Tire Direction

garage sale GT said:

You don't need to hydroplane for wet asphalt to be slippery, and just because a tire is sliding doesn't mean it's lost contact with the road.

You are correct, many factors go into being "slipperyt". Put water on a wooden surface. The tire will then start to slide on that cusion of water/oil/grit etc. But wait, I guess the rubber would not be in direct contact with the surface would it?

A sliding tire has lost control.

It does take speeds of roughly 80-100 mph to get a road bicycle tire to hydroplane. At lower speeds, enough wedge pressure cannot be generated in the water to lift the tire off the ground.

There are, also, no "intermediates" or "rain" tires for road bicycles. In fact you won't find intermediates or rains unless you go to a supplier of racing tires for motorcycles or cars. I'm not sure why such tires were even mentioned.

Hydroplaning in cars is a completely inappropriate comparison, especially when you consider the constant contact patch shape for a car tire compared to the variable contact patch shape (as a function of lean angle) for a bicycle tire or even a motorcycle tire.

Also, the bit about mounting tires backwards, trapping air in the tread, and being subsequently slower is a load of fresh out of the oven bollocks. It wasn't uncommon for motorcycle roadracers to run Dunlop D364 tires backwards on the rims. Note that they didn't go slower. Coincidentally, the D364's were intermediate rains from GP racing. Not once did I complain about how air was getting trapped in my D364's and slowing me down on the track.

vadiver said:

You are correct, many factors go into being "slipperyt". Put water on a wooden surface. The tire will then start to slide on that cusion of water/oil/grit etc. But wait, I guess the rubber would not be in direct contact with the surface would it?

A sliding tire has lost control.

It's thin-film lubrication though, and that's not hydroplaning.

garage sale GT said:

It's thin-film lubrication though, and that's not hydroplaning.

When would you consider sliding on this thin-film of water hydroplaning? I guess a better question is what is your definition of hydroplaning?

Water is not a lubricant, it is a solvent. Do not belive me, put one piece of iron oxide in in a container of water, and one piece of iron oxide in a container of oil. Wait a week and compare the difference.

alienator said:

It does take speeds of roughly 80-100 mph to get a road bicycle tire to hydroplane. At lower speeds, enough wedge pressure cannot be generated in the water to lift the tire off the ground.

There are, also, no "intermediates" or "rain" tires for road bicycles. In fact you won't find intermediates or rains unless you go to a supplier of racing tires for motorcycles or cars. I'm not sure why such tires were even mentioned.

Hydroplaning in cars is a completely inappropriate comparison, especially when you consider the constant contact patch shape for a car tire compared to the variable contact patch shape (as a function of lean angle) for a bicycle tire or even a motorcycle tire.

Also, the bit about mounting tires backwards, trapping air in the tread, and being subsequently slower is a load of fresh out of the oven bollocks. It wasn't uncommon for motorcycle roadracers to run Dunlop D364 tires backwards on the rims. Note that they didn't go slower. Coincidentally, the D364's were intermediate rains from GP racing. Not once did I complain about how air was getting trapped in my D364's and slowing me down on the track.

So I guess schwalbetires.comtire treadOpen ↗ is fresh out of the oven bollocks. But I guess rolling resistance does not matter in bicycling.

vadiver said:

I guess you are right. The bicycle tire is the only tire that will never hydroplane. Although each one of those articles does suggest otherwise.

Bicycle tires won't hydroplane at typical speeds. I'll concede that a tire at 40 psi will hydroplane at 66 MPH, but that is hardly a normal pressure or speed.

vadiver said:

A sliding tire has lost control.

That is correct, but a tire with more surface contact (slick) is less likely to slide than a tire with less surface contact (tread).

vadiver said:

Water is not a lubricant, it is a solvent. Do not belive me, put one piece of iron oxide in in a container of water, and one piece of iron oxide in a container of oil. Wait a week and compare the difference.

Water is ................. nevermind. 🙄

Water happens to be a great lubricant.

And sliding tires are not tires that have necessarily lost control. If that were the case, rear wheel steering on a motorcycle wouldn't work, and everyone that slid a front tire going into a corner to bleed off speed would crash. I can tell you from experience that you're absolutely wrong.

And if you were to ever crack open a science or engineering text, you'd find that friction comes in two forms: static and kinetic. Static friction implies that there is no movement between two surfaces in contact. Kinetic friction implies that there is relative movement between two surfaces in contact. Since friction doesn't disappear--by what I just said re: kinetic friction--necessarily when there is relative motion between two surfaces, then this implies that control inputs can be made.

