How old is your machine?
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@morbiuswilters said:
We make a good truck, ... although I must say I despise anyone who buys one and then gets it lifted.... A pickup should be filthy and dented to hell in the first year.
Far worse, IMHO, are people who buy a truck and get it lowered. There is nothing stupider than a vehicle built for hauling cargo that has so little ground clearance that it bottoms-out if you put a feather in it.Let's agree they are both stupid.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@HardwareGeek said:
What about the American fixation with getting a purple Cadillac SUV and putting it on huge wagon wheels with tiny strips of rubber for tires? What does that accomplish?@morbiuswilters said:
We make a good truck, ... although I must say I despise anyone who buys one and then gets it lifted.... A pickup should be filthy and dented to hell in the first year.
Far worse, IMHO, are people who buy a truck and get it lowered. There is nothing stupider than a vehicle built for hauling cargo that has so little ground clearance that it bottoms-out if you put a feather in it.Let's agree they are both stupid.
(nb: over here in yurrup, we put em on ACTUAL wagon wheels. [img]http://www.redline360.com/garage/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/donk-hummer-wagon-wheels.jpg[/img])
-
@drurowin said:
What about the American fixation with getting a purple Cadillac SUV and putting it on huge wagon wheels with tiny strips of rubber for tires? What does that accomplish?
What the fuck are you talking about?
-
@drurowin said:
Cadillac SUV
That is not a Cadillac. Looks like a Hummer H3, but could be a H2 (don't pay attention to the dumb redone civie ones).
-
@locallunatic said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Yes, they do.Far worse, IMHO, are people who buy a truck and get it lowered. There is nothing stupider than a vehicle built for hauling cargo that has so little ground clearance that it bottoms-out if you put a feather in it.
People actually do that? Really?
I'm sorry, not used to people being dumber than I assumed.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@drurowin said:
It's not purple, but it shows the stupid wheels.What about the American fixation with getting a purple Cadillac SUV and putting it on huge wagon wheels with tiny strips of rubber for tires? What does that accomplish?
What the fuck are you talking about?
-
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@HardwareGeek said:
What about the American fixation with getting a purple Cadillac SUV and putting it on huge wagon wheels with tiny strips of rubber for tires? What does that accomplish?@morbiuswilters said:
We make a good truck, ... although I must say I despise anyone who buys one and then gets it lifted.... A pickup should be filthy and dented to hell in the first year.
Far worse, IMHO, are people who buy a truck and get it lowered. There is nothing stupider than a vehicle built for hauling cargo that has so little ground clearance that it bottoms-out if you put a feather in it.Let's agree they are both stupid.
(nb: over here in yurrup, we put em on ACTUAL wagon wheels.
) Duh look at the license plates it's clearly not happening in the USA. The American People don't use license plates that look like bumper stickers. The height and rough edge of the sidewalk and the poor craftmanship of the parking lines are also strong hints that this is not in America.
-
And this is something I have a fixation with apparently? I've never seen an Escalade like that in my life.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@locallunatic said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Yes, they do.Far worse, IMHO, are people who buy a truck and get it lowered. There is nothing stupider than a vehicle built for hauling cargo that has so little ground clearance that it bottoms-out if you put a feather in it.
People actually do that? Really?
I'm sorry, not used to people being dumber than I assumed.
That's not stupid. A lowrider truck will tow a boat all the same and see and improvement of about 2% in MPG per lowered inch. It's enough to balance out the waste caused by wider tires while allowing a significantly stronger traction power over a dry surface, especially going uphill.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I've never seen an Escalade like that in my life.
It's actually a Hummer (donk-hummer-wagon-wheels.jpg) but that's not important. It's an exteme exaggeration of something that's been going on for a few years now -- excessively large rims (26 inches or more) that require thinner tires.
I've never understood it. In addition to looking really stupid, it can't possibly ride very well. "Let's make a car ride like a wagon from the 1850s". WTF indeed.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@blakeyrat said:
I've never seen an Escalade like that in my life.
