Why do tires need to be pneumatic?
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
- Status
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.
You couldn't compensate for a rigid tire/wheel combination with suspension.
They are called the laws of physics and not the suggestions of physics for good reason.
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.
You couldn't compensate for a rigid tire/wheel combination with suspension.
They are called the laws of physics and not the suggestions of physics for good reason.
Originally Posted By: XS650
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.
You couldn't compensate for a rigid tire/wheel combination with suspension.
They are called the laws of physics and not the suggestions of physics for good reason.
I dont see why not. The suspension could rest on something towards the chassis that would have the same cushioning effect as a tire with air.
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.
You couldn't compensate for a rigid tire/wheel combination with suspension.
They are called the laws of physics and not the suggestions of physics for good reason.
I dont see why not. The suspension could rest on something towards the chassis that would have the same cushioning effect as a tire with air.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
I dont see why not. The suspension could rest on something towards the chassis that would have the same cushioning effect as a tire with air.
You're basically talking about soft subframe mounts. It's been done ad nauseum. Those make for very squidgy and unpredictable handling, and still don't absorb all the vibration.
If you're talking about attaching the suspension to the car through an air sac, that would take up a lot of space and add weight, which would offset a lot of the fuel economy gains from the marginally lower rolling resistance of solid tires.
I dont see why not. The suspension could rest on something towards the chassis that would have the same cushioning effect as a tire with air.
You're basically talking about soft subframe mounts. It's been done ad nauseum. Those make for very squidgy and unpredictable handling, and still don't absorb all the vibration.
If you're talking about attaching the suspension to the car through an air sac, that would take up a lot of space and add weight, which would offset a lot of the fuel economy gains from the marginally lower rolling resistance of solid tires.
Solid tires weigh more, use more material, and would cost more.
It would be tough to get the hardness and flex right.
It would be tough to get the hardness and flex right.
There's a lot of mentions about weighing more. That's a big big negative. It's always been a given to reduce unsprung mass. Unsprung mass is fundamentally bad for handling and ride. Air is a nice, easily rechargable / adjustable spring, and it's light as... air! Sure, you have the risk of puncture, but modern tires are tough and fairly puncture resistant.
Not a bad question, got me to thinking of the use of air as a spring in pneumatic tires, it's actually a pretty clever (if old) concept.
Not a bad question, got me to thinking of the use of air as a spring in pneumatic tires, it's actually a pretty clever (if old) concept.
Why all the twisting and turning trying to change the suspension?
Leave the suspension alone....If the tire is solid, then the wheel has to be the part to change and replace the air in the equation. The wheels I've seen for solid tires are flexible themselves, they give and flex, same as the air would in a conventional tire design.
I dont see why, with the proper wheel design, the suspension of the car would have to change at all.
Leave the suspension alone....If the tire is solid, then the wheel has to be the part to change and replace the air in the equation. The wheels I've seen for solid tires are flexible themselves, they give and flex, same as the air would in a conventional tire design.
I dont see why, with the proper wheel design, the suspension of the car would have to change at all.
Things that flex wear and break.
It's OK for tires that get replaced, but not a good idea for wheels.
It's OK for tires that get replaced, but not a good idea for wheels.
I'm thinking new materials not available to us today could change that equation though.
Maybe nano rods of some sort that distort for a split second and then regain their original shape.
Maybe nano rods of some sort that distort for a split second and then regain their original shape.
It was done in the 60's. By GM no less.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/02/original-lunar-rover-tire-helps-with-next-gen-development/
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/02/original-lunar-rover-tire-helps-with-next-gen-development/
how long did the moonbuggy's wheels have to last? At 1/6th gravity too.
- Status
