95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners 4th gen pickups and 3rd gen 4Runners

tire size versus acceleration

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 3, 2005 | 07:49 PM
  #1  
javadoody's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
From: colorado
tire size versus acceleration

it's easy to find speedometer differences between tire sizes. how about trying to get that extra diameter and mass moving? i'm trying to decide if moving from a 23575r15 up to a 265 (31) will negate all the torque advantages gained with my present mods (i spend a lot of time pulling the pulling the passes in colorado during the winter).
probably be purely subjective, but i'd appreciate what you've learned.
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2005 | 08:28 PM
  #2  
jimbo74's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,590
Likes: 0
From: Nor*Cal
it will effect it... shouldnt be too bad though....
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2005 | 08:33 PM
  #3  
mike_d's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Mountains outside of Boulder
the extra torque required to accelerate at the same rate as with your old tires is the exact same ratio as the speedometer will be off.
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2005 | 09:36 PM
  #4  
Glenn's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,647
Likes: 0
From: ELN
It will affect it. Smaller tires are easier to accelerate, even if you have regeared. This is because they are lighter.
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2005 | 10:27 PM
  #5  
elripster's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 3
From: Plainfield, IL
Originally Posted by javadoody
it's easy to find speedometer differences between tire sizes. how about trying to get that extra diameter and mass moving? i'm trying to decide if moving from a 23575r15 up to a 265 (31) will negate all the torque advantages gained with my present mods (i spend a lot of time pulling the pulling the passes in colorado during the winter).
probably be purely subjective, but i'd appreciate what you've learned.
Man that's a good question. The torque reduction is easy. However, the larger tires have a larger moment of intertia and so are harder to get rotating. At higher speeds, the increase cross sectional area of the truck will come into play. The added rolling resistance will be a larger percentage of the total losses more at lower speeds The problem is that the inertia goes up a lot because you moved the weight outwards where it makes the most difference.

I'm trying to think of a way to calculate this without actually having to different wheels set up but am not doing a very well.

Here's one thing, engine mods almost aways increase torque higher up the rpm band. Larger tires make the engine run at lower rpms. As a result, the mods are usually ineffective in compensating for larger tires. This is the reason we regear as opposed to build up engines when we go up in tire size.

Frank
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 05:56 AM
  #6  
javadoody's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Originally Posted by elripster

This is the reason we regear as opposed to build up engines when we go up in tire size.

Frank
which i intend to do, but can't afford to right now. i will, however, need tires shortly. trying to preplan a bit. thanks.
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 06:35 AM
  #7  
DH6twinotter's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,661
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, North Carolina
I moved from a 235/75R15 (or was it /65?) to a 31 and it did make it a bit slower, but nothing really major. Kinda hard to keep it at 75 though, but I think that is more due to the 3.0 than the tires. I was expecting it to be worse than it really was. I'm running a 3.90 rear for now too. What's your gear ration now?

Have fun all.
Daniel
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 08:36 AM
  #8  
javadoody's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Originally Posted by DH6twinotter
I moved from a 235/75R15 (or was it /65?) to a 31 and it did make it a bit slower, but nothing really major. Kinda hard to keep it at 75 though, but I think that is more due to the 3.0 than the tires. I was expecting it to be worse than it really was. I'm running a 3.90 rear for now too. What's your gear ration now?

Have fun all.
Daniel
it's stock.
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 10:17 AM
  #9  
Elton's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,261
Likes: 7
From: Siletz,Oregon
stock is 4:10s
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 10:45 AM
  #10  
mastacox's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 2
From: Fort Worth, TX
Originally Posted by elripster
I'm trying to think of a way to calculate this without actually having to different wheels set up but am not doing a very well.
For a quick idea of the nature of the problem, just look at the mass moment of inertia for a thick cylindrical shell (approximation of the tire) and cylidrical disc (wheel, assume doesn't change)-

For Thick Cylindrical Shell:



So it can be seen that increasing the outer diameter of the "tire" will have a squared effect on the moment of inertia. So changing a tire's outer diameter by 6% (31" to 33" for example) will change the tire's moment of inertia by 10% (and this doesn't take into account the added weight.)

Then, say the bigger tire weighs 6% more (could be more or less, depends on the brand of course...) that means the moment of inertia would change by 17%!

This is a big deal when it comes to acceleration and braking, not to mention the brakes have to work harder because of the larger overall diameter.

Granted this approximates the tire as a solid when it is not, but the approximation can give you an idea of what's going on.

Ok, lecture's over
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 11:01 AM
  #11  
mastacox's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 2
From: Fort Worth, TX
By the way, the effect is similar when going to bigger rims for example, which is why trucks on 20's with stock brakes are a BIG problem IMO...
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:11 PM
  #12  
Flamedx4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Originally Posted by elripster
This is the reason we regear as opposed to build up engines when we go up in tire size.

