On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 10:40:27 +0100, T i m wrote:

Ever wondered why nobody in real life seems to want to talk to you, you
self-opinionated bigmouthed

snip

I think it's just a cry for help and we are his 'care in the
community'. ;-)

I can't imagine him being like that ITRW (or not if he was to be like
that in any pub in the UK).

The thing is, because he is thick (and or low EQ) he judges everone
else by his own standards. ;-(

Does he really think I don't know exactly how a tank track is made
(and how heavy even a single link is!) and how it doesn't compare with
the mobility of something made of rubber and using steel wire for
support that is *designed* to move in use?

Cheers, T i m

He's clearly one of that kind:
https://thetravellingtiles.files.wor...b6f9820001.jpg

On 24/06/2018 07:05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harry brought next idea :
I do wonder about the benefits of alloy wheels. There was a recent
thread about the tyres on them sometimes not staying inflated and
they are quite easy to damage.

--
Michael Chare

Improves ride and handling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

Actually alloy does neither. The weight is about the same and alloy is
sometimes even heavier than steel. The use of alloy is more about design
and fashion.

I agree although I think the original alloy wheels 50-60 years ago on
rally cars were to reduce the unsprung weight. Also it does appear that
reducing the unsprung mass does increase cabin noise and vibration which
is not what you want on a normal road car.

--
Michael Chare

On 23/06/2018 18:35, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Michael Chare
wrote:

On 23/06/2018 06:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I've had about a dozen warnings from TMPS (the ABS type) over the
last 7+ years, not one of them false.

How flat were the tyres? How much pressure had they lost?

Varied ...

Several (yellow warning) times when tyres had just gradually lost
pressure without a puncture, maybe 43 down to 38psi, which would be
detected at about the same level as when I started to notice going
over speed humps was a bit softer than usual.

Several normal slow punctures from nails/screws (also yellow warning)

Once (red warning) where it picked up a fast puncture on the motorway
before I had noticed it, and by the time I had come to rest on the
hard shoulder the tyre was completely flat.

12 flat tyres in 7+ years is much more than I would expect.

Overall I think 5 were punctures (all except one were repairable) two
were from kerbs, the rest were just reminders to top-up pressures.

Several of the punctures occurred in the first year of buying the
car, I was half convinced there were nail-magnets fitted.

I thought I was prone to getting punctures but not as bad as that. I
had one wheel which vibrated a bit so I fitted it to the rear. Even
then I noticedÂ* a vibration at about 75mph. Eventually I had to stop
for a flat tyre and found that the tyre had developed a bulge say a
couple of inches in diameter which had then worn completely through.

What, to the canvass? When that wears through you go flat with a bang.


Yes I don't remember if there was a bang. I did stop. Sometime ago on
Top Gear there was a German 'MOT' car testing truck where one of the
tests was to check the eccentricity of the tyres. I am not aware of that
being part of the UK MOT.


--
Michael Chare

On 24/06/18 11:35, Michael Chare wrote:
On 24/06/2018 07:05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harry brought next idea :
I do wonder about the benefits of alloy wheels. There was a recent
thread about the tyres on them sometimes not staying inflated and
they are quite easy to damage.

--
Michael Chare

Improves ride and handling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

Actually alloy does neither. The weight is about the same and alloy is
sometimes even heavier than steel. The use of alloy is more about
design and fashion.

I agree although I think the original alloy wheels 50-60 years ago on
rally cars were to reduce the unsprung weight. Also it does appear that
reducing the unsprung mass does increase cabin noise and vibration which
is not what you want on a normal road car.


I agree - alloys are a pointless gimmick. Nickable so need locking nuts,
easily damaged by kerb grinding, expensive.

Why they couldn't just get the "look" by careful design of a full sized
"hub cap" beats me.

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 5:02:56 PM UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/06/18 11:35, Michael Chare wrote:
On 24/06/2018 07:05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harry brought next idea :
I do wonder about the benefits of alloy wheels. There was a recent
thread about the tyres on them sometimes not staying inflated and
they are quite easy to damage.

--
Michael Chare

Improves ride and handling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

Actually alloy does neither. The weight is about the same and alloy is
sometimes even heavier than steel. The use of alloy is more about
design and fashion.

I agree although I think the original alloy wheels 50-60 years ago on
rally cars were to reduce the unsprung weight. Also it does appear that
reducing the unsprung mass does increase cabin noise and vibration which
is not what you want on a normal road car.


I agree - alloys are a pointless gimmick. Nickable so need locking nuts,
easily damaged by kerb grinding, expensive.

Why they couldn't just get the "look" by careful design of a full sized
"hub cap" beats me.

