TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

If I change tires to 22 from 20, will it affect range severely?

Discussion in 'Model X' started by hare613, Apr 7, 2018.

  1. hare613

    hare613 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    China
    I got the reward from Referral, a set of 22 inch tires, but I am not sure if I should use them, I was told that it will lose about 20% of range if change to 22 from 20, really..? this much?

    And ... also it could cause people inside the car feel more clearly about the bumps in the road, and more noises since the tires become thinner

    seems other than much better look, 22 inch has no advantages to 20 inch tires at all ?
     
  2. commasign

    commasign TeslaAdviceBlog.com

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    3,202
    Location:
    Davis, CA
    If you go from 20" to 22", you'll lose 15% or more range. It's even worse in cold weather. I don't think it's bumpier, but the car feels more stable and confident on the 22" wheels especially when turning.
     
  3. Tjhappel

    Tjhappel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    San Clemente, California
    I went from 22 to 20, range affect is gigantic!! It looks way way better with 22’s but I drove too much every day and the 20’s allow me to get a bit over 200 miles of actual driving on my 90d. Avg wh/mile is 341 with 20’s, 22’s it was like 380.
     
    • Like x 1
  4. commasign

    commasign TeslaAdviceBlog.com

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    3,202
    Location:
    Davis, CA
    There is another “advantage” to the 22’s. I’ve had several flat tires on my X with 20’s and once with the 22’s. The 22” Goodyear tire is $225 but the 20” Continental tire is $432! Not sure how much the Pirelli 22’s are though.
     
  5. ps004ynos

    ps004ynos Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Just another data point: I mainly drive highway and I was getting about 75% of range (max 260 in a X 90D ) with the 20's. I now clock in at 65% of range with the 22s.
     
  6. BigMskiman

    BigMskiman Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,092
    Location:
    Pleasanton, CA
    Check reports on tire wear also. You may get more miles outta the 20"ers.
    I've never had a flat on 20"ers in 2yrs, but two different cars and sets of tires.
     
  7. ShockOnT

    ShockOnT ⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2016
    Messages:
    3,233
    Location:
    Sydney
    The 20s should be much cheaper than the 22s, and will give you more range, smoother ride.
    But, the 22s look better, handle better.
    Now it’s up to you how much you value each of these attributes.
     
  8. eye.surgeon

    eye.surgeon Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,366
    Location:
    California
    Your range will be noticeably worse on 22s, the ride will be rougher, tires will cost more and you'll have more flats and bent rims.
     
    • Love x 1
  9. acal

    acal Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    can someone ELI5 why the range is worse with larger diameter rims? Is it just higher rotational inertia?
     
  10. buttershrimp

    buttershrimp Click my signature to Go Mad Max Mode

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,488
    Location:
    ATX
    Mainly because of how the weight is further from the center. I find however that the arachnid wheels in my s have improved my range , maybe even close to what people get on slip Streams, they are very light.... would be interesting to get some narrow carbon fiber wheels .... would add like 800 miles of range :)
     
    • Love x 1
  11. muleferg

    muleferg Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,454
    Location:
    North Wilkesboro, NC
    Love my 20" black.

    IMG_3212.jpg
     
    • Love x 2
  12. Robotpedlr

    Robotpedlr Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    256
    Location:
    Seattle
    Also wider tires have more road friction.
     
  13. Peteybabes

    Peteybabes redneck drivin' a tesla...

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    'murica
    man i wish i had 20's so bad...my car came as it was and I've been getting 500+ wh/mile all winter and i'm sick of it. i was able to get to 390's this weekend by driving 70MPH on the highway and driving like a granny plus weather finally got above 40 degrees.

    when driving a 100D X a couple months back it was getting 320s-340's in cold weather with 20" wheels and that was 80MPH highway. :D

    the longest i've got on my car between charges on the highway has been 187 miles and that included driving at 0% for 8 miles to get to the nearest supercharger. LOL! If i had 20's i could have arrived with 5% easily.
     
  14. Yinn

    Yinn Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,948
    Location:
    Behind you
    The larger wheels have larger contact patches. The 20" wheels on Continentals use a 265/45-20 front tire and 275/45/20 rear tire. The tread width on those tires end up being 8.5" in the front and 8.9" in the rear. Compared to the 22" wheels w/ Pirelli Scorpions, they use a 265/35-22 front tire and a 285/35-22 rear tire. Those give a 9.5" tread width in the front and 10.5" in the rear. What does that mean? That means more tire is touching the ground, which creates more friction. Similiar to how towing a trailer creates air friction, this would be creating ground friction.

    If we took a look at the tread width comparisons, it would be 11.7% larger on the 22" wheels and 17.9% larger on the rear tire. Taking all 4 into account, it comes out to be roughly 14.9% larger tread width for the contact patch which looks like a pretty familiar number. There's more that goes into it like load and PSI; but simplified the additional traction/friction from the 22's account for a lot of the efficiency loss.

    If you have the Goodyear Eagle F1s instead of the Pirelli Scorpion Zero's, the mileage issue is slightly worse. The contact patches on the Goodyear's are 15% larger front, 18% larger rear. The traction ratings are also AA rated vs the A of the Pirelli's with a much higher rate of wear. This would indicate that as a tire, it's a stickier tire. That's good for traction, but bad for efficiency.

    The second part of it is weight. In addition to being unsprung weight, the wheels and tires are a rotating mass. All of this means that a single pound of weight on those components is equielant to several multiples of that weight if it were inside the cabin.

