Talk:Tire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Link to disambiguation pages

Since Tyre is a disambiguation page specific to that spelling of the word, it doesn't make sense for the article to say "For other uses, see Tyre", since the only way to get here if the user typed in Tyre is through that disambiguation page. There's no reason to send the reader back to it, especially when there's a disambiguation page for Tire_(disambiguation). I'll add a reference at that page that sends people to the Tyre page if somehow they get that far looking for Tyre.

I know this has a long history for some reason, but I think this is the best solution considering the current tyre/tire article redirect mess. Mbelisle (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I think the best way is to link to both disambiguation pages and clearly identify them as such. It was just confusing to see “For other uses [of the word ‘tire’] see tyre.” Mbelisle (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bogus argument anyway. You assume that people only arrived here by typing 'tire' into the search box. It's rather bold of you to assume that you know all possible ways in which to arrive here and all possible intentions of those who do. For example, in articles about British cars, you'll often see [[tire|tyre]] - hence it's perfectly possible to arrive here by clicking on the word 'tyre'. I don't see any problem in leaving a one line reference - we don't know why it might be useful - but it can't in any way hurt. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how heavy a tire is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.29.53 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

JMPippin (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Depends on what size tire you mean. Passenger car tires typically weigh 15-35 lbs, light truck 20-45 lbs, truck (semi) tires run 100-125 lbs, super-single tires (replacing two truck tires) could be 150+. Earthmover tires can run upwards of 5,000 lbs. None of these include the weight of the wheel. An earthmover assembly (tire plus wheel might weigh upwards of 15,000 lbs and have a rated load of 200,000 lbs.

Tire physics

I understand that the contact patch area roughly equals the load on the tire times the air pressure, but how is the load transferred from the tire to the wheel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triskele Jim (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the bead that does it - the total of all the forces (from pressure and stretching of the walls) adds up to the load on the tire, pushing back against the rim (but, I'm not an expert, so YMMV).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.62.235 (talk • contribs), on 00:30, April 19 2008.

The preceeding answer is absolutely correct, in the context of the tubless air filled tire. The only contact points between the rim and tire are at the beads on either side of the tire. Any minute force exterted through the inertia of the air between the rim and tire is negligable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.122.197 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JMPippin (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC) In a pneumatic tire, the bead actually pulls up on the wheel (even though this may seem counter-intuitive). With no load, the bead exerts a uniform force on the wheel, acting radially inward all around. When the tire is pressed against a road surface the inward force of the bead at the top of the tire is reduced, resulting in a net upward force on the wheel that balances the force of the load. Interestingly, as long as the tire is not compressed to the point where the rubber inside the bead area folds over and rigidly contacts the inside of the tread area, the upward-pushing force at the bottom of the bead does not increase significantly with increased loading.

In a traditional "solid" tire (like on a forklift) the load is carried by compressing the material under the rim.

In a Tweel (the Michelin invention referred to below), even though it's non-pneumatic, the loading actually works like that for a pneumatic tire. The spokes are strong in tension but relatively weak in compression. The rigid outer tread band transfers the load from the road surface to the top of the tire, and the load is supported by increasing tension in the top spokes. In this respect, it works just like the spokes of a bicycle wheel.

The See Through Tire

There airless technology, and are impervious to the spike strip, last longer and waste less rubber. They were recently presented at a philly car show. if anyone has any information about this topic. i do noy at the moment have the ability to a proper article to this affect. if one could add this article or begin one i cand add pictures which i own and are my make (High quality) please get back to me to this effect.(JTB01 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

I think you mean this: Tweel

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.62.138.102 (talk • contribs), on 02:16, April 22, 2008.

Wheel

The "Wheel" section contained a reference to a dictionary entry in regard to the difference between the wheel and the rim (which had been used synonymously in the original text). Since wheel is not synonymous with rim, and since the dictionary is an inappropriate reference for a technical discussion, I removed both the term "rim" and the dictionary reference. --71.104.18.213 (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Manufacture

I came here looking for information on tyre manufacture, pollutants from manufacturing and degrading, recycling etc - can I find that somewhere else or is it waiting to be written? 89.240.2.27 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the articles on tire manufacturing, tire recycling, tire maintenance, as well as the others that are listed under the "tire" category (the link is at the bottom of each article's page). I trust that this may help in your search for information — and that you can add material to these articles! — CZmarlin (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tyre Size Specification e.g. 215/75R15

I came here looking for an explanation of what these tyre size numbers mean exactly in the article and was dissapointed not to find it anywhere!? Someone looking for something to do might like to contribute a section in this otherwise long article on exactly what these tyre size numbers actually mean. N.B. This is an Autralian tyre spec so i think the first two numbers are in mm and the final radius number? is in inches. I presume that this is in fact an international approach although the measurement units - be it imperial or metric - may differ from country to country. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you have found Tire_code#Tire_geometry by now, but you guessed correctly except for the middle number which is a percentage. Dbfirs 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural vs. synthetic rubber

"The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company is trying to adapt. Its raw material of choice now is natural rubber rather than synthetic rubber, made from oil. To sustain profits, it is making more high-end tires for consumers willing to pay upwards of $100 to replace each tire on their cars.

These steps have not been enough, however, particularly now that the cost of natural rubber is also rising sharply, along with that of many other commodities. So Goodyear has raised the prices of its tires by 15 percent in just four months."[1]

It seems that a shift is happening towards using more natural and less synthetic rubber in making tires. It would be good to get some real data, and integrate into the articles. -69.87.203.130 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle tyres, and tread.

I've noticed a couple of things here. Firstly, whilst never being explicit about being specifically about motor vehicle tyres, this article does make several statements that are only true of such tyres. Statements about legal requirements for tread depth do not make clear the ambiguity between the use of the word tread to mean on the one hand that part of the tyre that contacts the road and experiences wear, and on the other the pattern of grooves in the tread; unclear also is that such legal requirements do not extend to bicycle tyres, which are frequently slick, though the term "tread" is still employed; and the statement that grooves are necessary to channel away water also lacks generality, as high-pressure bicycle and motorcycle tyres with circular cross-sections have too small a contact patch to hydroplane, so that slick tyres outperform cleated, even in the wet. Variations on these statements are repeated several times, without ever making clear that they do not apply to tyres on all road vehicles.

Secondly, a large part of this article appears to be taken up with what is pretty much a glossary of terms. Under the heading bicycle tyre, is essentially the statement that this refers to tyres for bicycles, as well as a few other vehicles. Defining the scope of such a term might be useful if it were ever used again in the article, but it is not. Further, the fact that a large part of this article is therefore a list, is very troublesome, stylistically.

I think this article needs a pretty comprehensive re-write. I will endeavour to do so within the next couple of weeks. I hope I can come up with something that people will be happy to take as a starting point. Note that I lack expertise in this area, except for a certain amount of knowledge of bike tyres (did you guess?), so I'll just be editing the existing content, as best I can understand it, from a stylistic perspective. There's a fair chance of some factual error, therefore, and I beg your collective indulgence, and look forward to having my contributions corrected.

