Here I am

2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Holy hydro planing, Batman!

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was driving down to Gotham from these thar hills last week during a pretty good down pour on I-70. While we have been getting a decent share of rain up here, I hadn’t the opportunity to drive at high speeds (60 mph+) in a good rain storm. Quite the hydro planing action goin’ on! :eek: :eek: The rain was collecting in the right lane where the chains of the big rigs carve quite the trough. :mad: Left lane wasn't much better.

I would have thunk that the weight of the CTD would have helped in the handling of this situation. I am running stock size Mich’s M/S. Whoo Boy! I damn near had to pull over! (And that was just to change my shorts)

:D
 
My pilot friends learn in their classes that hydro-planing has nothing to do with vehicle weight, but is actually a function of tire air pressure.



I'll have my roommate look it up tonight and will post back. Something to do with the square-root of pressure times 10 or so (that will give you the speed at which you will hydro plane).



I'm just a lowly enginerd, so am not 100% on this. I remember when they learned this that the testing done to prove it was done with a B737... if it had anything to do with weight, that 737 shouldn't ever hydro-plane, but it does on the smallest amount of water depending on pressure inside the tires.



Pop-quiz: What gas is put into high-altitude aircraft tires?



Josh
 
Interesting stuff- look forward to the add'l info.



My guess on the tire gas would be helium- makes the planes lighter:D



Seriously- He in an inert gas but could it also be nitrogen (Guiness can't be wrong using in thier tap systems) or argon?

Hmmm... . :rolleyes:
 
Ok, roommate is back and here's the info he has:



This is all taken from the perspective of an airplane that is landing or taking off.



When taking off, the airplane will start to hydroplane at 9*sqrt(air pressure in PSI)... that is 9 times the square root of the air pressure in PSI. That speed is in knots, so will be different in MPH, but not much (don't want to do the math right now).



When landing, the airplane will be hydroplaning until it slows to a speed of 7*sqrt(air pressure in PSI) in knots once again. At that point, the tires will have traction and authority.



Now granted this information is related to aircraft, but I'm sure it correlates to other "tired" vehicles as well.



My roommate thinks the info came from the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" which is basically the authority on aerodynamics right now.



Oh, and the tires have nitrogen in them (99. 9% sure on this). :) Doesn't expand as much at high altitudes and low pressures.



Josh
 
I would have thunk that too, illflem, (i. e. thinner tires better in snow as a corrolation- putting more lbs in a narrower path) But I can also see how pressure might affect "hardness" (read: ability to cut or carve. ) Along with these factors, I would have thouhgt that tread design would be a major factor too. Dunno? Curiuos to see what Josh has for his follow- up.



EDIT:

Josh- Not following the unit conversion here. How do the starting units in the equasion factor to a speed. The distance is there, but how does one convert the pressure to a rate?
 
Last edited:
My truck with the 285's at 60 PSI or the current 235's at 80 PSI does not hardy hydroplane at all. I mean you can be doing 80+ in a torrent and still not lift it.
 
I'm running 245 Michelins@75#... ... ... ... . Better hang on when you hit a puddle:eek: ... I thought the same thing,Big heavy truck shouldn't go skiing anywhere right?WRONG.
 
I saw something today that was related to hydroplaneing. I was following an 18 wheel tractor that had no trailer - it had 8 drive wheels. The road was wet and I'll bet that thing was scary to drive. We were in heavy traffic and all 8 drive wheels would lock up when he tried to stop going only about 3 mph. He was allowing plenty of room in front of him.
 
9*sqrt of tire pressure on acce,l and 7*sqrt of tire pressure on slowing. Same for USAF throttle jockeys.



65 psi = about 8*9=72 knots, 1 knot = 1. 15mph = 82. 80 mph(www.onlineconversions.com) which is faster than I normally go :)



I think where tread size comes in is that thinner treads have higher pressure? for same weight



Very grey area,



Bob Weis
 
Its all about Surface area of the tire coming into contact with the road. The water cuts the friction down. Friction is the force that keeps us going where we want to go (turn, stop, go, and so on). The bigger the surface area (wider the tirer, or lower the tire pressure) the more water it has to displace to come in contact with the road. You can run wide tires, but need good tread. The good tread will give a place for the water to go. Thats why rain tires have tread that pushes water out to the side and gives a good contact.
 
I gotta go with chrleb1. The airplane guys have balloon tires with rib tread design. As aircraft size increases, tire size increases so psi/square inch of tire contact area remains about the same. Increasing the psi in the balloon tire will decrease the tire contact area and provide more psi/square inch of contact area. The equation can ignore tread design (ribbed) and ground surface (slick runway) because they are similar in nearly all cases. Rules of thumb for airplanes ain't necessarily applicable to terrestrial bound applications.
 
Originally posted by Little Bill

Rules of thumb for airplanes ain't necessarily applicable to terrestrial bound applications.



