On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:41:01 -0700 (PDT),
trader_4 wrote:

Instead of acknowledging it, you totally moved the goal posts by
dragging changing speed into it. And then you went on with more
posts, as if you never got it. I'm not sure that even now you
understand that torque and energy/work are different things.

What I care about is the answer to the question posed, which is:

What's the performance difference between 15 inch, 16 inch and 17 inch
tires (all else equal)?

And you freely joined in with Clare, when he slammed me, you thanked
him. You didn't say, "but Trader explained the physics, what about
those examples, etc?"

I'm sorry if I "freely joined" in with Clare to "slam" you, as I don't even
know whom I'm responding to. I'm just responding to what each person
writes.

So I'm responding to you right now, but I don't even know your name (nor
does it matter), so, it's not personal.

What matters is the answer to the question.

You sure changed the goal posts when I gave you the example of riding
a bicycle up hill. You then brought up wind resistance and the speed
potentially being different. Which of course it doesn't have to be,
it's just obfuscation when I was making a clear point on the physics.
You weren't talking about a car with different diameter tires, one
going 50, the other 65mph were you?

I didn't understand the physics arguments.
I was just quoting what others said.
So I shouldn't have quoted the physics forum.

I already apologized a few times for bringing up the physics forum.
I can't defend what they said because I don't know physics well enough.
I just don't.

Why would I disagree with what I and Bob F were telling
you from the start?

Fair enough.
You don't know this but I don't even look at whom I'm responding to.
I just respond to the words since I don't care who provides the answer.
I only care for the answer.

So I apologize that it appeared as if I was ganging up with the person you
call Clare to beat up on you. My response, if you read it again, I'm sure,
never once says your name because I don't think that way.

I only respond to what people say, and what Clare said is implied where I
don't blame you for inferring that I was ganging up on you with Clare.

I apologize. I was not intentionally ganging up on you.
I would have no reason for doing that.

I'd say your mistake was refusing to address the physics examples
I gave you and instead continuing on in the wilderness. And then
jumping on me with Clare, who by the way, told you the same things
that Bob F and I had.

I think I said that I don't know Physics well enough to argue that point.
I did read the articles that said the torque loss was greater with the
larger diameter wheels, but I wasn't sure why, so I didn't want to argue
what I didn't know.

I don't think the physics matters all that much because I don't think
anyone is contending that the larger diameter fitments give an inherent
advantage in fuel mileage at highway speeds anyway.

So, I think it's moot at this point, since the answer seems to be that one
would be hard pressed to gain any advantage in performance of any type
merely by simply using larger diameter fitments (except if they're lucky in
where it puts them on the torque curve).

I'm responding to the fact that it's annoying to tell you that
you were wrong, show you clear physics examples, and then you
just continue to go off in the wilderness and then join in with
Clare insulting me, when Clare is telling you the same damn thing.

I apologize for seeming to insult you.
I'm not going to re-read the posts because I know what I do, and I wasn't
intentionally responding to anything you said (although I see how you can
interpret it that way).

So I apologize that I agreed with Clare that I can tell when someone knows
what they're talking about where you thought it was me ganging up on you. I
don't disparage you for pointing out my mistake because I would have
probably inferred the same thing you inferred - based purely on the
message-id trail.

You don't know this, but 95% to 99% of the time I don't know (nor care) who
the person claims to be whom I'm responding to - since I only respond to
the words spoken.

Good grief, he we go again. The only one needing to be shot down here
was you.

Fair enough.

And yet physics is what it's all about. You had the misconception that
torque equals energy/work, it doesn't.
That was your fundamental misconception from the beginning.

I don't understand the physics well enough to figure out for my self what
happens when the diameter of the wheel/tire assembly goes up, and nothing
else changes.

Apparently, from the articles, if that puts the engine in a sweet spot,
then good things happen with respect to gas mileage. Otherwise, bad things
happen, which is most likely going to be the case given the manufacturer
knew what they were doing when they designed the vehicle with the OEM
fitment.

But you are debating physics by talking about torque and energy.

It was my fault for bringing in an article that came from a physics forum,
where I couldn't defend what the people there said because I don't know
physics well enough to defend it.

So I didn't defend the physics. I can't. I don't know enough to.

Which is what we were trying to tell you from the beginning.

Well, I don't remember who brought in articles that backed up opinions, but
the articles carried the most weight with me.

Maybe someone else did say it once, but both Bob F and I were telling you over
and over, that it isn't so. I gave you those simple physics examples.
Yet you kept saying "we intuitively think", when it was only you
that kept arguing that, post after post.

I agree with you that I had originally *thought* there was something
(anything) that was beneficial performancewise to larger fitments, where,
it turns out, that in "most cases" there is not.

If all the stars line up, then there is a single benefit of mpg at highway
cruising - which doesn't at all seem like it's worth the effort and cost.

So, in the end, larger fitments are, in reality, almost 100% for looks.
Pretty much, that answers the question posed in the op.

I did not know that then - but I know that now.
Most of you probably knew it (but some people didn't).