Frank

Not to mention we can regear 35% for $600. Try to find 100 more horsepower for that....
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:17 PM
  #13  
Flamedx4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Originally Posted by mastacox
For a quick idea of the nature of the problem, just look at the mass moment of inertia for a thick cylindrical shell (approximation of the tire) and cylidrical disc (wheel, assume doesn't change)-

For Thick Cylindrical Shell:



So it can be seen that increasing the outer diameter of the "tire" will have a squared effect on the moment of inertia. So changing a tire's outer diameter by 6% (31" to 33" for example) will change the tire's moment of inertia by 10% (and this doesn't take into account the added weight.)

Then, say the bigger tire weighs 6% more (could be more or less, depends on the brand of course...) that means the moment of inertia would change by 17%!

This is a big deal when it comes to acceleration and braking, not to mention the brakes have to work harder because of the larger overall diameter.

Granted this approximates the tire as a solid when it is not, but the approximation can give you an idea of what's going on.

Ok, lecture's over
We use a similar formula to calculate rolling moment and righting moment on sailboats. People really don't understand the effect of mass/distance on rotating bodies (me included.) But a neat example is to change out all the wire halyards on a typical 30 foot mast to modern hightech rope, saving only 20 pounds up the mast - it's the equivalent to adding 75 more pounds of lead to the keel, or putting another 200 pound person on the rail! HUGE benefits for weight savings the farther from the center of rotation you can get. So yeah, heavier Or larger diameter tires (and certainly Both!) are harder to get rolling and harder to stop.
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:27 PM
  #14  
Flamedx4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
IN simplest terms - changing the tire diameter changes the torque multiplication directly, so a 15% increase in tire diameter will result in a 15% loss of power.
BUT, if you change the final gearing far enough to drop down the engine torque curve to an rpm where less horsepower and torque are available, that simple 15% might actually net a much bigger loss. You have to re-figure the entire drivetrain math again to find the real effect.

Here's one of the neatest dissertations I've seen yet:
http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/D...orqueVsHP.html
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:41 PM
  #15  
mike_d's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Mountains outside of Boulder
Originally Posted by Flamedx4
IN simplest terms - changing the tire diameter changes the torque multiplication directly, so a 15% increase in tire diameter will result in a 15% loss of power.
just being nit-picky, but i think it's important: 15% increase in tire diameter will result in 15% less force applied to the road, but the power output will stay the same. see the proof in this thread:

https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f116/few-questions-about-my-90-4wd-3-0l-69025/
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:43 PM
  #16  
ROOFGOOF's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
From: HARFORD COUNTY, Maryland
You guys are beginning to worry me with upgrading to 285's from 265's .
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 03:19 PM
  #17  
javadoody's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Originally Posted by mike_d
just being nit-picky, but i think it's important: 15% increase in tire diameter will result in 15% less force applied to the road, but the power output will stay the same. see the proof in this thread:

https://www.yotatech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69025
started following the thread, thanks, and read this:

"you will not necessarily reach a lower top speed. You will be in a different torque requrement with different tires at speed. I lost 20% in mpg going from stock to 31's on an '84 pu. You won't be able to redline in high gear in either case."

now THERE'S another issue!
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 04:55 PM
  #18  
waskillywabbit's Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (-1)
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3
Likes: 20
285s are nothing to turn...especially on a 3.4L. If you want a race car street mobile, then stay w/ a street stock tire size. I turn 37s on my 4banger 5 speed and run up and down the interstate 80 mph+ w/ NO problem. It is all about your gears to maintain the proper relative speedo reading...mine is off by 5 mph...which ain't bad considering I'm like 4.2 million sizes over the stock tire size.


Last edited by waskillywabbit; Nov 4, 2005 at 04:57 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 5, 2005 | 04:39 PM
  #19  
Flamedx4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Originally Posted by mike_d
just being nit-picky, but i think it's important: 15% increase in tire diameter will result in 15% less force applied to the road, but the power output will stay the same. see the proof in this thread:

https://www.yotatech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69025
That is true. But the ability to accellerate will NOT remain the same. 15% less force applied to the road... Semantics. It still feels exactly the same as having less power, that's all that really matters.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
djpg2000
Tires & Wheels
11
Nov 11, 2020 04:56 AM
jgallo1
Tires & Wheels
1
Oct 26, 2015 06:39 PM
justdifferentials
Just Differentials
1
Aug 15, 2015 05:25 PM
coffey50
Offroad Tech
17
Jul 28, 2015 10:55 AM
Gravel Maker
RuffStuff
1
Jul 27, 2015 06:53 PM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:13 PM.