I'm just going to leave it. you've asked the same question, about 'why not a 155' (albeit slightly differently worded) and I've answered it multiple times- that eventually you get to the point it just over taxes the small amount of tyre, it overheats or just plain tears it up, and it lets go. Oddly enough it _is_ actually proof that the tread is gripping as well. It's just that it ends up tearing itself (at the microscopic level) away from the tyre. I could just as easily ask 'well why not run tyres 2 metres wide?'

At 2 metres wide put more camber on that, and you'll get to the point that the outside half of the tyre never touches the ground during cornering. At that same camber level a thinner tyre can and will make full contact. I realise it's an 'out there' example, but it illustrates the point.

Of course it isn't that simple, and that's what I'm getting at. you'd have to factor in where the weight is being transferred, and look at optimising it to hit the middle (more or less) of the tyre contact patch.

You could also (demonstrably) get to a point with tyres where they are just so large (admittedly beyond the scope of any practical fitment) that it's impossible to get enough heat into them to make them work, in a competition sense.

Take any sport bike, and with a competent rider, they will pull more g's for longer periods, under hard braking, than they can accelerate. The front does probably more than 90% of the braking? But oddly enough, using a smaller tyre than the rear. Now of course I'm deliberately doing an apples and oranges here. The rear tyre is bigger, so that (at similar overall treadwear rates for a given stressor on the same compound front and rear) the rear lasts the distance, since it is (overall) being used to transmit force for most of the time, the front doesn't come into play (relatively) much at all during the point of corner exit where the bike is mostly upright, and so on.

You also want to factor in scrub radius changes, changes in offset and track (which I've mentioned).

Like it or not, within sensible ranges, tread compound is important. As is suspension geometry configured to maximise download/weight transfer onto the tyre.

They were the two points I made and I stand by them. Beyond that I'll agree to disagree.

With regard to tyre temps, I used the term pyrometer, but I meant it as a more general term, I was just curious about tyre temps, of the previous set and subsequent set you used as the example. I wasn't nitpicking about _how_ they might have been measured. To which end, if you could expand upon whatever data you got on tread temps, I'll certainly read (but as mentioned I won't respond, it's clearly of no productive value).