Avocet Touring Tires

[Peter]

Peter wrote:

> Richard Amirault wrote:
>
>> "Don DeMair" wrote ...
>>
>>> I'm looking for a good touring tire. One that will be puncture
>>> resistant,
>>> especially in the rain. I've tried the Specialized Armadillo and was
>>
>>
>> pretty
>>
>>> happy with it, I may buy it again. The other tire I tried was the
>>> Continental Top Touring. I found this tire to ride a bit harsh.
>>>
>>> I would prefer a slick tire (without a tread pattern) because I think
>>> the
>>> inverted tread actually catches debris and may lead to more flats. I
>>> also
>>> don't believe that tread pattern does anything to improve wet or dry
>>> grip
>>> on the road. And I don't use my touring bike off-road.
>
>
>> While a slick tire would certain improve traction on dry roads ... I
>> don't
>> see why you think a tread won't improve wet road traction ... unless your
>> tire "contact point" is so small and your speed is so slow that you would
>> not hydroplane in puddles.
>
>
> The rule developed for estimating when hydroplaning conditions exist for
> landing planes which have smooth tires is that
> V(mph) >= 10 * tire pressure (psi).
Sorry, but I meant to write square root (tire pressure in psi), so at
100 psi the minimum speed would be 100 mph.
>
> Since I generally run my tires at about 100 psi and keep my speed below
> 100 mph I satisfy your condition that the "contact point is so small and
> your speed is so slow that you would not hydroplane."
>
>> In the automotive (and motorcycle) world the
>> main (if not the only) reason for tread in a street tire is for wet
>> weather
>> use.
>
>
> With tire pressures around 30 psi and speeds over 55 mph hydroplaning
> becomes a serious problem.
>

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Richard Amirault wrote:
>
>> "Don DeMair" wrote ...
>>
>>> I'm looking for a good touring tire. One that will be puncture
>>> resistant, especially in the rain. I've tried the Specialized
>>> Armadillo and was
>> pretty
>>
>>> happy with it, I may buy it again. The other tire I tried was the
>>> Continental Top Touring. I found this tire to ride a bit harsh.
>>>
>>> I would prefer a slick tire (without a tread pattern) because I think
>>> the inverted tread actually catches debris and may lead to more flats.
>>> I also don't believe that tread pattern does anything to improve wet or
>>> dry grip on the road. And I don't use my touring bike off-road.
>
>> While a slick tire would certain improve traction on dry roads ... I
>> don't see why you think a tread won't improve wet road traction
>> ... unless your tire "contact point" is so small and your speed is so
>> slow that you would not hydroplane in puddles.
>
> The rule developed for estimating when hydroplaning conditions exist for
> landing planes which have smooth tires is that
> V(mph) >= 10 * tire pressure (psi).
>
> Since I generally run my tires at about 100 psi and keep my speed below
> 100 mph I satisfy your condition that the "contact point is so small and
> your speed is so slow that you would not hydroplane."
>
>> In the automotive (and motorcycle) world the main (if not the only)
>> reason for tread in a street tire is for wet weather use.
>
> With tire pressures around 30 psi and speeds over 55 mph hydroplaning
> becomes a serious problem.

I hope you're not suggesting that this formula, which has no term for tire
width, is equally applicable to bicycles.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

David Damerell wrote in message <7io*[email protected]>...
>Big deal. If you told us you'd rode along the flat at 70mph and jumped to
>the moon, that would be physically impossible too.
>
>> I experienced aquaplaning whilst riding a bicycle.
>
>No, you didn't. A total loss of wheel traction on a single-track vehicle
>will result in an immediate sideways fall.

I would like a qualification on why when a wheel loses traction, an
experienced rider on a properly set up bike riding in a race position would
most definitely fall.
Balance is still maintained with steering effort. Direction is deviated by
the fall of the road.
Faith, placed in the FAQ, over first hand experience and an enquiring
mind is what I find incredulous.
I expect with 90% certainty that the above mentioned poster would select
heads on a toss of a coin when it had shown six times on tails. Even though
all the evidence directs him to bet on tails, he bets heads because
probability shows that the toss of a coin will even out in the end. He
misunderstands that he is betting on one instance and so theoretically is an
even chance. The evidence before his own eyes he uses negatively in his
determination as it does not satisfy knowledge passed by others and his own
limited experience. As he fails to examine the coin he puts it down to an
unlucky streak. The coin could be double sided tails.
The rebuke has no reasoning, it is invalid. Repetition is not
acceptable evidence. I appears the poster has not experienced front wheel
lock-up and is unable to accept that the experiences of others may be
different than his own. his judgement on testimony, evidence and reasoning
is obviously poor.

