On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 12:29:28 AM UTC-4, Mad Roger wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:34:44 -0400,
wrote:

The reality is that it seems the variables I tried to keep out of the
original question (for example tire width, tread pattern, rubber material,
inflation pressure, unsprung weight, etc.) can make more of a difference
than does the larger diameter tire.
Don't bother arguing with Trader - he's CLUELESS

I can tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't so thanks
for the warning.


Nice. I explained the physics to you several times here and why
your logic of equating more torque at the wheel with better fuel economy
was wrong. I even gave you simple examples of the physics, using
torque to lift a rock or to ride a bicycle up hill. While torque
can be changed to more easily lift a rock or to get a bike up a
hill, the ENERGY used is exactly the same. It's physics 101.

What did I see back from you? NOTHING. No acknowledgment of the issue,
no sign that you learned a damn thing. In fact, you tried to obfuscate
the issue, suggest that I'm wrong, by then dragging differing speeds
which then affect air resistance. Totally bogus and dishonest because
it's not the issue at hand and your car example with tires was a constant
speed, where wind resistance is the SAME and only the tire diameter
changes.

Bob F explained along similar lines with the gearing ratios in cars.
We were both on the same page, from our very first posts, telling you
the same thing, that you
had it wrong. And along the way, you even kept saying that "while
we would intuitively think...." when it was only YOU who was making
that incorrect argument. So, now along comes Clare, who's also telling
you the same damn thing, and now you thank him for slamming me
and have the nerve to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Why don't you and Clare got get a room and jerk each other off, idiot.





Pretty much if someone says something (even me) without backing it up with
a reference, it's just hearsay.


You're so full of ****. I showed you clear, simple physics examples of why
you had it wrong, and you just ignored it, instead citing an article
from the LA Times written by some reporter who probably has a degree
in journalism and who's first thought when the word Newton is mentioned
is a type of cookie. And even that article told you the same damn thing,
then you make it look like you're the genius who finally figured out
your "mystery".

ROFL