Jan Heine "Busts" Another Tire/Wheel Myth...
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
That's pretty simple, and concerning friction - grip - it isn't more complicated. Generally speaking friction does not depend on the size of the contact. I say "generally speaking" not as a weasel, but only because this is not a physical law derived from basic principles. It's what we've found to be true for almost all materials in normal conditions. A bigger contact area can result in more grip, but because the tire doesn't bounce as much at lower pressure and not because of the contact area. Again, it's something else that affects both things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
There is TONS of evidence to suggest that wider car tires do have more grip. I’m not saying this proves that wider tires on bikes have more grip, but even on very smooth roads, most people can discern a 35mm tire at 40psi vs a 23mm tire at 110psi. A 40psi tire will grip harder.
I think cyclists are the only grip-depedent enthusiasts who still believe there is no correlation between contact patch and grip. Motorcycle and car enthusiasts have known this for a very long time. I believe cyclists were told this so they’d buy ridiculously narrow (19-23mm) tires but people are getting a bit smarter now.
Last edited by smashndash; 08-04-20 at 11:41 AM.
Likes For smashndash:
#152
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
Sorry, but do you have a source to prove that a bigger contact patch does not result in more grip?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
There is TONS of evidence to suggest that wider car tires do have more grip. I’m not saying this proves that wider tires on bikes have more grip, but even on very smooth roads, most people can discern a 35mm tire at 40psi vs a 23mm tire at 110psi. A 40psi tire will grip harder.
I think cyclists are the only grip-depedent enthusiasts who still believe there is no correlation between contact patch and grip. Motorcycle and car enthusiasts have known this for a very long time. I believe cyclists were told this so they’d buy ridiculously narrow (19-23mm) tires but people are getting a bit smarter now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
There is TONS of evidence to suggest that wider car tires do have more grip. I’m not saying this proves that wider tires on bikes have more grip, but even on very smooth roads, most people can discern a 35mm tire at 40psi vs a 23mm tire at 110psi. A 40psi tire will grip harder.
I think cyclists are the only grip-depedent enthusiasts who still believe there is no correlation between contact patch and grip. Motorcycle and car enthusiasts have known this for a very long time. I believe cyclists were told this so they’d buy ridiculously narrow (19-23mm) tires but people are getting a bit smarter now.
But we are usually not on a very smooth surface, and the ability of lower pressure to allow the tire to conform to the surface essentially increases the coefficient of friction.
I think it can be hard to separate the benefits of low pressure and larger contact patch, sinse they fo together.
And again, contact patch is NOT a function of tire size, but of tire pressure (and weight).
#153
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
I think he is technically correct thaf the coefficient of friction does not necessarily increase with contact area. And that might be the end of the story if you are on a very smooth surface.
But we are usually not on a very smooth surface, and the ability of lower pressure to allow the tire to conform to the surface essentially increases the coefficient of friction.
I think it can be hard to separate the benefits of low pressure and larger contact patch, sinse they fo together.
And again, contact patch is NOT a function of tire size, but of tire pressure (and weight).
But we are usually not on a very smooth surface, and the ability of lower pressure to allow the tire to conform to the surface essentially increases the coefficient of friction.
I think it can be hard to separate the benefits of low pressure and larger contact patch, sinse they fo together.
And again, contact patch is NOT a function of tire size, but of tire pressure (and weight).
But also... hoop stress, aka the “stiffness” of a tire and how much it’s able to conform to a road surface is the same in a low pressure big tire as it is in a high pressure small tire. A huge tire will have a bigger contact patch even if it is actually run *harder* than a narrower tire. There are some very ignorant people out there who think a 35mm tire at 110 psi and a 23mm tire at 110psi have the same “stiffness” but the 35mm tires will be ROCK hard. They’ll probably blow.
So yeah, it is possible to separate the effects of “low pressure” and contact patch size. Just set the pressures in each tire such that they both have the same hoop stress. The bigger tire will have a bigger contact patch (shocking) and, assuming the compound is optimized for that level of load, will suffer less from load sensitivity than the narrower tire.
https://flocycling.com/blogs/blog/fl...or-wider-wheel
Last edited by smashndash; 08-04-20 at 12:21 PM.
#154
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Sorry, but do you have a source to prove that a bigger contact patch does not result in more grip?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
The Coulomb model of friction, referenced in that page, is well known and accepted and I don't think I need a link to support it. Look up Amonton's (so-called) Law.
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I think he is technically correct thaf the coefficient of friction does not necessarily increase with contact area. And that might be the end of the story if you are on a very smooth surface.
