Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
1. Try something with airless tires and get back to us.
2. There are still many elements flexing in the Tweel so I wouldn't think it prudent to speculate on r.r. vs. conventional.
3. Why would adding a sidewall kill the r.r. part? It could be made much thinner/more pliant than a load supporting sidewall.
6. It is tough to come up with materials/structures that weigh less than air.
|
Most things that have airless tires also have solid tires, and no suspension.
This (in car form) isn't even close to that.
Forklift tires, are press-fit to steel donuts. They're vulcanized rubber sheets themselves, wrapped around a steel drum, then press/heat formed.
large equipment airless tires are generally about the same, except often with split rims instead of press-fit rims. They also have no give, other than the 70D rubber's propensity to "squish" slightly.
The Tweel is a whole different ballgame, in that it actually DOES flex, quite significantly. Yes, the ride is harder, but I cant imagine it being much harder than the ride on a set of 215/35ZR18 tires with 60PSI in them on a car that only weighs 1600lbs, and I don't really consider that harsh either.
As far as RR goes, maybe I could be incorrect about having a guaranteed better RR, but
intuitively, it should. I say this b/c even though there are more flexing components, the flexion is all at a 90* angle to the direction of motion, or "radial flexion". Compared to a standard tires which has flexion in every direction on all 3 axes.