Aren't necessarily applicable to airplanes, either. I haven't come across this particular formula in any of the canonical literature/texts (and I've read a good bit of it... ), but that's not to say it itsn't valid.



Stuff like this is usually a generalization to make the pilots' lives a little easier. There might be an easy explanation (but without seeing all the units used to reduce and where they came from, I can't say), and there might have been 20 pages of differential equations to get there (which I doubt), or (most likely, IMO) they did functional testing on a series of aircraft, plotted the results, fit a curve to it, and came up with these handy little equations.



Only problem is, there are probably a number of assumptions in their use--size of the aircraft, range of applicable pressures, runway composition, etc. And if any of these are out of a certain range, the equations might become worthless very fast.



This is actually a fairly complex problem in fluid mechanics. Water is incompressible (basically--it will compress a tiny amount at very high pressures). When the tire rolls over a patch of water, the water can't compress, so it gets 'squished' out of the way. Depending on your speed, the water might not be able to move out from under the tire fast enough, and so it will exert pressure on the tire, which is translated into an upward force, which then causes the tire to leave the road surface, and you're hydroplaning.



This is where tire size comes into play. If you've got a narrow tire, the pressure on the road is increased, which tends to move the water away faster.



Tread design is crucial, too. Race cars run slicks when it's dry so they can get the largest possible contact patch. But when it's wet, that corresponds to the lowest possible pressure exerted to the ground, making hydroplaning easy. When you cut a lot of tread/rain channels into the tire, you've effectively reduced the surface area of the tire contacting the ground, increasing the exerted pressure. At the same time, as a previous poster noted, you've given the water a place to go. Instead of having to move four inches to the side, it only has to move a quarter inch into one of the grooves.



Anyway, the moral of the story--the lighter your truck/wider your tires/lower your tire pressure (increases contact patch)/less-aggressive your tread/more water there is/higher your speed, the easier it is to hydroplane.



--Ty
 
Last edited:
Years ago, when I was a Naval Aviator, I gave a presentation on hydroplaning. I don't remember everything about it, but from what I do remember, almost every comment here is correct to some extent.



As I recall, the tire pressure was the major factor in determining hydroplaning speed. Higher pressures will hydroplane at a higher speed.



Also, the aspect ratio of the tire contact patch is a factor. A long, narrow contact patch will cut through the water better than a fat one.



Also, tread pattern and depth is a factor. Providing spaces for the water to squeeze into helps in keeping rubber in contact with the road.



Trying to quantify all these factors is difficult.



Airplane tires contain nitrogen. It is an inert gas and will not react with the rubber on the inside of the tire. Airplane tires get quite hot. Nitrogen expands the same amount as all other gasses with temperature and pressure changes. Tire pressure on airliners runs around 150 psi or so. Some navy aircraft use pressures as high as 400 psi (nose tires, EA-6B Prowler) for carrier use.



Loren
 
Originally posted by snowracer69

Ok, roommate is back and here's the info he has:



This is all taken from the perspective of an airplane that is landing or taking off.



When taking off, the airplane will start to hydroplane at 9*sqrt(air pressure in PSI)... that is 9 times the square root of the air pressure in PSI. That speed is in knots, so will be different in MPH, but not much (don't want to do the math right now).



When landing, the airplane will be hydroplaning until it slows to a speed of 7*sqrt(air pressure in PSI) in knots once again. At that point, the tires will have traction and authority.



Now granted this information is related to aircraft, but I'm sure it correlates to other "tired" vehicles as well.



My roommate thinks the info came from the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" which is basically the authority on aerodynamics right now.



Oh, and the tires have nitrogen in them (99. 9% sure on this). :) Doesn't expand as much at high altitudes and low pressures.



Josh



Be careful of the (mis) information you post. The scenarios given are accurate for aircraft, but that doesn't really apply to trucks. When an A/C is landing and taking off, its effective weight changes because of the lift the wings generate.



Not so with a truck.



Here's my dissertation on the subject, as posted earlier... .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



First of all, let me say that I am posting this in hopes that I don’t insult anyone’s intelligence. I have just read a thread where someone was talking about tall tires vs skinny tires in relation to hydroplaning, and I found that there is some misinformation out there on the exact phenomenon. If I do a good job writing this, maybe they will let me write for the TDR mag? OK, maybe not…



Hydroplaning is what happens when a tire fails to contact the road surface because it is “riding” on a wedge of water on the road. Imagine the difference between your buddy’s bass boat trolling along THROUGH the water, versus when that monster 150HP outboard has you skimming ON TOP of the water. The skimming is hydroplaning, and the variables we will discuss all play a factor in both tire hydroplaning and the bass boat scenario. Since hydroplaning occurs specifically on the tire’s contact patch, let’s look at the factors that affect traction on a wet road:



1) Width of tires -- more accurately, the surface area of the contact patch (to some extent tire height plays a role as well, since a taller tire has a bigger contact patch for a given width)

2) Axle weight—the FORCE acting on the surface area of the contact patch

3) Depth of water on the road—this determines the VOLUME of water that the tires must displace to contact the road.

