http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2463.asp
New Camera Issues Tire Tread Tickets
Tire tread measuring system promises to mail tickets to motorists for tire tread that is a fraction of an inch too short.
Now that speed cameras use is established in Europe and parts of the US, the concept of automated ticketing is beginning to expand far beyond moving violations. Already, automated ticketing machines are deployed in the US to hit vehicles that overstay in a parking spot by a minute or that have excessive tailpipe emissions. The newest addition to this growing list is camera that scans the tires of passing cars and mails tickets if the depth of the tire tread is deficient by a fraction of an inch. Although not currently deployed, the German company ProContour hopes to sell this system to state and local governments looking for a way out of tight budget situations with a positive, pro-safety message.
"Car tires are technically, the number one cause of car accidents in Germany," ProContour states on its website. "An average of four car accidents occur daily with personal injuries as the result of smooth or defective tires."
The company claims its combination of a laser and high-speed camera is capable of taking measurements at 430 million points on a tire each second. As the tire moves, the distance between the camera and the object changes allowing the system to create a three-dimensional profile of the tire. The software can then calculate not just the depth of the tread, but also whether the tire itself was designed for summer or winter use. The manufacturer has tested measurement accuracy at speeds of up to 75 MPH, but it believes the technology should work at even higher speeds.
European Union regulations authorize the imposition of a 100 Euro (US $160) ticket whenever the tread depth of one of a vehicle's four tires measures less than 1.6mm (0.06 inches). In Germany, drivers can also be ticketed for using tires that are "unsuitable." This means using a summer tire during the winter season carries a stiff fine -- ProContour hopes that fine will be automated.
Depending on its construction, a balding tire with low tread depth can actually have more grip in dry conditions and is not a safety hazard. That can change if it rains, however. The primary purpose of tire tread is to channel water away from the tire so that it maintains contact with the road. The combination of high water and low tread depth can lead to aquaplaning and loss of vehicle control.
ProContour's system can be used in both fixed and mobile locations and is available in an easy-to-hide configuration.
:banghead:
Yeah, I seriously doubt that system could be at all reliable.
:rage:
How can it calculate exactly how much tread all 4 of your tires have as you zoom by it? Especially if there are many cars on the road?
And how does it know where you live?
Quote"Tire tread measuring system promises to mail tickets to motorists for tire tread that is a fraction of an inch too short"
Who the hell writes this stuff? I don't know of many passenger tires which have a tread depth of more than 12/32 of an inch to begin with. Even deep-treaded tractor trailer drive tires don't usually exceed an inch of tread depth. Seeing as that is a fraction of an inch to begin with, tread that is too short would have to be a fraction of an inch by default.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 12, 2008, 04:29:50 PM
:rage:
And how does it know where you live?
Um, license plate number kind of tells who owns the vehicle and where they live?
Why are all tire tread measurements listed in 32nds anyways? They all say things like 12/32 or 10/32. Umm, what happened to 3/8ths and 5/16ths?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 12, 2008, 04:40:57 PM
Why are all tire tread measurements listed in 32nds anyways? They all say things like 12/32 or 10/32. Umm, what happened to 3/8ths and 5/16ths?
Because it would confuse people looking at tires if one tire said they had 5/16s of tread and another said 11/32s and a third said 3/8s. The less math-savvy would have to do some head scratching to figure out which had more tread. Americans aren't known for their math skills to boot. Put all of the fractions with the same denominator and then folks know that the one with the bigger number on top has the most tread. No need to convert fractions.
The better question would be why tire sizes list the section width in millimeters, but the rim diameter is in given in inches.
Heck man, they used to use letters!
Hay thar, I got sum new DOT-legal tires. Gimme a tikit plz!
(http://www.vetteracer.net/About_Pages/The_Car/Media/ku_ecsta_v710_ci2_l.jpg)
Quote from: NACar on July 12, 2008, 08:04:33 PM
Hay thar, I got sum new DOT-legal tires. Gimme a tikit plz!
(http://www.vetteracer.net/About_Pages/The_Car/Media/ku_ecsta_v710_ci2_l.jpg)
Those are not intended for highway use.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 12, 2008, 08:25:50 PM
Those are not intended for highway use.
No, but they are DOT-approved.
Is this really necessary? If you want more taxes, just take more from income/property taxes.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 12, 2008, 08:36:52 PM
Is this really necessary? If you want more taxes, just take more from income/property taxes.
I think we should be taxed on how many revolutions our crankshafts make.