As for your link, Beav, who said anything about rolling resistance? "Trapping air" as you called it is not a source of rolling resistance. It is a source of laughter, though.

Rolling resistance is the direct byproduct of hysteresis in the tire carcass. As tread--and just so you know, tread is just the surface of the tire intended to interface with the ground or road surface. Tread can be slick or grooved--passes through the contact patch it is greatly deformed as it is forced into a flat profile in contact with the road. The particular deformation is pretty complex but depends on tread profile, tread blocks, etc. Moving into and out of the contact patch all of the deformation causes flexion, which generates heat. The generation of heat means that energy stored in the wheel--by the rider pedaling, going down hill, and etc.--is lost. This lost energy is known as rolling resistance. It's got nothing to do with what you've been claiming.

alienator said:

Rolling resistance is the direct byproduct of hysteresis in the tire carcass. As tread--and just so you know, tread is just the surface of the tire intended to interface with the ground or road surface. Tread can be slick or grooved--passes through the contact patch it is greatly deformed as it is forced into a flat profile in contact with the road. The particular deformation is pretty complex but depends on tread profile, tread blocks, etc. Moving into and out of the contact patch all of the deformation causes flexion, which generates heat. The generation of heat means that energy stored in the wheel--by the rider pedaling, going down hill, and etc.--is lost. This lost energy is known as rolling resistance. It's got nothing to do with what you've been claiming.

Alienator, how do you feel about running latex tubes with skinwalls? Any benefit? Some claim the latex has less hysteresis. I suppose one could look up the material properties but it's still a matter of trying it because you can't use material property data to tell how much resistance comes from the tread vs how much from the sidewall and tube, etc. Has anyone ever noticed a benefit?

garage sale GT said:

Alienator, how do you feel about running latex tubes with skinwalls? Any benefit? Some claim the latex has less hysteresis.

Very small benefit. Very, very small. Considering the PIA factor of repairing latex tubes, it's not worth the effort IMHO. I run butyl tubes in my clinchers, but my tubies have latex tubes. And it is the tubies that are on my bike most of the time.

[PHP]Water happens to be a great lubricant.
[/PHP]

Look it up Beavs friend. It is a liquid, not necesarily a lubricant. Hydroclohric acid would act the same. I would not use it as a lube though. How often do you use water to lubricate your bicycle?

[PHP]And sliding tires are not tires that have necessarily lost control. If that were the case, rear wheel steering on a motorcycle wouldn't work, and everyone that slid a front tire going into a corner to bleed off speed would crash. I can tell you from experience that you're absolutely wrong.
[/PHP]
Again, wrong. In order to exit the corner you need to stop the front tire from sliding, at that point you are back in control. Rear wheel, even four wheel sliding, is a way to turn quicker. But at the moment you are sliding you are out of control. This does not necesarrily mean you will crash. This is like saying every time you fishtail in a car you will crash. Hogwash. It is being able to handle the situation. As long as you are sliding you will be going more in the direction of the slide and less in the direction intended. After the speed is scrubed off, they you begin to go in the direction desired.

If you were truely in control as you claim. You would be able to change direction without stoping the slide. For example. You are sliding your front wheel in a left hand corner. Inorder to turn right, you will need to stop that slide and turn the other way.

[PHP]And if you were to ever crack open a science or engineering text, you'd find that friction comes in two forms: static and kinetic. Static friction implies that there is no movement between two surfaces in contact. Kinetic friction implies that there is relative movement between two surfaces in contact. [/PHP]
Correct and also, kinetic friction is less than static friction.

[PHP]Since friction doesn't disappear--by what I just said re: kinetic friction--necessarily when there is relative motion between two surfaces, then this implies that control inputs can be made.[/PHP]

And the imputs would be change in velocity or direction. Inotherwords acceleration. Until that happens you will be traveling in the direction of the slide.

From you example of motorcycle racing, after you have "bled" of velocity, you accelerate in the direction you want to travel. If you screw up, you crash.

[PHP]As for your link, Beav, who said anything about rolling resistance? "Trapping air" as you called it is not a source of rolling resistance. It is a source of laughter, though.[/PHP] Who was Beav buddy?

Air has no effect on rolling resistance? Are you in a vaccum? Go back to you science and enginerring books and have another laugh.