It's actually a Hummer (donk-hummer-wagon-wheels.jpg) but that's not important. It's an exteme exaggeration of something that's been going on for a few years now -- excessively large rims (26 inches or more) that require thinner tires. I've never understood it. In addition to looking really stupid, it can't possibly ride very well. "Let's make a car ride like a wagon from the 1850s". WTF indeed.
The rims thing is just for aesthetics. Personally, I agree that it looks dumb, but I can see someone who doesn't really have a lot else to brag about his car, wanting to emphasize how nice his wheels are. And the bigger they are, the easier it is to show them off. The thinner tire then is a consequence of the combination of large rim + small wheelwell.
-
@Snooder said:
@El_Heffe said:
@blakeyrat said:
I've never seen an Escalade like that in my life.
It's actually a Hummer (donk-hummer-wagon-wheels.jpg) but that's not important. It's an exteme exaggeration of something that's been going on for a few years now -- excessively large rims (26 inches or more) that require thinner tires. I've never understood it. In addition to looking really stupid, it can't possibly ride very well. "Let's make a car ride like a wagon from the 1850s". WTF indeed.
The rims thing is just for aesthetics. Personally, I agree that it looks dumb, but I can see someone who doesn't really have a lot else to brag about his car, wanting to emphasize how nice his wheels are. And the bigger they are, the easier it is to show them off. The thinner tire then is a consequence of the combination of large rim + small wheelwell.It's probably the same demographic that thinks it's cool to wear a full-sized clock hanging from a chain around your neck.
-
@Snooder said:
I can see someone who doesn't really have a lot else to brag about his car, wanting to emphasize how nice his wheels are
Absolutely. "'I'm drviing a $500 POS car because that's all I can afford, so I'll put $5000 worth of rims on it". Makes sense to me. @Snooder said:The thinner tire then is a consequence of the combination of large rim + small wheelwell.
Thanks. We never would have figured that out.
-
I mean, other than TV, I've never seen wheels like that in my life on any vehicle.
And yet apparently I am "fixated" on them.
-
@El_Heffe said:
In addition to looking really stupid, it can't possibly ride very well.
Thin tires will keep their shape better at higher speed and will offer improvement in acceleration and braking. They feel more rough but that's the desired behavior. If you put in regular tires a mix of air and nitrogen they will keep their shape longer when temperature goes up and down; this effect is compounded in thin tires because of the smaller buffer size.
Experimental and high-end electric vehicles already use gyroscopic joints to smooth the ride; I think the need for thick tires is about to be obsolete. Once the smooth riding requirements is out, the best material for wheels would definitely be light, heavy duty wood like bamboo (or an artificial compound with similar properties). It could displace a higher proportion of the braking momentum to the tire instead of the brake pads.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I mean, other than TV, I've never seen wheels like that in my life on any vehicle.
And yet apparently I am "fixated" on them.
I think you all got trolled. I'm betting drurowin even knew it wasn't an Escalade and the photo wasn't taken in the US.
-
@Ronald said:
It could displace a higher proportion of the braking momentum to the tire instead of the brake pads.
Huh? I was with you until here.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Snooder said:
I can see someone who doesn't really have a lot else to brag about his car, wanting to emphasize how nice his wheels are
Absolutely. "'I'm drviing a $500 POS car because that's all I can afford, so I'll put $5000 worth of rims on it". Makes sense to me.
I know you're being sarcastic, but that actually does make sense when you consider how credit and time factors into it. See, without good credit, you have to buy a car with cash. let's say you make $300 a month after other expenses and you need a car to get a job. Clearly, your only option is to buy the $500 POS. So what next, keep saving your $300 a month for 2 years and "trade-up" for a $6000 POS that runs slightly better but still looks pretty lame? Or make incremental purchases over time to turn the POS you have into something you can use to pick up girls?
Plus, most of em do the work on the cars themselves, so it's an outlet for creative expression.
-
@Snooder said:
@El_Heffe said:
@Snooder said:
I can see someone who doesn't really have a lot else to brag about his car, wanting to emphasize how nice his wheels are
Absolutely. "'I'm drviing a $500 POS car because that's all I can afford, so I'll put $5000 worth of rims on it". Makes sense to me.