Quote from: NACar on July 12, 2008, 08:40:21 PM
I think we should be taxed on how many revolutions our crankshafts make.
I'm buying an RX8 then.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 12, 2008, 08:36:52 PM
Is this really necessary? If you want more taxes, just take more from income/property taxes.
I would really not want to subsidize people driving on bad tires.
If this works well, I'd be all for it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 12, 2008, 08:30:18 PM
No, but they are DOT-approved.
The tire has to have a minumum of 2/32's of tread for it to be legal. Whether or not the DOT approves it is besides the point- gotta have the proper amount of tread to be streetable.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 12, 2008, 08:36:52 PM
Is this really necessary? If you want more taxes, just take more from income/property taxes.
:confused:
Seriously- if they're doing this for safety purposes then fine but otherwise it's pretty stupid. I can't believe a company would say they're hoping to sell it to governments who want to make money- that just means it;s only a revenue generator and not a safety issue. If that's the case- it shouldn't be allwoed.
Quote from: NACar on July 13, 2008, 08:33:14 AM
:nutty: I'm getting a TDI.
an RX8 has an eccentric shaft... not a crankshaft... so i'm crankshaft tax free :lol:
Quote from: rohan on July 13, 2008, 06:21:46 AM
The tire has to have a minumum of 2/32's of tread for it to be legal. Whether or not the DOT approves it is besides the point- gotta have the proper amount of tread to be streetable.
:confused:
Then those are streetable, because they have the recommended depth of tread, in the legally required tread grooves. I drove quite a bit on tires very similar to those (made by Yokahama) and they worked better in the rain than my all season tires with a lot of "regular" tread. Why? because rubber compound is as or more important for grip, even in the rain. Soft rubber wears out faster, but it warms up and sticks and acts like a squeegee in the wet, whereas harder rubber tends to slide around on wet surfaces, even if there's good siping to evacuate the water.
QuoteI can't believe a company would say they're hoping to sell it to governments who want to make money- that just means it;s only a revenue generator and not a safety issue. If that's the case- it shouldn't be allwoed.
Agreed.
Quote from: NACar on July 12, 2008, 04:11:53 PM
Already, automated ticketing machines are deployed in the US to hit vehicles that overstay in a parking spot by a minute or that have excessive tailpipe emissions.
How the hell would they know this?!
Quote from: ChrisV on July 14, 2008, 07:56:18 AM
Then those are streetable, because they have the recommended depth of tread, in the legally required tread grooves. I drove quite a bit on tires very similar to those (made by Yokahama) and they worked better in the rain than my all season tires with a lot of "regular" tread. Why? because rubber compound is as or more important for grip, even in the rain. Soft rubber wears out faster, but it warms up and sticks and acts like a squeegee in the wet, whereas harder rubber tends to slide around on wet surfaces, even if there's good siping to evacuate the water.
But wouldn't it be more difficult to warm up those tires more sufficiently to receive anywhere close to optimal performance on the streets?
Quote from: NomisR on July 14, 2008, 10:51:55 AM
But wouldn't it be more difficult to warm up those tires more sufficiently to receive anywhere close to optimal performance on the streets?
That's the point. With soft rubber compound, they heat up faster. In fact, the A008RSiis and Hoosier Autocrossers HAVE to heat up very rapidly and at relatively low speeds. they dont' have 5 laps to get up to temperature. But even DOT road race tires stick better by far at road speed than the average performance street tire or all season tire. It's why they don't last for 20-30-50k miles.
I have this feeling that the people they are targeting who actually have "bad tires" probably don't have the money to pay for the ticket then replace the tires right after.
Quote from: Danish on July 14, 2008, 07:58:10 AM
How the hell would they know this?!
The same kind of gas detectors that NASA and the military use to tell if something has specific gases or not. Man- if
I know the answer to a question like that then EVERYONE should know it! :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2008, 06:58:22 AM
an RX8 has an eccentric shaft... not a crankshaft... so i'm crankshaft tax free :lol:
I obviously didn't catch that one. Damn loopholes. Who writes these stupid laws? :rolleyes:
Quote from: NACar on July 14, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
I obviously didn't catch that one. Damn loopholes. Who writes these stupid laws? :rolleyes:
a clueless politician governing over something he doesnt have expertise in of course!
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2008, 04:59:42 PM
a clueless politician governing over something he doesnt have expertise in of course!
Isn't that all of them?
That's pretty cool technology. Bald tires are a safety hazard, so I would support this kind of thing over automated parking or speeding tickets, but automated tickets are pretty stupid anyhow.
