between fat tyres with bivger depth say 250/50 r... and tyres of lower depth say 130/65 r...what are the advantages of the fatter ones aside giving balancing when driver.If u are manouvering potholes on highway i feel the lower depths are better on nigerian roads.how true is this?

Lower profile tires, due to the very minimal sidewall height, will give a harsher ride but reward you with improved cornering capability.

Normal profile tires will give you a more comfortabel ride since the sidewall offers some flex but will return a lower factor of cornering performance.

All things being equal the more sidewall height you have the more chance of surviving an encounter with a pothole without damaging the wheel and suspension parts.

in a nutshell,low profile tyres are better for manovering potholes?

yosmen: in a nutshell,low profile tyres are better for manovering potholes?

Wide, low-profile tires improves high speed stability,grip and handling. Its downside is a harsh ride due to less rubber side-walls to cushion jarrs and vibrations. Skinny tires with high side-walls are the opposite. They handle less and have less grip. They help improve fuel consumption though due to less tire surface resistance.

yosmen: in a nutshell,low profile tyres are better for manovering potholes?

they are not good for pothole areas, cause if you mistakenly run into the holes at high speed your rim may be damaged and you may even have flat tyre instantly.

I think shallow or low profile tires are designed for high speed driving on smooth roads.They do not allow much cushion and easily get punctured on hitting pot holes and result in rim damage on impact.If you want to install them for show be prepared to be frequently inconvenienced with flats and damaged rims.

Originalsly: I think shallow or low profile tires are designed for high speed driving on smooth roads.They do not allow much cushion and easily get punctured on hitting pot holes and result in rim damage on impact.If you want to install them for show be prepared to be frequently inconvenienced with flats and damaged rims.

I disagree with you.

Ikenna.

@ OP, you can actually have different set of tire/rim for 1 car depend on how you intend to use the car.

The answer to this topic is tyre sensitivity and loading with respect to compound. The weightiness of horizontal forces coupled with variations in loading is of severe importance. Since speed does not depend on lateral friction comparatively, softer rubber compounds with higher adhesion meets the objective in question.

There is a problem in the objective met: strength of materials with respect to vertical loads as braking, cornering and acceleration are executed. The standard profile ratio has been compromised for higher co-efficient of friction; hence the softer compound. Since softer dedicated compounds have a higher co-efficient of friction, longevity has been given up for extreme tyre performance at optimum tyre temperature (racing tyres operate best at optimum temperatures). Pressure, velocity and other kinematic forces are constantly varying on-the-fly during operation and a standard section tyre will fail with the aforementioned forces coupled with extreme temperatures (will melt). Also, frequent tyre changes due to very limited tyre cycles.

To resolve this was to engineer a higher yield stress for the given duration of work intended; hence a higher contact section. In other words, less tyre-loading per contact unit measure. So, wider to withstand load and to compensate. This is the only reason why the tyres are wide-profile. It has nothing to do with stability. That is another realm completely different from the topic.

Most passenger cars are just fitted for sake of aesthetic. Tyres designated for racing isn't legal for road use. Some disintegrate in water. Some higher performance tyres will damage exert a lot of loadings on suspension components, thus causing premature failure of suspension components.

Ikenna351:

I disagree with you.

Ikenna.

The nairaland brethren is partially right (though went overboard); nevertheless, on where he is right, it's a fact and disagreeing doesn't change the laws of solid-mechanics. The yield surface (rim flange and associated perimeter) can change due to plastic deformation. This is known to man as the hardening law. The hardening law is applicable in this scenario as kinematic and isotropic hardening (alloy and (tyre (higher volumetric pressure)) combined. The loading itself is cyclic-loading and miscellaneous spring/suspension compliance loading and effect (even/uneven tarmac changes, pot-holes, broken terrains). This is not to say that a smooth surface will provide assurance against the hardening and loading; cycling fatigue is still eminent. It isn't without trade-offs.

There are conditions where OEM low profile rims have to be replaced (even under normal road usage). The summary is what I have explained above. To buttress this, two analysis' are factored inbetween concept to production: isotropic hardening and kinematic hardening. This is to determine wheel integrity under various loadings.

yosmen: in a nutshell,low profile tyres are better for manovering potholes?

