If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
fbloogyudsr wrote: > > "C. E. White" > wrote > > Arif Khokar wrote: > >> C. E. White wrote: > >> > >> > I know little about snow tires and have never felt that I > >> > needed any. > >> > >> I felt the same way until I actually got a set. A set will probably > >> cost a little more than you would pay for a tow, but it's definitely > >> cheaper than the body shop. > > > > I don't claim to be an expert on winter driving. I spent one > > winter in Michigan (1978 - it was bad) and have to endure > > one or two snow storms a year here in NC. I have never found > > driving on snow to be much of a challenge. In fact, the > > winter in Michigan was a piece of cake. I was driving a > > Datsun 280Z at the time and never once had any problem > > despite repeated snow storms and the OE Bridgestone tires. > > > > ... Biggest challenge I had was driving a 2001 > > Mustang GT convertible home on a hilly road after an ice > > storm. Between the limited slip rear axle and the traction > > control, the car was almost undrivable. I never lost > > control, but because of the stop and go traffic, I was often > > stopped on the up slope of a steep hill. Getting the car > > started without bring the rear end around was a challenge. > > Fortunately I was patient and eventually made it home > > without incident. I can't say the same for a number of > > people in SUVs who didn't understand that ice equals little > > or no traction no matter how big your tires are and whether > > 2 or 4 are being driven. > > Looks like your patience got you through. But, the fact is > that if you had had snows (even if just on the rears of your RWD > cars), you would have had a much easier time of it. Maybe, but from what I have seen, snow tires don't help all that much on ice. I suppose if I lived in a place where you had snow on the ground 100 days a year, I'd buy snow tires as well. I can't see doing it for 5 days a year (well 14 days one year). Ed |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"C. E. White" > wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote: >> Looks like your patience got you through. But, the fact is >> that if you had had snows (even if just on the rears of your RWD >> cars), you would have had a much easier time of it. > > Maybe, but from what I have seen, snow tires don't help all > that much on ice. I suppose if I lived in a place where you > had snow on the ground 100 days a year, I'd buy snow tires > as well. I can't see doing it for 5 days a year (well 14 > days one year). While studded snow tires (illegal in many states, as well as most European countries) are the best option on ice, most modern studless snow tires have design elements that make them almost as good on ice (assuming the driver doesn't make the mistake of using too much gas - the most common mistake). Even the old "sawdust" tires from the 50's/60's were better. The new designs and sawdust tires depend upon forming multiple suction cups to increase traction. Floyd |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"C. E. White" > wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote: >> Looks like your patience got you through. But, the fact is >> that if you had had snows (even if just on the rears of your RWD >> cars), you would have had a much easier time of it. > > Maybe, but from what I have seen, snow tires don't help all > that much on ice. I suppose if I lived in a place where you > had snow on the ground 100 days a year, I'd buy snow tires > as well. I can't see doing it for 5 days a year (well 14 > days one year). While studded snow tires (illegal in many states, as well as most European countries) are the best option on ice, most modern studless snow tires have design elements that make them almost as good on ice (assuming the driver doesn't make the mistake of using too much gas - the most common mistake). Even the old "sawdust" tires from the 50's/60's were better. The new designs and sawdust tires depend upon forming multiple suction cups to increase traction. Floyd |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
fbloogyudsr wrote: > "C. E. White" > wrote > > wrote: > > > >> Which doesn't imply that you are correct in any way. I would suggest > >> that the experiences of an automotive profession carries more weight > >> than some d00d in usenet. > > > > Elevating most of them to "automotive > > profession<al>" is a little much. Maybe CSABA CSERE is a > > great author and maybe he has driven a lot of cool cars, but > > I imagine his area of expertise is not tire dynamics. Indeed, the word I meant to type was "professional". > If you had investigated further, you would discover that Csaba > is an "MIT educated automotive engineer". Are you? If not, > perhaps you should accede to his expert opinion. And having had a great deal of experience with different tiers on different drivetrain layouts might make him better-informed in the area. Some opinions are worth more than others. > If you have actually read C&D for a while, you would know > that they actually test things that they talk about. For instance, > a couple of years ago