Quote from: rohan on July 13, 2008, 06:21:46 AM
The tire has to have a minumum of 2/32's of tread for it to be legal. Whether or not the DOT approves it is besides the point- gotta have the proper amount of tread to be streetable.
:confused:
Umm, the DOT won't approve the tire unless it has 1/8th inch of tread when its new. That's "4/32nds" in "stupid tire terminology speak."
I could run a beadlock off-road tire with over an inch of tread on it, but still be technically illegal because beadlocks are not DOT approved.
Sooner or later we won't have traffic cops, just stupid cameras every 2 feet.
:banghead: :rage: :heated:
Oh yeah, and would the cameras be able to tell that these tires are legal?
http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/overview/g-force-r1/3824.html
(http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/images/ts-dl/tires/details/g-force-r1.jpg)
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 17, 2008, 07:44:26 PM
Sooner or later we won't have traffic cops, just stupid cameras every 2 feet.
:banghead: :rage: :heated:
By then, I hope someone will have invented invisible paint. :lol:
Believe it or not, I agree with the use of these things... but under slightly different conditions.
Instead of being fined, motorists caught with worn tires would be issued a "defect notice" directing them to replace the offending tires and return to the local PD for inspection within a certain timeframe to ensure that the work had been completed. If they didn't report THEN the fine would be issued.
A much more useful tool would be annual safety inspections, such as are found in many eastern states, which includes an assessment of tire tread depth and remaining life.
This automated system seems like it couldn't possibly be foolproof.
Quote from: dsred on July 22, 2008, 05:39:42 PM
Believe it or not, I agree with the use of these things... but under slightly different conditions.
Instead of being fined, motorists caught with worn tires would be issued a "defect notice" directing them to replace the offending tires and return to the local PD for inspection within a certain timeframe to ensure that the work had been completed. If they didn't report THEN the fine would be issued.
That is far more reasonable, especially considering again that the system may not be flawless.
No kidding. Exactly like busted taillights and such.
Isn't it required by law to give someone a fix-it ticket before a fine?
Quote from: Tave on July 25, 2008, 02:11:15 PM
No kidding. Exactly like busted taillights and such.
Isn't it required by law to give someone a fix-it ticket before a fine?
May vary by state, but I always thought that equipment violations usually got thrown out if you fixed the problem within so many days of being cited for a violation.
Quote from: Tave on July 25, 2008, 02:11:15 PM
No kidding. Exactly like busted taillights and such.
Isn't it required by law to give someone a fix-it ticket before a fine?
Not in some states; and this system is for European use anyways, so...
?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 25, 2008, 03:47:04 PM
Not in some states; and this system is for European use anyways, so...
?
I realize that. People were batting around the idea of its use in the States.
Quote from: Tave on July 25, 2008, 04:13:26 PM
I realize that. People were batting around the idea of its use in the States.
I varies by state. In Michigan at least, if an officer sees a busted taillight on a parked car, its an equipment violation. If he sees a faulty taillight on a moving car on a public road- or other improper lighting- it can be a moving violation, and there's a fine and points whether you fix it or not.
Ouch. Out here they just give you a written warning, and after a certain amount of time (a week or two), you can be fined if they pull you over again and you haven't fixed it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 12, 2008, 04:16:42 PM
Yeah, I seriously doubt that system could be at all reliable.
Who cares??? It will definitely make a lot of money!
Quote from: sportyaccordy on July 27, 2008, 06:24:49 PM
Who cares??? It will definitely make a lot of money!
It has to be hellaciously expensive. If it can't provide reliable evidence, you can't write tickets based on what it says.
Quote from: R-inge on July 22, 2008, 06:40:23 PM
A much more useful tool would be annual safety inspections, such as are found in many eastern states, which includes an assessment of tire tread depth and remaining life.
This automated system seems like it couldn't possibly be foolproof.
Not 100%, but have you seen some of the automated quality control checking systems used in industry (watch a few episodes of How It's made)? Some of those systems check hundreds or thousands of units a minute with near perfect accuracy.
I agree with annual inspections and also like dsred's idea of using this as a compliance tool instead of a revenue generator.
Quote from: Byteme on July 28, 2008, 08:41:45 AM
Not 100%, but have you seen some of the automated quality control checking systems used in industry (watch a few episodes of How It's made)? Some of those systems check hundreds or thousands of units a minute with near perfect accuracy.
I agree with annual inspections and also like dsred's idea of using this as a compliance tool instead of a revenue generator.
