On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:14:02 PM UTC-4, Mad Roger wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:55:21 -0700 (PDT),
trader_4 wrote:

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.

You must have noticed that I did not dispute you on any of that???????

Instead of acknowledging it, you totally moved the goal posts by
dragging changing speed into it. And then you went on with more
posts, as if you never got it. I'm not sure that even now you
understand that torque and energy/work are different things.

And you freely joined in with Clare, when he slammed me, you thanked
him. You didn't say, "but Trader explained the physics, what about
those examples, etc?"



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.

While I took physics, chemistry, organic chemistry and biochemistry in
college (in addition to immunology, phsyiology, microbiology, etc.), I
wasn't all that great at calculus and phsysics.

So you'll note that I didn't dispute anything you said, as I'm not looking
here to either argue outside my realm of knowledge, nor to try to prove
that I'm right (since I only care to find the answer to the question).


You sure changed the goal posts when I gave you the example of riding
a bicycle up hill. You then brought up wind resistance and the speed
potentially being different. Which of course it doesn't have to be,
it's just obfuscation when I was making a clear point on the physics.
You weren't talking about a car with different diameter tires, one
going 50, the other 65mph were you?



I think we all found the answer to the question.
Do you disagree with the answer we all found?


Why would I disagree with what I and Bob F were telling
you from the start?



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.

It was a poor choice of mine to include a *forum* article, which you will
note that I didn't include again in this discussion.

After that one physics forum article, I realized that I had better stick to
the more reliable ones such as the Cooper Tire and Consumer Reports and Car
and Driver.

So, my mistake was including the physics forum, where anyone can say
anything without having to be held accountable to what they said.


I'd say your mistake was refusing to address the physics examples
I gave you and instead continuing on in the wilderness. And then
jumping on me with Clare, who by the way, told you the same things
that Bob F and I had.




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.

What matters here is the answer to the question:
Q: What's the performance difference between 15 inch, 16 inch and 17 inch
tires (all else equal)?

The answer was summarized, to which you are now responding, but, you're not
responding to the answer of the question but to a tangental reference.

I'm responding to the fact that it's annoying to tell you that
you were wrong, show you clear physics examples, and then you
just continue to go off in the wilderness and then join in with
Clare insulting me, when Clare is telling you the same damn thing.




As I told others, you can shoot down one reference, but since they all say
essentially the same thing, you have to shoot down all the references if
you're going to take that approach to win a pet argument you seem to want
to win.


Good grief, he we go again. The only one needing to be shot down here
was you.




I am not here to argue the physics

And yet physics is what it's all about. You had the misconception that
torque equals energy/work, it doesn't. That was your fundamental misconception from the beginning.


and I apologize for bringing in that
physics forum because I am not qualified to debate the physics (which you
will notice I didn't do).


But you are debating physics by talking about torque and energy.



I just bring in *more* and *more* (hopefully reliable) articles that say
the same thing, which is that you'd be hard pressed to get *any*
performance benefit out of larger diameter fitments - but it's possible -
if you are either luck - or if you tightly control the variables.


Which is what we were trying to tell you from the beginning.


In fact, I can't find a *single* reliable article that claims otherwise,
where you may note I don't have skin in the game since I'm not the one
purchasing larger diameter fitments.

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.

The problem with making such a patently false statement is that every false
statement you make counts against your reliability (which is the way
factual discussions work - whether you or I like it or not).

It's not patently false and I'll stake my reliability in this
thread against yours any day.



We can go back to the original but it certainly was someone else who said
that the fuel economy on the highway would be better merely because of the
increase in distance traveled per wheel rotation.

Maybe someone else did say it once, but both Bob F and I were telling you over
and over, that it isn't so. I gave you those simple physics examples.
Yet you kept saying "we intuitively think", when it was only you
that kept arguing that, post after post.





If you find me making claims that are untrue, you're welcome (and
encouraged) to call me out to prove them, so if you want me to go back and
prove that statement above, I will.

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?

I apologize that you thought that I was saying something about "you" in
that response.


Well, like I said, you could have said but what about the physics
examples Trader provided? Examples that you refused to acknowledge,
address or learn from. Instead you just thanked him when he
slammed me.



