The STX thread!
02-11-2010, 11:53 AM
#826
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Specs are up for the 265/40-17 Star Spec.
10.7" section width (on a 9.5" rim), 25.4" tall. So, same width as 265/35-18, but .1" taller (and .4" taller than the 255/40-17).
Weight is listed as 25 lbs, which I assume is a typo, since both the 255/40 and 265/35 are listed at 28 lbs.
Price isn't listed, but you could probably get one if you called.
10.7" section width (on a 9.5" rim), 25.4" tall. So, same width as 265/35-18, but .1" taller (and .4" taller than the 255/40-17).
Weight is listed as 25 lbs, which I assume is a typo, since both the 255/40 and 265/35 are listed at 28 lbs.
Price isn't listed, but you could probably get one if you called.
Indiana, Georgia and Nevada warehouses now have inventory. They should show-up online in the next day or so.
Shipping weight is listed at 29 lbs, I have not verified on the scale, but looks realistic to me.
Chris H
aka Trent@TireRack.com
Last edited by Zoom4Three; 02-11-2010 at 11:56 AM.
02-11-2010, 02:51 PM
#835
Row faster, I hear banjos
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the description given here: http://www.rotaryinsider.com/diy-tac...pter-gap28.htm
I'm doubtful that it would be legal in ST* or even *SP. It completely changes the way our apex seals are lubricated, and while there's no performance benefit, I see no specific allowance for this in the rule book.
I'm doubtful that it would be legal in ST* or even *SP. It completely changes the way our apex seals are lubricated, and while there's no performance benefit, I see no specific allowance for this in the rule book.
02-11-2010, 03:19 PM
#837
So, is the 265 worth the extra weight and gearing loss over the 255? on an 09? Or will we not know unless some does a back to back test.
I'll need a new set in month or two. I like the added gearing with the 255s and even on an 09 I've only used 3rd once in 6 months locally.
I'll need a new set in month or two. I like the added gearing with the 255s and even on an 09 I've only used 3rd once in 6 months locally.
Last edited by S0l08; 02-11-2010 at 03:44 PM.
02-11-2010, 06:44 PM
#838
Won't know until it's tested by somebody who is fast & consistent. My prediction: it will take a very good driver to show that the 265/17 is faster than the 255/17, since the 255 will easily & consistently show more longitudinal g-forces in aquired data, while it will take a good driver to consistently show that the 265 is faster in sweepers and/or transitions (assuming that's true).
02-11-2010, 07:56 PM
#839
Row faster, I hear banjos
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the 265-17 may not be any wider, offer worse gearing and have 1lb of added weight.
02-11-2010, 09:10 PM
#840
OK, I can't resist.
While the above rule of thumb makes sense for the average section width (i.e., the section width measured halfway between the rim edge and the outer circumference of the tire), I'm skeptical that it applies to the maximum section width, or, more importantly, the tread width.
But it's all academic until you put tire to pavement. Heck, if one brand has the best compound/construction for a given surface, that could prove to be more important than the size you choose.
While the above rule of thumb makes sense for the average section width (i.e., the section width measured halfway between the rim edge and the outer circumference of the tire), I'm skeptical that it applies to the maximum section width, or, more importantly, the tread width.
But it's all academic until you put tire to pavement. Heck, if one brand has the best compound/construction for a given surface, that could prove to be more important than the size you choose.
02-12-2010, 11:11 PM
#842
A buddy of mine, who is building an STR MX-5, decided to go with 245/35-17 R1-Rs on 17x9 RPF1s. Now that is a light, small, wheel/tire package. Too small for the RX-8, I'm sure, but on the right course/conditions, it would probably be a fast setup.
02-13-2010, 08:14 AM
#843
0110100001101001
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Installed and ran the new STX exhaust for the first time tonight
Idles like a V-8 engine with a high performance exhaust, that deep burbling rumble
Hit the throttle and it immediately reverts to that oh-so-sweet tuned rotary sound. I don't think it's much louder than the OE cat pipe setup I ran in Stock, 93 dBA @ 50 ft shouldn't be any problem. The resonator kicks @ss. no nasty pop on throttle lift etc. I'm totally stoked by the end result
mock up pic of main assembly attached, header-manifold and rear mufflers/tips were on the car
.
Idles like a V-8 engine with a high performance exhaust, that deep burbling rumble
Hit the throttle and it immediately reverts to that oh-so-sweet tuned rotary sound. I don't think it's much louder than the OE cat pipe setup I ran in Stock, 93 dBA @ 50 ft shouldn't be any problem. The resonator kicks @ss. no nasty pop on throttle lift etc. I'm totally stoked by the end result
mock up pic of main assembly attached, header-manifold and rear mufflers/tips were on the car
.
02-13-2010, 10:02 PM
#844
Cone Abuser
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks awesome Team. Gonna post video of how it sounds? 
Practice Day at Bremerton tomorrow (and I'm single on V-Day for once). Should be a good time, 87 people signed up so there'll be course workers to reset cones. I look forward to burning a tank of gas and a quart of oil as my valentine's day gift to myself.