4) Viscosity of the fluid displaced—i. e. a “thinner” fluid pumps easier, and therefore would be less likely to hydroplane. We assume we are talking only about water, so let’s consider this one constant.

5) Speed of vehicle—This determines the TIME available to displace the water in the contact patch.



In order for a tire to have traction on a wet road (primarily standing water) it has to first displace the water between the contact patch and the road. Because water is a viscous fluid, it tends to resist this displacement. The more water you have, the more resistance. In fact there are really only three factors that play a role in hydroplaning: pressure on the contact patch (weight on each tire divided by surface area of contact patch), the volume of water that must be displaced, and the time available to displace that water. In fact, we could write it as a formula:



(Pressure * Time)/volume= resistance to hydroplaning.



We can draw from this formula a number of conclusions:

1) the deeper the water is, the more likely I am to hydroplane (more water volume)

2) The more pressure on the contact patch, the LESS likely hydroplaning is.

3) The more time available to displace the water, the less likely hydroplaning is. (Slow down!)



This confirms what you already know—tall skinny tires tend to hydroplane less than fat tires. We can see two reasons for this. First, the wider tire has to displace MORE water. Second, the wider contact patch has LESS pressure on it since weight has stayed the same (P=F/A) This is a “double whammy”.



This isn’t the only way to decrease the chances of hydroplaning. The formula tells us we can drive a heavier vehicle or slow down. But if we increase the efficiency with which the tire displaces water, then the TIME required to displace it decreases, and we are less likely to plane out. This allows us to either decrease vehicle weight or increase speed safely as a result.



Finally, the SHAPE of the contact patch has a role in hydroplaning. For a given area, say 15 square inches, a longer, narrower contact patch is better than a short wide one. Why? Because the majority of the water displacement is done by the leading edge of the patch only (picture our bass boat and its bow). The rest of the contact patch gets a “free ride” along behind the leading edge that already displaced the water. Thus, a narrower leading edge slices better through the wedge of water.



Go ahead and run the biggest tires you wish. Just remember the physics that is taking place at your tires’ contact patches and SLOW DOWN!! (or add a bunch of weight, or run narrow tires, or……. .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



In the above post, I neglected to mention the effect of taller tires (wich tend to increase the size of the contact patch for a given width). Other than that, it's still pretty relevant.



You can read the whole thread here
 
Last edited:
Holy information, Batman!

Hohn- Thanks for the input. I did think that weight would be a factor as in the case with a CTD. I would have thought it would have had better handling characteristics than what I experienced. I guess all things being equal 'cept for engine choice (gas v. diesel) that the diesel is better than a lighter engine.

I seem to recall that I had better handling with my previous tires. they were Mich's A/S- I now have Mich's M/S whose tread is a lttle more aggresive than the former but not by much. Did not like the squishy feel (of me in the soiled shorts :D ) thus, I will be more aware of this during similar condition and will slow down.

Thanks to all for the input. This is another example of why I joined the TDR. Cheers:) -frank.
 
CONTACT PRESSURE

Maybe I should post this in the Off Roading forum, but the phenomenon is similar outside the tire against water application. The phrase we've been searching for is CONTACT PRESSURE. Just as more contact pressure is effective in displacing water, it is also effective in maintaining traction in dry low-traction conditions, such as four wheeling, especially rock crawling.



Some of the more astute dissertations in various off road mags have explained why vehicles with skinny, knobby mud tires can often scramble elegantly up a rock pile while a balloon tired rig slips and bounces all over the place. I have witnessed this phenomenon many times in my four wheeling adventures. Since you dune runners know that you can't get traction in sand anyway, that stuff is all about flotation, another topic entirely. As has been discussed in this thread with scientific terms, it's the pressure per square inch of the contact surface - not the air pressure inside the tire, though that can affect the contact pressure - that has the greatest effect on traction.



Neil
 
When I first bought my Rickson 19. 5's they recommended the 225's. Of course, being a normal consumer, I ignored their advice. Specifically, they were 19. 5 Bridgestone 245's with a closed shoulder for longer tread life. The result: hydroplaning.



So, 80,000 miles later, with a number of scary hydroplaning events, including an encounter with the rear end of a jeep at just 5 mph (jeep did not fare well at all) the tires wore out. I then bought the 19. 5 Michelin XDE M/S 225's and the hydroplaning went away. The thinner tire gives more pressure per square inch on the road surface to move the water and the open shoulder lets the water out.



Problem solved, case closed.
 
Originally posted by illflem

Good point.

Airplane tires aren't driven, all they do is coast.



But at some point aren't brakes applied? Which would cause the tires to spin at diferent speed than the forward speed and possibly break them loose on a wet surface?



Just wonderin'. I'm obviously not a physics major. :)



Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top