View Single Post
Old 09-17-2010, 08:41 AM   #17 (permalink)
CapriRacer
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 796
Thanks: 4
Thanked 393 Times in 240 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
Is it certain that the different tyres were indeed tested with a different load ?....
Yes, that is how it is always done.


Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
....If I was to study the effects of tyre size, I'd study the effect of all allowed tyre sizes on a given vehicle (i.e. always with the same vehicle weight).

In that light, I'd come to the opposite conclusion - and each and every car manufacturer is complying with that conclusion as they're fitting their eco-models with skinny tyres..........
I think if you did that, you'd find that RRC was very close regardless because the tires are pretty closr load carrying capacity-wise. It's only when you make a major move upwards in load carrying capacity that you see significant changes,

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
............If wider tyres were beneficial, surely they'd all fit those instead of narrower tyres ?............
Except that there are cost, packaging, and ride issues to consider. Plus, isn't that what is happening?

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
..........The study also has a graph (p. 35) correlating RR (actual force, not coefficient) to LI, with higher LI also resulting in higher RR. (83% correlation, and even 86% to max. sidewall load)
Higher LI (and max sidewall load) usually goes together with wider, lower profile tyres...........

Don't forget the RRF (Rolling Resistance Force) is meaningless unless the load on the tire is the same from size to size - which it isn't. When you apply a tire the load is determined by the vehicle, so RRC is the proper graph to look at.


Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
..........Same with tyre weight, overall diameter - which both show a 75% correlation with RR - where increasing weight and diameter would usually indicate a wider, lower profile tyre.

All these then result in the graph on page 30, clearly indicating higher RR (actual force) for the wider tyres.........
Be careful looking at RRF. It will lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
.........(What I'm missing in the study, is a graph of RR versus profile height.)..........
It embedded in there if you want to study it. Which is why I've redone the regression analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
........In the end, you need to overcome the actual RR force of a tyre at a given load, not a RR coefficient.........
Sorry, but while you are correct the it is the actual force that needs to be overcome, that value is generated by multiplying the load on the tire by RRC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
....The study concludes :
Rolling resistance rolling forces and rolling resistance coefficients did not correlate......
I thought that was an odd way to phrase it. I think would they meant was the both RRF and RRC did not correlate to something independent that could be used as a regulatory meme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
............But I fail to see where it comes to the conclussion that wider is better.
It doesn't, which is why I did the regression analysis. What I found most striking was that the RRC values were significantly lower for very large tires - and that lead me to do a deeper look.
  Reply With Quote