"Ricing" With Motorcycles?

Discussion in 'Motorcycles' started by JohnBM01, Mar 23, 2008.

  1. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    "Gay" is used as an insult in some circles. Gay isn't necessarily bad...

    There's no dividing line. A modification which doesn't help any aspect of vehicle performance (not just speed/power) and exists just for show is rice/Barry (particularly if it detracts from any aspect of vehicle performance).

    See, cars are crap places for listening to music. They're undamped metal boxes. You may as well make headphones out of live bees. For every $10 spent on making a car system sound good, $9.95 of it is a waste of time.

    Of course if it's loud you want, and quoting watts (which is an input, not output measurement) usually means you do, then it's a show-mod. Loud means everyone else can hear it too, which is pretty much the defining factor of "show" - everyone notices it.


    Nothing to do with power. You can improve performance without changing the power at all - see my tyre/tire example above.

    No, because "fast" isn't relevant.

    I'd like to introduce you to Stephen Ireland. Stephen is quite famous - he's a professional footballer. He plays for Manchester City, which is currently the richest club in the world, and earns quite a pleasant salary (in excess of £50,000 each week). Stephen is also particularly noteworthy for being a complete taste vacuum. I shall illustrate with images:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Images from Barryboys and AutoTrader

    That's a 550hp Bentley Continental GTC. It'll do 0-60mph in 5s dead and run a top speed of 195mph. It is also Barry - garish paint, stupidly large, heavy, wide wheels with very low profile tyres (which will reduce steering feel and lateral g, while increasing sprung mass and aerodynamic drag and reducing that top speed). He spent £260,000 on the car and the modifications for his girlfriend. Unsurprisingly, she crashed it within a week.

    Power and speed are no barrier to Barry.

    [​IMG]

    Stupid wing and big, heavy, chrome wheels (and big for a Lamborghini is a stunning concept). And if you think that Lamborghini has a stupid wing and big, heavy, chrome wheels...

    [​IMG]

    Lawks! Still, that's not the worst thing we've seen visited upon a Lamborghini on Barryboys...

    [​IMG]

    Ferrari aren't immune either:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    This Mondial also has the front bumper from an F355, for some reason

    I think you probably get the point here. There's no demarcating line where one can say "Oh, but it's alright, this car is fast". Fast is no barrier to Barry - nor is power the only measure of performance.

    That said I actually quite like the first Lamborghini there. But it absolutely is Barry. Which brings us back to the first point - it can be Barry, but it doesn't mean everyone has to hate it.


    Unless it would "go" better without the mods.

    For show = Barry/rice
    Detrimental to power/speed/handling/braking = Barry/rice
    Barry/rice != automatically awful and hateful
    Barry/rice != slow
     
  2. Blitz187

    Blitz187 Premium

    Messages:
    5,954
    Location:
    Netherlands
    What kind of car is that red one on top??? I hope its not an old school Lambo... And that poor Mondial got butchered... The wing is just AWFUL...
     
  3. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It is - a Lamborghini Espada.

    Or was.
     
  4. Blitz187

    Blitz187 Premium

    Messages:
    5,954
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Ouch... poor car... I would love to know what drives someone to do such a thing? Anyway Im a bit off-topic here .... so i'll just leave it at that.. :tup:

    But would you consider this rice??? :D

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  5. NissanSkylineN1

    NissanSkylineN1

    Messages:
    3,202
    Location:
    Canada
    Umm.. isn't a ricer an oriental man racing? That's why a regular person racing is a racer while the new slang term for oriental people racing is ricer since stereotypically they eat rice. So really, unless there is an oriental man on a motorcycle or driving a car, its a racer. Also, I think that the car/ motorcycle has to be Japanese or Chinese (but really, racing a Chinese car? Are you insane?)
     
  6. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    No.
     
  7. TrievelA7X

    TrievelA7X

    Messages:
    676
    No, quite simply. You're making that same mistake in judgement, that just because someone else is in some way affected by it, (in this case, can hear it) that it is for them. Just because someone has loud music playing, does not mean it is for show.
    And since stereos don't come with decibel readings, watts is what we'll use. :idea:
    A guy could have 4 15 inch subwoofers running 6,000 watts, and it still doesn't make it a "show" item in any way. It's a show item if he has it for bragging rights - not a show item if he simply has it to hear the noise.

    Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Also, whether you're a fan of listening to music in cars or not, like I said, it's the one place I can and do play music whenever I want, and as loud as I want, which takes everything bad you can say about it away, because it's still option #1 for most people, as even those with big stereo's in their houses often don't use them much.


