My car tire impressions- for real

[schoeney]

Originally Posted by Kawhead

Some of thease folks have neither. I'm doing research to find out if the motorcycles had ct's or mt's.

Man that hurt just watching!

[bigsid1]

It looked to me like all the bicycle/motorcycles had car tires.

[macmac]

The CT works for me, but then I never ride faster than my angle can fly, and my angel is a fatty ::)

[Kawhead]

Mac, I thought you had a baddass Indian warrior looking fellah watchin' after you. Like the toilet paper at the plant I work at, he looked like he didn't take hockey off of nobody! I know you ain't callin' him no angel. :)

[dantama]

Originally Posted by macmac

my angel is a fatty ::)

There you go again with another weed reference ;)

[hammer]

Mac's angel is named Doober?

Are we passed the blackboard physics stuff yet?

I was going to ask you Dan, based on your tests, what tire width in a CT would you go to? I had a Stock tire already to put on but me next could be a CT.

[hammer]

Schoeney, I watched that You Tube vid and there are some Darwin Award candidates in there for sure. I guess some were trying but some should just stop trying while they are still living.

[macmac]

Geeze Hammer, your google earth must be great to know that! So you can see my little fatty angel from space huh? That's way cool. I never git any good stuff. I always get the off angels, fat, slow, need to rest alot, bi-tch and whine about my camp sites, nannie me when I'm bad..

[upside22]

Originally Posted by blaneb

I can't poison the well with facts. Only gibberish is poisoning any well.

Again, your basic premis is completely wrong and also irrelevent.

"Force = Pressure times Area" is wrong.

No, pressure is equal to force (Newtons) divided by area (metres squared) and it relates to fluid dynamics, not to friction so it is irrelevent to the topic.

I think if you keep trying, you might actually get something right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I again invite you to prove the Amontons\Coulomb laws of friction give any relevence to the apparent area of contact. Your not arguing against me, your arguing against basic physics.

If a ten lb. brick of rubber with one side twice as large as the other, along the surface it is on, result in a coefficient of friction of 1.0, it will take 10 lbs. of frictional force to overcome static friction.

The apparent area of contact is irelevent, it will take 10 lbs. to move the brick whether it is placed on its largest side, or its smaller side. The coefficient of friction is independent of the apparent area of contact. Do you disagree??

If you want to continue arguing against this simple fact then have at it. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Here is a link to a site that does a nice job of explaining this:

http://www.stevemunden.com/friction.html

If you want to argue the point more, maybe you will write to him and disagree, but take a look at his references first.

The reference you quote doesn't disprove what I am saying in any way, shape, or form. The main point of that url is that the normal force goes down when the motorcycle is leaned.

So what?

Racing cars try to reduce unsprung weight as much as possible in order to handle better on rough and bumpy surfaces. It allows the suspension to keep the tires in contact with the surface more easily.

One sure fire way to accomplish this is to reduce tire weight.

If contact patch didn't make any difference to the amount of friction force, you would see F1 racers equipped with bicycle tires in order to reduce unsprung weight.

When reality intrudes on theory, the typical argument is that "you just don't understand".

I understand plenty. I understand that race cars don't use 10 speed bicycle tires for a very good reason. That reason is that the contact area of a 10 speed bicycle tire (50mm wide) doesn't provide as much friction force as a 300mm wide F1 racing tire.

You can argue that reality isn't reality. You can argue all you want that a 50mm wide bicycle tire would work just as well on an F1 racing car as a 300mm wide Goodyear.

Do you *really* expect anyone to believe you?

[hammer]

Oops, I guess we are not past the blackboard stuff yet.

Yah Mac I have Google Earth and Smell Satellite feed so I can smell what you are rollin' and burnin' all the way over here on the Wet Coast.

Hopefully Dan can get past the physics discussion and field that tire width question in a way I don't have to fly past our resident brain trust! ::)

[dantama]

Originally Posted by hammer

Oops, I guess we are not past the blackboard stuff yet.

Yah Mac I have Google Earth and Smell Satellite feed so I can smell what you are rollin' and burnin' all the way over here on the Wet Coast.

Hopefully Dan can get past the physics discussion and field that tire width question in a way I don't have to fly past our resident brain trust! ::)

Hammer, I looked for the 175 tire and couldn't find it for sale anywhere. I ended up with the 195 SP 5000 just because I couldn't find what I wanted in a narrower tire.

There was a narrower one, don't remember what size, that was an all season tire. It got great user reviews on Tire Rack, but of course they were car owners. For traction in the wet etc. users loved it. I considered going with it, but called the Tire Rack people and asked them for opinion on it. Of course they would only theoretically talk about using it on a motorcycle, but the guy I talked to said he'd use the SP 5000 over the all season.

