TomT
Well-known member
Maximum sidewall rating is 44, at least on the version I have...
thankyouOB said:
range impact of wheels/tires
- Thread starter defiancecp
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
MrFish
Well-known member
kubel said:
Link was OK but I had to change settings in picasa, should work now.
mazdaboi
Well-known member
MrFish said:
Looks good....For a mazda guru like myself, Ill be looking for some MS3 wheels for my LEAF. I drive 68miles RT mostly 45-50mph speeds and using 4-5bars each way, So an extra bar with better handling/wheels...Ill take it.
DTB
Well-known member
On the topic of Mazda rims, while I was rotating the tires on my Mazda5, I figured I'd try them on the Leaf. They are 17x6.5 so they would have been a nice 17" upgrade without going any wider but the rim would NOT clear the Leaf's caliper....
MrFish
Well-known member
DTB said:
The offset on the 18" Mazda rim, I believe is 52mm which was really close to the caliper, so I put 5mm spacers on the fronts only. The rears were no problem.
MrFish
Well-known member
mazdaboi said:
Big improvement in wet handling. Drove in rain today with the wider ZR (new to me-used) tires and at least a 100% improvement. Even accelerating on corners, little or no wheel spin.
ELROY
Well-known member
defiancecp said:They clear fine; they're within the stock external measurements.
Having said that, I wish I'd have upped the diameter and tread width both about an inch or so (you can see why I'd wish that in the pics). There seems to still be quite a bit of clearance in all directions still, so when it comes time to replace the tires I plan to try that.
I wonder how hard it would be to lower the car slightly? Better handling, better aerodynamics in additional to resolving your wheel well gap complaint.
TEIN is the only company that has any suspension parts that I am aware of.ELROY said:
They have their H-Tech lowering springs P/N SKK32-G1B00 which according to specs lower the car about 1.4".
They also have their TEIN Strees Basis Coilovers P/N GSK32-11AS2 with adjustable ride height, but from reviews it's going to be pretty low.
The problem is getting them - one reliable method is through nengun.com where the cost is about $500 / $1000 respectively plus shipping.
There are no other easy ways to lower the car slightly unless you are handy with a welder and know how to lower spring-perches on the front struts - for the rear you pretty much need a new spring.
If the springs were ~$200 like most of their other springs I'd give them a shot. Or I might spring for the coilovers, but bump-travel especially in the rear seems to be too limited for what I'm looking for.
Duncan
Well-known member
Hi defiancecp,
I saw the rims you purchased were 18x8, do you know the offset by any chance? Even better if you have the PCD as well
BTW, it was mentioned briefly earlier in the thread....but reducing "unsprung weight" is worth 2-5 times reducing any other weight in the car. So saving 1 kg per corner is more like 30+kg in overall weight.
I saw the rims you purchased were 18x8, do you know the offset by any chance? Even better if you have the PCD as well
BTW, it was mentioned briefly earlier in the thread....but reducing "unsprung weight" is worth 2-5 times reducing any other weight in the car. So saving 1 kg per corner is more like 30+kg in overall weight.
TorC
Well-known member
Even though this is an old post I would like to bump it and add another question.
Since using bigger wheels gives worse mileage, would using smaller wheels give better milage? With wheels I am asuming it only means smaller/larger rims since the diameter of the wheel must be the same based on legislation (at least here in Norway, and using a smaller wheels would make the speedometer unreliable).
Based on what has been written in this thread on the aero dynamics of the wheels, would it not be better to have no spokes? Like a cover over the rims to make them flat? In that case would it not be possible to make a "snap on" cover for the rims? I will gladly sacrify my dignity and looking like a moron to get just a few miles extra on those "just out of range" trips.
Are my assumtions wrong? Or am I on to something here?
Since using bigger wheels gives worse mileage, would using smaller wheels give better milage? With wheels I am asuming it only means smaller/larger rims since the diameter of the wheel must be the same based on legislation (at least here in Norway, and using a smaller wheels would make the speedometer unreliable).
Based on what has been written in this thread on the aero dynamics of the wheels, would it not be better to have no spokes? Like a cover over the rims to make them flat? In that case would it not be possible to make a "snap on" cover for the rims? I will gladly sacrify my dignity and looking like a moron to get just a few miles extra on those "just out of range" trips.
