On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 06:48:18 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 29/06/18 18:41, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:57:07 +0200, Thomas Prufer
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:39:41 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Well, my axle is 5mm closer to the road (when stationary, who know how
much centrifugal [let's not have *that* discussion] force negates that
when moving?)

I'll inject facts into the handwaving fest:-)

I'm not sure it will make any difference Tomas as 'some people' don't
believe the facts, imperial evidence (millions of cars with iTPMS) and
the 'experts'.

empirical

Dicky, thank's for that (that's what I was intending to type but the
spell checker changed and the character size is pretty small on that
dialogue box, especially when my eyes are tired).

Do us a favour though, if you are only going to correct one word in a
post, snip all the stuff that follows that ... (the rest left in to
demonstrate the point).


They would prefer (if ever) to come to the exact same conclusion
themselves but shroud it very carefully in a desperate attempt to make
it look like they understood it all along and thinking they can hide
the *fact* they are indeed 'stupid and arrogant tw*ts'. ;-)

A diagonally belted tire has 5% more travel per rotation at 180km/h than at
60km/h, a radially belted tire 1% more.

So, that's because of the pantographing effect (like the dragster
drive wheel I linked to ages ago) as it is spun up, opposite to that
of a deflation (or course).

This from the German Wiki page on the subject "Abrollumfang".

The article also contains the words "the dynamic rolling radius under load is
greater than the distance from the wheel middle to the road r sub(s)." and a
formula I can't be arsed to transcribe, but I'll toss in

;-)

r sub(0): unloaded wheel radius
r sub(s): static radius
r sub(D): dynamic radius

The left brainers will 'get' the direct stuff but won't get the stuff
that requires some imagination.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrollumfang

Thanks for trying though. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


Cheers, T i m