But we are usually not on a very smooth surface, and the ability of lower pressure to allow the tire to conform to the surface essentially increases the coefficient of friction.
I think it can be hard to separate the benefits of low pressure and larger contact patch, sinse they fo together.
And again, contact patch is NOT a function of tire size, but of tire pressure (and weight).
But we are usually not on a very smooth surface, and the ability of lower pressure to allow the tire to conform to the surface essentially increases the coefficient of friction.
I think it can be hard to separate the benefits of low pressure and larger contact patch, sinse they fo together.
And again, contact patch is NOT a function of tire size, but of tire pressure (and weight).
Otherwise all spot on as far as I know.
#156
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
I am pretty sure “coefficient of friction” encompasses all aspects of how much force it takes to slide one surface against another at any given moment.
#158
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
I am curious how you would meaningfully measure the coefficient of friction of a soft rubber on pavement, then, if the micro-deformations of the soft compound matching the surface irregularities do not count as friction.
#159
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 727
Bikes: Current: 2016 Bianchi Volpe; 1973 Peugeot UO-8. Past: 1974 Fuji S-10-S with custom black Imron paint by Stinsman Racing of PA.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 215 Post(s)
Liked 204 Times
in
142 Posts
Sorry, but do you have a source to prove that a bigger contact patch does not result in more grip?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
There is TONS of evidence to suggest that wider car tires do have more grip. I’m not saying this proves that wider tires on bikes have more grip, but even on very smooth roads, most people can discern a 35mm tire at 40psi vs a 23mm tire at 110psi. A 40psi tire will grip harder.
I think cyclists are the only grip-depedent enthusiasts who still believe there is no correlation between contact patch and grip. Motorcycle and car enthusiasts have known this for a very long time. I believe cyclists were told this so they’d buy ridiculously narrow (19-23mm) tires but people are getting a bit smarter now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
There is TONS of evidence to suggest that wider car tires do have more grip. I’m not saying this proves that wider tires on bikes have more grip, but even on very smooth roads, most people can discern a 35mm tire at 40psi vs a 23mm tire at 110psi. A 40psi tire will grip harder.
I think cyclists are the only grip-depedent enthusiasts who still believe there is no correlation between contact patch and grip. Motorcycle and car enthusiasts have known this for a very long time. I believe cyclists were told this so they’d buy ridiculously narrow (19-23mm) tires but people are getting a bit smarter now.
With cars, wider is often better, but only if the entire width of the tread is in contact with the road. That is why there are carefully calibrated suspensions with adjustable caster, toe, camber, and bounce and rebound. All of those adjustments are not usually present on bikes or motorcycles, which have a rounded tread surface due to 2-wheeled reality. A road race motorcycle tire may have 2 or more compounds depending on how leaned over they are in specific corners.
A softer (inflation) tire gives both a longer and wider contact patch, but I would venture that tread compound is also a critical component, as is treaded and/or no tread designs. Sticky is good, but too sticky gets debris stuck to the tread.
The Continental GP4000SII tires in 28mm seemed incredibly sticky on damp roads to me when I started using them, both in corners and in braking. Far better than any previous tire I had used. I also suspect the softer inflation and lessened vibration contribute to a more stable contact patch.
#160
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
I'm not sure what you mean the wiki link to show. It doesn't refer to the size of the contact patch. Neither does the discussion on slip angle, if you follow the links in the wiki page.
The Coulomb model of friction, referenced in that page, is well known and accepted and I don't think I need a link to support it. Look up Amonton's (so-called) Law.
The Coulomb model of friction, referenced in that page, is well known and accepted and I don't think I need a link to support it. Look up Amonton's (so-called) Law.
Please watch this video. It explains everything you need to know about why wider tires grip harder.
#161
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Surface texture and adhesive forces at the micro scale - there are some myths there also that we could go into but it's beyond the current scope.
#162
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
I believe you are making arbitrary distinctions (and ultimately meaningless ones in regards to the topic at hand) and thereby over-complicating and confusing what is actually a very simple concept. You seem to be focused solely in the properties of the materials themselves. While that obviously has a big influence on the real world coefficient of friction, it is not the only factor.
Frictional force is simply the amount of force that resists movement of two surfaces or objects against each other. The relevant coefficient of static friction (which is what we are concerned with here) is simply the frictional force divided by the force pressing the two surfaces together (normal force) at the point that the two surfaces begin to slide. And it is (at least in theory) a measurable number.