There are several such systems at my place of work. The best of which checks 60,000+ parts per hour. It works very well when its properly set up- but that's a 200,000 dollar machine checking identical parts in a controlled environment that needs regular attention; and it checks them from about 4 inches away.
When it screws up, it causes a hell of a mess.
Its not trying to identify thousands of different tires randomly placed at varying speeds in wind, rain and sleet from a safe distance.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 29, 2008, 12:19:51 AM
There are several such systems at my place of work. The best of which checks 60,000+ parts per hour. It works very well when its properly set up- but that's a 200,000 dollar machine checking identical parts in a controlled environment that needs regular attention; and it checks them from about 4 inches away.
When it screws up, it causes a hell of a mess.
Its not trying to identify thousands of different tires randomly placed at varying speeds in wind, rain and sleet from a safe distance.
I'll bet it does. What does it check?
I would believe it is possible to build a reasonably reliable machine to measure tire depth on a moving car. The article pretty much says it has been built.
Is it socially desirable to deploy them to generate revenue? Not in my opinion.
Could it be useful in helping make the roads safer? Yes.
You know, as with everything road related, it would simply cost less in the long run to educate drivers better. And it would be more effective, as well.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 29, 2008, 11:29:08 AM
You know, as with everything road related, it would simply cost less in the long run to educate drivers better. And it would be more effective, as well.
Yeah but if you can't generate revenue from having more educated drivers. Sure you can charge for educating them but it still won't be worth as much as ticketing everything and everyone.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 29, 2008, 11:29:08 AM
You know, as with everything road related, it would simply cost less in the long run to educate drivers better. And it would be more effective, as well.
Hey, you and I agree on this one.
Quote from: Byteme on July 29, 2008, 07:17:04 AM
I'll bet it does. What does it check?
Among other things, the sealing surface on soda bottles. A stray fly landing on the lense will cause it to reject every single part- if somebody is right there watching it, no big deal- shut off the loading and wipe it off.
If not, well- do you have any idea what a pile of 30,000 20 oz bottles looks like?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 29, 2008, 12:43:27 PM
Among other things, the sealing surface on soda bottles. A stray fly landing on the lense will cause it to reject every single part- if somebody is right there watching it, no big deal- shut off the loading and wipe it off.
If not, well- do you have any idea what a pile of 30,000 20 oz bottles looks like?
Interesting. Thanks.
I can only imagine what a mess 30,000 bottles would be. Filled and uncapped or empty?
A lot of that industrial imaging inspection equipment however is 2D...
I think it would only work if tire makers included some sort of wear sensor that would signifying end of tire life; a marker that would easily be picked up by 1D laser or RF for example.
In short not an inspection, as the "inspection" would be taken care of by the sensor (that trips when exposed to oxygen?), leaving only a digital signal (i.e., good/bad) signal to be easily gotten by whatever tracking process.
The thing also in, in automated manufacturing situations, the environment is more or less "controlled". At least it's more so than the real world environment where you so so many different variables, it's impossible to have close to 100% accuracy.
Quote from: NomisR on July 30, 2008, 10:56:02 AM
The thing also in, in automated manufacturing situations, the environment is more or less "controlled". At least it's more so than the real world environment where you so so many different variables, it's impossible to have close to 100% accuracy.
True, and I can see the merit of a system that spots a bald tire or a tire with the cords showing through ande gives notice.
Where I would be concerned is jurisdictions putting revenue before safety. Just what constitutes an unsafe amount of tread left? Tire manufacturer's recommendations. Click and Clack saying measure the tread depth with a penny? Some arbitrary measurement dreamed up by a beurocrat who doesn't even know how to check the oil in a car?
And I can picture a jusisdiction changing the standard to increase revenue. Just like the length of yellow lights are changed when red light cameras are installed.
I just don't see the need for this period.
You could argue that a vehicle is harder to control in the rain/snow with less tread depth, but that's kind of a slippery slope. There's no laws currently requiring snow tires, 4WD, etc. in Michigan.
Why should I care if someone is running on worn tires in the middle of July when you can "run whatcha brung" in the winter?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 30, 2008, 02:47:15 PM
I just don't see the need for this period.
You could argue that a vehicle is harder to control in the rain/snow with less tread depth, but that's kind of a slippery slope. There's no laws currently requiring snow tires, 4WD, etc. in Michigan.
Why should I care if someone is running on worn tires in the middle of July when you can "run whatcha brung" in the winter?
You might care if the guy running his bald tires on a wet road loses control and slams into you.
Just pointing out that someone's poor judgement on when to replace worn out tires can affect others.
