I can't give you the formula unless/until I work it
out, but using the circumfrence of the tire as the
amount traveled in one wheel revolution is the best
way to accuratly measure this. The way I used to
calibrate speedometers for bicycles was to mark the
tire at the point where it meets the ground, make a
corresponding mark on the garage floor, roll the
vehicle until the mark is perpendicular down again,
mark the floor, and measure the distance between the
two marks on the floor. That is the distance covered
by 1 wheel revoution. Divide by the final drive ratio
and you have the distance covered by one engine
revolution in 4th gear. Interpolate from there, and
it eliminates all speculation of changing
circumfrence.
--- Bob Howard <mgbob@juno.com> wrote:
> Larry,
> My experiment, after I asked Paul for more
> explanation, was this:
> Wrapped one turn of wire around a tennis
> ball, squeezed the ball
> against the table, noted that the wire _was_ then
> loose and could be
> tightened a bit. When the pressure on the ball was
> released, the wire
> tightened again.
> It still doesn't make sense to me that the
> circumference would change
> and could be less than the distance rolled on the
> pavement, but that is
> what happened in my experiment.
> Bob
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:36:14 -0500 "Larry Daniels"
> <ladaniels@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> > Ok guys, we have been having simultaneous
> discussions of tires and
> > their measurements on the Spridgets list and the
> MG list. The
> questions
> > were about diameters, radii and circumference --
> both loaded and
> unloaded.
|