Register now to get rid of these ads!

Hot Rods Tires - tall and skinny or short and fat -your thoughts?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by HOTRODPRIMER, Jun 23, 2019.

  1. Splitbudaba
    Joined: Dec 30, 2014
    Posts: 752

    Splitbudaba
    Member

    IMG_2561.JPG 60's drag look to start out with, maybe the Bonneville look for a second set! Clecos are optional! Whitewalls might be a pain to keep clean!
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  2. RHRH3P
    Joined: Mar 7, 2007
    Posts: 156

    RHRH3P
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    For those of you that run big and little's, what do you do for spares? Spare size the same as the rear, front, or an in between of the front and rear? Tubes for front and rear sizes? I'm looking at Diamondback Auburn's and I asked them about tubes. They said I can run a radial tube in them so long as I remove the inspection sticker from the inside as it will rub a hole in the tube. I could run them without tubes and just use tubes if there is an issue. I still would feel better having a full spare with me for if I run over something on the road that would cut the tire bad. I know there are some that carry no spare with them at all...that's just a little too much confidence that a cell phone will save ya in my opinion.
     
  3. dirty old man
    Joined: Feb 2, 2008
    Posts: 8,910

    dirty old man
    Member Emeritus

    First off, I run all tires marked "tubeless" as tubeless. They run cooler, and a simple puncture from a nail, etc. is usually a slow leak, especially if the object that punctured the tire remains in place.
    Then it's a simple matter of getting out that 12 V compressor you should have in your trunk, or either the can of Fix A Flat, inflating the tire and driving on to nearest tire shop. Puncture a tube and it goes FLAT right now!
    That's all I have in my roadster as there's not enough room for a spare tire, and that's when the AAA card gets used if that won't fix it. The '40 coupe has a spare in a compartment too small to hold the larger rear tire and contains a tire the size of the smaller front tire. I would prefer to have a tire the same size as the rear is due to the rear being limited slip, but such is lifeo_O
     
  4. 2NDCHANCE
    Joined: Sep 11, 2007
    Posts: 997

    2NDCHANCE
    Member

    11EDC16F-523B-4CAA-8CCC-837B63972080.jpeg Tall n’ skinny. But I wish they(Coker) made a shorter skinny for the front.
     
  5. RockyMtnWay
    Joined: Jan 6, 2015
    Posts: 346

    RockyMtnWay
    Member

    IMHO - If it’s a hiboy it’s gotta be big’n’littles.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2023
    ct1932ford, AHotRod, charleyw and 9 others like this.
  6. deadbeat
    Joined: May 3, 2006
    Posts: 655

    deadbeat
    Member

    For us we have to take into consideration the cost and time involved to get a decent looking tyre down here, unless of course you have pals heading up there regularly. Also our roads are crap, cheers 44708841_2198730183675300_3742573208256118784_n.jpg
     
  7. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 23,754

    Deuces

    I likes'em tall and fat!:confused:..... The tires that is.....o_O
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  8. But back in the day we would paint the letters on tires white.:cool: It was the cool thing to do.:rolleyes:
    3o roadster (2).jpg
     
    AHotRod, Deuces, Just Gary and 2 others like this.
  9. xhotrodder
    Joined: Jul 2, 2009
    Posts: 1,665

    xhotrodder
    Member

    My 39 Chevy sedan had small and skinny 14" on the front and tall & wide but not too wide(78 series) 15" on the rear. Had to fill the fenders. I'm a big fan of Bobby Alloway's work, but can't stand the big 19-24 inch tires that go on the street rods of today. I mention Bobby Alloway because he was the 1st builder I saw using those big tires on a car. I'll stick with my 14"-15" combo thank you.
     
  10. 2935ford
    Joined: Jan 6, 2006
    Posts: 3,843

    2935ford
    Member

    For me it doesn't matter as long as it fits and suits the car. :)
     
    Deuces likes this.
  11. 34Larry
    Joined: Apr 25, 2011
    Posts: 1,701

    34Larry
    Member

    I just never got into the tall/skinny wheels/tires. To each his own though.
    I am however going to change to four inch on the front end of my Ford as soon as I convince myself to shell out for new Truespokes ...........&..........the tires. I'm hoping to get a little relief from the armstrong steering :eek::( required at times.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  12. DDDenny
    Joined: Feb 6, 2015
    Posts: 19,144

    DDDenny
    Member
    from oregon

    Join AAA.
     