they tested snow tires and DSC, etc. > The tables are easy to read, even for non-technical persons. Then there's folks like me. I have driven a FWD Audi 4000 and an AWD Audi 4000 quattro in similar conditions, with similar tires. Since they are essentially the same car, comparisons can be made. a.) The quattro with no-seasons can get around OK under all conditions except glare ice. Stable, predictable, if not blazingly fast (not that an Audi 4k quattro was blazingly fast in any conditions.) b.) The FWD version had some trouble with hills and getting away from curbs on steeply-crowned roads on no-seasons. Otherwise, it got around about as well as the quattro, with slightly less giddyup from a stop. c.) The FWD with snows could kick the quattro's taillights if the quattro was shod in no-seasons. Cornering, braking and acceleration in a straight line. Steeper hillclimbs were still trouble, even with snows. AWD wins there, no question. Glare ice was still a big problem. Only studs or chain can help with glare ice, and even then, it's kinda dicey. Ever been in Portland OR during an ice storm? Even studs and AWD don't do much for you (but you can at least get around in the non-hilly parts of the city.) d.) Snows and quattro put the rest of the combos to shame. You're only limited by ground clearance., and even then, you can push a bit of snow, if it's not too deep. Conclusion: if you have to drive for any length of time on snow and ice, snow tires help out a ton. If you want the best performance, AWD + snows can't be beat. If it's not hilly, 2WD + no-seasons is adequate. Running summer tires or performance tires in the snow runs a high probability for a tow or body damage or both. AWD or not. Maybe more with AWD due to a false sense of security. Hand, E.P. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
fbloogyudsr wrote: > "C. E. White" > wrote > > wrote: > > > >> Which doesn't imply that you are correct in any way. I would suggest > >> that the experiences of an automotive profession carries more weight > >> than some d00d in usenet. > > > > Elevating most of them to "automotive > > profession<al>" is a little much. Maybe CSABA CSERE is a > > great author and maybe he has driven a lot of cool cars, but > > I imagine his area of expertise is not tire dynamics. Indeed, the word I meant to type was "professional". > If you had investigated further, you would discover that Csaba > is an "MIT educated automotive engineer". Are you? If not, > perhaps you should accede to his expert opinion. And having had a great deal of experience with different tiers on different drivetrain layouts might make him better-informed in the area. Some opinions are worth more than others. > If you have actually read C&D for a while, you would know > that they actually test things that they talk about. For instance, > a couple of years ago they tested snow tires and DSC, etc. > The tables are easy to read, even for non-technical persons. Then there's folks like me. I have driven a FWD Audi 4000 and an AWD Audi 4000 quattro in similar conditions, with similar tires. Since they are essentially the same car, comparisons can be made. a.) The quattro with no-seasons can get around OK under all conditions except glare ice. Stable, predictable, if not blazingly fast (not that an Audi 4k quattro was blazingly fast in any conditions.) b.) The FWD version had some trouble with hills and getting away from curbs on steeply-crowned roads on no-seasons. Otherwise, it got around about as well as the quattro, with slightly less giddyup from a stop. c.) The FWD with snows could kick the quattro's taillights if the quattro was shod in no-seasons. Cornering, braking and acceleration in a straight line. Steeper hillclimbs were still trouble, even with snows. AWD wins there, no question. Glare ice was still a big problem. Only studs or chain can help with glare ice, and even then, it's kinda dicey. Ever been in Portland OR during an ice storm? Even studs and AWD don't do much for you (but you can at least get around in the non-hilly parts of the city.) d.) Snows and quattro put the rest of the combos to shame. You're only limited by ground clearance., and even then, you can push a bit of snow, if it's not too deep. Conclusion: if you have to drive for any length of time on snow and ice, snow tires help out a ton. If you want the best performance, AWD + snows can't be beat. If it's not hilly, 2WD + no-seasons is adequate. Running summer tires or performance tires in the snow runs a high probability for a tow or body damage or both. AWD or not. Maybe more with AWD due to a false sense of security. Hand, E.P. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
