sobrique: (Default)
[personal profile] sobrique
Tyre sizes

My tyres are 185/65/R14's

These numbers are: Width of tyre in mm
Aspect ratio height of the sidewall as a percentage of the width
Diameter of Rim in inches.

Now these measurements are enough to uniquely define the size of a tyre.

But does anyone else find it a little odd that the 'standard' measurements are mm, percentage, inches? I mean, what would have been so difficult to do 185/120/308 to keep the whole lot in mm?

I'm looking at replacing wheels at the same time. Whether I do that or not depends on whether my tyres remain above 1.6mm of tread for the next couple of weeks. Cos Direct Line won't insure me until I'm 25...

FWIW I'm thinking that either the TSW Zenon or Venom. Probably with Falken ZE512s and either in a 215/40/17Z or a 205/45/16V. (Oddly the 17" rims are almost exactly the same rolling radius with 215/40 tyres, where the 205/25/16s are about 1.5% smaller).
Which I go for depends mostly on price, and how much cash I have spare in a month. (Oh and how much overall damage this does to my cost of insurance, given that I have no NCD at the moment).

Oh well, maybe I'll get lucky and persuade various family members that that'd be a good birthday present. And then I can do all those My PRECIOUS dances.

Date: 2004-03-23 08:53 am (UTC)
karen2205: Me with proper sized mug of coffee (Default)
From: [personal profile] karen2205
Sounds typically British to me.....for instance, while I was taught metric measurements at school, I still cook in lbs and oz and I still measure long distances in miles (though I prefer centimetres and metres to inches and feet)

Date: 2004-03-23 10:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-wood-gnome.livejournal.com
ye gods! lord of the wheels...

probably got something to do with the wheel manufacturers refusing to use metric, and the tyre manufacturers refusing imperial.

Date: 2004-03-23 10:54 am (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
I notice that 185/65/R14 have a factor of ten between the smallest and largest, while 185/120/308 only around a factor of three. The greater diversity in the numbers reduces the possibility of error by transposing pairs of figures. I've no idea if this is the reason, but it might be a consideration in keeping it that way.

Date: 2004-03-23 11:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sobrique.livejournal.com
Hmm, that's a good point. It would be quite obvious if the numbers got mixed up.

Date: 2004-03-23 03:20 pm (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
If people adopted the same strategy for telephone numbers, there'd be a lot fewer wrong numbers...

Date: 2004-03-24 01:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sobrique.livejournal.com
Unfortunately, it'd also reduce the available phone numbers substantially...

Date: 2004-03-24 01:19 am (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
They'd just be a little longer...

Profile

sobrique: (Default)
sobrique

December 2015

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728 293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 20th, 2026 07:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios