Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
November 27, 2014, 02:29:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an Online Subscription: The dog will not eat it.
   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Goodyear metro milers  (Read 3927 times)
scotty_vince
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37





Ignore
« on: July 03, 2010, 09:34:01 AM »

Anyone know about Goodyear metro milers. They have a max speed marking of 55mph.  Is that for safety or to get the longest life out of them?
Logged
HighTechRedneck
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2935


BCM Editor


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2010, 09:53:24 AM »

It would be for safety.  Those tires are designed for urban and short range driving at 55 or below.  They have thicker sidewalls to better tolerate side impacts from curbs and such and I think they have additional tread belts to resist puncture hazzards more (not positive on the latter).  But at sustained highway use they can overheat.
Logged
scotty_vince
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2010, 12:08:22 PM »

How long is sustained. More than a few hours?
Logged
Sean
Geek.
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2553


'85 Neoplan Spaceliner "Odyssey"


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2010, 06:02:14 PM »

How long is sustained. More than a few hours?


No.  More than a few minutes.

The treads on these tires have a lot of mass.  At speeds above rated, the tread can literally fly apart from centripetal force.

None of these manufacturers advises (or will stand behind) exceeding the speed rating of this type of tire for any length of time at all.  Usually it is a non-issue, because the coaches they are installed on are already speed-limited.

By contrast, some tires are speed-limited strictly for heat reasons.  Usually, these are 65- or 68-mph tires.  Most manufacturers publish de-rating tables for these tires, where the maximum speed can be increased if the weight of the load is decreased.

Why mess around with a safety issue like this?  Get tires rated for the maximum speed your coach can attain.  The few dollars you can save are not worth your life, your loved ones, or those on the road around you.

FWIW.

-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
Logged

Full-timing in a 1985 Neoplan Spaceliner since 2004.
Our blog: http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
belfert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5451




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2010, 06:20:21 PM »

The Metro Milers are used on the transit buses locally.  Many of them travel for more than more than a few minutes at speeds above 55 MPH.

I wouldn't advocate using these on a bus conversion regardless of how they work for the local transit company.
Logged

Brian Elfert - 1995 Dina Viaggio 1000 Series 60/B500 - 75% done but usable - Minneapolis, MN
HB of CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1280




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2010, 06:34:50 PM »

Seems unreasonably high heat would de-rate any tire.  Who makes a tire that can tolerate 80 mph for hours on end during a mid August high speed run to Las Vegas NV in the late afternoon?  Anyone?  Do the same speed codes on passenger tires relate to Bus Conversion tires?  Dunno. HB of CJ (old coot)
Logged
Jeremy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907


1987 Bedford Plaxton


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2010, 12:48:44 AM »

The treads on these tires have a lot of mass.  At speeds above rated, the tread can literally fly apart from centripetal force.

Wow...I think that's the first time outside a physics class that I've ever heard another person say 'centripetal' rather than 'centrifugal'.

Jeremy
Logged

A shameless plug for my business - visit www.magazineexchange.co.uk for back issue magazines - thousands of titles covering cars, motorbikes, aircraft, railways, boats, modelling etc. You'll find lots of interest, although not much covering American buses sadly.
bevans6
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4821


1980 MCI MC-5C




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2010, 03:45:14 AM »

Oddly, the correct term would probably have been centrifugal force.  Centripetal force is the acceleration in towards the center that keeps the tire together.  Centrifugal force is the reaction by the mass that tries to blow it apart.  I hated physics class but I liked the experiments in physics lab...

Brian
Logged

1980 MCI MC-5C, 8V-71T from a M-110 self propelled howitzer
Spicer 8844 4 speed Zen meditation device
Vintage race cars -
1978 Lola T440 Formula Ford
1972 NTM MK-4 B/SR
Jeremy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907


1987 Bedford Plaxton


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2010, 06:51:33 AM »

It's twenty years since I was taught physics, but as I remember it centrifugal forces don't technically exist - there is no force acting outwards, only a reaction to the acceleration inwards (ie. the centripetal). Therefore it is correct to say that it is the centripetal forces that cause the tyre to blow apart.

But it was twenty years ago, and I probably didn't understand it properly even then.

Jeremy
Logged

A shameless plug for my business - visit www.magazineexchange.co.uk for back issue magazines - thousands of titles covering cars, motorbikes, aircraft, railways, boats, modelling etc. You'll find lots of interest, although not much covering American buses sadly.
Sean
Geek.
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2553


'85 Neoplan Spaceliner "Odyssey"


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2010, 07:08:37 AM »

Oddly, the correct term would probably have been centrifugal force.  Centripetal force is the acceleration in towards the center that keeps the tire together.  Centrifugal force is the reaction by the mass that tries to blow it apart.  I hated physics class but I liked the experiments in physics lab...


