Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolas
We are probably beating a dead horse here. I agree with you in regards to tire width and traction. The main point I am saying is that in deep snow where the snow depth exerts pressure against the front of the tire, a wider tire will not be able to pass through as easily as a narrow tire. While those forces may seem minor they are actually greater than one would expect. I can drive through 18 inches of light powder no problem. If that same snow were heavy wet snow, the car would not move. Clearly that impact is overpowering the traction capability of the tires. In this case the increased traction of the contact patch is not the issue. In this case decreasing the area of resistance would make the bigger difference in allowing the car to move.
At any rate, I go with "the wider the better for snows" as most of the time my winter driving is on packed snow. There are occasions where I have to drive in the fresh snow but they are not as often as the other conditions. Then I will usually take our Acura MDX.
|
We don’t have to agree but in mechanical engineering the key elements for this problem would be:
• Containment displacement drag: The frontal area of the tire in relation to snow depth, density, area…ect which is treated as a drag force. There is no influence on the normal force.
• Compaction rolling resistance: The vertical force is treated as rolling resistance. The horizontal component is treated as a drag force and again snow depth, density, area…ect applies.
• Rolling resistance: normal force reaction in relation to deformed wheel radius. Does affect the normal force.
I’m sure if you stepped through a free body diagram you draw a different conclusion, but honestly, it is not a straight forward problem. I do have the eqauations.
Will agree not to agree……so enough for now.
Orb