    For comparison again, weights for each not including air or wheel weights for balancing. 20" wheels on Continentals weigh in at 30lbs per tire for a wheel/tire combo weight of 62lbs front, 63.2lbs rear. The 22" wheels on Pirelli's are 71.6lbs front, 78.4lbs rear. That's 15.5% higher in the front, and 24% higher in the rear. Overall that's 19.8% more weight. Again, another number that looks familiar.

    So what do you do if you absolutely want the oem 22's and don't want to take as bad of a mileage penalty? Look into other tires and overinflate a little. The Continental Extremecontact DWS 06 tire as an example weighs in at 27lbs on the front, 3 lbs lighter than the 20" oem tires and has a tread width that is just 7% larger.

    I got curious about your arachnids, so I ran those too. I know the arachnids are forged and lighter, which probably offsets the traction penalty. On a 19" slipstream wheel with the Michelin Primacy MXM4 tire, it has a total weight of 57lbs per corner with a tread width of 8.4" Compared to the 21" arachnids, which weigh 52.85lbs on the front and 55.75lbs in the rear. On all 4 corners, the arachnids are 10.8lbs lighter than the slipstreams for a 5.1% weight reduction; even more if you're running a boxed setup.

    When we get into looking at tread width, the slipstreams have a 8.4" contact patch using a 16" Michelin Primacy MXM4. It goes to 9.1" front and 9.5" rear on the 21" on Michellin PSS tires. On all 4 corners, that's 10.7% larger. Interestingly, if you went with the Contisport Contacts, the front treadwidth is exactly the same as the 19's and only the rears being larger. This setup would end up being only 4.2% larger on all 4 corners.

    What's your exact setup? It might end up implying unsprung weight is the major factor here.
     
    • Informative x 4
    • Like x 2
  15. rainforest

    rainforest Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,024
    Location:
    Canada
    So is the consensus 15% range loss? Wonder if anybody tried putting on 19" wheels to extend range.
     
    • Like x 1
  16. buttershrimp

    buttershrimp Click my signature to Go Mad Max Mode

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,488
    Location:
    ATX
    I have the staggered wheels, arachnids, coming from turbines... I have super sports, and I tend to inflate well. I’ve gone 330 miles on the turbines, which was a challenge (Sweetwater to SantaRosa) and recently driving must faster Austin to Mt. Pleasant 310 miles on arachnids. But it’s not just anecdotal, I’ve noticed a big improvement on energy and range with the arachnids. Both have PSS. I did a lot of research on the different tires and right now, I’d have a hard time parting with the PSS. When I look at the raw weight of the tires, there was some benefit too to the PSS if I remember. BUt all in all, I’m actually thinking the contact area plays less of a role than the weight of the tire..... In fact, your explanation makes so much sense to me because I my past hypermile trips have surprised me how much the payload didn’t matter.... but wind and the tire weight matter tremendously... and temperature of course. Other things I’ve noticed as negligible are range mode, ludicrous if you aren’t flooring it, and stereo.

    Long story short... your explanation about wheel weight having a far greater effect than payload makes all the sense in the world. I am super curious how far the car could go on a square arachnid set up. I think the width catching the wind on the back tire would make a real difference.

    Finally.... I wish I could make snap on aero rims for my arachnids... it would be really great.
     
    • Like x 1
  17. jgrgnt

    jgrgnt Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2016
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Echoing what's been said. I get 25% less range than with the 20s. The ride with the 22s is slightly more harsh, but cornering and road feel are improved, and I don't find them to be any noisier. I put up with the range hit around town, but switch to 20s when we do long road trips.
     
  18. buttershrimp

    buttershrimp Click my signature to Go Mad Max Mode

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,488
    Location:
    ATX
    Wow, that is a great color build.... makes the 20 inch rims look as good as the 22 inch.
     
    • Love x 1
  19. buttershrimp

    buttershrimp Click my signature to Go Mad Max Mode

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,488
    Location:
    ATX
    I thought I heard someone put arachnids on a model X which I'd love to see, but tire choice would be hard to figure out.
     
  20. Yinn

    Yinn Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,948
    Location:
    Behind you
    I'm sure some have tried, and there's threads on going to 19" Winters too. They mostly have experienced a reduction in range. That is partly expected though as it's not directly related to the size of the wheel and winter tires are grippier and have taller blocks that give superior cold traction but affect efficiency.

    If we look at the Cylcones the same way we did the 22's and 21's, we see the total weight package is higher than on the 20's. The tire width is the same as well 265/275, so on paper it could actually be less efficient; but I doubt there would be any noticeable difference (~1% difference)

    I do the same, I swap the 20's on when I road trip or tow. I do record my ranges and on 20's my averages are ~372wh/mi (w/o trailer) On 22's, my average has been 405wh/mi; or 9% higher than 20's.

    For everyone else, depending on your driving habits, it may or may not actually matter. As an example, my daily commute is roughly 30 miles each way. On 20's I go through 35-40 miles of indicated range each way on 22's I go through 38-43 miles each way. It really depends on each person's individual situation. Because of my daily habits, it really doesn't make a difference to me on a day to day basis.

    A white X is running around with graphite arachnids.
    [​IMG]

    I like them better on the S than the X. On the X, I still prefer the 22 turbines.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Helpful x 1
    • Love x 1

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC