Michelin demonstrates how low rolling resistance tires work
#1
Michelin demonstrates how low rolling resistance tires work
Michelin demonstrates how low rolling resistance tires work
Tires get overlooked in the headlines about fuel economy and CAFE standards, which is a little odd. After all, a car's tires are the only contact it has with the road, so more efficient rubber means more efficient use of fuel, and even tiny gains spread over the huge number of road-going vehicles can translate into remarkable overall gains.
Michelin has made a spot that demonstrates the difference its Energy Saver A/S tire can make by staging a downhill drag race. There's a twist, though, and it makes the point beautifully.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/16/m...ce-tires-work/
#3
It's analogous to a <Brand X> facial cleaner claiming that it has "micro-pore technology" or <Brand Y> shampoo claiming it provides "ultra hydration technology."
#5
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Tires are designed with the knowledge that the sidewall will flex when the car is rolling down the road. This sidewall flexing is beneficial for things like helping chemical compounds that prevent the rubber from drying and cracking to permeate through the tire and continually condition the rubber, but it does have an energy cost associated with it. This is pretty traditional tire technology.
Low rolling resistance is absolutely not a marketing term. It's an entirely different way to design a tire, and by making the tire sidewall stiffer and less prone to flexing, it reduces the amount of energy needed to make the tire rotate. This has the side effect of increasing braking distances because the tire is no longer dissipating as much energy - the point of this advert seems to show that Michelin has developed a low rolling resistance tire that also doesn't take as much of a hit in braking distance.
It doesn't seem to match the thread title very much, though.
Trending Topics
#8
Maintenance Moderator
iTrader: (2)
You're wrong about this.
Tires are designed with the knowledge that the sidewall will flex when the car is rolling down the road. This sidewall flexing is beneficial for things like helping chemical compounds that prevent the rubber from drying and cracking to permeate through the tire and continually condition the rubber, but it does have an energy cost associated with it. This is pretty traditional tire technology.
Low rolling resistance is absolutely not a marketing term. It's an entirely different way to design a tire, and by making the tire sidewall stiffer and less prone to flexing, it reduces the amount of energy needed to make the tire rotate. This has the side effect of increasing braking distances because the tire is no longer dissipating as much energy - the point of this advert seems to show that Michelin has developed a low rolling resistance tire that also doesn't take as much of a hit in braking distance.
It doesn't seem to match the thread title very much, though.
Tires are designed with the knowledge that the sidewall will flex when the car is rolling down the road. This sidewall flexing is beneficial for things like helping chemical compounds that prevent the rubber from drying and cracking to permeate through the tire and continually condition the rubber, but it does have an energy cost associated with it. This is pretty traditional tire technology.
Low rolling resistance is absolutely not a marketing term. It's an entirely different way to design a tire, and by making the tire sidewall stiffer and less prone to flexing, it reduces the amount of energy needed to make the tire rotate. This has the side effect of increasing braking distances because the tire is no longer dissipating as much energy - the point of this advert seems to show that Michelin has developed a low rolling resistance tire that also doesn't take as much of a hit in braking distance.
It doesn't seem to match the thread title very much, though.
Here is a test of Bridgestone non-LRR vs LRR
Last edited by mitsuguy; 09-17-12 at 06:44 PM.
#10
Yeah I spent some time looking up "low rolling resistance" tires and it seems like F1Driver is correct.
It looks like Michelin was trying to make the point that despite the fact that these tires boast a lower coefficient of static friction, this doesn't affect braking performance. The coefficient of static friction is still sufficiently high enough that it can stop shorter without slipping compared to some arbitrary non-Michelin tire.
I think the main downside of having a low coefficient of static friction more readily manifests itself during hard accelerations (particularly from 0). Like F1Driver said, the bottom line is grip. If you really care about having the ability to coast as long as possible at the expense of grip during hard accelerations or cornering, then low rolling resistance tires are a good buy.
It'd be much more useful if they did some tests to actually quantify how much one can expect to save on gas $ by purchasing LRR tires. I'm skeptical that it's anything significant, even if most of your driving is highway driving where you have plenty of opportunity to coast from time to time.
It looks like Michelin was trying to make the point that despite the fact that these tires boast a lower coefficient of static friction, this doesn't affect braking performance. The coefficient of static friction is still sufficiently high enough that it can stop shorter without slipping compared to some arbitrary non-Michelin tire.
I think the main downside of having a low coefficient of static friction more readily manifests itself during hard accelerations (particularly from 0). Like F1Driver said, the bottom line is grip. If you really care about having the ability to coast as long as possible at the expense of grip during hard accelerations or cornering, then low rolling resistance tires are a good buy.
It'd be much more useful if they did some tests to actually quantify how much one can expect to save on gas $ by purchasing LRR tires. I'm skeptical that it's anything significant, even if most of your driving is highway driving where you have plenty of opportunity to coast from time to time.
#11
Maintenance Moderator
iTrader: (2)
All of this info is out there guys. Search Bridgestone Ecopia calculator... you can put in your vehicle information and it will give you an idea of what to expect. Average is $450 at current fuel prices, over the life of the tires. Traction is also very similar. 1st Gen LRR tires were terrible, and I can't speak for Michelin, but Bridgestone has got them so good, most people can't tell the difference in traction terms...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jlawr
LS - 4th Gen (2007-2017)
4
08-12-17 10:04 AM