Low Profile Tyres

[acetip]

a lot of cars these days come with low profile tyre and there is no option to purchase a paticuler model fitted with standard tyres.

low profile tyres have their advantages.

they look nice,cool if you like.they give sharper steering,better handling at higher speeds,and are a wider tread giving better traction.you also in most cases have a better looking wheels.

the car tends to sit lower,but this is combined with the suspension design.

but compared to standard tyres they have there draw backs.

price to replace is much higher on the average.

they are a harsher ride,as someone said if you run over a bit of chewing gum the you can tell its flaviour.

they are noisier in comparison.

they are more prone to damage by kerbs and potholes.

they are more likly to aquaplane in simuler conditions than a stadered tyre.

poorer traction in snow than a standard tyre.

if a low profile gives a harsh ride then think whats its doing to the rest of the car,causing even more rattles to develop.

these are not just my own opinions,i did a bit searching to see what the pros and cons for these tyres.

i would not mind betting if some owners of cars with low profile could for one day have standerd tyres fitted to their cars, they would be surprised how much nicer and quieter they are, have a much smoother ride.

the handling is not that much better unless your someone who drives to the limit on a reguler basis.

how many low proile tyres do you see being used in formula 1 or rally cars.

when i brought my auris i was looking for a car with a timing chain,not a belt,petrol not diesel (had plenty)no low profile tyres,(got the t shirt).

thats why i got a 1.6 t spirit,and the ride is great,going over things like railway crossing is hardly noticed, just a light rumble from the tyre.though the suspension is a lot softer than say a t180.

i think most owners go for low profiles just for the looks,but a what price.

you cant see them when you driving,can you.

[Daveyonthemove]

Why are they more prone to aqua plaining or worse in the snow?

Surely the width of the tyre and the tread would be the reason for this, not the profile?

Not arguing, just after an explanation.

[acetip]

Why are they more prone to aqua plaining or worse in the snow?

Surely the width of the tyre and the tread would be the reason for this, not the profile?

Not arguing, just after an explanation.

hi dave,

this what was stated on one of the sites i viseted stated in its pro and cons for them.

wider tyre as low profile are, are more prone to aquaplning cos being wider then more water can get under the tyre and lift it clear of contact with the road. as with them in snow,narrow tyres tend to cut into the snow sasier than wider tyres.dont shoot the messenger please dave.

[Daveyonthemove]

I can understand the comments about surface area on the wet/snowy surface, but i thought you could buy the same tyre in the same radius and width, but in a different profile, so i would expect a (for example) R17 225 45 tyre to behave the same as a R17 225 55 in wet or snowy conditions as the width is the same, but cushion better against rough road surfaces etc.

So that wouldn't be a direct influence of a lower profile?

By the way, that's not a dig, i'm just just trying to understand. :)

[acetip]

I can understand the comments about surface area on the wet/snowy surface, but i thought you could buy the same tyre in the same radius and width, but in a different profile, so i would expect a (for example) R17 225 45 tyre to behave the same as a R17 225 55 in wet or snowy conditions as the width is the same, but cushion better against rough road surfaces etc.

So that wouldn't be a direct influence of a lower profile?

By the way, that's not a dig, i'm just just trying to understand. :)

Hi again dave.

as ive said thats what i read.

but your correct the same widh tyre being standared or low profile should act the same.

but taking a car as our aurises, yours has wide low profile,where mine has 205 55 16.

they are the samme car but yours being a diesel is heavier.

but yous would be more likly to aqualplane because of your wider tyres.

i suppose its like water skiing.if you stand stiil on the water on the skis you will sink in the water,but if your towed behind a boat and reach enough speed you will travel across the water without sinking, this i beleave is called aquadymatics or something.the same thing happens in your engine,the plain bearings,bigend, mains etc is kept apart by a film of oil thats generated by the revolving jounels.not by oil pump pressure as some beleave.

the pressure produced to hold a water skiier up is equel to the load the skiir puts on the skiis,its directly proportionel.any thats how i understand it.

so a wider tyre compared to a narrow tyre will lift the car weight easier.

[Cyker]

Low profile tyres also have less sidewall flex; Slightly better cornering performance.

However, they will fail much faster if under-pressurized than a 'normal' tyre.

Personally I'm not a fan as they add more unsprung weight than a smaller rim which means worse acceleration and higher shock forces.

They do make cleaning the inside of the rims by hand much easier tho'

[acetip]

Low profile tyres also have less sidewall flex; Slightly better cornering performance.

However, they will fail much faster if under-pressurized than a 'normal' tyre.

Personally I'm not a fan as they add more unsprung weight than a smaller rim which means worse acceleration and higher shock forces.