    AHotRod and Nicholas Coe like this.
  13. OLSKOOL57
    Joined: Feb 14, 2019
    Posts: 477

    OLSKOOL57
    Member

    NOW!!!!
     
    ct1932ford likes this.
  14. Dino 64
    Joined: Jul 13, 2012
    Posts: 2,401

    Dino 64
    Member
    from Virginia

    ct1932ford and Just Gary like this.
  15. Fogger
    Joined: Aug 18, 2007
    Posts: 1,804

    Fogger
    Member

    IMG_0883.jpg IMG_0790.jpg I have two sets of wheels and tires for my roadster. Kelsey's with 500 and 760 x16 bias plys, and a set of artillery wheels 4" front with 600Rx16" and 6" rear with 235-85Rx16". I like the looks of the bias plys but the radials ride much better and they go on for long distance travel.
     
    AHotRod, town sedan, 2935ford and 3 others like this.
  16. deadbeat
    Joined: May 3, 2006
    Posts: 655

    deadbeat
    Member

    Still is for me,,
     
    ct1932ford likes this.
  17. grdra1
    Joined: May 20, 2013
    Posts: 526

    grdra1
    Member

    I have two sets of wheels / tyres, both American classics and the same size, black wall and white wall. Glen P1010895.JPG P1010899.JPG P1011104.JPG P1011105.JPG
     
  18. 34atjimmys6_19.jpg 34atjimmys6_19.jpg
    Tall and fat in the back...short and skinny in the front. I'm putting together a set of IHC steelies and skinny bias plys as a secondary set for the car.
     
  19. gnichols
    Joined: Mar 6, 2008
    Posts: 11,345

    gnichols
    Member
    from Tampa, FL

    Just seen on the hill climb thread. From this angle, they almost look the same, but I don't think so. Great looking car.
    [​IMG]
     
  20. error404
    Joined: Dec 11, 2012
    Posts: 383

    error404
    Member
    from CA

    I like the look of tall fat tires in the rear. I don't really care to be period correct or not, I just like the look.
     
    AHotRod and deadbeat like this.
  21. Same here.{ Wide rear and skinny fronts } But with a 389, and a 354 traction is better too. I like the look of skinnies on the rear of earlier styled Rods. That's just me. But run what ya like. { Cool Thread }:) Ron........ 536.jpg 274.jpg
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2020
  22. billthx138
    Joined: Oct 17, 2009
    Posts: 401

    billthx138
    Member

  23. town sedan
    Joined: Aug 18, 2011
    Posts: 1,290

    town sedan
    Member

    I'm thinking US Royal 560-15 front and BFG 820-15 rear for my fenderless roadster project. Sort of an early/mid 60's type look. No pictures except for what's on line and in my head. More tire rake than suspension rake. Now if I could only talk myself into spending the cash.
    -Dave
     
    bowie and Ron Funkhouser like this.
  24. 41rodderz
    Joined: Sep 27, 2010
    Posts: 6,540

    41rodderz
    Member
    from Oregon

    I used to be into the steam rollers out back, but now I prefer narrower as in half or less width.
     
    town sedan likes this.
  25. AHotRod
    Joined: Jul 27, 2001
    Posts: 12,216

    AHotRod
    Member

    Just like this for me ....

    JerseySuede.jpg

    but fat all the way around works great of this one...

    t bucket peoria 70 - 2.jpg
     
    Jim Bouchard and deadbeat like this.
  26. hemihotrod66
    Joined: May 5, 2019
    Posts: 968

    hemihotrod66
    Member

    I like what tire hooks up...
     