Cmsg 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

blading

this is a tyre feature, but what does it exactly mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.163.99 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Take care !

There seems to be a lot of wrong information about tires and missing references.
In the cronology for instance: 1900 about cord tires - wrong - BF Goodrich took over this technology from the firm Diamond around 1910 when it merged with the company. Diamond had copied the technology from a British company that made this tire around 1903 - reference: Catalogue of the mechanical engineering collection in the science division. Read Books 2007.
Firestone did not produce cord reinforced tires in 1904. The first experiments begun in 1915 (p. 103, Lief: The Firestone Story) and the first commercial product was released around 1917.
"Tire companies were first started in the early 20th century" - wrong again. Michelin was in action before 1895 and so were a lot of other (especially companies making tires for bicycles).
Jørgen Burchardt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.242.28.226 (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JMPippin (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the confusion here has to do with pneumatic vs. non-pneumatic (solid) tires. Firestone DID originally produce a line of NON-pneumatic tires that had cords embedded in them and the 1904-05 date is about what I remember from the Harvey Firestone biography the company put out around 1950. I'm trusting my memory, but there were two cords that ran circumferentially within the tire and provided reinforcement. What you're talking about is a cord-reinforced PNEUMATIC tire - that did come later. FWIW, a similar method is used today for rubber-covered solid tires that are used in the novelty horse-drawn carriages you can see in some parks.

Diamond had copied the technology from a British company that made this tire around 1903 - that may have been the Palmer Tyre company, they made cord tyres for some of the earliest aeroplanes IIRC.

White-walls

I was making an article and I tried to make White wall a hyperlink assuming it would at least have a section in an article, but I see it does not even merit mention in this article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the link you want is Whitewall tire or even just whitewall. tedder (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sidewall Wear Picture

The picture purportedly showing side-wall wear seems to be of tread-wear. NantucketNoon (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a closer look and notice that the tread area on this tire is almost like new. The tire was so underinflated that under heavy load it rolled so low that the side-wall made contact with the pavement and thus the rubber on the sides was worn off. The fabric plies that give the tire structure are now showing through on the side-wall, on both sides of the tire! Trailer tires are built for abuse, but not like this! – CZmarlin (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Airless tire

More content about airless tire will be interesting for me. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.95.76.158 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The statement about the origin of the word etymonline.com and askoxford.com both appear to be guesses. Both say probably from attire as the iron rim is used to dress the tyre. Wikipedia on wheelwrights says; "Strakes were lengths of iron that were nailed to the outside of wheels to hold wooden wheels together." Looks more like something used to hold or tie the wheels together would be called a tyre. I just watched a tv show where the wheelwright said that he was now putting on the iron hoop to tie the wheel together. Hence the name tyre. (You can't spell it tier because that is a layer.) Strider22 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Iron rims

This article seems to ignore iron rims before the hoop and in a way makes iron rims seem new. The section uses 19th century and mid 1800s to say the same thing twice and is poorly edited. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel "Celtic chariots introduced an iron rim around the wheel in the 1st millennium BC." Strider22 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Revision

I am considering editing this article with a group for my class. I believe that the Table of Contents is very overwhelming and could be simplified to assist users searching for the information. There are pieces of plagiarism and sources without citations. I wanted to post this before I made any changes to the article in case any one else has something to say. (GenDisarray (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)User: GenDisarray)

Proposed merge of Asymmetric tire into this article

I believe that the asymmetric tire contains information that should preserved but it can not stand as a separate article. -- allen四names 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree - AndrewDressel (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree - probably a good case for WP:BEBOLD. tedder (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This article exceeds 40 KB (as HTML) so I do not think that simple merging is the answer. (Note: There are users using dial-up services as well as times when internet bandwidth is low.) In any case waiting has given me time to think and I have come up with an alternative proposal. Split Asymmetric tire into its two sections, merge Asymmetric tire#Tire tread into Tread and Asymmetric tire#Stabilizing belts into Radial tire. -- allen四names 07:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is now to merge Asymmetric tire into this article. Unless this changes by Friday I will consider the discussion closed and I (or someone else) can perform the merge. -- allen四names 01:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- allen四names 06:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Helium in Aircraft Tires?

The article (Aircraft section) states that aircraft tires are usually filled with nitrogen or helium...and then continues to discuss (reasonably) why dry nitrogen is advantageous. I can't find web references to the actual use of helium in aircraft tires. Helium diffuses through rubber, so slow pressure loss would be inevitable. Think of birthday balloons the next day. Some sort of reference is needed here, I think, by whoever put that up or someone else with expertise.

Also, after pointing out that expansion characteristics were the reason for use of nitrogen (or hydrogen) in the tires, the final paragraph of the section states that the main reason for using an inert gas is to prevent combustion. Sounds like a conflict to me. Husoski (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Solid rubber tires?

The History section jumps straight from iron tires to pneumatic (air filled) tires. Is there anything to be said about solid rubber tires, or am I mistaken in my impression that there was a period of time when tires were made of solid (hard) rubber? (The Bicycle and History of the bicycle articles, at least, mentions the existence of solid rubber tires prior to the invention of the pneumatic tire.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Asymetrical Tires

The article refers to stabilizing belts being asymetrical - and while that might be true, the factoid about stabilizing belts causing self aligning torque is not. But my biggest issue is with using the term "Asymetrical Tire" as having any other meaning other than a tire with an asymetrical tread pattern I am not aware that the term refers to anything else, but since my experience is limited to one manufacturer - and that contacts I have to other in the industry - I am solicting input on the subject before I change it.CapriRacer (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)CapriRacer

Automotive focus

This article goes off track and spends a lot of time discussing motor vehicle (mainly passenger car) tires. I would suggest that this article should contain only generalities that apply to all tires (as well as contrasts between different applications), with brief taster sections linked to separate articles about tires for automotive, motorcycle, bicycle, aircraft, heavy industrial equipment, etc. Not only are a large proportion of the world's tires not fitted to cars (surely), but the confusion also blurs the fascinating issue of differences between tires for different applications, by often not being clear to which subset of tires it refers. At the moment, this is not an article about tires in general, but it's not entirely adequate as an article on car tires either. By putting the right information in the right place we can make all the relevant articles clearer. I can't do this as I know nothing about tires, I came here looking for information. 186.105.219.62 (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent outline of what needs to be done eventually with this article, i.e., WP:SPINOFF. I don't know how long it will be until the right combination of contributor comes along (someone with the knowledge, refs, and available time), but eventually it will happen, as it has thousands of times on WP before. The subject of tires is very interesting. We take them for granted, but the research and development it took to produce today's reliability and service life has been huge. — ¾-10 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of destroyed tire

Is it really a good idea to have a picture of a destroyed tire right at the top? Granted, you can see what's beneath the tread, so the picture maybe has some merit at a position further down, but I think the very first picture you see should be one of an intact--Cancun771 (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) tire.