I know you're being sarcastic, but that actually does make sense when you consider how credit and time factors into it. See, without good credit, you have to buy a car with cash. let's say you make $300 a month after other expenses and you need a car to get a job. Clearly, your only option is to buy the $500 POS. So what next, keep saving your $300 a month for 2 years and "trade-up" for a $6000 POS that runs slightly better but still looks pretty lame? Or make incremental purchases over time to turn the POS you have into something you can use to pick up girls?
Plus, most of em do the work on the cars themselves, so it's an outlet for creative expression.I don't understand how somebody so dumb and with no taste could end up on this site. Are you going to tell us how great your synthol injections look next?
-
@Ronald said:
That's not stupid. A lowrider truck will tow a boat all the same and see and improvement of about 2% in MPG per lowered inch. It's enough to balance out the waste caused by wider tires while allowing a significantly stronger traction power over a dry surface, especially going uphill.
That might be true, except that the people I see driving those kind of trucks don't tow boats or anything else. They just drive around looking (un-)cool while demonstrating their (lack of) musical taste at a volume that makes their fenders rattle.
-
@Ronald said:
That's not stupid. A lowrider truck will tow a boat all the same and see and improvement of about 2% in MPG per lowered inch. It's enough to balance out the waste caused by wider tires while allowing a significantly stronger traction power over a dry surface, especially going uphill.
It is stupid. For one, I've never seen a lowrider truck being used for anything but looking like a douchebag. For two, if they can afford a boat, then they can afford the extra gas to not make their truck look shitty.
-
@El_Heffe said:
When I was filling my car up at a gas station today there was an almost exact copy of the pictured car (but in white) in another lane, also apparently trying to fill up. I wasn't paying any attention to it but then heard the driver swear loudly "This fucking pump doesn't work". A short time later the car drove away from the pump and as it did I heard a loud bang. When I looked up I saw the hose from the pump lying on the ground. I was thinking to myself "That guy didn't just drive away while the hose was still in his car did he?!?!!? No one could be that stupid, could they?!?!?". Well the driver also must have heard the sound, because he stopped, and then reversed back to the pump. I then saw that the flap on his gas filler was open and the cap was also hanging down the side of the car (which is on the drivers side of the car). The driver then gets out of his car, picks up the hose and re-seats it in the pump, while walking past his open gas flap/cap. He then gets back in his car and drives off - still with the gas flap open and the cap hanging down. All I can think is that he was the poster child for what happens if you do drugs. I've never understood it. In addition to looking really stupid, it can't possibly ride very well. "Let's make a car ride like a wagon from the 1850s". WTF indeed.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
It could displace a higher proportion of the braking momentum to the tire instead of the brake pads.
Huh? I was with you until here.
Braking implies a velocity change, in which there are mainly three factors involved:
- the level of traction (linked to the tires material)
- the ground forces (the compound stickiness)
- the underlying kinetic impulse (the wheel RPM)
If you increase the low-level factors you get a leverage effect that is immediately perceived in higher-level factors. Replace rubber tires with bamboo and the pressure on the brake pads will go down significantly. Wood is surprisingly flexible and resilient, that's why more and more high-performance bike frames are made of wood instead of various metal alloys. Bamboo is almost the perfect material because it's fibrous and will absorb shocks pretty well because of the irregular space between fibers.
-
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
This reminds me of Star Trek "science," where a bunch of mostly-valid scientific words are strung together in a way that might almost kinda make sense, if you don't listen too closely.@Ronald said:
It could displace a higher proportion of the braking momentum to the tire instead of the brake pads.
Huh? I was with you until here.
