Gene Kearns wrote:

Hydrogen? I hope you mean Nitrogen!


D'oh!
That's why Reggie is acting funny...he's laughing it up at my expense.
Yes.. it certainly is nitrogen. Thanks Gene.
http://www.tirelast.com/

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:24:14 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:

RCE wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
Whip down to COSTCO and pump hydrogen into those tires. Stays up much
better.
Another candidate for "MythBusters"

RCE
The did that with footballs and hylium. All I know is when I put hydrogen
into my tires, my are is 35% lighter.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.



helium.

but, surely you jest. Hydrogen?

RCE


Richard,
Don made a minor fax paux and said Hydrogen, when he meant to say
Nitrogen. Since Hydrogen is flammable and would never be used in a
tire, I made a little joke about the benefit of hydrogen making the car
lighter, reducing wear and tear on your tires and suspension.

I was curious about the reason for nitrogen and it appears the real
reason for nitrogen instead of air is nitrogen will not lose pressure as
quickly as air. Since all tire mfg'ers still recommend you check your
tire pressure monthly, wither you use air or nitrogen, it really is
snake oil to increase the profit margin of the dealer.

And it was the best thread in a month!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Doug Kanter wrote:

Having hydroplaned for about 200 feet, just once, I'd agree. It's an
interesting experience. Like being mauled by a bear.

Somewhere (?) I saw a good test of the effect of tire
pressure on hydroplaning resistance. They used a plate of
glass with a camera underneath and controlled depth of water
above to photograph the contact patch as a car drove across
it at various speeds and tire pressures.

The counterintuitive result was that higher tire pressure
significantly improved contact area.

-rick-

"-rick-" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:

Having hydroplaned for about 200 feet, just once, I'd agree. It's an
interesting experience. Like being mauled by a bear.

Somewhere (?) I saw a good test of the effect of tire pressure on
hydroplaning resistance. They used a plate of glass with a camera
underneath and controlled depth of water above to photograph the contact
patch as a car drove across it at various speeds and tire pressures.

The counterintuitive result was that higher tire pressure significantly
improved contact area.

-rick-

Right. And it was a combination of things with my tires. When I got to a gas
station, I checked the pressure and found it was within the recommended
range (more on this later). The next day, I called Michelin to ask "WTF?
These are two-week old tires....". They were surprised the dealer had chosen
the tires they did for my car, a 1982 Toyota Tercel. They recommended a
different one, and had their regional rep arrange for a free replacement.
But, even better, he had a long talk with me about how the car maker's
recommended pressure is a crap shoot. The numbers are often aimed at
comfort, not the best traction or handling. If I recall, the numbers were
the usual 27/29 combo. He suggested going to 32, with tires whose max cold
pressure was 40-something. That worked miracles, especially when the snow
began.

I later switched to a real mechanic, who echoed what the guy at Michelin had
said. On all subsequent cars, I've experimented with pressures above the
mfr's recommendations, and in all cases, it's resulted in better
performance. On my current vehicle, the Tacoma, I'm running at 38 lbs with
the Nokian tires, whose max is in the low 50s. This was the result of some
observations by the mechanic with regard to wear.

You really have to experiment with new tires and pay attention to what's
going on.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Why is that counter-intuitive? Makes more sense that the harder the
tire, the ability to channel the water is better. Less tire pressure,
more surface area to plane.

You're clearly correct. Now I'm not even sure why it seemed
backwards at first thought. Something about a smaller
contact patch providing a bigger contact patch I guess.

-rick-

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:22:39 -0800, -rick- wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Why is that counter-intuitive? Makes more sense that the harder the
tire, the ability to channel the water is better. Less tire pressure,
more surface area to plane.

You're clearly correct. Now I'm not even sure why it seemed
backwards at first thought. Something about a smaller
contact patch providing a bigger contact patch I guess.

Trust me - I used to think that way myself until I actually thought
about it. :)

I used to think fat, wide tires provided better traction in snow or mud.
Turns out it's not so.
Narrow, hard tires are better. The weight of the vehicle is distributed
over a smaller contact area, providing better traction.

RCE

RCE

"-rick-" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Why is that counter-intuitive? Makes more sense that the harder the
tire, the ability to channel the water is better. Less tire pressure,
more surface area to plane.

You're clearly correct. Now I'm not even sure why it seemed backwards at
first thought. Something about a smaller contact patch providing a bigger
contact patch I guess.

-rick-

For a given combination of tire and vehicle, pressure that's too low will
allow the tire to roll with a hollow spot on the road. Water will collect in
that hollow rather than be passed through. I saw a brief video of this once,
and I may not be describing it right.