Volumetrically, higher pressure will resist tyre distortion. It is not an inherent advantage of low profiles but a universal principle. What you are interpreting is Boyle's law in effect.

u mean more volume of traped air in the tyre because of it width and rim size will reduce the pressure?
since the pressure is coming from the weight of d car,how does it relate with frictional resistance from the road surface especially untarred one and
2.how does the tyre overcome the effect of stone debries,potholes and suspension as compared with thin tyres
3.Does it have any interplay on the average speed of the vehicle

yosmen: u mean more volume of traped air in the tyre because of it width and rim size will reduce the pressure?
since the pressure is coming from the weight of d car,how does it relate with frictional resistance from the road surface especially untarred one and
2.how does the tyre overcome the effect of stone debries,potholes and suspension as compared with thin tyres
3.Does it have any interplay on the average speed of the vehicle

I will answer your question as best as I can due to the ambiguous context.

(1) No! Intensity of internal pressure * Entire surface area i.e. p*d*l. This is what I meant. The higher the volumetric pressure, the more the tyre will resist flexes. In generic engineering understanding, the internal pressure within the allocated area should be opposed by the resistance of the tyre walls i.e. twice the tyre thickness multiplied by the length multiplied by the engineering stress of the material (negating or suppressing the rim). This is in the simplest and approach; but the basic understanding has been conveyed.
(1B) The tyre generates diverse forces on-the-fly. These forces keep you planted on the road. Molecular adhesion (measured as co-efficient of friction) is what keeps the tyres planted on any kind of surface/terrain. When you exceed the friction co-efficient with respect to the opposing surface, you get unplanted and sliding velocity occurs.

(2) It doesn't. Higher pressure means less tyre deformation (distortion). In the above reply, I was referring to the rims and not the tyres. That is, the yield surfaces succumbing to plastic deformation. This is because there is less cushion, thus less room for distortion to the subjected kind of loadings.

(3) The short answer is: no. The broader answer will have to put into consideration many other factors.


Tyres are broad; so broad a discipline that knowledge to mankind as of today is incomplete. More and more engineering research is done but the science of it is not completely understood by man. My answers were subtle and very biased but limited in this thread. This was done to keep the thread within its topic. The misconception that wider tyres are purposed for better handling negating strength of materials is just wrong and cannot be proven by anyone.

Trac: The answer to this topic is tyre sensitivity and loading with respect to compound. The weightiness of horizontal forces coupled with variations in loading is of severe importance. Since speed does not depend on lateral friction comparatively, softer rubber compounds with higher adhesion meets the objective in question.

There is a problem in the objective met: strength of materials with respect to vertical loads as braking, cornering and acceleration are executed. The standard profile ratio has been compromised for higher co-efficient of friction; hence the softer compound. Since softer dedicated compounds have a higher co-efficient of friction, longevity has been given up for extreme tyre performance at optimum tyre temperature (racing tyres operate best at optimum temperatures). Pressure, velocity and other kinematic forces are constantly varying on-the-fly during operation and a standard section tyre will fail with the aforementioned forces coupled with extreme temperatures (will melt). Also, frequent tyre changes due to very limited tyre cycles.

To resolve this was to engineer a higher yield stress for the given duration of work intended; hence a higher contact section. In other words, less tyre-loading per contact unit measure. So, wider to withstand load and to compensate. This is the only reason why the tyres are wide-profile. It has nothing to do with stability. That is another realm completely different from the topic.

Most passenger cars are just fitted for sake of aesthetic. Tyres designated for racing isn't legal for road use. Some disintegrate in water. Some higher performance tyres will damage exert a lot of loadings on suspension components, thus causing premature failure of suspension components.

I would like you to post how you came up with tires that melt and those that dissolve in water.

Originalsly: I think shallow or low profile tires are designed for high speed driving on smooth roads.They do not allow much cushion and easily get punctured on hitting pot holes and result in rim damage on impact.If you want to install them for show be prepared to be frequently inconvenienced with flats and damaged rims.