    People use the term for cars modified tastelessly, without performance gain, and improperly, you've just selected "without performance gain" as the prime option.
    I, on the other hand, for example, don't consider slapping 17X7 wheels with 225/50/17 tires on a Buick fitted with 15X6 wheels with 215/70/15 from the factory a "performance gain".
    Yes, it would have better traction off the line, and corner faster, along with stop faster, and there is clearly performance to be had from it, if one was inclined to improve performance on this car they wouldn't consider doing this without doing something else first, and that, is suspension. Because while the car would turn harder and stop faster, it would feel awful as it would lean much farther then intended by the factory, and the extra grip would throw the suspension all over the place.
    So, I would potentially consider it rice, despite it's performance gain, as it would be modified improperly.
    There is no "standard" for rice, it boils down to each individual, and what they consider it to be, but no matter how you cut it, until you just said otherwise, everyone I ever heard mention it used it solely as an insult. Feel free to walk up to individuals with cars that fit your description of rice, let them know they're a ricer, and see how they react. :tup:
    I think you'll quickly find that it most definitely is an insult.
    But perhaps your definition of "ricers" is what's continued the allowance of a term used as somewhat of a racial slur/profile/insult on the Japanese on this site. As the term comes originally from people calling them rice burners, as the Japanese have a reputation for eating rice, and their cars were modified on the exterior without major engine modification, so still performed like average compacts.

    Just also something worth noting, someone could have a body kit that greatly improves airflow and downforce installed, wheels and tires that improve performance, a lowering kit that also improves performance, combined with intake and exhaust work that also improves performance, which all in all means faster stopping, greatly improved cornering, stability at high speeds, and more power, and still be considered rice, by your definition.

    Maybe not by you, or someone who knows exactly what's going to improve vs what has no functionality, but by anyone using your definition, that isn't fully knowledgeable to tell the difference between oversized wheels, and wheels sized right, functional body kits, vs non functional, and of course, those that still refuse to believe in any added benefit in upgrading exhaust or intake on a stock 4 cylinder compact.
    For anyone not informed, because the original claims of "my intake gives me 20 HP" were laughed out of style, the new fad is to claim "It probly doesn't add any power, but it sounds good". - Either can be true, but typically you can expect at a minimum 1 HP for every cylinder off of an intake, and double that off a proper exhaust for the engine in question, and that's at a minimum.
     
  8. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Actually, it's wholly relevant.

    Cars are crap places for listening to music. They are completely unsuited to it. So if you're an audiophile, bothered about quality you wouldn't bother. Which leaves just the option that you're only interested in having it loud. What's the point of having it loud? Show. After all, I'd wager you can run your stock speakers up to 125dB with ease.

    People who care about sound quality don't speak in either watts (input) or dB/watt (output) - which, by the way, speakers are rated in. They care about sound reproduction, not power and volume.

    Incidentally, "show" doesn't mean "meant for someone else". People show-mod to their own tastes.


    It's the only option. There are two types of modifications to cars - those that enhance performance and those that do not (which may be subdivided to those that do not alter it and those that are detrimental to it).

    Rice/Barry/Jacky is always the latter and never the former.


    I'd consider it Barry because you're going with lower profile, wider tyres (tyre width does not affect grip significantly) which generate no performance advantages at all. Similarly the larger, heavier wheels make acceleration slower by increasing rotational and unsprung mass and making the car less keen to change direction and decreasing mechanical grip while increasing drivetrain power losses - and the lower profile tyres cause detriment to the ride quality. Also you're likely to throw the suspension geometry out.

    So we agree.


    We're used to that argument on Barryboys. Why does the threat of physical recriminations mean we're wrong?

    You do the same with the word "gay". I think you'll quickly find it's an insult too. Doesn't mean that being gay is actually bad.

    Yet the Japanese are well-noted for having vastly-powered modified cars - 1000hp Skylines and Supras.

    Yes, it could be. All that means is that they are wrong, not the definition.

    The same untrained eye would think my MX-3 is stock (the one that looks stock at any rate), yet it goes, stops and handles a few percent better than it did when it left the factory. You'd need to look bloody close to see the differences, but they're there. It's not the definition of "stock" that's wrong, but their assessment of my car.


    If the exhaust and intake are appropriate for the car, gains can be quite plentiful. If, however, they've gone for a 1" pipe with a pair of 4" tips (rule of NA is the equivalent bore of a single pipe with 1" per litre displacement) on a 1.6 Civic, combined with an off-the-shelf cone filter, they can not only not gain any power, but lose some.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  9. NissanSkylineN1

    NissanSkylineN1

    Messages:
    3,202
    Location:
    Canada
  10. Blitz187

    Blitz187 Premium

    Messages:
    5,954
    Location:
    Netherlands
    This one HAS to be rice... :) Even though I do like the theme... a sound system on your bike with LCD screen where the speedo and rev counter should be with weird exhaust tips..... This has got to be rice... right? :sly:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  11. -ultraflow-

    -ultraflow-

    Messages:
    1,012
    Location:
    Portugal
    No doubt ... 101% rice in my opinion!
     
