Street Tire Class 2013

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:06 am

...and as a follow on. Requesting any and everyone's thoughts on this:

I need Rivals in two sizes for the M3: 245/40-18 front and 275/35-18 rear. The rears will not be available until June. I have a set of wheels I want buy from Tirerack that are on closeout, so I need to get them soon before they're gone (stock widths which are 8.5" front, 9.5" rear). The 245/40 Rival is available now.

So, I'm pondering the crazy idea of buying the wheels with 245/40s all around and running with the 245s on the rear for events in the next few months, both THSCC and others perhaps. Come June, I'd get the 275s for the rear, and then end up with an extra set of fronts to put on as I destroy the other fronts (although these things apparently wear really well -- suppose Michelin (BFG) has used their compounding technology they developed with the Pilot Super Sport, in some way, to get the great performance to wear ratio with the Rival too).

I'm worried going this route that the M3 will be a ***** to drive with only 245s on the rear, trying to put power down (414hp) through them. It would only be for a few events, so perhaps it's a benefit to help me adapt to the new car anyway (since it's powerband is soooo different than my M5).

See, I can justify any car related purchase. Give me a minute and I'll figure out more wild justifications. Wait. There is one more. Jackie (living down in Greenville, SC) is going to 8.5" wheels with 44mm offset all around for her E46 in STX, and wants to run the Rival in 245/40 size, but isn't sure they will fit without rubbing since the car has been lowered with GC coilovers. The front wheels I'm ordering have a 44mm offset, the same as her wheels (I have to use a 15 or 18mm spacer to use them on the M3). Hence I can let her try one of these fronts to test fit the 245 Rival.

Thoughts? Would you go for the 245 rears for a few months in this position?

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:08 am

@Steve, so Ludgod ran 235 R1Rs square on 17x9?s

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:14 am

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

...and as a follow on. Requesting any and everyone's thoughts on this:

I need Rivals in two sizes for the M3: 245/40-18 front and 275/35-18 rear. The rears will not be available until June. I have a set of wheels I want buy from Tirerack that are on closeout, so I need to get them soon before they're gone (stock widths which are 8.5" front, 9.5" rear). The 245/40 Rival is available now.

So, I'm pondering the crazy idea of buying the wheels with 245/40s all around and running with the 245s on the rear for events in the next few months, both THSCC and others perhaps. Come June, I'd get the 275s for the rear, and then end up with an extra set of fronts to put on as I destroy the other fronts (although these things apparently wear really well -- suppose Michelin (BFG) has used their compounding technology they developed with the Pilot Super Sport, in some way, to get the great performance to wear ratio with the Rival too).

I'm worried going this route that the M3 will be a ***** to drive with only 245s on the rear, trying to put power down (414hp) through them. It would only be for a few events, so perhaps it's a benefit to help me adapt to the new car anyway (since it's powerband is soooo different than my M5).

See, I can justify any car related purchase. Give me a minute and I'll figure out more wild justifications. Wait. There is one more. Jackie (living down in Greenville, SC) is going to 8.5" wheels with 44mm offset all around for her E46 in STX, and wants to run the Rival in 245/40 size, but isn't sure they will fit without rubbing since the car has been lowered with GC coilovers. The front wheels I'm ordering have a 44mm offset, the same as her wheels (I have to use a 15 or 18mm spacer to use them on the M3). Hence I can let her try one of these fronts to test fit the 245 Rival.

Thoughts? Would you go for the 245 rears for a few months in this position?

Well my E46 is pushy as a beast in stock form, not sure if the M3 would be the same way, but with all those ponies, you should get a lot of on throttle rotation on demand so it is probably a bad comparison. If you went with 245s all around I'd just want a big ole' front bar on that thing

.

Re: Jackie's Car. So I have 265/35/18s on a 18x9.6 et45 in the rear of my E46 on stock springs and it only rubs on hard bumps and it just rubs the inside rear of the liner (not the junction of the fender and bumper like some combos with lower offsets. After I do the RTABs, I'm going to dial in more negative camber in the rear to combat this (and the front). That being said, I highly doubt 245s on a 8.5" wheels with 44mm offset will be a problem. Seems like they should be fine, even if it is lowered (doesn't look very lowered to me, what 1/2"?)

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:19 am

@Chuck....quite possibly a perfect, no-hitter of a justification. {golf clap} well played, sir. Indeed.

