Talk:Tire/Archive 1

Rewrite

I rewrote this to reorganize into a form consistent with structure and terminology customary in the tire industry. These former sections were treated as noted" 1. Tire maintenance and safety - moved to a new page Tire maintenance 2. Railway tires - relocated to a new page Railway tires 3. Tire Physics - distributed across several entries 4. Notable tire makers - re-ordered as a tabel List of Tire Companies - PLEASE add to this list as it only inludes the top25 tire makers out of over 400 worldwide. 5.History - was redone in a list format by date.

I recommend those wanting to add highly descriptve content do so by making new secialized pages with attention to thir fix in the Tire category page.

Zengineerwerks 22:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please fix

The last line of the HISTORY section is profane, and does not appear in the EDIT page.

Never mind, the offending line was gone when I went back to the article. It was a sentence fragment mentioning an artificial phallus and one's mother.

You can fix that yourself just as easily as you can comment about it here - and the problem goes away much faster that way. SteveBaker 04:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of tire that grips the road

What do you call the part of the weel that grips the road? Is it tract? Joel M. 19:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Tread. —Morven 19:59, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Joel M. 02:14, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Some nits...

I noticed a couple of statements that seem odd. First:

In this form, AAA is the width of the tire, measured in millimeters. 200 is a common figure, but the range can be quite wide. The 2000 Honda Insight uses 165mm wide tires, while the rear tires of the 2000 Dodge Viper fit 335mm tires.

Tread widths ending in '5' are far more common, in my experience, than those ending in '0'. 185, 195, 205, 215, etc. Is 200 actually a common size anywhere? Second:

Local legislation may specify minimum tread depths, typically at least 1/8".

Are requirements actually "typically at least 1/8""? The wear bars are 2/32" (or 1/16"), which I would have thought is the most widespread requirement, and in California (where I live) it's only 1/32". (I would also tend to write 4/32" instead of 1/8", because inch-calibrated depth gauges read in 1/32", and new-tire specifications are also written as unreduced 1/32" fractions.)

Do others agree with my comments, or are my experiences non-standard (either because of cars I've owned or places I've lived)? -- Coneslayer 21:51, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

don't know about the tread wear, but now that you mention it, I've never heard of a 200 mm tire either.Gzuckier 05:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the tread depth thing - I don't know where that 1/8" figure is coming from, here in the UK it's 1.6 mm (i.e. 1/16"). So I've fudged it. :) Haeleth 23:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tire speed and load ratings

In order for this article to be complete, I think speed and load ratings should be included directly in the article. As it stands now, the user is directed to an external site via a link embedded/hidden in the 5th paragraph of the "Automobile tires" section. Understanding what Z, R, W, etc means is as important to a tire purchase as the width, profile and diameter. My problem with external links are that they can be unreliable. Future dead links contribute nothing to an article.

Tire/tyre consistency

This article is confusingly inconsistent on spelling. It should state the two spellings upfront and use a single spelling throughout. I suggest "tire" since that is the original spelling, and is more widespread among English speakers. However, I understand that this suggestion will be met with the usual British/American spelling hysterics. Whatever the choice, we cannot have both spellings used interchangeably in a single article. Thoughts? --216.49.153.98 20:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I prefer 'Tire', either spelling is preferable to both haphazardly thrown about. I focus more on the change in spelling rather than the actual text. Also, if the title is going to be spelled one way, that should be the consistent use throughout. - Davidmayberry

I changed all spellings to tire, where appropriate, as that is the title of the article. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to type tire, but being English I have been typing tyre for a long time. Sorry, I will try harder. User:G4sxe

Isn't the spelling "tyre" far more common because it is UK English which most english languages are based on? I thought "tire" was only North-American spelling.