I think it would be best to make a new image showing the parts of a common tyre; base the schematic at the image at http://img.carwale.com/apollo/tyre05.jpg It should be mentioned that tyres, as they are built today are not cradle-to-cradle compliant

91.182.2.34 (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tyre Pressure

"If tire pressure is too high, the tire contact patch is reduced. This decreases rolling resistance, but does not necessarily decrease braking distance.[14] In addition, ride comfort is reduced and the center of the tread may wear more quickly than the shoulder.[15] If tire pressure is too low, the tire contact patch is increased. This increases rolling resistance, tire flexing, and friction between the road and tire. Underinflation can lead to tire overheating, premature tread wear, and tread separation in severe cases. Significant underinflation can also increase braking distance.[16]"

I believe the above statement is very poor, and is incorrect referencing because it does not represent the article it has referenced. There are also many incorrect statements.

I am changing it to:

"During the early stages of tire engineering, and with current basic tires, the tire contact patch is readily reduced by both over-and-under inflation. Over-inflation may increase the wear on the center contact patch, and under-inflation will cause a concave tread, resulting in less center contact. Most modern tires will wear evenly at very high tire pressures, but will degrade prematurely due to low (or even standard) pressures. An increased tire pressure has many benefits, including increased rolling resistance. It has been found, that an increased tire pressure almost exclusively results in shorter stopping distances, except in some circumstances─ which may be attributed to the low sample size. [14] If tire pressure is too low, the tire contact patch is changed more than if it were over-inflated. This decreases rolling resistance, tire flexing, and friction between the road and tire. Under-inflation can lead to tire overheating, premature tread wear, and tread separation in severe cases."

Richardtpiek (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very confusing:

• What does "early stages of engineering" mean?
• How is "increased rolling resistance" a benefit, and is it really caused by increase tire pressure?
• What does "almost exclusively" mean?
• How does tire pressure too low "decrease rolling resistance", and how does this decrease in rolling resistance lead to overheationg, etc.?

Perhaps there are some typos. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tread void - removing tag re factual accuracy disputed

The tag refers to discussion on talk page. The word void is not on the talk page. As there is no support for a dispute of factual accuracy I am removing the tag dinghy (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rain groove - removing tag re disputed factual accuracy

The tag says see discussion on talk page. There is no discussion supporting any dispute of factual accuracy. I am therefore removing the tag. dinghy (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Law of Friction

The following is false: "Dry traction increases in proportion to the tread contact area". It is absolutely mind boggling how many people believe this in spite of their high school physics classes which demonstrate its fallacy. Since the first introduction of the second law of friction by Guillaume Amontons in 1699, skeptics have attempted to debunk it without success. High performance tires are wider not for better traction. Better traction comes from stickier rubber. The tires are wider to get acceptable wear from the stickier, softer rubber. 192.249.47.196 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's wrong, but so is the first statement. Reality isn't an high school experiment, and the "law of friction" isn't actually a general law, it is an approximative model. In reality the relationship of normal and lateral forces (the "friction coefficient") isn't linear (and therefore not really a coefficient). It is _approximately_ linear for the measurement envelope for the high school experiments and many applications, but then you don't get anywhere near for example contact area saturation where the model breaks down completely. Empirically what happens is that the "friction coefficient" decreases non-linearly with increasing contact area pressure, so for a given normal force you get a larger "coefficient" if you increase the contact area since the contact area pressure becomes lower. Which explains for example why wider tyres give more grip than narrower and lighter cars corner faster than heavier, all else equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.206.205 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reality may not be a high school experiment, but if wider tires have more traction, then reality is also not what universities teach. If needed, I could list many references to university physics courses on friction in which variations from the model are discussed, better never a mention that increasing area increases the coefficient of friction. I have yet to see a reputable source make this claim. It comes down to this: show us the emperical data.192.249.47.196 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I have not yet found a suitable reference for the statement on the page - and I doubt that it is technically accurate. I want to do a bit more searching before I change the article.

But, tires do NOT behave according to classical friction theories. Amonton's and Coulomb's Laws apply to rigid and inelestic objects. A tire is not rigid, and rubber is elastic.

Why do tires not behave according to the classical laws of physics? Short version: Road surfaces have macro-texture and the tread rubber penetrates that surface. When tires slip relative to the road surface, bits of rubber are torn off - which results in higher levels of grip than normally obtained by friction alone.

