Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-12-2014, 11:22 AM   #1 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 475

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 33.97 mpg (US)
Thanks: 55
Thanked 91 Times in 72 Posts
Another math question

I was looking back at the formula Old Tele man gave about the relationship between speed/RPM/gearing and wondered how tire size would factor in. We can change our RPM at a given speed by changing trans. gearing or rear end gearing or tire size. Here is the formula I started with.....

MPH = [60/(G x A)] x [RPM/rpm]

MPH = miles per hour
RPM = revolutions per minute
rpm = revolutions per mile of tire
60 = conversion constant
G = gear ratio of highest forward gear
A = axle drive ratio



I found this formula and wondered if it would be closer to the "real world".

It was given as this:

Vc = (Ct x Ve) / (GRt x GRd)

Vc = car speed
Ve = engine speed
Ct = tire circumference
GRt = transmission gear ratio
GRd = differential gear ratio


I morphed it using the same lettering OTM used (with one exception) to come up with this:

MPH = (Ct x RPM) / (G x A)

I was thinking that Ct might work better than revolutions per mile because the tire circumference is different when the tire is "loaded". Also it is different at 35 psi than it is at 50 psi. Probably not enough to make any real difference, but I thought I would just throw it out there.

The thing I am having trouble with is the 60. I think in the original formula it's a way to "equalize" the rev's per MINUTE and the miles per HOUR. If it is...then why is it not used in the second formula? I'm no math genius. I can take a formula and do the sum, but as to how a formula is derived I don't have a clue. Is the second one different than the first or am I just looking at two sides of the same coin?

__________________
If nice guys finish last, are you willing to pay the price to finish first ?




  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-12-2014, 12:34 PM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
RobertISaar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: camden, MI
Posts: 324

MC SBX - '95 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS
Last 3: 29.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 55 Times in 46 Posts
the 60 is needed because engine RPM is in RPM, not RPH.

alternatively, the 60 is needed because vehicle speed is in MPH, not MPM.



math tends to be..... interchangable like that, depending on what you want to end up with.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2014, 01:21 PM   #3 (permalink)
Southern Squidbillie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Heart of Dixie
Posts: 97
Thanks: 50
Thanked 26 Times in 22 Posts
The equations do the same thing but in different units: The first formula gives speed in miles per hour. The second gives speed in whatever units you used for tire circumference, per minute, e.g. inch/min, ft/min, miles/min, etc., since the units are not specified in the description.

i usually have to use inches and millimeters to calculate tire circumference in inches based upon the bast*rdized units of tire size, e.g. 175/70-13, then can divide by 12 to convert to feet for calculation purposes. e.g.

Ct= 3.14 x [13 + [2 x (175 x .7 / 25.4)]] inches

Last edited by kennybobby; 02-12-2014 at 01:33 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2014, 05:18 PM   #4 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
betasniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: California
Posts: 79

Red - '01 Honda Insight CVT
Gen-1 Insights
House of Tudor
Team Honda
90 day: 59.17 mpg (US)

Civic Hybrid - '12 Honda Civic Hybrid
Team Honda

Bahamut - '18 Chevrolet Volt LT
Team Volt
Plug-in Hybrids
Thanks: 6
Thanked 48 Times in 23 Posts
the reason it usually uses revs per mile is because it doesn't change even when highly loaded. That is because the steel belt is the main unchanging length in a tire. Someone tested the difference between new and worn tires and nothing changed. I think it was cfg83.
__________________

: Brothers
: Dad's
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2014, 05:09 PM   #5 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
FWIW -- there's a small 'problem' with relying upon tire DIAMETER, in the real world, because of vehicle weight loading, it LIES to you:

1) With NO load, tire diameter is accurate...

...but...

2) With VEHICLE load, "true" rolling diameter is ALWAYS SMALLER than the unloaded diameter -- typically about 3% smaller, or 0.97:1 -- and this value VARIES from manufacturer to manufacturer, depending upon tire size, load capacity, sidewall height, etc..

Michelin tires are about 0.97:1.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2014, 05:15 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoWalker
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,998

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 47.72 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 2,245 Times in 1,454 Posts
Because the thread spreads out flat on the tarmac.
The grooves in the thread become narrower as they no longer spread out.

It also means there is not that much difference between a new tire and a worn one.
The circumference of a new tire may be bigger, but when the thread folds flat it has just the same footprint.

__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.2 Gmeter or 0.13 Mmile.


For confirmation go to people just like you.
For education go to people unlike yourself.
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com