The coefficient of static friction with regards to a tire on a road (be it smooth pavement, wet pavement, rough pavement, dirt, gravel, ice) is simply the lateral force on the tire/road interface divided by the downward force on the tire/road interface at the point at which it begins to slide. That is basically it. If lowering the pressure (or changing the tread pattern, or adding studs) increases that ratio, then you have increased the coefficient of static friction. This is also what I believe one would refer to as "grip". Of course, the reality is that this coefficient is constantly changing, as the surface conditions change, as different parts of the tread engage, and a host of other factors.
Don't over-complicate this. "Road Grip" IS essentially friction.
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
It is an empirical observation only. It is not based on physical laws, and not derived from physical laws. One cannot provide a common sense analysis of friction.
The CoF does not require any analysis, hand-waving style or otherwise. It is a number from a chart of observations, period. However, these charts *eliminate* the extraneous factors that can apply to road grip. Basically, the coefficient applies specifically to two material surfaces. Road grip applies to an object and a surface, and will consequently involve properties of the object which are not properties of the material or surface.
Tread with respect to slip is in fact an excellent example of the difference. If you're interested (rather than just convinced already) I recommend a study of it.
Last edited by wphamilton; 08-05-20 at 11:50 AM.
Likes For wphamilton:
#164
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
I sense that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what the coefficient of friction really is, so I'm not going into it more than very briefly.
It is an empirical observation only. It is not based on physical laws, and not derived from physical laws. If one thinks that he can provide a common sense analysis of friction, it only shows that he's winging it.
The CoF does not require any analysis, hand-waving style or otherwise. It is a number from a chart of observations, period. However, these charts *eliminate* the extraneous factors that can apply to road grip. Basically, the coefficient applies specifically to two material surfaces. Road grip applies to an object and a surface, and will consequently involve properties of the object which are not properties of the material or surface.
Tread with respect to slip is in fact an excellent example of the difference. If you're interested (rather than just convinced already) I recommend a study of it.
It is an empirical observation only. It is not based on physical laws, and not derived from physical laws. If one thinks that he can provide a common sense analysis of friction, it only shows that he's winging it.
The CoF does not require any analysis, hand-waving style or otherwise. It is a number from a chart of observations, period. However, these charts *eliminate* the extraneous factors that can apply to road grip. Basically, the coefficient applies specifically to two material surfaces. Road grip applies to an object and a surface, and will consequently involve properties of the object which are not properties of the material or surface.
Tread with respect to slip is in fact an excellent example of the difference. If you're interested (rather than just convinced already) I recommend a study of it.
And when you talk about "eliminating" extraneous factors, what that really means is simply ignoring them, so whatever tests you ran are not a valid re-creation of the environment in which you are wondering about. If you want to know the CoF of tires, you test them ON THE ROAD where all those "extraneous factors" can be accounted for.
Last edited by Kapusta; 08-05-20 at 11:55 AM.
#165
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,905
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,928 Times
in
2,553 Posts
Sorry, but do you have a source to prove that a bigger contact patch does not result in more grip?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
There is TONS of evidence to suggest that wider car tires do have more grip. I’m not saying this proves that wider tires on bikes have more grip, but even on very smooth roads, most people can discern a 35mm tire at 40psi vs a 23mm tire at 110psi. A 40psi tire will grip harder.
I think cyclists are the only grip-depedent enthusiasts who still believe there is no correlation between contact patch and grip. Motorcycle and car enthusiasts have known this for a very long time. I believe cyclists were told this so they’d buy ridiculously narrow (19-23mm) tires but people are getting a bit smarter now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_load_sensitivity
There is TONS of evidence to suggest that wider car tires do have more grip. I’m not saying this proves that wider tires on bikes have more grip, but even on very smooth roads, most people can discern a 35mm tire at 40psi vs a 23mm tire at 110psi. A 40psi tire will grip harder.
I think cyclists are the only grip-depedent enthusiasts who still believe there is no correlation between contact patch and grip. Motorcycle and car enthusiasts have known this for a very long time. I believe cyclists were told this so they’d buy ridiculously narrow (19-23mm) tires but people are getting a bit smarter now.
And bike tire friction vs either car to motorcycle - I suspect the big difference is the power. Race cars and motorcycles can apply power to the rear wheel in a slide, bring it to a line further out and that power "pushing" the car or bike into the corner. We roadies rarely get to pull that off with our massive 1/4 hp. (Besides, we'd hit the pedal.) I haven't studied friction (got the quick version in engineering school) but I suspect that large area helps a lot for sliding friction, a state we roadies try very hard to avoid.
Now, poor road conditions and especially things like gravel, sand, wet leaves ... start slides and now the wider tire could well be a large advantage (as is really grippy tread)..