[PHP]Rolling resistance is the direct byproduct of hysteresis in the tire carcass. [/PHP]
Again, air has no imput on this? So a tire spinning in a vaccum will spin the same amount of time as a tire at sea level. Keeping all other variables constant.

[PHP]As tread--and just so you know, tread is just the surface of the tire intended to interface with the ground or road surface. Tread can be slick or grooved--passes through the contact patch it is greatly deformed as it is forced into a flat profile in contact with the road. The particular deformation is pretty complex but depends on tread profile, tread blocks, etc. Moving into and out of the contact patch all of the deformation causes flexion, which generates heat. The generation of heat means that energy stored in the wheel--by the rider pedaling, going down hill, and etc.--is lost. This lost energy is known as rolling resistance.[/PHP] I agree with this. Part of you etc. I would add air resistance. The tire is rotating in air. If air had no resistance, why is so much money put into "areo" products? Furhter why do people trying to set speed records put finders around their wheels (tires)?

[PHP]It's got nothing to do with what you've been claiming.[/PHP]

What have I been claiming?

All tires will hydroplane. (I will go farther and say any object will hydroplane given the proper sistuation)

Anytime the tire is not in contact with the intended surface due to a buld up of water under the tire, that is hydroplaning.

Air does have an effect on rolling risistance.

An object in a slide is not in control. The slide needs to be stopped for control to be regained.

Not all slides will result in a crash.

I forgot one, water is not a lubricant, it is a solvent. Although it does have a viscosity.

You can talk in circles all day long, but your original comment is wrong.

vadiver said:

You are incorrect about hydroplaning. Depending on the tread design a road tire can hydroplane at extreemly low speeds. Racing slicks are worthless with just a sheen of water on the road.

In regards to bicycle tires, your statements above are completely false.

FYI: A lubricant is any substance that reduces friction between two surfaces.

Well, you're a lost cause. You should take a science course or two, if for no other reason than to learn proper use of some of the terminology you're misusing.

vadiver said:

Look it up Beavs friend. It is a liquid, not necesarily a lubricant. Hydroclohric acid would act the same. I would not use it as a lube though. How often do you use water to lubricate your bicycle?

In a given situation, a lubricant decreases friction between two surfaces. Water does that. No one ever claimed that water should be marketed as a lubricant. You don't understand what a lubricant is. Astrolube is a lubricant and I wouldn't use it on my bike either. So what?

[quote="vadiver"]Again, wrong. In order to exit the corner you need to stop the front tire from sliding, at that point you are back in control. Rear wheel, even four wheel sliding, is a way to turn quicker. But at the moment you are sliding you are out of control. This does not necesarrily mean you will crash. This is like saying every time you fishtail in a car you will crash. Hogwash. It is being able to handle the situation. As long as you are sliding you will be going more in the direction of the slide and less in the direction intended. After the speed is scrubed off, they you begin to go in the direction desired.[quote="vadiver"]

Again, you're wrong. You could, with sufficient skill and sufficiently discrete control, exit a corner with a sliding front tire. If there is friction, control inputs can be made. That doesn't mean that every control input can be made. That's a stupid assumption, that's nearly as idiotic as the idea that if there's water on the surface, even just a thin film, then that darn tire is hydroplaning.

vadiver said:

If you were truely in control as you claim. You would be able to change direction without stoping the slide. For example. You are sliding your front wheel in a left hand corner. Inorder to turn right, you will need to stop that slide and turn the other way.

vadiver said:

Correct and also, kinetic friction is less than static friction.

vadiver said:

And the imputs would be change in velocity or direction. Inotherwords acceleration. Until that happens you will be traveling in the direction of the slide.

vadiver said:

From you example of motorcycle racing, after you have "bled" of velocity, you accelerate in the direction you want to travel. If you screw up, you crash.

vadiver said:

Air has no effect on rolling resistance? Are you in a vaccum? Go back to you science and enginerring books and have another laugh.

vadiver said:

Again, air has no imput on this? So a tire spinning in a vaccum will spin the same amount of time as a tire at sea level. Keeping all other variables constant.

vadiver said:

I agree with this. Part of you etc. I would add air resistance. The tire is rotating in air. If air had no resistance, why is so much money put into "areo" products? Furhter why do people trying to set speed records put finders around their wheels (tires)?

vadiver said:

All tires will hydroplane. (I will go farther and say any object will hydroplane given the proper sistuation)

vadiver said:

Anytime the tire is not in contact with the intended surface due to a buld up of water under the tire, that is hydroplaning.

vadiver said:

I forgot one, water is not a lubricant, it is a solvent. Although it does have a viscosity.