  12. wfooshee

    wfooshee Premium

    Messages:
    4,581
    (Click for larger)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    These are probably very fast bikes, at least in a straight line, but there are significant mods that are display only, and have nothing to do with being fast. Thus, rice.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  13. NissanSkylineN1

    NissanSkylineN1

    Messages:
    3,202
    Location:
    Canada
    Sadly it isn't. If he put some mods on that attempted to show that there were performance mods, then yes. For example, a wing the size of a Boeing 747 or exhaust tips the size of mars are rice add-ons.
     
  14. TrievelA7X

    TrievelA7X

    Messages:
    676
    Since standard car speaker distortion level is 90-94db, I highly doubt that. In terms of quality, that's yet another thing brought in that's up to the individual, some people could tell the difference, most can't, and some that do, either don't care, or actually want to listen to music anyway, even if it's not the perfect setting.
    You can sit there and tell how awful music sounds in a car a hundred times, and it won't change the fact that's it's the one place I can listen to music whenever I want, however I want, which far overrides any sound quality issues.
    Of course, You're again, the only person to ever mention they believe music cannot sound good in a car. It almost sounds like you haven't heard a good car stereo. :sly:

    I'm aware speakers are, Mr. 125dbs. However, I can't tell you at any given point what my decibel readings are, because I don't have readings for it. Another FYI, would be since you specified that watts is an "input", ahem, it's an output. Output only. From the amplifier. It doesn't mean the speaker are getting it all, it means the amplifier is putting it out. Optimally it's also an input, but very often it is not, due to improper gauging of wires.:sly:


    Actually, for something to be "for show" which is also what "show part" means, it must be for others.



    If you say so. But you use the term differently than others. Not everyone considers a car with just wheels added slightly "riced".
    For most people, it must be excessive, distasteful, and or improper.



    That's why sports cars and supercars always have wider tires, because they don't do anything. :dunce:

    Who said heavier? How heavy are the wheels in question? And how much lighter if at all are the tires?
    I never specified heavier wheels, one can buy lighter wheels.
    Here's a comparison"
    15x7 wheel - 17.2
    16x7 wheel - 19.0
    17x7.5 wheel - 20.8
    15in tire - 22,24,25,26 lbs. wow, that varies more than the entire weight of the largest wheel being added!
    16in tire - 22,25,26,26 adds weight for 2 out of 4 (same group of tires.)
    17in tires - 22,23,27 - don't have all the same.

    But one thing from this, the same tire, in all sizes, weighs in at 22lbs.
    So, with a 17X7.5 wheel, with the 22lb tire, my wheel/tire combo would have less weight and rolling resistance than stock size with a simply heavier tire.
    Either way, it's no more than a 2% swing, off parts that don't make up the entire rolling resistance weight.

    How would lower profile tires make the car less keen to change direction? You see, Famine, you're thinking too old school, lower profile is a good thing, so long as you don't go to low.
    We haven't determine any drivetrain losses, let alone how much they would be, nor have we determined any suspension geometry thrown out, as we have no reason to even suspect it.
    If the tire has the same (or even very close to) diameter, it cannot throw the suspension geometry out, you're possibly thinking of "lowering the car"? I don't know, but feel free to explain how the same circumference tire changes anything in the suspension.
    Just to warn you - these tires lose 1 full inch of diameter from new to bald. Keep that in mind if you're going to try and explain how suspension goes out of whack from.... slightly wider tires.


    Actually no. Because we have totally different reasonings behind it, and you have some tire learnin' to do too.



    You said it isn't bad. If people take it as an insult, they think you mean bad.
    You don't mean bad. But people think you do.
    See a problem? You're not using the same definition as everyone else are you? You can't be, can you? Not if everyone gets pissed off when you call them a "ricer".
    You see, we're all guilty of doing this from time to time, we use a word, and between friends we develop our own particular meaning, however, the mass population actually gets to decide what words mean, not the individual.
    So while you have your own meaning, the rest of the world will continue to see being a ricer as a bad thing, and take it as an insult.



    So why would they be offended? Either A. It's not true. Or B. They think you're insulting them.
    The difference, is that there aren't "rice pride" parades, because nobody views being a ricer the same as you do, except your friends.
    People don't live and accept that they are "ricers". It's a term used for insulting, always has been.



    And?



    That's not the problem. The problem is it's your own definition.

    From what you said, it is stock.
    Buying new tires to "replace" old ones - not a modification.
    Buying new pads and rotors to replace worn out ones - not a modification.
    Why do I need to say this?
    Replacing rusted out exhaust with same size exhaust, factory fit? Not a modification.
    By what you said -
    It doesn't go, stop, or corner better than stock. It goes, stops, and corners like new. Instead of like used and worn out.

    It was "better" than having used and worn out pads & tires, but not better than stock. Unless maybe something in the exhaust flows differently than stock, you might be up a bit of power, but you didn't specify that, so, It's stock.


    I've heard this, and I don't doubt it, but I've never seen it documented in any way. So at this point, it's angry old man's myth. I'm not saying I even doubt it, but I've never seen any evidence of any car to lose power from exhaust "too large" - speaking in reference only to "cat-back" exhaust. When you include headers, downpipes, etc then it's been documented.
     