fbloogyudsr wrote: > > "C. E. White" > wrote > > wrote: > > > >> Which doesn't imply that you are correct in any way. I would suggest > >> that the experiences of an automotive profession carries more weight > >> than some d00d in usenet. > > > > I know little about snow tires and have never felt that I > > needed any. I do however have an opinion of automobile > > magazine authors. Elevating most of them to "automotive > > profession<al>" is a little much. Maybe CSABA CSERE is a > > great author and maybe he has driven a lot of cool cars, but > > I imagine his area of expertise is not tire dynamics. > > If you had investigated further, you would discover that Csaba > is an "MIT educated automotive engineer". Are you? If not, > perhaps you should accede to his expert opinion. I am not an MIT educated engineer, although I am an engineer of some sort (and have been for 30 years). I did play engineer in the automotive industry for about 4 months once, until I decided I hated cold weather more than I liked working in the automotive industry. Do you have a copy of Mr. Csere's resume handy? It would be interesting to see what he has actually done outside of the publishing buisness. The term "Automotive Engineer" could mean almost anything, from someone responsible for a team designing a complete suspension system to the guy washing the car at the test track. I don't doubt that Mr Csere is a brilliant and accomplished engineer. And I can understand why you might value his opinion higher than mine or others that play on the interent. Still, when all is said and done, the article quoted was clearly an opinion piece. No hard facts were presented. No documented comparison referenced. Only Mr. Csere's feelings were presented. I don't doubt that most snow tires are an improvement on over most "regular" tires when driving on snow. I do think it might be hard to prove that any 2WD (particualry a RWD) vehicle on snow tires can handle snow better than any 4WD or AWD vehicle on any "regular" tires. If you want to put up the money for such a study (say 5 million), I'm your man. I feel certain I could design a good experiment to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Only problem would be my dislike of cold weather. But for the right money, I could overcome this objection. > > The > > particular article quoted was interesting, but seemed to be > > little more than one man's opinion. The fact that his > > opinion was printed in Car and Driver doesn't make it any > > more valid than one man's opinion expressed through the > > internet. The whole article smacked of a Tire Rack article > > designed to sell snow tires. > > If you have actually read C&D for a while, you would know > that they actually test things that they talk about. For instance, > a couple of years ago they tested snow tires and DSC, etc. > The tables are easy to read, even for non-technical persons. I used to read C&D religiously (and R&T as well). However, most of their "tests" are too close to commercials (particularly the road tests). Their tests are interesting, but often not particualrly scientific. They are just about as credible as the "Myth Busters" on the Discovery Channel. Entertaining, interesting, stimulating, but hardly the best designed tests around. I am not a big fan of Consumer Reports - at least when it comes to opinions and surveys, but I do trust their test methods more than C&D or R&T. They have their own track, buy their own test specimans, and at least understand how to run a decent test. Sometimes they have been know to do things I don't agree with (like changing a test procedure in the middle of a test), but in generally they are honest about it. I looked at their ratings for snow versus all season tires, and at least according to their data, it appears that some all season tires are better in the snow than some snow tires. For instance, BFGoodrich Control T/A had a better snow traction rating than Michelin Artic Alpin tires. The Car and Driver test that "proved" that snow tires are more import than AWD ("What Price Traction?" May 1999) is no longer available from C&D's web site, but a copy is available at (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/arc...ex.php/t-50930). This article and their latter article comparing performance and snow tires on several AWD vehicles (http://www.caranddriver.com/article....age_numb er=1) are flawed. They comapred one particualr type of snow tires (Bridgestone Blizzak in one test, Dunlop Winter Sport M2 in the other) to the OE tires provided with the vehicles. All this proves is that the Bridgestones or Dunlops are better in the snow than the particualr OE tires on the cars. It doesn't prove anything general when you are comparing all season or performace tires to snow tires on all vehicles. In the more recent test, I was suprised by how little the advantage really was given the inherent bias of the test. The avarage snow tire's advantage over the 1.8 mile corse was less than 8%. Hardly seems likel a slam dunk recommendation for the snow tires. If you beleive the CR test, there is more than an 8% difference in brands of snow tires. BTW, according to CR, the BFGoodrich Control T/A tires had better snow traction than the Dunlop Winter Sport M2 tires C&D used in the test. Might have been entertaining to repeat the test with the All Season tires. Where would it leave the snow tire fans, if the T/A had been better? Ed |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