Ben
#166
Jet Jockey
I love tire threads.
I am absolutely faster, and the rides feel easier, on my CAAD9 with 25s, than on my Ritchey with 32s.
There are lots of variables involved, and the Ritchey is a more comfortable ride, but that is how it is.
I am absolutely faster, and the rides feel easier, on my CAAD9 with 25s, than on my Ritchey with 32s.
There are lots of variables involved, and the Ritchey is a more comfortable ride, but that is how it is.
__________________
Good night...and good luck
Good night...and good luck
#167
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
You are correct, it is based on empirical observation..... such as a tire on a road. That is my whole point.
And when you talk about "eliminating" extraneous factors, what that really means is simply ignoring them, so whatever tests you ran are not a valid re-creation of the environment in which you are wondering about. If you want to know the CoF of tires, you test them ON THE ROAD where all those "extraneous factors" can be accounted for.
And when you talk about "eliminating" extraneous factors, what that really means is simply ignoring them, so whatever tests you ran are not a valid re-creation of the environment in which you are wondering about. If you want to know the CoF of tires, you test them ON THE ROAD where all those "extraneous factors" can be accounted for.
#168
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,488 Times
in
1,286 Posts
Rolling resistance of tires must be one of the most boring uninteresting subjects to debate and argue about. All the charts, numbers, studies and data are completely irrelevant to me.
#169
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331
Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 406 Times
in
254 Posts
Heh...well the OP article that 'busts' 'another myth' is completely devoid of numbers or studies or data.
Likes For Marcus_Ti:
#170
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,445
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4234 Post(s)
Liked 2,949 Times
in
1,808 Posts
I think his claim was that wider tires make the rider faster because the tires themselves are not significantly slower (until they get large enough that weight matters - and he's more than willing to sell you tires with ultra thin sidewalls to cut down that weight) and the fact that wider tires offer more cushoing makes you more comfortable so that you are less tired (and therefore have more energy to put into speed) later into the ride. So he claims the wide tires themselves aren't faster, but they do allow you to be faster. At least I think I read that in one of his articles on the subject.
Likes For himespau:
#171
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,879
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked 10,963 Times
in
4,688 Posts
I think his claim was that wider tires make the rider faster because the tires themselves are not significantly slower (until they get large enough that weight matters - and he's more than willing to sell you tires with ultra thin sidewalls to cut down that weight) and the fact that wider tires offer more cushoing makes you more comfortable so that you are less tired (and therefore have more energy to put into speed) later into the ride. So he claims the wide tires themselves aren't faster, but they do allow you to be faster. At least I think I read that in one of his articles on the subject.
#172
Senior Member
But, this whole business could be explained even more clearer if we distinguish between the concept of grip (mechanical friction), traction, and handling.
Starting at the most fundamental level is the "grip" or mechanical friction of the tire's rubber property.
Then, different tire sizes and tread pattern (using the same rubber) will give rise to different traction to the tire (and note, wider isn't always better, other wise MotoGP front tires would be as wide as their rear tires).
Then, after adding in suspension elements, you finally come to the "handling" character of the vehicle.
A lot of folks talk about mechanical grip when they are actually talking about traction. Confusions in discussions then arise because now we're talking about different (but closely related) concepts.
#173
Full Member
I am a high school dropout that became a self taught electronics engineer and had to lay off PhDs that couldn't keep up with me. In one case in particular I had six engineers and two with PhD's and I still did half of the hardware design, the firmware programming and wrote the entire real time operating kernel. In another case a couple of PhD's in an EXTREMELY important project said that it would require 2 IBM supercomputers to do the project. I looked at the PhD Chemist next to me and then said, "I can do it with a microprocessor" and did, on time and under budget. The Chemist led the project and was responsible for the chemistry on the project. He did a fabulous job down to the point where I had to vibrate the samples to mix the solutions. That's not the easiest thing in the world to do with stepping motors and with the original fairly slow, microprocessors.
A degree doesn't take the place of accurate prediction and there is a reason that you use larger wheels. Why do you think that 29ers became so popular that they have washed the 26" wheel out of the market? It wasn't so much due to tire diameter but the increased diameter putting more weight further in front of the bike reducing wheel lift on hard climbs so that you don't lose control. I didn't care a great deal for his analysis. Especially concerning rally car tires. They have reasons for that - the greater volume of air makes the impact on objects less severe. Unlimited road racing cars have larger wheels to allow the driver and car weight to be below the center of lateral rotation of the car. this then makes the cornering speed of the car dependent upon the traction of the compound of the tires which then increases the speed of wear.
