clayne

A huge key point that we never really thought of (but which was spoken of by the other people) is the concept of frictional mu going DOWN as force goes up. This is unintuitive in that it doesn't follow the increasing mu paradigm.

"For rubber tires, the coefficient of friction decreases with contact
forces. The net effect is that past a certain load, the frictional
force needed to overcome inertia of a cornering automobile cannot
keep up with the centrifugal force. This means that the heavier the
car, the worse it corners on the same size tires. This makes sense
from experience, but not necessarily from physics. Again, the reason
behind it is that the coefficient of friction of tires drops with
increasing load.

This means that if you want to corner harder, you need more surface
area to decrease the contact pressure, and hence get wider tires."


We never really thought of that... so, in closing..

WE WIN, Damon LOSES.

(kidding)

clayne

Let's have some healthy post-debate desert, shall we?

SleepR1

clayne

ENKEI

DamonB

Didn't you learn the difference between "desert" and "dessert" in school? "Desert" is the dry place with all the sand. "Dessert" is what you get after dinner. The way you remember is that you always want two desserts (it's got two s's). Get it?

ArcWelder

This, I hope, we all can agree upon.

PVerdieck

That was a bit of comic relief, which I thought the thread was in dire need of

To be honest, given the discussion that ensued, I think I did good. A lot of relevant discourse, and thinking. But in the end, we are pretty much back to wider is better....

SleepR1

Only in the corners, er at least for ArcWelder and me...(ducking and running)...

DamonB

Some thoughts on tire width from Mark Ortiz. Ortiz is a respected racecar engineer and a noted contributor to Racecar Engineering magazine. His entire list of articles is in the Suspension and Handling Links sticky.

Mark Ortiz on tire width

More thoughts from Ortiz on weight distribution

SleepR1

In the first link, Mark Ortiz doensn't provide much data...mostly his experiences and common sense. That's not good enough for us scientists/engineers. I think we all agree that wider tires are needed for cornering, but it's not so simple when considering longitudinal forces is it?

I couldn't open the second link, so I can't comment on the weight distribution piece.

DamonB

Second link works fine for me?

SleepR1

I guess it does work!

DamonB

Paul Haney's book "The Racing and High Performance Tire" is highly recommended; it's in our Suspension and Handling Links sticky.

Paul has this to say about tires with short, wide contact patches (wide tires) vs. tires with tall, narrow contact patchs (larger diameter, narrow tires):

"In the section on lateral tread deformation we showed that deformation builds up along the length of the contact patch until the restoring force of the tread and carcass exceeds tread grip and sliding begins. A shorter contact patch at the same slip angle begins to slip at roughly the same distance from the leading edge (of the contact patch) as with a longer contact patch. But the shorter contact patch has more of its length stuck to the road than the longer, narrower patch; and therefore a larger portion of its overall area is gripping. A larger portion of contact patch area gripping means more total grip. So for the same load and same slip angle, a wider contact patch generates more grip than a narrow contact patch."

What's being said is that even if the area of the contact patches is the same in the wide vs narrow tire, the wide tire will still generate more grip because its contact patch does not have to distort as much as the tire rolls through a turn (slip angle) because the wide tires' contact patch is in fact short and wide vs tall and narrow. The tall, narrow patch MUST have much more distortion in it when an angle of slip is introduced (turning).

DamonB

Just wanted to add something that came to mind in conversation with someone recently who insisted tire load was the key to grip. It is not. If tire loading were the true key in grip then there is absolutely no reason for us to be concerned with weight transfer on our cars. If grip increased at the same rate as load then we could all throw our sway bars in the trash and not worry about weight transfer ever again.

Contact patch area is the fundamental key of all grip. Don't forget that not only is rubber deformable to the surface and thus provides mechanical friction, it is also adhesive (especially racing tires!). You would of course always expect a greater area of adhesive to generate more gripping power than a smaller one.

Carl Byck

I cannot help myself Run BOTH 17", &18". That way you do noot have to read this 10 page thread, and you can concentrate on learning to drive. Run a 17x11 out back w/315-30-17, and a 18x10 w/285-30-18 up front.

DamonB

^ Anybody ever seen a pic of Carl's car? I'm not certain he thinks wider is better

Carl Byck

Ok, so I am already running 13"s out back, but 14s are too tall... If you can make enough power wider is better. In my case, I can rotate a big tire if I want(500+rwhp). That said, I am running 16x12s. Many people think you need alot of wheel to fit large brakes, not true, I can fit a 13.25" brake setup inside my 16s easily. The 16x12 with a 13" slick weighs 33 lbs, and since it is only 24.5" tall, the rotational mass is not bad. I am going to an Avon 23.5x12 slick so I can lower the car another 1.5", then I'll be on rails Check my pics in the Race tech section. Carl

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

His girls does...

DamonB

I quote Mark Ortiz's stuff quite often. If you haven't done it yet go read everything he has ever written.

