Jump to content

City driving is hell! Do remodels help with the clunkiness?


Dgillies

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, markwilliam1 said:

Absolutely love the Nexens. I believe they're all seasons also!

Nexens from what I have read do not exactly have a cult following. I'll stick with Hankook and leave the NHTSA report to you to fill out later.

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, markwilliam1 said:

Enjoy your harsh ride @ 65 lbs. I think Derek posted how much gas you would save on a long trip driving @ 55-60 lbs for a smooth ride vs. 65lbs and it amounted to practically nothing (a few bucks!) Can't remember the specifics...ya there Derek??

your ride is harsh because you dont have 6-7 leafs in your ancient springs, but hey, let your loose Nexens wear prematurely and get poor mileage while smiling and running that honda :)

 

education for those not afraid to read:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-inflation-affect-tire-wear.htm

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ya need a "cult following" for quality tires befor you buy them Totem??  What the "H" is a NHTSA report and what does have to do with Nexen tires Sir?? Please educate me for my stupidity after spending over $600 for  6 new tires that for some reason don't meet your standards? Hankook does not make that particular tire anymore so you still have to buy that brand due to a "cult following?" Makes no since to me Man! Understand, I am Akron Ohio born and raised and my Dad & GranDad worked for Firestone & Goodyear (total time over 100 years) all their lives and I have rubber in my blood. I used to unload 50K lbs. of tires every day from a Goodyear train box car ALL MADE IN the USA! What the "H" happened?? How it sucks not being able to buy a tire made in the USA anymore. So what's your beef about Nexen tires now?? Do you have them on you rig? I do & luv 'em! I get so tired of people making statements about products they don't even have or what they might have read about and then form an unverified opinion. Kinda like your disdain for Honda generators although you don't own one right?? Just sayin'!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna throw out my two cents that running over pot holes in a camper is going to be unpleasant no matter how new your suspension is. Pots, pans, rattles, shakes, and bangs come from all bits and pieces back there.

In regards to psi, dropping it will definitely soften the ride so that's worth trying. 

Mpg calculation:

0.4% increase per 1psi with 4 tires. I'm going to assume a 0.6% increase per 1psi increase with 6 tires.

65-55psi = ∆10psi x 0.6% = 6%

Using 15mpg as the baseline over a 10,000 mile trip = 667 gallons x $2.30 gal = $1533

15mpg x 1.06 = 15.9  over 10,000 miles = 629 gallons x $2.30 = $1446 

Difference is $86 over a solid road trip.

And checking my work, I can see that the percent in mpg increase goes straight through to equate to the same percent increase in money saved.

Edited by bicoastal eric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had the Nexen's on mine for two years now.  I spent a bit more money over getting the cheaper Chinese tires but these were still a pretty good deal.  I've no issue with the Hankook.  Both companies have been making tires in Korea since the 1940's.  Nexen arguably has more experience with truck tires but both have been around for a long time.  The Nexen name has not been around for that long as they changed it in 2000 from Woosung.  I've a lot of respect for Korea and Korean's.  Hard working people.  Wife is Korean so that might have something to do with it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 at 5:32 AM, markwilliam1 said:

I agree jjr had mine @ 65 lbs. all around jarring ride so took Derek's advice and lowered rears to 60 and fronts to 55 lbs. Much smoother ride!

60 lbs is still bone jarring territory on my 93. Of course I am sacrificing that 30MPG by running lower pressure.  :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bicoastal eric said:

I'm gonna throw out my two cents that running over pot holes in a camper is going to be unpleasant no matter how new your suspension is. Pots, pans, rattles, shakes, and bangs come from all bits and pieces back there.

In regards to psi, dropping it will definitely soften the ride so that's worth trying. 

Mpg calculation:

0.4% increase per 1psi with 4 tires. I'm going to assume a 0.6% increase per 1psi increase with 6 tires.

65-55psi = ∆10psi x 0.6% = 6%

Using 15mpg as the baseline over a 10,000 mile trip = 667 gallons x $2.30 gal = $1533

15mpg x 1.06 = 15.9  over 10,000 miles = 629 gallons x $2.30 = $1446 

Difference is $86 over a solid road trip.

And checking my work, I can see that the percent in mpg increase goes straight through to equate to the same perfect increase in money saved.

Boom. Thank you. $86 is my entire grocery bill usually per trip, (minus beer of course but we consider that a vitamin.)