Racing motorcycles use smaller diameter wheels to reduce the power to accelerate the wheels and wider tires to increase the traction surface. Most of the play racers riding rice rockets have no idea how to corner.
Road bikes load tires so little that cornering angle is limited. Racing motorcycles it was normal to drag your knee through every corner. Try that on a bike. The reason that larger tires (not wheels) work is because increased volume reduces the bouncing up and down. 28 mm works well for most of us heavy riders and pros are generally using 26 mm sew-ups. Sew-ups do not corner or work any better than a good clincher rim. They allow (or did before disk brakes.) a team mechanic to rapidly change a wheel for a team member and then inside of the team car he could pull off the flat sew-up and pull on a new, pre-glued one, inflate it with a power inflator to their exact pressure and lean out the car window and insert it into the rooftop wheel rack. There are tubeless compatible tires and tubeless tires. The difference is compatible needs sealant to seal. The actual tubeless tires. have a rather heavy liner of soft rubber that allows it to seal against a rim. Tubeless compatibles are being used in used by most TT riders. Far less a chance of a flat and the sealant is not rotating weight.
Science can only explain reality when they actually know it. Or as Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said, "In talking bout the impact of ideas in one field on ideas in another field, one is always apt to make a fool of oneself." To underscore this - the idea that CO2 could cause climate change was disproven in 1905 when people learned about spectrometry. After the idea of it was theorized in 1886 by Arrhenius. Do you suppose anything new has been learned since then?
'
A degree doesn't take the place of accurate prediction and there is a reason that you use larger wheels. Why do you think that 29ers became so popular that they have washed the 26" wheel out of the market? It wasn't so much due to tire diameter but the increased diameter putting more weight further in front of the bike reducing wheel lift on hard climbs so that you don't lose control. I didn't care a great deal for his analysis. Especially concerning rally car tires. They have reasons for that - the greater volume of air makes the impact on objects less severe. Unlimited road racing cars have larger wheels to allow the driver and car weight to be below the center of lateral rotation of the car. this then makes the cornering speed of the car dependent upon the traction of the compound of the tires which then increases the speed of wear.
Racing motorcycles use smaller diameter wheels to reduce the power to accelerate the wheels and wider tires to increase the traction surface. Most of the play racers riding rice rockets have no idea how to corner.
Road bikes load tires so little that cornering angle is limited. Racing motorcycles it was normal to drag your knee through every corner. Try that on a bike. The reason that larger tires (not wheels) work is because increased volume reduces the bouncing up and down. 28 mm works well for most of us heavy riders and pros are generally using 26 mm sew-ups. Sew-ups do not corner or work any better than a good clincher rim. They allow (or did before disk brakes.) a team mechanic to rapidly change a wheel for a team member and then inside of the team car he could pull off the flat sew-up and pull on a new, pre-glued one, inflate it with a power inflator to their exact pressure and lean out the car window and insert it into the rooftop wheel rack. There are tubeless compatible tires and tubeless tires. The difference is compatible needs sealant to seal. The actual tubeless tires. have a rather heavy liner of soft rubber that allows it to seal against a rim. Tubeless compatibles are being used in used by most TT riders. Far less a chance of a flat and the sealant is not rotating weight.
Science can only explain reality when they actually know it. Or as Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said, "In talking bout the impact of ideas in one field on ideas in another field, one is always apt to make a fool of oneself." To underscore this - the idea that CO2 could cause climate change was disproven in 1905 when people learned about spectrometry. After the idea of it was theorized in 1886 by Arrhenius. Do you suppose anything new has been learned since then?
'
#174
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,806
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1944 Post(s)
Liked 2,164 Times
in
1,323 Posts
29ers became so popular because they can just roll over stuff.
John
John
#175
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
Coefficient of Friction Between Tires and Road Surfaces
And here they pretty well spell it out See page 19: "The resistive force, characterized using the non-dimensional friction coefficient, μ , is the ratio of the tangential friction force (F) between the tire tread rubber and the horizontal traveled surface to the perpendicular force or vertical load (FW)"
A little bit of Googling Coefficient of Friction Tires and Pavement (or lubrication) yielded me a list of researchers and engineers who do not share your view that CoF only applies to the materials themselves, but are in fact looking at how CoF changes under different conditions (including wet vs dry pavement and speed).
I don’t think you are correct about what "constant" the coefficient is representing. The only thing "constant" about the coefficient is that (in theory) as long as experimental conditions remain the same, the ratio of forces remains constant at different loads (the force pressing the materials together). But in fact even that is sometimes not truly constant.
Last edited by Kapusta; 08-07-20 at 09:20 PM.