    AHotRod likes this.
  27. fastcar1953
    Joined: Oct 23, 2009
    Posts: 3,567

    fastcar1953
    Member

  28. jimmy six
    Joined: Mar 21, 2006
    Posts: 14,802

    jimmy six
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    It’s what fits the body molding on a fenderless car or a opening on a 49-50’s 28+ “ up to 32” seen to work the best on the rear. Width will always be your taste. Traction concerns some but giant wide meats don’t fit me.
    Fronts need to turn inside fenders if you have them and and be ez if you have no ps....always tough to decide.
     
    deadbeat likes this.
  29. 51 mercules
    Joined: Nov 29, 2008
    Posts: 3,868

    51 mercules
    Member

  30. Ned Ludd
    Joined: May 15, 2009
    Posts: 5,026

    Ned Ludd
    Member

    Over the HAMB's focus era, tyre aspect ratios generally varied in a narrow band north of 80%. Though this era saw a gradual reduction in tyre overall diameters, the ratio of sidewall to overall diameter was all over the spectrum if you consider the era as a whole. Generally, though, a wider tyre necessitated a taller sidewall, which in practice resulted in a side-on appearance which was less wheel and more sidewall.

    That changed very shortly after the end of our era. The Pirelli P7 of the late '60s, the Michelin TRX of the '70s, and the Goodyear Gatorback of the '80s decoupled tread width from sidewall height, allowing tyres to be wider but with sidewall heights hitherto associated with skinnier tyres. This movement led directly to today's rubber-band or painted-on-looking tyres.

    I like the way c.'90s-technology performance tyres drive: there's no way I'm going back even to 70-series radials. I'd hazard that diminishing returns kick in below an aspect ratio of about 45%, and I reckon the optimal zone is around 45% to 60% – not what the kids call "low-profile" these days.

    At the same time I have come to despise a lot of what is associated with emphatically low-profile tyres, especially in the OEM realm. I therefore face the design challenge of sneaking in, as it were, modern lowish-profile tyres in such a way that they aren't immediately recognized for what they are if you squint at thirty paces. I like '20s cars, which typically had small sidewalls on large-diameter wheels like a modern performance car, though despite that bare fact the entire look and feel is different. What I'd really like would be a radial tyre proportioned like a Vintage-era 4.50x19, but about twice as wide. Strangely there are very few of those around.

    I'd long ago done a bit of a mathematical analysis of bigs and littles, using the tyre sizes in the published specs in Street Rodder magazine. What I found was that on the cars which really pegged the look, the ratio of overall diameter to width tended to be the same for the front and rear tyres. It becomes a sort of rule-of-thumb, and traditional in the sense that traditional knowledge produces ways you know will work without the need to go very deeply into why it works. There is no denying that that is a very useful way to go about it. Its only limitation is that it becomes easy to lose sight of it not being the only way it can work.

    I'd been wrestling with the same stuff Posies had been trying to crack, trying to get to a synthesis of hot-rod and Vintage/early-post-Vintage idioms, and I came to a realization that bigs and littles was why none of this was really working. It was a sort of wait-a-minute-what-if moment, and I thought, why not approach it like a custom motorbike? There we've got a skinny front tyre on a tall wheel and a fat rear tyre on a short wheel, and the overall diameter of both tyres in the same ballpark. I reckoned that might allow me to combine a tall, majestic, ocean-liner-like front with a tough, muscular, panther-like rear. I did a series of drawings, which worked to my eye despite looking nothing like we're used to a hot rod looking. My avatar is part of that series, a stretched T tub inspired by a Rolls-Royce torpedo by Jarvis:
    27 Torpedo - 300.JPG
    That was sixteen tears ago, and the idea of "fats and skinnies" has been tickling me ever since. The rule of thumb here seems to be to keep the tyre overall diameter and aspect ratio the same front and rear, and let the wheel diameters fall where they may. Only more recently did I discover that it was sporadically precedented on specials:
    [​IMG]
    Now that looks, as we say in this part of the world, lekker. I'm by no means saying all cars ought to be this way, though.

    So, to answer Danny's question: both; plus tall-and-fat. I can't imagine a use for short-and-skinny, though you never know.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2020

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.