Talk:Racing slick

message: I'm not really clear on how it is that slick tires give better traction (on a dry road).  To a first approximation, the friction forces between a tire and the ground are proportional to the weight and the coefficient of static friction but not the area.  (The explanation is that in this model, the surfaces conform to each other in a way that increases with pressure (force per unit area), providing an amount of force that is proportional to pressure per unit area - that is, proportional to the total weight.)
But slicks do give more traction; why is that? Is it because they are made of softer materials?  If so, why not make treaded tires out of similarly soft materials? (Perhaps the treads would deform excessively, or the wear would be excessive if the road contact pressure were increased.) 
There are other, more complicated advantages to having a big contact patch (including resistance to localized damage to the road surface or tire), but in simple braking, slicks do seem to be better than ordinary tires.
: Since slicks are softer than road tires, the tire "sinks" into the groves of the gravel, and this ensures a truly maximal contact patch.  The slick's rubber is like putty oozing around the gravel kinks, completely in contact.  Compare this to hard road tires that are stiff enough such that the tire cannot "wrap around" the gravel perturbations (as much as slicks).  Couple this deficiency with the further lack of contact between the open groves of a road tire and the gravel, and you see why the performance gap widens even more between slicks and road tires. --K3rb 08:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it says correctly that these tires do not have a tread *pattern* which is different from not having treads at all. Chimaera2005 (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is so, but "Slick tyres provide far more traction than treaded tyres on dry roads" implies slick tyres are not treaded tyres. I have changed it. Grassynoel (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: It is true that the max friction force before slipping is independent of the size of the tire.  It is just a factor times the weight of the vehicle.  So friction alone cannot explain the benefits of slicks.  But I believe the concept of adhesion is the true benefit of slicks over treaded tires.  Slicks allow more intimate contact with the road surface by having low air pressures and softer compounds.  It is similar to a plastic sheet adhearing to the surface of your refrigerator.  Friction does not keep the sheet on the fridge, it is adhesion.  It is known as dispersive adhesion and is attributed to Van der Wall forces.  These are weak bonds between molecules.  But over a large area in intimate contact, add up to a significant total force.  Another benefit of the slicks would be that the soft compound tire would be better able to conform to the surface imperfections in the road.  This would the provide a mechanical way to push off of the roadway over many small hills filled with the soft tire. 
Sabrejim (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More talk about better traction 

message: The first link http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071121092728.shtml has suffered link rot.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  10:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Rot 

message: The British spelling is not correct for this wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are rules about what language to use - if there's a good reason to prefer one to the other (eg locality), use that. If not, first come first served. Another main point is don't change it for the sake of changing it. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Several points for the IP: one, the original article was created as "tyre". Two, per WP:ENGVAR, either spelling is considered correct. Three, per above, there is no reason for changing it other than your preference for "tire". As such, the spelling should remain as is. --Ckatzchatspy 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the rules, it needs to be consistent within the text/links inside of it. The tires were INVENTED in the USA, popularized IN THE USA, and the links directing outside of here all say it the "USA way". It is not my problem the first person to start the wiki used the incorrect variant spelling.66.190.29.150 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is your problem in the sense that the rules governing this project consider either spelling to be correct. You cannot arbitrarily change it just because you disagree with those rules. As for your claim of a "British POV", I'll point out that I am Canadian (and use "tire"). I can, however, accept that this article uses "tyre". --Ckatzchatspy 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's nice you can accpet it; so what? It doesn't make it any more relevant or correct. The weight of the evidence is on the side of the American spelling. Simple as that.66.190.29.150 (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious, from your attitude here and at other articles, that you really don't understand the principles this project is based upon. -Ckatzchatspy 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "project" you seem to be involved in is baltant British POV pushing. I'll have no part in that jingoistic project. Thanks, but no thanks.66.190.29.150 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempting to hide your own aggressive behaviour behind a wall of spurious, unfounded accusations is the issue here. You have disrupted this page because you cannot accept the standards of the project, you have disrupted the Falkland Islands article because you cannot accept legitimately cited material, and so on. Why? --Ckatzchatspy 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem isn't with legitimate cited information. The problem is, that wiki is claiming "something" is found in a cited source, yet the cited source does not contain the supposed "something". That's called lieing. Continue it if you wish, but don't you point your finger at me for trying to correct blatant lies and biases on wikipedia. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Although it seems that this "discussion" is over, I would like to point out the inaccuracies of one of his statements, if you were to do a very simple amount of research you would find that tyres were invented by a Scottish man called Robert Thomson who patented them in 1846, then about 40 years later they were independently invented by John Dunlop another Scottish person, tyres were in no way invented by an American or in America.Golden Dragoon (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, that's what has been done in the lede of tire, but I don't know if that means we should do the same here, or that the wikilink in this article to that article is sufficient. At this point, unless there is a compelling reason for change, and I'm not aware of one, I'd rather we left it alone so as not to arouse the inevitable bickering that this issue seems to attract. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at the article history, and this very discussion, shows that despite it happening several years ago, there was no agreement to make the change from the already established (And as per article created) "tyre" to "tire".  I see where the commentary about the article move comes from - this article previously being titled "Slick tyre" - compounding the reasoning to retain the tyre spelling.  The article move discussion makes no commentary on whether it should be "tire" or "tyre"  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tires, not Tyres

message: this recovering broken kneecap im sitting with here is proof enough that racing bike tires DO hydroplane, especially in turns. the tread on those tires is to minimize this, but the tires still suffer from a loss of traction in moist conditions. this is normally done to reduce rolling resistance. its a tradeoff.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.222.2 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for hydroplaning to occur in order for wet pavement to cause a reduction in traction. The water merely acts as a lubricant, and the resulting loss of traction is independent of tread. Thus, a single crash does nothing to prove that racing bike tires do hydroplane. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing claim that Race bike tires are unsusceptible to hydroplaning in wet conditions 

message: As noted in some of the previous discussions, the term "tread" refers to the rubber on the circumference of the tire; the grooves in that rubber that are found on non-slick tires are properly referred to as "tread pattern". Slick tires have tread, but not pattern.  This article was inconsistent in its use of the word "tread". I've attempted to rectify that. MrRK (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tread" vs "Tread Pattern"