  15. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Nothing to do with speakers but the space they're in. The fundamental shape is wrong, the materials within it are wrong and it's an undamped metal cage with the holes filled with glass. You couldn't possibly devise a worse acoustic chamber.

    It can be compensated for to some degree in many areas but, as I said earlier, for ever $10 spent on a car sound system, $9.95 is wasted either because it's acoustically dreadful or to compensate for it.


    Do you not live in a house?

    I never said music cannot sound good in a car. I said that it's the worst possible place to put a stereo.

    Cars are acoustically awful. I'm not the only person in the world to say this.


    No-one who cares about sound quality speaks in amp output or speaker output. This is the land of people who care about how much noise they can make - better known as car audio.

    I've never seen any show car modified to the tastes of anyone but the person modifying it.

    Though they are generally chronic attention whores.


    Depends on what the "just wheels" are. Do they suit the purpose/function? If so, then they're not Barry. Are they excessive, distasteful and/or improper? If so, then they are Barry.

    Go back and look at the Lamborghinis.


    Who said they don't do anything? I said "tyre width does not affect grip significantly" - and you bolded it. "Not significant" is not "nothing".

    Nevertheless, I fear you misunderstand why sportscars have wider tyres. I wonder... do you believe Porsche fit drilled discs because it makes them stop better?


    All other things being equal, larger wheels and tyres are heavier.

    Rolling resistance is almost completely irrelevant. However, unsprung weight is not. Unsprung weight has approximately 4 times more effect on vehicle dynamics than sprung weight. Adding 2lb a corner is equivalent to adding 32lb to the vehicle's weight.

    You also have 10mm wider tyres - that's 20mm extra frontal area in total, or about 3sqin. If your car is an average car and previously aero-limited to, say, 140mph you've just taken 0.5mph off your top speed. Along with increasing unsprung weight (which is considerably more damaging).


    Lower profile = less sidewall flex (all other things being equal). This leads to undesirable grip/slip transition characteristics.

    There's a reason "old school" thinking still exists. It's right.


    New tyres are supplied with, normally, 8mm tread depth. The legal minimum here is 1.6mm. That's half an inch (12.8mm) of diameter lost between new and bald.

    Drivetrain losses are exacerbated by heavier wheel/tyre units along with, if you wish to change your wheel design, rotational mass. You may have a lighter wheel, but if this wheel has more of its mass to the outside of the rim you will increase drivetrain losses. This also applies to tyres - you have a 22lb tyre wrapped round your bigger wheel in a 112mm band and you have a higher concentration of mass further from the point of rotation than if you have a 22lb tyre wrapped round your smaller wheel in a 150mm band. Not to mention the effect the wider wheels/tyres will have on caster.

    Further to this, your sidewall forms part of your suspension - a more significant part as the design sidewall increases. So if you're going for your bigger wheel and you have to reduce your sidewall by 34%, you reduce the effectiveness of that part of your suspension by 80% - meaning the rest of it has to take up the slack (no pun intended).


    See above.

    So confirm for me that people who take "gay" as an insult are right and that being gay is bad.

    Only that's the only way you can be correct that "Barry" is always a bad thing.


    Why do you need to say this?

    My car has tyres with a higher coefficient of grip than standard, with higher friction pads, discs which dissipate heat better and fluid which dissipates heat better. I've told you this. It stops, goes and turns better than when it was new.

    The exhaust is also optimised since - and I'm sure you're aware of this - factory standard emissions equipment are required to fall within certain boundaries depending on age, transmission, fuel and engine swept capacity (or equivalent). They are not usually, for mass-produced cars, ideally sized and flowed for scavenging and power generation (to say nothing of the silencer equipment). It's not the most effective exhaust it could be, since the design of the car rules out a straight pipe, but it is slightly more efficient than stock.


    First thing that happens when someone slaps on a massively overbored exhaust and eBay cone filter? They advance the timing to compensate for the loss of power.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2010
  16. Scaff

    Scaff Moderator

    Messages:
    25,461
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I've heard many 'good' car stereos (with over two decades working in the automotive industry I should have) and also have the advantage of being a hi-fi enthusiast (with a good few grand spent on my system).

    In-car audio is always a compromise and the sound quality you get from it is never even close to that you would get had you spend the same on a dedicated system for a listening room in a house.

    The only way you will get a true pound-for-pound return on a system is if you install it in an acoustically perfect listening room, everything from that down is a series of compromises that reduces the pound-for-pound ratio. Most home set-ups people have are already a major step down from ideal, a car however is an even bigger step down, and apart from being completely outdoors, not a lot of places are worse.

    I can think of numerous tracks that no matter how good the in-car system, you totally loose sections of the audio range, something that is not only a factor of the far from ideal build and shape of a car interior, but also a product of the ambient noise of running a car itself.




