• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes, the measurement system is the same everywhere and you need the wheel size somewhere in there, but the size of the tire (if you were to take a slice of its profile) is in metric.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      No, like I said, tires are sized in both. The width of the bead is given in millimeters, the diameter of the bead is given in inches, and the height of the sidewall is given as a percentage of the width aka Aspect Ratio.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Cut it and you’re left with a U shaped slice measured in mm (even if it’s a ratio that’s used for both legs, if you apply a ratio to a measure in mm, the result is something you measure in mm). The tire itself is measured in mm and then the last number is the size of the wheel it’s wrapped around.

        That’s the point of view I’m thinking about, the red part is the tire and you only need the first two (metric) numbers to know what it looks like, the wheel size doesn’t influence the width or sidewall height of the rubber.

        Also, past a certain point you’re back to imperial measures (35/13.5 x 20 > height x width x wheel) or you might not even have the height/sidewall at all (14.9-42 is 14.9 width for 42" wheels but that’s mostly for tractors.