What's the point of alloys on the average car?

[truman]

I'm intrigued by the simultaneous claim of increased grip AND mpg.

 

Surely a wider footprint providing increased grip is bound to reduce mpg significantly more than any corresponding increase due to lighter materials?

 

.

 

I'm intrigued also..why would better grip increase fuel consumption? Why doesn't it improve fuel consumption.. if there is no slip of the tyre on the surface then won't the wheels be doing fewer revolutions per metre travelled..therefore giving a better mpg? Genuine question..

[Cyclone]

I'm intrigued also..why would better grip increase fuel consumption? Why doesn't it improve fuel consumption.. if there is no slip of the tyre on the surface then won't the wheels be doing fewer revolutions per metre travelled..therefore giving a better mpg? Genuine question..

 

Presumably an assumption that increased grip means increased rolling resistance.

[L00b]

The owner of the Citroen is a car nut who keeps that car specifically for snowy conditions, and he claims it is the best car he has ever used in the snow because of its narrow tyres.

Indeed. The 2CV is still the best car to drive in snowy conditions, to this day. Underpowered, light as a feather, FWD, with wheels narrower than many a modern-day MTB

Grip in the dry and grip in slippery conditions are two different things I think..otherwise why would F1 cars not use 2CV wheels..?

Observational lesson for you both: have a look at some photos (or videos) of WRC rally cars in Finland (snowy & ice) vs Corsica (dry tarmac), and observe difference in wheel width

 

I'm intrigued also..why would better grip increase fuel consumption?

Additional amount of friction (more interface area between tyre and road) to overcome?

 

EDIT - that:

Presumably an assumption that increased grip means increased rolling resistance.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

the unsprung weight

Unsprung? Dutch technique!

[adamf]

On a slightly flippant note. They're easier to damage, break, bend, scuff etc...so it's more return cutom!...But then again, I'm cynical!

 

Hey, that's what I've always suspected.

[Harleyman]

Every car I have driven in the last 10 years has had alloy wheels, in comparison to almost every car I drove before 2000 that did not.

 

As I walked down Ecclesall Road yesterday I noted that more than 90% of cars had alloy wheels, even on the most basic runarounds.

 

The reason that this is in my mind is that that we have just bought a runaround. We bought the most basic model, and the sales assistant tried to talk us into some "special edition" for an extra grand which basically came with a DAB radio and alloys.

 

I was rather tempted by the look of the alloys, but then my wife said she preferred the basic steels and looked forward to the prospect of once again being able to park the car without the fear of damaging the alloys on the car. Freedom!

 

I can recall numerous arguments between spouses over damaged alloys.

 

So it got me thinking ... apart from looks, whats the point of alloy wheels? Have we all just been suckered into a marketing meme?

 

 

 

Alloy hub caps keep their appearance for years if cleaned periodically whereas the cheaper caps look like crap after a few years no matter how often you try to keep them looking good.

[Eater Sundae]

I had a 2CV in the early 80s. I can concur with others that it was great in the snow, without any special tyres. (It had Michelin X tyres - nobody else made tyres of the right size, IIRC).

 

Re fuel consumption: This may be apocryphal, and/or I may have remembered it incorectly, but I think I recall reading that the original basic Ford Ka did not have power steering. In order to stop the steering being too heavy, it was fitted with narrower tyres than power assisted versions. A knock on effect of this was that the fuel consumption of the basic version was much better than the more expensive versions, by 5 mph or so.