tire instead of Yokohama A509?
R Keating
and how do they compare? I am starting to think about replacing my aging
A509s on my CRX and have no idea what to replace them with.
It was unfortunate that the 509 were discontinued. I love the 509s in the
dry, feel they are bad in rain and dangerous in snow, but I still use them
year around.
Thanks,
Russell
Bob Flaminio
news:9qcgpi$9bl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
They discontinued the 509? Aw, crap -- my CRX needs new tires soon. I
wonder if they can still be found in a warehouse somewhere. I used to
have A008s -- real sticky, but they wear out quick and are no good at
all in the rain. Do they make A022s in a size appropriate for the CRX?
If they're good enough for my NSX, they should be good enough for the
little Honda...
-Bob
R Keating
did they do, scrap everything and start all over with new models? You'd
think they'd at least give recommendation for what new model replaced an
older model.
Russell
"Bob Flaminio" <b...@flaminio.com> wrote in message
news:0Hky7.16294$gT6.9...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
<CUT>
Edgecrusher
snow, and it pretty well sucks in the dry too compared to all of their
latest models. If you like good dry handling, the A520 is an excellent
choice at around $100/tire. Nice stiff sidewalls, and they are too
terrible in the rain.
Edgecrusher
Edgecrusher wrote:
>
> Well I think it comes down to the fact that the A509 is shit in rain and
> snow, and it pretty well sucks in the dry too compared to all of their
> latest models. If you like good dry handling, the A520 is an excellent
> choice at around $100/tire. Nice stiff sidewalls, and they are __NOT__too
> terrible in the rain.
Nathan Nagel
they were actually *better* than my "winter" Dunlop D60A2's (much to my
surprise) only problem was they only lasted about 17K miles... :(
nate
David Hillman
R Keating <rkea...@enteract.com> wrote:
>I don't see A022a on the Yokohama site http://www.yokohamatire.com/. What
>did they do, scrap everything and start all over with new models? You'd
>think they'd at least give recommendation for what new model replaced an
>older model.
That is essentially what they've done. If you're upset about the A022
and A509 being gone, you'll have a stroke when you hear that the AVS
Intermediate is done as well. I believe the AVSi is arguably the most
loved performance tire of the past several decades. I see them on
everything ( they were made in about a million sizes ) and everyone
I know who's had them is angry they can't get any more.
--
D a v i d H i l l m a n
hil...@enteract.com
Martin Harvey
Well, if you're prepared to go up a bit in price, try the Bridgestone
S-02 or S-03. I was going to put 509's on my car, but they were out of
stock at the time. The S-02 has a fair bit more grip in the dry, LOADS
more gri in the wet, and doesn't wear much quicker either.
MH.
--
Martin Harvey. mar...@pergolesi.demon.co.uk
http://www.pergolesi.demon.co.uk
ICQ: 37298917
"Yes, you can have a fully functional program that continually
creates access violations, but still works effectively"
- Michael Caracena 15/5/2001 in comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc
Edgecrusher
misled.
Given any real accumulation of snow of 3" or more, you would find
yourself stranded quickly on any unplowed road, vs. a top quality snow
tire which would just cut right through.
Bob Flaminio
news:3BCC4116...@qwest.net...
> Well, in comparing one crap tire to another, I can see how one might
be
> misled.
>
> Given any real accumulation of snow of 3" or more, you would find
> yourself stranded quickly on any unplowed road, vs. a top quality
snow
> tire which would just cut right through.
I live in California. Snow performance is of no concern of mine
whatsoever. It barely rains here.
I'll take your advice with the A520, though -- it sounds like a really
good tire.
-Bob
Nathan Nagel
storm in early autumn... about an inch of solid ice on the roads covered
by a dusting of snow. I was very impressed - I don't think a dedicated
snow tire could have done better. I have no experience at all driving
on them on real snow, since they're not designed for that use.
nate
Edgecrusher
Nathan Nagel wrote:
>
> The only time that I drove on snow on the A509's it was a freak ice
> storm in early autumn... about an inch of solid ice on the roads covered
> by a dusting of snow. I was very impressed - I don't think a dedicated
> snow tire could have done better. I have no experience at all driving
> on them on real snow, since they're not designed for that use.
