capri racer, how do you feel about using an instant read IR thermometer across the treads after a few miles of driving? I have seen these used on race tracks though now I think they use IR cameras, at least on the high end of the sport. IR thermometers are pretty cheap now, though not as cheap as chalk.
You have to be careful about what happens with racing tires - even street tires used in racing events. Racing tires and street tires used in racing only have to survive the event - very short term.
The idea of using a IR thermometer for racing purposes is to provide information about what the car is doing and where there might be opportunities for faster lap times. In the old days, we used chalk to see how far the tires were rolling over onto the sidewall - an indication of whether or not we had enough inflation pressure or enough camber.
Chalk is cheap and easily obtained, but it wasn’t as good as a pyrometer. A pyrometer would give you a profile of the temperature across the face of the tread - which is used to determine if the tread is flat to the track (on the average). This is much more detailed information that you can get from chalk. IR thermomoeters have become inexpensive and give similar information to a pyrometer. (Rememeberig that the goal is faster lap times)
If you use an IR thermometer for street usage, you have to be aware of what it is telling you. Since most tire wear occurs in cornering, straight ahead driving, then measuring the temps doesn’'t tell you everything you need to know. I am absolutely sure that driving around corners, then measuring temps also doesn’t tell you what you need to know. However, it might tell you if the vehicle has some quirks in the camber.
The problem that I see with IR thermometers is that the tread surface may be either transferring heat TO the tire or FROM the tire - depending on the road surface temperature. I am sure someone could work out a way to relate which is going on - and I am also sure someone could work out how to relate this to tire wear - but to my knowledge no one has done so - and I think the task is quite large so a single individual would not be able to do enough sample to establish validity of the correlation that might be obtained in an inidividual case (meaning a vehicle/tire combination). It would take doing multiple vehicles, multiple vehicle types, and many, many different tires to establish some sort of reliable results. Unfortunately, many folks think that THEIR experience is universal and they don’t need to consider that others may have different results. This is why there are so many heated discussions on the internet (not to mention folks who mis-interpret their results, or ignore contrdictory data.)
C.R. Thanks for the comments. See your point about “chalking”. If only each tire came with a load/pressure chart.
People don;t even check their pressure now. And many that do so don;t know what is correct. IMHO if manufacturers were to include load/pressure charts, they’d be wasting their money. NOBODY would EVER read them. The problem is not lack of information too the consumers. The problem is that far too many simply don’t care.
That brings up another issue, is it right to withhold information just because most consumers will not be able to understand it? Look at the audio industry. When I bought my first system, I could compare charts and specs on every component and decide where I got the most bang for my bucks, few that I had.
Today, all you see is a raw total wattage and thats about it. No mention of THD. When I bought my speakers, they came with an actual chart of the frequency response. Today, it might say something like 60-25k Hz, but they don’t tell you what their criteria is for the end of each spectrum, some actually use -20 dB instead of the old standby of -3 dB.
There are some of use that would make use of the data.
If you look at the higher-end audio…they have those specs. McIntosh/Krell/Conrad Johnson/Cary…all have detailed specs. Even the BEST stuff you can buy from Best Buy isn’t that good. Very few of anything they sell is even made in the US.
You used to get all those specs with Pioneer, Technics, Kenwood etc.
“That brings up another issue, is it right to withhold information just because most consumers will not be able to understand it? …”
Wouldn’t this depend on whether or not the information would be mis-interpreted? Would it be better if the information was unavailable and not subject to mis-interpretation? A good example is the title of this thread - max tire pressure.
Many folks think that the pressure printed on the sidewall of a tire is a “recommendation”. It doesn’t say that. It will either say “maximum” or indicate a relationship between the pressure and load carrying capacity.
Would it be better NOT to have the max pressure written on the sidewall, then the consumer would have to refer to the vehicle tire placard for the proper pressure? On the other hand, would a consumer just inflate the tire to some value they pulled out of the air - or one they remember from childhood?
This question was posed to NHTSA after the Ford/Firestone situation some years back - and NHTSA’s response was they felt an indication of the maximum was needed - and they had a point. Some tires aren’t designed to be used with the high inflation pressures delineated on the vehicle tire placard - and having the maximum on the sidewall would give consumers an indication that something is wrong.
Personally, I’m torn on the subject.
You used to get all those specs with Pioneer, Technics, Kenwood etc.
99% of people who by Pioneer and Kenwood have no idea what the specs mean.
Here’s an example. Go to ANY store like Best Buy and the FIRST spec about any speaker the salesman will tell you is the wattage. Speaker wattage is probably the most meaningless spec for a speaker. It literally tells you NOTHING about a speaker. Most people who go to buy speakers will ask “How many watts the speaker can handle?” Again totally meaningless. Frequency response, and efficiency (which are far more informative specs) are almost impossible to find on many speakers. And to tell the truth…anyone who buys any speaker component on specs along have no idea what they are doing. Each person is different. Each persons ears are different…their hearing response is different. One award winning speaker that costs $10,000 may sound GREAT to many people…to some it sounds too harsh. But those cheap radio-shack speakers costing $200 sound fantastic to them.
The same thing with autos. 99% of the buying public haven’t a clue what’s under the hood…and they don’t care.
One award winning speaker that costs $10,000 may sound GREAT to many people....to some it sounds too harsh. But those cheap radio-shack speakers costing $200 sound fantastic to them.
That just shows that more expensive is not necessarily better.
That just shows that more expensive is not necessarily better.
Exactly…
“One award winning speaker that costs $10,000 may sound GREAT to many people…to some it sounds too harsh. But those cheap radio-shack speakers costing $200 sound fantastic to them.”
When I heard Magneplanars back in the '80s they sounded like AM radio to me.
Magnaplane speakers were about the BEST speaker for the mid range. But didn’t have good highs or lows. That’s why in the 90’s they added a 16" woofer.
There are some GREAT expensive speakers out there that do sound great. But that doesn’t mean they sound great to everyone. 5 years ago I rebuilt my then 30yo speakers. Built new cabinets and replace the horn with a newer CD type horn. Had the woofers re-coned. I LOVE my newer rebuilt speakers.