[briers]

Originally Posted by Jamze

So taller skinny tyres and less weight?

Yes, what i said on post 7

[m1bjr]

Never mind the profile

Feel the width

[garysargent]

My friend across the road has an 2003 MX-5 and it is MUCH worse in the snow than a standard BMW 335i. We both struggled on non-winter tyres last year, but my BMW faired much better.

Now I'm on winter tyres there is no comparison.

So maybe you were just lucky in the MX-5 or those Chinese tyres are more like winter ones as far as the compound goes?

[M3-FAST]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Thinking about it, we did have tyres which were more an all season 'sport' tyre, remember the Dunlop SP Sport? Which looked very much like a current winter tyre, for tread patterns. I used them on the Cortina and Dolomite.

yes I remember them well

The biggest factor is the demands we now make of the tyres IMO - I mean, how fast could a Cortina actually stop! The tyres never really had to work for a living and when they did the suspension etc was so badly designed they just squeeled around the corners lol! In the wet my underpowered Cortina would let go on a roundabout with the slightest bit of over-zealous throttle.

Nowadays a Ford Mondeo will do 130mph, 0-60 in 8 secs average, handle superbly & have vented discs all round as well so massive stopping power. (All the above comments are compared with a Cortina ha ha) - All these factors would kill the tyres of yesteryear dead. Thats not even including that the cars now weigh twice as much

Tyres designed for M3 will do 170mph for hours on end - stick like glue on a track and take it round corners surprisingly well in the wet. They just hate snow and ice

[Tippo]

Notice that the touring is an M sport model so that means lower suspension, perhaps this can cause issues also, especially with wider tyres fitted.

[Em135eye]

This is partly why I have an issue with stupidly wide tyres and massive alloys - they simply don't offer any benefits apart from looks and to the tiny number of people that ever get there, a little bit more cornering grip.

Massive wheels break more easily, weigh more, cost a lot more. Ultra low profile tyres that are stupidly wide kill ride quality. But as wheels get bigger and bigger and tyres get lower and lower profile, we now have cars designed to only look "right" with 19s/20s. That's utterly stupid. It's even more so on cars that BMW have designed as pretty economical - the smaller diesels for example. A 318d M Sport has 255/35 18" rear tyres - a 145bhp car with tyres that should only be on something like a Porsche, cost £200++ each and kill the ride. Why?

Because they look "sporty."

Silly - really really silly.

The massive rush to get 17s and winter tyres shows how impractical these ever increasing wheel sizes are getting.

15 years ago our tyres (225/45 17") would be considered pretty "full on" - now they are specced on slightly sporty Astras...

When will the trend stop? When family hatchbacks have 22" alloys shod in 295/15 rubber maybe?!

[grey man]

[QUOTE=335diesel;8431372]This is partly why I have an issue with stupidly wide tyres and massive alloys - they simply don't offer any benefits apart from looks and to the tiny number of people that ever get there, a little bit more cornering grip.

Massive wheels break more easily, weigh more, cost a lot more. Ultra low profile tyres that are stupidly wide kill ride quality. But as wheels get bigger and bigger and tyres get lower and lower profile, we now have cars designed to only look "right" with 19s/20s. That's utterly stupid. It's even more so on cars that BMW have designed as pretty economical - the smaller diesels for example. A 318d M Sport has 255/35 18" rear tyres - a 145bhp car with tyres that should only be on something like a Porsche, cost £200++ each and kill the ride. Why?

Because they look "sporty."

Silly - really really silly.

99% agree with the above - the 1% that I don't agree is that wider tyres 'get a little bit more cornering grip'. On wet roads that can quite easily really be 'get quite a lot LESS cornering grip'.

[Em135eye]

Grey - there is that too! And in snow as well.

[MEGA]

Originally Posted by 335diesel

This is partly why I have an issue with stupidly wide tyres and massive alloys - they simply don't offer any benefits apart from looks and to the tiny number of people that ever get there, a little bit more cornering grip.