Are my assumtions wrong? Or am I on to something here?
minispeed
Well-known member
With regards to wheel covers many people have used pizza pans as covers with good results in ICE cars. There's 1 guy here who's done it too. I made some coroplast ones on my kia optima and they worked well, they were all black and I used silicone to attach them to the rim which had a chrome flat lip so it had a thin chrome strip with an all black wheel. I actually got a lot of compliments on them, most along the lines of "it looks strange... but in a really nice kind of way"
I've driven with 3 different sets of wheels on my leaf now:
Stock 16s, 205 55 16 at 24.9in, 48psi. 21lb rims, 40lbs total.
Winters 205 65 15 at 25.5in, 53psi Nokian Hakka R2s on 10.4lb SSR Comp rims, 30.5lb total.
Summer on Conti truecontact 215 55 17 at 26.3in, 51 psi on Kei Office/volk 2p forged/cast wheels, 20lbs (forged outer probably mean less weight at the diameter than the stock 21lb 16s). 40.9lbs
The larger overall diameter has a huge benefit! Stock the leaf reads under for the ODO and speedo, a 205 60 16 tire at 25.7in is pretty much perfect for the ODO (my cousin put those Haka R2s on my stock 16 rims). If you're concerned with the legality the 25.7in diameter is bang on for the ODO and the 26.3 is bang on for the speedo.
As far as efficiency goes the stock 16s were the worst! It's hard to compare just size because each one has a different brand and size of tire and a significant weight difference. With the light 15s you could really feel it the way the car drove, the regen came on much stronger and the car felt like it accelerated quicker. As far as handling the winters would slip too easily to get a good grip on how the weight changed that. Because I knew I'd be using different tires I started looking at my battery % on my way to work as a way to compare them. The best I ever got on the 16s was 40% used for 70km (45 miles), I had some dash readings in the high 9.X km/kWh but that was with drafting and I didn't note the battery %. I got close to that on the winters once when it wasn't that cold. On the 17s with brand new tires that haven't been broken in I got 40% easily in the first week and a day later I got to work using just 35%. This is mostly highway at 60 mph +- a few mph. My 2015 battery hasn't shown any degradation to correct, leafspy still shows 292gids 22.6kWh.
17s are also probably the worst for aero since they are wider, 215 (not much) but the spokes also stick out a lot more than the other 2 and the offset has them about 5mm further out to the corner of the car.
I've driven with 3 different sets of wheels on my leaf now:
Stock 16s, 205 55 16 at 24.9in, 48psi. 21lb rims, 40lbs total.
Winters 205 65 15 at 25.5in, 53psi Nokian Hakka R2s on 10.4lb SSR Comp rims, 30.5lb total.
Summer on Conti truecontact 215 55 17 at 26.3in, 51 psi on Kei Office/volk 2p forged/cast wheels, 20lbs (forged outer probably mean less weight at the diameter than the stock 21lb 16s). 40.9lbs
The larger overall diameter has a huge benefit! Stock the leaf reads under for the ODO and speedo, a 205 60 16 tire at 25.7in is pretty much perfect for the ODO (my cousin put those Haka R2s on my stock 16 rims). If you're concerned with the legality the 25.7in diameter is bang on for the ODO and the 26.3 is bang on for the speedo.
As far as efficiency goes the stock 16s were the worst! It's hard to compare just size because each one has a different brand and size of tire and a significant weight difference. With the light 15s you could really feel it the way the car drove, the regen came on much stronger and the car felt like it accelerated quicker. As far as handling the winters would slip too easily to get a good grip on how the weight changed that. Because I knew I'd be using different tires I started looking at my battery % on my way to work as a way to compare them. The best I ever got on the 16s was 40% used for 70km (45 miles), I had some dash readings in the high 9.X km/kWh but that was with drafting and I didn't note the battery %. I got close to that on the winters once when it wasn't that cold. On the 17s with brand new tires that haven't been broken in I got 40% easily in the first week and a day later I got to work using just 35%. This is mostly highway at 60 mph +- a few mph. My 2015 battery hasn't shown any degradation to correct, leafspy still shows 292gids 22.6kWh.
17s are also probably the worst for aero since they are wider, 215 (not much) but the spokes also stick out a lot more than the other 2 and the offset has them about 5mm further out to the corner of the car.
TorC
Well-known member
@minispeed
strapping on some pizza pans might be just under my dignety, even though I am my mid 30....
correct me if I am wrong, but is your experience that you get more miles per the kwh on larger rims?
