kind of a philosophical/engineering question

[blyndgesser]

I've seen a lot of different styles of T-buckets out there, but most of them seem to have in common a radical difference in size between the front and rear wheels.

Is this purely an aesthetic decision? Or are there sound engineering reasons for it? It seems to me that in a front-engined vehicle the front wheels have responsibility for most of the braking action as well as steering, and that smaller front wheels (especially the really narrow ones) would really make a bucket hard to handle.

Is anyone out there running wheels that are close to the same size?

 

[2old2fast]

T's take alot of there styling clue's from 60's-70's drag racing. Big rear tires /little front may not be the best for handling but to get the "stance" many want , that's what works. I have 185-70r-14 on the front & 275-60r-15 in the rear , not quite as radical as some , but I drive mine alot..
dave

 

[EX JUNK]

I drive mine a ton with 155/80x15's on the front with 285/70x15's on the rear. Streetrods are supposed to have a "rubber rake" to look proper. My '37 Chevy has 195/60x15's on the front and 235/60x16's on the rear for a proper "rake".





Jim

 

[fordsbyjay]

It is not necessarily front to back width as well. Short and tall front to back gives you the nice stance and can be had with narrower tires.

 

[Carolina Man]

I drive mine a ton with 155/80x15's on the front with 285/70x15's on the rear. Streetrods are supposed to have a "rubber rake" to look proper. My '37 Chevy has 195/60x15's on the front and 235/60x16's on the rear for a proper "rake".





Jim

Beautiful cars

 

[Carolina Man]

It is not necessarily front to back width as well. Short and tall front to back gives you the nice stance and can be had with narrower tires.

I love the traditional look. She is a beauty