I use 195 x 50 x 15". On a smooth express way driving interstate at over at over 130km/pH, it feels like the best thing ever. But woe betide me I hit a pot hole, I might have to condemn both the affected Tyre and rims.

with respect to topic:FAT and THIN

it depends on the road surface and weight of ur car.fat tyres with high depth are more suitable for heavy cars and for off roads cos thin tyres sink easily in sands.

i was using 215/65 R16 and it used to sink in sandy grounds and soft grounds.
now i changed to 235/70 R16 and they do better.

but if u want speed on smooth roads,u may go for the sport tyres such as 255/45 (suitable rim)
ur purpose determines

Somorin#1:


I would like you to post how you came up with tires that melt and those that dissolve in water.

@Somorin,

I must apologise for the untimely feedback. Pardon me.

The post has subtle words in it. The word "melt" or "meld" is a terminology (not wear but melt). I believe your understanding of the process is solid-to-liquid (which is thaw) or solid-to-molten state. That might pass as colloquial but conditionally true in science and engineering.

How do you physically move from point A to B with ground vehicle tyres? By adhesion and distortion (elastic distortion)! Of the two attributes mentioned, your question reflects upon adhesion. The adhesion is caused by molecular characteristics and properties engineered into the rubber. This science/engineering is called vulcanisation of rubber or rubber vulcanisation. Meaning, rubber chemically treated to give it the strength of material for its intended objective. The logic is about the same with metals and properties under certain conditions or treatment. An unvulcanised rubber cannot meet the stress requirements the normal tyres you have installed endures.

I believe the gap is sealed. The American English Dictionary will be used to maintain my answer simple (as oppose to chapters).

---------- Melt: lose its distinct outline or shape; blend gradually.
---------- Melt, Disappear, Evaporate: becomes less intense and fades away gradually.

These are the definition of melt/meld with respect to this discussion.

* This explains why tyres smoothen after a couple of laps
* Burn-out; and the smoke thereof
* Skid-marks - you can restrictively term this as a weld
* Normal everyday driving

All these properties are due to the vulcanisation of rubber. The rubber is engineered for resistance as well as adhesion and longevity. In racing, there is a trade-off; in some, extreme trade-offs.

I don't know where you got dissolve from. The verb used was disintegrate; that is (in the implied context), looses its integrity (molecular adhesion) and chemically breaks down. The stickies is class that I am referring to. It is partly why it is not D.O.T. legal. Disintegration is also used interchangeably with melt (where surface-to-surface contact, heat or motion is a variable).

I sifted images from google images as buttress.

Trac:

@Somorin,

I must apologise for the untimely feedback. Pardon me.

The post has subtle words in it. The word "melt" or "meld" is a terminology (not wear but melt). I believe your understanding of the process is solid-to-liquid (which is thaw) or solid-to-molten state. That might pass as colloquial but conditionally true in science and engineering.

How do you physically move from point A to B with ground vehicle tyres? By adhesion and distortion (elastic distortion)! Of the two attributes mentioned, your question reflects upon adhesion. The adhesion is caused by molecular characteristics and properties engineered into the rubber. This science/engineering is called vulcanisation of rubber or rubber vulcanisation. Meaning, rubber chemically treated to give it the strength of material for its intended objective. The logic is about the same with metals and properties under certain conditions or treatment. An unvulcanised rubber cannot meet the stress requirements the normal tyres you have installed endures.

I believe the gap is sealed. The American English Dictionary will be used to maintain my answer simple (as oppose to chapters).

---------- Melt: lose its distinct outline or shape; blend gradually.
---------- Melt, Disappear, Evaporate: becomes less intense and fades away gradually.

These are the definition of melt/meld with respect to this discussion.

* This explains why tyres smoothen after a couple of laps
* Burn-out; and the smoke thereof
* Skid-marks - you can restrictively term this as a weld
* Normal everyday driving

All these properties are due to the vulcanisation of rubber. The rubber is engineered for resistance as well as adhesion and longevity. In racing, there is a trade-off; in some, extreme trade-offs.