>
> nate
Ok, that makes sense then. One advantage that tires with fat tread
blocks have on ice is that the pressure is better distributed and less
likely to liquefy a microscopic layer of ice on top. In other words, if
it is cold enough, they can actually outperform winter specific tires.
But that is more the exception . . .
David Hillman
Edgecrusher <xys...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Ok, that makes sense then. One advantage that tires with fat tread
>blocks have on ice is that the pressure is better distributed and less
>likely to liquefy a microscopic layer of ice on top. In other words, if
>it is cold enough, they can actually outperform winter specific tires.
>But that is more the exception . . .
By what mechanism will a tire liquefy a layer of ice? I have never
seen a studless tire that will generate significant heat when used
on ice.
I know that none of the tires I've ice raced on will get even warm,
much less hot enough to melt ice while rotating.
Elko Tchernev
>
> By what mechanism will a tire liquefy a layer of ice? I have never
> seen a studless tire that will generate significant heat when used
> on ice.
>
> I know that none of the tires I've ice raced on will get even warm,
> much less hot enough to melt ice while rotating.
>
temperature, increasing pressure decreases the melting temperature. This
is how ice skaters skate - pressure turns ice to water; skater slides on
water layer. I have no idea whether pressure exerted by tyre is high
enough to liqefy ice at normal winter temperatures, and I don't feel
like doing the math now. But if it happened, that would be the
mechanism.
Elko
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to be a nothing-knower, Elko Tchernev
a little ant on any hill; etc...@cs.umbc.edu
for time is dead, the sun is over www.gl.umbc.edu/~etcher1
and there is nothing left to kill. tel/fax (613) 246 6313
nmoberg
wrote:
You, sort of, have missed the whole concept of why ice is slippery
haven't you?
Spider
Some combination of heat and pressure will do the trick. Ice skates
work so well because the pressure between the blade and the ice forms
a small layer of lubricating liquid water.
Spider
David Hillman
Elko Tchernev <etch...@acm.org> wrote:
>I have no idea whether pressure exerted by tyre is high
>enough to liqefy ice at normal winter temperatures, and I don't feel
>like doing the math now. But if it happened, that would be the
>mechanism.
I suspected that, which is why I asked the question as I did. A 100
pound skater on ~.5 square inch of blade ( 12" long blades .5 mm wide,
SWAG ) generates ~200psi of pressure. ( A .5 mm wide blade is obviously
not very sharp, but it'll do for comparison. )
According to http://www.howstuffworks.com/question506.htm, a 4,000 pound
car with 30psi in the tires will have a total contact patch of roughly
133 square inches. However, the pressure will not be uniform across
the contact patch.
In order to match even the dullest skate blade, those 4,000 pounds
would have to sit completely on just 20 square inches. That's 5 in^2
per wheel. With a 205mm wide tire, that is only .6 inches of contact
patch length.
I skeptical, but if anyone can provide peak pressure for a tire/road
interface, I'd be interested to hear it.
David Hillman
nmoberg <nmo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You, sort of, have missed the whole concept of why ice is slippery
>haven't you?
Everybody knows why ice is slippery... God likes power slides.
I'll bite, why is ice slippery? ( Reminds me of that old Bill Cosby
routine , "Why is there air?" )
David Hillman
>temperature, increasing pressure decreases the melting temperature. This
>is how ice skaters skate - pressure turns ice to water; skater slides on
>water layer. I have no idea whether pressure exerted by tyre is high
>enough to liqefy ice at normal winter temperatures, and I don't feel
>like doing the math now. But if it happened, that would be the
>mechanism.
I suspected that, which is why I asked the question as I did.
A 100 pound skater on ~.5 square inches of blade ( 12" long blades
.5 mm wide ) generates ~200 psi. A .5 mm blade obviously isn't very
sharp, but will do for comparison.