A user on the Norwegian forum confirms your experience of a tighter car on 15 inch rims, but how does that affects the range? The user on that forum said the same as you have, but he did not notice any change in range. And the LEAF looks a bit more "cheap" with the small rims- http://elbilforum.no/forum/index.php/topic,21140.0.html
It would be really interesting to know "real life" experinces of using different sizes of rims and combinations of tires. If it would be possible to get a few miles exta just by having the correct combination of rims/tires it would make the LEAF a bit more usefull for those "just out of range" trips. Doing a few simple improvments may give a lot of extra range. It all adds up.
strapping on some pizza pans might be just under my dignety, even though I am my mid 30....
correct me if I am wrong, but is your experience that you get more miles per the kwh on larger rims?
A user on the Norwegian forum confirms your experience of a tighter car on 15 inch rims, but how does that affects the range? The user on that forum said the same as you have, but he did not notice any change in range. And the LEAF looks a bit more "cheap" with the small rims- http://elbilforum.no/forum/index.php/topic,21140.0.html
It would be really interesting to know "real life" experinces of using different sizes of rims and combinations of tires. If it would be possible to get a few miles exta just by having the correct combination of rims/tires it would make the LEAF a bit more usefull for those "just out of range" trips. Doing a few simple improvments may give a lot of extra range. It all adds up.
minispeed
Well-known member
TorC said:
Both my 15 in winter and 17 in summer set ups are larger tires overall. That is where I think I see most of improvement in range. A larger diameter tire (all other things being equal) will have less rolling resistance than a smaller one. That's one of the reasons the BMW i3 and i8 have large narrow tires. I also did a lot of research on LRR tires, what I eventually found out is buying them in North America is pretty much a guessing game unless other people have tried them in the exact same size. The conti's I got were a brand new design for 2014 and tested either the highest or second highest on any of the tirerack.com tests, and I read pretty much all of them. You can't really compare tirerack tests apples to apples because of weather, but I figured if they got 32.6mpg on a car with an EPA 27mpg combined rating they couldn't be bad. My choice was more for the cost and other ratings, it was the 2nd highest rated tire in their surveys vs the Pirellis and then the Contis went on sale and I changed my mind to go with them. A plug in prius owner did a review since I've bought mine and says he gets to work with more battery life left than before and he has less millage on them than a typical break in period to get optimal MPG.
I couldn't try to put numbers on what the tire choice vs. size choice vs. rim weight choice vs. rim aero choice all individually give but if you follow going with the lowest LRR possible, and for you you have the euro tire label so you can choose only A, the lightest weight and the largest overall diameter you can be pretty confident you're not going to loose range.
Continental in the EU has electric and hybrid tires that get an A on rolling resistance and are also said to have a more aerodynamic side wall.
/http://www.continental-tyres.co.uk...00 usd a set) or $700-$1100 for 14-16lb rims.
NeilBlanchard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2014
- Messages
- 619
Using wider / heavier tires will lower range, and open wheels adds more aero drag, which is also harmful to range.
Narrower and lower rolling resistance tires increases range, and smooth flat wheels also help increase range.
Look at the BMW i3 for the best wheels and tires for increasing range. And all else being equal, a larger diameter wheel will have lower rolling resistance.
Narrower and lower rolling resistance tires increases range, and smooth flat wheels also help increase range.
Look at the BMW i3 for the best wheels and tires for increasing range. And all else being equal, a larger diameter wheel will have lower rolling resistance.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
TorC said:
ya, smaller wheels would be more efficient but lowers your speed and and acceleration. and ya, no spokes would be better. Look at super efficient bicycles with their solid wheels for guidance but like anything, there is a limit to the cost/benefit equation that needs to be considered
No, smaller wheels increase acceleration, especially if you reduce the tire diameter. If you reduce tire diameter, you would lose some top speed, but you'd have to go significantly smaller to make it a big deal. Smaller wheels with same tire diameter also tend to be lighter than larger wheels which improves acceleration, not to mention that the mass tends to then end up closer to the center of the axle reducing rotational enertia.DaveinOlyWA said:
You would only lose acceleration if your overall diameter increases (thus increasing your gear ratio) or if the wheel/tire combination is heavier (all else being equal).
gncndad
Well-known member
NeilBlanchard said:
I'm totally new (5 days!) to the Leaf world, enjoying late evening reading threads here.
Am I missing something, or is this ^^^ the first post in this thread that addresses tire width? Has no one tried going to a NARROWER tire on the stock rims, i.e. 195-55 x 16"? Aren't Leaf owners interested more in range than visual aesthetic?
I doubt there would be significant loss of traction/handling, but the smaller surface contact might have an impact on effect on range.
Just my two-cents...and my very first post here!
edatoakrun
Well-known member
This has been discussed, but AFAIK, no one has actually done it and posted results.gncndad said:
Remember, many of those most obsessed with range are referring to range at freeway speeds, where tire/wheel selection will produce limited benefits.