In the meantime, I will leave the article as it is, but among the things I am looking through is "The Pneumatic Tire" as published by NHTSA. It has a whole section on friction and traction. I would suggest that anyone who wants to claim that tires are subject to the laws of friction should read the portions of this document pertaining to traction. Be forewarned: The document is 700 pages and it is just an overview of tires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapriRacer (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the NHTSA publication, and have used it as a teaching aid for this subject for years. Chapter 2 details the the physics of the coefficient of friction between elastic and hard surfaces... with no mention of the coefficient of friction varying as a function of contact area. Chapter 11 describes the factors that affect wet and dry traction, and includes details of testing performed to evaluate these effects, including the emperical data from the tests. These factors include temperature, speed, surface roughness, rubber polymer, and more. Best fit mathematical models are also provided. Once again, no mention of traction variation as a function of contact area. I have deleted the erroneous statement that "Dry traction increases in proportion to the tread contact area" from the article.192.249.47.196 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no physicist or tire expert, but wouldn't temperature increase with contact area, since the tire would be absorbing more heat from the road across a wider surface area, or perhaps since there are more metal bands in a wider tire? If I rub my hand across a sheet of sandpaper, I notice much more friction than I do with one finger. Of course, that is a bit of a simplification and could be psychosomatic. However, my skin is also elastic and also has many ridges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.117.56 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. It is true that a grippier tire will run hotter, but I think that is more to do with the work it generates as it creates the grip. The above two egos are having a fine time failing to persuade each other, it is a lot more accurate to say that the grip of a rubber tire on a typical road surface is so complex that any simple rule is an approximation at best. Fairly reliably, in the dry, up to a point beyond useful loads, increasing the vertical load on a given tire will increase its peak cornering or longitudinal force. Somewhat less reliably, increasing the size of the contact patch with the same construction etc will increase the maximum grip force for a given vertical load. Greglocock (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Tires are fundamentally pressure chambers made of reinforced viscoelastic material. When cyclically flexed (as the tire rolls), the viscoelastic rubber will generate heat. The heat will result in a rise in the temperature of the rubber which will result in a temperature differential between the rubber and its ambient surroundings. This differential will cause a transfer of heat according to the normal laws of Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. Simply put, the larger the temperature differential the greater rate that heat is transferred. So the tire temperature will continue to rise until the rate of heat transfer out from the tire equals the rate that heat is generated by the viscoelastic rubber. "Grippier" tires are generally made of rubber polymers which are more Viscous rather than Elastic. Thus they generate more heat for the same flex cycle as compared to their more elastic less "Grippier" counterparts. To dissipate this additional heat, they must naturally run at a hotter temperature. Complicating this further is the dependance of the physical properties of the rubber on temperature. Race tires, for example, are much "grippier" when warmed up because the rubber physical properties including the visco-elastic properties such as rebound or hysteresis and the coefficient of static and dynamic friction change favorably. How is it that Top Fuel Dragsters can generate forces through the tires to accelerate down the quarter mile stretch at much greater than 1g of acceleration? Why do these Top Fuel Dragsters always do a "burn out" to their tires just prior to the start of the race? Answer: to flex the rubber and increase the temperature thereby increasing coefficient of friction to levels MUCH greater than 1.0. Now, a conventional tire rolling along the highway is doing very little slipping, so there is VERY LITTLE frictional heat generated (like that heat felt when you rub your hand briskly over a rough surface.) Yet the tires are warmer than the ambient temperature due for the most part to the visco-elastic heat generation within the rubber. So do wider tires experience higher temperatures due to increased surface area? Practically, the answer is NO. For one, there is virtually no difference in contact area between a (properly designed) wider tire and a narrower tire operating at the same loads and inflation pressures. The tire's load carrying ability is almost 100% due to the inflation pressure and not the structure of the tire itself. The structure is there to contain the air not to support the load. So the contact area in a tire's footprint is more a function of the tire's inflation and load, not the width of the tread. Narrow tires have LONGER footprints than wider tires. They both will have very similar total contact area when operated at identical inflations and loads. What is generally true is that wider tires are generally designed to be more performance oriented. They generally have "grippier" rubbers than narrower tires. A tire in size 185/70R14 and in size 205/55R15 both cary a load index of 88 meaning that the 2 sizes are designed to operate at the same loads and inflations even though the 205/55R15 is over 10% wider than the 185/70R14. Invariably, the rubber used on the 205/55R15 will be a much more performance oriented rubber than that used on the 185/70R14. The 2 different size tires will serve different market requirements. The 185/70R14 will serve the market niche desiring long wear, quite ride and good fuel efficiency. The 205/55R15 on the other hand will be more suited to better handling and traction. The wider tread will naturally have higher structural lateral stiffness, and can make better use of the "grippier" tread rubber to deliver that sportier feel. Finally, on the subject of traction and friction and heat... Tire traction comes in 2 flavors just like every thin else: Static and Dynamic (Sliding.) Generally Static coefficients are greater than Dynamic coefficients in tires just like everything else. When a tire is free rolling, there are very little frictional forces. Apply some torque (either driving or braking) and you begin to generate frictional forces, but since virtually no slip is occurring, it is the Static Coefficient of Friction of the tread rubber which will determine the maximum driving or braking force that can be generated. Note that many modern cars thru advanced ABS and Traction Control systems attempt to prevent tire slip due to acceleration or braking thus allowing us to enjoy the MAXIMUM traction the tire can deliver. During cornering, however, we have a much more complex set of things going on in the tire's contact patch. In fact we have parts of the contact patch which generate tractive forces with no slip and Static Coefficient of Friction levels of force, while other parts of the contact patch (primarily in the trailing part) slip across the road as the tread elements snap back from their lateral deflection. The more aggressively we drive, the more slipping that occurs. Drive slowly through a pylon course and you will hardly hear your tires. Gradually increase the speed on subsequent runs through the same course, and you will begin to hear those tires working to deliver the lateral forces. At the extreme, through the same pylon course, screeching tires and blue tire smoke will prevail. That's slip at the extreme. But you will have gotten through the pylon course the fastest just before the real screeching when most of the contact patch is still not slipping and is generating forces due to the Static rather than Dynamic Coefficient of Friction. Mhmineur (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Tires on wheeled armored military vehicles

Tires on wheeled armored military vehicles are vulnerable to small arms fire. Are these tires normal pneumatic ones? -- DavidJErskine (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are normal penumatic tires. Some (probably many/most by now) military vehicles like the hummer use runflat tires, and also have a CITS system. CITS is normally used to vary tire pressure for conditions (traction vs. fuel economy and wear), but in emergencies it can also be used to keep a punctured tire inflated for a short time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.48.132 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate skid mark image removed

Wrong.

I removed the "skid mark" image to the right from the article. Tread marks don't show up on actual skid marks because the tires are not rotating when a car skids. If you do not believe me, please take a look at images.google.com searching for "skid mark tire" for lots of evidence. This shows the danger of having editors create their own illustrations for articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call on removing the image. The dangers of having editors create their own illustrations, however, are probably no worse than the dangers of having editors create their own text. In both cases, we need to check the results against the sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Weather cracking

I have done a small amount of homework regarding the weather cracking of rubber trailer tires. I am not confident enough to post any information so I am writing to ask someone experienced with the subject of weather cracking of tires to add information about this subject. What I learned in a few minutes of "surfing" is that weather cracking is caused by U.V. (sunlight) or ozone and can be managed by covering tires or using a tire conditioner (of which there are varying ingredients which may be good or bad). Trailer tires are highly subject to cracking because when tires sit unused fresh oils (wax?) does not move to the surface to help protect the rubber. How can a consumer know if a tire is going to last two years or ten years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Derby (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's more of a how-to or consumer guide topic, which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHOWTO. It's fine to state the fact, with good sources that UV or ozone can cause deterioration, and you could state the fact, if you have it, of what tire manufacturers do to make their tires last longer. But advice on shopping for or maintaining your tires doesn't go on Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Weather cracking or weather checking as it is sometimes referred to in its early stages it caused by extended exposure to sunlight (UV) and ozone. Exposure to some chemicals and some oils can also accelerate the beginnings of weather checking. But not all tires are created equal when it comes to the resistance to the onslaught of weather checking. Accordingly, tires should be purchased based on their intended use. For example, a tire designed specifically for use on a utility trailer will have been designed to perform best when used on a utility trailer (may be stating the obvious.) Part of that is the requirement to resist weather checking resulting from extended time parked. Tire manufacturers who have solid warranties for workmanship & materials would monitor their tires performance, and tires that have higher warranty claims for sidewall cracking (which some of the reputable tire companies will cover under their warranty) would have improvements put in place to account for those premature warranty claims. Depending on the exact application, however, it may not always be possible to find a tire in the size required which has SPECIFICALLY been designed for trailer application. By taking extra care to reduce any tire's exposure to UV by covering it, or garaging the vehicle will go a long way towards extending any tires useful life. As with any vehicle, but even more importantly with seldom used vehicles, a pre-use walk around inspection should always be performed with special attention paid to the tires including visual checks for weather checking and of course adjusting inflation pressures up to snuff before the trip.Mhmineur (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"Summer" Tire

Under "Vehicle Applications", both "Mud and Snow" and "All Season" make reference to a summer tire, yet there is no summer tire application described in the article. Presumably, these refer to the high performance application. Should the language be harmonized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.156.21.119 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Rears?

