The range of an EV can be very sensitive to small changes. Throw on a roof rack a chunky bullbar, and you might shave 10 or 20 miles off your total range thanks to aero losses. Alternatively, throw on some lighter, smoother tires, and you can boost your range by a similar amount. Tesla has done just that with the Cybertruck.
The EV automaker has made a new wheel and tire combination available on the dual-motor AWD Cybertruck. Previously, the vehicle has only been available with all-terrain tires, complete with futuristic plastic wheel covers. Now, Tesla has introduced the new “Core” wheels and covers, which trade off-road performance for on-road manners and efficiency.
Given that quite a few Cybertrucks are living their lives almost exclusively on the road, it’s a decision that makes a lot of sense. The new option is already showing up in the wild, with owners reporting appreciable improvements in range.
Cybertruck’s fitted with the 20” Core Wheels are now arriving to Tesla Showrooms.
These wheels are equipped with Pirelli Scorpion ATR tires that are made specifically for Cybertruck (CYBRTRK script on sidewall).
With this wheel/tire combo Cybertruck’s range will increase by 22… pic.twitter.com/5L5w5SX4Af
— Nic Cruz Patane (@niccruzpatane) August 16, 2024
The original package consisted of 35-inch Goodyear all-terrain tires with a 25-inch wheel cover, which was redesigned after the original cover design was chewing up tires. The new Core wheel and tire package comes with 35-inch Pirelli Scorpion all-seasons, with a smaller 20-inch wheel cover in an otherwise similar design.
The new tires are close enough to the same size, but with less aggressive tread. This cuts the amount of energy lost to rolling resistance, and nets the vehicle a range advantage. According to Tesla, this boosts the AWD model’s estimated range from 318 miles to 340 miles. That’s a difference of 22 miles and an improvement of 6.92 percent – a huge efficiency boost for an EV.
Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that you can’t get this option on the Cyberbeast at this stage. You’re stuck with getting the usual all-terrains. Nor has Tesla opened orders for the rear-wheel drive Cybertruck at this stage.
Notably, the new Pirelli tires have sidewall design elements that mimic some of those on the Goodyear all-terrains, along with the world CYBRTRK on the sidewall. It’s clear that matching the aesthetic to the vehicle was still important for Tesla when switching to the less aggressive tires.
Anecdotally, one owner posted to the Cybertruck Owners Club that they expect to achieve in excess of 370 miles of range under certain conditions, based on their own calculations and observed efficiency of 3.29 miles/kWh. However, it should be noted that this is based on an efficiency figure measured on a short drive, quite unlike a full test regime like the EPA uses to determine range figures.
This range boost is no surprise, of course. Picking the right wheel and tire combination for your EV can net you gains both in rolling resistance and drag, and net you tens of miles of range over a full charge. Indeed, the same is true of ICE vehicles. We just don’t talk about it as often, as it’s easier to suck up a minor hit to fuel economy.
Check out the core wheels WITH the covers! Now shipping on cybertruck.
Driving consumed 304wH/mi! That’d land this Cybertruck at 370 miles of range.https://t.co/67mhZVxPQ8 pic.twitter.com/5BwNey8AWV
— Greggertruck (@greggertruck) August 17, 2024
If you’re keen to make the most out of every last kilowatt-hour, it’s worth speccing the road tires from the factory. You’ll appreciate the extra range when you really need those last few miles to reach a charger. If you’re regularly going off-road, though, it’s probably best to stick to the chunkier all-terrains for the best possible grip in the rough stuff.
Image credits: Tesla
Any improvement is an improvement. I still don’t want one. Yecchh.
CyberBeast? Oh, you mean Melon Husk douchbag dipshit? Oh, ok
I personally would design a functional on road wheel BEFORE selling a truck that’s going to almost exclusively live on road but to each their own, I guess
They look like ass,much like before. Also,how can a 35 inch wheel with a 25 inch rim look so damn small? I have not seen a cybertruck outside of the internet yet,but it must be fucking enormous.
I’ve seen a few now and they do seem to be enormous but I think it’s an illusion because of how featureless the body is and those massive sail panels where a regular pickup would be lower.