fbloogyudsr wrote: > > "C. E. White" > wrote > > wrote: > > > >> Which doesn't imply that you are correct in any way. I would suggest > >> that the experiences of an automotive profession carries more weight > >> than some d00d in usenet. > > > > I know little about snow tires and have never felt that I > > needed any. I do however have an opinion of automobile > > magazine authors. Elevating most of them to "automotive > > profession<al>" is a little much. Maybe CSABA CSERE is a > > great author and maybe he has driven a lot of cool cars, but > > I imagine his area of expertise is not tire dynamics. > > If you had investigated further, you would discover that Csaba > is an "MIT educated automotive engineer". Are you? If not, > perhaps you should accede to his expert opinion. I am not an MIT educated engineer, although I am an engineer of some sort (and have been for 30 years). I did play engineer in the automotive industry for about 4 months once, until I decided I hated cold weather more than I liked working in the automotive industry. Do you have a copy of Mr. Csere's resume handy? It would be interesting to see what he has actually done outside of the publishing buisness. The term "Automotive Engineer" could mean almost anything, from someone responsible for a team designing a complete suspension system to the guy washing the car at the test track. I don't doubt that Mr Csere is a brilliant and accomplished engineer. And I can understand why you might value his opinion higher than mine or others that play on the interent. Still, when all is said and done, the article quoted was clearly an opinion piece. No hard facts were presented. No documented comparison referenced. Only Mr. Csere's feelings were presented. I don't doubt that most snow tires are an improvement on over most "regular" tires when driving on snow. I do think it might be hard to prove that any 2WD (particualry a RWD) vehicle on snow tires can handle snow better than any 4WD or AWD vehicle on any "regular" tires. If you want to put up the money for such a study (say 5 million), I'm your man. I feel certain I could design a good experiment to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Only problem would be my dislike of cold weather. But for the right money, I could overcome this objection. > > The > > particular article quoted was interesting, but seemed to be > > little more than one man's opinion. The fact that his > > opinion was printed in Car and Driver doesn't make it any > > more valid than one man's opinion expressed through the > > internet. The whole article smacked of a Tire Rack article > > designed to sell snow tires. > > If you have actually read C&D for a while, you would know > that they actually test things that they talk about. For instance, > a couple of years ago they tested snow tires and DSC, etc. > The tables are easy to read, even for non-technical persons. I used to read C&D religiously (and R&T as well). However, most of their "tests" are too close to commercials (particularly the road tests). Their tests are interesting, but often not particualrly scientific. They are just about as credible as the "Myth Busters" on the Discovery Channel. Entertaining, interesting, stimulating, but hardly the best designed tests around. I am not a big fan of Consumer Reports - at least when it comes to opinions and surveys, but I do trust their test methods more than C&D or R&T. They have their own track, buy their own test specimans, and at least understand how to run a decent test. Sometimes they have been know to do things I don't agree with (like changing a test procedure in the middle of a test), but in generally they are honest about it. I looked at their ratings for snow versus all season tires, and at least according to their data, it appears that some all season tires are better in the snow than some snow tires. For instance, BFGoodrich Control T/A had a better snow traction rating than Michelin Artic Alpin tires. The Car and Driver test that "proved" that snow tires are more import than AWD ("What Price Traction?" May 1999) is no longer available from C&D's web site, but a copy is available at (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/arc...ex.php/t-50930). This article and their latter article comparing performance and snow tires on several AWD vehicles (http://www.caranddriver.com/article....age_numb er=1) are flawed. They comapred one particualr type of snow tires (Bridgestone Blizzak in one test, Dunlop Winter Sport M2 in the other) to the OE tires provided with the vehicles. All this proves is that the Bridgestones or Dunlops are better in the snow than the particualr OE tires on the cars. It doesn't prove anything general when you are comparing all season or performace tires to snow tires on all vehicles. In the more recent test, I was suprised by how little the advantage really was given the inherent bias of the test. The avarage snow tire's advantage over the 1.8 mile corse was less than 8%. Hardly seems likel a slam dunk recommendation for the snow tires. If you beleive the CR test, there is more than an 8% difference in brands of snow tires. BTW, according to CR, the BFGoodrich Control T/A tires had better snow traction than the Dunlop Winter Sport M2 tires C&D used in the test. Might have been entertaining to repeat the test with the All Season tires. Where would it leave the snow tire fans, if the T/A had been better? Ed |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