In order to match even that dull blade, a 3,000 pound car would have
to rest on just 15 square inches of tire. That is less than 4 in^2
per tire. For a 205mm wide tire, that requires an effective contact
patch length of roughly half an inch.
I'm skeptical, but if anyone can provide peak road/tire interface
pressures to compare, I'd be interested. All I've been able to find
is the description of a study at the Berkley Pavement Research
Center, but not the actual data.
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/pavementresearch/PDF/Contact%20Stresses%20of%20Pneum.PDF
( The first copy of this post died a hideous death somewhere near my
newserver, so this is a re-write, and probably has at least one error. )
nmoberg
wrote:
>In article <5rsrstcgjov96t4cu...@4ax.com>,
>nmoberg <nmo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You, sort of, have missed the whole concept of why ice is slippery
>>haven't you?
>
> Everybody knows why ice is slippery... God likes power slides.
>
> I'll bite, why is ice slippery? ( Reminds me of that old Bill Cosby
> routine , "Why is there air?" )
From:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/ice1.html
Why is the ice slippery in the first place? Is it more slippery when
it's "fast ice" or is something else going on? How would a chemist
explain the difference between "fast ice" and "slow ice"? We asked
Professor Gabor Somorjai of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
these questions and discussed his research into ice.
Somorjai's recent discoveries have explained why skaters and pucks
slide on the ice. These new findings challenge long-held theories
about why ice is slippery. In the past, scientists believed that
either pressure or friction melted the ice, creating a water lubricant
that allows skates and pucks to slide. Berkeley chemist Michel van
Hove, a collegue of Somorjai's, has done calculations which show that
skates and pucks do not generate enough pressure to instantly liquefy
ice. Somorjai has discovered that ice has a "quasi-fluid layer" that
coats the surface of ice and makes it slippery. Even ice that is 200
degrees below zero Fahrenheit (-129 centigrade) or more still has this
layer.
Professor Somorjai explains his latest findings about the nature of
ice.
External Forces?
External forces, such as pressure and friction, can melt the ice. But
Professor Somorjai's findings indicate that ice itself is slippery.
You don't need to melt the ice to skate on it, or need a layer of
water as a lubricant to help slide along the ice.
An image of an ice crystal. Notice the "hexagonal stable structure" of
the crystal.
According to Professor Somorjai, the "quasi-fluid" or "water-like"
layer exists on the surface of the ice and may be thicker or thinner
depending on temperature. At about 250 degrees below zero Fahrenheit
(-157 centigrade), the ice has a slippery layer one molecule thick. As
the ice is warmed, the number of these slippery layers increases. This
may help explain in part the difference between "fast ice" and "slow
ice." As the number of layers increases, the players' skates need to
"slosh" through more of these "water-like" layers; more friction
occurs in these conditions, slowing the players down.
Elko Tchernev
>
> In article <3BCDE9CE...@acm.org>,
> Elko Tchernev <etch...@acm.org> wrote:
> >I have no idea whether pressure exerted by tyre is high
> >enough to liqefy ice at normal winter temperatures, and I don't feel
> >like doing the math now. But if it happened, that would be the
> >mechanism.
>
> I suspected that, which is why I asked the question as I did. A 100
> pound skater on ~.5 square inch of blade ( 12" long blades .5 mm wide,
> SWAG ) generates ~200psi of pressure. ( A .5 mm wide blade is obviously
> not very sharp, but it'll do for comparison. )
>
pressure decreases the melting temperature. If ice is just at freezing,
any pressure should theoretically liquefy the surface layer. So at 0C,
any tyre should slip ;) Unfortunatelly I can't find any online resource
with the actual temperature/pressure graph for water. If we had it, we
could say what pressure is needed at, say, -2C.
A side note - this is an answer to the first copy of your post, and it
is alive and well (on my ISP's machines at least).
Edgecrusher
Elko Tchernev wrote:
>
> David Hillman wrote:
> >
> > In article <3BCDE9CE...@acm.org>,
> > Elko Tchernev <etch...@acm.org> wrote:
> > >I have no idea whether pressure exerted by tyre is high
> > >enough to liqefy ice at normal winter temperatures, and I don't feel
> > >like doing the math now. But if it happened, that would be the
> > >mechanism.