From Mark Ortiz at The Performance Tech Forum/Board:

WHY ARE WIDE TIRES BETTER?

It has been recognized for about 40 years now that wide tires provide more grip, at least when we are not limited by aquaplaning. One might suppose that this effect would be be well understood by now, on a theoretical level as well as a practical one. Yet the matter seems to be receiving a lot of attention from various authors lately. This seems to be due in part to the need for mathematical tire models to be used in computer simulation. I have encountered the question at least twice in the past month, once in a seminar presented by Paul Haney, based on his recent book about tires, and once in Paul Van Valkenburgh’s November Racecar Engineering column. The issue has also come up in my work as an advisor to the UNC Charlotte Formula SAE team.

On the face of it, one might wonder why there is any controversy about this, and also why it took people until the 1960’s to try wide tires. More tire, more rubber on the road. More rubber on the road, more traction – right? Why wouldn’t this be obvious?

Essentially, there are two reasons it wasn’t obvious. First, according to Coulomb’s law for dry sliding friction, friction is independent of apparent contact area. It depends instead on the nature of the substances in contact, the normal (perpendicular) force, and nothing else. Second, a tire’s contact patch area theoretically doesn’t vary with its width anyway. If we widen the tread, the contact patch just gets shorter, and the area theoretically stays the same.

Let’s consider each of these notions. Coulomb’s law applies quite accurately to hard, dry, clean, smooth surfaces. However, a tire tread is a soft, tough, sometimes tacky substance in contact with a hard, rough surface. When two hard, smooth surfaces are in contact, they actually touch only at a small percentage of their apparent or macroscopic contact area. Friction depends on molecular bonding in the small microscopic contact zones. As normal force increases, the microscopic contact area increases approximately proportionally, and consequently friction is directly proportional to normal force.

With rubber on pavement, however, there is not only the usual molecular bonding but also mechanical interlock between the asperities (high points) of the pavement and the compliant rubber. Sliding then involves a combination of shearing the rubber apart and dragging the asperities through it as the rubber reluctantly oozes around the asperities. The interface somewhat resembles a pair of meshing gears. With gears, when we increase the size and number of teeth in mesh, we increase the force required to shear off the teeth. It would be reasonable to expect a similar effect with the interlock between the tread and the pavement.

With increasing normal force, this interlock gets deeper, as the asperities are pushed further into the rubber. However, we might reasonably expect that at least beyond a certain point, the asperities are pushed into the rubber to pretty nearly their full depth, and further increase in normal force does not proportionately increase the mechanical interlock. With greater macroscopic contact area, it should take a greater normal force to reach this region of diminishing return.

A tire typically does show characteristics that would match this hypothesis. It will often have a range of loadings where its coefficient of friction is almost constant; where friction force is almost directly proportional to normal force. Above this range, the tire exhibits much greater load sensitivity of the coefficient of friction. The curve of friction force as a function of normal force goes up almost as a straight line for a ways, then begins to droop at an increasing rate.

Of course, the contact patch does not remain the same macroscopic size as load increases. It grows as we add load. Nevertheless, this contact patch growth is evidently not enough to keep the coefficient of friction constant.

The contact patch growth is interesting in itself, and a bit counter-intuitive. A tire can be considered a flexible bladder, inflated to some known pressure, and supporting a load. If such a bladder is extremely limp when uninflated, like a toy balloon, and we inflate it, place it on a smooth, flat surface, and press down on it with a known force, the area of contact with the surface is equal to the normal force divided by the pressure: A = Fn/P.

If a tire approximates this behavior, then it follows that the contact patch area depends only on the
load or normal force and the inflation pressure. If we make the tire wider, then at any given load and pressure the contact patch doesn’t get bigger, it just gets wider and shorter.

Accordingly, much discussion of the reasons a wide tire gives an advantage focuses on reasons we might expect a wider tire to yield greater lateral force than a narrower one, assuming similar construction and identical pressure, tread compound, and load.

One theory, advanced by the late Chuck Hallum and evidently picked up by Paul Van Valkenburgh in his recent column, is that a tire is primarily limited by thermodynamics. It generates drag when running at a slip angle. The drag times the speed equals a power consumption, or rate of energy flow. This energy is converted into heat. For the system to be in equilibrium, the heat must be dissipated as fast as it is generated. Even short of the point of true equilibrium, the tread compound needs to be kept below a temperature where it softens to the point of being greasy rather than tacky. If the contact patch is shorter, that means that each square inch of tread surface spends less time getting heated and more time getting cooled.

Also, when a tire is operating near its lateral force limit, the front portion of the contact patch is “stuck” to the road and the rear portion is a “slip zone” in which the tread moves across the pavement in a series of slip-and-grip cycles. The slip zone grows as we approach the point of breakaway. Beyond the point of breakaway, the entire contact patch is slip zone. The slip zone generates less force and more heat than the adhering zone. A shorter, wider contact patch is thought to have a larger adhering zone and a smaller slip zone at a given slip angle, and wider tires are also known to reach peak force at smaller slip angles. Therefore, a wider tire is not only better able to manage heat, but also generates less heat at a given lateral force.

