[hunt_ak]

Originally Posted by 10mm

10 below?

That's good for at least 15 additional ponies

Yeah pretty good cold snap. The twin turbos gulping down the dense air...while I drive like there's an egg under my right foot. The utilitarian in me cringes when the rears spin at all with the studded tires.

[digitalfutur]

Got the Blizzaks installed today...225/60R17 on hub-centric rims. Meaty sidewall for the rough winter roads.

Great traction wet or dry. Cornering is surprisingly good...ride is a bit floaty due to the taller profile, but you get used to that real quick.

Winter tires should always be narrower because you end up with more weight per square inch of contact patch; and more weight equals more grip.

[SSlow6]

Originally Posted by digitalfutur

Winter tires should always be narrower because you end up with more weight per square inch of contact patch; and more weight equals more grip.

I believe this is often misquoted. If this were true you would want narrow tires for dry weather too right? Wider tires may have less weight per square inch, but there is more area in contact so it’s a wash. IIRC from high school physics, force of friction equals the coefficient of friction times normal force (weight), no mention of area.

I believe the real reason is narrow tires can push throw deep snow easier. Wide tires act like a plow and take more force to move the snow out of the way.

[digitalfutur]

Originally Posted by SSlow6

I believe this is often misquoted. If this were true you would want narrow tires for dry weather too right? Wider tires may have less weight per square inch, but there is more area in contact so it’s a wash. IIRC from high school physics, force of friction equals the coefficient of friction times normal force (weight), no mention of area.

I believe the real reason is narrow tires can push throw deep snow easier. Wider tires act like a plow and take more force to move the snow out of the way.

For dry roads you're correct, wide tires provide better traction. But slicks provide the best traction of all, that's why they're on racing cars...if the track is dry. Car racing tires for wet tracks are narrower than slicks.

On snow covered roads the coefficient of friction is reduced considerably, so the difference between the area in contact and weight is not a wash under those conditions compared to dry roads. That's why narrower snow tires provide better grip on those snow-covered roads.

[MR's 2SS]

Originally Posted by digitalfutur

For dry roads you're correct, wide tires provide better traction. But slicks provide the best traction of all, that's why they're on racing cars...if the track is dry. Car racing tires for wet tracks are narrower than slicks.

On snow covered roads the coefficient of friction is reduced considerably, so the difference between the area in contact and weight is not a wash under those conditions compared to dry roads. That's why narrower snow tires provide better grip on those snow-covered roads.

My 2 cents... This is a discussion of the difference between friction and traction. The wider tires provide greater TRACTION because more meat leveraging against the force attempting to break TRACTION by exceeding the FRICTION between the tire and roads ability to stick. Either by acceleration or lateral force.
But add a FRICTION modifier. Like water or snow... and FRICTION is lost. Compounded by the width.. and in the case of slicks actually compounded by the lack of voids to collect the friction modifier.
So narrower tires in snow. Its also good to have more sidewall flex but that might be purely subjective.
Youll see mud buggies with tall narrow tractor tires. Or tractors themselves with narrow wheels for TRACTION in slippery mud. Not FRICTION... just huge voids and maybe the ability to reach to the bottom of the mud for TRACTION.
I got a set of four 245/18 Vredstien snows for our 2ss. I we wont be driving it in the damn salt though. It was more over concern with low temps on the summer tires.
That said I drove my 1970 Camaro in snow without snow tires in the 70s. 1972 GTO... no snows.... Corvettes.... 2 of them were not at all pristine and I drove them in any weather that came to pass. I enjoyed the sliding around.
I kind of think most Camaro drivers are at a higher level of skill than most. And will do fine.
But fear of crashing their baby far outweighs the actual need to drive in the snow so other arrangements are made.
We have an Accord for the wife to drive even when it rains. The Camaro will sit with its snow tires on under a cover outside because no garage space.
More due to salt than anything. Salt gets in everywhere and is good for nothing.
Also ground clearance is an issue. Getting caught driving home in a snow storm is one thing. Trying to actually drive through considerable snow requires a truck. Lots of clearance...proper tires... a bit of skill...
Ive driven through drifts where the powder was blowing over the hood of my 2500 HD. Duratracs... great in the snow.
The Camaro would be sitting on top of a pile of snow with wheels spinning in mid air....
If the picture loaded its the 245?18 snows.

