Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

41 - 60 of 165 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Reference?
Why do you think better tires are even made. All tires DO NOT hydroplane at the same speed and depth. The design of the tire is what make them better at DESPERSING deeper water. Its common sense. NOT just the depth of the tread, thats not even half the battle. Quit looking at stuff made a million years ago. You sould like one of the older people who refuse to believe that technology can make things better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
gabrit : Looks like pretty good validation of what you were saying!
I don't think there is any debate that an underinflated tire will have less traction in the wet. (In the dry too, for that matter.) But I did not see any recommendation there to overinflate the tire to increase traction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Why do you think better tires are even made. All tires DO NOT hydroplane at the same speed and depth.
You're half right. Go back and read post #36 in this thread. Some tires can handle deeper water before they hydroplane, but all tires will eventually hydroplane when their tread fills with water and their speed is high enough.

The design of the tire is what make them better at DESPERSING deeper water. Its common sense. NOT just the depth of the tread, thats not even half the battle. Quit looking at stuff made a million years ago. You sould like one of the older people who refuse to believe that technology can make things better.
And you sound like a young whippersnapper trying to substitute 'common sense' for a lack of experience. :lol:

Yes, some tires can disperse more water than others. But no tire can disperse an infinite amount of water. It doesn't matter how good a tread is at pumping water out from under the tread, at some point, if you go fast enough in a deep enough puddle, all tires will eventually hydroplane.

This formula removes the speed half of the hydroplaning equation. By staying below the threshold speed for hydroplaning, the water underneath the tire will never develop enough pressure to lift the tire, regardless of the depth.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
stonebreaker : ....... This formula removes the speed half of the hydroplaning equation. By staying below the threshold speed for hydroplaning, the water underneath the tire will never develop enough pressure to lift the tire, regardless of the depth.
So at what point do you start following the formula ?

You are taking a 560 mile trip in your car, and the weather is going to be light rain all of the way. Your car's tires are inflated to 30 psi, so your "hydroplane limit" is 56 MPH. The Interstate speed limit is 70 MPH for your entire route. At 70 MPH the trip will take 8 hours, at 56 it will take 10.

What do you do ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts

AQUATRED II
This revolutionary tire pumps away over two gallons of water per second as you drive at highway speeds. And a new tread rubber compound provides road-hugging traction and extends the treadlife.

That's a direct quote from Goodyear's website, http://www.goodyear.ca/tires/tirecatalog/AutoPassengerAQUATRIITL.html

A gallon is 231 cubic inches of water. So, straight from the manufacturer, we have established the amount of water Goodyear's best anti-hydroplaning tire can disperse.

Our tires have a 245 mm tread width. That's 9.6 inches wide. So, what's the deepest water the Aquatred II can handle at 55 mph?

55 mph = 968 inches per second.

968 * 9 = 8712 square inches covered per second by the tire.

462/8712 = 0.053.

So, at 55 mph, Goodyear's most hydroplane-resistant tire can only get rid of five hundredths of an inch of water through its tread. The rest is up to the formula.

Quite frankly, I'm a little suprised that the depth of water the tread can handle is so small.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,656 Posts
So at what point do you start following the formula ?

You are taking a 560 mile trip in your car, and the weather is going to be light rain all of the way. Your car's tires are inflated to 30 psi, so your "hydroplane limit" is 56 MPH. The Interstate speed limit is 70 MPH for your entire route. At 70 MPH the trip will take 8 hours, at 56 it will take 10.

What do you do ?
Go ahead at 70 MPH and your trip might be a lot LESS than 8 hours. How far is it to the hospital, anyway? :willy:

I was cruising on I-10 west towards San Antonio at 70 MPH and the rain had just stopped. In the Seguin area, the back end of the car came around the left ever so slowly and I went sliding sideways across the median. Lucky for me the median was SUPER wide in that area, as well as no trees or bridges, which are common the entire distance between Houston and San Antonio.