I have noticed that a lot of full size pickups on the standard wheels just look oversized for them-Chevrolet Silverados look particularly bad in their lower trim levels.
I think you’re right on both points. I’ve noticed any of the wraps with a pattern that breaks-up the featurelessness of the side panels improve the look. Your observation on the Silverados (particularly the HD versions) has been a thing for a while, I think it has to do with a combination of the height of the fender openings along with the relative slab-sidedness of their rear quarter panels.
It looks fucking enormous in person.
20″ rim.
35s are big, but they’re not enormous. Any new Super Duty(bigger than a Cybertruck, but not that much in the grand scheme of things) fits 35s stock, and Tremors come with 35s. My 1974 Jeep J10(significantly smaller than a Cybertruck) has big ass wheel wells and will fit 35s at a very reasonable ride height.
Cybertrucks aren’t enormous, they’re actually a smaller footprint than f150s and such. It’s just that a 35″ tire doesn’t look that big on a fullsize pickup that has suitably large wheel wells.
I’m just so tired of reading about the Cybertruck.
Yes. This. At this point would rather hear about the Kardashians or Taylor Swift on ET Tonight.
Fuck this truck. There’s more interesting shit out there to learn about.
Maybe if DT mounted a set of wheels and tires off his Leaf and tested the range but, nah probably wouldn’t want to read that either. YMMV
You could have just NOT clicked on the article…
duh…I was bored Dad…./JFC.
Don’t you have some kids to watch, or something?
And we believe Tesla’s claim why?
…………because it is extremely plausible, and we have no reason to question their honesty on this topic?
What a weird thing to say.
Q: How long do tires last on this 6600lb thing?
No offense to actual VW Things.
I have the same question about the 8500 lb Silverado EV I just rented
Just as long as the tires on my 6600lb Ford Expedition, that being a normal and long life. Just as long as any other car.
Feeling like if hypermiling an EV was your thing, the Model 3 is probably the Tesla to get.
This is like someone with a Raptor blocking off the grille for aero.
Now able to offend hundreds more eyeballs per charge!
Meh, 24 year old Aluminum rust free car gets over 800 miles of range from a 10 gallon tank with a fun manual transmission and <1800lb curb weight.
Instant refills at any station in mere minutes and it was saved from a landfill.
Ill never get the fad I guess.
Where did you find an 800 mile high cliff?
<1800lbs, 10.8:1 997cc 12-valve 3cyl with lean burn at 20-23:1 afr, .23 coefficient of drag, 50psi low rolling resistance 165/65/14 tires on a 13lb aluminum rim, aluminum brake calipers, carbon fiber dipstick, electric power steering, no alternator, aluminum rear drums, transmission geared with 2 overdrive ratios (1.09, 0.85, 0.71) thru a 3.21 final drive.
Enjoyable sound system and air conditioning while easily getting 55-85mpg all day long.
Engine takes 2 quarts of oil so oil changes are cheap too.
New cars are overrated.
I’ve actually owned more than one honda insight and let’s face it, in the real world you’re not getting anything near 800 unless there is some mods and serious hypermiling going on. Most likely you going to be getting 500-550. Best I ever got was 580. Might could’ve gotten 600 but it was getting hairy. But yes, you are correct, I would take a nice manual insight over a modern ev any day.
But can your Insight do THIS?:
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/nissan-altima-driver-miraculously-survives-worst-crash-weve-ever-seen/
(Maybe it can’t but I still wouldn’t mind one myself)
May be my newest favorite name.
And holy moley, how does someone live through that?
I smell an original Insight, the true heir to the CRX!
Yup 🙂
But with the wrong name and without the SI option that it should have gotten.
The 1st gen Insight we got should have been named the CRX HF…
Yep, still hideous.
You know what else works?
Slowing down.
You know this helps at any speed, right? One efficiency improvement doesn’t stop you from using another efficiency improvement.
Sure. The trick is getting people to actually do it.
Funny, because those wheels look much trucklier than the juvenile originals.