This all makes sense, but it fails to explain why wide tires give more grip even when stone cold.

There is little doubt that they do. If you have a street car with four identical tires, and you replace the rear tires and wheels with ones an inch wider, using the same make and model of tire, with no other changes, the handling balance will shift markedly toward understeer. You will see this effect at all times, from the first turn in a journey to the last. Surely this effect is not coming from heat management.

Paul Haney explains this by the larger-adhering-zone theory described above. The tire makes more efficient use of its contact patch, even if the contact patch isn’t larger.

As much sense as the above theories make, they ignore some real-world effects that have a bearing on the situation.

First of all, the degree to which tires follow the A = Fn/P rule varies considerably. A very flexible tire, at moderate load, may have a contact patch as large as 97% of theoretical. A fairly stiff tire may be well below 80%. We are all aware of run-flat tires currently being sold, which will hold up a Corvette with no inflation pressure at all. As P approaches zero, Fn/P approaches infinity. If A does not approach infinity, and the tire does not go flat, the contact patch area as a percentage of theoretically predicted area approaches zero.

One might suppose that the effect of carcass stiffness would be significant mainly in street tires, with run-flats being an unrepresentative extreme. Yet I have seen dramatic differences in carcass rigidity in different makes of racing tires intended for the same application. The Formula SAE car run by the University of North Carolina Charlotte uses 10” wheels. Hoosier and Goodyear both make 6” nominal-width tires for the application. The stiffnesses of these tires differ dramatically. The Hoosiers are much more flexible than the Goodyears. The Goodyears are so stiff that they will support the front of the car (without driver), with little visible deflection, when completely deflated – run-flat racing tires! How closely do these tires approximate A = Fn/P in this load range? Not very closely at all.

My point here is that tire stiffness, vertically, laterally, and otherwise, is not purely a function of inflation pressure, so it is a bit risky to try to infer contact patch size from pressure and load. Therefore, we don’t necessarily know that two tires differing only in width do have the same contact patch area at the same inflation pressure and load, or even that tires of the same size do.

Anyway, if it is approximately true that A = Fn/P, it follows that a wide tire will have greater vertical stiffness, or tire spring rate, than a narrow one, at any given inflation pressure. It will also have a smaller static deflection at a given load, which is why the contact patch is shorter. The flip side of this is that for a given static deflection or tire spring rate, a wide tire needs a lower inflation pressure. Consequently, if we compare wide and narrow tires at similar static deflection or tire spring rate, rather than similar pressure, they will have similar-length contact patches and the wider one really will have more rubber on the road, just as we would intuitively suppose from looking at them.

As we make a tire wider, not only does vertical stiffness increase for a given inflation pressure, so does the tension in the carcass due to inflation pressure. A tire is a form of pressure vessel. We may think of it as a roughly cylindrical tank, bent into a circle to form a donut or torus. Borrowing from the terminology of pressure vessel design, we may speak of the “hoop stress” in the walls: the tensile stress analogous to the load on a barrel hoop. For a given inflation pressure, the hoop stress is directly proportional to the cross-sectional circumference, or mean cross-sectional diameter. When the carcass is under a higher preload, the tire acts stiffer laterally. This effect can easily be seen in bicycle tires. A fat bicycle tire will feel harder to the thumb than a skinny one, at any given pressure. If we try to inflate a mountain bike tire to the pressure we’d use in a narrow road racing tire, the tire will expand its bead off the rim and blow out. So when we compare narrow and wide tires at equal inflation pressures, the wider one will be stiffer laterally as well as vertically, and it will achieve this at no penalty in contact patch size.

Finally, there is the question of tread wear. As we have noted, if the contact patch is longer, it has a larger slipping zone near the limit of adhesion, and it also spends a greater portion of each revolution in contact with the road. Not only do these factors influence how hot the tire runs, they also influence how fast it wears. Therefore, assuming good camber control, a wide tire should last longer than a narrow one, with similar tread compound. The astute reader will see where I’m headed with this. If we need to run a given number of laps or miles on a set of tires, then with wider tires we can trade away some of the inherent longevity advantage, and run a softer compound.

Okay, summing up, what does a wider tire get us?
1. It runs cooler, and/or
2. it makes more efficient use of its contact patch by having a greater percentage adhering, and/or
3. it can run at lower inflation pressure and therefore actually have a larger contact patch, and/or
4. it can have greater lateral stiffness at a given pressure and therefore keep its tread planted better, and/or
5. it can use a softer, stickier, faster-wearing compound without penalty in longevity.

Note that most of these effects in turn play off against each other. We can blend and balance them, and get a tire that is somewhat cooler-running, has a somewhat lower operating pressure and somewhat larger contact patch, has somewhat greater lateral stiffness, and survives long enough with a somewhat stickier compound, all at the same time. That would explain an improvement in grip, wouldn’t it?