They do make cleaning the inside of the rims by hand much easier tho'

agree with all that.

friend has a BMW 7 series with low profiles and loads of toys fitted.one of which is 3 different suspension settings

when on the softest setting it set, compensates for any harshness caused by the tyres.and the car is very well insulated, as it should be for the price,there very little noise heared.its a petrol model.the cost of tyres for it does not worry him one bit.

[Jamesbelfast]

A link to the site giving all this wonderful knowledge regarding low-profile tyres would be good to see.

One important factor many people fail to recognise is that the wider the tyre doesn't always mean better grip. The rubber compound a weight of the vehicle have much more influence.:)

[Heidfirst]

I can understand the comments about surface area on the wet/snowy surface, but i thought you could buy the same tyre in the same radius and width, but in a different profile, so i would expect a (for example) R17 225 45 tyre to behave the same as a R17 225 55 in wet or snowy conditions as the width is the same, but cushion better against rough road surfaces etc.

So that wouldn't be a direct influence of a lower profile?

R17 225 45 & R17 225 55 don't have the same rolling radius though.

If you want the same rolling radius you have to drop to a lower wheel size with a higher profile tyre which usually also means that you end up with a slightly narrower tyre too. Withe the same weight of vehicle going through a narrower contact patch they cut through snow & water to the hard surface better (the reverse is why you fit balloon tyres or even a 2nd set to tractors for working in soft conditions & to prevent them sinking in).

Of course tread pattern & compound also come into the grip equation.

btw acetip 55 series are still low profile.

formula 1 tyres are a strange breed because not only do they form a large part of the suspension compliance but they have also been mandated to certain dimensions in order to slow the cars down artificially.

Rally cars do run low profiles on tarmac stages.

[acetip]

I can understand the comments about surface area on the wet/snowy surface, but i thought you could buy the same tyre in the same radius and width, but in a different profile, so i would expect a (for example) R17 225 45 tyre to behave the same as a R17 225 55 in wet or snowy conditions as the width is the same, but cushion better against rough road surfaces etc.

So that wouldn't be a direct influence of a lower profile?

R17 225 45 & R17 225 55 don't have the same rolling radius though.

If you want the same rolling radius you have to drop to a lower wheel size with a higher profile tyre which usually also means that you end up with a slightly narrower tyre too. Withe the same weight of vehicle going through a narrower contact patch they cut through snow & water to the hard surface better (the reverse is why you fit balloon tyres or even a 2nd set to tractors for working in soft conditions & to prevent them sinking in).

Of course tread pattern & compound also come into the grip equation.

btw acetip 55 series are still low profile.

formula 1 tyres are a strange breed because not only do they form a large part of the suspension compliance but they have also been mandated to certain dimensions in order to slow the cars down artificially.

Rally cars do run low profiles on tarmac stages.

sorry but i cant agree with that a aspect ratio of 55% is a low profile tyre.

usually 50% and lower are considered as being low profile.

but then maybe your using a different criteria than others.

[Cyker]

F1 cars have wide tyres to stop them wearing out so quickly :)

Grip depends purely on the rubber compound.

Thinner tyres cut through things like water, ice, gravel etc. better, but to achieve better grip you still need to use a softer compound, and this is where the problem starts - Because they are so thin, a softer compound will wear out very fast.

With thicker tyres, you can use a softer compound to improve grip, and the extra contact area means the rubber won't wear out as quickly which is why F1 tyres are so ludicrously thick :)

[Heidfirst]

sorry but i cant agree with that a aspect ratio of 55% is a low profile tyre.

usually 50% and lower are considered as being low profile.

but then maybe your using a different criteria than others.

or perhaps you are?

[acetip]

sorry but i cant agree with that a aspect ratio of 55% is a low profile tyre.

usually 50% and lower are considered as being low profile.

but then maybe your using a different criteria than others.

or perhaps you are?

if you look at a 205 55 16, you have to stretch the imagination to discribe as a low profile.

but maybe you have a vived imagination.

[Heidfirst]

if you look at a 205 55 16, you have to stretch the imagination to discribe as a low profile.

but maybe you have a vived imagination.

well iirc the tyre industry consider anything under 70 a low profile & I think that I'll go with them rather than your imagination. :blink:

[acetip]

if you look at a 205 55 16, you have to stretch the imagination to discribe as a low profile.

but maybe you have a vived imagination.

well iirc the tyre industry consider anything under 70 a low profile & I think that I'll go with them rather than your imagination. :blink:

load of c**p.

www.ehow.com/facts_5689854_low-profile-tire_.htmlybe.

see, what is a low profile tyre. on left

[pajjy]

if you look at a 205 55 16, you have to stretch the imagination to discribe as a low profile.

but maybe you have a vived imagination.

well iirc the tyre industry consider anything under 70 a low profile & I think that I'll go with them rather than your imagination. :blink:

Is this a private fight or can anyone join in

the remark about 70 per cent,did it come out of a christmas cracker.