I used to have a Rover 416 which had alloy-look wheel trims. One went missing and I went to the dealer's for a replacement. "What type is it?" asked the chap behind the spares counter. "One like those", I said, pointing out the door to my car, which was parked so that the two fully-shod wheels were visible. "But those are alloys" he insisted, and wouldn't change his opinion until he'd gone outside to see the bare steel wheel.

On 24/06/2018 06:19, harry wrote:
Improves ride and handling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

The unsprung mass of a fat tyre is only the mass of the bit of tyre on
the road - at least for small bumps. Modern skinny tyres have almost no
give, so the suspension has to do all the work. And the result is a
harsher ride, poorer handling, and vulnerability to potholes.

Some think they look better. Which overrides the other three.

Andy

On 23/06/2018 06:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/06/18 22:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/06/2018 20:40, Chris Green wrote:
Does it*really*Â* work like that?Â* Tyres have steel or nylon bracing in
them to*stop*Â* them stretching much.Â* If you run on a flat tyre it
squishes somewhat but, unless it's actually skidding on the road
surface, the same circumferance will roll along the road surface for
each rotation.

Some of that circumference must rotate while it's off the ground.

The _radius_ at the bit on the ground is reduced, so it must spin the
tyre faster.


It would if a flat tyre was circular.

Since it isn't, you are talking relative ********

What is the radius of a tank track?


I'll take this slowly, but only once.

Imagine a wheel that was flat at the bottom so that it had half its
original radius. The rolling radius of the wheel is the radius where it
touches the ground - half the normal radius.

This bit at the bottom is the only bit that counts. The rest is not on
the road.

A tank track doesn't have a radius. It isn't a circle. The effective
rolling radius of tank wheels is exactly the same as it would be if the
track wasn't there - it's just they are rolling along a track, not the
road. This is why it is called a track laying vehicle.

Andy

On 28/06/2018 23:06, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/06/2018 06:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/06/18 22:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/06/2018 20:40, Chris Green wrote:
Does it*really*Â* work like that?Â* Tyres have steel or nylon bracing in
them to*stop*Â* them stretching much.Â* If you run on a flat tyre it
squishes somewhat but, unless it's actually skidding on the road
surface, the same circumferance will roll along the road surface for
each rotation.

Some of that circumference must rotate while it's off the ground.

The _radius_ at the bit on the ground is reduced, so it must spin the
tyre faster.


It would if a flat tyre was circular.

Since it isn't, you are talking relative ********

What is the radius of a tank track?


I'll take this slowly, but only once.

Imagine a wheel that was flat at the bottom so that it had half its
original radius. The rolling radius of the wheel is the radius where it
touches the ground - half the normal radius.

This bit at the bottom is the only bit that counts. The rest is not on
the road.

A tank track doesn't have a radius. It isn't a circle. The effective
rolling radius of tank wheels is exactly the same as it would be if the
track wasn't there - it's just they are rolling along a track, not the
road. This is why it is called a track laying vehicle.

It wouldn't be actually.
Its driven by the big sprocketed wheel so its radius (assuming
negligible stretching) would be the radius of the sprocket plus whatever
extra the track thickness adds.

A tyre is similar to a track anyway as the contact area of the driven
wheels will move in relation to the axle due to the forces acting on it
to move the vehicle. Likewise it will move under breaking too.

On 28/06/18 23:06, Vir Campestris wrote:
Imagine a wheel that was flat at the bottom so that it had half its
original radius. The rolling radius of the wheel is the radius where it
touches the ground - half the normal radius.


Oh dear...

This bit at the bottom is the only bit that counts. The rest is not on
the road.


Oh dear

A tank track doesn't have a radius. It isn't a circle.


Neither is your example above.


The effective
rolling radius of tank wheels is exactly the same as it would be if the
track wasn't there - it's just they are rolling along a track, not the
road. This is why it is called a track laying vehicle.

Right. And that is exactly the same effect as a tyre that has completely
lost its sidewall and is in fact just got a tread left.

So what we have, if you can picture it, is the rim rolling long inside a
tread that is ciurcular and bugger than te rim diameter,.

Ok so far? Now this is a ring gear and pnion in effect - a reduction
gera where the tyre is turning slower than the wheel

How can the tyre be turning slower than the wheel *if it has a sidewall
connecting them*

It cant.

What happens is taht all te other nbits of te tuyre connected to te rim
are actually pusing the ytrye tread around faster than the rim is going
so there is a relaticive angulra velocity between the flattened part of
te tyre and the rim above it.


This is wahy your 'bit at the bottom is the only bit that counts' is so
completely and utterly WRONG..

The bit at the bottom is not bolted to the rim. Its attached via a
flexible elastic medium, and its the flexing of that medium that allows
motion from all parts of the wheel and tyre to be transferred to the
contact patch.

