the only thing that helps in hydroplaning > > > (where the tire is no longer making contact with the pavement). > > > > > > > reason I brought the truck into play was to demonstrate a scenario where > > the > > > > compound/tread pattern combo played a major role in saving me from my > > own > > > > driving mistake, especially concerning the major handicap of driving a > > truck > > > > that DOESN'T handle. Yeah, this is a CRX list, but I didn't realize that > > > > meant that there are only CRXs on the road. I didn't ask Jeremy to bring > > my > > > > truck into his "physics" lesson, but he did, and his reasoning > > concerning > > > > the truck was not just majorly flawed, but completely wrong. If his > > > > statement that the truck handles better because it's heavy were true, > > then > > > > the best-handling vehicle in the world would be something along the > > lines of > > > > a Ford Superduty or Excursion, or hell, even a D9 Cat - remember, he > > made no > > > > statement other than the truck handled better in the rain because it's > > much > > > > heavier than a CRX. > > > > > > Water doesn't care how much the vehicle weighs. If the contact patch is > > > large enough to lower the pounds per square inch on the contact patch and > > > the vehicle is travelling fast enough to where the water cannot be > > > channeled out of the way quickly enough, the tire will lose contact with > > > the pavement. That's all there is to it. > > > > > > > Now, you're probably saying to yourself that, again, I'm just arguing to > > > > argue, but I assure you that's not the case. Check my facts and you'll > > see > > > > that I am completely correct. I do apologize if I stated any of my > > > > facts/opinions in a condescending manner (sometimes I do it without > > > > realizing) but that doesn't condemn the basic reasoning behind my > > argument. > > > > And yes, as I have stated like twice already, I would not run 17" inch > > > > wheels on a drag- or autocross-racer. I assumed that we were talking > > about > > > > street driving (where 99% of all of our driving occurs) and on the > > street > > > > > > 17" tires are still not very good for street use, either. I have a friend > > > of mine that bend ALL FOUR of his 16" rims on his CRX by hitting a bad > > > section of pavement where they had stripped the road surface at one point, > > > but had fresh pavement at another point. The sudden "cut" or bump in the > > > pavement, when hitting it on a highway onramp at 65mph, bent all 4 of his > > > wheels. 15s didn't have this problem. Not to mention, 15s are going to > > > help the car accelerate quicker and will provide more stability on most > > > roads out there, since the sidewall flexes slightly more, to allow for > > > uneven parts of the road. > > > > > > > I'd hate to encounter you and your car if you're driving it to the point > > > > that the difference in handling between a 17" wheel/tire and a 15" > > > > wheel/tire become apparent. If that's the case then you have a hell of a > > lot > > > > more to worry about than hydroplaning at 55 mph! > > > > > > I don't drive like that in the rain. Honestly, you probably would soil > > > yourself if you were riding in a car with me. I can hang the tail out on > > > my S2000 around a turn going up to my apartment at 75mph and not even > > > leave my own lane. That is car control at the absolute limits. Yes, a > > > difference between 16" and 17" rims would be extremely noticeable in a > > > situation like that. Yes, I drive at some sort of accleration, braking, > > > or cornering limit every time I get behind the wheel of my car when I am > > > driving by myself (coworkers don't always like it, though). No, I don't > > > worry about what my car is going to do, because I have been at just about > > > every possible limit on various tracks in many different types of cars > > > over the last 5 years and I know what to expect out of the car. > > > > > > I'm not bragging or trying to impress you or anybody else, I'm simply > > > stating that yes, because I am *extremely* in-tune with my car and what it > > > is feeding back to me, I CAN drive at the limits and I do notice things > > > like that. My mom, on the other hand, probably wouldn't even notice if a > > > tire was 8psi too low, and probably would never feel a difference between > > > 12" wheels and 22" wheels. Different strokes for different folks, but the > > > bottom line is, if you were in-tune with your car, you truly WOULD notice > > > a huge difference between 14s, 15s, and 17s. > > > > > > Ricky > > > > > > > >