    Please read a bit more carefully before making yourself look foolish, it quite clear says that it does not increase grip significantly.

    If you are going to comment on what someone says at the very least do them the credit of being accurate.


    As Famine has already pointed out you have totally missed the point about unsprung weight, something engineers aim to reduce as much as possible.

    The vast majority of aftermarket alloys are concerned with looks over performance, particularly as a lot of modifiers target the look they want as the cheapest price. Weight is rarely a great concern for them, and few understand the effect it has on the dynamics of the car.



    For someone who is making rather bold statements about other members not understanding tyre dynamics and the effect they have on the suspension system, its you who has a lot to learn.

    Lower profile is not always better at all, certainly not when it comes to dynamics, as with any area of vehicle dynamics it is a matter of compromises.

    I can think of two specific examples of this. One is the current 3-series (a car I drive), which rides and handles far better on higher profile tyres fitted to the standard 16" wheels rather than the lower profile tyres that come with the 17" upgrade alloys. The lack of sidewall flex causes understeer to occur much earlier, particularly in cold or wet conditions, and makes the car almost undrivable in snow.

    The second is Formula 1, which also highlights Famine's point about the sidewall being an integral part of the suspension system. Now these are about as far from low profile tyres as you can get and are actually engineered to provide almost all the compliance in the suspension system, with the actual spring and damper rates set almost solid.






    Did you actually read what was posted before replying or not?

    It quite clearly states that uprated and/or modified parts were fitted in place of the worn items. Items that would (and this was explained in plain English) outperform the standard OE components.

    Please take more care before quoting and replying next time, or once again the risk looking foolish.



    What is it with this 'angry old man myth' line?

    If you don't understand it then it automatically falls into this category?

    The Intake and Exhaust sides of the internal combustion engine are not simple by any measure and unless one is balanced with the other, any change can just as easily result in a loss of power rather than a gain in it.

    As for just adding a cone filter, often this is far less effective that the standard air box. As if its not correctly routed then the extra air it is now drawing in is hot from the engine. Hot air is less dense and lower power is the end result.

    Famine (once again quite clearly) stated that well balanced the gains can be plentiful, a point you ignored.



    Scaff
     
  17. Rykon Zero

    Rykon Zero Premium

    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    United States
    If wider tires are so considerably worse, why do they put wider tires on supercars? Is it for greater potential grip? Every last bit counts? Or something I'm missing?
     
  18. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Who said that then?

    There's a few reasons - one is the same reason why Porsche put drilled brakes on their high-end cars. There's also load transference and weight considerations.

    Wider tyres do increase available grip by increasing the size of the contact patch. It is, however, almost infinitessimal compared to the grip afforded by softer compound tyres. For reference, the contact patch of all four tyres of a Ferrari F40 - which has 335 section rear tyres - is no bigger than a piece of A4 paper. You could completely negate the effect of increasing tyre width by 10mm by overinflating your tyres by 0.05psi (give or take) - which would also be simulated by an increase in tyre temperature of a degree Celsius...

    Of course it brings us on to the issue of fitting wider wheels/tyres to a car not designed for it. Wider tyres may increase the possible contact patch, but by changing the offset and caster, there's a good chance you'll actually reduce the available contact patch.


    It's rarely so simple as "fit wider tyres -> more grip". Yes, more rubber in contact means more grip, but it's a very small percentage which can be opposed by tyre pressure and temperature and your suspension geometry may not permit all that contact patch to be used in the first place. If you want more tyre grip, get a softer compound as I have.
     
  19. Flerbizky

    Flerbizky Premium

    Messages:
    7,588
    Location:
    Denmark
    Bullet dodging - Matrix Style!...
     
  20. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Heh.

    Over here Barries always talk about "200W speakers" as if that's some kind of badge of honour (or makes sense). We just smile and let them continue.
     
  21. Rykon Zero

    Rykon Zero Premium

    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    United States
    Well, you did give a rather long list of downsides to giving a car wider tires.

    So, when I get a car, and I want more grip, go for the stickier tires over the wider ones. Got it.
     
  22. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Wider tyres are always better... if the car is designed to take advantage of them. If not, there's a huge list of considerations first - with the pretty major downside that it's usually only possible to find out by fitting them.

    Yep. Outright coefficient of grip is tough to beat. 10mm of the same crusty rubber with a low accuracy gauge while it's warm out... don't bother.
     
  23. TrievelA7X

    TrievelA7X

    Messages:
    676
    It still has nothing to do with whether or not stereo equipment in a car is for "show".
    And you've chosen to liberate the meaning of "show parts" to anything that does not improve track performance.



    There are laws, it's generally referred to as "disturbing the peace" - aka noise violations. So long as you have neighbors.



    For me it's the best possible place. And it has nothing to do with sound quality.