This is what kills me about the ranges reported for so many EVs in various trims, especially Hyundai/Kia EVs, is that the higher spec vehicles tend to have significant range drop offs, but also conspicuously larger wheels, yet NEVER larger brakes that would require a 20″+ wheel. Ironically, on some I’ve seen heat pumps restricted to higher trims, which have wheels that are far too large, so you gain winter range, but lose range everywhere due to aero losses and rolling resistance due to wheels.
Automakers, give us the option to get the fancy trims (or heat pumps as standard on EVERY EV) and the option to get the base, most efficient wheels. I may be in the minority, but something like a Model 3 performance with the base M3 LR wheels to give me an extra 20 miles of range is my platonic ideal for a relatively affordable performance EV. I want fast, I want efficient, and most importantly, I want reasonably priced tires given they’ll wear faster. What’s the point on saving money on fuel with cheap electricity if I’m spending 2x or more on tires than my ICE car?
But…but…but…if I spend more money on a car, I have to look like I spent more money on said car!
I guess as a last resort since manufactures won’t do it, you could always sell the fancy wheels and buy the lower spec ones. Im sure you could find somebody on FaceClub who would trade and throw some cash in to make their base car look fancier than it truly is.
They must think that their 0-60 times are a better selling point than a few more miles of range. In the case of Hyundai, they also offer super fast charging and a few free years of charging from Electrify America to ease range anxiety.
Personally, I think the wheels should be large enough to clear the brakes (barely). I’m not a fan of big wheels for no reason. I assume there is some sort of aero advantage to having the wheel / tire combo filling out the wheel opening. That could also be a reason (then again, they got to choose the size of the wheel openings).
My understanding is that most cars on sale have a very nearly identical overall tire diameter regardless of wheel size, where a larger rim means a smaller sidewall. The sidewall of a tire being nearly uniform and continuous has far better aerodynamic properties than wheels which have varying geometry that chops the air, and at highway speeds is shockingly high drag.
For a vehicle that isn’t being tracked or driven hard very often, there is effectively zero practical benefit to wheels larger than what clears the brakes. They just sell well because people want to be flashy and look cool I guess.
While fast charging speeds do help dramatically, as an engineer I want the most pragmatic option possible, highest efficiency with good charging speeds (800V has the benefit of being more efficient than 400V as well, generally speaking) and with the lowest possible consumable cost. Also thicker sidewalls makes it far harder to curb a wheel. Bring back chunky sidewalls on smaller wheels damnit!
Having the option for smallest possible wheels from the factory would be super nice. It’s funny but sad reading things along the lines of “I bought a new car, and shortly after bought some 15″ wheels off an old economy car from a junkyard that fit, and the car has been hugely improved vs. with the factory oversized wheels”
But you will look so cool. That counts for something, right? /s
“yet NEVER larger brakes that would require a 20″+ wheel. ”
Yup… it’s done purely for style.
And it’s not just with EVs. Many regular vehicles are like that.
The Honda Fit Sport I had came with a weird 15″ size… and zero performance improvements to justify it.
The only “benefits” were looks and jacking up the cost of tire replacements.
When it came time to get a set of tires, I got a set of used 14″ steelies and installed tires in the same size as the base Fit and saved a few hundred dollars… and saved money again when that set wore out and another set of tires was needed.
lol nothing weird about any 15″ tire or wheel
Well maybe not exactly weird, but in a size that was less common, had fewer options and was more expensive to buy
Cybertruck owners worried about efficiency? That’s kind of funny. It’s a rolling brick.
That said, Pirelli Scorpion all seasons are genuinely good tires, at least in the aftermarket version. I’ve had two sets on my RAV4 and been very happy. They’re competent at everything most people expect a CUV tire to do and last a good while to boot.
That ‘rolling brick’ produces less shape drag than almost every competitor, and very likely less drag than your car.
It’s not strange to want more range out of any car.
Might have a lower drag coefficient, but it’s still more drag because it’s the coef X frontal area, and the CT is bigger than most cars.
So just keep in mind frontal area matters just as much as drag coef.