I do most of my driving at lower speeds on rural roads, conditions where tire selection can make a large difference in range. I expect the available capacity from my OE pack to fall below 17 kWh before I need to replace my second set of tires, at about 60 k miles in late 2017.
At that time, range from my home charge might become a significant limitation to my driving, so I may consider the skinny tire option.
minispeed
Well-known member
gncndad said:
With tires there are lots of trade offs.
A few of the important things to think of when you buy tires for range are width (wider will be less aero), rolling resistance, max PSI (if you're willing to go over 44 as many have), weight and over all diameter. The biggest problem with 195 55 16 is that the diameter is small. the stock 16s are 24.9", stock 17s are 25.5. The diameter will change the over all gearing of the car, as well as the speedo and the ODO. If you are leasing your car and going over millage then you definitely don't want to change the ODO to put more miles on the car as you'll have to pay later for that. Gearing probably isn't as much an issue on electric cars for efficiency as they are on an ICE but with all things being equal a wheel that is larger will have less rolling resistance than a wheel that is smaller. I used the term "wheel" there because you can't compare 2 tires of different sizes as apples to apples because so many things change when they are making them. Even tires made with the same brand and model in 2 different sizes can be made very differently even if the tire looks identical. You can see this if you shop for tires on a UK website. They have to list the rolling resistance as a letter grade, ie A B C etc... and within the same tire model you have wide swings in rolling resistance. Sometimes even in the same model same size but say 1 is a BMW fitment 1 is audi and you'll see different rolling resistance. For people who do a lot of highway driving rolling resistance and aero matter the most.
For city driving with lots of stop and go the lighter weight of a smaller 195 55 16 may be a benefit, as well the change in gearing will make the car feel faster off the line. If putting extra miles on the ODO isn't an issue and someone wanted to try that for gearing change I'd actually recommend trying it with a 185 65 15, 24.5" and 17lbs on light weight 15s which you can easily get in the 10-12lb range. Finding ones that fit is a pain though. I thought about that for my winter wheels but since I do mostly highway and it's a lease I went with the 205 65 15 (25.5" and 20lbs).
If you were to stick with 16s and wanted to go narrow the best size to try would probably be the 195 60 16 (25.2"). However tires in that size are slim picking. There's the Michelin Xice which is a great winter tire, and can be driven in the summer too if it's not too hot and you don't drive hard as well as the Yoko Avid Ascend but Yoko tires are heavy (this one is 21lbs vs 19 for the Xice).
The i3 that was mentioned above has really big tires when you look at the diameter, the contact patch of a narrow and large diameter tire is also much larger, 27.5" or so which is a trade off by going narrow. I really wish that more auto makers were embracing that change. I first heard about the Bridgestone concept years ago and I'm not sure if it came as a result of the i3 or if that's what BMW choose because Bridgestone had worked on it. However it is such a change in the design of a car that they would have to pick that tire size before they started most of the development of the car.
edatoakrun said:
From my experience tire selection has a huge benefit to freeway speeds but mostly by going with the lowest resistance tire you can and going with the highest PSI available. Another factor is those that do a lot of highway driving of 60 miles plus a day will also want a tire that will last a long since they will be putting more miles on the car.
this is the only thread i found out here about this and not a lot of data is available unfortunately.
my stock 17" wheels with the energy saver a/s are now getting close to the wear bars so i am looking at the next move. i have found posts that say the 17" SL wheel weigh 28 lbs. With the tire, mine weigh 46.3 lbs (albeit the tread is mostly worn). The tire weight spec per tirerack is 22 lbs so this makes the wheels probably closer to 24-25 lbs than 28 lbs.
i might pick up some skyline gts-t 16x6.5 wheels today with unfortunately sticky summer tires to try and document the effect on acceleration from the reduced inertial weight vs the bigger heavier 17 inch wheels.
let's have more discussion and data on this!
Marko
my stock 17" wheels with the energy saver a/s are now getting close to the wear bars so i am looking at the next move. i have found posts that say the 17" SL wheel weigh 28 lbs. With the tire, mine weigh 46.3 lbs (albeit the tread is mostly worn). The tire weight spec per tirerack is 22 lbs so this makes the wheels probably closer to 24-25 lbs than 28 lbs.
i might pick up some skyline gts-t 16x6.5 wheels today with unfortunately sticky summer tires to try and document the effect on acceleration from the reduced inertial weight vs the bigger heavier 17 inch wheels.
let's have more discussion and data on this!
Marko