He could slam into you without having worn tires. Hard compound tires don't stick any better in the wet, even with good tread.
An example: my RX7 with nearly new BF Goodrich Comp T/As woudl spin the tires easily in the rain, and was slippery to drive in the wet. With the "visibly bald" A008 RSIIs on it, it woudl NOT spin the tires and woudl launch and stil pull over .8Gs in the wet. A much softer compound that heated up even in the rain and squeegeed the water out. But which one would the general public and these tire cameras think were bald and unsafe in the rain?
Quote from: ChrisV on July 31, 2008, 10:41:10 AM
He could slam into you without having worn tires. Hard compound tires don't stick any better in the wet, even with good tread.
An example: my RX7 with nearly new BF Goodrich Comp T/As woudl spin the tires easily in the rain, and was slippery to drive in the wet. With the "visibly bald" A008 RSIIs on it, it woudl NOT spin the tires and woudl launch and stil pull over .8Gs in the wet. A much softer compound that heated up even in the rain and squeegeed the water out. But which one would the general public and these tire cameras think were bald and unsafe in the rain?
The tire cameras wouldn't catch an out of balance tire or a tire with a thrown belt or a tire with an improperly applied patch either. That doesn't mean the camrea wouldn't have value though.
Quote from: Byteme on July 31, 2008, 06:58:20 AM
You might care if the guy running his bald tires on a wet road loses control and slams into you.
Just pointing out that someone's poor judgement on when to replace worn out tires can affect others.
What if he's got full tread depth, but he's driving a Dodge Dakota pulling a trailer and then slams into you? Should we make Dodge Dakotas illegal since they're heavy and the brakes are shit?
Quote from: Byteme on July 30, 2008, 11:05:04 AM
True, and I can see the merit of a system that spots a bald tire or a tire with the cords showing through ande gives notice.
Where I would be concerned is jurisdictions putting revenue before safety. Just what constitutes an unsafe amount of tread left? Tire manufacturer's recommendations. Click and Clack saying measure the tread depth with a penny? Some arbitrary measurement dreamed up by a beurocrat who doesn't even know how to check the oil in a car?
And I can picture a jusisdiction changing the standard to increase revenue. Just like the length of yellow lights are changed when red light cameras are installed.
In NYS (and I suspect other places that have annual safety inspections), the minimum allowable tread depth is 2/32 of an inch. This is also roughly the distance from the edge of a penny to the top of Lincoln's head (which is where they little tread depth checking method came from).
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 31, 2008, 02:05:37 PM
What if he's got full tread depth, but he's driving a Dodge Dakota pulling a trailer and then slams into you? Should we make Dodge Dakotas illegal since they're heavy and the brakes are shit?
What if Jack the Ripper springs back to life and kills us all. My original response was to a comment regarding worn tires. "Why should I care if someone is running on worn tires in the middle of July when you can "run whatcha brung" in the winter?
" In fact it was your comment.
And all I said was I could see the usefulness of such a camera. That statement doesn't imply endorsement of its deployment.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 31, 2008, 10:41:10 AM
He could slam into you without having worn tires. Hard compound tires don't stick any better in the wet, even with good tread.
An example: my RX7 with nearly new BF Goodrich Comp T/As woudl spin the tires easily in the rain, and was slippery to drive in the wet. With the "visibly bald" A008 RSIIs on it, it woudl NOT spin the tires and woudl launch and stil pull over .8Gs in the wet. A much softer compound that heated up even in the rain and squeegeed the water out. But which one would the general public and these tire cameras think were bald and unsafe in the rain?
Honestly though, how many people are driving around on short track gumballs?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 31, 2008, 07:51:32 PM
Honestly though, how many people are driving around on short track gumballs?
Maybe more people should be.
I mean, those are the most important part of the car when it comes to 1) delivering power, 2) agility and avoiding obstacles, and 3) braking. But instead, it's the part that people most often cheap out on just to get even more miles out of them, essentially driving on black rings of teflon, and then they wonder why they can't stop fast enough or slide off the road so easily.
My point was that just making sure that those black bits of teflon have some "legal" tread on them will not ensure that Joe Average on $39.95 "on the rim and out the door" tires won't slide into you in the wet.
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2008, 02:09:50 PM
Maybe more people should be.
I mean, those are the most important part of the car when it comes to 1) delivering power, 2) agility and avoiding obstacles, and 3) braking. But instead, it's the part that people most often cheap out on just to get even more miles out of them, essentially driving on black rings of teflon, and then they wonder why they can't stop fast enough or slide off the road so easily.