From the Rotation section

front-wheel drive vehicles tend to wear the front tires at a greater rate compared to the rears.

Surely this isn't appropriate grammar in any English dialect. I have added the suggested phrase used in the revert edit history. Please discuss here if it is felt that "rears" is proper grammar or appropriate word usage in some other English dialect before further revert. Perhaps WP:RfC for more input? Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. My bad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be too informal for the comfort of conservative copyeditors, but there's nothing "incorrect" about it. To speak of the "fronts" and the "rears" is not uncommon among American car mechanics. It's a mere colloquial nominalization. It says the same thing as "front tires" and "rear tires" but in a shorter way. I'm not saying it isn't slang, or that we need to keep it in this article; I'm just saying that there's nothing inappropriate about its existence in language. Merely a colloquialism whose use in written registers is limited but not inherently "wrong"—just a choice. — ¾-10 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

lead paragraph

The current definition is severely outdated. It would be correct in the days of steel perimeter wooden wagon wheels. The steel band provides wear resistance and protection of wooden wheel, but the primary function of tires today is to provide traction between car and surface. Although, before I change it, the contents need to be cited in body.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lede needs work, although I say that for different reasons than Cantaloupe2 gave. The reference to etymology is independent of era. It says that "tire" may have come from "tie". If that's true, then it's true (regardless of era), but I agree that that whole sentence is probably out of place anyway (misplaced emphasis) at the early part of the lede. Also, steel tires still exist today, on locomotives and railcars. Therefore the sense of "tire" referring to metal tires is not outdated, and it needs to be mentioned in the right way in the lede opening. Right now the lede opening manages to say that all tires provide "flexible cushioning". That is not true of locomotive and railcar tires. — ¾-10 00:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I just made a fairly simple lede edit that addresses my two concerns above. — ¾-10 00:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Locomotive wheels are not fitted with "tires" are they? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

yes, that is the term for the hoop of steel on their wheels. Greglocock (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

History needs more

The only mention of solid rubber tires is this one sentence in the lead paragraph:

"Early rubber tires were solid (not pneumatic)."

Nothing about their prevalence prior to Dunlop's pneumatics introduced in 1887. The History section jumps straight from steel/iron tyres to pneumatics. What years were solid rubber tires common? Presumably after vulcanization was discovered by Thomas Hancock (inventor) in 1844 (and by Charles Goodyear shortly thereafter). Rubber tires, or tyres, were used in the carriage trade (for noise reduction) before motor cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltlakejohn (talk • contribs) 03:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And it wasn't just "prior art" by Robert William Thomson - Thomson's pneumatic tyre was most practically used with carriages and even buses years before Dunlop re-invented it for bicycles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.199.35 (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting Etymology/History

The existing etymology in the article is completely wrong. There are no English language usages of tire as a wheel before 1814. The OED references in the old article were to a different word meaning to clothe which has nothing to do with carriage tires. In fact, there were no carriage wheel tires in England before about 1815. Before that time all carriage wheels were wooden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.117.122.226 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Tire Recycling

Very extensive editions about tire recycling are missing the technical purpose of article. Obviously recycling is a very important theme, but the proper place for these informations is the article "Tire Recycling" . (Please, don´t remove the link "Tire Recycling" in the article).

PauloMSimoes (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

History missing mention of Macadam and talcum powder

Rubber ty/tires got considerable help from the invention of Macadam, which deserves at least honorable mention here. So does talcum powder, as it made possible the manufacture of pneumatic inner tubes. Cut any one open and you'll find it; search for why and find silly discussions like this: Inner Tube Powder. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

History section - Misattribution and confusion on Vulcanization

The third paragraph of the history section attributes vulcanization to Goodyear and Robert William Thomson. I suspect this is a reflex, rather than intentional misattribution, since Thomson is mentioned in the first paragraph as having done prior art in pneumatic tires. The reference should be to Thomas Hancock, perhaps with a note on the Goodyear-Hancock(-Moulton) patent controversy: Moulton, an agent in England of Goodyear, is claimed as having showed samples of Goodyear's vulcanized rubber to Hancock in 1843; Hancock took out a patent in England for Vulcanized rubber 8 weeks before Goodrich applied for patent in the US: both were awarded in 1844, Hancock's in May, Goodyear's in June. (This is documented on Wikipedia in articles Vulcanization and Charles Goodyear; also in Mary Bellis' article in About.Com Inventors [2] where Daniel Webster is quoted as saying "Mr. Hancock has been referred to. But he expressly acknowledges Charles Goodyear to be the first inventor," although she does not provide a citation. (One could hope from a transcript of the trial?) However that should work out, Robert William Thompson's name is properly associated with the invention and patenting of the first pneumatic tire, Thomas Hancock and Charles Goodrich with Vulcanization. Tiorbinist (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Should be separate diagrams for bias and radial ply versions.

Far as I know, no tire uses both bias and radial plies of cord, though some use bias direction belts, the belts don't go up the sidewalls. If non-copyright diagrams of both types can be found or created they should replace the single diagram of a tire with both styles. Bizzybody (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Good overview source

This source article in Popular Mechanics was very useful to me in better understanding tyres/tires. Absolutely Everything You Need to Know About How Tires Work Tech Update, 21 December 2014. It may be useful to improve the article. N2e (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Pneumatic tire wheel support

The above new section is (a) poorly titled (b) badly written and (c) confusing. But I think it is a great start to a rather necessary description. Greglocock (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

High pressure section?

The section of the article labeled as "high pressure" seems to be advancing an unsubstantiated personal viewpoint of an editor, and also seems to be incorrect. An overinflated tire will have a smaller contact patch and (depending on the rubber compound used and the tire construction) may have significantly less grip than a correctly inflated tire. 107.1.64.82 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150511002205/http://www.rubbermarketnews.net/2010/07/global-tyre-sale-to-improve-in-2010.html to http://www.rubbermarketnews.net/2010/07/global-tyre-sale-to-improve-in-2010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090525023938/http://www.retread.org:80/Government/index.cfm/ID/13.htm to http://www.retread.org/Government/index.cfm/ID/13.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed the whole first paragraph of the etymology section as it had no references and I could find none online. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the one that is now first. I cannot think of a more respected source then the OED for etymology. Nick Beeson (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hydroplaning and bicycles

I removed the paragraph

Hydroplaning becomes more prevalent with wider tires (because of the lower weight per contact area) and especially at higher speeds; it is of virtually no concern to bicycle tires under normal riding conditions largely because of the lower speeds. The chance of car hydroplaning is also minimal at bicycle speeds as the weight per contact area of car tires is not much lower if any than bicycle tires.

