bkanber

Bridgestone said bike tweels were close 4 years ago, and then again 2 years ago... I won't hold my breath! :)

My cold tire pressure is supposed to be 33PSI, my TPMS doesn't alert until it's below 28PSI, so there is a significant delta still.

The TREAD law does not specify when TPMS must alert, other than the tire being 'significantly underinflated'.

Because this is primarily a materials science problem, and we are still novices at materials science.

Overinflated tires will always have better economy than underinflated, all other things being equal. My guess is the average vehicle owner could improve overall fuel economy by about 0.5-1.0% by making sure their tires are at the correct pressure.

> The companies will advance feasibility studies seeking to make this new tire available in market by 2019.

Given that I haven't seen tweels for bicycles yet, I assume the feasibility studies did not go well.

It also looks like they also announced that bicycle tweels were 'coming soon' nearly two years ago: https://jalopnik.com/bridgestone-says-airless-tires-are-comi...

Tweels are probably too heavy to be viable on bicycles.

The only little clue is that one photo of the EV where the sidewalls are visible on the tires. You have to squint to see it :)

Ride comfort on tweels has historically been poor. But Michelin seems to be claiming they've solved that problem for this generation.

Sidewalls are critical for NVH at higher speeds, as well as fuel economy. But a demo of a tire on a car going 55 mph doesn't make sense, so they are able to remove the sidewalls for these stationary photoshoots and low speed rolling tests.

The issue with tweels is generally the unsprung mass, not the sprung mass. In general they will want to install tweels on vehicles with lower unsprung mass, which means smaller form factor (again, in general).

And I should have been a little clearer in my parent post: I'm mentally comparing something like the BMW i3 to something like the BMW X3; the i3 is about 1000 pounds lighter.

For the same form factor, yes that's true.

For a passenger vehicle application, these tweels will have sidewalls. You don't hit highway speeds on your quad and that makes all the difference.

In fact you can see that the photo of the EV on their site has sidewalls.

As a general rule, tweels are worse for fuel consumption -- they are both heavier and have more rolling resistance. (Edit: weight automatically adds rolling resistance, but so does flexion, which tweels have more of. So tweels are a double-whammy for fuel economy.)

At some point they will be viable... whether this is that point or not is yet to be seen.

These tires do have sidewalls. The sidewalls are removed for marketing and demonstration purposes only.

They were around years ago; Michelin's first tweel was developed in 2004.

These tires have sidewalls, the spokes are not exposed. Without sidewalls these tires would be very loud on the highway, and would have a much higher rolling resistance.

Former automotive engineer chiming in. "Tweels" have been around a long time, but have always failed in terms of "NVH" (noise, vibration, harshness). Michelin is claiming that this generation of tweels are appropriate for passenger cars, which means that they think they've solved the NVH problem.

They seem to be marketing these alongside EVs, I wonder if they're only really intended for lighter, compact-style cars. (Edit: I'm talking about EVs like the BMW i3, which are on average about 1000 lbs lighter than the cars most Americans drive, ie, the CUV/SUV form factor.)

Mars rovers already use tires like these.

    git checkout abcd1234
    ./build.sh && ./deploy.sh

I don't see the issue.

Yes. In my eyes, the original Lyme vaccine was the first casualty of the modern anti-vax movement.

They claimed that the vaccine gave them Lyme when really the vaccine gave them an immune response for a few days... as vaccines should. Through a huge amount of media attention they scared away the pharma company, they stopped marketing, sales tanked, the vax was pulled. No medical issues with the vaccine were ever discovered.

There used to be a human vaccine for Lyme, but it was pulled from market about 20 years ago. Interestingly, this Lyme vaccine was one of the first victims of the modern anti-vax movement.

Mosh is very popular. Most devs I know personally have used it at one point or another in their careers.

Gurl jrer cebgbaf, evtug? Fb gurl ernyyl pna bayl nssrpg guvatf nebhaq gung znff naq raretl enatr. Gurl pna zrff jvgu cnegvpyr nppryrengbe rkcrevzragf ohg pna'g nssrpg gur znpeb jbeyq.

> unless the aliens started out right next door (like in Alpha Centauri)

:D

Strongly recommended reading.

Playing house in this context is negative. It means that you're/they're playing dress-up and tidying rooms without actually doing the meaningful and important startup work. PG = Paul Graham, the guy who started YCombinator and this forum. I don't know which essay he's referring to specifically, though.

I absolutely love Godot, and I've used them all. The only reason not to use Godot is if you're already entrenched in one of the other engines' ecosystems, like if you're working in a large team that already has processes around Unity's workflow. Some Unity features are more evolved, but if you're a novice game developer, these things won't matter. And IMO Godot is much much more intuitive to someone who is already a software developer.

"Dude" has been a genderless term for like a decade now.

> For each analogy you make, I can counter it with one that proves it's bullshit.

This sounds like a fun game, but count me out.

> I haven't met anyone on this content to call a SUV a 'truck'.

Super common around NY/NJ.

I can see that "bullshit marketing" and product naming is a real buggaboo for you. We'll just have to agree to disagree. You did pose the question, after all. You may get responses that disagree with you.

You definitely missed my point. Products do not have to be named in a semantically correct, technical and pedantic manner. SpaceX isn't advertising flights to Alpha Centauri, so what's the problem? The entire world knows that actual starships as per your definition don't exist. Nobody's going to get confused or misled by this.

Also I notice you didn't say anything about the Magic Bullet. So at least one of my analogies were ok. If there was one that worked, there exist others. Don't bash the concept just because I couldn't furnish a list of 100 acceptable examples for you off the top of my head.

Also, most people call their SUVs or CUVs "trucks". They are not trucks, yet we call them that.

It's just how language is used, dude. There are so many more important things to get upset about IMO. Or, better yet, life is much happier if you're a leaf on a stream.

Are q-tips shaped like a Q?

Are Ford Explorers actually used for exploring?

Is the Magic Bullet a type of ammunition that kills magical creatures?

Is Wonderbread really wonderful?