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jjrbus said:

60 lbs is still bone jarring territory on my 93. Of course I am sacrificing that 30MPG by running lower pressure.  :sorcerer:

well you know JJ, you would actually need to go on a trip to get MPG, instead of the forever quest in the driveway to get everything perfect and use nothing but made in the USA parts in doing so ...:P

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, markwilliam1 said:

So Ya need a "cult following" for quality tires befor you buy them Totem??  What the "H" is a NHTSA report and what does have to do with Nexen tires Sir?? Please educate me for my stupidity after spending over $600 for  6 new tires that for some reason don't meet your standards? Hankook does not make that particular tire anymore so you still have to buy that brand due to a "cult following?" Makes no since to me Man! Understand, I am Akron Ohio born and raised and my Dad & GranDad worked for Firestone & Goodyear (total time over 100 years) all their lives and I have rubber in my blood. I used to unload 50K lbs. of tires every day from a Goodyear train box car ALL MADE IN the USA! What the "H" happened?? How it sucks not being able to buy a tire made in the USA anymore. So what's your beef about Nexen tires now?? Do you have them on you rig? I do & luv 'em! I get so tired of people making statements about products they don't even have or what they might have read about and then form an unverified opinion. Kinda like your disdain for Honda generators although you don't own one right?? Just sayin'!

 

In short, Yes.  the RA18 will be my next tires, if I cannot source some new old stock RA08s at a nice price that were kept indoors. Frankly if you read the tire performance chart the RA18s are better performing than the RA08s and I dont take my camper into the Arctic; it gets winterized usually. I do enjoy your vigor though sir, really do, nor would I disrespect your rubber blood. I like to ice fish too much sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Derek up North said:

More education for those not afraid to read.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/over-inflation-affect-tire-wear.htm

The Right Tire Pressure: Why the Maximum Isn’t the Best

https://www.kaltire.com/the-right-tire-pressure-why-the-maximum-isnt-the-best/

Again, the rated maximum is not over inflating. Its the best BANG for the buck. Save $86 enough times, get some bilsteins and leafs and have a beer. Or, feather your tires and feel smarter, your choice... Personally I dont drift nor corner my rig like a sports car anyway so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bicoastal eric said:

0.4% increase per 1psi with 4 tires. I'm going to assume a 0.6% increase per 1psi increase with 6 tires.

65-55psi = ∆10psi x 0.6% = 6%

 

Increase of what? Fuel Consumption or Rolling Resistance? Car to give a source for this number?

Anyone want more education before 'boom'ing?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC)/ca/Tires/811154.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek up North said:

Increase of what? Fuel Consumption or Rolling Resistance? Car to give a source for this number?

Anyone want more education before 'boom'ing?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC)/ca/Tires/811154.pdf

Your desperation is showing and I had not even thought of Erics valid point that we do indeed have 6 on the road not 4 as in the tests that you are flailing. The Boom happened. it cracked the windows, sorry for that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek up North said:

Where would you find such a 'tire performance chart'? Please post a link (or a video). :)

Why from Hankooks website of course. I will post it later. My ears are ringing from the boom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Totem said:

Your desperation is showing and I had not even thought of Erics valid point that we do indeed have 6 on the road not 4 as in the tests that you are flailing. The Boom happened. it cracked the windows, sorry for that. :)

Sorry, but I guess I'm old fashioned and require more than someone writing 'Boom' to accept an argument. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

BTW, rolling resistance is a function of WEIGHT, So having the same weight on 6 tires (instead of 4) will be less weight/tire, therefore less rolling resistance/tire though probably close to the same total rolling resistance.

you are adding additional rolling resistance because you have added additional surface of an additional tire and its friction. No, I do not agree with your function.

Essentially if what you were saying was true, a dually would get better MPG than a non dually based on additional wheels alone spreading that function you have a$$ U med, we all know the opposite to be true when looking at MPG of trucks in dually and non dually model trucks of same class....

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Totem said:

you are adding additional rolling resistance because you have added additional surface of an additional tire and its friction.

Consider rather than thinking weight, look at it as pressure relating to friction.  Also the tire has a variable contact surface due to to this pressure from the load (which is how weight is related to this calculation).  Pressure (a function of weight) is an inescapable part of rolling resistance (While really what you are talking about is friction).

