Bridgestone Fishtailing Experience?

[Dash]

 

no as you disputed the fact that he actually did go to Japan and he actually did try the tyres.

 

I am reporting what was said by him (hence being his word)

 

Here is what I said (Again you are not reading it correctly)

 

Where is Mr. brewers credential relating to being a doctor in automotive compound adhesion (would that be physics?)

Secondly was he employed by Nissan? Whilst I have no evidence to the contrary I find it hard to believe that a reporter could be employed as a competent consultant during the initial trials of a vehicle or even the following NTE Homolgation trials that took place in various countires throughout europe but were managed by both NTE Cranfield and NTE Bonn, where incidently the nurburgring testing team reside?

But without evidence to the contrary I am open to admit that I may be wrong. Personally I would not take the wrok of an ex salesman come TV presenter as bonafida evidence upon which to make my choice of tyre manufacturer for the whole of europe on.

 

Where did I dispute the fact that he went to Japan?

 

Where did I dispute fact that that he tested tyres?

 

 

You need to read what is there on the page Val and not what you believe is there.

 

 

 

oh come on just admit it, asking for credentials in "being a doctor in automotive compound adhesion (would that be physics?) " surely is sarcastic to say the least? ie you don't believe it. otherwise why being sarcastic?

 

The only thing I don't believe (and hence my sarcasm) was the fact that Mr Brewer (as I mentioned before) - an ex car salesman come reporter is qualified to make such a judgement. But I NEVER dispubted the fact that he was INVOVED in some sort of sampling, although I DID doubt that he was under a terms of employemt (for such a duty) with Nissan. but I never said i dobuted the story as I have not read or heard it before MAX mentioned it. In fact I wouldnt mind seeing it.

 

Ther word Sarcasm has no relation to the word Believe. You are drawing assumptions based on a question

 

sarcasm

 

n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn

 

otherwise why being sarcastic?

Because I dont feel he is more qualified to make such an assumption over the people Nissan employ to test such things.

[Removed]

Mike was another witness to the discussion. That was mr Brewer's statement.

 

good stuff, time for bed, long study day ahead tomorrow for me. WRT the "physics discussion, it'll be interesting to see Miraglio's point of view on grip on both dry and wet conditions.

 

I did try my best to translate his post as I sd, but Dorian doesn't seem to believe and/or understand the point he was making (unless he says that he discredited it due to the discussion being for WET conditions only, although only you mentioned that clearly)

[Removed]

 

sarcasm

 

n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn

 

otherwise why being sarcastic?

Because I dont feel he is more qualified to make such an assumption over the people Nissan employ to test such things.

 

in other words, you don't believe him

[Dash]

NN mate

 

I look forward to hearing what your friend says. I thought the translation was good enough, It was better than my italian

[Dash]

 

sarcasm

 

n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn

 

otherwise why being sarcastic?

Because I dont feel he is more qualified to make such an assumption over the people Nissan employ to test such things.

 

in other words, you don't believe him

 

thats an opinon not a belief.

[Removed]

PS :

 

scorn

 

noun {U}

a very great lack of respect for someone or something that you think is stupid or worthless:

[Dash]

sarcasm

 

n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn

 

PS :

 

scorn

 

noun {U}

a very great lack of respect for someone or something that you think is stupid or worthless:

 

in·sult (n-slt) Pronunciation Key

v. in·sult·ed, in·sult·ing, in·sults

v. tr.

To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.

 

so the question is was I being insulting OR scornful?

[Removed]

back on topic, Miraglio hasn't got much time to register here, he did read all 9 pages of this though... here's his reply on the Italian forum in english (Thanks mate!) and finds me completely in agreement. I won't post anymore on this as I think I'm going to follow his advice

 

"Hi Minel,

 

not so much time for this issue.

 

Let's remind the three reasons why larger tyres offer better traction:

 

1) Less tyre deformation, given the lower specific force tranferred between tyre and the asphalt (higher contact area with the same weigh => lower forces to be transferred). Please remember that the equation T = gc*N holds true only for non-deforming materials, while rubber is an elastomer.... Please, remember to your friends that not only static driving has to be taken into account, and that accelerating and mostly breaking will definitely change the weight trasferred to each tyre, and easily put in trouble your tyre. Almost doubling the weight trasnferred to front tyres under braking (for instance), could easily cause serious tyre deformation on small tyres, while will result in zero to little deformation in a larger tyre. This is important to assure that the correct contact area is constantly at work.

 

2) Better statistical traction, given that the wider covered area allows you to reach some (potential) areas of the asphalt in which the friction coefficient may be better, and then reduces the probability of breaking traction. Just like playng the lottery: the higher the number of tickets you buy, the higher the probability to win. This factor is very important: if you consider a static driving situation, so when little or no tyre deformation is occurring, by using larger tyres you modify your contact pattern from this:

 

*** ^ driving direction

*** |

*** |

*** |

*** |

 

to this:

 

***** ^ driving direction

***** |

***** |

 

This, I repeat, in static situations, when the inflate pressure holds the same, and larger tyres simply modify the contact pattern. Given such change in that shape, you are more likely to find better grip situations, because you are "scanning" a wider area to look for traction. Please think upon this, you'll realise how important this statistical effect.

