I have a theory, which I’d like to expound, and my clever readers can tell me whether it’s right or wrong.
It came to me in the mid-1980s, this theory, when I got my first car: a Hillman Imp, which I purchased for £90. It had no manuals, and, actually, no ignition key: you had to put an old screwdriver into the slot where the ignition switch had once been, and twist it to start…
Anyway, because I had no documentation, I just guessed at the appropriate pressures for the tyres, and pumped them up to 30 PSI all round. Several months later, in mid-winter, I finally found out that the front of the Imp was so light that the front ones were only supposed to be at 16 PSI. This, I imagine, accounted for the fact that when it was snowing, turning the steering wheel didn’t do very much on its own, and I had to make handbrake turns to get around some of the tighter corners on my daily commute.
And this came back to me, a quarter of a century later, when I got my first electric car: a BMW i3, which had large and very narrow tyres — almost like motorbike wheels — to improve the airflow..
Some of my friends and neighbours said they’d prefer bigger, fatter tyres so there would be more rubber in contact with the road.
But I pointed out that, to a first approximation, this shape didn’t make any difference. And here’s my reasoning:
The thing keeping your car off the ground is the air pressure in the tyres pressing on the patch of tyre that’s in contact with the road. That downward force must equal the pressure in the tyre times the area of contact. Or, to put it another way, if your tyres are at 40psi and your car weighs 2000 lbs, then you must have roughly 50 sq. ins. in contact with the road – 12.5 sq ins per tyre – whatever your shape of tyre.
So, for the same pressure and weight of vehicle, if your tyres are wide, you’ll get a wide, short patch touching the ground. If they’re narrow, you’ll get a longer, thinner patch, but they should be about the same size in either case. Double the pressure, and you’ll halve the area in contact with the ground. Halve it, and you’ll double the area. But buying wider tyres will only make you look more macho.
Now, this is an approximation, partly because tyres aren’t perfect spherical balloons and the area doesn’t change smoothly with the pressure, partly because the forces go towards stretching the rubber as well as supporting the car, and partly because the pressure is providing rigidity to the structure of the tyre, so you get some support from the vertical bits of rubber as well, but the basic principle holds: it’s primarily the pressure, not the shape of the tyre, that’s important in determining how large an area touches the road.
Now, in practice, I came to rather like the long, thin tyres of the i3: they cut through water and slush very well, and were less likely to aquaplane when you encountered a puddle. (A counter-argument, I guess, would be that if there’s a rut on the road, you’re likely to have a higher proportion of your tyre on it for longer if your contact area is long and thin.)
So, yes, the best way to get a better grip is generally to lower the pressure, if you can face the resulting fuel costs. However, even this isn’t as simple as it may seem, because you may remember from your school physics lessons that it’s the perpendicular force times the coefficient of friction that counts; Guillaume Amontons showed in the 17th century that if you’re sliding two surfaces over each other, the area of contact isn’t important – it’s the force with which they’re being pressed together.
If we had perfectly flat roads, increasing the area in contact with the ground would make little difference. But sadly, the roads are getting ever less flat around here, so dropping the pressure a bit will not only get you a better grip as winter approaches… it’ll make the potholes more comfortable too.
Interesting post that I have something hopefully relevant to contribute.
A very long time ago I did a considerable number of skid tests to establish grip in different circumstances. I cannot remember the vast majority of the details, this was in the last century, but as I recall pressure had to be very, very low to start making a difference to stopping distances, essentially establishing the third law of friction as you say. Low pressure did have a lot of influence on a vehicle travelling in a circular path, effectively allowing the sidewall to collapse thereby removing the contact patch. Radials massively improved the situation over cross-plys.
Other observations were that, in a locked wheel situation, all vehicles skidded to a stop in relatively similar distances on the same surface in the same conditions, largely independent of tyre size or profile. Tread depth was irrelevant in dry conditions but very relevant in wet conditions. Change your tyres at 3mm tread depth, big fall off below that down to the legal limit.
ABS was/is brilliant and has saved an untold number of lives. Keeping the wheel in static friction, preventing it going in to sliding friction was a game changer up there with airbags, breathalysers and speed cameras, probably more so, but much less appreciated.
Sidewall height has a massive impact on ride quality: bigger the sidewall better the ride. Wide tyres with low profiles in data terms don’t massively improve the grip, but do improve driving ‘feel’; sharpness, that kind of thing. The only way to significantly increase grip was to alter the normal reaction through aero-dynamics, downforce was the biggest way to increase grip.
This is all a long time ago and I haven’t accessed these neurons in a long time, so bear that in mind.
Final thought, you do get what you pay for. I did a course on tyre construction and dynamics at Michelin, and they were the most professional outfit I ever had dealings with. I have bought a lot of their tyres over the years since.
That’s brilliant – thanks, Jim! Interesting stuff.
Good to hear that my current Michelin CrossClimate 2 tyres probably meet with your approval!
Q