I've no interest in delving into the fray but it seems to me you are looking at a complicated calculus with an overly simplistic perspective that misses a good deal of the physics.  Otherwise I am glad you have found true tire nirvana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought the Nexen's @ Wal-Mart couple months ago as no Hankooks were available and am very happy with their deep tread and smooth, quite ride. So after a 10000 mile trip I'd only save 80 bucks and enjoy a much smoother ride and a quieter coach? Sounds like a no brainer until Totem brought up Beer! That would buy a lot of beer Man. I'm so confused about what to do now....Thanks Totem:-):-)! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Totem said:

 ... that function you have a$$ U med, ...

The only function I mentioned is that rolling resistance is a function of weight. I understand you have difficulty with anything more technically challenging than 'Boom' but here's some more reading for you. :)

The rolling resistance can be expressed as

Fr = c W         (1)

where

Fr = rolling resistance or rolling friction (N, lbf)

c = rolling resistance coefficient - dimensionless (coefficient of rolling friction - CRF)

W = m g = normal force - weight - of the body (N, lbf)

m = mass of body (kg, lb)

g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2, 32.174 ft/s2)

The rolling resistance can alternatively be expressed as

Fr = clW / r         (2)

where

cl = rolling resistance coefficient with dimension length (coefficient of rolling friction) (mm, in)

r = radius of wheel (mm, in)

 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

The only function I mentioned is that rolling resistance is a function of weight. I understand you have difficulty with anything more technically challenging than 'Boom' but here's some more reading for you. :)

The rolling resistance can be expressed as

Fr = c W         (1)

where

Fr = rolling resistance or rolling friction (N, lbf)

c = rolling resistance coefficient - dimensionless (coefficient of rolling friction - CRF)

W = m g = normal force - weight - of the body (N, lbf)

m = mass of body (kg, lb)

g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2, 32.174 ft/s2)

The rolling resistance can alternatively be expressed as

Fr = clW / r         (2)

where

cl = rolling resistance coefficient with dimension length (coefficient of rolling friction) (mm, in)

r = radius of wheel (mm, in)

 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html

ok professor, so whats your calculus for the cost of your squishy tires then>? hmmm? We are waiting... Anyone can attack another posters math, but if you dont substitute your own equation, then you arent really saying much. So far BiCoastal has a pretty interesting solution taking into effect the known variables. You dispute the variables? show us your equation with YOUR supposed variables inserted and answer then...

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Totem said:

... whats your calculus for the cost of your squishy tires then>?

I have no idea what that means. :)

I don't think I attacked anyone's math. I asked where the info (4%) came from but so far, no answer.

If you want to start calculating (which I don't think you have yet), follow the link I posted above and have at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

I have no idea what that means. :)

I don't think I attacked anyone's math. I asked where the info (4%) came from but so far, no answer.

If you want to start calculating (which I don't think you have yet), follow the link I posted above and have at it.

I already posted that source at 11:47 yesterday sir, try to keep up.  The US Department of Energy....

" The U.S. Department of Energy says that for every 1-psi drop in pressure, you can expect your gas mileage to lower by 0.4 percent."

So, to do the math in Erics equation for you... 10 PSI x .4 = 4%... so there it is.

 

this came from popular mechanics btw...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a940/4199963/

in case you were going to cry that I just made that up. :)

Interestingly the article is one that doesn't advocate over-inflating; however, under inflating it also spells out as having the .4% and again, inflating to tire specs is not over-inflating, its maximum spec inflating.

To me the specifications on a tire come from a tire manufacturer... and as stated earlier, I do not go from the specifications on tires as built in 1985, i go from the manufacturer specs on the tires I actually have on my rig. A careful reader can see the article here is referencing a brand new car where the tire specifications are on the door of the car because they are factory originals.

You can be correct in this Derek... if you are NOT using RA08s... which have max at 65 PSI. If you are running 55 max Nexen's hey no problem... Theres the olive branch for you. :)

I will agree with you that if I had my factory original tires on, I would inflate them to their recommended specs, perhaps even the ones on the door, but alas I don't, the wheels, tires, Axle and everything are all different then what was manufactured - in my case in an 85 anyway.

 

 

 

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you just read the title of what your quoting or do you actually read the WHOLE thing???

You do realize that the DOE statement is for every 1 psi drop in pressure UNDER PROPER pressure the gas mpg  can decrease by .2%.

The last sentence in your support statement is " Do not use the maximum pressure printed on the tire's sidewall." 

Come on guys proper pressure for the weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WME said:

Do you just read the title of what your quoting or do you actually read the WHOLE thing???

You do realize that the DOE statement is for every 1 psi drop in pressure UNDER PROPER pressure the gas mpg  can decrease by .2%.

The last sentence in your support statement is " Do not use the maximum pressure printed on the tire's sidewall." 

