"Ricing" With Motorcycles?

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...

 

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..

But would you consider this rice???

 

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?)

 

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.
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.
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.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ricer

 

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?

 

No doubt ... 101% rice in my opinion!

 

(Click for larger)





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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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?

 

Bullet dodging - Matrix Style!...

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?