TJ

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

>
> David Damerell wrote in message
> <7io*[email protected]>...
>> Big deal. If you told us you'd rode along the flat at 70mph and jumped
>> to the moon, that would be physically impossible too.
>>
>>> I experienced aquaplaning whilst riding a bicycle.
>>
>> No, you didn't. A total loss of wheel traction on a single-track vehicle
>> will result in an immediate sideways fall.
>
> I would like a qualification on why when a wheel loses traction, an
> experienced rider on a properly set up bike riding in a race position
> would most definitely fall. Balance is still maintained with steering
> effort.

"Steering effort" accomplishes nothing in the absence of traction.

> Direction is deviated by the fall of the road. Faith, placed in
> the FAQ, over first hand experience and an enquiring mind is what I find
> incredulous. I expect with 90% certainty that the above mentioned poster
> would select heads on a toss of a coin when it had shown six times on
> tails.

Nice strawman. I expect with 100% certainty that this particular poster is
well aware that the probability of heads appearing is 0.5, assuming a
fair coin.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

 

[Peter]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Amirault wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Don DeMair" wrote ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm looking for a good touring tire. One that will be puncture
>>>>resistant, especially in the rain. I've tried the Specialized
>>>>Armadillo and was
>>>
>>>pretty
>>>
>>>
>>>>happy with it, I may buy it again. The other tire I tried was the
>>>>Continental Top Touring. I found this tire to ride a bit harsh.
>>>>
>>>>I would prefer a slick tire (without a tread pattern) because I think
>>>>the inverted tread actually catches debris and may lead to more flats.
>>>>I also don't believe that tread pattern does anything to improve wet or
>>>>dry grip on the road. And I don't use my touring bike off-road.
>>
>>>While a slick tire would certain improve traction on dry roads ... I
>>>don't see why you think a tread won't improve wet road traction
>>>... unless your tire "contact point" is so small and your speed is so
>>>slow that you would not hydroplane in puddles.
>>
>>The rule developed for estimating when hydroplaning conditions exist for
>>landing planes which have smooth tires is that
>>V(mph) >= 10 * Sq. Root[tire pressure (psi)].
>>
>>Since I generally run my tires at about 100 psi and keep my speed below
>>100 mph I satisfy your condition that the "contact point is so small and
>>your speed is so slow that you would not hydroplane."
>>
>>
>>>In the automotive (and motorcycle) world the main (if not the only)
>>>reason for tread in a street tire is for wet weather use.
>>
>>With tire pressures around 30 psi and speeds over 55 mph hydroplaning
>>becomes a serious problem.
>
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that this formula, which has no term for tire
> width, is equally applicable to bicycles.

It has no term for the width of the tire since that was determined to
not affect the critical speed for the onset of hydroplaning. The
formula is used for planes ranging from 767 size and up down to little
Cessna 150s and I don't see any particular reason why you'd expect it
not to apply to bicycle tires. Both planes and road bicycles use tires
that have a round cross-section and little tread. Until you get down to
a size where surface tension and similar effects become significant I'd
expect both types of tire to show the same tendencies wrt hydroplaning
vs. speed and pressure.

 

[Todd Bryan]