@James, yes square 235s. He mentioned some detail, but not entirely, on several car forum threads...so it's anecdotal at best IMO. But when a Nats champ says it, it has a little more weight. I don't think buying Toyos now is a wise move, as I bet both the ZII and the Rival are faster. Maybe even the RE-11A, but it needs to show up first.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:23 am

JamesShort wrote:

Re: Jackie's Car. So I have 265/35/18s on a 18x9.6 et45 in the rear of my E46 on stock springs and it only rubs on hard bumps and it just rubs the inside rear of the liner (not the junction of the fender and bumper like some combos with lower offsets. After I do the RTABs, I'm going to dial in more negative camber in the rear to combat this (and the front). That being said, I highly doubt 245s on a 8.5" wheels with 44mm offset will be a problem. Seems like they should be fine, even if it is lowered (doesn't look very lowered to me, what 1/2"?)

We put on the the SSR 8.5" wheel, 44mm offset, in the rear with the old BFG R1 245/40 on it, and it rubbed the fender lip badly (gauged the tire sidewall), but the R1 is a very wide for its size tire, and it carries its section width all the way to the tread face unlike most tires). So that's why we want to test fit the Rival -- not sure if the Rival is going to be "section-width-wide-all-the-way-to-tread-face" like the R1. Of course in STX she can have the fender lips rolled in the back, so I suppose she'll do that if needed.

I think her car is sitting about 1 1/4" lower up front and maybe 3/4" lower in the rear from stock. The problem with the 245/40 also is that it is larger in diameter, so it makes clearances tighter. I know with the stock suspension it rubbed the inside of the fender liner on the front side (tire tread face rubbed liner with wheel turned) for example.

As to pushing, from what I hear from a guy in the Midwest (very, very good autoxer), the E90 M3 is a much improved front suspension design from the E46 (so camber wear is nowhere near as bad), and the car is tail happy at will in many cases. The larger front bar (sitting in garage already) is very helpful.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:32 am

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Re: Jackie's Car. So I have 265/35/18s on a 18x9.6 et45 in the rear of my E46 on stock springs and it only rubs on hard bumps and it just rubs the inside rear of the liner (not the junction of the fender and bumper like some combos with lower offsets. After I do the RTABs, I'm going to dial in more negative camber in the rear to combat this (and the front). That being said, I highly doubt 245s on a 8.5" wheels with 44mm offset will be a problem. Seems like they should be fine, even if it is lowered (doesn't look very lowered to me, what 1/2"?)

We put on the the SSR 8.5" wheel, 44mm offset, in the rear with the old BFG R1 245/40 on it, and it rubbed the fender lip badly (gauged the tire sidewall), but the R1 is a very wide for its size tire, and it carries its section width all the way to the tread face unlike most tires). So that's why we want to test fit the Rival -- not sure if the Rival is going to be "section-width-wide-all-the-way-to-tread-face" like the R1. Of course in STX she can have the fender lips rolled in the back, so I suppose she'll do that if needed.

I think her car is sitting about 1 1/4" lower up front and maybe 3/4" lower in the rear from stock. The problem with the 245/40 also is that it is larger in diameter, so it makes clearances tighter. I know with the stock suspension it rubbed the inside of the fender liner on the front side (tire tread face rubbed liner with wheel turned) for example.

As to pushing, from what I hear from a guy in the Midwest (very, very good autoxer), the E90 M3 is a much improved front suspension design from the E46 (so camber wear is nowhere near as bad), and the car is tail happy at will in many cases. The larger front bar (sitting in garage already) is very helpful.

Wow, that's a good bit lower for a ZHP, it didn't look that much lower when I last saw it.

I didn't think about the diameter. 245/40 is .7" taller than 255/35. My 265/35 is .3" taller than stock. However, they are the Conti DW which has a very obvious round shoulder (ie small tread width to section width).

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:21 am

JamesShort wrote:

Wow, that's a good bit lower for a ZHP, it didn't look that much lower when I last saw it.

Depending on when you saw it, it might still have had the wrong front mounts/camber plates which gave us problems with ride height (couldn't get it too low without tire interference with adjuster). They had originally sent it with plates for the E46 M3. Once they got us the right ones, all was well as the stack height of the non-M plates (and their design) is totally different. Also, the front ride height varies a good bit depending on where the camber is set. At -3.0 it is a good bit lower than -1.5 street setting. She doesn't have it slammed by any means as she wanted a suspension that would be functional.

