![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The suggestion that microscopic surface structure cannot be considered as surface friction is ludicrous and the so called debate needs to turn into a real debate rather than just a link to a site which does not debate it at all but offers the view of an individual who in my eyes has got it all wrong. if the idea of roughness and surface friction is wrong then so is the idea of a normal force contributing to that friction. You can model surface roughness as contributing to a resistance to slip between two surfaces so I see absolutely no reason why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.154.91 ( talk) 22:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This article should be changed to Traction (physics). While it's used more in engineering, it's still a physical concept. It's the same as friction--no one would consider friction to be considered with engineering. [comment not signed or dated]
== I think, it is should be added in traction(Physics). all the power calculations and relates to traction phenomenon. from very begining from traction concept to tractive effort and then to power of drive line to power of engine all these are related and easy to understand the concept.it should be linked with classical physics or quantam but its practical acceptability with tractive effort and other logical aspects should be considered.((user: Shashank:21:16,24th NOV,2009 ==
What happened to the maximizing multi-wheel vehicle traction? I read what was said about surface area. Missed the point entirely and was not what was being discussed. The discussion was about how a variable coefficient of friction effects the maximum traction with a pair of tires. I was not confusing friction vs traction. I know the difference. It annoys me when well meaning people delete other people's work because they don't understand what is being said. If they understand the section mentioned then revise it. Don't assume you know all and delete another author's work. The major point was about how a pair of tires obtain maximum traction when the load is shared equially. It is a MAJOR effect in vehicle design and handling. This is why oval track trace cars have a heavy weight bias toward the center of the turn. In the 80s cars were built with as much as 70% of the static vehicle weight on the left side for left turns. So the entire circle track inductry depends on the topic that has now been deleted. Rewrite it, revise it, move it to another topic. Just don't delete it because you don't like it. I have designed suspension for NASCAR and my designs lead to track records that to this day have not been broken. Am I an expert in the field? I don't like the term expert. I'm not annoyed that the section don't appear on THIS page. I realize there may be a better topic for it. However, it was moved from vehicle suspension page to this page by another author. Now it doesn't appear in Wikipedia at all!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imfinenu ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that "tire" is the U.S. English spelling and "tyre" is the British spelling.
I'm not sure why someone went through and changed it everywhere from "tire" to "tyre". Wikipedia is not a British only encyclopedia.
I personally don't care which way it is spelled because Wikipedia is global. My concern is someone editing another's work simply because their culture spells things differently. If someone has a problem with proper spelling from a contributor, then add a new heading to point out that another culture spells a term differently. Just don't change the original work simply because it was written in a different country than yours.
When I read an article and it has a word spelled a particular way, I then realize the article is coming from a particular world view. If someone goes through and changes things here and there to suit their own culture, the "context" becomes muddled.
When the day comes that the world shares a common language then we should go back and update the articles.
There's a header down there that talks about losing traction due to fallen leaves (in autumn) and pollen (in spring). It probably shouldn't be a header, first off, and second... pollen? Seriously? The fallen leaves thing is self-explanatory but if you want me to seriously believe pollen is a real cause of loss of traction, someone had better back that one up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.176.194 ( talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This whole article is about both friction and tractive force - it doesn't need a separate article.
The article (was) wrong in claimiing that traction (force) only applies to static or starting conditions.
I'm going to move the page and the suggest a merge.
Please ignore suggested merge into friction above.
I'm suggesting merging Tractive force and factor of adhesion into this article "Traction" as part of a consolidation - making "Traction" an article relating to terminology and names of measures relating to both 'traction (force)' and 'traction (friction coeff.)' - Leaving friction and force to do the physics explanations etc. FengRail ( talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
OTOH, tractive force is more akin to the articles in its see also links, such as tractor pulling, bollard pull, and the article section redirected to with power classification. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 13:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's look at it another way, along the lines of FengRail's mention of the two physics article. We need to distinguish between the articles which are primarily about
There's no reason to jumble such dissimilar articles together. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
To my opinion, traction and issues related to it - such as benefits from Tyre Pressure Control Systems - does not relate to friction as seen by most people. While friction is more a matter of braking vehicles, traction is about getting started and maintain a speed. Despite close scientific relation, the public interest in these topics differs totally. Recommend that traction is kept as a separate article. Wellfare - to experience good ride quality ( talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Factor of adhesion should not be merged into Traction (engineering) but into Rail adhesion if it is to be merged at all. Peter Horn User talk 14:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)