Trevor Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> I experienced aquaplaning whilst riding a bicycle. The speed was
> approx. 40mph, on a decline with 20-25mm standing water. Tyre section was
> 25-28mm, pressure 90psi tyres were most probably Michelin HI-LITES 700x25c
> rim Super Champion Mixte.
> Treaded tyres of the same construction and materials have an enhanced
> grip, in the wet, over their otherwise similar non-treaded brethren. The
> raised portion of the tread gives a higher pressure contact patch than is
> possible with a bald tyre. The regions of high pressure force the water
> between the road surface and the tyre to migrate to the areas of low
> pressure thus allowing the tyre to contact the road and provide stiction.
> Directional stability of the wheel is assured in usual wet conditions due to
> the tyre contact patch being of good length.
> In order for a bald tyre to function in the wet, extreme inflation
> pressure is required to attempt to match the penetrative qualities of a
> treaded tyre with its associated regions of high pressure. The extreme
> inflation pressure shortens the tyre contact patch to a length where
> insufficient lateral stability of the tyre is available resulting in
> skittish behaviour in the dry and sideslip in the wet though corners. The
> above is assuming a nominal wheel diameter of 27", riders of 48" wheels and
> above may find adequacy in bald, hard and narrow tyres.
> Lower inflation pressures are also more comfortable, which translates
> to less rider stress, which allows greater mileage and speed per ride, per
> period, per season.
> TJ


Have you read the FAQ? See

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.13.html

as well as other entries.


--
Todd Bryan
Santa Barbara, CA
bryan at cs dot utk dot edu

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:31:10 -0700, Peter
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>> The rule developed for estimating when hydroplaning conditions exist for
>> landing planes which have smooth tires is that
>> V(mph) >= 10 * tire pressure (psi).
>Sorry, but I meant to write square root (tire pressure in psi), so at
>100 psi the minimum speed would be 100 mph.
>>
>> Since I generally run my tires at about 100 psi and keep my speed below
>> 100 mph I satisfy your condition that the "contact point is so small and
>> your speed is so slow that you would not hydroplane."
>>
>>> In the automotive (and motorcycle) world the
>>> main (if not the only) reason for tread in a street tire is for wet
>>> weather
>>> use.
>>
>>
>> With tire pressures around 30 psi and speeds over 55 mph hydroplaning
>> becomes a serious problem.
>>


Dear Peter,

I'm curious about the tire pressure and the plane formula.

Am I right in thinking that the lift of the plane at such
speeds is what makes its tire pressure so important in
hydroplaning?

That is, a plane just landing puts much less weight on its
tires than it does when parked because its wings are still
generating lift, so the contact patch would increase
considerably as the aircraft slowed down, something that
doesn't occur with bicycles.

I'm really just wondering whether the two situations are
similar enough to compare if the airplane effectively
becomes heavier and heavier as it slows down, while the
bicycle stays the same.

Carl Fogel

 

[foldedpath]

"Trevor Jeffrey" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Faith, placed in the FAQ, over first hand experience and an
> enquiring
> mind is what I find incredulous.
> I expect with 90% certainty that the above mentioned poster would
> select
> heads on a toss of a coin when it had shown six times on tails. Even
> though all the evidence directs him to bet on tails, he bets heads
> because probability shows that the toss of a coin will even out in the
> end. He misunderstands that he is betting on one instance and so
> theoretically is an even chance. The evidence before his own eyes he
> uses negatively in his determination as it does not satisfy knowledge
> passed by others and his own limited experience. As he fails to
> examine the coin he puts it down to an unlucky streak. The coin could
> be double sided tails.
> The rebuke has no reasoning, it is invalid. Repetition is not
> acceptable evidence. I appears the poster has not experienced front
> wheel lock-up and is unable to accept that the experiences of others
> may be different than his own. his judgement on testimony, evidence
> and reasoning is obviously poor.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You're the one
claiming you experienced hydroplaning on a bike.

Maybe it would help advance the discussion if you went into more detail
about that? You've mentioned what you think the water depth was, and
your speed. What happened to the bike? Did your rear wheel suddenly
start spinning faster? Did you brake and lock the front wheel while
still moving forward in a straight line? Did you slide out of control?
What led you to think you were hydroplaning?

One reason I'm skeptical is that loss of traction can be caused by many
things, like dirt and other materials mixed with water. The streets in
my neighborhood are extra slippery in the first half hour or so of
rainfall after an extended dry spell. The accumulated dust, vehicle oil
drops and water combine to make an emulsion film on the road. I notice
this when driving a car as well as a bike, and I'm a extra careful when
braking even at low speeds. It has nothing to do with hydroplaning.

If I was riding down a hill and hit a flat spot with a thin film of
water and lost traction, I'm not sure I'd automatically assume this was
hydroplaning, unless all the other possibilities were definitely ruled
out.