I doubt it. Let's try an entirely unscientific "google test". There are 75 million Google entries containing 'Tire' (admittedly some of these will be the verb relating to being tired as in "exhausted") but I looked through the first 100 links for 'tire' and 99 were about car tyres - so it's probably a fair test. There are only 13 million entries for 'Tyre' and amongst even the first 10 entries, the city of Tyre in Lebanon comes up several times - so it's reasonable to assume that a fair number of those 13 million entries are not the British spelling for car tyres. Therefore I think it's hard to claim that "tyre" is the most common spelling (Note: that's how I spell it because I'm a Brit - so there is no bias here!). I believe you underestimate the spread of what Americans so fondly believe is "English". SteveBaker 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget NASCAR country, where it's spelled tar, or more properly taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar. Gzuckier 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tire is only N.American, tyre is rest of the world (notably UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, India, South Africa, International) although N.American does have a habit of spreading. Widefox 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think Tyre would be much more preferable as this is a long article and we don't want readers to tire. Plus Tyre is the original spelling not Tire as mentioned above. Tire only came into use in the 17c. (Elephant53 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There are very, very clear rules about this in the WP:MOS - we can't have people continually switching articles back and forth between UK and US spelling. This is an exceedingly well-trodden path - this argument comes up time and time again - and the answer (in this case) is always that there is no strong national background to the article - so we stick with the language the article was first written in. Hence it will stay as tire (and I'm British - so no genetic spelling bias here!). Please note that my 'Google test' above suggests that 'Tire' is preferred over 'Tyre' by about five to one. In any case, we explain the linguistic issue right there in the very first sentence of the article. Our readers from either side of the pond are unlikely to be confused. SteveBaker 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reaction to the argument that "tire" is only used by speakers of North America while "tyre" is used by many other countries I quote the Wikipedia article on American English, "It is estimated that approximately two thirds of native speakers of English live in the United States.[1]" Seems like many more people who use this site would use the spelling "tire." Maganac98 15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use týre? It's the old Anglo-Saxon spelling. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.117.17 (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a long (and often acrymonious) debate about this - followed by consensus voting. The conclusion was that per WP:MOS, we will follow the rule that when an article is started in one English varient (US english in this case), it should be kept in that varient unless there are overwhelming reasons not to. Historical spelling is not compelling enough to override that decision - and we knew about the historical issues when we visited this question the last time. Unless there is some sort of startling new evidence, we're not likely to be changing the title of the article. Note also that 'Tyre' is a rather important city in Lebanon (and is also the names of US towns in New York and Michigan) - so even if this article could be renamed, it would have to be called "Tyre (mechanical component)" (or something equally ugly) - so you'd STILL have to go through a redirect or disambiguation page to get here. At least this way, 'Tire' isn't a redirect or a dab - so we keep some people happy at the expense of nobody. What we have is not ever likely to change. (And just so you know that there is no bias in my position - I am a British-English native speaker who writes 'tyre'.) SteveBaker (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said SteveBaker. Your comments above should be "pinned" to the top of this Talk page, as a specialized version of the preface templates I see on other Talk pages. It is definately in the interest of every Wikipedian to move beyond this well concluded issue to more constructive efforts. --Charles Gaudette ([[User talk:Charles

Gaudette|talk]]) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep - there is a case for doing that. There are at least three instances of people asking that question within this talk page. I think perhaps I'll archive this page (there are really no recent discussion in play) and start afresh with a statement in a pretty pink box that says exactly that.

butadiene or polybutadiene ?

In the sentence "This was due to the development of butadiene with a regular structure, thanks to the use of stereo-specific catalysts.", shouldn't butadiene be changed to polybutadiene ?
H Padleckas 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

butadiene is the monomer from which the poylmer is made. Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I will correct it to read polybutadiene User:G4sxe

This article is getting kinda long

This article is getting too long and rambling. I took the liberty of moving the section on tire codes (which was essentially duplicated and poorly worded) and moved it into a separate article. I think some other sections could also be moved out. I would put the entire locomotive tire section into a separate article and make a disambiguation page for 'Tire' that would point to automotive tires and railroad tires as separate articles.
SteveBaker 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When articles reach about 30 - 32 kB, then I think about limiting the length of the article. Up to about 30 kB is fine. H Padleckas 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing section

I don't like the current placement of the 'Manufacturing' section.

EITHER: It's supposed to be about manufacturing all kinds of tires (steel train tires, pneumatic tires, etc) - in which case, the section looks out of place in what is otherwise a list of tire types (wagon tires, pneumatic tires, automotive tires, train tires). If this is the intended content of that section then it should either be before all of those other sections or after all of them.

OR: It's supposed to be ONLY about manufacturing automotive tires - in which case it should be a SUBSECTION of automotive tires - and NOT promoted to the same level as the other tire types.

One or the other - you choose.

Meanwhile, I think it's a subsection of automotive tires - so I'm putting it back inside that section.

SteveBaker 04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using boldface as sub-sub-section headings

What is wrong with using '====XXXXX====' for these? If you just make them boldfaced text, they don't show up in the index. If someone came to this page in order to find out about (say) calendaring - that would be a shame. Furthermore, it's MUCH harder to edit the page if they are in boldface because you don't get an [Edit] button next to each one.

SteveBaker 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a long article, it often makes sense to use such sub-sub-section headings. H Padleckas 15:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split 'Tire Manufacturing'

After offline discussions with G4sxe, I split the 'manufacturing' section out onto a separate article. G4sxe has a ton of great information on the subject - but it was getting too much for this article.

SteveBaker 03:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can redirect be added

For people who are used to tyre as spelling, can a redirect be added

Types

The types of tires section is missing something, what do you call a "normal" tire? Not a winter nor a performance tire?

