The cars with the tires slanted at an angle

Factual Questions
1

I’m going to be arrogant enough to assume you’ve noticed their existence without me needing to link to an Example A, Example B. (You can conjure up your own easily enough on Google Images for cars tires slanted angle).

Why for they do that? Is it overwhelmingly for the coolitude of the image of having done so, or are people in large quantities seeing these modifications because of alleged tactical advantages, better handling, more competitive driving, etc?

I’d think it would burn through tires awfully fast. You cant them at an angle like that to the surface they’re riding on, you’re reducing the amount of tire-rubber hiting the road to a skinny stripe alone one edge. The forces on that stripe when going around curves must be a high multiple of the force borne by a tire that has all of its tread-face against the asphalt.

Or are they using a diffent tire entirely that somehow compensates? If so, how?

On moderate curves at sedate speed, I would think the left and right front tire would be locked in a state of rubbery argument, fighting each other about the immediate trajectory of the care. Am I wrong about that, or does the turning architecture with severely cambered wheels pit them against each other? I mean, the steering geometry would be the same as was set up for normal vertical tires, and then it gets modified by cambering the wheels in at the top. My intuition says the rubber would be squalling and squealing , trying to reconcile those forces around curves.

What physical mechandise to they have to swap out to do this? How much of it is replacing conventional standard parts with high-quality high-performance equivalents that use very different angles? How much instead is replacing the conventioanl parts with rapidly stamped-out groovy-looking replacements that offer nothing except trendiness while cutting corners on basic quality?

As long as I’m doing this somewhat ranty inquiry, what’s up with the minimalist tires that are so abbreviated in height for the amount of tire width that they’re scarcely more than a coating of rubbery shoe polish on the tire rims? What are the alleged performance advantages of that? There can’t be much cushioning for when you hit a pothole or a utility cable. No impromptu off-roading, no rolling slowly over the barrier curbs, I guess? Are my assumptions erroneous? Do they have wonderful magic technology that I don’t understand that makes them better than conventional tires?

2

The term you’re looking for is camber - on the cars where you’re noticing it, it’s strictly a style thing (ditto the low sidewall height tires.)

3

The term I have heard is ‘stanced’. Sort of the automotive equivalent of stiletto heels. All for appearance - nothing for function.

4

The term you are looking for is ‘Negative-Camber’ and it is primarily used for tighter cornering and better handling. Suspension is typically modified to accommodate and in conjunction with specialized tires can reduce wear. Compensations and specialized modifications/parts are used to prevent the “rubbery argument” (good one, btw!) and if the negative camber is great enough the wheel well area needs to be enlarged in order to turn.

‘Low-Profile’ is the term for the tires whose aspect ratio’s are smaller and in comparison to the wheels. These are also used to provide better gripping and handling, but even with the best struts will still cause a very bumpy ride. In combination with aluminum rims/wheels this can be disastrous as they can crack, not only dangerous but can be expensive to replace. Aluminum is typically used for track only cars since it is much lighter than steel or alloyed wheels. On a sidenote they [the tires] also typically inherit a decent run-flat capability.

Most cars that have this are for show as there is not a practical way to get the effects of it unless you ride a track or strip or engage in street-racing. It is for show, especially when you see it on an Impreza or a BMW. Rally racing and buggies benefit from it in a lot of ways, especially since there is enough clearance for the modification/not under chassis for the most part.

5

I remember seeing this on VW Bugs back in the 70’s, but I think it was more a problem with the independent suspension than a stylistic choice.

6

Yes, if there was too much weight on the car the suspension would sag and the wheel bottoms would splay out.

I’d just like to say that I hate driving on low-profile tires (since they were mentioned above), they are very hard and unforgiving. My Subaru Impreza came with them, and they suck. I have strongly considered spending what it would take to buy different wheels and a new set of regular tires, assuming that I could find something to fit.

7

I can say with confidence that there is a strong correspondence between these types of wheels and assholish/dangerous driving, though I cannot say which causes which.

8

Low profile tires allow bigger wheels, which allow bigger brakes, and have much less sidewall flex, which leads to more precise and predictable handling.

9

But cars with 10-15 degrees of negative camber, with any wheels, are not well-handling cars. And they go through tires quickly. And they look dorky.

VWs had the problem because they were not true IRS, they were swing axle. You could buy the Empi Camber compensator, because people who cared knew you don’t want to drive around splayed out.

10

I agree with the above.

Camber is lean angle of the tire.
Negative camber leans the tire in at the top.

Negative camber is good for cornering, not good for tire wear.
The children have latched on to the racy camber look and some have overdone it in an effort to be “MORE” whatever than the next kid.
Their efforts have gone WAY past any useful alignment angle into the unsafe and ridiculous.:smiley:

11

Bob’s right. A little negative camber (-1.5 degrees or so) helps front tire wear on race cars in cornering and also reduces understeer, which is sometimes desirable. But a certain segment of car enthusiasts have applied an age-old concept to camber: too much is almost enough. So you see crazy camber angles that hurt both cornering and tire wear rates. People who do this are not doing it to go faster; they’re doing it because they like the look. Or rather, they’re doing it because they think women like the look.

That’s their prerogative, but car enthusiasts who like to go fast around racetracks or autocross courses have a meme for just this kind of tilty-tired affectation: “moar camber.” “More” is intentionally misspelled. Google the phrase and you’ll see examples of this meme.

The OP also asked about low-profile tires. Enthusiasts like low-profile tires because the shorter the sidewalls are, the stiffer they are. So short sidewalls give a direct steering feel and prevent the tire from “rolling over” onto its sidewall under high cornering loads. But in the real racing world, tire rollover is addressed partly with increased pressure (which stiffens the sidewalls as well) so it’s not critically important. There can definitely be too much of a good thing: very low-profile tires mean you’re replacing relatively light rubber and air with heavier aluminum. This increases both unsprung weight (a bad thing) and the wheel’s polar moment of inertia (a slow thing, so therefore a bad thing).

Here’s a test showing that larger wheels with lower-profile tires can actually be slower around a racetrack.

12

My own high-performance handling preferences are for virtually no change from the stock angle on camber, but a bit extra positive caster and setting the toe-in so the tires are absolutely parallel at normal highway speeds and (therefore, at least in the older cars I used to play with) ever so slightly toed OUT when you’re exceeding 90 mph. The toe-out eats your tires a bit but when you’re traveling that speed you’re eating your tires anyhow; it makes steering single-finger easy, with exceptionally precise control of car location, which is the payoff.

The caster also improves handling although you can overshoot to your detriment. A slightly more positive caster seems to let you make abrupt changes more gracefully.