Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Increasing range by going with skinny tires?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
bigger wheels don't increase the size of the wheels and tires. Bigger wheels just have less sidewall. If you really throw the ratio off, then you have other issues to deal with.

Also as others have said, if you get performance tires, you will lose range. If you want efficiency, you have to look for the 'eco' tires. They are for hybrids and EVs to maximize range and have lower rolling resistance.


Here is one scenario not really a huge difference but it is 2.3% larger

As for all the other comments re-cornering performance etc thanks i know the draw backs... If i need to go fast i go to the track.

If my "wh/m" wasnt a tip off, i'm a tiny bit of an, ahem, "faster" driver. In all honesty people drive to slow in my neck of the woods and my wife gets really mad when i get on it so lousy hard as rock skinny tires may not be all bad. Also the tires are basically for road trips only as i dont need the range bopping around town.




tire size.jpg
 
If you change to a skinnier tier, but the same diameter, you only change the shape of the contact patch, not the size.

Hmmm. Take a look at the example in the chart above in reply #21. You may not lose or change the shape of the contact area as measured around the circumference of the tire but you lose 2.3% in width and that smacks of changing the overall size of the contact patch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: untilcomplete
Hmmm. Take a look at the example in the chart above in reply #21. You may not lose or change the shape of the contact area as measured around the circumference of the tire but you lose 2.3% in width and that smacks of changing the overall size of the contact patch.
The size of the contact patch is the weight of the car on that corner divided by tire PSI. Lbs / (lbs/SQ in) = SQ in.

That's the size it HAS to be.

Narrower tires mean different shape, not a change in area.
 
The size of the contact patch is the weight of the car on that corner divided by tire PSI. Lbs / (lbs/SQ in) = SQ in.

That's the size it HAS to be.

Narrower tires mean different shape, not a change in area.
That formula is not going to give you contact patch size. Lower pressure increases contact patch size to some extent, higher weight increases to some extent. But not by this formula at all.

Friction coefficient has optimal pressure and goes down above and below that point. So different contact patch size makes different friction.

Also there is an optimal temperature for friction, so pressure and tire size influences what will be the temperature after some time and therefore friction as well. That doesn't matter on the street where you beat it for 5 seconds only.
 
Hmmm. Take a look at the example in the chart above in reply #21. You may not lose or change the shape of the contact area as measured around the circumference of the tire but you lose 2.3% in width and that smacks of changing the overall size of the contact patch.

I will admit my initial response should have been "not necessarily" than with just a "nope". Even though the contact patch size will remain the same the braking distance may be different because of tread pattern, tire material, tire structure, and how it deforms under hard braking, and of course road conditions. In my opinion, under normal road conditions, I doubt there would be much difference in braking distance.

Just to be clear, the contact patch is the area (length x width) in contact with the road at a point in time. Patch size can vary by adjusting tire pressure and via the dynamic forces under motion. For instance, look at the difference in the shape of the contact patch of a top fuel dragster's rear slicks at rest and at initial acceleration and then as its RPMs increase (The Physics of Dragster Tires, Explained). Something similar happens with over-inflated automobile tires (and under-inflated wide tires) explaining the uneven wear along the tire's center. There are numerous papers/articles regarding this subject which are easy to find on the web and a huge topic in motorsports.

So, the example you point out is wider, but the narrower tire will have a longer (along the tread line), but narrower contact patch, while the wider will have a wider contact patch. Two like tires, same diameter, but different widths/aspect ratios, at the same tire pressure and load, will have very similarly sized contact patches even if one is 2.3% wider. In the example above, since they are not the same diameter, the total contact patch size will be different between the two tires (assuming the same load and pressure on the two tires).
 
Without a lot more information he could have shared but didn't, like exact tire model since size can change tire specs and what pressures he actually used. Are the tires actually the same height or did tire height difference jack up the speedometer accuracy and therefore wh/m? This was a commercial not an informational video.

He states it is not a real test and I think he is more right than he realizes. The "test" is a steaming pile.

People obsess over wheel which on his highway cruise means NOTHING wheel weight matters in stop and go and when you have to waste energy with friction brakes. At steady state cruise there is no opportunity for the reduced weight to save energy. That is not to say tire width was the answer.
He is comparing a garbage high number for a 3 to a number that is around what is to be expected for that car.

I can see under 300wh/m in my P85 at 75/80mph with General GMax AS05 on slipstreams if in traffic, that might spike to 360-380 if I am all alone on the road.
 
I really think that the 18" Aeros are going to be the best bet to get a real world 10%+ bump in efficiency. My LR RWD had a 230 wh/mile with aero wheels, and is now around 255 wh/mile with aftermarket 19's. Those lifetime numbers are a mix of city and highway driving, so the highway portion should be even more drastic.
 
I really think that the 18" Aeros are going to be the best bet to get a real world 10%+ bump in efficiency. My LR RWD had a 230 wh/mile with aero wheels, and is now around 255 wh/mile with aftermarket 19's. Those lifetime numbers are a mix of city and highway driving, so the highway portion should be even more drastic.
FWIW I'm at lifetime average of 242 with OEM 19" wheels and OE rubber. Mixed highway and city roads. [~16K miles]