Nothing says that the instantaneous angular velocity of the tread has to
match the instantaneous angular velocity of the rim, and in fact it
doesn't at the contact patch. All that has to happen is that the
AVERAGE angular velocity of the whole tyre has to match the angular
velocity of the wheel.


And that is where your thinking is totally flawed. You learned the
mechanics of solid wheels at O level, you failed to learn the mechanics
of more complex rotating systems thereafter.

Worse, you think you understand when you do not. Like dennmis, Huge,
harry T i m and all the other remooaners who run on received wisdom and
cannot actually think for themselves


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 29/06/18 08:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/06/2018 06:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/06/18 22:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/06/2018 20:40, Chris Green wrote:
Does it*really*Â* work like that?Â* Tyres have steel or nylon bracing in
them to*stop*Â* them stretching much.Â* If you run on a flat tyre it
squishes somewhat but, unless it's actually skidding on the road
surface, the same circumferance will roll along the road surface for
each rotation.

Some of that circumference must rotate while it's off the ground.

The _radius_ at the bit on the ground is reduced, so it must spin
the tyre faster.

It would if a flat tyre was circular.

Since it isn't, you are talking relative ********

What is the radius of a tank track?

I'll take this slowly, but only once.

Imagine a wheel that was flat at the bottom so that it had half its
original radius. The rolling radius of the wheel is the radius where
it touches the ground - half the normal radius.

This bit at the bottom is the only bit that counts. The rest is not on
the road.

A tank track doesn't have a radius. It isn't a circle. The effective
rolling radius of tank wheels is exactly the same as it would be if
the track wasn't there - it's just they are rolling along a track, not
the road. This is why it is called a track laying vehicle.

The tank track (or any similar one) is in any case not relevant to this
discussion, as we are talking about a wheel and tire where the tire is
in contact with the whole rim of the wheel at all times.

Only a small part of a tank track is ever in contact with any of the
tank's wheels.

I introduced tehe idea of te tank track as an extreme example of a tread
that is much bigger than the wheels driving it, and rotates much much
slower.

It is the counter example - the case where the twits get it right, but
them you have to say what happens if te track IS rotating at the same
speed as the wheel driving it?

Because a tyre is a track/tread that *is* rotating at wheel speed. Even
thoiugh its a greater diamter than the wheel rim

The intention was to show that simple thinking leads to a paradox in
which the tyre is obviously rotating at the same speed as the wheel, and
yet their 'logic' says it must be rotating slower or the circumference
must somehow *contract* massively under load!

It's a fascinating example of scientific denial so to speak. Like
climate change they must 'save the theory' even when the data lead to
contradictory results.

Judging by here, its likely a technical problem that well over half the
population would get wrong...

Which also gives some degree of value to the false claim that '97% of
scientists say' meme.

And eplains wihy 47% of those with opinions voted to remain in the EU.

And a very high proportion of those with secondary education.

What we find is that undeducated people see things pretty much as they
are and dont pretend to understand them.

People with education who have been *told* how to use more copmplex
models *think they are smarter than they are*. It is in the end only a
small proportion of top brains that can actually think for themselves
that can puzzle it out and get to the right answer.

The rest might as well memorise te Koran by heart, because they never
will think independently. Radical Islam. Socialism. Climate change.
The EU. They will beleive in whatever they are told to believe by people
they consider to be their intellectual superiors - the authorities to
which they appeal.

That is why the remoaner class - funadmentally the over educated and
less intelligent middle class, are in fact the most gullible.

At the bottom the uneducated expect that people are talking **** to
them. They just dont believe anything except cash in hand and how much a
pint costs. At the very top people who can really think for themselves
understand much of what is going on, but are either not going to let on,
or are actively told to shut up.

Blairs triumph was to capture the imaginations of the over educated and
less intelligent middle class, increase their numbers by borrowing money
and giving it to them to go to 'uni' on the absurd proposition that
since people who were bright enough to get to university made more
money, sending people to university who were frankly thick as pig****
would in the end get them more salary.

The odd thing is how many believed him.

But since this little experiment, Perhaps its not so odd. Thats how self
important stupid people behave it seems.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:55:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Nothing says that the instantaneous angular velocity of the tread has to
match the instantaneous angular velocity of the rim, and in fact it
doesn't at the contact patch. All that has to happen is that the
AVERAGE angular velocity of the whole tyre has to match the angular
velocity of the wheel.

Bwhahahaha .... I love it, *exactly* as predicted the Turnip has now
basically accepted what some of us have been saying from the beginning
but 'of course' he will try to obfuscate the point by trying to wrap
it all up in his bs waffle!

Actually I feel sorry for him ... because he can't help it. ;-(

Cheers, T i m