    Perhaps you're right - you said they speak in terms of "quality", right? How's that work, scale of 1-10? 1-100? And off who's opinion?
    The stereo in my house has 1000 watts. That's also not car stereo speak. But here's the irony - 6 speakers, 1000 watts, surround sound, and the quality is worse than in my car.
    That's right, in that undamped metal box with holes and glass, the factory stereo sounds better than this $400 Home theater system in the house.

    By your rate of 9.95 out of 10.00 wasted, that must be a.... $80,000 stereo in my car.



    And how do they attempt for attention? It's certainly not from modifying with the "who cares what anyone else thinks" motto, is it?


    And I'll have your definition. I can't see what size they are, so I don't know.



    But tire width does, so long as the weight on the tire is sufficient enough to load it properly. Putting 345mm tires on a 2200lb Miata would likely cause a loss of grip. Putting 345mm tires on a 3400lb Viper increases grip. Based solely on that, one could calculate a 3400lb Buick could certainly gain from raising 215 to 225. Especially on the front wheels.
    Brake systems do 2 things, have enough power to lock the wheels, of which more is required for a car with more grip, and slotted rotors, specifically, would be solely for cooling, and the attempt at fade-free brakes.
    I had an Oldsmobile which could easily lock it's 185, but when fitted with a higher models 215's, it could not lock the brakes. This tells two things, one is that the wider tires (and lower profile) significantly increased tire grip, along with the ever elusive knowledge that upgraded braking power can also decrease stopping distances depending on different factors.
    So to go farther into detail and answer your actual question, I know what brakes do and how they work.



    yes and no. You're assuming two things which are sometimes false. Number one is that wheels are heavier than tires, which they are not, as I've already shown you, and two is that when upgrading the size of the wheels and tires, you will increase the overall size, which is common, but not always the case.



    True.
    That completely depends on your vehicles overall frontal mass, and airflow. What's .1% on a small car, is .05% on a large car.





    Did I forget to mention the "upgrade" to 225's is another factory size? :)
    I guess those idiots at GM didn't realize they gave the GS and LS with the GS wheel package
    Stock 1 is 215/70/15
    Stock 2 is 225/60/16

    So it seems they felt it was an upgrade also.
    The higher size I quoted (225/50/17) would be a slightly farther upgrade.
    Now that doesn't mean 225/40/18 would be even better, as there is a limit, and I won't pretend I know exactly where that limit is for this particular car, but given the tires equipped on higher model and sportier cars, claiming 50 series tires will hinder performance due to being to low profile on a 3400lb passenger car is nothing short of asinine.



    Wrong. 10-13 mm. Well, wrong for the US. And here the at least in this state, but I believe 50-state DOT mandated is 2mm minimum.
    And I actually haven't seen any tires for sale new with less than 10mm quoted, though I won't rule a few select possibility's out.

    Got your numbers backwards. :)
    True though, nonetheless. But your exaggerating the real world performance effects.
    If you do it right, you'll have increased grip, off the line, stopping, and cornering, and the potential loss in straight-line acceleration won't even be noticeable with a small increase such as the one I demonstrated.

    You're assuming that the suspension actually needs that give to perform. On many American cars, the suspension tire combo is already to giving, and the lack of sidewall give will do only one thing - improve cornering response.

    Now if the car was tuned for optimal handling with it's specific tire size combined with it's suspension, there is that potential, however, on many cars sold in the US, optimal cornering ability is not first in line when these decisions are made.
    It would seem as though you're speaking of cars with cornering performance in mind when they left the factory - most US cars - especially older ones, have extra profile added just to make the ride more absorbent, not for better cornering, but for relaxed cruising.

    Now I'll point out that almost every time a manufacture makes a "special" model, designed for improved handling, they have larger wheels and tires, with lower profile, even if the suspension remains untouched. And it works.



    It doesn't have to mean being gay is bad. If I call you gay, it is an insult.
    Not true. Some people believe gay is bad, some don't. Not everyone would be offended by being called gay.
    Everyone is offended by being called a ricer.

    If you walk up to two guys making out, and say "hey, you guys are gay" they're quite possibly/probably going to laugh and call you captain obvious.
    If you walk up to two ricers, and call them ricers, they'll always be pissed.



    I say it, because you say nothing of how they're improved, just that they are.
    Did you remove factory standard emissions equipment? Is some of that gone now because of changing exhaust? And if so, I have to wonder if it's hurting your performance or helping. How are the pads higher friction? How do the rotors dissipate heat better? Are they slotted? Cross-drilled? Or just expensive factory replacement?
    And tires, well, they may be better than stock, in softer/more efficient tread/compound, depending on how old it is, they could be cheapies and still be better, as tire technology has gone through the roof in the past 20 years.

    But as you were pointing out, pads with higher friction, and rotors which dissipate heat better, will not decrease stopping distance, only reduce fade.
    Lastly, very few people consider buying high-line tires when old ones are bad an "upgrade". It is an improvement, but it's also still stock, because many cars came with tires not even produced anymore. More cars on the road actually can't be "stock" in that sense than can.


