Talk:Tire: Difference between revisions
→High pressure section?: new section |
|||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
The section of the article labeled as "high pressure" seems to be advancing an unsubstantiated personal viewpoint of an editor, and also seems to be incorrect. An overinflated tire will have a smaller contact patch and (depending on the rubber compound used and the tire construction) may have significantly less grip than a correctly inflated tire. |
The section of the article labeled as "high pressure" seems to be advancing an unsubstantiated personal viewpoint of an editor, and also seems to be incorrect. An overinflated tire will have a smaller contact patch and (depending on the rubber compound used and the tire construction) may have significantly less grip than a correctly inflated tire. |
||
[[Special:Contributions/107.1.64.82|107.1.64.82]] ([[User talk:107.1.64.82|talk]]) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:09, 10 April 2015
 | This article is prone to spam. Please monitor the References and External links sections. |
 | PLEASE NOTE: If you have come here to discuss the spelling of 'TIRE' versus 'TYRE' in this article: Please read the following statement before commenting: We have had a long (and often acrimonious) debate about the naming of this article - followed by consensus voting. The conclusion was that per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, we will follow the rule that when an article is started in one English variant (US English in this case), it should be kept in that variant 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. (And just so you know that there is no bias in my position - I am a British-English native speaker who habitually writes 'tyre'.) SteveBaker (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
 | Automobiles C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Technology C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
History section - Misattribution and confusion on Vulcanization
The third paragraph of the history section attributes vulcanization to Goodyear and Robert William Thomson. I suspect this is a reflex, rather than intentional misattribution, since Thomson is mentioned in the first paragraph as having done prior art in pneumatic tires. The reference should be to Thomas Hancock, perhaps with a note on the Goodyear-Hancock(-Moulton) patent controversy: Moulton, an agent in England of Goodyear, is claimed as having showed samples of Goodyear's vulcanized rubber to Hancock in 1843; Hancock took out a patent in England for Vulcanized rubber 8 weeks before Goodrich applied for patent in the US: both were awarded in 1844, Hancock's in May, Goodyear's in June. (This is documented on Wikipedia in articles Vulcanization and Charles Goodyear; also in Mary Bellis' article in About.Com Inventors [1] where Daniel Webster is quoted as saying "Mr. Hancock has been referred to. But he expressly acknowledges Charles Goodyear to be the first inventor," although she does not provide a citation. (One could hope from a transcript of the trial?) However that should work out, Robert William Thompson's name is properly associated with the invention and patenting of the first pneumatic tire, Thomas Hancock and Charles Goodrich with Vulcanization. Tiorbinist (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Should be separate diagrams for bias and radial ply versions.
Far as I know, no tire uses both bias and radial plies of cord, though some use bias direction belts, the belts don't go up the sidewalls. If non-copyright diagrams of both types can be found or created they should replace the single diagram of a tire with both styles. Bizzybody (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Good overview source
This source article in Popular Mechanics was very useful to me in better understanding tyres/tires. Absolutely Everything You Need to Know About How Tires Work Tech Update, 21 December 2014. It may be useful to improve the article. N2e (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Pneumatic tire wheel support
The above new section is (a) poorly titled (b) badly written and (c) confusing. But I think it is a great start to a rather necessary description. Greglocock (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
High pressure section?
The section of the article labeled as "high pressure" seems to be advancing an unsubstantiated personal viewpoint of an editor, and also seems to be incorrect. An overinflated tire will have a smaller contact patch and (depending on the rubber compound used and the tire construction) may have significantly less grip than a correctly inflated tire. 107.1.64.82 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)