265/40r17 are in-stock $164 ea

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

 

Thanks Chris!

Is there any way you can validate the weight? If they really are 25 lbs they may become the tire of choice around here...

 

Workin' on it

 

Thanks.

I'll be ordering my STX tires from TR in the next 2-3 weeks and it'll either be the 265 Star Specs or the 255 RS-3's...

 

29.0 lbs on our scale. Build date is 47th week of 2009 for the tire I grabbed.

Chris H

 

So it's 1 lb more than the 265/35/18.

 

^Interesting comment. Thinking of keeping the 18s for national events but running 17s locally?

 

Quick rules question: Would the SOHN adapter be legal for STX?

 

Knowing Sipe, if he pulls the trigger on the SSR's, he'll test the 265-18 vs 265-17 back-to-back.

 

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.

 

No, the Sohn adaptor absolutely is not an allowed engine modification in the ST ruleset

 

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.

 

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).

 

One other consideration is that mounted on a 0.5" narrower rim, the reported 10.7" section width of the 265/40-17 will be reduced by ~0.3" (using the going rule of thumb). That'll put it at ~10.4" which is identical to the section width of a 255/40-17 mounted on a similar 9.0" width rim.

So the 265-17 may not be any wider, offer worse gearing and have 1lb of added weight.

 

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.

 

That rule of thumb is a guesstimation at best. I'm definitely in agreement with your above statement.

 

Unfortunately, there are more tire manufacturers to choose from than sizes.

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.

 

Looks great.

 

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?

 

^Looks good Mark. Mine will be here Tuesday, might do the install wednesday if I have time. Any advice when doing the install?

 

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.

 

George,

I saw Andy's article in GRM, and he recently reiterated these thoughts in a post on sccaforums:
Link: http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/402740.aspx

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.

 

^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.

 

Agreed. In general, 265's should be in the "region" of having more pros than cons on a 9" rim (especially when we're talking about the 265/35/18).

[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]

 

it's well proven in Solo that you don't have to be on the fastest tire, just the tire that you're capable of winning on

there's some wisdom buried in there somewhere