Massive wheels break more easily, weigh more, cost a lot more. Ultra low profile tyres that are stupidly wide kill ride quality. But as wheels get bigger and bigger and tyres get lower and lower profile, we now have cars designed to only look "right" with 19s/20s. That's utterly stupid. It's even more so on cars that BMW have designed as pretty economical - the smaller diesels for example. A 318d M Sport has 255/35 18" rear tyres - a 145bhp car with tyres that should only be on something like a Porsche, cost £200++ each and kill the ride. Why?

Because they look "sporty."

Silly - really really silly.

The massive rush to get 17s and winter tyres shows how impractical these ever increasing wheel sizes are getting.

15 years ago our tyres (225/45 17") would be considered pretty "full on" - now they are specced on slightly sporty Astras...

When will the trend stop? When family hatchbacks have 22" alloys shod in 295/15 rubber maybe?!

Oh for .... sake here we go again
Wider profile means you can put the power down in GOOD conditions better. Why are F1 cars not on 90 profile castor wheels. Answer me that.

In the WINTER we should run a good WINTER profile.. And in the SUMMER, a good SUMMER profile. It is the Brit's opinion that the CAR is at fault for their own STUPIDITY that really pisses me off. This "cuntry" grinds to a hault more than any other in adverse weather because of the idiotic mentality leading to posts like the above. I drive a 200bhp+ RWD car, that in the summer sports "stupidly wide tyres and massive alloys", as they offer the best performance. And yet in the winter I am cruising past idiots in range rovers, hatchbacks.. Audi's etc. Because I HAVE FITTED THE CORRECT TYRE FOR THE CONDITIONS.


Sometimes you chat such bollocks it is unbelievable.

Sorry. I usually temper myself better But I've had a bad day.


Love and kisses.

[Em135eye]

I drive a 200bhp+ RWD car, that in the summer sports "stupidly wide tyres and massive alloys", as they offer the best performance.

Sometimes you chat such bollocks it is unbelievable.

Sorry Mega, you need to look up the word "hypocrit"

As for F1 cars (which ours cars ARE NOT) - ooh look, high profile rear tyres with smallish wheels...



So let's look at Touring cars shall we:



Hang on, they don't look like massive wheels, in fact they look like 17s to me.

Okay, lets look at supercars then...

The all time great, the Macca F1:



Ermmm - not looking that large to me...

How about the fastest point to point cars on the road, rally reps, in this case, the 0-60 in 3.9s Evo FQ360...



Errrmmm they don't look very big either do they? But hang on, no car grips as well or turns as quick as an Evo does it?

So why these huge wheels and elastic band tyres then? How come Audi and BMW seem to lap them up? The same guys that stick M Sport or S-Line kit on a car that makes no difference to performance then encourage these silly sized wheels. Maybe it... just perhaps its... 95% marketing BS designed to make them and tyre makers a lot of money?

After all I read road test after road test claiming cars are better when smaller wheels are optioned - the E46 M3, the E90 M3, high spec Audis, etc. If they are better then maybe your car with half the power of an M3 would be better too?

No of course not because you claim I'm talking bollocks.

As for "right tool for the job" - a BMW with Winter tyres? Errrmm no - a 4x4 with proper off road tyres is the "right tool for the job" - oh and not worrying about having to change your BM wheels and tyres because you don't try and use it in snow. It being the "wrong tool" and all even despite your "driving in snow super skillz" you claim to have mastered.

Show me one bit of evidence to show that bigger wheels are better/faster/whatever on a modestly powered saloon car. Show me one track test that proves it. Because I can find plenty of road tests where smaller wheels are preferred.

Have a fun weekend Mega.

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by kaishang

In the '70s were any people using snow tyres?

We had a set of mud and snow M+S tyres on our MK2 Escort breakdown van. Big knobbly war-like things. Cut through snow ... also weighed down with all sorts of break-down paraphenalia in the back. Made for very entertaining slo-mo drifting.

Sold quite a few to farmers who lived up private roads in the hills. Think the Forestry Commision also had some pretty decent tyres on their Austin vans.