--
Mike Barrs

 

[David Damerell]

Matthew Montchalin <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell wrote, but some clown deleted the attribution line:
>>Some other guy wrote:
>>>I experienced aquaplaning whilst riding a bicycle.
>>No, you didn't. A total loss of wheel traction on a single-track vehicle
>>will result in an immediate sideways fall.
>Simple "loss of traction" does not ordinarily cause a rapidly traveling
>vehicle to suddenly fall on its side and take a spill.

_Single-track_.

>For instance,
>airplanes lose traction all the time, and they tend to leap into the air
>instead, often flying up into the wild blue yonder.

Append "not currently experiencing significant lift" if you like.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!

 

[Sheldon Brown]

Carl Fogel wrote:

> I'm curious about the tire pressure and the plane formula.
>
> Am I right in thinking that the lift of the plane at such
> speeds is what makes its tire pressure so important in
> hydroplaning?

Nope, it has nothing to do with lift, only speed and tire pressure.
That's why it's as applicable to bicycles as it is to aircraft.
>
> That is, a plane just landing puts much less weight on its
> tires than it does when parked because its wings are still
> generating lift, so the contact patch would increase
> considerably as the aircraft slowed down, something that
> doesn't occur with bicycles.

The size of the contact patch increases, but the pressure remains
approximately constant as the plane's weight increases.

> I'm really just wondering whether the two situations are
> similar enough to compare if the airplane effectively
> becomes heavier and heavier as it slows down, while the
> bicycle stays the same.

Yes it does, because the weight of the vehicle is not one of the terms
in the equation.

Sheldon "Mathematics" Brown
+------------------------------------------------+
| Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, |
| but most of the time he will pick himself up |
| and continue on. -- Sir Winston Churchill |
+------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[David Damerell]

Trevor Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell wrote in message <7io*[email protected]>...
>>Big deal. If you told us you'd rode along the flat at 70mph and jumped to
>>the moon, that would be physically impossible too.
>>>I experienced aquaplaning whilst riding a bicycle.
>>No, you didn't. A total loss of wheel traction on a single-track vehicle
>>will result in an immediate sideways fall.
> I would like a qualification on why when a wheel loses traction, an
>experienced rider on a properly set up bike riding in a race position would
>most definitely fall.

A single-track vehicle such as a bicycle is balanced by steering the track
under the centre of gravity; when the centre of gravity goes off to one
side, the wheels are steered back under it. That demands the exertion of a
lateral force at the contact patch, and _that_ cannot happen when there is
no traction.

> I expect with 90% certainty that the above mentioned poster would select
>heads on a toss of a coin when it had shown six times on tails.

You would be plain wrong, then.

> The rebuke has no reasoning, it is invalid. Repetition is not
>acceptable evidence. I appears the poster has not experienced front wheel
>lock-up and is unable to accept that the experiences of others may be
>different than his own.

A front wheel lockup is not aquaplaning; it is possible for the front
wheel to lock while still in contact with a solid surface, and in that
situation there is still traction.

I certainly am unable to accept that the experiences of others are
physically impossible, yes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!

 

[Peter]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:31:10 -0700, Peter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>The rule developed for estimating when hydroplaning conditions exist for
>>>landing planes which have smooth tires is that
>>>V(mph) >= 10 * Sq. root [tire pressure (psi)].

>>>Since I generally run my tires at about 100 psi and keep my speed below
>>>100 mph I satisfy your condition that the "contact point is so small and
>>>your speed is so slow that you would not hydroplane."
>>>
>>>
>>>>In the automotive (and motorcycle) world the
>>>>main (if not the only) reason for tread in a street tire is for wet
>>>>weather
>>>>use.
>>>
>>>
>>>With tire pressures around 30 psi and speeds over 55 mph hydroplaning
>>>becomes a serious problem.
>>>
>
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> I'm curious about the tire pressure and the plane formula.
>
> Am I right in thinking that the lift of the plane at such
> speeds is what makes its tire pressure so important in
> hydroplaning?

