Now these are TIRES !!!
Originally Posted by '00BlackLightning
Actually the diameter is 52 mm smaller, or 2.05".

Half of the decreased diameter is above the axle, which has no effect on ride height.
Radius=diameter/2
52mm decrease in diameter = 26mm decrease in radius
OR
305 * .35= 106.75mm sidewall
295 * .45 = 132.75mm sidewall
(132.75-106.75) = 26mm
26 mm = 1.02362205 inches
Radius=diameter/2
52mm decrease in diameter = 26mm decrease in radius
OR
305 * .35= 106.75mm sidewall
295 * .45 = 132.75mm sidewall
(132.75-106.75) = 26mm
26 mm = 1.02362205 inches
Last edited by Tim Skelton; Apr 28, 2006 at 09:45 PM.
Originally Posted by Tim Skelton
Half of the decreased diameter is above the axle, which has no effect on ride height.
Radius=diameter/2
52mm decrease in diameter = 26mm decrease in radius
OR
305 * .35= 106.75mm sidewall
295 * .45 = 132.75mm sidewall
(132.75-106.75) = 26mm
26 mm = 1.02362205 inches
Radius=diameter/2
52mm decrease in diameter = 26mm decrease in radius
OR
305 * .35= 106.75mm sidewall
295 * .45 = 132.75mm sidewall
(132.75-106.75) = 26mm
26 mm = 1.02362205 inches
Originally Posted by Mondo1
Nice tire but quite a bit lower in height.. 26 mm's. to be exact.
Nice try Tim. While what you said is absolutely correct, he never mentioned ride height specifically. I read tire height; and, since the discussion just prior to his post was about tire diameter and tuning, vehicle height isn't the first thing that comes to mind.
Last edited by Odin's Wrath; Apr 28, 2006 at 11:34 PM.
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
Nice try Tim. While what you said is absolutely correct, he never mentioned ride height specifically. I read tire height; and, since the discussion just prior to his post was about tire diameter and tuning, vehicle height isn't the first thing that comes to mind.
Originally Posted by Tim Skelton
Nice try? What did I say that was less than a complete success?
The earth is semi-spherical. While true, it's not part of the prior discussion. You were the first person to mention ride height in this thread. It's all meaningless really. Another thread ruined by semantics. My contribution to thread hi-jacking for the year has been made. Carry on.
Originally Posted by Black02SVTL
Nice tires, I think you should make another video to show how well they grip. 

I will see how the stand up to Shenendoah Circuit at Summit Point WV on the 5th ...
Congrats Cliff. You're going to love them. I've been running those for the last 2 years. Won't be quite as sticky as the Hoosiers but the big advantage is increased payload (safety) and much better wear.
Let me know what you think when you run them.
Den
Let me know what you think when you run them.
Den
Originally Posted by Tim Skelton
How many track days/hours can one
expect from them on a normally rough surface?
expect from them on a normally rough surface?
days out of the Hoosiers at 3/32" ... And these will be nicer
in the rain ...
Anybody who knows anything about tires knows that when changing tire sizes, aspect ratios must be determined, hence the measure from rim bead to the contact surface is what will change the "height" of the vehicle. And as small as it may be, the final axle ratio as well. Its the aspect ratio that is what Tim(and myself) is talking about. Lets not split hairs here.
Originally Posted by Tim Skelton
How many track days/hours can one expect from them on a normally rough surface?
With the weight of our truck on small tracks, its really hard on the tires. But on larger tracks the wear on the RA-1's is really pretty good.
Due to the thread depth be careful for the chunking initially until the rubber can harden a little. Otherwise, just do it!
Den