    I guess. Still haven't seen any documentation of anyone losing power off any after-market intake and cat-back exhaust.
    You have to remember, just because the tip is 4 inches around, doesn't mean anything else in the exhaust is.

    And even if people have lost power from giant exhausts, it still won't give you an answer as to where the line is between gaining performance and losing it.
    You have a small 4-cyl, I have a large 6 cyl, I could slap much larger exhaust and make it much louder while still gaining performance than you, let alone the differences between turbo, supercharged, and N/A, let alone different factory tunes...
    So the bottom line is, you can't say just looking at any car's exhaust if it's gaining power or not, and fact is, more often than not, they do gain something from it.

    But it's okay because all-show-no-go is not the original definition of ricer. Trying to make a slow-ass car seem fast, combined with thinking a slow-ass car is fast, and ridiculous, excessive or improper modifications is the original definition of ricer. Combined with trying to make a low model appear as a high model, like a V6 Mustang with GT exhaust tips/mufflers, GT badges, etc.
    Or a V6 Mustang with a body kit, clearlights, exhaust, and purple window tint.

    22 inch spinners, with giant subwoofers, tint, and dvd players on an Escalade doesn't really fit the "ricer" term either. Because "ricer" is for people from Asia, and people with Asian cars that did it. The pimped Escalade has no relation to it, and stems from blacks in inner cities of America, whether athletes, entertainers, or drug dealers.

    But this could be because you're using the term "barried" on another continent, and chalking it up to being the same as ricer.

    Read your own answer.
    I never said lower profile is always better, did I? Feel free to quote.

    Two things, the first is that the lower profile performance tires wouldn't be optimized for snow, and possibly not even rain, dry would be where they were expected to perform better.
    Secondly, You could have had either over or under inflated, a small difference is air pressure makes a large difference driving.
    The last option is that BMW, one the highest-renowned handling manufactures, doesn't put in all the thought and engineering into wheel/tire packages you seem to believe they do.

    Correct. Now spot me the difference between 3400LB passenger cars with cushy suspensions vs F1 cars.
    Also spot me the fact that BMW didn't put enough "engineering" into their wheel/tire package in your first example, and screwed the car up, at the very least, in your opinion.


    Because it's the guys that speak in terms of 60's cars, carburetors, and younger guys that follow them that are always talking about "losing power off the air filters and mufflers kids put on their cars nowadays" - And they're typically 40-65, and bitching about fart cannons, complaining about the noise, and 5 minutes later revving their 120db Harley to max 8 times in a row at every stoplight.

    No, everyone I hear say it is either middle aged-to senior, angry, complaining, and doesn't know squat about newer cars.

    A simple half-assed chip that spliced into the intake air sensor and adjusted the air/fuel ratio, and one of those "damned cone filters sucking in hot air" under the hood - made my old car rund .3 quicker in the 1/4. Says repeated runs, 10+ each, consistent runs, and an NHRA dragstrips timing equipment.
    Turn the chip off - -.15
    Put factory airbox back in - -.15
    Didn't matter which way I went, both were a solid .15 improvement on, and full-factory was .3 slower.
    I also gained another tenth by just slapped the cone filter directly onto the throttle body, right in the middle of the engine bay.

    So yes, the real-life proven performance gains I tested and ran myself were more than enough to convince me that these myths you speak of, are rare cases at best.

    Read above. I gained, and even thinking it would lose power, I tried it, just to see how much I would lose, and yet, I gained, from both a cone filter stuck onto the end of the intake manifold, at the throttle body, directly in the engine bay, and slightly less gain from running the aftermarket kit that routed up to where the factory airbox laid.

    He did, but like you, he said in all the wrong ways.
    I've seen undeniable proof that a simple cone filter in the engine bay, sucking in "hot air" take time off my 1/4 mile runs.
    You see, something you guys overlook, is whether or not cool outside air runs up through the area, and/or is it's just simply too restricted from the factory that it's just getting so much more air, the increased heat isn't enough to reduce the power.

    So my only suggestion to you, is to stop assuming what you hear and read is granite, and test it. Slap a cone filter intake on that Miata, or BMW, and if you don't have a dragstrip, buy a G-tech if you don't have one, and test them down the same section of legal ground, hell, illegal ground for all I care.

    I don't care about dyno results for it, unless there's a big-assed fan blowing just like driving wind on that car, at the appropriate speed.
    A Ram-Air car might dyno as low or lower vs the same car without it, but that doesn't mean it has less power driving does it?
     
  24. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I'm guessing you're not familiar with what Scaff does for a living then? My only suggestion to you is to stop assuming what you type is granite.

    You won't, of course. And now you're talking to two people who know better than you do, there's simply too much nonsense in your post to address any more.
     
  25. Gil

    Gil Premium

    Messages:
    6,980
    Ok, I'm pretty old compared to most of the crowd here.
    In the area of bikes: I remember someone once told me, about 25 years ago,
    "If it don't burn rice, It won't burn rubber!"