No, that would change the effective weight of the plane, but weight is
not a factor in the hydroplaning formula so it won't affect the speed at
which hydroplaning can occur. Tire pressure is important since that
determines how effectively the tire can push the water out of the way -
true for either a bicycle or airplane.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:56:31 -0400, Sheldon Brown
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Carl Fogel wrote:
>
>> I'm curious about the tire pressure and the plane formula.
>>
>> Am I right in thinking that the lift of the plane at such
>> speeds is what makes its tire pressure so important in
>> hydroplaning?
>
>Nope, it has nothing to do with lift, only speed and tire pressure.
>That's why it's as applicable to bicycles as it is to aircraft.
>>
>> That is, a plane just landing puts much less weight on its
>> tires than it does when parked because its wings are still
>> generating lift, so the contact patch would increase
>> considerably as the aircraft slowed down, something that
>> doesn't occur with bicycles.
>
>The size of the contact patch increases, but the pressure remains
>approximately constant as the plane's weight increases.
>
>> I'm really just wondering whether the two situations are
>> similar enough to compare if the airplane effectively
>> becomes heavier and heavier as it slows down, while the
>> bicycle stays the same.
>
>Yes it does, because the weight of the vehicle is not one of the terms
>in the equation.
>
>Sheldon "Mathematics" Brown
>+------------------------------------------------+
>| Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, |
>| but most of the time he will pick himself up |
>| and continue on. -- Sir Winston Churchill |
>+------------------------------------------------+
> Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
> Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
> http://harriscyclery.com
> Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
>http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Dear Sheldon,

Interestingly, the actual aircraft hydroplaning formula is
different for take-off than for landing because the tires
are spinning on take-off and not spinning when they first
hit the water: Here's a pilot discussion thread that
mentions the difference:

http://www.geocities.com/profemery/aviation/hydroplaning.html

The Hydroplaning Speed Knots = 9 * Sqrt Tyre Pressure (PSI)
is for take-off with rolling tires (a bicycle situation),
while the 9 becomes 7.7 for slapping motionless tires down
onto a wet landing strip (not a likely bicycle situation).

There's even more exciting stuff about viscous versus other
kinds of hydro-planing (and a silent but vicious battle over
whether to hyphenate the word or even switch to
aqua-planing).

I enjoyed this comment:

"I heard that, due to the factors mentioned by POMPAX, that
these formulae are really only usefull in technical
evaluations, under controlled conditions, and are so
innaccurate under practical conditions as to be useless."

"Yes the tyre will hydropane - but I wouldn't bother using
these formulae in real life."

My daily ride takes me past a bizarre three-story water
slide built several miles out in the countryside, possibly a
monument to the need for stricter drug-testing of state park
administrators. Are the rare children that I see slithering
down this contraption hydro-planing?

Carl Fogel

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 30 Jul 2004 17:49:47 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

> A total loss of wheel traction on a single-track vehicle
>will result in an immediate sideways fall.

I've skidded both wheels momentarily without falling. Isn't that a
total loss of traction?

JT

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> I hope you're not suggesting that this formula, which has no term for
>> tire width, is equally applicable to bicycles.
>
> It has no term for the width of the tire since that was determined to not
> affect the critical speed for the onset of hydroplaning. The formula is
> used for planes ranging from 767 size and up down to little Cessna 150s
> and I don't see any particular reason why you'd expect it not to apply to
> bicycle tires. Both planes and road bicycles use tires that have a round
> cross-section and little tread. Until you get down to a size where
> surface tension and similar effects become significant I'd expect both
> types of tire to show the same tendencies wrt hydroplaning vs. speed and
> pressure.

If that were the case, then what do you suppose is the purpose of the
grooves on rain tires? The width of the rubber in between these grooves is
often wider than the contact patch of a bicycle tire.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

 

[Peter]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>I hope you're not suggesting that this formula, which has no term for
>>>tire width, is equally applicable to bicycles.
>>
>>It has no term for the width of the tire since that was determined to not
>>affect the critical speed for the onset of hydroplaning. The formula is
>>used for planes ranging from 767 size and up down to little Cessna 150s
>>and I don't see any particular reason why you'd expect it not to apply to
>>bicycle tires. Both planes and road bicycles use tires that have a round
>>cross-section and little tread. Until you get down to a size where
>>surface tension and similar effects become significant I'd expect both
>>types of tire to show the same tendencies wrt hydroplaning vs. speed and
>>pressure.
>
> If that were the case, then what do you suppose is the purpose of the
> grooves on rain tires?