I don't know where you got dissolve from. The verb used was disintegrate; that is (in the implied context), looses its integrity (molecular adhesion) and chemically breaks down. The stickies is class that I am referring to. It is partly why it is not D.O.T. legal. Disintegration is also used interchangeably with melt (where surface-to-surface contact, heat or motion is a variable).

I sifted images from google images as buttress.

Okay, show me an example of a tire that "disintegrated" in water.

Thanks.

PS: None of the pictures you presented showed anything other than aggressive wear.

Before a run on the drag racing track, I "burn out" on water and my race spec tires have never "disintegrated".

Somorin#1:


Okay, show me an example of a tire that "disintegrated" in water.

Thanks.

PS: None of the pictures you presented showed anything other than aggressive wear.

Before a run on the drag racing track, I "burn out" on water and my race spec tires have never "disintegrated".

"Melt" in that frame of context is correct. In like manner, fluid is assumed as liquid. Quite contrary is the case; fluid is also gas (including the air you breathe). This is not to say the layman's assumption is wrong; he is correct but to a defined degree.

You are absolutely right about your conclusion as wear. It's the same thing we are referring to. Different words for the same thing. If you look at my original reply, the word in reference was an epithet. Nevertheless, the word did not originate from me, it is a scientific terminology that is used contextually. This is because of the filler used in the rubber. The fillers are silica or black-carbon. with integrated additives such as starch, alumina and non-clay.

I don't have pictures of racing compounds disintegrating in water. That's a hazardous scenerio. It is dangerous to humans when race compound tyres suited for dry tarmac is use in wet application. You do not have racing compounds fitted. The highest you have will be competition tyres and it serves a dual purpose. You cannot burnout on race compounds. They are slowly warmed up over several laps to operating temperature(s). You cannot get 20 miles of operation after warm up because it will need to be replaced. It is unsuitable for road-use.

Trac:

"Melt" in that frame of context is correct. In like manner, fluid is assumed as liquid. Quite contrary is the case; fluid is also gas (including the air you breathe). This is not to say the layman's assumption is wrong; he is correct but to a defined degree.

You are absolutely right about your conclusion as wear. It's the same thing we are referring to. Different words for the same thing. If you look at my original reply, the word in reference was an epithet. Nevertheless, the word did not originate from me, it is a scientific terminology that is used contextually. This is because of the filler used in the rubber. The fillers are silica or black-carbon. with integrated additives such as starch, alumina and non-clay.

I don't have pictures of racing compounds disintegrating in water. That's a hazardous scenerio. It is dangerous to humans when race compound tyres suited for dry tarmac is use in wet application. You do not have racing compounds fitted. The highest you have will be competition tyres and it serves a dual purpose. You cannot burnout on race compounds. They are slowly warmed up over several laps to operating temperature(s). You cannot get 20 miles of operation after warm up because it will need to be replaced. It is unsuitable for road-use.

I use race compounds and I do indeed perform burn outs with them.

Have you ever been to a drag track? Have you ever driven an 8 second car down the track?

Drag cars do not have laps but runs.

In SCCA, my race tires are replaced in seasons not 20 laps.

Dude, get off of YouTube/Web and get involved in track on a personal level so that you can converse intelligently.

You did say tires disintegrate in water. "Some disintegrate in water."

Somorin#1:


I use race compounds and I do indeed perform burn outs with them.

Have you ever been to a drag track? Have you ever driven an 8 second car down the track?

Drag cars do not have laps but runs.

In SCCA, my race tires are replaced in seasons not 20 laps.

Dude, get off of YouTube/Web and get involved in track on a personal level so that you can converse intelligently.

You did say tires disintegrate in water. "Some disintegrate in water."

Somorin,

Where did I mention drag race? Where did that come from? Sir, I used Youtube links to convey a point once. This saved me from going into extreme points to make an explanation. I don't waste time learning about cars off Youtube neither do I read opinions or journalistic write-ups. Humbly, my level of understanding concerning the motor vehicle is very high and it is analytical. I carry out my independent research; even though I'm in the oil sector and it is quite expensive. The computational solvers that I use give no room for misunderstanding and are aerospece/automotive grade. The company I work for has an automotive sector as well. We are on NL and I don't have to portray an advance knowledge of the motor vehicle. At this point, you have a duty to prove me wrong. If you are right, I will have to accept. If not, let it be.