    So, there is, or was a contingent of folks out there that believe(d) that in order to go fast, Japanese bikes were required.

    But things have come full-circle. Harleys, Victorys, Big Dog, and Indians are being "copied" left, right and center by the Japanese motorcycle makers. The Twins are at the point of being the UJM (Universal Japanese Motorcycle).
    It used to be that UJM meant a 4 cylinder SOHC or DOHC bike of 750-1000 cc.

    It is no secret that Sportbikes (I'm including the now defunct Buell) make absolutely ridiculous amounts of power for their weight.
    I remember when a bike pushing 75 hp at 600lb was considered a HELL of a lot of power.
    Now there are factory streetbikes pushing TWICE that with about 3/4 the weight.

    I don't consider the bikes "rice" in a deragatory form of the word.
    I do consider the guys riding down a crowded city main artery on one wheel at 2 or 3 times the posted speed limit "stupid".

    Every time I think I would like to start riding (something along the lines of a 1200 Sportster, or perhaps a Triumph Bonneville) Some idiot on a sportbike passes me on Main Street going about 100 playing "Tag" with some other idiot on a sportbike....
    These are the people that I used to take care of as a rehab nurse.
    These are the people that my current patients rely on for organs.

    I think a lot of what is considered "rice" is attitude, and isn't rice at all. The term we use here on GTP used to be "Asshattery".

    And on the subject of wider tires on cars:
    They are a nice mod up to a point.
    As Famine has said: Fitment is an issue. You also have to take into account that if you upsize your wheels and tires, you may be overpowering your brakes. And everybody knows that the secret to being fastest in a road race isn't so much grip as it is maintaining momentum thru proper application of brakes and throttle, and in that order.

    Secondly, I'll never forget the article I read in one of the motoring monthlies (Likely R & T as I read it most) when the new Mini Cooper was introduced.
    The writer had the opportunity to test a Cooper S with the standard size tires (either 15 or 16 inches) and with the optional larger tire (an inch larger). He commented that the car lost about half or three-quarters of a second to 60 MPH and braking distances were significantly increased with the larger tire.
    He did comment that the larger tire looked cooler, but when and if he bought a Cooper S, it would be equipped with the smaller, lighter wheel and tire combo.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  26. TrievelA7X

    TrievelA7X

    Messages:
    676
    I'll take that in short to mean you neither have, nor will test it.
    Even your industry insider quoted manufactures, whose engineering you rely on to make your assumptions, in a case where their engineering was wrong, if nothing less, in his opinion as an owner.

    And no, I'm not familiar, as neither of you have told me. you just repeat "industry".
    My Dad worked in the industry for 20 years, including numerous promotions, and has told me everything he knows, but does that mean everything he "knows" is true?

    All you need is a simple G-Tech which retails for around $150 and you'll be able to test, instead of assuming. Lateral G's, 60-0, 0-60, 0-100, 1/4mile, estimated power at wheels based off 1/4, weight, and CD combined with frontal area, all kinds of goodies.
     
  27. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    You can take whatever you want, however you want. But there's so many contradictions in your post - and you wholeheartedly believe each thing that contradicts the other is true - that it's really not worth it.

    Yes. All of it. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

    All you need is a £30m vehicle R&D facility. Then you can argue on the same level as Scaff. Or the guy currently sitting next to me.

    But, as I say, you fervently believe in things which contradict each other and proclaim them both to be true. You're working on an assumption-based world. It's just not worth it - you'll never be willing to learn.
     
  28. TrievelA7X

    TrievelA7X

    Messages:
    676
    I'll skip everything, including the proof, and ask what vehicles you, the guy sitting next to you, and Scaff have tested with what cone filters, aftermarket intakes, and exhaust setups, and what the results have been. But I'll venture a guess - they don't run tests on 94 Civic Ex's (or any other model cars) to see what power is lost or gained off of installing an aftermarket cone filter intake, do they?


    Well if you can't be bothered to say what, then there's no point in posting about it at all.
    And don't be so foolish as to assume anything I've said here involved my Dad, as he would be the guy I asked If I wanted to fix a carb, or potentially something else outdated, certainly nothing new or remotely high-tech.

    Edit: feel free to mention what R&D facility though. :)
     
  29. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    71,133
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    As I said, you're completely unwilling to learn.

    Go to your dad and tell him it's impossible to lose out by fitting a new intake and exhaust to any car. When he tells you you're wrong, just tell him he's an angry old man and thinking too "old school" - and should stop assuming that everything he reads is true. Or listen to him.

    Try it with "wider tyres always generate more grip" and "holes in brake discs make your brakes better".
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  30. Gil

    Gil Premium

    Messages:
    6,980
    Famine,
    We've known each other now for years.
    What happens when you try to teach a pig to sing?
    Wastes your time, annoys the pig.

    Trievel knows what he knows and cannot be confused by actual facts.

    Now, that said:
    How do either of you feel about "ricing" motorbikes?