I added

Hydroplaning is more prevalent with wider tires and at higher speeds.

to the previous paragraph (though it perhaps should be marked as needing sourcing also).

There was no source for the statements. Most bicycles have tires with much higher pressure than most automobile tires, and thus likely (though not certainly) much higher weight per unit of contact area (contact patch pressure). Authorities such as Sheldon Brown give a complex of reasons that bicycles are not subject to hydroplaning, yet high contact patch pressure is not one of them.

The main article on hydroplaning linked does not even mention bicycles. If the lack of bicycle hydroplaning is important enough to mention here, it should be expanded in the main article, not missing.

Paleolith (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Lego tires Vs other tires.

I don't see it as being "apples & oranges" - the world record doesn't make a differentiation between the type of tire, it just states "largest tyre manufacturer per annum".

If you accept that Lego holds the world record - which is reliably sourced - then it seems reasonable to also explain by what margin they hold said record. Fair enough - you don't like the comparison, but the Guinness World Records don't have a problem with it, and their opinion trumps yours in this instance.

I admit that they're two very different markets, and would be genuinely interested to know how many (average) lego tires are needed by cubic volume to make up a single (average) automotive tire - but the fact remains that Lego produce over 100 million more tires per annum than Bridgestone do, and we have sources to corroborate this in a clear and unambiguous manner:

"LEGO produces over 381 million tires per year. In 2011, Bridgestone produced over 190 million tires, Michelin 184 million and Goodyear 181 million."

And while we're at it, the opening sentence of the article "A tire (American English) or tyre (British English; see spelling differences) is a ring-shaped component that surrounds a wheel's rim to transfer a vehicle's load from the axle through the wheel to the ground and to provide traction on the surface traveled over" is just as applicable to a Lego tire as it is to an automotive tire - or an aeronautical tire, and even a drive tire.

Also, can you confirm which link you claim to be dead? Both are here, and work fine for me:

1. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shift+of+emphasis.-a0289215925 - shift of emphasis
2. https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2012/june/guiness-world-record-to-the-lego-group - LEGO GROUP OFFICIALLY THE WORLD’S LARGEST TYRE MANUFACTURER

I've got them both open right now.

I suggest as a compromise then to modify the current:

The Lego group, produced over 318 million toy tires in 2011.

to read

The Lego group, produced over 318 million toy tires in 2011 and is recognized by the Guinness World Records as the largest tire manufacturer in the world.

I still think it relevant to include the number of Bridgestone tires as a comparison, but not to the degree where I'm prepared to edit war over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging here, Chaheel Riens. I'm close to concurring with your suggestion, minus the Bridgestone comparison. I regard the Lego news release as a primary source and I was unable to find the direct Guinness citation, so here's one that works: Cook, David (2015). Robot Building for Beginners (3 ed.). Apress. p. 458. ISBN 9781484213599. So I recommend:

The Lego group produced over 318 million toy tires in 2011 and was recognized by Guinness World Records as having the highest annual production of tires by any manufacturer.

This addresses issues of what constitutes "large" and "tire manufacturer". By mass of tires produced or value of tires Lego is still tiny compared to the others. Lego is also a toy manufacturer that includes tires in its product line. It's not a tire manufacturer in the ordinary sense. That's why the Lego press release is entertaining. The main purpose of the Guiness Records is to entertain, as well, so the language used there does not reflect the WP:FORMAL tone and precision called for here.

Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy with that wording. As an aside though I'd still like to know which of the original sources you couldn't access, because as I said they worked fine for me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce the 401 code—perhaps I copied less than the full url. However the Rubber World citation has a survey before you can get in. Thanks for working with me on this question! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Tread void

Low void ratio, but hardly high performance

1967 Brabham BT20 – lots of voids, because otherwise the tread comes off

Current: The void ratio is the void area of the tire divided by the entire tread area.

Proposed: void ratio is ratio of the volume of voids to volume of solids:

$voidratio=V_{V}/V_{S}$

• seeking consistency with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_ratio

---

Current: Low void areas have high contact area and therefore higher traction on clean, dry pavement.

Proposed: If contact volume increases, then traction on dry pavement increases: ↑V_contact⇒↑F_dry-traction

• "low" and "high" are not precise, use "decrease" and "increase"
  
• decreasing void volume does not necessarily increase contact volume
  

Medicine4Goat (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Medicine4Goat (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging here, Medicine4Goat. I'm sympathetic to an equation that relates total tire static friction to a property of the tire. My concern is that total tire surface contact, not the volume of voids or the volume of the solids in the tread is the primary factor. You would need to supply a reliable source, supporting that idea, which runs counter to this Physics 101 course, which says, "Under dry conditions on paved roads, a smooth tire gives better traction than a grooved or patterned tread because a larger area of contact is available to develop the frictional forces." Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Tread depth is important for channeling water away form the tire to avoid aquaplaning and it's important for creating compacted snow to increase compaction of snow by snow tires and consequent increase in the shear strength of snow. See:

• Hays, Donald (2013). The Physics of Tire Traction: Theory and Experiment. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 5, 65, 428. ISBN 9781475713701. Retrieved 2016-12-25.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's break into bits and try to reach agreement on each:

• "Void ratio" definition should be consistent with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_ratio

• Current:"Low void areas have high contact area and therefore higher traction on clean, dry pavement."

"Low", "high", "higher" is not precise:

What is definition of "low void area", "high contact area"?

"higher traction" than what?

• Instead, we should use:

"If x increase∨decrease, then y increase∨decrease."

Statement becomes:

"If void areas decrease, then contact area increases. If contact area increases, then traction on clean,dry pavement increases."

• I do not agree with "If void areas decrease, then contact area increases." e.g. If void areas decrease by transforming into non-contact areas, then contact area is not changed.

• I agree with "If contact area increases, then traction on clean,dry pavement increases."

• Proposed: If contact area increases, then traction on clean,dry pavement increases:

↑A_contact⇒↑F_dry-traction

08:50, 30 April 2019‎ Medicine4Goat talk contribs‎

Thanks for the idea of breaking the problem into pieces, Medicine4Goat. First of all, I'm glad that we're on the same page with contact area being the primary determinant of a tire's static friction, given a certain type of rubber formulation.

I see two problems: 1) Is the link to void ratio, which is normally thought of as as a volumetric void ratio, as opposed to an areal void ratio, which is meant in the context of the article. "Void area" occurs but once in Hays. 2) Is possible confusion between a concept of friction per unit area and total friction for the total contact area.

As to a solution, your proposed shorthand, "↑A_contact⇒↑F_dry-traction", isn't consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, nor do I find it very accessible to the average reader, so let's stick with words.