Can a tyre (or tyre tread) be considered "anisotropic" if the tyre is designed for a specified direction of rolling? And then, if it is not designed for a specified rolling drection, is it "isotropic"? Or, would (an)isotropic dscribe if the tyre has different factors (traction etc) in side-wise and rotation-wise motion?

There certainly are tyres that are designed to roll in one direction most of the time. My car (a MINI Cooper'S) has tyres like that - they have arrows on them showing which way they are supposed to rotate. But the term 'isotropic' means 'the same in all directions' or something like that. No tyre with treads is truly isotropic because lateral motion is different from fore/aft motion. So I wouldn't use the terms 'isotropic' or 'anisotropic' for car tyres under any circumstances. SteveBaker 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the tyre is primarily designed for fore/aft rolling motion, the use of "anisotropic" would make sense to me at least when talking about tyres that have a designed rollind direction. "Anisotropic" carries the meaning that the described object was somewhat 'direction dependent'. In this sense, the winter tyres I have under my Toyota Carina model 1991, would be "isotropic," because they have no marked rolling direction, and the texture of the tread is rotation-wise symmetric. The summer tyres I bought the car with, would then be "anisotropic" because they have a marked direction. They were put on the wrong way, and even on dry weather, it made a big difference to turn them the right way. Anyway, the traction of any tyre is somewhat anisotropic. If the tyre had a circular, round contact surface with the road at all times, then it just might have "isotropic traction", regardless of the direction of motion. But as these direction-sensitive tyres behave very differently depending on the rolling direction, it makes the traction really "anisotropic".

I came to the tire page myself just now, hoping to answer this same question--the significance of the "summer" tire type designation. Is "summer" the same as "high performance"? If that is the case, it might warrant adding that term to the "high-performance" sub-sub section.Fagiolonero 07:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

It is not clear to me when the pneumatic tire was first used in a automobile, can someone figure that out and add it to the history section?

Aircraft tires

What about aircraft tires? Are they belong to Pneumatic tire category? Is there any tire, which won't burst while driving? Penguin s 09:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)SJ. May 24, 2006[reply]

Lego a tire manufacturer?

Please watch for jokers.--Matthead 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bias, radial, belted, etc.

these types of construction should probably be included. Gzuckier 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What i mean, now that i've found it, is that it should probably be merged. Gzuckier 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found radial tire but nothing about belted tire (which I created to redirect here for now). What makes for a belted tire? —Ben FrantzDale 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like beltedness is defined on radial tire. That could do with cleanup. —Ben FrantzDale 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Oppose -- There's enough to talk about vis-a-vis radial tires to justify a free-standing article. Atlant 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology seems rather POV

Perhaps someone can directly quote the Oxford Nfitz 21:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, added info from [1]Widefox 10:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyre

To better support the article Tire for non-US/Canadian English speakers (British English, Australian etc), the article about the Lebanese city Tyre has moved to Tyre (Lebanon) and Tyre now redirects to Tire. To continue support for readers accessing the Lebanese city, this is explicitly disambiguated at the top of Tire. I've added a comment in the article markup. Please do NOT remove this, due to the number of links and readers wanting Tyre (Lebanon), especially given this recent change.Widefox 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the current discussion at Talk:Tyre Widefox 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad

Railroad car and diesel locomotive steel wheels are not fitted with tires. Steam locomotive driving wheels were usually fitted with steel tires, which were heated, mounted, and permitted to shrink onto the wheel. LorenzoB 20:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tire and tread wear

I have some concerns about the factual accuracy of the last half of the second paragraph. I participate in sanctioned drag racing during the summer months and racers using slicks (racing tires) do a burnout to heat up the tires to increase the adhesiveness. While I can't speak for other forms of racing, it would seem to be counterproductive to use a race tire with a softer rubber compound (more adhesive) and then freeze it which would reduce the adhesiveness.

Secondly, I live in central Canada and I have never come across at winter driving guide that recommends airing down your tires in the snow. They all state to keep them properly inflated (as do the tire manufacturers). If the original author was not referring to daily driving, then that needs to be clarified so that readers who don't even know how to check their oil (let alone change it) don't go out and let all the air out of their tires the next time it snows.

While I will concede that you can increase the tire's contact patch by decreasing the tire pressure (which is probably how the myth originated), you can also decrease the contact patch when the tire cups from being too under inflated. By deflating the tire you also decrease the stiffness of the sidewall which has a negative affect on handling. There's a reason why those of us drag racing on street tires air down our tires at the track and then inflate them to manufacturer's recommendations before leaving the track.

Just my two cents.