At -1.5 up front, it's probably 1" lower than stock. The rear is about 3/4" lower than stock from what I recall measuring it. Should have taken notes I guess...

Alec Moody · **Joined:** Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:02 am **Posts:** 299

I am cutting some class number to be the new RT back marker- Does it need to read RT CSP or just RT? Seems like I saw both on Sunday.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:04 pm

Alec Moody wrote:

I am cutting some class number to be the new RT back marker- Does it need to read RT CSP or just RT? Seems like I saw both on Sunday.

RT at bare minimum but RTCSP is fine too but unnecessary.

Carlton Whitehead · **Posted:** Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:12 pm

I'll second just "RT". The more letters that are on a car, the more radio chatter there will be.

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:30 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

We put on the the SSR 8.5" wheel, 44mm offset, in the rear with the old BFG R1 245/40 on it, and it rubbed the fender lip badly (gauged the tire sidewall), but the R1 is a very wide for its size tire, and it carries its section width all the way to the tread face unlike most tires). So that's why we want to test fit the Rival -- not sure if the Rival is going to be "section-width-wide-all-the-way-to-tread-face" like the R1. Of course in STX she can have the fender lips rolled in the back, so I suppose she'll do that if needed.

I think her car is sitting about 1 1/4" lower up front and maybe 3/4" lower in the rear from stock. The problem with the 245/40 also is that it is larger in diameter, so it makes clearances tighter. I know with the stock suspension it rubbed the inside of the fender liner on the front side (tire tread face rubbed liner with wheel turned) for example.

As to pushing, from what I hear from a guy in the Midwest (very, very good autoxer), the E90 M3 is a much improved front suspension design from the E46 (so camber wear is nowhere near as bad), and the car is tail happy at will in many cases. The larger front bar (sitting in garage already) is very helpful.

Speaking of Jackie's car, IF she ever decides to sell, I'm still very interested in buying it.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:48 pm

RodneyWright wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

We put on the the SSR 8.5" wheel, 44mm offset, in the rear with the old BFG R1 245/40 on it, and it rubbed the fender lip badly (gauged the tire sidewall), but the R1 is a very wide for its size tire, and it carries its section width all the way to the tread face unlike most tires). So that's why we want to test fit the Rival -- not sure if the Rival is going to be "section-width-wide-all-the-way-to-tread-face" like the R1. Of course in STX she can have the fender lips rolled in the back, so I suppose she'll do that if needed.

I think her car is sitting about 1 1/4" lower up front and maybe 3/4" lower in the rear from stock. The problem with the 245/40 also is that it is larger in diameter, so it makes clearances tighter. I know with the stock suspension it rubbed the inside of the fender liner on the front side (tire tread face rubbed liner with wheel turned) for example.

As to pushing, from what I hear from a guy in the Midwest (very, very good autoxer), the E90 M3 is a much improved front suspension design from the E46 (so camber wear is nowhere near as bad), and the car is tail happy at will in many cases. The larger front bar (sitting in garage already) is very helpful.

Speaking of Jackie's car, IF she ever decides to sell, I'm still very interested in buying it.

Lol, Chuck has exclusive 'buy-back' rights to that unicorn from what I hear

.

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

Carlton Whitehead wrote:

I'll second just "RT". The more letters that are on a car, the more radio chatter there will be.

Yup, nothing is worse than "+1 on pro x SS ladies 166".

I jokingly singled Jennifer out because she actually has a REASON to have all those different designations (I don't think she actually has ALL of them) on her car (magnetics don't stick to fiberglass), but if you are using magnetics, the bare minimum is best.

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:46 pm

BriceJohnson wrote:

Carlton Whitehead wrote:

I'll second just "RT". The more letters that are on a car, the more radio chatter there will be.

Yup, nothing is worse than "+1 on pro x SS ladies 166".

I jokingly singled Jennifer out because she actually has a REASON to have all those different designations (I don't think she actually has ALL of them) on her car (magnetics don't stick to fiberglass), but if you are using magnetics, the bare minimum is best.

+juan

I ran into that working the radio first heat.

KISS

Daniel Camacho · **Posted:** Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:35 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

...So, I'm pondering the crazy idea of buying the wheels with 245/40s all around and running with the 245s on the rear for events in the next few months...

The 1995 M3 came with 235s all around.
I don't see the problem.

THSCC Forums

Street Tire Class 2013

Who is online