I finally came to a stop, took a deep breath, started the car again, and pulled back onto I-10. When I traded the car in on the Solstice a year later, there was STILL grass stuck inside of the wheels and engine compartment. :lol:

I do slow down to 55 now in the rain or on a wet highway, ESPECIALLY with the Solstice. :cool:

.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
Around here, and every other place I have driven, unless it is raining so hard that visibility is affected, going 55 on an interstate with a 70 MPH speed limit will likely get you run into, or over.

I have driven 65+ MPH in my Sky in some pretty hard rain. I have not hydroplaned. Does that mean that I believe that I can drive that speed with impunity under any conditions ? Of course not. But it does mean that I know that I will not immediately hydroplane out of control if I dare exceed 56 MPH on a wet road.

I nearly got the Sky sideways on a freeway onramp one drizzly night, which really got my attention. Did I hydroplane ? No, not at 45 MPH. The next day, when everything dried out, I went back to the ramp to try to understand what had happened. As I drove around it, I noticed that I was accelerating through the turn. Further observation has revealed that I pretty much always accelerate through turns. I also found a slight bump midway through the ramp, a bump that I had never paid much attention to before. Curve plus slick plus acceleration plus rear-wheel-drive equals oversteer.

Every loss of traction is not hydroplaning, and a formula that predicts when hydroplaning may occur does not indicate when it will occur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
781 Posts
I have the ultimate solution, I drive my Yukon then it rains!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
:cool:
DD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
I have driven 65+ MPH in my Sky in some pretty hard rain.
Every loss of traction is not hydroplaning, and a formula that predicts when hydroplaning may occur does not indicate when it will occur.

At 65+ in hard rain, it will EVENTUALLY occur.

fred
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Every loss of traction is not hydroplaning, and a formula that predicts when hydroplaning may occur does not indicate when it will occur.
You don't get a ticket every time you speed, either. What does that prove?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,656 Posts
You don't get a ticket every time you speed, either. What does that prove?
You get a ticket, you live to speed another day.

You hydroplane, you MIGHT live to speed another day.

:yesnod: :yesnod: :yesnod:

.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
FredinVa : At 65+ in hard rain, it will EVENTUALLY occur.

fred
Don't you mean may eventually occur ? Will is a pretty absolute word to use in this context.
stonebreaker : You don't get a ticket every time you speed, either. What does that prove?
Exceeding a posted speed is an absolute violation. Exceeding the theoretical hydroplaning speed for treadless airplane tires while driving a street car with treaded tires is not. What your question proves is that you do not understand the basis for my argument.

You have not answered my question from several posts back: Do you limit your speed to 56 MPH on any road that is wet ?
Gizmo : You get a ticket, you live to speed another day.

You hydroplane, you MIGHT live to speed another day.
But the point is not about what happens when you do hydroplane, the point is about the likelihood of hydroplaning at a theoretical speed that was experimentally derived for a csignificantly different application.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,656 Posts
But the point is not about what happens when you do hydroplane, the point is about the likelihood of hydroplaning at a theoretical speed that was experimentally derived for a significantly different application.
I agree with your point, JRinKY. And I don't know at what actual speed the Solstice will hydroplane under what actual circumstances with what actual tires. And I might or might not stay under that hypothetical speed.

What I DO know is that, having experienced hydroplaning at 70 MPH for absolutely no APPARENT reason, I do not wish to experience it again unless I'm in a huge parking lot with absolutely no obstacles (such as finding the limits of MARiSOL in a controlled setting.)

If you are on drive pavement and the back end starts coming around because you're taking the curve too fast, there are ways to overcome that. When you are hydroplaning, all you can do is gently get off the gas, don't get on the brake, and pray. If you're on an interstate at 70 MPH and there is a narrow median and you're sliding to the left, you're dead meat. D E A D.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Don't you mean may eventually occur ? Will is a pretty absolute word to use in this context.

Exceeding a posted speed is an absolute violation. Exceeding the theoretical hydroplaning speed for treadless airplane tires while driving a street car with treaded tires is not. What your question proves is that you do not understand the basis for my argument.