I understand that you misinterpreted my response to Clare because *anyone*
might conclude what you just concluded - so even I might have concluded the
same thing you just concluded based on the he-said-she-said trail of
message ids.

The problem is that Usenet is, at best, a mere two-dimensional facsimile of
a multi-person multi-dimensional conversation, where my statement to Clare
was actually *meant* to be a generality.

Specifically, truth be openly told, when I responded to Clare, I wasn't
thinking of any particular person. I was thinking "in general", where I can
tell who knows what they're talking about.

Anyone can tell actually ...

So I wasn't talking about you specifically.

What I'm talking about is, for example, that *someone* (I don't remember
who) said that, for example, you get increased gas mileage at speed, where,
when I tested that assumption in the literature, I found that you'd be
really hard pressed to get increased anything at speed with just a change
in tire fitment to larger diameters.

So, that person either was giving a generality (which happens), or they
didn't know the complexities (which happens).

The statement should have been more like what my summary was, which is that
you "can" get better mileage out of larger-diameter fitments, but you're
most likely not going to get better mileage unless you're either lucky, or
you really know what you're doing and then you control for the complex set
of variables involved (which include weight, resistance, handling, patch
width, torque curves, etc.).

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

You'll note that when I'm wrong, I admit it, and that when someone else is
wrong, I tell them that I think they're wrong - but - I don't resort to
calling them an idiot until and unless they actually show themselves to be
an idiot.

I'll conveniently forget you just called me an idiot because I don't really
care, here, to defend my intelligence to someone who just made a bunch of
claims that I already defended myself on.

As you can tell, I hope, like any good scientist,

ROFL, now that's special. What scientist doesn't understand physics
101? Or even better, won't *engage* on the clear, simple physics
examples that went straight to the core of the issue?



I don't care if my
intuition is correct or not, and if it's not correct, I'll just form a new
intuition that is correct, where the end result of this thread seems to be
that the larger fitment, in and of itself, would only result in greater mpg
performance if the stars are lined up (mostly on the torque curve, and
secondarily on the contact patch width but vehicle height and resulting
drag coefficient also play a role if they're affected).

Do you agree with that balanced assessment?

You're so full of ****.

When someone repeatedly attacks someone who isn't attacking back,

Repeatedly is it? I made one post, where I was fed up. Prior
to that, I made many posts and saw you ignore or worse, obfuscate them.
Changing speed and wind resistance? Really?


and who
didn't (mean to) start the attack process, I'm going to have to let others
defend my actions to you, (or not).

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.

I don't remember who it was that deprecated the LA Times article, but I
remember my response, which is a typical response of a scientist,

ROFL. A scientist uses an LA Time story instead of discussing
the simple physics examples?



which is
that it's fine that they deprecate that one article, but then how do they
manage to deprecate all the others that said essentially the same thing?

Car & Driver.
Consumer Reports .
Dunn Tire.

All of which are consistent with what I and Bob F told you.



If someone deprecates an article, but then they can't deprecate that a half
dozen more reliable articles say the same thing, then what good is that
single deprecation?

I don't know their psychological makeup, which is another huge problem on
Usenet, but my point here is that the science is what should win.

Not our emotions to the contrary of science.

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".

While it's normal for people like you on Usenet to get emotional, you seem
to think this is a game of who is smarter than whom.

It's not.


Good thing then, because you'd lose.



ROFL

What matters is the science so if you find the science funny, that's fine.


This from the guy who ignored the simple physics examples that go
right to the core.



I think, together, we have come to a scientifically valid conclusion in
this thread, which is that the average mom-and-pop would be hard pressed to
gain any performance benefit out of a larger-diameter fitment - but if they
controlled the key variables (such as the torque curve, tire contact patch
width, vehicle height and aerodynamics, and suspension alignment) they
certainly "could" get better miles per gallon out of the larger fitment.

Does everyone agree with that statement?
I'm sure there are plenty who disagree.

It will be left for the others to agree or disagree with my assessment,
which is my obligation to make given that I initiated the question but the
right answer is never a given so my statement remains to stand the test of
objections from others.

Such is science.

Yeah, science. ROFL!