 

 

3) Last but not least, better tyre construction, since the larger the tyre, the more performing, higly expensive the piece of equipment you are being endowed. Please don't forget that tyres are made by companies, and companies have marketing and customers segmentation policies. You get what you pay for: larger tyres = more expensive, better engineered and constructed. This is a very important point. People think that 225/45 R17 and 245/40 R17 are the same tyre, just different size. FALSE: the construction is different, and if you go further up with the size, also the compounds is modified.

The second tyre in fact is intended to be more performing, and is designed for that. I know this because I've worked for an automotive manufacturer.

 

 

Of these three factors, 2 and 3 are always at work when you drive, while factor 1 comes into play only when you are braking/cornering (or accelerating, if you have a +++hp car) and then you load the tyre with a very higher load if compared to static situations.

 

 

This is true for dry conditions, and this is true for wet road, as you can easily understand. So no way in which on a wet road smaller tyres can give you better traction performances. Think for instance to wet/ winter tyres for cars: are they smaller, or are they just the same size, with different compound and different design? If reducing the size of the tyre could help traction on wet roads, why tyre manufacturers are not doing that? They could save money also, since smaller tyres are less expensive, both in materials and manufacturing costs, and increase profits!

Think to F1 intermediate tyres, whicy are used for from mid to wed conditions: are they smaller? C'mon, don't waste time on that....

 

 

 

All of this becomes false only when you shift from "wet" conditions to "flooded" conditions, and then the real enemy becomes aquaplaning. In that situation, the larger the tyre, the more easily it will become a "surf board", and as speed rises, you'll start doing surfing, instead of driving

That's why in rallies and other competitions on mud and snow (have you ever seen motobikes' races on ice?), they use very very small (spined) tyres, because in this way the lower contact area allows the tyres to penetrate into the water / mud even at high speed. Of course, the lower surface decreases traction performances, but at least you have some traction, since you are not flying on water / mud / snow, but you are touching the ground.

 

 

But who cares about this???

Have you ever experienced real aquaplaning? I have, and from then on, at least as far as I'm at the wheel, when I see the road conditions turning into potential acquaplaning, I slow down, and not start arguing about my tyres size. I'm not a professional driver, and moreover my car is tuned for dry road (wheels, suspensions, boost gain pattern, everything is tuned for dry).

Eventually, even F1 rain tyres are not much smaller than slick, just highly sculpted in order to drive out the largest possible quantity of water.

 

 

 

That's why I strongly suggest not to get involved in this kind of discussion which are really a waste of time. Discussing about cars and mechanincs, in my opinion, is good as far as it helps you understand something useful for your driving experience. I saw your forum, 9 page discussion for this is.... unbelievable.

 

 

Hence:

1) If someone thinks that smaller tyre will give him better traction on dry or wet conditions, leave him to his (probably bad) fate;

2) If someone thinks he should use smaller tyres so as to have less chance for aquaplaning, I'd rather suggest him to slow down when it starts raining hard, and keep larger tyres for all the rest;

3) ...and save your precious time to work and earn your TT upgrade

 

 

All my best,

 

Miraglio"

[lomoto]

So are Bridgestones still crap??

[AndyC]

So are Bridgestones still crap??

 

Absolutely

[Dash]

Why have some of the earlier post been edited? This is evident in the responses I have given no longer relate to the opinions expressed by memebers of the conversation, is this to reflect an altered opinon having saught advice?

[Guest prescience]

I thought it was only me going mad and thinking posts had changed

[Dash]

Think to F1 intermediate tyres, whicy are used for from mid to wed conditions: are they smaller? C'mon, don't waste time on that....

The reason for no change in F1 in tyre width is the fact that they are dictated the width of the tyre by the FIA.

 

I see in the post by your engineer friend he refers to size on and not width? we were talking about width werent we?

[Removed]

you made me waste 5 minutes of my life going back through all posts... anything edited is clearly marked, at the bottom of the post. Nothing has been edited since the last discussion, and anything edited (I haven't edited anything you lot have said) of my stuff posted has been edited within 5 minutes of being posted. (apart from the post while I was transalting the bit)

 

I don't know what you 2 are on about, re. editing.

 

I might have deleted some offtopic banter the other night when we were discussing Dash, but that's it.

 

I have no further comment to make about this discussion, believe what you like

[Dash]

Maybe it was the off topiic stuff that was missing that made it seem different. Thanks for having a look though, appreciated.

[kennyc]

 

[M13KYF]

I was there when Mr Brewer said this statement. As I remember correctly "the reason that Nissan didn't go for Toyo's was something to do with the British Standards Institute". Mr Brewer did say they Toyo's were the best.

 

 

Think he said the BSI but might of been something else like that.

[Liam's Z]

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssussss

 

Are the stones crap???

 

What do you think Tim

[lomoto]

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssussss

 

Are the stones crap???

 

What do you think Tim

Dunno the porsche has got Dunlops on

[Liam's Z]

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssussss

 

Are the stones crap???

 

What do you think Tim

Dunno the porsche has got Dunlops on

 

has that rust bucket gone then Tim???

[lomoto]

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssussss

 

Are the stones crap???

 

What do you think Tim

Dunno the porsche has got Dunlops on

 

has that rust bucket gone then Tim???

 

catch up here Liam

 

http://www.350z-uk.com/forum/viewtopic ... c&start=90

[Liam's Z]

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssussss

 

Are the stones crap???

 

What do you think Tim

Dunno the porsche has got Dunlops on

 

has that rust bucket gone then Tim???

 

catch up here Liam

 

http://www.350z-uk.com/forum/viewtopic ... c&start=90

 

TFFT