Let's Geek out together - Engineers and physicists wanted

I did this a few years ago just to work out the differences for driving at various speeds on a straight, flat, level highway at constant speeds and no wind. Note 1: I did not make any calculations for varying tire sizes, tread patterns or rubber durometers. Just some food for thought. Note 2: No I'm not going to bother with these inertia calcs for getting tires to initially turn from a deaq stop; but you guys go ahead with it and I'll follow along. This is a much more interesting thread than all of the TRD Pro "MODS", "CLUNKS"; "COLORS"; WHEELS; and "BLING" threads.......:popcorn:

- - - - - - - -

Some Calculations of Horsepower Required for a Medium Sized Full Time 4wd Vehicle at Various Highway Speeds.

All dimensions, measurements and calculations are for a 2004 Land Rover Discovery S with the following characteristics and modifications:
No external add-on devices such as roof -racks, lights, a-bars or winches.
Truck lifted 5 inches (3 inch spring lift and fitted with 265/75-16 tires).
Assumed a Cd (coefficient of drag) of .42 (based on typical pick-up with top shell).
Calculated fA (frontal area) of 42 ft² (6 ft wide x 7 ft tall).
Assumed a weight of 4600 pounds.
Assumed that the ratio between rear wheel horsepower and flywheel horsepower for a full time four wheel drive vehicle would be about 5:4 (multiply bhp at flywheel by 1.25 for bhp at wheels).

Calculations:
*1 - Rolling Resistance = 4600 lb x .015 = 69 lb. I actually measured this and it came out very close to 65 lb using the bathroom scale to push the truck in neutral, brake off on a flat surface. Then with the added resistance of transmission, transfer box and differential gears; 69 lb should be pretty close!
*2 – Air Resistance = fA x Cd x .00256 x mph² = 42 x .42 x .00256 x 4900 (70 mph).
10 mph = 5 lb
20 mph = 20 lb
30 mph = 45 lb
40 mph = 80 lb
50 mph = 125 lb
60 mph = 180 lb
70 mph = 221 lb
80 mph = 320 lb
*3 – Total Drag = Air Resistance + Rolling Resistance (69 lb).
10 mph = 5 lb + 69 lb = 74 lb
20 mph = 20 lb + 69 lb = 89 lb
30 mph = 45 lb + 69 lb = 114 lb
40 mph = 80 lb + 69 lb = 149 lb
50 mph = 125 lb + 69 lb = 194 lb
60 mph = 180 lb + 69 lb = 249 lb
70 mph = 221 lb + 69 lb = 290 lb
80 mph = 320 lb + 69 lb = 389
*4 –Brake Horsepower (bhp) at Wheels Required for Various Level, Highway Speeds. (Flat, perfect road, no wind, no curves and Steady Pace) = Total Drag x mph/375 x 1.25
10 mph = 2.46 bhp
20 mph = 5.49 bhp
30 mph = 11.40 bhp
40 mph = 19.86 bhp
50 mph = 32.32 bhp
60 mph = 49.80 bhp
70 mph = 67.66 bhp
80 mph = 103.68 bhp

So what’s the point? You say - - Well, for those trying to get a bit better fuel economy while navigating you 4600 pound, brick shaped, full time four wheel drive rig down the expressway at 80 mph; consider this:
At 80 mph it takes more than twice as much horsepower than it does at 60 mph!
At 70 mph it takes more than twice as much horsepower than it does at 50 mph!
OR – At 50 mph it only takes about 1/3 as much horsepower as it does at 80 mph.

Let’s assume that if you can get about 19 miles per gallon driving all day at 60 mph on a flat highway; what do you think it’s going to get when you put your right foot twice as far into the throttle to make it go 80 mph?

Now then; driving in hills, traffic or off-road; some different conditions do apply. But using only as much throttle as you really need really helps.
 
I like the discussion. And it brings back a lot of memories of school and classrooms discussions. But now that I don't have to study this for a grade anymore. And I do it for a paycheck. What about the next piece of this puzzle is, how do you validate the data in the real world? Can you use the data collected in an Ultra-gauge to validate the data?
 
Bigger tires = need mo power. Got it.:brick:

I'm a mechanical engineer. When I was in school, I had a professor tell us that there are many answers to any given problem. The answer is dependent on who asked the question and for what purpose. He further simplified this by saying there is a $5 and a $50 answer to many of these questions. The above quote by [MENTION=65614]Antman[/MENTION] is the $5 answer, and the one I'll stick with.
 
Given my long empirical observations, I would place effects on gas mileage from larger meets;

1. Gearing -- I run 37's on my current trail rig, 96 Montero and gets only slightly less then our 2015 4 runner with 4:88s.
2. Weight of tires -- Weight always has an effect and big tires are heavy.
3. Aerodynamics -- Taller tires lift the vehicle and provide a larger wind resistance. Lift kits also do that.
I would call other things like rolling resistance negligible.
 
Interesting discussion, but there is no free lunch... If you want offroad performance, you have to pay with mpg....

Rolling resistance is a big factor. I suggest anyone who thinks not to go try an experiment on a bike where you can really feel the level of power required for yourself. Same size/weight tire in an aggressive off-road tread with a soft compound will blow your mind on how much more effort it takes.

Long haul truckers have this well documented also. Rolling resistance is a big deal. not as big as aero, but it's up there. I would say it is more important than weight in many cases.

Larger diameter tires will increase contact patch.. Similar to going wider....

In the end, there is no magic choice to get the best of both worlds. You just have to compromise depending on your priorities.
 
Last edited:
lAsNv2Vu0DvR8i67elmbHcXw8vU-copy-600x336.jpg
 
Interesting discussion, but there is no free lunch... If you want to look cool at the Mall, you have to pay with mpg....

.... In the end, there is no magic choice to get the best of both worlds. You just have to compromise depending on your priorities.

fixt
 
Somebody within each major car company has a simulation of this, and they probably spent years refining it against measured data.

Just trying to figure out the moment of inertia of the rim+tire, neglecting the deflection the tire would be a challenge.

I think we should think about the best fall season beer.

Or maybe who the hell signed Jay Cutler's seven year contract. Fire that idiot.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Iy66FoLik44" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
Besides a lot of the other variables mentioned, one of the /major/ hits to MPG with bigger tires comes from the fact that larger tires mean earlier downshifts when going up hill.

The RPM inefficiency of these engines is INSANE. A single downshift can drop the MPG by 30% or so on hill climbs based on my observation. I.e. 12 MPG real time in 5th, dropping to 8 MPG real-time in 4th at the same speed and same slope. So when you spend more of that hill in 4th instead of 5th or 3rd instead of 4th... overall MPG drops like a stone.

So one would have to calculate the fuel inefficiency with rising RPM under load (Or frankly just measure it) And add that into the equation for overall MPG drop.

On the other hand, a rough rule of 1 mpg per half inch diameter increase (without regearing) seems to get you 99% of the way there with 1% of the headache! :D
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,111
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top