Braking implies a velocity change, in which there are mainly three factors involved:
- the level of traction (linked to the tires material)
- the ground forces (the compound stickiness)
- the underlying kinetic impulse (the wheel RPM)
If you increase the low-level factors you get a leverage effect that is immediately perceived in higher-level factors. Replace rubber tires with bamboo and the pressure on the brake pads will go down significantly. Wood is surprisingly flexible and resilient, that's why more and more high-performance bike frames are made of wood instead of various metal alloys. Bamboo is almost the perfect material because it's fibrous and will absorb shocks pretty well because of the irregular space between fibers.Braking performance of a car depends on one factor, the amount of braking force than can be applied before the tire starts skidding. Since properly functioning brakes* on any car can generate enough braking force to make the wheels skid, the available braking force is limited by the coefficient of sliding friction between the tire and the ground. The higher the coefficient, i.e., the "stickier" the tire, the more force that can be applied.
Now I could be wrong, but it seems intuitive to me that the relatively soft rubber of a conventional tire will be "stickier" than smooth, relatively hard bamboo wood.
* Neglecting the affect of ABS, which are designed to limit the force to prevent skidding.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
This reminds me of Star Trek "science," where a bunch of mostly-valid scientific words are strung together in a way that might almost kinda make sense, if you don't listen too closely.@Ronald said:
It could displace a higher proportion of the braking momentum to the tire instead of the brake pads.
Huh? I was with you until here.
Braking implies a velocity change, in which there are mainly three factors involved:
- the level of traction (linked to the tires material)
- the ground forces (the compound stickiness)
- the underlying kinetic impulse (the wheel RPM)
If you increase the low-level factors you get a leverage effect that is immediately perceived in higher-level factors. Replace rubber tires with bamboo and the pressure on the brake pads will go down significantly. Wood is surprisingly flexible and resilient, that's why more and more high-performance bike frames are made of wood instead of various metal alloys. Bamboo is almost the perfect material because it's fibrous and will absorb shocks pretty well because of the irregular space between fibers.Braking performance of a car depends on one factor, the amount of braking force than can be applied before the tire starts skidding. Since properly functioning brakes* on any car can generate enough braking force to make the wheels skid, the available braking force is limited by the coefficient of sliding friction between the tire and the ground. The higher the coefficient, i.e., the "stickier" the tire, the more force that can be applied.
Now I could be wrong, but it seems intuitive to me that the relatively soft rubber of a conventional tire will be "stickier" than smooth, relatively hard bamboo wood.
* Neglecting the affect of ABS, which are designed to limit the force to prevent skidding.
That must be why they use rubber on train wheels and not a relatively hard material! Otherwise they would NEVER brake.
-
And if you braked hard and managed to get your bamboo tires to skid, there's a fair chance you'll light them on fire.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
Neglecting the affect of ABS, which are designed to limit the force to prevent skidding.
ABS are a workaround for a severly suboptimal underlying product design, just like QWERTY keyboards.
-
@Ronald said:
That must be why they use rubber on train wheels and not a relatively hard material! Otherwise they would NEVER brake.
Trains also take miles to slow down. Which isn't a problem since train density is relatively low compared to highway traffic so high-performance braking isn't really required.
-
@mott555 said:
And if you braked hard and managed to get your bamboo tires to skid, there's a fair chance you'll light them on fire.
Are you aware that in many subway trains the brake pads are made of wood (to reduce the noise)? Wood is first kiln-dried to close air pockets and flush out humidity, then stuffed in high-pressure vats with a mixture of peanuts oil and creosote. Look it up.
-
@mott555 said:
@Ronald said:
That must be why they use rubber on train wheels and not a relatively hard material! Otherwise they would NEVER brake.
Trains also take miles to slow down. Which isn't a problem since train density is relatively low compared to highway traffic so high-performance braking isn't really required.
You sir are like a great engineer - just a few days before he starts college.
-
@Ronald said:
@mott555 said:
And if you braked hard and managed to get your bamboo tires to skid, there's a fair chance you'll light them on fire.
Are you aware that in many subway trains the brake pads are made of wood (to reduce the noise)? Wood is first kiln-dried to close air pockets and flush out humidity, then stuffed in high-pressure vats with a mixture of peanuts oil and creosote. Look it up.
I'm too lazy too look it up, but if that's true those wooden brake pads are not rubbing against rough asphalt or concrete like tire rubber does, nor are they exposed to the high shear forces auto tires experience. Trains don't go 0-60 in 5 seconds, they don't go 60-0 in 5 seconds, they don't make 90° turns, and they don't go mudding.
