We all know how air pressure effects rolling resistance of tires. Since there is a push to try and squeeze out all the MPG that we can get, seems to me that a total redesign of tires would help a lot. Tires could become an inch or two thick rubber strip mounted to a special wheel. Obviously suspensions would have to be redesigned but that seems doable.
Why do tires need to be pneumatic?
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
- Status
[censored], how about just making them steel, like on trains and redesign the suspension.
Yes, it would totally destroy the ride. The extreme low profiles are bad enough as it is.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
google michelin tweel.
We would need a flatter road interface like plate steel. The vibration would be murder on suspension parts and the hard tires I bet would not have near the traction. Think hockey pucks.
Only if you used hockey puck rubber. You could use rubber similar to todays to maintain proper traction.
google michelin tweel.
We would need a flatter road interface like plate steel. The vibration would be murder on suspension parts and the hard tires I bet would not have near the traction. Think hockey pucks.
Only if you used hockey puck rubber. You could use rubber similar to todays to maintain proper traction.
Originally Posted By: tig1
They have to be pneumatic to hold air.
And air is a good spring that's really tough to wear out...
I guess tires could be made in a nerf style but eventually the foam inside would break down.
They have to be pneumatic to hold air.
And air is a good spring that's really tough to wear out...
I guess tires could be made in a nerf style but eventually the foam inside would break down.
So they'll blow and require repair!
John
John
Eh, keep it the way it is. It works for 99% of us 99% of the time.
Sometimes reinventing the wheel (er, tire) isn't necessary.
Although if it were really neat I'd be more for it...
Sometimes reinventing the wheel (er, tire) isn't necessary.
Although if it were really neat I'd be more for it...
I though we'de be in flying cars buy 2010
George Jetson you know!
Anything you do to the tire to reduce friction will affect stopping and turning ability i.e safety of the vehicle. There is no free lunch, but personally I'd rather have more stopping and turning ability than fuel savings.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Anything you do to the tire to reduce friction will affect stopping and turning ability i.e safety of the vehicle. There is no free lunch, but personally I'd rather have more stopping and turning ability than fuel savings.
Autocross times tell me differently, on factory tires I doubt any car ever made would get slower after increasing the tire pressure to upper 30's or low 40's psi. But absolute performance has very little to do with safe driving anyways.
Anything you do to the tire to reduce friction will affect stopping and turning ability i.e safety of the vehicle. There is no free lunch, but personally I'd rather have more stopping and turning ability than fuel savings.
Autocross times tell me differently, on factory tires I doubt any car ever made would get slower after increasing the tire pressure to upper 30's or low 40's psi. But absolute performance has very little to do with safe driving anyways.
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Originally Posted By: labman
Yes, it would totally destroy the ride. The extreme low profiles are bad enough as it is.
Thats why I said the suspension would have to be redesigned.
If you had less compliant tires, you'd need much softer suspension springs and bushings to soak up the high frequency impacts, which would make handling suffer badly. Solid tires would also be a lot heavier, or require much heavier wheels if they were thin, which would require massive weight reduction in the suspension and brakes, which would be hugely expensive.
Also, don't forget that all the added weight would be around the outside of the wheel, which is the worst place. That will actually decrease fuel economy.
So, even if you "redesign" the suspension, you'll still have massive compromises.
Originally Posted By: labman
Yes, it would totally destroy the ride. The extreme low profiles are bad enough as it is.
Thats why I said the suspension would have to be redesigned.
If you had less compliant tires, you'd need much softer suspension springs and bushings to soak up the high frequency impacts, which would make handling suffer badly. Solid tires would also be a lot heavier, or require much heavier wheels if they were thin, which would require massive weight reduction in the suspension and brakes, which would be hugely expensive.
Also, don't forget that all the added weight would be around the outside of the wheel, which is the worst place. That will actually decrease fuel economy.
So, even if you "redesign" the suspension, you'll still have massive compromises.
A tire that wont compress against the road surface will do a lot more time bouncing off the pavement.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Anything you do to the tire to reduce friction will affect stopping and turning ability i.e safety of the vehicle. There is no free lunch, but personally I'd rather have more stopping and turning ability than fuel savings.
Autocross times tell me differently, on factory tires I doubt any car ever made would get slower after increasing the tire pressure to upper 30's or low 40's psi. But absolute performance has very little to do with safe driving anyways.
Autocross has nothing to do with normal daily driving and trying to save fuel. People running stock tires at autocross increase the pressure to decrease sidewall flex, and because high speed turns load the tire more, the contact patch doesn't change much when compared to stock pressure in normal driving conditions. But if these people truly wanted the best performance, they would buy dedicated high performance sticky tires.
There is always a trade off between safety and fuel economy, safe driving is a totally different thing, because a car with high performance sticky tires will stop faster and be more stable in turns, therefore it will be safer, than the same car with some low rolling resistance tires.
I see the same argument used by people who refuse to acknowledge the benefits of dedicated winter tires, they say "I'm a safe driver and I never had an accident using all seasons", but anybody that used winter tires knows the benefits and the extra margin of safety these tires provide.
So again, there is no free lunch here because the friction we are trying to combat to save fuel is the same friction that helps to keep us on the road, and I think compromising traction for fuel economy is just silly, there are other ways to save fuel without jeopardizing safety.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Anything you do to the tire to reduce friction will affect stopping and turning ability i.e safety of the vehicle. There is no free lunch, but personally I'd rather have more stopping and turning ability than fuel savings.
Autocross times tell me differently, on factory tires I doubt any car ever made would get slower after increasing the tire pressure to upper 30's or low 40's psi. But absolute performance has very little to do with safe driving anyways.
Autocross has nothing to do with normal daily driving and trying to save fuel. People running stock tires at autocross increase the pressure to decrease sidewall flex, and because high speed turns load the tire more, the contact patch doesn't change much when compared to stock pressure in normal driving conditions. But if these people truly wanted the best performance, they would buy dedicated high performance sticky tires.
There is always a trade off between safety and fuel economy, safe driving is a totally different thing, because a car with high performance sticky tires will stop faster and be more stable in turns, therefore it will be safer, than the same car with some low rolling resistance tires.
I see the same argument used by people who refuse to acknowledge the benefits of dedicated winter tires, they say "I'm a safe driver and I never had an accident using all seasons", but anybody that used winter tires knows the benefits and the extra margin of safety these tires provide.
So again, there is no free lunch here because the friction we are trying to combat to save fuel is the same friction that helps to keep us on the road, and I think compromising traction for fuel economy is just silly, there are other ways to save fuel without jeopardizing safety.
Well everyone draws the line somewhere.
Do you have AA wet traction rated, 140 wear rating tires for summer? Why not? They are far better than the average tire...
On hot dry days you could switch to DOT R-compounds and pull well over 1G of lateral acceleration in your car... Cut 30 feet off your 70-0 mph braking distance...
IMHO, vehicle ability is maybe 10% of driving safely and tires at 25 psi or 45 psi is a small part of that 10%. The remaining 90% of safe driving is good habits and being aware of developing situations and having some idea of what the limits of you and your car are before you need to take evasive action.
Do you have AA wet traction rated, 140 wear rating tires for summer? Why not? They are far better than the average tire...
On hot dry days you could switch to DOT R-compounds and pull well over 1G of lateral acceleration in your car... Cut 30 feet off your 70-0 mph braking distance...
IMHO, vehicle ability is maybe 10% of driving safely and tires at 25 psi or 45 psi is a small part of that 10%. The remaining 90% of safe driving is good habits and being aware of developing situations and having some idea of what the limits of you and your car are before you need to take evasive action.
- Status