[hotlap]

My 2 cent.

Tire compound, tread pattern and sipping will give a wider tire better traction on wet or slushy surface. A narrow tire with aggressive tread will do better in deep snow.

This picture shows my 305 width rear tires. Greater width equals a lot of sipes with channels to evacuate slush or light snow. On dry surfaces, they can still control the LT1’s power.

I drive where even significant snow fall is cleared quickly. I am also able to work for home so driving in deep snow isn’t necessary.

POWER IS NOTHING WITHOUT CONTROL - Pirelli

[DaveC113]

As mentioned with modern studless snow tires you get traction from the siping on packed snow and ice, so wider is better in general.

As the surface becomes softer a narrower tire will do better.

I run 265/40/19 Michelin winter performance tires and the grip on hard packed snow is really impressive! I pass AWD cars with inferior tires all the time. The softer the surface, the worse it gets but I do not rely on my Camaro to plow through deep snow, lol.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by SSlow6

I believe this is often misquoted. If this were true you would want narrow tires for dry weather too right? Wider tires may have less weight per square inch, but there is more area in contact so it’s a wash. IIRC from high school physics, force of friction equals the coefficient of friction times normal force (weight), no mention of area.

I believe the real reason is narrow tires can push throw deep snow easier. Wide tires act like a plow and take more force to move the snow out of the way.

Yeah, no one is driving around in a foot or two of snow in a Camaro, because the snow would be piling up over the air-dam and the car would become a snowplow. The situations where you want narrow tires are pretty limited, in that if you go with the narrow tire to "sink down" in soft snow, you are giving up traction elsewhere, like on hard (cold) ground and ice. It's a balance, but the idea that one should be running the skinniest tires possible is just ridiculous in a car like this. I run 255s for my winter setup, studded. We are on lots of ice right now, temps have been down in the negatives for a little more than a week (usually not this cold this early in the season), traction actually goes up when it gets cold enough on ice and compacted snow, but these hard surfaces are pretty difficult to deal with in most situations, lots of wheel spinning. The studded tires help, but it still doesn't have enough weight on the end to accelerate well on any kind of incline. I have to wonder if many of the people are actually driving on winter surfaces, or just their idea of winter is when the ground is still warm when it's snowing and you are basically just driving on water...

[MR's 2SS]

Originally Posted by hotlap

My 2 cent.

Tire compound, tread pattern and sipping will give a wider tire better traction on wet or slushy surface. A narrow tire with aggressive tread will do better in deep snow.

This picture shows my 305 width rear tires. Greater width equals a lot of sipes with channels to evacuate slush or light snow. On dry surfaces, they can still control the LT1’s power.

I drive where even significant snow fall is cleared quickly. I am also able to work for home so driving in deep snow isn’t necessary.

POWER IS NOTHING WITHOUT CONTROL - Pirelli
Attachment 1085271
Attachment 1085272

You running them square? They look badass.
The 245s do lack dry traction as well. Ive spun them easily without trying between the narrow and different rubber/tread.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by MR's 2SS

You running them square? They look badass.
The 245s do lack dry traction as well. Ive spun them easily without trying between the narrow and different rubber /tread.

Thanks!

It is not a square set. I went with the OE size for 1LE SS of 285 front and 305 rear.

Initially, I hoped that the 1LE reproduction wheels would be available in narrower width so I could run the SS spec, 245 / 275, that I’ve used before. No dice. Then I considered running square 285 front and rear but ultimately decided to keep that aggressive 1LE look.

[MR's 2SS]

Th e forged 1LE wheels are the best looking wheel GM has put out perhaps ever.
I thought about going with them and PS4s and not getting any snows. At that time we hadnt gotten the Accord. So it looked like the SS was going to be driven in snow.
And it just seemed like to much to spend immediately after buying the car.
I got the wheels and Vredstiens delivered to my shop for under 1300 bucks.
Took a chance on the Vredstiens as I had never heard of them. But figured northern Europe should know about snow.
The only problem has been one tire/wheel coming through poorly balanced.
Highway was bad enough that we took the truck rather than drive over 70.
Had them balanced last week and swapped them on and now its fine until 90.
The wheels required a centering ring. I do worry the plastic rings could come off on installation and cause a problem. Theyre Flow One. Look nice enough. But made in china.
Its a shame we have to expect products to be garbage.