Bigger than most cars, but exactly the same size as other fullsize pickups or SUVs.
So the old adage of “Narrow is aero”, might not be liner as we thought. There’s a lot of testing to suggest wide with a well controlled wash will produce a lower coefficient when you increase the width. You see this a lot in cycling with most newer bikes going wider ex. Cadex tri bike, Hope/Lotus Team GB bike, Zipp NSW 303. Even a 2.2 mob tire on a deep and wide wheel looks only slightly less efficient then a road tire (like 6-10 watts- note this doesn’t include tire drag). As much as I dislike the Cypertruck, if anything it’s pretty aero. Could it be more aero if they weren’t handcuffed to the general outline of brick, yes. But the aero team did a pretty creative job turning it into one giant NACA foil
Pretty sure the widest part of any bicycle is the rider and those keep getting wider every year.
I doubt that the width of cyclists is getting much wider. Unless there is some bone structure widening I don’t know about. American public in general, not so sure about. Personally, after 50 I’ve put forth a few inches in front (gut rather than the more preferable few inches in front).
Well they’re certainly not getting narrower.
Widest part is really your handlebar hood2hood if you don’t run a flare. The hips tend to be the widest part of the rider. However, thats towards the rear of the bike so it’s mainly getting dirty fork and handlebar air. All those wacky new olympic track bikes with the wide ass forks are like that, so frontal air is being pushed away from that spinning un-aero mass of quads. Shoulders are after, but the new “aero hoods” position is to address that. So, the bike overall pushing width and some position changes is now a bigger part of the system then say Greg Lemond/Lance days.
But yeah, if the rider gets wider every year, don’t know if pushing the wheel width out four millimeters is probably not going to help much.
I use 44 cm drop bars so my shoulders are the widest part of my ride.
Even at 6’2″ on road I’m running 38cm no flare. I’ve been playing with 35 flared on the gravel bike. With bringing the stem out get’s the back flat, wouldn’t ride it everyday though.
Mine’s a touring bike, hence the wider bars.
Good for Tesla! I’m really rooting for them to succeed. Now, if they’d just offer a truck with a more traditional body style. The current design may look cool and futuristic, but it really limits the usefulness of their truck as a typical workhorse pickup. They’ve already got the bones, it can’t be that hard to create a truck body.
Since, largely, the body is the bones; it would be very hard to make a more traditional truck off the Cybertruck platform.
Or just get a Rivian.
They’ve already got the cast aluminum unibody bones that can’t be adapted to any other bodystyle without a complete reengineering.
The answer is Rivian
I would like to see a compact truck based on the Model X. It has similar dimensions to a Ford Maverick, so I presume Tesla could make a small but useful truck based on that platform. I would buy consider buying something like that. I like the Rivian, but I won’t buy an EV that doesn’t have full access to the Supercharger network.
Hmm, keep the stainless structural panels, but put a regular boxy front on it. Less aerodynamic but also less of a culture war.
I mean, ignoring the looks and 1st year issues, the truck is pretty sweet.
Hoo boy, nothing I love more than having to buy specific tires for my vehicle that compromise handling!
I’m sure this will help the off-road superiority the Cybertruck already has.
You don’t have to buy them. The all-terrains are available for people who want them, the all seasons are available for people who don’t care about off-road prowess. Just like when you buy most trucks.
There are now two tires that are specifically molded for the Cybertruck. Which, I’m assuming, to play nice with the ludicrous wheel covers (even the updated ones) and range, you will need to buy when tire replacement comes along.
I dunno about you, but most of my vehicles have required tire replacement at some point.
There are many many options for tires in a 35″r20″ size, in many different width options. You don’t have to buy these specific ones.
Not sure why you think only these tires will work with the wheel covers, the new design is literally just a conventional hubcap.
Yes, the EV-specific tires are likely going to deliver better range than other options. But that’s not a Cybertruck-specific issue, any car will get best range if you buy the most efficient tires. That is one of the things you consider when buying new tires.
on ICE vehicles, the penalty is typically minimal, however. As stated in the article.