I will not counter the racing point you made neither will I tell my experience with racing design. Many years of my life has been dedicated to automotive science and I am still in this engineering research beyond college level (professional level). This is not stitching parts and replacing components to make figures. I am referring to engineering. Nothing is learnt off the internet. There is a lot of math and simulations. I don't waste my time on the track trying to make a 6 figure run. There is nothing productive there but money wasted. Make arguments using aerodynamics, tyre dynamics, road gradients and strength of materials and so on; you will either be wrong or right. Don't insult anyone's intelligence; you don't know where people are coming from.

The fact still stands; you are not using race compounds. The burden is on you to prove that you are using one. Race compounds designed for dry land use with disintegrate in water. This is not rocket science and widely known. Prove me wrong on this. There is absolutely no way on earth race compounds will be used for a season. It's impossible. It's impossible to park a vehicle using race compounds for a few hours without cupping. Do some homework. You might as well start by learning how these tyres are made. I'll make it simpler for you - it's macromolecular chemistry. I've done a good job explaining myself. Ansys CAE is a good solver to use for engineering analysis (if you decide that far). I believe there is tyre simulation within its documentation.

Trac:

Somorin,

Where did I mention drag race? Where did that come from? Sir, I used Youtube links to convey a point once. This saved me from going into extreme points to make an explanation. I don't waste time learning about cars off Youtube neither do I read opinions or journalistic write-ups. Humbly, my level of understanding concerning the motor vehicle is very high and it is analytical. I carry out my independent research; even though I'm in the oil sector and it is quite expensive. The computational solvers that I use give no room for misunderstanding and are aerospece/automotive grade. The company I work for has an automotive sector as well. We are on NL and I don't have to portray an advance knowledge of the motor vehicle. At this point, you have a duty to prove me wrong. If you are right, I will have to accept. If not, let it be.

I will not counter the racing point you made neither will I tell my experience with racing design. Many years of my life has been dedicated to automotive science and I am still in this engineering research beyond college level (professional level). This is not stitching parts and replacing components to make figures. I am referring to engineering. Nothing is learnt off the internet. There is a lot of math and simulations. I don't waste my time on the track trying to make a 6 figure run. There is nothing productive there but money wasted. Make arguments using aerodynamics, tyre dynamics, road gradients and strength of materials and so on; you will either be wrong or right. Don't insult anyone's intelligence; you don't know where people are coming from.

The fact still stands; you are not using race compounds. The burden is on you to prove that you are using one. Race compounds designed for dry land use with disintegrate in water. This is not rocket science and widely known. Prove me wrong on this. There is absolutely no way on earth race compounds will be used for a season. It's impossible. It's impossible to park a vehicle using race compounds for a few hours without cupping. Do some homework. You might as well start by learning how these tyres are made. I'll make it simpler for you - it's macromolecular chemistry. I've done a good job explaining myself. Ansys CAE is a good solver to use for engineering analysis (if you decide that far). I believe there is tyre simulation within its documentation.

You don't pit crew for me so you don't know what compound I use.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your comments that certain tires disintegrate/melt in water.

if there is anything like water soluble rubber then tyre can disintegrate in water. I stand correct ed

yosmen: if there is anything like water soluble rubber then tyre can disintegrate in water. I stand correct ed

I agree that it is chemically possibly but I still want OP to show an existing tire that is made with water soluble materials.

Somorin#1:


You don't pit crew for me so you don't know what compound I use.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your comments that certain tires disintegrate/melt in water.

Ask your pit crew members the tyre you are using. The correct answer should be given.

It is very clear what is up. How are tyres made? This is a case of background; a lot is missing because you don't have an scientific and engineering background. That is why you are stumbling. Your background as stated in the cyclic-fatigue discussion is I.T. I can only explain so far. This is straight-up mechanical engineering and materials. I haven't started with the macro-molecular aspect; which you will not understand since you are having trouble with the jargons. Before you conclude about the source of all these, I am a mechanical engineer.