Sold less of the M+S tyres when said farmers started to buy FWD cars, which they swore got up their tracks.

I remember flying up one of those rutted roads in winter in my old Capri (one I am rebuilding) with normal tyres. Got a few hundred feet onto a straight and the revs started flaring madly. Mud was sheet ice. Slithered for ages to a stop. Took about 20 minutes to back VERY, VERY slowly off. Braking just locked up the wheels and the car would start to slide gently back down the hill or towards the big ditch. Delicate touch required.

D.

[Jamze]

Been out this afternoon on massive 26" rims - but the tyres are only a couple of inches wide...

[bippie999]

I always use dedicated snow tires with smaller rims and my 325i always gets through the snow.

[chris330D]

FWIW in my experience the tyres make all the difference. I am currently running 18" staggered MV3s with winter tyres and am the only non 4x4 in my street that has been out these last few days. To the OP it will be the tread patter far more than the sectional area.

[ErvGotti]

Originally Posted by Jamze

Misled you, they're 17s on the MX-5.

The previous owner put cheap Chinese tyres on it just before we bought it (Rotalla F105?). Was going to ditch them. Maybe I'll keep them now!

So...

Mazda 205/45 vs. BMW 255/35

Mazda 1,095kg vs. BMW 1,580kg, both supposed to be 50/50 weight distribution.

Mazda 158hp vs. BMW 184hp

Mazda 188Nm vs. BMW 380Nm

So taller skinny tyres and less weight?

Skinnier tires will cut through the snow better than wider tires, but I'm certain the reason you have better traction in the MX-5 is beacuse your Mazda is equipped with a stock LSD. Only M Bimmers have stock LSD's. LSD's allow the car to put down power to both rear wheels, instead of one wheel with an open differential. But winter tires will provide superior stopping grip, and most accidents in the snow are due to people not being able to stop instead of not being able to accelerate.

Originally Posted by garysargent

My friend across the road has an 2003 MX-5 and it is MUCH worse in the snow than a standard BMW 335i. We both struggled on non-winter tyres last year, but my BMW faired much better.

Now I'm on winter tyres there is no comparison.

So maybe you were just lucky in the MX-5 or those Chinese tyres are more like winter ones as far as the compound goes?

Your friends MX-5 has an open diff just like your bimmer, the OP's MX-5 has an LSD meaning better traction.

[Em135eye]

Maybe 50/50 weight distribution is a factor? Great for normal handling but not enough weight on the driven wheels for snow/ice?

Jamze - glad to see it's not a silly 29er

[MEGA]

Look. The more rubber on the tarmac, the better you will pull away in a dry environment. There is NO discussion on that fact.

Weight is a side issue. Obviously there is a formula. But if you're right then I should go fit my pug's 14" steelies to the BM yeah with a hub adapter because ice skate width tyres are better in all scenarios?

Also how is anything I said hypocritical.

[Vaheed1]

It's because your MX5 is Mid engined and the BMW's bulk weight sit's at the front - so it's like a pendulum in the snow. Mind, it's the only way to make a car - front engined and rear wheel drive

[hmi1750]

Originally Posted by Vaheed1

It's because your MX5 is Mid engined and the BMW's bulk weight sit's at the front - so it's like a pendulum in the snow. Mind, it's the only way to make a car - front engined and rear wheel drive

The MX is front engined, rear wheel drive AFAIK?

[ErvGotti]

Originally Posted by Vaheed1

It's because your MX5 is Mid engined and the BMW's bulk weight sit's at the front - so it's like a pendulum in the snow. Mind, it's the only way to make a car - front engined and rear wheel drive

Originally Posted by hmi1750

The MX is front engined, rear wheel drive AFAIK?

You are right hmi it is front engine rear wheel drive.

[Jamze]

Yeah, think you're thinking of the MR2, which is mid-engined.

Lots to do, so going to be out having fun all day in the Mazda, although temperature must have picked up a bit, as the thaw has started here.

Really was chalk and cheese yesterday, so thinking ErvGotti may have hit on something with the LSD.