Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
I see that Rmay hasn't responded to my post. Until he does, I'm not going to post on the subject. But allow me to set the stage.
Oil_Film_Movies:...1) What is the principle of First Principles (See what I did there?) I am unfamiliar with the concept. Could you give a few examples and explain why it is better than others?..2) is "the tire tread is moving in the contact patch" considered a First Principle? If not, why not?
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
We engineers are only skeptical when some idea or assertion violates "
first principles", we call it. That means logic and reason within known limitations of science are applied to any claim. This claim in particular doesn't seem to violate any known physical limitation of polymer science.
An
explanation of first-principle science-engineering reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHyu8Jt226M
So, a First Principle is what we engineers go to when we are trying to outline the limitations.... Just fundamental physics most of the time. NEVER something somebody just said about the way things have been. For example, a trucker says he goes up an 8% mountain grade at 75 mph steady. First Principles simply goes to Newtonian physics to show that the load weight, engine he had, and aero drag he had won't let him do more than 60 mph, so its refuted.
OK, you ask "
is "the tire tread is moving in the contact patch" considered a First Principle? If not, why not?" --- No. That's a kinematic constraint we can agree on we can't get around, for sure. 1st Principles is something from physics really.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What we're actually talking about here in this thread is whether or not tire rubber must lose mass from hits, and if we can lower the wear rate through chemistry.
I remember back 12 years ago, Continental Tire put OEM tires on some new Fords, and those tires wore out in 15 or 20 thousand miles! ( When they were expected to go over 30 thousand miles average.) I had some on a new Ford at the time, and the Class Action lawsuit figured out that the Continental factory had messed up the recipe for the rubber somehow, creating tires that wore out really fast. .... So, chemistry alterations can change the wear rate. Evidence there. Take that one incident as a hint, thats all. Chemistry and materials behavior are alterable.
It does appear likely that improving the tire rubber's ability to take a hit and bounce back instead of breaking off chunks would lower the wear rate.
Again, because I know some extremist will say "you can never get zero wear rates", OK, not saying that at all. Just
reduction in wear.
A simple experiment would be to test the tensile strain energy of a sliver of tire rubber, comparing one with 303 plasticizer and one without it (maybe aged like real tires too). If we found that the 303-treated rubber stretched more without breaking than the other one, we could begin to believe claims that wear reduction happens in tires with 303 when road asperities strike the surface and try to tear off chunks.