I'm awake again.

Vadiver, no.

1) a car tyre has an area in contact with the road which is wider than its length, this would add greatly to the isk of hydroplaning. A bicycle tyre has an area which is 6 times as long as it is wide, like a knife. Drag a knife through water, it takes very little effort to part.

2) Water is an excelent lubricant, it is one of the best natural ones and don't bring HCl and oil into it because it is very rare to see oil let alone HCl on a road, think real world not lab.

3) A bicycle tyre will never leave the surface of the road if it is wet, under normal conditions, in a straight line, end of story.

Quoted post said:

Well, you're a lost cause. You should take a science course or two, if for no other reason than to learn proper use of some of the terminology you're misusing.

And you might want to brush up on your Physics 101, velosity and acceleration are vectors, thus linier. Now there is an infinite number of directions possible for a given vector. But one vector will be in only one direction at a given magnitude.

Quoted post said:

In a given situation, a lubricant decreases friction between two surfaces. Water does that. No one ever claimed that water should be marketed as a lubricant. You don't understand what a lubricant is. Astrolube is a lubricant and I wouldn't use it on my bike either. So what?

By this definition air and heat are also lubricants. If that is the definition we want to use, then I would agree water is a lubricant. However, the long term effect of using water as a lubricant will increase friction between to metalic surfaces. Therefore I would never say water is an excelent lubricant.

Quoted post said:

Nope. You've created an unneccessary restraint on control. The fact that there is friction, even in a slide, automatically implies that accelerations can occur, and those accelerations don't have to follow a straight line. In fact, a plot of the acceleration function can very well be anything but linear in 2 or 3 dimensions.

Accelerations very much have to follow a straight line, they are vectors. Now there are many forces acting in many different directions, but each one of them (individually) are linier.

The plot of an acceleration function would be linear if the object is under constant acceleration. If it is not under constant acceration, then it would not be linear.

Quoted post said:

Ok, go ahead and empirically prove that the acceleration has to be linear in all spatial dimensions. Go on. We'll wait.

Acceleration is a vector, therefore it is linear. Now it can be linear in any spatial dimentions, but it is still linear. We are never acted upon by only one acceleration (unless in the frictionless vaccume) because the force equations are always ballenced. But each force (acceleration) is linear. Where it is north, south, east, west, up, down, or any combination.

Quoted post said:

Well that ain't true. You can begin a turn with a sliding tire. As speed bleeds off, the turns radius can be decreased.

This is what I am saying, as speed bleeds off the tire will stop sliding and the turn radius can be decreased. As the tire stops sliding, the wheel will, for the most part, only be traveling in the "normal" direction of a tire. But until it stops sliding the turn radius will not decrease.

Quoted post said:

The only way air plays a role in rolling resistance is that it is part of the thermal circuit in the tire system. That's it.

Aerodynamic drag is NOT part of rolling resistance. It is an entirely different beast, with entirely different fuctional dependence.

If you're testing rolling resistance it will. You apparently don't understand what rolling resistance is. For your benefit, here is a cut and paste definition:

"Rolling resistance, sometimes called rolling friction, is the resistance that occurs when an object (e.g a wheel or tire) rolls. It is much smaller than sliding friction except for special cases like ice skating. It is caused by the deformation of the wheel or tire or the deformation of the ground. It depends very much on the material of the wheel or tire and the sort of ground. For example, rubber will give a bigger rolling friction than steel. Also, sand on the ground will give more rolling friction than concrete. A vehicle rolling will gradually slow down due to rolling friction, but a train with steel wheels running on steel rails will roll much further than a car or truck with rubber tires running on pavement, even when differences in mass and momentum are accounted for."

All this is saying is different frictional forces affect an object differently. I agree with this.

Air does have a frictional force on any moving object, regardless if it is moving linearly or rotationally. It is insignificant, but it is there. The frictional forces at the axel of rotation will be greater than this force. To say otherwise would imply that a wheel that is off the ground has only the rotational resistance at the axel.

Because aerodynamic drag is the biggest force acting opposite a bike's direction of travel. Rolling resistance, however, has no aerodynamic components. You're confusing many different things, now.

