What tire pressure are you running on your Pilot?

[mmmmark]

Originally posted by macphanatic
In most cases, the theoretical best solution can't be used because of limited application.

Tell that to N_Jay who is using airplane information as a useful comparison.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[xGS]

Originally posted by macphanatic
xGS, I meant for driving on ice that a small contact patch with no tread would work best. The problem is that if you were then to drive in snow, rain or water puddles, your traction would be horrible. In most cases, the theoretical best solution can't be used because of limited application. That is why goal of tire design is often to balance to best of many parameters. If you want the best snow/ice tire try a set of Nokian tires. The compounds that make the tires so good in these conditions also tend to reduce the mileage that you can get out of them.

What Bridgestone determined is that the surface of the ice under the tire melts slightly creating a thin film of water which must be dispersed in order for the tread to grip - which is unlikely to occur using a tire with no tread (pattern).

The major shortcoming of Nokian tires is their second-rate uniformity.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by xGS


This individual clearly knows far more about tire design than the team of engineers at Bridgestone who created the Blizzak winter tires.

Hu?

What does one statement have to do with the other?

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by mmmmark


Tell that to N_Jay who is using airplane information as a useful comparison.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

LOL; You work hard to twist things till you think you are right. Don't you.

1) Please explain in any sensible manner how the theory and practice is different in this case.
2) Please note the reference in the the referenced page that it DOES apply to car tires.

[klinger]

Will i really get better mileage going from 32 psi to 35. In turn will i damage the tires. I rotate every 6000 miles.

Thanks for any info

[mmmmark]

Originally posted by N_Jay


LOL; You work hard to twist things till you think you are right. Don't you.

1) Please explain in any sensible manner how the theory and practice is different in this case.
2) Please note the reference in the the referenced page that it DOES apply to car tires.

I'm not twisting at all. Sure, we're both stubborn, but it takes one to know one.

1) I'm no physicist and don't play one on TV. However, airplane tires are not that similar to car tires. They are quite rounded and very heavy plied to handle the weight of primarily impact--which is the time at which the possibility of hydroplaning could be catastrophic. Significantly lower pressure in this situation would result in MUCH more surface area than higher pressures due to the large weight at landing time.

Since runways are smooth, dynamic hydroplaning would not be as likely as on a bumpy road with dips and bumps. Bumps or rises are one area where even a surefooted car can dynamically hydroplane easier due to decreased weight (more upward momentum).

2) the formula does apply to car tires, but only in a theoretical sense. they admit, that the theory is not realistic on that page.

Basically, the message they try to impart has mostly to do with driving as slow as possible in poor coniditions.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by klinger
Will i really get better mileage going from 32 psi to 35. In turn will i damage the tires. I rotate every 6000 miles.

Thanks for any info

Yes you will get better mileage, and no you won't damage your tires (unless you bought really cheap ones with a sidewall rating less than 35 PSI.)

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by mmmmark


I'm not twisting at all. Sure, we're both stubborn, but it takes one to know one.

1) I'm no physicist and don't play one on TV. However, airplane tires are not that similar to car tires. They are quite rounded and very heavy plied to handle the weight of primarily impact--which is the time at which the possibility of hydroplaning could be catastrophic. Significantly lower pressure in this situation would result in MUCH more surface area than higher pressures due to the large weight at landing time.

Since runways are smooth, dynamic hydroplaning would not be as likely as on a bumpy road with dips and bumps. Bumps or rises are one area where even a surefooted car can dynamically hydroplane easier due to decreased weight (more upward momentum).

2) the formula does apply to car tires, but only in a theoretical sense. they admit, that the theory is not realistic on that page.

Basically, the message they try to impart has mostly to do with driving as slow as possible in poor coniditions.

Nothing your wrote even starts to explain how a tire with higher pressure could hydroplane worse then one with lower pressure.

[macphanatic]

Runways are typically grooved to provide better traction.

I can't follow any logic that tires that have higher inflation pressures are more prone to hydroplane. The higher the inflation pressure, the smaller the contact patch. Assuming that the weight transferred from the vehicle remains constant, the weight applied to the contact patch remains the same. Therefore, the force in pounds per square inch goes up (same weight over a smaller area). This would reduce the likelihood of hydroplaning.

The higher pressures could result in reduced braking (longer braking distances). Same coefficient of friction between the tire and road and smaller contact area. Therefore reduced braking capacity and longer stopping distance. The actual effect may not be significant if the contact area is not significantly reduced ( a relative term).

[mmmmark]

Originally posted by N_Jay


Nothing your wrote even starts to explain how a tire with higher pressure could hydroplane worse then one with lower pressure.

Read your own link about dynamic hydroplaning. That is much more likely to happen because the tires when over inflated are more prone to "bounce" concussively creating possibility for hydroplaning.

Combined with comfort, these are the two advantages over bias-ply tires and why radials are so widely used.

[andyschneider]

06 Pilot LX 4WD - Michelin LTX M/S 107S - 36psi front and rear stone cold - tire wear across the board of 2/32" in 14k miles - still measuring 11/32" inside/middle/outside. On rainy roads like today sticks like glue. No bounce, no cupping - wear smooth as a baby's behind.

I always crank the PSI between 2-4 per tire above Honda's recommendations - ride isn't any harsher, tires wear better, and MPG's are better.

andy

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by mmmmark


Read your own link about dynamic hydroplaning. That is much more likely to happen because the tires when over inflated are more prone to "bounce" concussively creating possibility for hydroplaning.

Combined with comfort, these are the two advantages over bias-ply tires and why radials are so widely used.

Just found this on the tire rack web site.
TIRE PRESSURES IN THE RAIN

For both autocross and road racing, increase tire pressures 6-10 psi from what you would normally run in dry conditions. Hydroplaning occurs when a wedge of water develops between the tire and road surface. This wedge can actually lift the tire off the road and eliminate traction. Increasing the pressure rounds the profile of the tire by decreasing the deflection of the tire. This results in a smaller contact patch - narrower and shorter. It also helps keep the grooves in the tread open so they can channel the water out from under the tire.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=58

[klinger]

Originally posted by macphanatic
I'm thinking of inflating my tires a few more psi for handling/fuel economy purposes. Anyone else doing this?

I see you have a odyssey. I have a 2005 exl pilot as well.Do you reccomend a odyssey, i drive 35000 miles per year. I am compring it to a sienna. The data i have gathered suggest that the sienna gets better mileage. and is 2000 dollars cheaper. I am comparing 2007 odyssey ex to 2008 toyota sienna le . Thanks for any imput.