View Single Post
Old 03-18-2018, 11:09 PM   #36 (permalink)
oldtamiyaphile
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,510

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 325
Thanked 452 Times in 319 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by capriracer
When tires are measured for RR, one of the test conditions is the load - which would be larger for larger tires. But when a tire is applied to a vehicle, the load on the tire would be the same, regardless of what tire size is used. So the RRF (Rolling Resistance Force) needs to be divided by the test load to get RRC (Rolling Resistance Coefficient) - which is shown below.

Bigger tyre = lower RR.

Car or bike, doesn't matter.

The whole reason rubber tyres have a high RR in the first place is deflection (hysteresis losses). A bigger tyre deflects less for a given pressure/ load, which means lower hysteresis and lower RR.

Imagine putting a car tyre on your bike. You'd have virtually zero deflection, virtually zero hysterisis and extremely low RR. Doesn't mean you'd have a bike that's fast or easy to pedal though.
__________________






  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to oldtamiyaphile For This Useful Post:
California98Civic (03-19-2018)