Google| Subject | Re: Pothole queen tire thread |
| From | -hh |
| Date | 2014-02-28 12:48 (2014-02-28 03:48) |
| Message-ID | <fda466e4-4ff5-49b8-81ad-d51473d32922@googlegroups.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please |
| Followups | I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please (15m) Lloyd E Parsons (1h & 30m) > -hh |
I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please wrote:
I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, pleaseAgreed, although there's also crossover into the tire diameter and rim size, as these determine "how much room" you have to work with for your sidewall design. Plus other factors such as what effective spring rate the sidewall design is intended to have.
Pothole resilience is more dependent on how thoroughly sidewall is designed on a particular tire model.
(I guess) the lower you go in profile though the more manufacturer tries to save on sidewalls to keep the tire weight down so (I guess) 2 ply sidewalls are rare if at all obtanium on semislick 30-35 profile rubber bands.IMO, it is not a "materials cost" question.
The tire dimensions affect tire patch area, which influences handling performance. Similarly, the sidewall also influences performance ... one can see how a shorter & stiffer sidewall would make things more rigid - - and less movement of the tire patch relative to the vehicle (a "less wiggly" tire)
Lloyd E Parsons (1h & 30m) > -hh
2014-02-07-
-
-
-