Merge from Tire Physics

Tire Physics is too shotr (and a mess) and would be better merged here in my opinion.--NHSavage 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done mege now.--NHSavage 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner tube redirect

Why, exactly is inner tube redirected to tire? There's even a section further in the article that links to inner tube, so in essence, the article is a self-redirect. Anthony Rupert 06:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to inner tube in the history section of the article. It seems unlikely that anyone will write an article about inner tubes - and in the absence of such and article, if someone types in "inner tube", the best thing we can do is to redirect here. If want to write about inner tubes - feel free to get rid of the redirect and put back the link. SteveBaker 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howto

There are many instances of the word "should" which clearly indicate howto type information. -- Beland 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, the {{howto}} tag should be on the main article page, not the talk page. Anthony Rupert 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add how-to tags to talk pages... this is rather confusing for wikibooks administrators! --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed this tag because everyone seems to be changing this page every day, so it's getting hard to tell what's accurate any more. Anthony Rupert 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few experts do indeed frequent this page (I'm not one of them) - if you look carefully at the majority of edits, they aren't any kind of fundamental content dispute that an expert might intervene to fix. The editing pattern is mostly one where some expert adds some really good content - but it's poorly written - or in the wrong place - or just needs organising. So you tend to see alternating new content then more expert Wikipedians move in and cleanup then we get more content then more cleanup. When you add in a good dose of vandalism, the page is indeed changing every day. But I don't think we need any kind of expert that we don't already have - and the tag on the article gives people the false impression that this article is some kind of horrible mess. We're just in a growth phase. So, I'm going to remove your tag - and I don't think you should replace it until/unless you've spent some time working with the rest of us on this effort. Adding a tag to the actual article should be a measure of last resort...by all means tag the Talk page if you feel you must. Thanks. SteveBaker 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...what exactly is your problem? The fact that I explained why I placed the tag should show everyone that I wasn't trying to start trouble. Anthony Rupert 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly appreciate your leaving an explanation - without which I would have deleted the tag without explanation! But I disagree with your reason for doing so. The mere fact of frequent edits doesn't necessarily mean that everyone here is inexpert in the subject material - in this case it means that a formerly inadequate article is under active development. The changes are not contradicting each other - they are amplifying points - adding missing material - cleaning up the language and so forth. There most definitely are experts here - so sticking in a tag asking for expert help is ugly, unecessary and somewhat insulting to the experts who already edit this page (of which I readily admit I am not one - I'm part of the cleanup crew). If you had been editing here for long enough to see what's happening, I'd have been more understanding - but the only edit you've ever made to the article has been to add the tag - so with all due respect, I don't think you know enough about the people who are contributing (and in what ways) to know whether we have enough experts or not...and that's why I removed your tag and left a polite explanation as to why I thought it was inappropriate. SteveBaker 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I don't see any of the experts complaining. Maybe it's because they realize that I wasn't trying to be disruptive?

You know what? Let's just leave it at that. Anthony Rupert 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing you of being disruptive - only that you havn't been around this article long enough to make that call. SteveBaker 05:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latex

As seen in rubber natural rubber is made from latex and is still used in tires, though more synthetic rubber is used per year. Jim.henderson 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tyre versus Tire

Someone made the point that, doing the Google test on both, you get far more hits for Tire - for a start, quite a lot may well have been to do with feeling tired - like I tire really easily, you get the point. Also, the use of the spelling Tire happens to be incorrect, only the American education system is too stupid to notice a glaring spelling mistake like that. - Vox Humana 8' 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I might argue that " the use of the spelling Tyre happens to be incorrect, only education systems with European ties are too stupid to notice a glaring spelling mistake" ;-) ;however, The US vs non-US(UK, etc.. ) spelling issue has been debated to death, and the best resolution seems to be to agree to disagree. The Wikipedia conventions are covered in WP:ENGVAR. --Versageek 17:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locale-specific spellings should be an option in MediWiki, like date formatting. :-) —Ben FrantzDale 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it should be spelled as "tyre" to distinguish it from the verb "to tire." How do the USA cope? Same spelling for "to check" and "a cheque," the list goes on. For the clarity (and as a favour) of Wiki users, the words should be distinguishable. Remember, it is only really the USA (and Canada to a certain extent) that use tire. the UK, and other old British Empire countries uses the UK spelling. Yes, I know that if the article is spelt the US way at the beginning it should be carried through, but this is not a question of "my spellings are better than yours," but "this spelling is more helpful to Wiki users." I would have thought that this would be more important than Wiki policy. Dewarw 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious and there has been extensive discussion on it. See, in particular, Talk:Tyre, Lebanon#Tyre. And there are many more noun articles than verb. . . I have just reverted a tire->tyre spelling change in the article. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was debated and decided long ago. Unless the underlying facts driving that debate have changed (they haven't), there is nothing to be gained by re-opening it. SteveBaker 11:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the underlying facts won't change until the Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English changes, which says that the article should stay in AmE since it was written in AmE. Mbelisle (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]