College: I was in the collegiate design-team for the design and development of the formula competition race-car that would compete at the Michigan international speedway. This is done under the department of mechanical engineering in many accredited universities across the United States and Canada. The whole chassis (including suspension) has to be designed, simulated and built by students. There are lots of calculations, lots of scientific principles to follow, regulations to comply with and petitions to sponsors (because it is very expensive). We can't view competition from the same perspective. I look at the motor vehicle different from you. Currently, I am working on my thesis on chassis-design systems and analysis.

I will greatly appreciate that you provide facts for facts and disprove with fact. If you understand the core-principles, then explain it. In response, I will be more than happy to learn.



-- Terminologies will always be a stumbling block for those that translate technical concepts literally.

Somorin#1:


I agree that it is chemically possibly but I still want OP to show an existing tire that is made with water soluble materials.

Who mentioned water-soluble tyres? Where do you come up with all these phenomenons. I doubt you know the derivatives. It is very clear where all the misunderstanding is coming from. Tell me how a tyre is constructed? What gives it the strengths of material?

All slicks designed for dry tarmac will disintegrate in water and release harmful substance that is toxic to man. That is the trade-off. I will answer you when you have come to terms with how rubber is put together and rubber specs for tyre production. You are not racing with race-compounds. If you are doing so (which is structurally-impossible from your claims), then you are cheating. Slicks are sort-of controlled and they don't cost a few hundreds in price. You can only use them for a few runs and have to be replaced. It is also illegal to use on U.S. street roads.

Nobody in their right mind would run dry race-compound spec tyres on a rainy day.

yosmen: if there is anything like water soluble rubber then tyre can disintegrate in water. I stand correct ed

It is not water-soluble as you describe. That approach is nothing to what is discussed. The tyre loses its bond of cohesion and the integrity is compromised; then it could shred or come apart. Disintegration is another scientific terminology which means loss in/of cohesion. Cohesion is another subject matter that will make this reply so complex. It is now obvious that I am speaking from an scientific and engineering approach; not layman's. Where tyres are dissolving is inapplicable to the discussion/thread (what-so-ever). Plus, I never used such word (if you look up the post). Macro-molecular chemistry is the discipline responsible for the creation and manufacturing of the tyres for the aerospace/ground vehicles. These rubber structures are used as well in the creation of your shoe soles. There is a slight manipulation for shoe-sole applications.

This tyres in question are called slicks; slicks because they are sticky (mechanical gearing + molecular adhesion). As you already understand, latex (natural-rubber - not rubber) is gotten from trees. This is the very base material. In this state, it is not useful for the objective in question. The chemist then manipulates its properties. I'll stop here because I have asked a question. Nevertheless, if you are interested, I will briefly explain the macro-molecular chemical construction of the tyre and its mechanical properties. -- and yes, tyres perform under mechanical loadings. The tyre (rubber) can also be plotted under a stress/strain graph to interpret conditions.

Na wa o! Water don pass Gari, kasala come burst

Trac:

Ask your pit crew members the tyre you are using. The correct answer should be given.

It is very clear what is up. How are tyres made? This is a case of background; a lot is missing because you don't have an scientific and engineering background. That is why you are stumbling. Your background as stated in the cyclic-fatigue discussion is I.T. I can only explain so far. This is straight-up mechanical engineering and materials. I haven't started with the macro-molecular aspect; which you will not understand since you are having trouble with the jargons. Before you conclude about the source of all these, I am a mechanical engineer.

College: I was in the collegiate design-team for the design and development of the formula competition race-car that would compete at the Michigan international speedway. This is done under the department of mechanical engineering in many accredited universities across the United States and Canada. The whole chassis (including suspension) has to be designed, simulated and built by students. There are lots of calculations, lots of scientific principles to follow, regulations to comply with and petitions to sponsors (because it is very expensive). We can't view competition from the same perspective. I look at the motor vehicle different from you. Currently, I am working on my thesis on chassis-design systems and analysis.

I will greatly appreciate that you provide facts for facts and disprove with fact. If you understand the core-principles, then explain it. In response, I will be more than happy to learn.



-- Terminologies will always be a stumbling block for those that translate technical concepts literally.