-
@mott555 said:
@Ronald said:
@mott555 said:
And if you braked hard and managed to get your bamboo tires to skid, there's a fair chance you'll light them on fire.
Are you aware that in many subway trains the brake pads are made of wood (to reduce the noise)? Wood is first kiln-dried to close air pockets and flush out humidity, then stuffed in high-pressure vats with a mixture of peanuts oil and creosote. Look it up.
I'm too lazy too look it up, but if that's true those wooden brake pads are not rubbing against rough asphalt or concrete like tire rubber does, nor are they exposed to the high shear forces auto tires experience. Trains don't go 0-60 in 5 seconds, they don't go 60-0 in 5 seconds, they don't make 90° turns, and they don't go mudding.
Ok I will educate you since you are lazy. Cars are a lightweight compared to trains; because of how physics work (you'll see if you make it to college) the impact of mass on surface attrition is significantly higher than speed or frequency. That's why during thaw season in northern countries there are strong regulations regarding the weight of trucks, not their speed. The weight of buses is also a major concern for civil engineers.
So even if you do 360s all day long on your SUV the brake pads or tires will never reach the condition of a braking subway train.
-
-
@Ronald said:
Ok I will educate you since you are lazy. Cars are a lightweight compared to trains; because of how physics work (you'll see if you make it to college) the impact of mass on surface attrition is significantly higher than speed or frequency. That's why during thaw season in northern countries there are strong regulations regarding the weight of trucks, not their speed. The weight of buses is also a major concern for civil engineers.
So even if you do 360s all day long on your SUV the brake pads or tires will never reach the condition of a braking subway train.
You've taken several non-related ideas and combined them to make a nonsensical argument that reads like Treknobabble. All it's missing is a deflector dish and a phased coil tetryon beam inducer. Plus you have an arrogant know-it-all I'm-smarter-than-everyone attitude that requires you to insult others so you feel more secure about your smarts (or probable lack thereof), which is a great quality if you want to be a douchebag news anchor on MSNBC but does very little good when it comes to exchanging ideas in the real world.
I'm out. Just make sure you aren't texting while driving and actually pay attention to the road because if you pull out 2 feet in front of me in your bamboo battery-powered Prius, you will die in splinters and battery acid and my diesel pickup won't even get a scuff.
-
@Ronald said:
Are you aware that in many subway trains the brake pads are made of wood (to reduce the noise)? Wood is first kiln-dried to close air pockets and flush out humidity, then stuffed in high-pressure vats with a mixture of peanuts oil and creosote. Look it up.
I find one reference to oil-soaked, wooden brake shoes being used in the Montreal subway. Every train I've ever bothered to look at used plain old composite brake shoes.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
Are you aware that in many subway trains the brake pads are made of wood (to reduce the noise)? Wood is first kiln-dried to close air pockets and flush out humidity, then stuffed in high-pressure vats with a mixture of peanuts oil and creosote. Look it up.
I find one reference to oil-soaked, wooden brake shoes being used in the Montreal subway. Every train I've ever bothered to look at used plain old composite brake shoes.
You don't have to look further. One instance is evidence enough. I don't know if they use bamboo however.
-
@mott555 said:
You've taken several non-related ideas and combined them to make a nonsensical argument that reads like Treknobabble. All it's missing is a deflector dish and a phased coil tetryon beam inducer. Plus you have an arrogant know-it-all I'm-smarter-than-everyone attitude that requires you to insult others so you feel more secure about your smarts (or probable lack thereof), which is a great quality if you want to be a douchebag news anchor on MSNBC but does very little good when it comes to exchanging ideas in the real world.
I'm out. Just make sure you aren't texting while driving and actually pay attention to the road because if you pull out 2 feet in front of me in your bamboo battery-powered Prius, you will die in splinters and battery acid and my diesel pickup won't even get a scuff.