Quoted post said:

Really? No one said that wasn't the case. What is the case is that road bicycle tires will not hydroplane in the conditions in which bicycles are ridden. If you're going to be going 125mph, then by all means, you should be concerned about hydroplaning. But if you're going to be concerned about it, then you better get some next generation road tires, because grooved tread on road bike tires won't help you.

I have never said grooved bike tires will or will not help. I have just said all tires will hydroplane. And there are more factors then just speed when it comes to hydroplaning.

Quoted post said:

Well keep in mind that rolling over a damp surface does not mean you're hydroplaning, and as has been stated, road bicycle tires will not hydroplane until the speeds get ridiculously high.

I agree. Although as water gets deep enough, no longer just damp, the speed at which you hydroplane is less.

Quoted post said:

You are aware, aren't you, that oils can be solvents, too, right? You are aware, aren't you, that no where in the definition of a solvent is the statement that said solvent can't also be a lubricant?

Yes

bobbyOCR said:

I'm awake again.

Vadiver, no.

1) a car tyre has an area in contact with the road which is wider than its length, this would add greatly to the isk of hydroplaning. A bicycle tyre has an area which is 6 times as long as it is wide, like a knife. Drag a knife through water, it takes very little effort to part.

2) Water is an excelent lubricant, it is one of the best natural ones and don't bring HCl and oil into it because it is very rare to see oil let alone HCl on a road, think real world not lab.

3) A bicycle tyre will never leave the surface of the road if it is wet, under normal conditions, in a straight line, end of story.

1) & 3) This is the whole contact patch, velosity, depth of water, etc. I have been saying. But you need to define wet, and normal conditions. No standing water, 25 MPH, agreed. Eventually if the water is deep enough and you can continue to ride at a constant 25 MPH though it, there will be a point you will hydroplane.

Now the forces of the water acting on the wheel/tire are going to prevent you from maintaining a high enough velocity for this to happen.

2) Oil is rarily on the road. I would love to ride where you live. There is enough grease and oil on the roads where I ride they can be slick (watchout for bus stops) without any rain. That nice light sheen of rain that raises the oil to the surface is fun.

vadiver said:

And you might want to brush up on your Physics 101, velosity and acceleration are vectors, thus linier. Now there is an infinite number of directions possible for a given vector. But one vector will be in only one direction at a given magnitude.

Yes, acceleration is a vector, but you might want to actually brush up on your vector math and field theory. A spacecurve can be constructed such that at every point on that curve, the acceleration vector is tangent. This curve need not be linear at all. In fact, bleeding off speed going into a corner with a front tire sliding will yield a spacecurve that is anything but linear. That spacecurve will describe the functional behavior of the acceleration in that system. Also, the acceleration curve, as a function of time, is not constrained to linear behavior because of time varying properites of the tires: tire temperature; number of heat cycles; wear on the tire tread; and so on. You said that there is no control if you're sliding, and you're implication was that the bike would continue in a straight path. Patently wrong. Obviously, you've never slid a front tire to bleed off speed. You might also want to check the spelling of linear.

vadiver said:

By this definition air and heat are also lubricants. If that is the definition we want to use, then I would agree water is a lubricant. However, the long term effect of using water as a lubricant will increase friction between to metalic surfaces. Therefore I would never say water is an excelent lubricant.

You can choose to believe in whatever fantasy you want. The fact is water fits the definition as a lubricant and that is why wet pavement has reduced traction. Simple, really.

Acceleration is a vector, therefore it is linear. Now it can be linear in any spatial dimentions, but it is still linear. We are never acted upon by only one acceleration (unless in the frictionless vaccume) because the force equations are always ballenced. But each force (acceleration) is linear. Where it is north, south, east, west, up, down, or any combination.

vadiver said:

This is what I am saying, as speed bleeds off the tire will stop sliding and the turn radius can be decreased. As the tire stops sliding, the wheel will, for the most part, only be traveling in the "normal" direction of a tire. But until it stops sliding the turn radius will not decrease.

Wrong again, cupcake. Again, this is plainly demonstrated in the real world.

vadiver said:

Air does have a frictional force on any moving object, regardless if it is moving linearly or rotationally. It is insignificant, but it is there. The frictional forces at the axel of rotation will be greater than this force. To say otherwise would imply that a wheel that is off the ground has only the rotational resistance at the axel.

So what? Air's frictional force on a tire has nothing to do with rolling resistance. It has everything to do with skin friction, which is an aerodynamic property.

vadiver said:

I have never said grooved bike tires will or will not help. I have just said all tires will hydroplane. And there are more factors then just speed when it comes to hydroplaning.