The article currently says, "The void ratio is the void area of the tire divided by the entire tread area. Low void areas have high contact area and therefore higher traction on clean, dry pavement" Problem: "Void ratio" was not referenced as an accepted definition.

Proposal: "The ratio of the void area of the tread pattern to the tire's treaded area affects traction on pavements. Decreased void area in a tire's footprint on the road increases total contact area and therefore increases traction on clean, dry pavement."

There are other problem areas where "void ratio" currently occurs in the tread section, above the passage that we have been discussing (my emphasis): "High-performance tires have small void ratios to provide more rubber in contact with the road for higher traction, but may be compounded with softer rubber that provides better traction, but wears quickly. Mud and snow (M&S) tires are designed with higher void ratios to channel away rain and mud, while providing better gripping performance."

Proposal: "High-performance tires have small ratios of tire-pattern void area to tire tread area that provide more rubber in contact with the road for higher traction; such tires may be compounded with softer rubber that provides better traction, at the cost of more rapid wear. Mud and snow (M&S) tires are designed with higher volumetric void ratios to channel away rain and mud, while providing better gripping performance." (The M&S description properly speaks to volume.)

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• areal void ratio = A_voids/A_solids
  

volumetric void ratio = V_voids/V_solids
Agreed that it is necessary to distinguish between the two.

• Unclear what is meant by "total friction for the total contact area".
  

Assuming homogeneity, "friction per unit contact area"="total friction per total contact area"

• "Decreased void area in a tire's footprint increases total contact area" is not necessarily true. If void area is deleted, then contact area is unchanged. (e.g. start with "CVC", delete "V", result is "CC")
• "As to a solution, your proposed shorthand, "↑A_contact⇒↑F_dry-traction", isn't consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, nor do I find it very accessible to the average reader, so let's stick with words."

How do you know what is accessible to average reader? Instead of "let's stick with words", let's minimize verboseness and translate English into mathematical predicates. One possible shorthand for "If x increases, then y increases." is "↑x⇒↑y".

• Proposition:

Areal void ratio affects traction. If contact area increases, then traction on clean, dry pavement increases.

↑A_contact⇒↑dry_traction

• Proposition:

If areal void ratio decreases, as seen in high-performance tires, then dry traction increases.

↓avr⇒↑dry_traction

If rubber is replaced with softer rubber, then dry traction increases and wear increases.

replace_with-softer-rubber⇒(↑dry_traction∧↑wear)

Mud and snow (M&S) tires are designed with higher volumetric void ratio to channel away rain and mud and increase gripping performance.

(vvr_M&Stire>vvr_averagetire)∧M&Stire_functions={channelaway_rain∧mud,↑gripping_performance}

18:39, 30 April 2019‎ Medicine4Goat

Hi, Medicine4Goat, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ and consider indenting your replies with colons for readability.

I have graduate degrees from MIT and Dartmouth College and a long career as an engineer, yet I have to scratch my head when I see the notation that you propose. That's why I feel that the average reader will have problems with it, too.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style style states: "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." The good news is that we appear to agree on how the variables work, we just haven't arrived at a common approach to how to state the relationships. Now would be a good time for other editors to contribute to the discussion.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just been pinged for a comment here. I would have to agree with HopsonRoad – none of the proposed change makes sense, makes the article clearer, or is backed up by any sort of external sourcing. Within the second line it has fallen into a confusion between volume and area, and never seems to recover from this. WP:OR and WP:NEOLOGISM both seem to apply.

If it's trying to draw some relationship between void area and void volume, then that fails because there are a number of other factors involved, sufficient to make any comparison without their knowledge pointless. Nor is it even true that "high performance tyres have low void ratios" (of either form) because there is so much more to what makes a "high performance" tyre. At many times in tyre history, the problem has been simply one of stopping the tyre flying apart – and voids have cooling functions as well as water clearance or snow traction. Many high performance designs have had fairly high void ratios, arranged as parallel circumferential treads. If static friction is all that's required, then just use a soft compound and the simplest of tread patterns (as sports motorcycles do), but for sustained cruising and acceptable road use lifetimes (not even Veyrons have a pit crew changing their tyres every few laps, although it would be cheaper) a hard compound is needed and that still requires voids. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

May I propose as a compromise the insertion of

Main article: Void ratio

Peter Horn User talk 23:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I also have been asked to chime in, so here it goes.

1. The current void ratio article appears to be exclusively about granular materials and have nothing to do with tires, so the two expression may simply be used differently in different fields, like "fork rake" in bicycles vs motorcycles.
2. Although "void ratio" does appear in tire popular press and manufacturers' websites, the closest I can find in technical documentation is "void area" in "The Physics of Tire Traction: Theory and Experiment" edited by Donald Hays, which further suggests that "void ratio" is not well defined in the field of tires.

Therefore, I would not link to the void ratio article and I would find a rock-solid, tire-specific source or two, which I don't currently have, to define the term here. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• "I would have to agree with HopsonRoad – none of the proposed change makes sense, makes the article clearer, or is backed up by any sort of external sourcing."
  

You may have meant "...article clearer, and is backed up..."

• So far HopsonRoad and I have agreement on at least 2 bits:

1. It is necessary to distinguish between volumetric void ratio, areal void ratio
2. "low x", "high y", is not precise. Instead, use "If x increase∨decrease, then y increase∨decrease."

• volumetric void ratio, areal void ratio were defined using current definitions from Wikipedia. No relationship between "void area" and "void volume" was mentioned.
• No external sources were provided and there was no semantic change and no new information was added. Goal is to minimize verboseness and maximize precision.
• (HobsonRoad's Proposition) "High-performance tires have small ratios of tire-pattern void area to tire tread area that provide more rubber in contact with the road for higher traction;" is semantically equal to (Medicine4Goat's proposition) "If areal void ratio decreases, as seen in high-performance tires, then dry traction increases.

↓avr⇒↑dry_traction"

Andy Dingley, you are disagreeing with both propositions and current status of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire

Medicine4Goat (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Medicine4Goat:

• Please don't tell me what I mean. If I'd meant that, that's what I'd have written.
• Void ratio should not appear in this article, or at least not without extensive 'wrapping' around it to make it clear how little relevance it has.

Void ratio is a volume measure. Tyres rely on voids as an area, as a proportion of their contact area. Introducing void ratio here is likely to, as has happened on this talk: page, cause nothing more than an unreadable mess. If it encourages any confusion between the area and volume relations, then that's bad. It is unlikely that it can be introduced here without doing that.

If this was a more in depth article on tread patterns, then we might get to looking at volume issues, and the optimisation of depths of tread cut to adjust volume and area void ratios. But that is a deeper question than I think can be addressed here. Also, any such description would need to be backed up from sources, not the sheer theoretical hypothesising that's on this talk: page. Also (as always for tyres), it's not that simple. Tread blocks are flexible, so questions of flexure and wear come into their idealised tread depth, not merely choosing a volume to area ratio. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reintroduced for the 2009 season, a set of slick F1 tyres.