You have not answered my question from several posts back: Do you limit your speed to 56 MPH on any road that is wet ?

But the point is not about what happens when you do hydroplane, the point is about the likelihood of hydroplaning at a theoretical speed that was experimentally derived for a csignificantly different application.
Are you really sure you want me to address these arguments?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
stonebreaker : Are you really sure you want me to address these arguments?
Why else wuld I have made them publicly ?

I do think that this discussion has run its course, I am not going to change your position, and you are not going to change mine.

And I am still questioning whether you actually limit your speed to 56 MPH whenever the road is wet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Why else wuld I have made them publicly ?

I do think that this discussion has run its course, I am not going to change your position, and you are not going to change mine.

And I am still questioning whether you actually limit your speed to 56 MPH whenever the road is wet.
Fiiiiiiiiiiine...

Your argument that you have gone faster than the recommended speed of the formula somehow proves that the formula is wrong is called 'begging the question'. It is a logical fallacy that pre-supposes the conclusion as proof that the conclusion is true. Also known as 'circular reasoning'.

Your attempt to discredit the formula by asking me how fast I go is called 'Ad Hominem'. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

You were hoping to use my actions to discredit the formula... which proves nothing about the truth or falsity of the formula. In fact, I follow the formula religiously. If it starts raining, I don't drive 56 mph. I bump the tire pressure to max and then drive 65. But I do not exceed the recommendations of the formula. My life is worth more than two hours.

I often drive home from Maryland International Raceway with the drag radials still on my car. Even with the drag radials on the car, I have never hydroplaned while following the formula. I don't care if the formula is overly conservative. It works.

If you wish to continue this discussion, fine, but in the future please confine your arguments to the subject at hand and be good enough to provide credible references to support your position. I had the courtesy to cite two references - NASA and the NHTSA. Please have the same courtesy.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
stonebreaker : Fiiiiiiiiiiine...

Your argument that you have gone faster than the recommended speed of the formula somehow proves that the formula is wrong is called 'begging the question'. It is a logical fallacy that pre-supposes the conclusion as proof that the conclusion is true. Also known as 'circular reasoning'.
Actually not. If I were trying to prove the formula, and stated that I had once hydroplaned at 57 MPH and therefore the formula is correct, then your assertion would be correct. My statement that the formula did not accurately predict the "experiment's" outcome is merely a statement of fact. I did exceed the formula's speed on a wet road, and I did not hydroplane. In science, when experience does not fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis is reexamined for validity. I believe that the treadless-airplane-tire formula does not directly relate to treaded automobile tires, and am presenting evidence to the effect.
Your attempt to discredit the formula by asking me how fast I go is called 'Ad Hominem'. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Actually, whether you follow the formula or not adds very little to the argument, so there is no reason for me to attempt to discredit you.
You were hoping to use my actions to discredit the formula... which proves nothing about the truth or falsity of the formula. In fact, I follow the formula religiously. If it starts raining, I don't drive 56 mph. I bump the tire pressure to max and then drive 65. But I do not exceed the recommendations of the formula. My life is worth more than two hours.

I often drive home from Maryland International Raceway with the drag radials still on my car. Even with the drag radials on the car, I have never hydroplaned while following the formula. I don't care if the formula is overly conservative. It works.
Now you are begging the question, by asserting that since you follow the formula, and have never hydroplaned, the formula must be correct.
If you wish to continue this discussion, fine, but in the future please confine your arguments to the subject at hand and be good enough to provide credible references to support your position. I had the courtesy to cite two references - NASA and the NHTSA. Please have the same courtesy.
As far as I can tell, my argument has been confined to the question at hand.

Your references are at the heart of my argument. The original testing was not done with any regard to automotive application, and the NHTSA merely quoted the NASA study, without adding any new information.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,656 Posts
I'm surprised none of us have raised the effect of vehicle weight.

A Lotus Elise and a Hummer, with identical tires, on the same road: which would hydroplane at the lowest speed?

I suppose the Elise would lose it first.

.
 
41 - 60 of 165 Posts
Top