Sorry, Brian, but  to a physicist, there is really no such thing as "centrifugal force".  What blows the tire apart is its inability to sustain the centripetal force attempting to accelerate the tread in a circular motion.

The term centrifugal force is a common shorthand to visualize centripetal acceleration from the reference point of the rotating object itself.  But it does not really exist.

http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/centrif.htm
http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/default.htm
http://www.schoolforchampions.com/science/force_centrifugal.htm
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath633/kmath633.htm
...and dozens more.

The shorthand is so common, however, that you will find very authoritative "definitions" of it everywhere.  When you sit down with a slide rule to calculate the force, you'll find the formula under "centripetal" in Halliday and Resnick.

-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
Logged

Full-timing in a 1985 Neoplan Spaceliner since 2004.
Our blog: http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
bevans6
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4821


1980 MCI MC-5C




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2010, 07:19:05 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force

It's  basically the inertia of the mass being  spun, the opposite reactor to the centripetal force, as I was taught it in Physics 101 lo those many years ago.  Centripetal force is the inwards force holding the mass in towards the center, centrifugal force is the opposite reaction.  Semantics really.  There are as many authoritative arguments against as for, I would expect.  Two of your cites acknowledged the existence of centrifugal force per my definition.  More than willing for current usage to differ from what I was taught 30 years ago, but the force still exists no matter what you call it!

Oh, and because no one believes Wikipedia, here are the current (and some a little not so current) publications cites:

References

   1. ^ Delo E. Mook & Thomas Vargish (1987). Inside relativity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. p. p. 47. ISBN 0691025207.
   2. ^ Acceleration and force in circular motion by Peter Signell 5b, p. 7
   3. ^ A. K. Mohanty (2004). Fluid Mechanics. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. p. p. 121. ISBN 8120308948. 
   4. ^ Roger Leslie Timings (2005). Newnes Mechanical Engineer's Pocket Book. Oxford: Elsevier/Newnes. p. p. 111. ISBN 0750665084. .
   5. ^ a b The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia: Centripetal force and centrifugal force
   6. ^ For more detail see Hall: Artificial gravity and the architecture of orbital habitats.
   7. ^ Hall: Inhabiting artificial gravity
   8. ^ M. Alonso & E.J. Finn (1992). Fundamental university physics. , Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0201565188.

Brian
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 07:36:48 AM by bevans6 » Logged

1980 MCI MC-5C, 8V-71T from a M-110 self propelled howitzer
Spicer 8844 4 speed Zen meditation device
Vintage race cars -
1978 Lola T440 Formula Ford
1972 NTM MK-4 B/SR
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12919




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2010, 07:36:17 AM »

Good grief guys some one ask the time of day here and he gets told how to build a clock,back to my cave now 




good luck
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
bevans6
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4821


1980 MCI MC-5C




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2010, 07:39:40 AM »

Think of it as guys sitting around a  campfire shooting the breeze, having a wide ranging conversation.  What's wrong with that?  It's how you learn things.

Brian
Logged

1980 MCI MC-5C, 8V-71T from a M-110 self propelled howitzer
Spicer 8844 4 speed Zen meditation device
Vintage race cars -
1978 Lola T440 Formula Ford
1972 NTM MK-4 B/SR
Sean
Geek.
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2553


'85 Neoplan Spaceliner "Odyssey"


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2010, 10:31:34 AM »

It's  basically the inertia of the mass being  spun, ...  Semantics really.


Precisely -- it is inertia, and not a different force.  All of your references will acknowledge that, and you are right, it is semantics.  As I said, the term is shorthand, and we all use it, myself included.  But you felt the need to correct me from centripetal to centrifugal, which is, by your own set of references, a pointless correction.

When a crane exerts 10,000 lbs of upward pull on a 5,000-lb test rope connected to a 20,000 lb weight, when the rope breaks, the force that broke it might be described as the pull of the crane, but it is equally well described as gravity.

When parts of the tread come loose from the tire, the force that ripped the rest of the tire from those parts is centripetal force.  If you (or anyone else) prefer instead to describe the opposing reaction, using the term "centrifugal force," I would not stop you or correct you.  Because it is, indeed, semantics, or a preference for a different frame of reference.  Apparently, though, you felt the need to "correct" me, and I am merely disputing that correction.

-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
Logged

Full-timing in a 1985 Neoplan Spaceliner since 2004.
Our blog: http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
Hi yo silver
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 818




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2010, 01:24:20 PM »

I say we flip for it.
Dennis
Logged

Blue Ridge Mountains of VA   Hi Yo Silver! MC9
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!