Now the question is... do I shread my "winter" all seasons or go back to last season's heat cycled Star Specs?
Practice Day at Bremerton tomorrow (and I'm single on V-Day for once). Should be a good time, 87 people signed up so there'll be course workers to reset cones. I look forward to burning a tank of gas and a quart of oil as my valentine's day gift to myself.
Now the question is... do I shread my "winter" all seasons or go back to last season's heat cycled Star Specs?
02-16-2010, 10:07 AM
#846
Another tire "rule of thumb"
Andy Hollis recently penned an article in GRM that attempts to apply a methodology to choosing the top contenders for a given class. He focused on STR for the article, and one rule of thumb he tossed out is that for street tires, adding wider tires pays dividends up until the tread width matches the rim width, and anything else probably just adds additional rotating weight.
He did say that for R compounds this rule isn't as applicable, since they have very stiff sidewalls.
Applying this little gem to our corner of the universe does call into question the logic of the 265/40-17. Unfortunately, neither Tirerack nor Dunlop lists treadwidths for the Star Spec, but looking at other manufacturers it seems likely that the 255 will already be flirting with the treadwidth=wheelwidth rule, and the 265 would likely be over. So the added weight & height may be for naught (as others here have already stated).
Indeed, looking at Bridgestone data, one could make an argument for a 245/40-17, assuming gearing wouldn't be an issue.
Not saying anyone should blindly apply this rule - I suspect most will still go with the 255 - but I thought I'd post it as an FYI.
As for the 265/35-18, I still think the shorter sidewall adds a complicating factor that make Andy's rule more difficult to apply.
BTW, Dunlop is listing a $50 rebate right now on their website for Direzzas.
He did say that for R compounds this rule isn't as applicable, since they have very stiff sidewalls.
Applying this little gem to our corner of the universe does call into question the logic of the 265/40-17. Unfortunately, neither Tirerack nor Dunlop lists treadwidths for the Star Spec, but looking at other manufacturers it seems likely that the 255 will already be flirting with the treadwidth=wheelwidth rule, and the 265 would likely be over. So the added weight & height may be for naught (as others here have already stated).
Indeed, looking at Bridgestone data, one could make an argument for a 245/40-17, assuming gearing wouldn't be an issue.
Not saying anyone should blindly apply this rule - I suspect most will still go with the 255 - but I thought I'd post it as an FYI.
As for the 265/35-18, I still think the shorter sidewall adds a complicating factor that make Andy's rule more difficult to apply.
BTW, Dunlop is listing a $50 rebate right now on their website for Direzzas.
02-16-2010, 12:31 PM
#847
Row faster, I hear banjos
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy Hollis recently penned an article in GRM that attempts to apply a methodology to choosing the top contenders for a given class. He focused on STR for the article, and one rule of thumb he tossed out is that for street tires, adding wider tires pays dividends up until the tread width matches the rim width, and anything else probably just adds additional rotating weight.
I saw Andy's article in GRM, and he recently reiterated these thoughts in a post on sccaforums:
Originally Posted by Andy Hollis
Rule of thumb (which matches my experience) is that optimal rim size is typically close to the tread width. Anything larger and improvements in lateral support are minimal, while smaller does the opposite and performance drops off. Unlike R-comps and their super-stiff sidewall belt packages, "overtiring the rim" with street tires is not nearly as effective. My practical experience is that about an inch too small is where the big drop starts.
I would also agree that sidewall height would be a complicating factor in this very generalized rule of his.
I have nixed the 265/40-17 Star Specs from my consideration for this season. Tires I'm currently considering in a 255/40-17 size are the RE-11's, RS-3's & Star Specs.
02-16-2010, 01:45 PM
#848
^Interesting, thanks. He did say that +1 inch is where the drop-off starts, which puts the 265s squarely within the region they should make a difference on a 9" rim.
And, of course, Andy's comments about not being able to make specific reccomendations for areas he has not done direct testing applies here as well.
And, of course, Andy's comments about not being able to make specific reccomendations for areas he has not done direct testing applies here as well.
02-16-2010, 03:23 PM
#849
Row faster, I hear banjos
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[rant]
In terms of my choices, I really want to give the RS-3's a shot this season as they seem to be a great dry weather tire with very few vices (in the dry). From numerous reports I've come across (Hollis, Washburn, SportsCar), the longitudinal grip of these tires seem to be superior to several tires in the UHP category (which can really help with putting the power down early in the corners). Lateral grip is also quite high and most have described their break-away characteristics as being progressive. Their biggest downfall seems to be their absolute lack of grip in the wet. Better than the Kuhmo XS, but no where near to the Toyos, RE-11's, Star Specs or AD08's.
The RE-11's seem to do well in both the dry and the wet, but they need to be cooled religiously between dry runs and I've heard their break-away characteristics described as edgy, especially on concrete.
The Star Specs seem to be the default choice around here (lemming effect maybe?), and they appear to be a solid tire in both the dry and the wet (not the best in either though).
Whatever happened to the 2 tire choices we had in stock class -- V710's or A6's?!!!
[/rant]
Last edited by chiketkd; 02-16-2010 at 03:27 PM.