My point was that just making sure that those black bits of teflon have some "legal" tread on them will not ensure that Joe Average on $39.95 "on the rim and out the door" tires won't slide into you in the wet.
That's people's mentality today. If they can't stop, it must be the brakes. Nobody ever think about the only thing that's keeping them on the road is 4 small patches no bigger than a letter sized paper.
Quote from: NomisR on July 29, 2008, 11:55:19 AM
Yeah but if you can't generate revenue from having more educated drivers. Sure you can charge for educating them but it still won't be worth as much as ticketing everything and everyone.
Which I doubt, in Germany the fees collected by the state for your drivers license are about $600 plus all the licensing and taxes from the mandatory driving training in certified driving schools. I know very little people that payed more than $ 1000 in tickets.
That said the German government will be running for this system like crazy, I can already see the state personell getting all excited (if something like this even exist) and calculating revenue streams.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 25, 2008, 04:17:59 PM
I varies by state. In Michigan at least, if an officer sees a busted taillight on a parked car, its an equipment violation. If he sees a faulty taillight on a moving car on a public road- or other improper lighting- it can be a moving violation, and there's a fine and points whether you fix it or not.
Nope. A busted taillight on a parked car is just a busted taillight on a parked car and we can't do anything about it. If I see a busted light on a "moving" car then I can either write a fix-it-ticket for "defective equipment"
OR
I can write a ticket for "Fail to maintain equipment" which is a moving violation- depends on my mood.
There are fines for both- but with the R&R ticket if you fix it it's waivable if you don't there's a fine. The FME ticket has fines and points if you fix it or don't.
and then if you don't have the proper tread depth you get a "defective tires" ticket which is the same thing as a FME ticket it's just got it's own section numbers.
Quote from: Byteme on July 28, 2008, 08:41:45 AM
I agree with annual inspections and also like dsred's idea of using this as a compliance tool instead of a revenue generator.
But his idea once again would cost time and money for already overstretched police departments. It may be a great idea but where's themoney going to come from to train and certify officers to perform these inspections? I'm just guessing but in most states officers can't do anything unless they've been trained for that specific task if it's not already covered as part of the basic police academy.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 31, 2008, 10:41:10 AM
He could slam into you without having worn tires. Hard compound tires don't stick any better in the wet, even with good tread.
An example: my RX7 with nearly new BF Goodrich Comp T/As woudl spin the tires easily in the rain, and was slippery to drive in the wet. With the "visibly bald" A008 RSIIs on it, it woudl NOT spin the tires and woudl launch and stil pull over .8Gs in the wet. A much softer compound that heated up even in the rain and squeegeed the water out. But which one would the general public and these tire cameras think were bald and unsafe in the rain?
You keep talking about this sqeegee effect but if it's so good why do race cars either stop in rain or switch to treaded rain tires?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 30, 2008, 02:47:15 PM
You could argue that a vehicle is harder to control in the rain/snow with less tread depth, but that's kind of a slippery slope. There's no laws currently requiring snow tires, 4WD, etc. in Michigan.
You don't have to argue it- it's fact in the snow and pretty much true in rain- well atleast deep water type rain.
QuoteWhy should I care if someone is running on worn tires in the middle of July when you can "run whatcha brung" in the winter?
Two words- heat dissipation- because tires made to run on the tread heat up well over intended amounts when they run on the core materials because street tires aren't meant to run bald. they're also more likely to have a rapid flat at highway speed.
Quote from: NomisR on August 01, 2008, 06:09:33 PM
That's people's mentality today. If they can't stop, it must be the brakes. Nobody ever think about the only thing that's keeping them on the road is 4 small patches no bigger than a letter sized paper.
Actually - it's half of a letter sized piece of paper if they're anywhere near proper inflation. Remember when you start spinning a tire it gets taller and narrower.
Quote from: rohan on August 31, 2008, 08:13:08 AM
You keep talking about this sqeegee effect but if it's so good why do race cars either stop in rain or switch to treaded rain tires?
Because race cars are going faster than legal speeds. In order to make the squeegee effect go away, you have to be going MUCH faster than teh posted limits. So on the STREET, it is a real effect.
Not hard to figure out, my friend.
How much rain experience do YOU have on DOT legal race tires? (which, BTW, DO have tread patterns, just very minimal ones)
Quote from: rohan on August 31, 2008, 08:19:49 AM
Actually - it's half of a letter sized piece of paper if they're anywhere near proper inflation. Remember when you start spinning a tire it gets taller and narrower.