> >
> > I suspected that, which is why I asked the question as I did. A 100
> > pound skater on ~.5 square inch of blade ( 12" long blades .5 mm wide,
> > SWAG ) generates ~200psi of pressure. ( A .5 mm wide blade is obviously
> > not very sharp, but it'll do for comparison. )
> >
> The comparison is not really necessary. Remember that any increase in
> pressure decreases the melting temperature. If ice is just at freezing,
> any pressure should theoretically liquefy the surface layer. So at 0C,
> any tyre should slip ;)
As a practical real world example of an experience that I had, I was
travelling across Wyoming one October at 2am when I came to a mountain
pass with my FWD Escort GT equipped with 205/50-15 Toyo U1s (a high
performance tire for the time with fat tread blocks), and at the bottom
of this pass was a line of stopped trucks off to the right - for 2
miles, all the way up to the top of the slope. The road had frosted
over solid and it was about -5 C. These trucks with high pressure per
square inch on thier tires could not move an inch without risking a
slide toward the ditch. I however was able to proceed with an
exceptional amount of traction (I don't recall a single slip of control
on the way up the grade) all the way to the top where one truck had
blocked all but the left shoulder - and I being the only moron silly
enough to be driving a car across a remote part of Wyoming at 2am, was
able to slip by with no trouble at all.
Now I'm not saying that narrow tires would have caused me a problem, but
clearly there was a real world effect of pressure on the amount of
traction available. For these conditions, a light car on relatively fat
tires was almost as good as having studs. For the trucks as I said,
they were just flat stuck until the thaw or they chained up.
Likewise, my uncle who drives a truck related a story to me about how he
had parked his truck securely on ice - until the ice melted under the
pressure 30 seconds later and his truck slid down the hill into a
ditch. ;-)
Erik Meltzer
David Hillman wrote:
> In article <3BCD04A5...@qwest.net>,
> Edgecrusher <xys...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >Ok, that makes sense then. One advantage that tires with fat tread
> >blocks have on ice is that the pressure is better distributed and less
> >likely to liquefy a microscopic layer of ice on top.
>
> By what mechanism will a tire liquefy a layer of ice?
Pressure generates heat. How else do you explain a
Diesel engine?
Yours,
Erik.
--
"A billion hours ago, human life appeared on earth. A billion minutes
ago, Christianity emerged. A billion Coca-Colas ago was yesterday
morning."
-- 1996 Coca-Cola Company Annual Report
nmoberg
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>David Hillman wrote:
>> In article <3BCD04A5...@qwest.net>,
>> Edgecrusher <xys...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >Ok, that makes sense then. One advantage that tires with fat tread
>> >blocks have on ice is that the pressure is better distributed and less
>> >likely to liquefy a microscopic layer of ice on top.
>>
>> By what mechanism will a tire liquefy a layer of ice?
>
>Pressure generates heat. How else do you explain a
>Diesel engine?
>
>Yours,
> Erik.
From:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/ice1.html
Why is the ice slippery in the first place? Is it more slippery when
it's "fast ice" or is something else going on? How would a chemist
explain the difference between "fast ice" and "slow ice"? We asked
Professor Gabor Somorjai of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
these questions and discussed his research into ice.
Somorjai's recent discoveries have explained why skaters and pucks
slide on the ice. These new findings challenge long-held theories
about why ice is slippery. In the past, scientists believed that
either pressure or friction melted the ice, creating a water lubricant
that allows skates and pucks to slide. Berkeley chemist Michel van
Hove, a colleague of Somorjai's, has done calculations which show that
Matthew T. Russotto
Spider <beelz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
}
}Some combination of heat and pressure will do the trick. Ice skates
}work so well because the pressure between the blade and the ice forms
}a small layer of lubricating liquid water.
The pressure on an ice blade is not nearly enough to melt ice. Ice
skates work first because ice has a number of layers of disordered (partially
melted, imprecisely) molecules on the surface, and then because
friction heats them to the point where they melt a bit of ice.
