

| Subject: | Re: Revs per mile , was: 15" VS. 16' WHEELS |
| From: | Tom Buese |
| Date: | Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:36:50 -0600 |
& once agin, the Cane Rattler sets us all straight! Amen, Mr. BZ-Calculus 101? Barely passed On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Al Knoll wrote: > Curiouser and curiouser, What is the best way to figure out the > revolutions per mile? Count the revolutions over a smaller distance > and extrapolate? Measure the rollout linearly? And of course what > accuracy is necessary for the intended use of the number, this will > perhaps dictate the method used. If two significant digits is good > enough almost any method will work. If one needs 4 or 5 significant > digits then the measurement becomes by necessity more complex. If it > must be within one RCH, it's going to be a long afternoon. > > If 5% is close enough, picking a method that yields a deviation in > that range of values might just do. 1% of 800 is 8 so for all intents > and purposes the 804-812 value will give you the necessary 1% > accuracy. IFF the stated value is accurate. You can check by doing a > rollout test yourself and seeing how close to the -specification your > result is. 5% accuracy is +-3mph indicated on your speedometer or > 57-63 at an indicated 60 MPH. Close enough? Only you can decide. > > A rollout of two rotations measured to the nearest 1/4 inch will give > +- 1/8 inch of circumference accuracy. Since pi day was recently > celebrated, you can use the leftover pi to crank the Diameter out of : > Circumference (what you measured) = pi*Diameter. The revolutions per > mile however is the number of circumferences travelled per mile and > that is a tricky figure to obtain as the tire is not rigid in radius > but quite rigid in the steel belts that determine the circumference at > any angular velocity, and air pressure. Best to approximate under > vertical load and factor in the rotational expansion for which we have > no convenient formula. > > The end game is that there is a solution space that can be made fairly > small in the vector space of angular velocity, belt stiffness, > inflation pressure and vehicle mass. This solution space is populated > by the various experimental results obtained by measurement of one > particular tire. The space grows larger as other particular tires of > the same manufacture and the same size are added and measured. At the > end of the day the results should resemble a circular scatter diagram > like you see on 12ga enhanced road signs. Your best choice in that > population is likely near the center of the pattern. > > I maintain that that solution space cannot be reduced to a single > solution but only to an acceptable collection of solutions. Only you > can decide how close is close enough, or whether it is important at > all. > > "No matter how elegant the hypothesis, or how eloquent it's > presentation, if it doesn't agree with the measured data, it's wrong" > -- Feynman > > Pensionerd. Fan of RCH's in years gone by. > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:28 PM, mark drillock <mdrillock@cox.net> > wrote: >> You can look up any number of manufacturers rev/mile for a given >> size. >> You will find they tend to group together in a range and then you >> will >> see that the Miata Tire Toy program calculates a value for that size >> that falls outside of that group. You could say that none of the tire >> companies can count or measure but I would say the Miata Tire Toy >> program makes erroneous assumptions and then gives false results. >> >> Also, axle center to ground distance is a poor way to measure tires >> for >> revs/mile purposes as inflation pressure affects that static >> measurement >> to an extent that greatly exceeds its effect on true revs/mile while >> rotating. >> >> >> Mark >> >> >> John Bange wrote: >> >>> >>> I would love to trust the manufacturer's quoted numbers, but when >>> the Revs >>> per Mils and the diameter they state don't match, it's hard to >>> take them >>> completely seriously. I suspect they might use the largest possible >>> diameter, and the smallest possible rolling radius. Given that, I >>> tend to >>> use the mathematical number initially, and then actual physical >>> measurement >>> after they're on the vehicle (axle center to ground, and GPS >>> mileage vs >>> miles clocked that assume 805 RPM). >>> >>> -- >>> John Bange >>> >>
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »