Can you mathematically compare wide-base to duals?

Discussion in 'Trucks [ Eighteen Wheelers ]' started by fooomanchu, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. fooomanchu

    fooomanchu Light Load Member

    63
    8
    Oct 19, 2012
    Urbana IL
    0
    Can you compare the rolling resistance of a super single to a the rollling resistance of a dual, or are these numbers only comparable to other numbers within the same category (the two categories being duals and super singles)?


    In other words, is it completely accurate to say that a super single with a rolling resistance of 150 is equal to two duals with a rolling resistance of 75 each? Or are you only "allowed" to compare duals to each other and super singles to each other?


    I heard you can compare the RR of super singles with duals ... but then someone else told me you couldnt. (This second person said having a bad super single was NOT as good as having two good duals...which would not be the case if you could compare rolling resistance from either category.)


    By the way, I just say "super single" cuz everyone else does but I know the actual term is "wide base single."
     
    KB3MMX Thanks this.
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. Cowpie1

    Cowpie1 Road Train Member

    5,569
    4,651
    Nov 25, 2008
    Kellogg, IA
    0
    Not sure it would be a straight up deal, saying that if you use duals, the rolling resistance of a set is double the value of the single tire. Since wide based are readily available with rolling resistances of 120 or less, much less when talking about the Michelin XDA XOne Energy tire of 94. If you had duals in which each tire was, say 100 RR, and you had a wide based tire that also had a 100 RR, the duals would be less efficient simply because of having more rubber contact on the road and any one time, along with the flexing of 4 sidewalls compared to 2 with a single wide based tire. When RR is the same, a wide based singe will always have the edge. But when we get down to that part of bean counting, a single owner may not see any appreciable difference. Usually the numbers show up more when running a fleet. When there are extremes in RR between tires, it can be somewhat noticable to a single truck owner. When the RR is very close, not so much. Most single truck owners usually have a specific reason for running wide based, be it weight savings or some other reason. Just for fuel economy is not one of the better reasons, since there are some extremely fuel efficient standard tires on the market.
     
    KB3MMX and fooomanchu Thank this.
  4. fooomanchu

    fooomanchu Light Load Member

    63
    8
    Oct 19, 2012
    Urbana IL
    0
    I appreciate the comments...and I'm still totally confused! :biggrin_25523:


    It seems to me that whatever mechanism pulls tires and determines rolling resistance should be "blind" in the sense that it should not know what it's pulling in terms of how much rubber is on the road, how heavy the tire is, how big the tire is, what kind of tire it is, etc etc....it should only be worried about how much resistance is given, how much force it takes to pull it, and then it should be able to give a number. Imagine I'm blindfolded and pulling a sled - first let's put my mother-in-law on the sled, and I'll give you a number that tells how much resistance there was, say 100. Then put a bull on the sled, and (still blindfolded) I'll pull the sled and give a number of 150. Two bulls on the sled and I'd give you 300. Etc etc etc.... Using this system, a wide-based single tire to which I gave 200 would be equal to two tires I gave 100 each put together....but I myself wouldn't even have to KNOW this because all this was going on when I was blindfolded and ALL I'm doing is reporting (with complete ignorance to what I was pulling) how much force it takes to pull each of these things. This way EVERYTHING with a rolling resistance would be comparable to everything else, no matter what it was. You would be able to compare wide-base tires and duals absolutely, with no question at all which was better.

    For some reason everything I just said is showing up in a different font....


     
  5. magoo68

    magoo68 Road Train Member

    3,393
    5,385
    Jun 11, 2011
    st malo mb canada
    0
    the rr number for duals is for both combined your friend was right .you can lose fuel mileage with a bad wide based tire
     
    KB3MMX and fooomanchu Thank this.
  6. fooomanchu

    fooomanchu Light Load Member

    63
    8
    Oct 19, 2012
    Urbana IL
    0
    Thanks much. This kinda makes sense.
     
  7. Cowpie1

    Cowpie1 Road Train Member

    5,569
    4,651
    Nov 25, 2008
    Kellogg, IA
    0
    That would be true. A high RR wide based is going to be a waste. Just because it is a wide based, does not mean it is fuel efficient. As I stated before, the primary reason to consider wide based is weight savings. Fuel economy comes second, but only if a low RR is used.
     
    fooomanchu Thanks this.
  8. fooomanchu

    fooomanchu Light Load Member

    63
    8
    Oct 19, 2012
    Urbana IL
    0
    I think this is something the experts (like on the radio!) need to make clear when they are talking about rolling resistance to non-experts. I've heard lots and lots of experts talk about rolling resistance but no one ever said that the actual number applies to two duals together, not just the one tire. It's really misleading to talk about a single dual and say that "IT" has a rolling resistance of 120....and then talk about a wide-base tire tire and say "IT" has a rolling resistance of 120. Anyway thanks again for the help
     
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.