Come on guys proper pressure for the weight.

Thanks, you beat me to it..  Max pressure simply does not mean proper pressure.  There is a lot to this Totem is missing or ignoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the Popular Mechanics link. They managed to increase economy from 42.15mpg to 42.19mpg (statistically insignificant) by 'overinflating' the tires. And this in a smaller, far more aerodynamic vehicle where rolling resistance will be more important compared to aerodynamic resistance.

" The U.S. Department of Energy says that for every 1-psi drop in pressure, you can expect your gas mileage to lower by 0.4 percent."

I'm not sure where their quote came from, but ...

" Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by about 0.2% for every 1 psi drop in the average pressure of all tires. Properly inflated tires are safer and last longer ."

Here's where mine comes from:- http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.jsp

An excellent example of why I try to do my homework before starting or perpetuating interweb rumours. :)

P.S. Popular Mechanics wouldn't be my 1st stop for accurate technical info. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not ignoring anything. Manufacturers recommendations are in part weight and build AS BUILT to that day... so in that you are correct. But the RA08s are not even close to the tires that came on the rig with the foolies. Further more, all tires deflate over time, hence my original qualifier that I let them start at the max and come down on their own.

Hint, the oem wheels, axle, tires and several other parts from 1985 are no longer the same, in addition swaybar etc.

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

I'm assuming he's quite short, because most seems to be going over his head. :)

BOOM :)

So I take it you are stating on the record that all tires are of the same pressure regardless of make, manufacturer, rim, axle, etc? wow, there a lot thats going over YOUR head. BOOM.

I suppose a 1500 ram truck will have the same recommendation as a 2500 for tire pressure to you guys? Really? When axle and wheel changes you guys are seeming to say that we aren't changing the manufactures build at all...

So to further clarify, the foolies, the very axle itself and the weight of the vehicle have changed since that sticker was placed. Its my experience that the 3/4 trucks run higher PSI tires than 1500s.... you cannot hide totally behind the sticker as if it rolled off the assembly line.. at least not on my rig.

Edited by Totem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Totem said:

So I take it you are stating on the record that all tires are of the same pressure regardless of make, manufacturer, rim, axle, etc? wow, there a lot thats going over YOUR head. BOOM.

Umm, I don't remember stating anything like "... all tires are of the same pressure regardless of make, manufacturer, rim, axle, etc". However, I will state that all LR C and all LR D tires will be marked with the same maximum pressure (50psig and 65psig respectively) regardless of make, manufacturer, rim, axle, etc. That's the Standard/Definition the tire manufacturers follow.

I really don't have any idea what the rim or axle has to do with tire pressures. I'm almost afraid to ask for an explanation.

I realized why I didn't remember seeing your 0.4% misinformation. You went back to your 11:47 post and edited it (@ 11:51) (as you often seem to do) to add that info after I'd read it . I'm not about to go back and reread all threads, so you'll have to point them (edits) out to me. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derek up North said:

Increase of what? Fuel Consumption or Rolling Resistance? Car to give a source for this number?

Anyone want more education before 'boom'ing?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC)/ca/Tires/811154.pdf

Mpg

Sorry, I'm sure I left out a few units, but the math was more for me and the answer was for anyone interested.

But I must admit it's less than I thought it would be. But like I said, through my calculations, you can effectively subtract 6% from your fuel bill going from 55-65psi. 

Whether or not it's worth the bumps is up to you. I'm thinking after doing the math I may bring my psi down under 60psi

 

As for ruling resistance being a function of weight, I'm sure we all have enough weight on our backs to provide the usual rolling resistance per tire. If you find a source that says 0.2% mpg increase per psi increase than go ahead and use that, taking into account the 2 extra tires. 

Another interesting thought is that if you are getting bad mpg, it will be more worth it for you to increase your mpg than if your already getting great mpg. ie. 6% savings on 10mpg will save you more money than 6% savings on 30mpg... I think?

Anyways, moral of the story for me is that it's ok to drop the psi down a few and find a balance of ride and economy. 

Lastly, the ideal psi for your tires will take into account the weight their carrying and other info and this will wear your tire the most evenly, perhaps saving you a few bucks down the road on tires

 

 

Edited by bicoastal eric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your source for the 4%? If it was Popular Mechanics, like Totem, then it's incorrect. DoE says 2%, so your 6% might be 3% (at best).

I still can't understand how anyone can make a 10000 road mile trip with a grocery bill of only $86 (excluding beer). Must be short and skinny. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...