Hi everyone, thanks for this lively discussion! May I refer you to Formula One tyres#History, which says:

In 1998 grooved tyres were introduced with three grooves in the front tyres and four grooves in the rear tyres. Between 1999 and 2008, regulations required the tyres to feature a minimum of four grooves in them, with the intention of slowing the cars down (a slick tyre, with no indentations, is best in dry conditions). They could be no wider than 355 mm (14 in) at the front and 380 mm (15 in) at the rear, and the maximum diameter was 660 mm (26 in), or 670 mm (26.4 in) for wet tyres.

So, if we look at primary effects, surface contact area remains the main determinant of tire friction on dry pavement, for a given rubber formulation. The above discussion shows that there are other tire design factors to be considered, especially when it comes to heat dissipation of high-performance tires. The main thing that I was looking for input on was the way to state what Medicine4Goats on and I appeared to agree in the most direct way, consistent with WP:MOS. My offerings were perhaps too convoluted in their effort to be complete; Medicine4Goats offered simpler verbiage, but added shorthand notation that I find difficult for an average reader to comprehend. I could propose:

Proposal: "As the ratio of tire tread area to groove area increases, so does tire friction on dry pavement, as seen on Formula One tyres."

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) HopsonRoad (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I also received a ping to comment, and having staggered through what is undoubtedly valid scientific and mathematical information, my brain has reverted to a gibbering wreck. In short, my only comment will be that almost all of the detail and data proposed above is just too much for a wikipedia article on tires. I would either support that the article stays as it is, and uses plain english to describe the void ratio as it does, or that the term is removed completely - as pointed out the linked article has little to do with tires. Wikipedia is not a scientific or mathematical journal, and whilst there are highly technical articles out there, "Tires" should not be one of them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

_____________________References cited in this section (please continue discussion above this line)_____________________

References

Tire wear and tire safety

I have just filled in a perceived blank in Wikipedia by referring to TWI:

• added tyre wear indicator to TWI_(disambiguation)
• included additional information regarding TWI in Tire_code#Additional_marks
• mentioned TWI in Tire#Tread

But tire safety is not restricted to normal wear and tear!

In my opinion there is insufficient mention of many different aspects of tire safety in this page and in Wikipedia.

I submit that we need a new section Tire#Safety or a new page Tire safety

• what do you think?

jw (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, jw. Note that there is already a section Tire#Hazards. If that doesn't address your topic area, I suggest that you compile a series of links to reliable sources in this talk page section, each one highlighting a different element of tire safety that would be part of your proposed section. That way, it would be easy for other editors to see whether there is a critical mass to compile a new section, e.g.:

• Belt separation: Tire forensic investigation : analyzing tire failure

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. We need to think in terms of giving readers a broad overview of a topic, and striving to explain how aspects of the topic relate to other topics, and the world at large. The guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles also sheds some light on where we draw the line on our responsibility to our readers. If they are foolishly trusting Wikipedia to tell them which tires to buy or how to drive their monster truck, that's on them.

One example is the way that changes in motorcycle tire technology changed the way racers lean in corners found at Motorcycle tyre#History. Greater sidewall traction overall tire stiffness gives motorcycles the ability to turn through a given radius at higher speeds. Notice we don't give any safety warnings like "always check your tire pressure before riding" or "don't grab a handful of brake in the middle of a turn". Even trail braking doesn't have such advice or warnings.

Expanding the article with good information on safety technology or the ways tire safety features or drawbacks influence driving in general are good. But we never write in the imperative mood, nor recite dos and don'ts. Nor do we feel obligated to make sure readers have been given a complete overview of all the safety warnings necessary to drive a car or ride a bike or change a tire.

To see the best examples to follow, consider Featured articles like Heavy metals or Oxygen toxicity or Gas metal arc welding. All have a lot of detail on health and safety, without reading like a manual or advice page, and none are a comprehensive checklist for a person wanting to know how to do a thing. There are other sister projects like WikiBooks that are more appropriate places for how to advice and safety rules. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis Bratland for your advice. I have accordingly made a mental note to myself "do not write in imperative mode!". jw (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

My intention HopsonRoad was not to give safety advice, which I understand is contentious; rather to elaborate on various ways a tyre (tire) can fail and the associated risks ... shall we call the new section Tire#tyre_failure_and_safety or Tire#aspects_of_tyre_failure_and_safety or similar? Or shall we extend the existing Tire#Failure section? Please note that I am not a tyre expert in any shape or form and hence incompetent to suggest worthy references = others will have to make these calls and probably write the new information. jw (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are some possible outlines for inclusion in the new section:

• belt separation (as above)
• fatigue, under- and over-inflation, overloading
• aging, rust, rubber fatigue
• impact, cracks, and cuts
• irregular and regular wear
• heat, fire (but cf. melting rubber in Tire#Loss_of_traction already in Tire page)
• mounting, mechanical aspects including suspension, etc
• ... et ainsi de suite jw (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaboration on your suggestion, jw. I suggest that you study:

• Gent, Alan N.; Walter, Joseph D. (2006). The Pneumatic Tire (PDF). DOT HS 810 561. Washington, DC: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

It's downloadable as a PDF.

Here's my tally on whether your topics are already included in the article:

• belt separation (as above): is in "Hazards—Failure"
• fatigue, under- and over-inflation, overloading: "The Pneumatic Tire" has a section on "Crack growth and mechanical fatigue" (see cracks, below) and "Fatigue life" (which is just a life-of-tire issue); inflation is in "Inflation"; load is in "Performance characteristics—Load"
• aging, rust, rubber fatigue: I don't follow "aging" most tires wear out before aging out, tires don't "rust", fatigue is as, above. Aging is not in "The Pneumatic Tire" reference.
• impact, cracks, and cuts: Impact is covered under "Belt separation"; cuts is something that could be added.
• irregular and regular wear: wear is covered under "Tread" and "Elastomer"
• heat, fire: "The Pneumatic Tire" reference discusses heat as a byproduct of flexing; it does not discuss fires, except scrap tire piles.
• mounting, mechanical aspects including suspension, etc: Mounting of tires could be added—it varies greatly by the kind of tire that we're talking about; "suspension" (other than tire balance", which is under "Balance") is beyond the scope of the article.

These are my thoughts. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This should be called "Tyre"

To avoid confusion with the verb tire, we should rename the article to tyre. Electos242 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To avoid confusion with the city Tyre, we should name the article tire. Greglocock (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

See the prominent hatnote at the top of this Talk page. This article is written in American English, so the spelling "tire" will be retained, per MOS:RETAIN. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, motorcycle tyre uses UK spelling. It happened to be created by an editor who uses UK spelling, and so it is set. Tire was created by an editor who uses US spelling. That's the WP:RETAIN guideline. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)