That also depends on the vehicle at hand. A 6% increase in efficiency means more in a 12mpg vehicle than a 30mpg one.
How do you figure? Either way you’re paying 6% less for fuel.
A 6 *mpg* increase makes a lot more difference to a 12 mpg vehicle (50%) than a 30 mpg vehicle (20%).
If a vehicle goes from 12 to 12.72 MPG it saves 471 gallons over 100k miles. If a vehicle goes from 30 to 31.8 it saves 189 gallons over 100k miles.
Based on that, isn’t a 6% increase more impactful for a vehicle that gets 12 mpg than one that gets 30?
Of course, if you are really that concerned about efficiency and fuel costs you probably aren’t buying a vehicle that gets 12 mpg if you don’t absolutely need it.
It’s larger gains on a given number. 0.5mpg increase is a cause for celebration on a truck that gets 8mpg (transport) as it’s a 6.25% increase in efficiency.
In a 30mpg vehicle, 0.5mpg nets you 1.6% increase.
They both only went up 0.5mpg, but one was nearly 4x bigger of an overall gain.
Yes agreed. MPG is not a linear statistic, which causes unintuitive results for many people.
It’s part of the reason Litres/100km is used in many places. It gives more linear results of increases in efficiency.
Those are COMMIE units!!
I remember learning the metric system during the mid/late seventies push and thinking “holy shit, this is so much easier than whatever the fuck Americans were measuring things with. You mean I don’t have to convert every linear, weight or volume measure into something else? Sign me up.” No dice.
Gimme the COMMIE units thanks, comrade.
I’m Canadian, so they’re CANUCK units!
ATs, yes. All-seasons, no.
Yes, most options are all terrain, but there are highway all season options available too. Tire Rack shows two different versions of Michelin Defender all season in a 285/65r20. And that’s just this exact size, you can always try different widths.
This size is not specific to Cybertrucks by any means, and it is not difficult to find AT or all season tires without buying the Tesla-specific ones.
There is a LOT that goes into a tire beyond physical size. I’d be interested to see what they changed in the recipe to make it worth branding the tires specifically for the CT. Maybe it’s all aesthetics, maybe it’s not. I’m not the manufacturer.
OEM tires are basically always bespoke, even if it’s not usually as obvious.
Historically, it often seems as lowest bidder for whatever supplier can give them a tire that meets their technical requirements for load/speed/traction.
At least, that’s what I’ve seen from the replacement tire game. Someone who worked on the vehicle manufacturer side may have a different answer.
Looks like the LTX M/S is discontinued leaving just the LTX Platinum in that size and 295/65/20 for non-AT tires.
What I’m wondering now is how much of a difference in ride quality is there between load range E all-seasons and ATs? Is the gain in range mostly from the compound or from tread pattern or both?
I just buy a new car when the tires wear out like a normal person. Tires are pretty expensive you know!
But what if the available cars don’t have the Jatco Xtronic CVT as an option? Am I to buy an inferior car over tire woes?
No worries, they’ve got a Nissan Sentra for anyone, anytime. Say hello to smooth, efficient power delivery and worry-free reliability thanks to the sophisticated sealed design and the specialized lifetime CVT fluid to keep you going 90 in the left lane.
It also looks so much better on the Core wheels/tires.
But does it really?
I’d have a hard time calling it lipstick on a pig.
This is more like removing the lipstick from the pig.
And replacing it with lip gloss or balm?
Hey whatever works for you….
Autopian is a land of acquired tastes. I refer to Exhibit A: The Aztek.
Can they even sell the wheel covers for the all-terrains?
As you stated, tires and wheels have a huge affect on ICE cars too. My 2000 Insight gets like 52mpg with snow tires, but in the summer I’m running the narrowest tires I could find, and I get 60-65mpg. Probably more if I slowed down more, but it’s not worth the time to save 25 cents.
Should be running narrow snow tires anyways. Pizza cutters tend to dig down and touch asphalt, instead of floating on like a member of Modest Mouse.
If you’re running the same PSI the contact patch area would be the same size regardless of tire width. Just a different shape. How does that “dig down”? any better?