You've been watching too many top fuel drag cars take off. Street and road race tires don't balloon up any measurable amount at anywhere NEAR highway speeds at proper inflation.
Quote from: ChrisV on August 31, 2008, 09:08:16 AM
Because race cars are going faster than legal speeds. In order to make the squeegee effect go away, you have to be going MUCH faster than teh posted limits. So on the STREET, it is a real effect.
Not hard to figure out, my friend.
How much rain experience do YOU have on DOT legal race tires? (which, BTW, DO have tread patterns, just very minimal ones)
You've been watching too many top fuel drag cars take off. Street and road race tires don't balloon up any measurable amount at anywhere NEAR highway speeds at proper inflation.
You're right- I have no knowledge on tire behavior. :rolleyes: Apparently - race tires are unaffected by simple laws of physics then. :rolleyes: Never said they balloon up like top fuel dragsters- but nice using themost extreme example you could think of. They do grow taller and narrower as they go faster- 2000 rpms has a tendancy to do that. Teh normal passenger car street tire only has a contact patch of about 1/2 the width of a sheet of paper- take that to the bank. And Sticky or not no sipes means water builds up under the tires adn lifts the tires off the ground creating cusion of water and a condition most call "hydroplaning" especially in deeper water (more than an inch)- not to hard to figure out my friend.
Quote from: rohan on August 31, 2008, 09:16:52 AM
They do grow taller and narrower as they go faster- 2000 rpms has a tendancy to do that.
Do you know how fast a car shod in typical sized tires would be going if the tires were spinning at 2000 RPM?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 30, 2008, 02:47:15 PM
I just don't see the need for this period.
You could argue that a vehicle is harder to control in the rain/snow with less tread depth, but that's kind of a slippery slope. There's no laws currently requiring snow tires, 4WD, etc. in Michigan.
Why should I care if someone is running on worn tires in the middle of July when you can "run whatcha brung" in the winter?
But there're laws prohibiting studded tires. :confused: That I never understood.
Quote from: MX793 on August 31, 2008, 06:45:50 PM
Do you know how fast a car shod in typical sized tires would be going if the tires were spinning at 2000 RPM?
Actually I was thinking in engine terms- you know like at 60-70mph.
Quote from: rohan on September 01, 2008, 07:04:16 AM
Actually I was thinking in engine terms- you know like at 60-70mph.
But the effects of centripetal acceleration making tires taller and narrower at speed depend on tire RPM, not engine RPM.
Quote from: MX793 on September 01, 2008, 08:12:53 AM
But the effects of centripetal acceleration making tires taller and narrower at speed depend on tire RPM, not engine RPM.
Understood - I'm saying i was thinking in terms of engine rpms when I wrote 2000rpms- I'm saying I should have picked a better way to write it.
Quote from: rohan on August 31, 2008, 08:09:39 AM
But his idea once again would cost time and money for already overstretched police departments. It may be a great idea but where's themoney going to come from to train and certify officers to perform these inspections? I'm just guessing but in most states officers can't do anything unless they've been trained for that specific task if it's not already covered as part of the basic police academy.
Police officers do the state vehicle inspections in your state?
Quote from: rohan on September 01, 2008, 07:04:16 AM
Actually I was thinking in engine terms- you know like at 60-70mph.
At 60 the typlcal tire is turning around 700-800 RPM, depending on the rolling diameter of course.
Quote from: NACar on July 12, 2008, 04:11:53 PM
European Union regulations authorize the imposition of a 100 Euro (US $160) ticket whenever the tread depth of one of a vehicle's four tires measures less than 1.6mm (0.06 inches).
The EU does not regulate traffic fines. That is entirely up to the individual nations.
They do regulate certain industrial standards (emissions, head lights etc) so that companies only have to certify products once instead of in each country.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 14, 2008, 07:56:18 AM
Then those are streetable, because they have the recommended depth of tread, in the legally required tread grooves. I drove quite a bit on tires very similar to those (made by Yokahama) and they worked better in the rain than my all season tires with a lot of "regular" tread. Why? because rubber compound is as or more important for grip, even in the rain. Soft rubber wears out faster, but it warms up and sticks and acts like a squeegee in the wet, whereas harder rubber tends to slide around on wet surfaces, even if there's good siping to evacuate the water.
Agreed.
Tires such as the ones pictured will be much, much more prone to aquaplaning then a regular tire. The grip a tire produces is irrelevant if water lifts it off the road.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 31, 2008, 07:01:21 PM
But there're laws prohibiting studded tires. :confused: That I never understood.
