3 ms·

It’s time we rethought tires from first principles. I have to think we can do better. Why live in fear of nails and spend a thousand dollars every 20-40k miles

It’s time we rethought tires from first principles. I have to think we can do better. Why live in fear of nails and spend a thousand dollars every 20-40k miles?

nielsbot 3y ago
Michelin tried.. (is still trying?) with the “tweel” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel
- hedora 3y ago
  I used to get 50k mile michelins, and they typically exceeded that. They don’t make them for my EV though, The OEM (bridgestone) ones last under 10K miles for me, and are $1200-$1500 a set installed. Nails are obviously an issue with both, but I’m going to avoid cars with uncommon tire geometries moving forward! (edit: bridgestone tires. I had the wrong brand before)
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    What is uncommon about the geometry of your current tires?
    - hedora 3y ago
      They are extra narrow. Also, I made a typo above. The terrible ones are by bridgestone (down to metal bands in 9k miles). Apparently, a few other options are available in Europe, and a subset of them are imported into the US: https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 Will need to look into this in approximately 10 months, since I put new tires on last week.
      - amluto 3y ago
        I drive a RWD EV (about the worst possible configuration for tire longevity) and I get much better tire life than that. Are you picking unusually sticky race tires? Is your alignment wrong? Are you flooring it from every stop sign because it’s fun? Are you under inflating the tires?
  - coryrc 3y ago
    Your alignment has got to be fucked. I just can't believe any tires only last 10k of regular driving.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Ultimately it's still a bunch of rubber in contact with the road so it changes nothing in terms of pollution, except for maybe lasting a bit longer.
toast0 3y ago
Because rails are much costlier to build and maintain, and infeasible with the number of junctions we have on roads. And tank treads destroy roads.
- permo-w 3y ago
  the main issue is that if you reduce the effectiveness of the tire, all you do is increase fuel consumption. balancing that out is difficult. rubber is always a less-toxic option, but it's expensive, and probably still somewhat toxic at high-temperatures anyway
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    For EVs with regenerative braking, tire mass becomes less of an impact to efficiency. So some airless wheel thing has fewer constraints. But having a high coefficient of friction while not destroying roads is enough of a constraint already.
  - doctorpangloss 3y ago
    While you’re right, another complexity is that the salmon are just a canary for broader toxicity we cannot observe. Nobody, clearly, gives a shit about insects, although the environmental concern should be much higher for pesticides - they even were historically - even though pesticides also make yields on food higher and presumably let you use less land. The thing is we have never used less land, and we have never used less fuel, you’re falling directly into a paradox of that kind of thinking. So while you’re right, honestly that line of thinking of yours has been totally co-opted. This is coming from someone who used to do “Green revolution blah blah,” but I’m not in high school anymore, we all have more wisdom, we don’t have to say stuff that sounds smart anymore. We can obey what the most passionate and expert opinions are - reduce toxins everywhere, even at the cost of efficiency - and only good things will happen in our day to day lives.
    - permo-w 3y ago
      look, I'm one of the bigger toxin-opponents out there, but if reducing one toxin means increasing another, then that needs to be taken into account. the transition to EVs and green energy helps though

It’s time we rethought tires from first principles. I have to think we can do better. Why live in fear of nails and spend a thousand dollars every 20-40k miles?

nielsbot 3y ago

Michelin tried.. (is still trying?) with the “tweel” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel

hedora 3y ago
I used to get 50k mile michelins, and they typically exceeded that. They don’t make them for my EV though, The OEM (bridgestone) ones last under 10K miles for me, and are $1200-$1500 a set installed. Nails are obviously an issue with both, but I’m going to avoid cars with uncommon tire geometries moving forward! (edit: bridgestone tires. I had the wrong brand before)
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  What is uncommon about the geometry of your current tires?
  - hedora 3y ago
    They are extra narrow. Also, I made a typo above. The terrible ones are by bridgestone (down to metal bands in 9k miles). Apparently, a few other options are available in Europe, and a subset of them are imported into the US: https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 Will need to look into this in approximately 10 months, since I put new tires on last week.
    - amluto 3y ago
      I drive a RWD EV (about the worst possible configuration for tire longevity) and I get much better tire life than that. Are you picking unusually sticky race tires? Is your alignment wrong? Are you flooring it from every stop sign because it’s fun? Are you under inflating the tires?
- coryrc 3y ago
  Your alignment has got to be fucked. I just can't believe any tires only last 10k of regular driving.
moffkalast 3y ago
Ultimately it's still a bunch of rubber in contact with the road so it changes nothing in terms of pollution, except for maybe lasting a bit longer.

toast0 3y ago

Because rails are much costlier to build and maintain, and infeasible with the number of junctions we have on roads. And tank treads destroy roads.

permo-w 3y ago
the main issue is that if you reduce the effectiveness of the tire, all you do is increase fuel consumption. balancing that out is difficult. rubber is always a less-toxic option, but it's expensive, and probably still somewhat toxic at high-temperatures anyway
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  For EVs with regenerative braking, tire mass becomes less of an impact to efficiency. So some airless wheel thing has fewer constraints. But having a high coefficient of friction while not destroying roads is enough of a constraint already.
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  While you’re right, another complexity is that the salmon are just a canary for broader toxicity we cannot observe. Nobody, clearly, gives a shit about insects, although the environmental concern should be much higher for pesticides - they even were historically - even though pesticides also make yields on food higher and presumably let you use less land. The thing is we have never used less land, and we have never used less fuel, you’re falling directly into a paradox of that kind of thinking. So while you’re right, honestly that line of thinking of yours has been totally co-opted. This is coming from someone who used to do “Green revolution blah blah,” but I’m not in high school anymore, we all have more wisdom, we don’t have to say stuff that sounds smart anymore. We can obey what the most passionate and expert opinions are - reduce toxins everywhere, even at the cost of efficiency - and only good things will happen in our day to day lives.
  - permo-w 3y ago
    look, I'm one of the bigger toxin-opponents out there, but if reducing one toxin means increasing another, then that needs to be taken into account. the transition to EVs and green energy helps though