Sounds like something floating around on Facebook so I’m interested in hearing the science behind it.
the same PSI in different tire sizes will, by the laws of physical size, net you a different size of contact patch.
Otherwise they’d mount Smart car tires on 600hp Camaros just to get those CAFE numbers up.
I’m not sure how you decided on your stance, but it feels like you’re applying some flat earth level logic.
That is false. Ignoring minor variations due to sidewall stiffness, the same tire pressure will net the same contact patch size, no matter what kind of tire you have.
Imagine a 2000lb Insight(yes they’re lighter than this, it’s a round number). Let’s say you have 40 pounds per square inch in the tires. 2000÷40=50 square inches of total contact patch, or 12.5 square inches of contact on each tire.
If you air down to 20psi, the tires will squish and the contact patch will grow until you have 100 square inches of total contact patch, or 25 square inches on each tire.
There is no reason that this would work any differently with different size tires.
The tire is physically wider. inflated to 40psi with 0 weight on it next to a narrower tire of the same inflation pressure will net it a wider contact patch because it is, wait for it, wider.
Same thing increasing diameter. Once the circumference is larger, more of the tire will touch as the curvature of the tire widens.
This is why Donny Dumbfuck on wide mud tires can’t stay in the groove during the winter. One cause they’ve increased the track width, two cause the tire is too wide to fit in either groove. So they dance back & forth until they float over into the ditch.
Speaking of that…. 1st gen honda insights have a narrower track in the rear than in front, which means if you hit heavy deep snow at speed, the front wheels create two tracks, and the rears hop from one to the other, trying to stay in the ruts created by the front wheels, which means you can wig wag back and forth and lose control and go into a ditch.
Ask me how I know.
This is why I ran a “square footprint” setup on my Genesis Coupe in winter.
The factory setup is staggered, but not just in width. The rear tires are physically an inch taller than the fronts.
So I ran 225/50R17 on the front, and 225/55R17 on the rear to square the footprint and make sure the rears follow the fronts.
You could do true square, but the ABS and TCS throw a shit fit. The TCS I always turned off, but I don’t need ABS running amok in adverse conditions.
What’s this “heavy deep snow” you speak of? Is it like mud?
High moisture content; we get it here in Wisconsin. Usually turns rock hard after a few nights. It’s like the exact opposite of powder.
“inflated to 40psi with 0 weight on it….. will net a wider contact patch.”
This is both true, and completely irrelevant. We are not talking about a tire with 0 weight on it.
And when you have weight on the tire, tire width does not influence contact patch area/weight distribution. But it seems like you are not willing to admit you’re wrong on this one.
In fact, you doubled down on the wrongness by claiming that width AND diameter change contact patch size, neither of which is true.
If contact patch do not change, why do we make different widths of tire? What would be the benefit?
The contact patch does not change with tire size *for a given tire pressure and vehicle weight*. We make different size tires for different vehicles which have different tire pressures and weights. Not really complicated.
Very complicated. Many, manyyy vehicles have a wide variety of available tire sizes as options. Which, again, is causing trucks to fail the Moose Test.
One reason is a narrow tire will heat up significantly faster then wider tire. With a Honda Insight you’re not really producing enough power to generate enough heat to get to problematic status. But in a Hellcat or similar, you very easily can
“the same PSI in different tire sizes will, by the laws of physical size, net you a different size of contact patch.”
Nope, that’s the wrongest thing I’ve heard all day. I’ll stop there. No sense addressing the rest.
I mean, they kinda proved it when higher trim pickup trucks started failing the Moose Test.
The base models passed while the upper trims did not. The main difference between them? Wider tires. They had more grip on an otherwise nearly identical truck. Where the smaller tires would break traction, the larger ones would grip and the trucks would roll.
Man, you’re just gonna keep beating that factually incorrect dead horse. Admit it bro, you have it wrong.
Ah, I’ve been mathing wrong. The tire width changes the shape of the contact patch.
Wider and shorter gives you better lateral grip. But skinnier makes it longer and narrower, which cuts through snow better.