You can definitely get tires hot enough to melt through ice. Spin
your wheels a bit.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew T. Russotto
Elko Tchernev <etch...@acm.org> wrote:
} The comparison is not really necessary. Remember that any increase in
}pressure decreases the melting temperature. If ice is just at freezing,
}any pressure should theoretically liquefy the surface layer.
No, first you have to overcome the heat of fusion. Which is pretty high.
Elko Tchernev
>
> In article <3BCE1F19...@acm.org>,
> Elko Tchernev <etch...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> }If ice is just at freezing,
> }any pressure should theoretically liquefy the surface layer.
>
> No, first you have to overcome the heat of fusion. Which is pretty high.
No, because the temperature of surrounding ice is high enough to supply
the heat, and the amount of ice that melts is very small.
However, the problem turns out to be not so cut-and-dried as I thought.
I had not heard about this new research that mnoberg posted. Anyway,
here are 2 links that show that:
a) pressure alone melts ice
b) it is not high enough to explain skating and sliding
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/lab/nlp/gazdar/teach/atc/1998/web/spears/cheesewire.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae357.cfm
David Hillman
Edgecrusher <xys...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Likewise, my uncle who drives a truck related a story to me about how he
>had parked his truck securely on ice - until the ice melted under the
>pressure 30 seconds later and his truck slid down the hill into a
>ditch. ;-)
This I can believe ( particularly because the heat radiating from the
engine, transmission, and exhaust is contributing ), but I'm still
doubtful that a rolling tire melts much ice at speed. Mainly because
I've seen perfectly dry tires on my cars immediately after an ice
racing run.
David Hillman
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
>You can definitely get tires hot enough to melt through ice. Spin
>your wheels a bit.
Intentionally, yes; you can even get tires hot enough to melt through
asphalt, if you spin them long enough, and they don't blow up.
IME, it takes more than an occasional slip on the tire to generate any
significant heat, on ice.
Man, I've got to stop talking about this... it's still nearly 3 months
still ice racing starts, and I really want to go this weekend and do
some "testing".
Spider
> In article <73da2590.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> Spider <beelz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> }
> }Some combination of heat and pressure will do the trick. Ice skates
> }work so well because the pressure between the blade and the ice forms
> }a small layer of lubricating liquid water.
>
> The pressure on an ice blade is not nearly enough to melt ice. Ice
> skates work first because ice has a number of layers of disordered (partially
> melted, imprecisely) molecules on the surface, and then because
> friction heats them to the point where they melt a bit of ice.
IOW, the part about "some combination of heat and pressure" is right.
I could bust out the Clausius-Clapyron equation and show at what
pressure ice will melt at which given temp, but why? This isn't a
physical chemistry ng. Thanks for the amplification, however.
Spider
Martin Harvey
>
> I could bust out the Clausius-Clapyron equation and show at what
> pressure ice will melt at which given temp, but why? This isn't a
> physical chemistry ng. Thanks for the amplification, however.
Woah! Another physics guy! Actually, I suspect your physics has gotta be
better than Carl's. Anyone who knows the Clausius Clayron eq'n probably
knows a fair. Geez .. I can hardly remember much about it myself.
Doesn't it relate entropy and enhalpy or something?
Spider
> Spider wrote:
> >
> > I could bust out the Clausius-Clapyron equation and show at what
> > pressure ice will melt at which given temp, but why? This isn't a
> > physical chemistry ng. Thanks for the amplification, however.
>
> Woah! Another physics guy! Actually, I suspect your physics has gotta be
> better than Carl's. Anyone who knows the Clausius Clayron eq'n probably
> knows a fair. Geez .. I can hardly remember much about it myself.
> Doesn't it relate entropy and enhalpy or something?
Jeez, now you're asking a lot! LOL!
Enthalpy, yes. For this calculation, use the enthalpy of fusion for
water and insert it into the equation. While it's not good enough for
experiment, it's good enough for r.a.d.
BTW, a grade schooler's physics knowledge trumps Carl's
Spider