Who mentioned water-soluble tyres? Where do you come up with all these phenomenons. I doubt you know the derivatives. It is very clear where all the misunderstanding is coming from. Tell me how a tyre is constructed? What gives it the strengths of material?

All slicks designed for dry tarmac will disintegrate in water and release harmful substance that is toxic to man. That is the trade-off. I will answer you when you have come to terms with how rubber is put together and rubber specs for tyre production. You are not racing with race-compounds. If you are doing so (which is structurally-impossible from your claims), then you are cheating. Slicks are sort-of controlled and they don't cost a few hundreds in price. You can only use them for a few runs and have to be replaced. It is also illegal to use on U.S. street roads.

Nobody in their right mind would run dry race-compound spec tyres on a rainy day.



It is not water-soluble as you describe. That approach is nothing to what is discussed. The tyre loses its bond of cohesion and the integrity is compromised; then it could shred or come apart. Disintegration is another scientific terminology which means loss in/of cohesion. Cohesion is another subject matter that will make this reply so complex. It is now obvious that I am speaking from an scientific and engineering approach; not layman's. Where tyres are dissolving is inapplicable to the discussion/thread (what-so-ever). Plus, I never used such word (if you look up the post). Macro-molecular chemistry is the discipline responsible for the creation and manufacturing of the tyres for the aerospace/ground vehicles. These rubber structures are used as well in the creation of your shoe soles. There is a slight manipulation for shoe-sole applications.

This tyres in question are called slicks; slicks because they are sticky (mechanical gearing + molecular adhesion). As you already understand, latex (natural-rubber - not rubber) is gotten from trees. This is the very base material. In this state, it is not useful for the objective in question. The chemist then manipulates its properties. I'll stop here because I have asked a question. Nevertheless, if you are interested, I will briefly explain the macro-molecular chemical construction of the tyre and its mechanical properties. -- and yes, tyres perform under mechanical loadings. The tyre (rubber) can also be plotted under a stress/strain graph to interpret conditions.

Where is the picture of the water soluble tire Sir?

You can dance and prance around the subject but I await just the one request I have for you. Picture of the water solubel tire you alluded to in the beginning.

You can't produce it or back it up so you use wayo wayo eyinbo and flim flam google/youtube hack data.

PS: By the way, you can stop with your thinly veiled weak attempts to insult me. I am not one of your minions so I am immune.

I like this section, lots of good educative data. Waiting for your contribution.

Somorin#1:


Where is the picture of the water soluble tire Sir?

You can dance and prance around the subject but I await just the one request I have for you. Picture of the water solubel tire you alluded to in the beginning.

You can't produce it or back it up so you use wayo wayo eyinbo and flim flam google/youtube hack data.

PS: By the way, you can stop with your thinly veiled weak attempts to insult me. I am not one of your minions so I am immune.

I like this section, lots of good educative data. Waiting for your contribution.

Everything is in script. It's all self-explained. You have cognitively displayed your scientific and cognitive aptitude. It's of no benefit to you because you lack the scientific and engineering background. Then you use terms not associated. How do you expect me to relate to you? You don't know how much you've displayed of yourself. The scientific aptitude is not there and you openly displayed it. A word of caution (so you don't portray such in the real world): pictures and videos are never used to portray scientific principles. Laws, theorems, principles and the combination of one or more of the mentioned are used to portray phenomenons. Pictures/videos are used as permissible supplemental reference (in other words, after the fact(s)).

It must also pass a minimum of three tests to be made a surety. This way, there can never be argument because science respects no one (not even you).

Where did I say water-soluble? Where? Not one sentence did I imply water-soluble nor mentions such cobbler. Then again, I understand how you ended there. I don't owe you anything. The burden is up to you to prove me wrong; that will require having an understanding of what I am talking about. You have only succeeded in accusing me of what I did not say. Consequentially, it has come to your knowledge that the word in question was erroneously comprehended as oppose to rectification; yet you fail to re-align. A simple dictionary would have prevented all this mess and the case would have been closed. A dictionary!