There is prior art in this very thread on the technobabble accusation so you lose one point on that. As for everything else: it's not because YOU don't understand that it's stupid. Reminds me of a former colleague of mine who used to say: if I can't code this, it can't be done. He was proven wrong often. Last time I heard he was now Level-2 Technical Support Specialist.
-
@Ronald said:
@mott555 said:
You've taken several non-related ideas and combined them to make a nonsensical argument that reads like Treknobabble. All it's missing is a deflector dish and a phased coil tetryon beam inducer. Plus you have an arrogant know-it-all I'm-smarter-than-everyone attitude that requires you to insult others so you feel more secure about your smarts (or probable lack thereof), which is a great quality if you want to be a douchebag news anchor on MSNBC but does very little good when it comes to exchanging ideas in the real world.
I'm out. Just make sure you aren't texting while driving and actually pay attention to the road because if you pull out 2 feet in front of me in your bamboo battery-powered Prius, you will die in splinters and battery acid and my diesel pickup won't even get a scuff.
I'm sorry. I'll try to research and/or note the fact that I am wrong in the future.
FTFY
-
@Ronald said:
You don't have to look further. One instance is evidence enough.
No, you said "many subway trains", but I can only find one place it's been tried. And it's not terribly surprising to me, because I knew the used wood for brakes in olden times.
-
@Ronald said:
That must be why they use rubber on train wheels and not a relatively hard material! Otherwise they would NEVER brake.
According to The Engineering Toolbox, the coefficient of static friction between clean, unlubricated steel and steel is rather higher than I thought, but still lower than rubber and (dry) concrete. Wood and concrete is significantly lower:Materials and Material Combinations Static Frictional Coefficient - μs Clean and Dry Surfaces Lubricated and Greasy Surfaces Steel Steel 0.8 0.16 Tire, dry Road, dry 1 Tire, wet Road, wet 0.2 Wood Concrete 0.62 Wood on concrete has only about 60% of the traction of rubber tires (or tyres, for those on the other side of the pond). So all other things being equal, yes, you would see a roughly 40% decrease in the pressure on the brake pads – because that's the point at which the wheels would start skidding. Somehow, though, that doesn't seem like an advantage to me.
A μs of 0.8 gives 10000 lbs. of braking force per wheel, or 80000 lbs. per car. This is adequate for normal operation. In an emergency stop, it is definitely less than ideal. The wheels may well skid, doing considerable damage to both the wheels and rails. However, too much braking force is not desirable, either, as can be seen in a derailment.
Train cars are effing heavy, say 100000 lbs. typical. (Locomotives are even more.) In U.S.-design trains, this weight is typically divided among 8 wheels, so 12500 lbs. per wheel. Under that kind of load, a rubber tire would wear out much more quickly than a steel wheel.
-
Is this the most boring thread? Yes. Yes it is.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Is this the most boring thread? Yes. Yes it is.
Hey, at least I decided not to post the stuff I looked up about the strength of steel and rubber, and how much the wheels would distort under the load of the train cars, to support my contention that rubber train wheels would wear out too fast.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@Ronald said:
That must be why they use rubber on train wheels and not a relatively hard material! Otherwise they would NEVER brake.
According to The Engineering Toolbox, the coefficient of static friction between clean, unlubricated steel and steel is rather higher than I thought, but still lower than rubber and (dry) concrete. Wood and concrete is significantly lower:Materials and Material Combinations Static Frictional Coefficient - μs Clean and Dry Surfaces Lubricated and Greasy Surfaces Steel Steel 0.8 0.16 Tire, dry Road, dry 1 Tire, wet Road, wet 0.2 Wood Concrete 0.62 Wood on concrete has only about 60% of the traction of rubber tires (or tyres, for those on the other side of the pond). So all other things being equal, yes, you would see a roughly 40% decrease in the pressure on the brake pads – because that's the point at which the wheels would start skidding. Somehow, though, that doesn't seem like an advantage to me.
A μs of 0.8 gives 10000 lbs. of braking force per wheel, or 80000 lbs. per car. This is adequate for normal operation. In an emergency stop, it is definitely less than ideal. The wheels may well skid, doing considerable damage to both the wheels and rails. However, too much braking force is not desirable, either, as can be seen in a derailment.