Studded tires have the capacity to severely damage the road surface, requiring far more frequent and costly repair.
Quote from: Byteme on September 02, 2008, 09:06:21 AM
Police officers do the state vehicle inspections in your state?
Yes, they do. And, only police officers are by statute allowed to "green sheet" (a green inspection sheet used here to determine if the vehicle is safe and roadworthy) vehicles.
Quote from: MX793 on August 31, 2008, 06:45:50 PM
Do you know how fast a car shod in typical sized tires would be going if the tires were spinning at 2000 RPM?
Because i can't ever pass up an opportunity to break out the pocket calculator- assuming a more-or-less normal 25 inch diameter tire (app. a 225/65-R15), 2000 RPM would yield 148.75 MPh.
Without accounting for diameter growth at speed.
Quote from: hounddog on September 03, 2008, 10:05:46 PM
Yes, they do. And, only police officers are by statute allowed to "green sheet" (a green inspection sheet used here to determine if the vehicle is safe and roadworthy) vehicles.
Down here, Texas, there are state licensed facilities;gas stations, repair shops, etc. who do the state vehicle insopections. You have to show proof of insurance before your car gets inspected. That doesn't mean much since they just look at the insurance card, check the dates of coverage, and then inspect. Insurance cards can be easily faked.
If the car is less than 25 years old it gets a emissions check as well. If it fails the emissions or safety check you don't get a sticker. An inspection, both safety and emissions, costs about $40; about $13 if the car doesn't require the emissions test.
You pass, the place a sticker on your windscreen. The cops don't see a sticker they can pull you over and ticket you for not having a current inspection.
I thought most states did this.
Quote from: Galaxy on September 02, 2008, 10:42:58 AM
Tires such as the ones pictured will be much, much more prone to aquaplaning then a regular tire. The grip a tire produces is irrelevant if water lifts it off the road.
So you've used them in the rain like I have?
Quote from: Byteme on September 05, 2008, 06:33:32 AM
Down here, Texas, there are state licensed facilities;gas stations, repair shops, etc. who do the state vehicle insopections. You have to show proof of insurance before your car gets inspected. That doesn't mean much since they just look at the insurance card, check the dates of coverage, and then inspect. Insurance cards can be easily faked.
If the car is less than 25 years old it gets a emissions check as well. If it fails the emissions or safety check you don't get a sticker. An inspection, both safety and emissions, costs about $40; about $13 if the car doesn't require the emissions test.
You pass, the place a sticker on your windscreen. The cops don't see a sticker they can pull you over and ticket you for not having a current inspection.
I thought most states did this.
Washington state has no safety inspection. The inspection here in MD only happens when a car is bought, not annually, and there is no sticker. And once a car is over 25 years old, it qualifies for historic plates, which don't require an inspection, either.
Interesting that the cars in most states most likely to be old and worn out are the ones that aren't required to have an inspection...
Washington state does have safety inspections however for vehicles bought out of state (performed by the State Patrol).
Quote from: ChrisV on September 11, 2008, 07:23:12 AM
Washington state has no safety inspection. The inspection here in MD only happens when a car is bought, not annually, and there is no sticker. And once a car is over 25 years old, it qualifies for historic plates, which don't require an inspection, either.
Interesting that the cars in most states most likely to be old and worn out are the ones that aren't required to have an inspection...
Down here cars with "Antique Auto" plates are exempt from the annual inspection process. But cars with those plates also have restrictions on how the car can be used, parades, car shows exhibition only. One can pay 15 more than normal registration and get a plate that says "Classic Car", but other than that being printed on the plate there is no advantage.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 11, 2008, 08:27:26 AM
Washington state does have safety inspections however for vehicles bought out of state (performed by the State Patrol).
Actually, the "safety inspection" in WA checks a very small number of things. Mainly it checks to see that the car and its parts are not stolen. It also checks basics like lighting and cracked windsheild. It does NOT look at rust, exhaust system integrity, or rubber bushings/brakes/wipers, or lights on the dash. I've been through their "inspection" dozens of times on cars I was bringing in from out of state, kit cars, and on cars that were issued salvage titles previously.
My Camaro has to be inspected every once in awhile, but it doesn't have the same requirements as new cars since it's over 25 years old.
Quote from: ChrisV on September 11, 2008, 07:20:29 AM
So you've used them in the rain like I have?
Not the the ones pictured, but similar thread. But that is irrelevant. It can not be argued that a tire with such a smooth surface is less prone to aquaplaning then a regular tire. That is like saying that all season tires have the same traction in snow as dedicated winter tires.