Small / larger contact patch

(sorry Bill, back to tyres):

If weight is a constant, surely having more weight in one spot will offer no more friction than less weight but over a greater surface area. I'm trying to imagine pushing something heavy on ice. Is it harder to get the initial movement with less surface area?

Maybe skis can tell us something. Longer skis (more surface area) are quicker.

Does that tell us anything?

you say ironic, i say laconic. or colonic?

aw, he's smiling, must be fun!

(sorry Bill, back to tyres):

If weight is a constant, surely having more weight in one spot will offer no more friction than less weight but over a greater surface area. I'm trying to imagine pushing something heavy on ice. Is it harder to get the initial movement with less surface area?

Maybe skis can tell us something. Longer skis (more surface area) are quicker.

Does that tell us anything?

it tells me that ski analogies are confusing.

(sorry Bill, back to tyres):

If weight is a constant, surely having more weight in one spot will offer no more friction than less weight but over a greater surface area. I'm trying to imagine pushing something heavy on ice. Is it harder to get the initial movement with less surface area?

Maybe skis can tell us something. Longer skis (more surface area) are quicker.

Does that tell us anything?

If longer skis are quicker, then that means that smaller contact patch equals greater friction?

i seem to remember physics being a very complicated subject and the slippy properties of ice more complex than you think. skis are a confusing analogy says i.

the reason why longer skis are quicker, but thinner skis are also quicker.

Skiers that look for skis with the least possible resistance are crosscountry skiers, they have long and thin skis.

/\ useless post /

Long skis are quicker because there is a force called "quickness" found on the bottom. The longer the ski, the more "quickness". Therefore, if you had skis as long as a mountain run, you would reach the bottom before you even left the top.

Fact.

(I have so much shit to do, what am I wasting my time on here for).

(I have so much shit to do, what am I wasting your time on here for).

I was asking myself the same question only moments ago.

but you can't get longer tyres? can you?!

ha!

but you can't get longer tyres? can you?!

saved for prosperity.

i was just searching for stuff about tyres, and I found this picture of cars racing round a circuit in reverse!

i was just searching for stuff about tyres, and I found this picture of cars racing round a circuit in reverse!

haha, sure.

But what are you trying to say, Bill?

this...

Sounds like a toss up between amount of contact and the amount of friction?

Bill regulates his speed in a smoothish curve when cycling (old school) ie doesnt slam on the brakes. Thats probably why the nobbles are pretty useless in comparison to a V like tyre tread and probably why on a a smooth surface its easier to manoeuvre.

why do you, fucker, insist on playing polo now anyway?

#polofashion

I've been playing longer than you... FACT!
#beardsaregay

very good matt.

thanks ray.

(sorry Bill, back to tyres):

If weight is a constant, surely having more weight in one spot will offer no more friction than less weight but over a greater surface area. I'm trying to imagine pushing something heavy on ice. Is it harder to get the initial movement with less surface area?

Maybe skis can tell us something. Longer skis (more surface area) are quicker.

Does that tell us anything?

Longer/wider skis are only faster if the snow is soft. What they give is bouyancy.

Friction is independant of surface area.

dudes who need to go fast on snow have long skis, that's a given. where does that put us on the tyre thing?

the snow ski analogy is all wrong.

its about increasing friction not decreasing.. increasing traction but maintaining speed.

super bike tyres....