Train cars are effing heavy, say 100000 lbs. typical. (Locomotives are even more.) In U.S.-design trains, this weight is typically divided among 8 wheels, so 12500 lbs. per wheel. Under that kind of load, a rubber tire would wear out much more quickly than a steel wheel.
Your interpretation of the data is wrong. Following your logic KrazyGlue would make better wheels than anything else... You can't just keep talking about skidding as if it was the answer to everything; skidding is a behavior that derives from road condition a lot more than tire material. You have to take into account the modulus of rupture (how distorted the material will become under pressure), the tensil and compressive strength and the elasticity of the fiber (the road is never flat even on a perfect highway). And of course you can't build wheels with spruce (which seems like the "wood" they refer to in your table), it's like calling my mobile phone a server because I use tethering.
On multiple properties bamboo has a higher resilience factor than ST37 steel alloy. It is a good material for wheels.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@blakeyrat said:
Is this the most boring thread? Yes. Yes it is.
Hey, at least I decided not to post the stuff I looked up about the strength of steel and rubber, and how much the wheels would distort under the load of the train cars, to support my contention that rubber train wheels would wear out too fast.There was never an argument over rubber vs steel for train wheels. If you read the post more carefully you'll see that this came from your "intuitive" claim that soft material would be stickier than hard material.
Also please note that there are trains with rubber tires. This is typical with (underground) subway trains because those wheels are less noisy.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Is this the most boring thread? Yes. Yes it is.
At least nobody is talking about O-gauge Vs HO-gauge. Yet.
Disclaimer: I'm an HO-gauge zealot.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Is this the most boring thread? Yes. Yes it is.
I tried to liven it up by making a lighthearted comment about the silliness of product placement vs. character motivations in movies.
Just a few lines spawn a 144-comment flamewar about cars.
........ I forget what my point was.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
If you READ the post, I noted "In yurrup (Europe) we put em on real wagon wheels". I was looking on Google Images for "SUV on huge wheels" and that was one of the images.I mean, other than TV, I've never seen wheels like that in my life *on any vehicle*.
And yet apparently I am "fixated" on them.
I think you all got trolled. I'm betting drurowin even knew it wasn't an Escalade and the photo wasn't taken in the US.
-
@Ronald said:
I run 78% nitrogen in my tires, what proportion do you run?If you put in regular tires a mix of air and nitrogen they will keep their shape longer when temperature goes up and down; this effect is compounded in thin tires because of the smaller buffer size.
-
@Ronald said:
As for everything else: it's not because YOU don't understand that it's stupid.
Quite so. Correlation does not imply causation.
-
@Ronald said:
There was never an argument over rubber vs steel for train wheels.
You're the one that made the sarcastic remark about train wheels.
@Ronald said:If you read the post more carefully you'll see that this came from your "intuitive" claim that soft material would be stickier than hard material.
And the numbers from The Engineering Toolbox support this, at least for some unspecified type of (presumably rubber) tire, road and wood. (Rubber) tires have about 160% more resistance to sliding on a dry road (don't know whether that is asphalt or concrete, or if it makes any significant difference) than wood (of unspecified type; I have no idea how you concluded it was spruce) on concrete (of unspecified surface finish, which could make a very significant difference). While the conditions are not specified precisely enough to be conclusive, the figures given are at least consistent with intuition.
@Ronald said:Also please note that there are trains with rubber tires. This is typical with (underground) subway trains because those wheels are less noisy.
I won't deny that this is possible, even common. I am much more familiar with above-ground freight and (mostly light-rail) passenger trains, all of which use steel wheels. I have ridden on subway systems in a few cities, but I think the most recent was at least 9 years ago, and it never occurred to me to look at what the wheels were made of.
![http://www.redline360.com/garage/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/donk-hummer-wagon-wheels.jpg[/img]](http://www.redline360.com/garage/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/donk-hummer-wagon-wheels.jpg%5B/img%5D){kind=link}