70 per cent of a width of a tyre,would a high sidewall of a tyre.so could hardly appear low profile.

[pajjy]

if you look at a 205 55 16, you have to stretch the imagination to discribe as a low profile.

but maybe you have a vived imagination.

well iirc the tyre industry consider anything under 70 a low profile & I think that I'll go with them rather than your imagination. :blink:

l

oops.

[pajjy]

if you look at a 205 55 16, you have to stretch the imagination to discribe as a low profile.

but maybe you have a vived imagination.

well iirc the tyre industry consider anything under 70 a low profile & I think that I'll go with them rather than your imagination. :blink:

l

the web site given by acetip states 50 per cent and below is considered low profile.but 50 percent of what width tyre.big variable.

[Heidfirst]

load of c**p.

www.ehow.com/facts_5689854_low-profile-tire_.htmlybe.

see, what is a low profile tyre. on left

don't believe everything that you read on the internet - there are sites with genuinely useful information & those that to use your term are c**p.

As I said I'll stick by the tyre industry thank you very much.

How about http://global.yokohamatire.net/technology/tireknowledge/lowprofiletire.html?

I've certainly had 65 series tyres (almost certainly Goodyear, Dunlop or Continental) with "low profile" on the sidewall.

http://www.goodyear.com/cfmx/web/otr/brochures/pdf/65-series.pdf - yes, it's for an earthmover but the tyre industry works to standards across all tyre types.

The "standard" tyre has an aspect ratio of between 80 & 85% albeit you will pretty much only see those on classic cars these days - so anything less than that became "low profile".

In other words what we now have is a disconnect from the tyre industry historic standard terms & modern colloquial usage largely by people who don't remember anything higher.

I guess that 50 or below would be considered either very low or ultra low profile.

[pajjy]

load of c**p.

www.ehow.com/facts_5689854_low-profile-tire_.htmlybe.

see, what is a low profile tyre. on left

don't believe everything that you read on the internet - there are sites with genuinely useful information & those that to use your term are c**p.

As I said I'll stick by the tyre industry thank you very much.

How about http://global.yokohamatire.net/technology/tireknowledge/lowprofiletire.html?

I've certainly had 65 series tyres (almost certainly Goodyear, Dunlop or Continental) with "low profile" on the sidewall.

http://www.goodyear.com/cfmx/web/otr/brochures/pdf/65-series.pdf - yes, it's for an earthmover but the tyre industry works to standards across all tyre types.

The "standard" tyre has an aspect ratio of between 80 & 85% albeit you will pretty much only see those on classic cars these days - so anything less than that became "low profile".

In other words what we now have is a disconnect from the tyre industry historic standard terms & modern colloquial usage largely by people who don't remember anything higher.

I guess that 50 or below would be considered either very low or ultra low profile.

hi again.

yes youve found one website that confirms your opinion what a low profile is or not.

did a bit of searching myselfound not many stating the crieria for a tyre to be low profile.

one states that above 80% is the bench mark.mind you that was for trucks.

seems to be a fair bit of variation.

but to the layman (thats me)when one looks at a tyre on a vehicle you see a thin narrow walled tyre on a nice ali wheel,you think low profile tyre.the opposite is a wide walled tyre then you think standerd.

as mostly low profile are brought for cosmetic reasons,then someone buying say my auris with 205 55 16 and alloy wheels and i described them as low profile would not be too happy and would think i was trying to con them.

few car makers seem to describe the tyre or wheels they have fitted to there models as either types.

what ever the tyre trade standard description is, which seems variable,its not worth falling out over.

im surprised not many others have stated their opinon on this subject.

buy the way.cars not for sale.

[Rumbly]

I don't think there is an actual definition of low profile, it probably depends on the period you are talking about, and is a matter of opinion. I can remember (if memory serves correctly ) when having 175/70/13s on your Ford Escort was considered seriously racey B), but would not be considered so today

I'd consider anything under 65 profile as low profile, but then I can remember driving on cross ply's :o , and I bet your average 20 year old would laugh at the thought

[A T4]

Can we just agree that the lower the tyre profile/larger the wheel the worse the ride quality ? We certainly found that in test driving various Auris Hybrids - T Spirits, an Excel and a T4 - the latter having the smallest wheels and 'fattest' tyres and far and away the best ride which is why we went for it. No idea why Toyota don't offer the same wheel/tyre option on the higher spec cars. They cynically don't allow spec upgrades to the T4 in the hope that people wanting Cruise Control etc will buy the more expensive models !

[FROSTYBALLS]

Toyota aren't alone in supplying low profile tyres on higher spec cars without the option of higher profile tyres. The Mazda 2 we had until last year came with 45 profile tyres and 16 inch alloys as standard - which didn't significantly improve the handling of the car, but provided quite a hard ride. No option to change the tyre/wheel combination.