Seems that there’s an argument both ways:
Which one is it?
Thanks.
I can see where this thread is going . . .
Let’s start with the fact that hydroplaning involves a lot of factors other than tire width such as tread design, size, channeling, composition, tire pressure, etc.
Everything else being equal I’d say that the narrower the tire, the less likely to hydroplane. The reason is that there is a smaller footprint, meaning that the weight of the vehicle is concentrated on a smaller area causing more pressure on the road. Therefore, it is less likely that anything can come between the tire and the road surface.
I’ve Googled and I get conflicting answers from message boards and blogs, but nothing from tire manufacturers or from sites that test and review cars.
For example, there’s this from Why not?:
This from Automotive Forums:
And, this from an SDMB post:
I’m looking for an authoritative source that has an answer based on specific testing.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=16
Tire Rack is well respected. They mention the need for, and benefits of, water channeling grooves on wide, high performace tires (many Plus One and Plus Two applications) to resist hydroplaning that they are more prone to.
Goodyear: When designing wider tires for high performance use on street vehicles like the Corvette in the mid-80’s, they needed to adopt the ‘Gatorback’ (Goodyear Eagles V-rated tires) unidirectional, water-channeling tread design from the F1 race cars to make it resist hydroplaning, because the new 50 series tires for street use were quite wide and introduced a new set of problems in the wet.
Yes, you should be because it is one of those issues where a multitude of factors have to be accounted for and therefore, make a factual answer very difficult.
When I say, "I can see where this thread is going . . . ", I mean that anyone that chimes in can cite one factor and try to use that to establish an argument.
A wide tire can be designed to be much more resistant to hydroplaning than a much narrower tire. That doesn’t mean that wide tires are more resistant. OTOH a narrow tire can be designed that will almost never hydroplane but its overall performance and wear will render the tire almost useless in practical applications. You can design a narrow tire that is very practical and has good performance yet is susceptible to hydroplaning (any smooth tread tire).
As with most things, you pick your poison.
Me too, hydroplane on a treadmill?
:dubious: But, there’s only one factor here – the width of the tire. All other factors stay the same.
I’m not asking “What factors affect hydroplaning?” or “Which tires are least susceptible to hydroplaning?” or “How do tire manufacturers create tires that minimize hydroplaning”?
I’m asking “Are wider tires more susceptible to hydroplaning?”
Thanks for the attempts so far.
You’re on my frigging nerves with the ‘thanks for the attempts so far’. Studies don’t just come out and go, “Hey Duhkecco, wider tires are more susceptible to hydroplaning! Thanks for reading!”
Read the link below, and pay particular attention on page 9. There it explains WHY wider tires are more susceptible to hydroplaning.
Transportation Research Institute
University of Michigan
Page 9 quote:
The project addressed a specific area of concern involving the control of heavy duty
trucks on wetted pavement. The concern deals with the lightly-loaded, or near-empty
condition in which truck, tractor, and semitrailer tires are less capable of providing good
wet-traction performance. The traction handicap derives from the fact that the lightly loaded
truck tire contacts the ground with a footprint which is **rather short relative to its
width **such that there is risk on wet pavements of developing significant hydrodynamic
pressures over a substantial portion of the tire’s contact length.
Since the tire rolls in the longitudinal direction, a **very short contact length
dimension implies a very short time interval during which water on the roadway must be
expelled from beneath the footprint. If the contact shape is short, but wide, a long escape
path is presented **for water flowing laterally while the short available time implies that very
high water velocities must prevail if the fluid is to escape and thus allow the tire tread to
engage the pavement. When tread depth is also low, even thin films of water will result in
high levels of hydrodynamic pressure beneath the tire, since the groove volume available
for receiving the water bulk is very limited. In deep water, classical hydroplaning appears
to be possible within normal highway speeds, regardless of the tread depth condition.
Link to report.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/867/2/79336.0001.001.pdf
What makes a tire “wide” is sorted in the wording. It’s relative to the length.
And a reference to NASA’s Langley aircraft tire friction performance investigations:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16250009
As noted: Tests aimed at obtaining this needed data were initiated by researchers at Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) and NASA Langley. Results from these initial tests using a worn truck tire, an ASTM Specification Standard Tire for Pavement Skid Resistance Tests (E 501) and Specification for Smooth Tread Standard Tire for Special-Purpose Pavement Skid Resistance Tests (E 524) tires are discussed in this paper. The status of the work directed towards developing a new dynamic tire hydroplaning speed equation(s) is reviewed. During wet weather, highway vehicle operators are cautioned to be alert to the possibly lower hydroplaning speeds because of the influence of tire footprint aspect ratio effects when their vehicles are lightly loaded.
My note: When speaking of ‘wider tires’, engineers are going to do what they should and avoid relative jargon/terms and stick to ‘aspect ratio’ speak. When a tire’s aspect ratio get lower (such as 60, 55, 50, 45 series tires), the tire gets “wider”.
Sorry. I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was just saying that, even though I hadn’t yet received the answer that I was looking for, I appreciated what I had received.
And, thanks for your link. 
What I am saying was that, to get motivated, I had to feel a little pissed off!
Seriously, a common theme that has developed is that weight per inch of tire contact area is important. Wider tires have more contact area (a 225/50 series tires has more road contact area, and is wider, than a 225/70 series tire). Truck trailers that are lightly loaded on (relatively) wide tires are going to show up a lot in studies, because they just aren’t pressing down hard enough per square inch to push the water out of the way. The wider tire spreads the load out, and it’s easier to have the hydraulic action lift the trailer. It’s easier to study the actions of a trailer, and it’s easier to find reports on them.
Makes sense.
So, it seems that there’s always a compromise between tires with low aspect ratios (which, I’m quite sure, offer better traction on dry pavement), and high aspect ratios for wet pavement, plus, additional considerations like handling, comfort, noise, durability, puncture-resistance, cold weather performance, and price.
And, as *they *say, tires are the only thing between the car and the road.
Thanks.
Unless there is water on the road, and the tire is hydroplaning.