On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:19:41 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 28/06/2018 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 28/06/2018 10:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What I wouuld ask you is how a tyre, rotating at a differentent rate
from a wheel, so that its circumference does in fact get covered on
the ground by that rotaion, stays on the wheel without ripping the
tread off?

This "philosopher" hasn't ever noticed the tyre debris on the roads
where the tread has been ripped off.

Maybe he wants to explain why it happens to lorries with twin wheels
where only one tyre has gone flat but is being kept at about the
correct radius by the other wheel?

Ah, nice attempt at a shimmy there, Den. Our Dave would be proud of you.

What you're in fact admitting is that the wheel and the tire *must*
rotate at the same rate, otherwise the tread would come off.


How dumb can you be to think that is what I said?
I said the exact opposite of what you chose to claim I said.

Are you TNP ?

TNP says (above) that having a wheel rotating at a different rate to
the tire is only possible if the tread rips off.

And so he's talking BS.

You point out how much tire debris there is around.

For different reasons that you obviously don't have the IQ or interest
to understand.

QED.

Not to you it seems.

dennis quite clearly stated the scenario with a twin wheel lorry where
the 'effective circumferences' can become substantially different if
one tyre becomes deflated and *then* one tyre is likely to suffer
further damage. It's more likely to be the low pressure tyre because
it will be carrying less load and so more likely to scrub than the one
carrying all the load.

Except all this is just basic mechanics and common sense, not
characteristics generally found in 'artists' eh. ;-(

Cheers, T i m