Why did Honda un-stagger wheel sizes in the 2002-2005?

[RYU]

I'm curious if anyone has ever read any documentation that explains why the NSX was sold from the factory with 15/16 inch and 16/17 inch but the final years was 17/17? Was it cost? Was it performance?

I ask because everytime I go back to a 17/17 in the stock tire sizes i'm amazed and how much the chassis comes alive. It's noticeably different than a 17/18 setup. Granted on all my 17/17 setups i've maintained the stock 215/255 tire widths but on my 17/18 I go between 215-235 / 265-275.

Curious to hear your thoughts!

 

[anesthesia]

I remember reading that the reason they use 15 upfront was to have more room upfront cabin. And to improve on the steering aspect abs handling with smaller tire upfront

 

[natcc99]

I'm curious if anyone has ever read any documentation that explains why the NSX was sold from the factory with 15/16 inch and 16/17 inch but the final years was 17/17? Was it cost? Was it performance?

I ask because everytime I go back to a 17/17 in the stock tire sizes i'm amazed and how much the chassis comes alive. It's noticeably different than a 17/18 setup. Granted on all my 17/17 setups i've maintained the stock 215/255 tire widths but on my 17/18 I go between 215-235 / 265-275.

Curious to hear your thoughts!

I have some data that might help, but it doesn't explain why they went 17/17 in the later years.

See video below and skip to 1 min mark. Basically, he talks about the manual steering rack and keeping steering effort easy. To achieve this, they needed to lighting up the front which included small wheels and brakes.
Once the electric power steering rack came, they were able to fit bigger front rims.
However, as mentioned earlier, I am not sure why 17/17 was fitted after 2002. Perhaps it was to modernize the car in its last year of production without over engineering it?

https://youtu.be/mIiOW8LzACg

 

[MotorMouth93]

I think a good chunk of it had to do with achieving a more modern aesthetic along with the fixed lights. You don't see many cars with staggered diameters anymore.

Also, more subjectively, the 90s were kind of the dark ages for wheel designs, and people were starting to realize that in the early 00s lol. There is very few 90s vehicles with nice looking stock wheels, and I think the price difference between the 1991-2001 wheels and the 2002+ wheels illustrates this quite well.

 

[solidol]

If I would have to guess it's likely two things: tire tech improvements and benefits of dropping bespoke rubber as well as aesthetics due to facelift.

 

[NZNick]

I think the simple answer to the original question is that the stagger could be achieved with tyres alone in 2002, so aesthetically having 17" wheels front and rear would be more pleasing, filling the arches more, as is the recent "fashion"...
I suspect that the tyre technology improved enough by 2002 to overcome the unsprung mass vs. ride/grip trade-off sufficiently to please the engineers at Honda.

 

[MrHugo]

I saw a video recently on why F1 still use 13" wheels. (I believe they will change to 18 inches for safety reasons in order to make the car slower)

Taller tires will provide more flex and damping. Weights are disturbed toward the center instead of the otter wheel with the smaller wheel setup.

I am going back to 17/17 soon too.

 

[solidol]

Keep in mind that majority of the tire weight is in the sidewall too. I'm not leaving 16/17 crew anytime soon though (at least until tire options become super dry).

 

[docjohn]

It was the tire manufacturer that lead the dance..

 

[goldNSX]

I ask because everytime I go back to a 17/17 in the stock tire sizes i'm amazed and how much the chassis comes alive. It's noticeably different than a 17/18 setup.

I've had 17/18 before with casted wheels of the 'usual' weigth, heavy Bridgestones and low ET (43/38). Went back to 16/17 with OEM Yoko tires and NO spacers. Quite a big difference as you've noticed as well. 17/18 was faster I believe but 16/17 was more fun to drive, more interactive.
Now very happy with 17/17 with Goodyears (low weight tire).
Rays superlight forged monoblock rims 17/18 with (light and grippy) Goodyears but ET is a tad lower than OEM. Result: it feels even better (for me), like a gazelle while is was kind of an elefant with the heavy 17/18 setup with lower ETs. Still: I'm NOT saying a wider track is not beneficial but it certainly destroys the characteristics or the fun factor of the car the engineers were designing.

 

[pvmike]

I ask because everytime I go back to a 17/17 in the stock tire sizes i'm amazed and how much the chassis comes alive. It's noticeably different than a 17/18 setup. Granted on all my 17/17 setups i've maintained the stock 215/255 tire widths but on my 17/18 I go between 215-235 / 265-275.

This is interesting to hear since you are running CE-28s in 17/18 that are lighter than OEM, correct?

 

[RYU]

Great feedback from everyone. Thank you for the interesting viewpoints. [MENTION=4282]docjohn[/MENTION] is that true? really?

This is interesting to hear since you are running CE-28s in 17/18 that are lighter than OEM, correct?

Hi, yes. My hoarding problem is a little disturbing.

The impetus of this post is because I recently put back on my Volk SE37K in 17/17. Same exact tires except the rears are 255 on the SE's and 265 for the CE's. The SE37K 17/17 setup is lighter. Both tires sets are on Maxxis VR-1.

I don't have a current picture at this same angle with the CE's. This is an older one with different tires in the pic.

I really enjoy the handing on all the 17/17 sets I have. Again... may not be the fastest setup though.

 

[bogle]

Curious what the total wheel/tire weight is for both the SE37k and ce setup. Did you weigh the SEs before they went on?

 

[RYU]

Curious what the total wheel/tire weight is for both the SE37k and ce setup. Did you weigh the SEs before they went on?

I only weighed the fronts but i'll be doing a better weight comparison the next time I service the car (might be soon to swap rear springs). Using my bathroom scale the fronts CEs were approx. 1lb heavier. I do believe there is a bit more tire tread on the tires on the CEs. The SE's front tires are about 50% worn. The tires on the CEs have approximately 70% of tread left. Again, this isn't a scientific analysis. I just grabbed my bathroom scale as quickly as I could before my wife noticed I was using it for car stuff again lol

Assumably... the rears will be lighter still. My best guess is probably closer to 2lbs savings?

 

[goldNSX]

I was not asked but here's mine.

CE28N with NEW GY tires.
f 32.6 lbs
r 38.5 lbs

The complete set is even 10 lbs lighter than 15/16 with OEM Yokos and about 25 lbs lighter than 16/17 with OEM Yokos.

 

[bogle]

[MENTION=20915]RYU[/MENTION] you’ll have to get a 50lb postal scale for the garage. I use mine weekly for one reason or another and weigh most things I take off the car out of curiosity

[MENTION=10201]goldNSX[/MENTION] good data! I was on a CE28n 17/17 setup recently and weighed them when I took them off to put on the new set. Tires were old 2008 direzzas, 80% front 50% rear. Seems like those Goodyear’s are light. My set came in heavier than yours. They were

* front: 37lbs; 17x8+38 215/40
* rear: 40lbs 6oz; 17x9+40 255/40