Makes sense, as a pizza cutter cuts better than a rolling pin.
So yes, contact patch OVERALL size doesn’t change. The shape does. The contact patch gets wider. Which was the difference I was trying to get at in the end.
So Goat Ate My Homework nailed it in the first response when they mentioned contact patch shape.
My apologies on being wrong about contact patch size. My argument SHOULD have been about contact patch SHAPE.
It is widely accepted(not just on Facebook) that skinnier tires dig down better, but your point is interesting.
It makes sense to me that, in situations involving wheelspin, a longer skinnier contact patch would dig down faster and better than a wider contact patch. Also, if you have a 3″ long contact patch versus a 2″ long contact patch, as you drive forwards, you will exert your weight on the same patch of snow for 50% more time, perhaps giving it more opportunity to squish out from under the tire?
It would be interesting to test these. I’d bet that the difference is negligible at higher speeds, but perhaps significant at lower speeds or during wheelspin.
When you run a narrower tire, you are exerting more force on a smaller contact patch. This gives you grip.
In commercial bulk hauling, it is common practice to pull up the lift axle in adverse weather to increase traction on the drive tires. This is done by applying the same weight to a smaller overall contact patch.
Same reason people put weight in the rear of a RWD vehicle. Up the coefficient of friction.
Narrower tires allow you to both increase contact pressure and shrink footprint without otherwise changing the vehicle. Is your handling in dry conditions worse than factory sizing? Sure, but that’s not what we worry about in winter.
“Up the coefficient of friction.”
The coefficient of friction is a constant and determined by the materials in contact and has nothing to do with the forces applied. People put weight on the rear tire because it increases the normal force which is multiplied by the coefficient of friction (which is a constant for given surfaces) to determine the maximum static frictional force that can be sustained. It’s that frictional force that propels wheel driven vehicles.
My apologies for incorrect terms. More weight on a given contact patch increases your odds of maintaining traction in low traction environments. Use the correct technical terms as you see fit.
Wrong on the co/friction thing.
Because the suspension absorbs the weight rather than the tires.
As such you have only increased weight in the trunk.
Math is wrong here. YMMV
Roll your car across a CAT scale and play with axle weights. I’ve been in the truck & Coach game for 20 years, where you put the weight absolutely affects what’s sitting on the tires.
“you will exert your weight on the same patch of snow for 50% more time, perhaps giving it more opportunity to squish out from under the tire?”
This sounds plausible-ish. Except in my experience snow never really squishes out to the point that you get clean pavement. Maybe packed more tightly and that equals more traction?
it could be possible when driving through deep snow there is an element of the force acting on the tire against the direction of motion of the vehicle. (so a normal force perpendicular to the ground acting against gravity and a force perpendicular to that normal force due to the shape of the snow pushing from in front of the tire.) It would seem that reducing the width of the tire track might reduce the force of the show pushing from in front of the tire. Maybe that makes an appreciable difference.
I am. But the tread of a winter tire deforms more, so it has a higher rolling resistance than my ultra narrow LRR tires.
Just gotta drive when it’s colder!
Nah, you’re right though. At some point you have to trade efficiency to not die.
Given the range anxiety and marketing purposes of “range”, I’m surprised that every EV isn’t running LRR tires.
Mind that often wintertime also changes the fuel additives on the supply-side, and don’t typically increase efficiency (but do mean that you’re less likely to have other issues)
Gotta get that anti-freeze in there.
I always love the circular logic that they spew as well. “We gotta charge more for winter gas cause of the additives!”
Then when summer comes around, “we gotta charge more cause there’s different additives!”
Season change? That’s a price hike.
Adverse weather (hot? cold? wet? windy?)? That’s a price hike.
Someone somewhere go on strike that might affect transportation of some kind? That’s a price hike
Someone somewhere having a war/conflict/embargo? That’s a price hike.
They’re stacked with justifications.
Right… something happens, hurricane, russia, whatever, overnight BOOM the prices go up. And take months and months and months go back down. But they sure go up instantly.
They also go up 20 cents, but only ever come back down 10 or 15. Forever climbing.