And that is a completely useless and pointless statement because for the subject of the thread, i.e. bicycles, road bicycles, the tires will not hydroplane in any situation found on the road. Hydroplaning is speed, weight, and liquid depth dependent. In no situation will grooved tread improve anything nor will running the tire backwards harm anything. You know full well that your statements don't apply to anything that a cyclist would encounter.

vadiver said:

I agree. Although as water gets deep enough, no longer just damp, the speed at which you hydroplane is less.

Gee. Are there any more obvious statements for you to make?

I can't figure out whether you're just a troll or someone who thinks they understand math and science because they googled a few things.

vadiver said:

1) & 3) This is the whole contact patch, velosity, depth of water, etc. I have been saying. But you need to define wet, and normal conditions. No standing water, 25 MPH, agreed. Eventually if the water is deep enough and you can continue to ride at a constant 25 MPH though it, there will be a point you will hydroplane.

Now the forces of the water acting on the wheel/tire are going to prevent you from maintaining a high enough velocity for this to happen.

2) Oil is rarily on the road. I would love to ride where you live. There is enough grease and oil on the roads where I ride they can be slick (watchout for bus stops) without any rain. That nice light sheen of rain that raises the oil to the surface is fun.

You haven't been consistently saying anything. You have chosen ridiculous initial conditions from which to argue your poorly reasoned points. And your arguments completely lack credibility given your misuse of terminology and your insistence to use definitions that you find comfy as opposed to the definitions accepted by scientists and engineers.

Quoted post said:

Yes, acceleration is a vector, but you might want to actually brush up on your vector math and field theory. A spacecurve can be constructed such that at every point on that curve, the acceleration vector is tangent. This curve need not be linear at all. In fact, bleeding off speed going into a corner with a front tire sliding will yield a spacecurve that is anything but linear. That spacecurve will describe the functional behavior of the acceleration in that system. Also, the acceleration curve, as a function of time, is not constrained to linear behavior because of time varying properites of the tires: tire temperature; number of heat cycles; wear on the tire tread; and so on. You said that there is no control if you're sliding, and you're implication was that the bike would continue in a straight path. Patently wrong. Obviously, you've never slid a front tire to bleed off speed. You might also want to check the spelling of linear.

This is what I said. Your previous post implied to me, that you were claiming acceleration was NOT linear.

I did not say acceleration was linear, unless acted upon by a constant acceleration. It most likely not be linear.

I did not say the bike will continue in the direction of the slide. The only way that would happen is if the tire was not rotating at all.

I have slide the front tire, and the back tire to tighten the radius of a turn on both a bike and a car.

Quoted post said:

You can choose to believe in whatever fantasy you want. The fact is water fits the definition as a lubricant and that is why wet pavement has reduced traction. Simple, really.

I agree.

So the reduced traction on wet pavement is due to the lubricating properties of water? So would it be fair to say, one has a cushion of water between the tire and the road reducing friction?

Quoted post said:

Wrong again, cupcake. Again, this is plainly demonstrated in the real world.

All force equations are balanced. If they were not we could not stand up. We would be crushed by gravity if the gound was not pushing back at an equal force. As soon as they become unballanced there is movement. Eventually the equation will become balanced again.

So what? Air's frictional force on a tire has nothing to do with rolling resistance. It has everything to do with skin friction, which is an aerodynamic property.

Quoted post said:

<snip> Hydroplaning is speed, weight, and liquid depth dependent. In no situation will grooved tread improve anything nor will running the tire backwards harm anything. <snip>

This is what I have been saying.

Quoted post said:

Gee. Are there any more obvious statements for you to make?

I can't figure out whether you're just a troll or someone who thinks they understand math and science because they googled a few things.

You may want to try reviewing some things as well. To claim force equations are not balanced is a bit nieve.

alienator said:

You haven't been consistently saying anything. You have chosen ridiculous initial conditions from which to argue your poorly reasoned points. And your arguments completely lack credibility given your misuse of terminology and your insistence to use definitions that you find comfy as opposed to the definitions accepted by scientists and engineers.

Although what I said in points 1) and 3) is what you said in the previous post

Quoted post said:

Hydroplaning is speed, weight, and liquid depth dependent.

The definition of hydroplaning I am using is, having the tire riding on a cusion of water between it and the road.

What would you consider hydroplning?

You never find oil on the road?