Talk:Traction (mechanics)

message: The suggestion that microscopic surface structure cannot be considered as surface friction is ludicrous and the so called debate needs to turn into a real debate rather than just a link to a site which does not debate it at all but offers the view of an individual who in my eyes has got it all wrong. if the idea of roughness and surface friction is wrong then so is the idea of a normal force contributing to that friction. You can model surface roughness as contributing to a resistance to slip between two surfaces so I see absolutely no reason why not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.154.91 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate about microscopic structure as a cause/factor of friction 

message: This article should be changed to Traction (physics). While it's used more in engineering, it's still a physical concept. It's the same as friction--no one would consider friction to be considered with engineering. [comment not signed or dated]
:I agree that "Traction (Engineering)" is the wrong disambiguation title. Traction (Mechanics) might be even more appropriate than Traction (Physics) since mechanics is the smallest branch of physics that fully contains the topic. Can someone who knows how to move an article do this? -- Another Stickler (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back, Classical Mechanics is even smaller and more precise than Mechanics. The article should be moved to "Traction (Classical Mechanics)" because Mechanics divides into Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics and Traction is a term defined by Classical Mechanics, not Quantum Mechanics. -- Another Stickler (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be changed to Traction (physics). 

message: What happened to the maximizing multi-wheel vehicle traction? I read what was said about surface area. Missed the point entirely and was not what was being discussed. The discussion was about how a variable coefficient of friction effects the maximum traction with a pair of tires. I was not confusing friction vs traction. I know the difference.
It annoys me when well meaning people delete other people's work because they don't understand what is being said. If they understand the section mentioned then revise it. Don't assume you know all and delete another author's work.
The major point was about how a pair of tires obtain maximum traction when the load is shared equially. It is a MAJOR effect in vehicle design and handling. This is why oval track trace cars have a heavy weight bias toward the center of the turn. In the 80s cars were built with as much as 70% of the static vehicle weight on the left side for left turns.
So the entire circle track inductry depends on the topic that has now been deleted. 
Rewrite it, revise it, move it to another topic. Just don't delete it because you don't like it.
I have designed suspension for NASCAR and my designs lead to track records that to this day have not been broken. Am I an expert in the field? I don't like the term expert.
I'm not annoyed that the section don't appear on THIS page. I realize there may be a better topic for it. However, it was moved from vehicle suspension page to this page by another author. Now it doesn't appear in Wikipedia at all!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imfinenu (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting another author's work. 

message: There's a header down there that talks about losing traction due to fallen leaves (in autumn) and pollen (in spring).  It probably shouldn't be a header, first off, and second... pollen?  Seriously?  The fallen leaves thing is self-explanatory but if you want me to seriously believe pollen is a real cause of loss of traction, someone had better back that one up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.176.194 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollen? 

message: Please ignore suggested merge into friction above.
I'm suggesting merging Tractive force and factor of adhesion into this article "Traction" as part of a consolidation - making "Traction" an article relating to terminology and names of measures relating to both 'traction (force)' and 'traction (friction coeff.)' - Leaving friction and force to do the physics explanations etc.
FengRail (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose with respect to tractive force.  This article now is much closer to rail adhesion (dealing with coefficient of friction) than it is to tractive force (dealing with pulling force) with respect to railways, for example.  A merger of various existing articles into two  articles in those two types of "traction" makes more sense.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Throw road slipperiness into the discussion as well.  Either merging it and rail adhesion here or at factor of adhesion or some other article or having summaries with "main article" links makes more sense.  How many other related articles should be considered?  Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Huh? Gene, no offense, but could you please organize your proposal in a way that I could understand? At one point you are talking about merging other articles together, and it seems at the end you are saying they should all remain un-merged. Please clarify...thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not proposing it--I was addressing Feng-Rail's proposal. I think some merger may be in order, including one of the two that he proposed.  The merger of this article and factor of adhesion makes more sense (both of them are in number 2 in my last comment), but tractive force which is under number 1 of that last comment should not be merged with either of them.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal (2)

message: To my opinion, traction and issues related to it  - such as benefits from Tyre Pressure Control Systems - does not relate to friction as seen by most people.
While friction is more a matter of braking vehicles, traction is about getting started and maintain a speed.
Despite close scientific relation, the public interest in these topics differs totally.
Recommend that traction is kept as a separate article. Wellfare - to experience good ride quality (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traction or Friction 

message: Factor of adhesion should not be merged into Traction (engineering) but into Rail adhesion if it is to be merged at all. Peter Horn User talk 14:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undesirable merger