C. E. White wrote: -snip- > I don't doubt that most > snow tires are an improvement on over most "regular" tires > when driving on snow. I do think it might be hard to prove > that any 2WD (particualry a RWD) vehicle on snow tires can > handle snow better than any 4WD or AWD vehicle on any > "regular" tires. If by "regular" you mean "no (all)-season", then it might be a wash - AWD vs. 2WD-with-snows. But plenty of AWD cars run performance rubber. Summer rubber. And summer rubber does not work on snow, AWD or not. Dave C. was making the claim that AWD is the solution, period. It isn't. Period. > If you want to put up the money for such a > study (say 5 million), I'm your man. I feel certain I could > design a good experiment to confirm or deny the hypothesis. > Only problem would be my dislike of cold weather. But for > the right money, I could overcome this objection. The tests in the magazine provide decent internally-consistent data. FWD with snows beats the AWD on no-seasons in skidpad, braking and slalom. AWD beats FWD in all aspects on hillclimb, and acceleration from rest. And it makes sense from a mass/friction standpoint as well. While I would say the tests are not scientific, they are better than WAGs and declarative statements without ANY data backing. > (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/arc...ex.php/t-50930). Read the numbers for drivetrain layout vs. tire vs. test run. > (http://www.caranddriver.com/article....age_numb er=1) > BTW, according to CR, the BFGoodrich Control T/A > tires had better snow traction than the Dunlop Winter Sport > M2 tires C&D used in the test. Might have been entertaining > to repeat the test with the All Season tires. Where would it > leave the snow tire fans, if the T/A had been better? Wanting a better snow tire than the pathetic Dunlops? Like Hakas? Just like there are crap summer tires (as Dave points out), there are also crap winter tires. The fact that some superb no-seasons best the crappy snows does not mean that decent snow tires couldn't be head-and-shoulders above the superb no-seasons. And there is the non-scientific, but significant, subjective "feel" of the car on winter rubber in the snow. There is a qualitative difference in how the car reacts to inputs. Just because it's not measured doesn't mean it has no relevance. HAND, E.P. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
C. E. White wrote: -snip- > I don't doubt that most > snow tires are an improvement on over most "regular" tires > when driving on snow. I do think it might be hard to prove > that any 2WD (particualry a RWD) vehicle on snow tires can > handle snow better than any 4WD or AWD vehicle on any > "regular" tires. If by "regular" you mean "no (all)-season", then it might be a wash - AWD vs. 2WD-with-snows. But plenty of AWD cars run performance rubber. Summer rubber. And summer rubber does not work on snow, AWD or not. Dave C. was making the claim that AWD is the solution, period. It isn't. Period. > If you want to put up the money for such a > study (say 5 million), I'm your man. I feel certain I could > design a good experiment to confirm or deny the hypothesis. > Only problem would be my dislike of cold weather. But for > the right money, I could overcome this objection. The tests in the magazine provide decent internally-consistent data. FWD with snows beats the AWD on no-seasons in skidpad, braking and slalom. AWD beats FWD in all aspects on hillclimb, and acceleration from rest. And it makes sense from a mass/friction standpoint as well. While I would say the tests are not scientific, they are better than WAGs and declarative statements without ANY data backing. > (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/arc...ex.php/t-50930). Read the numbers for drivetrain layout vs. tire vs. test run. > (http://www.caranddriver.com/article....age_numb er=1) > BTW, according to CR, the BFGoodrich Control T/A > tires had better snow traction than the Dunlop Winter Sport > M2 tires C&D used in the test. Might have been entertaining > to repeat the test with the All Season tires. Where would it > leave the snow tire fans, if the T/A had been better? Wanting a better snow tire than the pathetic Dunlops? Like Hakas? Just like there are crap summer tires (as Dave points out), there are also crap winter tires. The fact that some superb no-seasons best the crappy snows does not mean that decent snow tires couldn't be head-and-shoulders above the superb no-seasons. And there is the non-scientific, but significant, subjective "feel" of the car on winter rubber in the snow. There is a qualitative difference in how the car reacts to inputs. Just because it's not measured doesn't mean it has no relevance. HAND, E.P. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
94 Toyota HELP Needed! | [email protected] | 4x4 | 0 | June 7th 04 12:07 AM |
Hino *hybride* 240pk diesel in new Toyota fullsize pickup (USA) | Willem-Jan Markerink | 4x4 | 14 | April 2nd 04 06:48 PM |