As I indicated before, there are many cases where hydroplaning is a
serious problem, but road bicycles aren't among them. The formula given
was:
V(mph) >= 10 * sq.rt.[tire pressure(psi)],
corresponding to the usual aviation formula which uses a multiplier of 9
since the velocity is given in knots rather than mph.% For bicycle road
tires the pressures are usually at least 100 psi, so the speed needs to
get up to about 100 mph before hydroplaning would be likely. But car
tires are usually run at about 30 psi and then hydroplaning can occur at
any speed above about 55 mph. In that case it's a good idea to design
the tire with grooves in the tread that minimize the chance of
hydroplaning. One effect of the grooves is to increase the effective
pressure of the line of tread between the grooves.

> The width of the rubber in between these grooves is
> often wider than the contact patch of a bicycle tire.

So? The width is not the critical factor.

% As Carl indicated, there is also a formula using a lower multiplier
which is for the case where the tire starts out skidding already when it
hits the water, but that wouldn't apply here.

 

[foldedpath]

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 30 Jul 2004 17:49:47 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A total loss of wheel traction on a single-track vehicle
>>will result in an immediate sideways fall.
>
> I've skidded both wheels momentarily without falling. Isn't that a
> total loss of traction?

Total loss of traction does feel different than just a skid. I've briefly
skidded both wheels on a bike. And I've also experienced hydroplaning in a
car a few times, always at fairly high speeds (60mph or more). It wasn't
that uncommon in the torrential downpours of South Florida, and before
modern automotive tire treads were developed.

You turn the steering wheel to make a normal, minor correction to your
steering line.... and "Woaah!" nothing happens. Turn the wheel the other
way... nothing happens. You're flying forward under pure momentum. It's a
weird, floating sensation. Luckily I always had the presence of mind to
avoid tapping the brakes, keep the wheels pointed forward and just let the
speed bleed off. When traction returns, there is usually a little jerk to
one side or the other, because the wheels aren't pointed in exactly the
same direction as the car's motion when it started to plane. It's very
spooky. It doesn't feel at all like skidding your tires.

Even if this were possible on a bike (and the theory says it ain't), I
don't see how you'd be able to stay upright for more than a few seconds. If
the "immediate sideways fall" didn't get you, then the sudden twist of the
front wheel making contact with the pavement again after you started to
slow down (because you can't keep the wheel pointed perfectly in the
direction the bike was moving when it started to plane) would probably drop
you instantly.

--
Mike Barrs

 

[Sheldon Brown]

David Damerell
>
>>A total loss of wheel traction on a single-track vehicle
>>will result in an immediate sideways fall.
>
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> I've skidded both wheels momentarily without falling. Isn't that a
> total loss of traction?

No. A normal skid is a _reduction_ of traction.

A hydroplaning tire is slipperier than a tire on ice, there's basically
zero traction.

If you had ever experienced hydroplaning, you would know it.

Sheldon "Omitting Viscous Effects" Brown
+-----------------------------------------+
| He not busy being born is busy dying. |
| -Bob Dylan |
+-----------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[foldedpath]

Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote in news:410B0C23.6080202
@sheldonbrown.com:

> If you had ever experienced hydroplaning, you would know it.
>
> Sheldon "Omitting Viscous Effects" Brown

Exactly!

I'm wondering if modern (car) tire treads and lowered speed limits
(compared to when I was a kid, driving my first car)... mean that fewer
people these days actually know what true hydroplaning feels like?

--
Mike <geezer> Barrs

 

[Sheldon Brown]

I wrote:

>>If you had ever experienced hydroplaning, you would know it.

A shy person mused:

> Exactly!
>
> I'm wondering if modern (car) tire treads and lowered speed limits
> (compared to when I was a kid, driving my first car)... mean that fewer
> people these days actually know what true hydroplaning feels like?

My '54 Chevy had pretty bald tires, never come close to passing
inspection today.

The circumstance was going up a steep curvy hill in a rainsquall, water
was flowing down the road at quite a rate.

I wasn't going terribly fast with respect to the road, but my speed with
respect to the water was respectable.

It felt as if somebody had cut the steering column for some number of
milliseconds.

Fortunately, I was young and immortal at the time.

Sheldon "Hammond Pond Parkway" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. |
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com