I don't want to get the brainiacs going off on another tangent :) But from my leaned over pictures and trying to logic through it, it seems that a narrower tire would have less of the on edge-flat-on edge feel. Here's a picture to try to illustrate




It seems that if the tire were half as wide, it would only get a little off the ground and you'd only be feeling a slight height difference between leaned one way, to flat, to leaned the other way. The full 195 gets high off the ground, and takes a fraction longer to get down to to flat before going back to the other edge.

If you look at the picture, and picture turning the other direction, as the tire comes back down the first red line will already be touching the ground while the other red line is still in the air.

I cut and pasted the bike more upright(look at the saddle bags) till the middle red line was horizontal and touching the ground. You can see the edge of the tire is still up in the air, just not as much.



We're only talking about a fraction of a second and many from what the posts in this thread have said would never feel it. But I could feel the lag on my 195 tire, and it seems that there would be a lot less with a narrower tire. They're just hard to find. Too hard for me to find anyway.

I wish I had a 175 tire

[blaneb]

The reference you quote doesn't disprove what I am saying in any way, shape, or form. The main point of that url is that the normal force goes down when the motorcycle is leaned.

So what?

WWHHHAAAAATT??? The point of the url is that the motorcycle weighs exactly the same leaning as vertical so the normal force remains the same during a lean. Are you just screwing with me here? You can't be serious, can you??

Racing cars try to reduce unsprung weight as much as possible in order to handle better on rough and bumpy surfaces. It allows the suspension to keep the tires in contact with the surface more easily.

One sure fire way to accomplish this is to reduce tire weight.

If contact patch didn't make any difference to the amount of friction force, you would see F1 racers equipped with bicycle tires in order to reduce unsprung weight.

O.K. So what? Unsprung weight has nothing to do with the discussion of frictional force. You do understand that, don't you?? And since you seem to like stupid questions, if contact patch made any difference if the coefficient of friction, why aren't F1 tires twice as wide as they are?



When reality intrudes on theory, the typical argument is that "you just don't understand".

I understand plenty. I understand that race cars don't use 10 speed bicycle tires for a very good reason. That reason is that the contact area of a 10 speed bicycle tire (50mm wide) doesn't provide as much friction force as a 300mm wide F1 racing tire.

You may understand plenty, but you clearly don't understand even the basics of this discussion. Any idiot knows why race cars don't use 10 speed bicycle tires, even without understanding any of the engineering details or physics involved. It's the exact same reason race cars don't use motorcycle tires, because they do not meet the engineering requirements to support the weight, down-force, speeds and torque produced by a race car. I think any kinder-gardener will corroborate that if you don't understand

You can argue that reality isn't reality. You can argue all you want that a 50mm wide bicycle tire would work just as well on an F1 racing car as a 300mm wide Goodyear.

What part of reality don't YOU understand. Everything in the real world follows physical laws and again, just because you don't understand these laws, they are real. You are the only one even bringing up the possibility of bicycle tires on an F1 car, I sure didn't. The difference is that I actually understand why F1 cars don't use bicycle tires and you clearly do not.

I hope you find some comfort in your complete lack of understanding.


Do you *really* expect anyone to believe you?[/quote]

I really don't care if you, or anyone else believes me. I have not made any unsupported claims. I've quoted the laws of friction and supplied a corroborative link. Many folks were able to understand the information and apparently you can not. If you disagree how about providing even one intelligent point for discussion instead of repeating these idiotic bicycle tire analogies. I welcome you to disprove any information I provided, it should be easy since I'm so wrong.

[trip]

Hmmm.... looks like blaneb may be getting a little worked up. I don't mind anyone giving their opinion, and I've been enjoying the "research" that Dan's been doing. But let's keep in mind that it's HOW you give your opinion.

Calm down the BOLD emphasis and keep the attitude in check.

Thanks,
Trip

[macmac]

Dan how many miles on the CT now? The other day out ridin on the same tire with 7,000 mi on it I was tryin to feel the roll over edge in cirves and i can't. running 36 psi.

What I am sayin is I'ld like another test after 4,000 miles. I just wonder if that extra foot travel with the real rear locked at 15 MPH will improve.

For that matter, since yer spending the big bucks Dan get a new mc rear and do these tests with a new tire...

[dantama]

Originally Posted by macmac

Dan how many miles on the CT now? The other day out ridin on the same tire with 7,000 mi on it I was tryin to feel the roll over edge in cirves and i can't. running 36 psi.

What I am sayin is I'ld like another test after 4,000 miles. I just wonder if that extra foot travel with the real rear locked at 15 MPH will improve.

For that matter, since yer spending the big bucks Dan get a new mc rear and do these tests with a new tire...

I'll test it again down the road Mac, it's been raining here and I haven't been riding much.

If what many people are reporting here is good info, it ought to feel better and perform better with some miles on it. I'll check it in a thousand miles or so.

Now if we can just get the engineers to stop fighting :)