You can be high-mind; for all I care. You did so with Siena and the subscriber (MD_Autotec) with his 17 years of direct experience. A person with a biology background will not make the statements you made nor ask the questions; how much more sciences - all across. You were presented with facts but you never gave in return. You never discredit people when you lack the fundamental references to base a counter.

You either take what I have stated with a grain of salt and mind your business or you educate yourself and speak intellectually on the subject. That is how civilised people communicate. Give your counter-facts. Do you think the other subscribers to this thread are stupid? Do you think they can't comprehend scientific terms? They can sift cobblers from common-sense.

Nobody owes you information - that's the problem with the google-generation. That's your duty. You are demanding regurgitated information. My post was deliberately unprocessed. There are only two classes of people; those that understand and those that don't.


To make things easier for you:

http://www.astm.org/Standards/rubber-standards.html

Do the rest of the work yourself. The answer is there but will require effort on your part. If you want to question any of the integrity [presented], that is the international standard. Nobody will listen to you. Acquire some understanding!

If I am to respond to you tit-for-tat for one of your remarks, you will not like what I will say. This will be irrespective of what your response will be. You are pushing this beyond the cordial phase and there are limits. I understand people come from different backgrounds with different challenges and I respect everyone; indiscriminately. Stifle yourself! You may not be lucky with another person.

Sadly, I've learnt nothing from you; neither has the thread gotten anything of substance from you.

@Somorin,


For your sake and the rest following (the thread), I have gotten one proposition from the Dutch Polymer Institute NL, excerpts from Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH's Documentationn (Continental Tires) on Tyre Damage, an incorrect paper and two web pages. The Dutch proposition is enough to answer all your question. The offending word is "disintegrate"; isn't it? Let see who the ignorant was: the so-called that "knows" it all.

Pick your flavour:
-- * scientific paper
-- * technical documentation by a tyre manufacturing company (Continental tires)
-- * a paper partly erroneous by a college graduate
-- * a technical article by a qualified BMW enthusiast that proves with facts
-- * or a webpage that belongs to a manufacturing company


I suppose they were all half-awake or completely unelightened to have used the word "disintegrate" and lacked the understanding of rubber-mechanics. You are free to write and publish your own interpretation.

I've defended myself (as you have charged) using science and references; the burden is up to you. If you can't, then as far as I am concerned, it's all in print (including the faux pas') and this conversation is over.


References:
Research Programme of the Dutch Polymer Institute NL Prj 459 p.9 && 10 -----(first image)
Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH - Tyre Damage, p.12 && 14 -------------(third image)
The rest is linked.

This is the remaining two. I will strongly counsel you reconsider your thoughts on the subject. In addition, epithets are held to great emphases. Also pay attention to table 3.3.

Case is closed. If you have further information, the State University is in the city you reside. The library will give you further information in-depth as well as existing patents.

There are no further comments.

Trac: This is the remaining two. I will strongly counsel you reconsider your thoughts on the subject. In addition, epithets are held to great emphases. Also pay attention to table 3.3.

Case is closed. If you have further information, the State University is in the city you reside. The library will give you further information in-depth as well as existing patents.

There are no further comments.

This is still hogwash and a complete red herring.

What you said was " tires that melt/disintegrate in water". I asked you for the proof. You have yet to establish proof. I know it titillates you to prance around the net snipping articles in an attempt to bolster your false position but it simply won't work.

Your type is exactly what is wrong with Nigeria. You come across as having some education, to some point anyways, but instead of using your capacity to enrich co forumers you are going on elaborate missions to spread negatives.

Again, Sir, where is the evidence of a tire that disintegrated in water?

When you post that specific evidence that I ask for I will apologize to you and promptly vacate NairaLand. Are you secure enough in your position to make as such?

@somorin,

It seems your brain is simply incapable of processing simple/common english. Is it the word "melt" that's got your panties in a twist ?! You just added disintegrate to it now and you still don't get it ?! Or is your brain telling you that if you just pick a tyre and put it inside water it will just melt like icecream on a hot plate. Haba !!!

@trac,
Please kindly don't waste your breath as it seems somorin is too dense to understand your simple explanations and use of english. I can assure you others have benefited and understood your points. Was getting pissed reading the same thrash uttered by him day in day out.