# Goodyear claims to have reinvented the wheel.



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 3, 2016)

Goodyear has reinvented the wheel by creating a spherical tire which looks like the BB-8 from Star Wars - that allows cars to drive sideways.
The company unveiled the Eagle-360 at the Geneva International Motor Show that is designed for the autonomous cars of tomorrow. 
The spherical tire is linked to the car by magnetic force so it can rotate on any axis in any direction. 
This gives the car ultra-maneuverability and could pave the way for smaller car parks and more efficient used of road space because it allows the car to move sideways. 

















https://corporate.goodyear.com/en-U...eveals-concept-tires-for-autonomous-cars.html


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 3, 2016)

This would put a lot of wheel and tire thieves out of business.  

Guess the criminals need a union to fight the corporate man now.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 3, 2016)

a) tire wear is going to be a bitch.
b) hydroplanning will be common and extremely dangerous 
c) the surface area of the tire on the road is likely smaller than that of a normal tire which means reduced handling, traction, and braking.
d) how much power does it require to levitate the vehicle above the spheres?
e) what's the maximum speed this can go before the spheres escape their magnetic constraints?
f) vehicles have a lot of interior space because of how little space the tires occupy--that won't be the case with spheres.

Goodyear may have designed an awesome tire for a vehicle that doesn't exist.  99% of the technology is in the vehicle itself and, as far as I know, no one is interested in conceptualizing it nor manufacturing it.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 3, 2016)

Suspension will be non existent and carbon fibre body work is out.
Also no fatties allowed as magnetic force will have to increase to compensate.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 3, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Suspension will be non existent and carbon fibre body work is out.
> Also no fatties allowed as magnetic force will have to increase to compensate.



Quite the opposite.  Suspension would be awesome.  Magnetic fields bend so it depends on the housing clearance.  On standard roads you'd get a very smooth ride (think Maglev).  But off road, it'd need careful height consideration.

The fatties point is therefore true.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 3, 2016)

Sounds like Goodyear got a grant/subsidy from NASA to Develop the Next generation of Mars Buggy wheel

No use or market for it on this Planet  

PS Is  *Bernie* *Ecclestone* somehow involved 
is this the 2025 F1 Tyre Supplier Showing off the NewStock  F1/NASCAR Tyre








>>>>>


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 4, 2016)

Anyone remembers the Audi R8 from I Robot? That.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 4, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) tire wear is going to be a bitch.
> b) hydroplanning will be common and extremely dangerous
> c) the surface area of the tire on the road is likely smaller than that of a normal tire which means reduced handling, traction, and braking.
> d) how much power does it require to levitate the vehicle above the spheres?
> ...



Top of that what about speed bumps and when you have to change a tire, ooh my the pain.


----------



## micropage7 (Mar 4, 2016)

suddenly i think of this


----------



## silkstone (Mar 4, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) tire wear is going to be a bitch.
> b) hydroplanning will be common and extremely dangerous
> c) the surface area of the tire on the road is likely smaller than that of a normal tire which means reduced handling, traction, and braking.
> d) how much power does it require to levitate the vehicle above the spheres?
> ...



a) it would be expensive and require a trip to the garage. Though I'm sure they wouldn't have to throw the whole thing in the trash, just send it back for recycling.
b) That would be dependant on a lot of things. They would have to go through plenty of testing to find the general coefficient of kinetic friction, etc vs. tire pressure. At the end of the day it'd be a non-issue
c) This is the same as point b
d) More than if they were resting on axles. Yet, maglev trains work on the same principle and are feasible.
e) light-speed. Braking may be a problem though.
f) yup


----------



## AsRock (Mar 4, 2016)

There is always this option loool.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 4, 2016)

silkstone said:


> a) it would be expensive and require a trip to the garage. Though I'm sure they wouldn't have to throw the whole thing in the trash, just send it back for recycling.


I was going more after uneven wear.    If you drive in a straight line most of the time, you're going to get a wear pattern in the tire.  When you turn or do something to cause the tire not to be in that tract any more, it will get obnoxiously loud and rough like driving on the zipper.



silkstone said:


> b) That would be dependant on a lot of things. They would have to go through plenty of testing to find the general coefficient of kinetic friction, etc vs. tire pressure. At the end of the day it'd be a non-issue


It would because all tires have channels that guide water into and away from the tire.  They work as a function of knowing how the tire spins.  With a sphere, there is no rhyme or reason to how the tire rotates.  As per the above, either it will fail at channeling water away or it will be obnoxious.  Further, if the software makes a mistake while a loss-of-traction situation is unfolding, people could die.  It takes all of the tires working together to regain control after the vehicle has lost control.  It theoretically could be done with this kind of set up but I have my doubts.



silkstone said:


> d) More than if they were resting on axles. Yet, maglev trains work on the same principle and are feasible.


Because maglevs don't carry their power source; they take it from the track. 



silkstone said:


> e) light-speed. Braking may be a problem though.


The sphere would fail long before that due to centripical force.  The sphere may also escape its socket at very low velocity.



micropage7 said:


> suddenly i think of this
> View attachment 72571


This, in my mind, is far more feasible than magnetic.  Wear would still be a huge problem though.


----------



## silkstone (Mar 5, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I was going more after uneven wear.    If you drive in a straight line most of the time, you're going to get a wear pattern in the tire.  When you turn or do something to cause the tire not to be in that tract any more, it will get obnoxiously loud and rough like driving on the zipper.
> 
> 
> It would because all tires have channels that guide water into and away from the tire.  They work as a function of knowing how the tire spins.  With a sphere, there is no rhyme or reason to how the tire rotates.  As per the above, either it will fail at channeling water away or it will be obnoxious.  Further, if the software makes a mistake while a loss-of-traction situation is unfolding, people could die.  It takes all of the tires working together to regain control after the vehicle has lost control.  It theoretically could be done with this kind of set up but I have my doubts.
> ...



You're right on all points, but I can't visualize how the sphere's would escape from the socket, the radius of the opening is smaller than the radius of the tyre. 
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some cool engineering tricks to negate the other problems. I wonder how big the neodymium magnets would have to be to levitate the car.


----------



## Jetster (Mar 5, 2016)

AsRock said:


> There is always this option loool.




haha I just want to drive it around sideways


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 5, 2016)

silkstone said:


> You're right on all points, but I can't visualize how the sphere's would escape from the socket, the radius of the opening is smaller than the radius of the tyre.
> I wouldn't be surprised if there were some cool engineering tricks to negate the other problems. I wonder how big the neodymium magnets would have to be to levitate the car.


If these things have air in them to provide cushion and extend the life of the tire, one would have to be able to field-replace them with a spare just like we do with spare wheels today.  Imagine the design of the socket to allow field replacement.  That same design consideration is what potentially makes the sphere escape the socket.

Neodymium could be used to suspend the vehicle from the sphere but it would not provide momentum.  Electromagnets are required.  Let's also not forget that neodymium magnets are dangerous which translates to more money to service the vehicle.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 5, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Also no fatties allowed as magnetic force will have to increase to compensate.



God damnit, why is this world so opposed to us fat people?  WE WILL CRUSH YOU!


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 5, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Goodyear has reinvented the wheel by creating a spherical tire which looks like the BB-8 from Star Wars - that allows cars to drive sideways.
> 
> The spherical tire is linked to the car by magnetic force so it can rotate on any axis in any direction.
> This gives the car ultra-maneuverability and could pave the way for smaller car parks and more efficient used of road space because it allows the car to move sideways.



If you haven't been sideways on conventional tires, you're not trying hard enough


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 5, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> If you haven't been sideways on conventional tires, you're not trying hard enough


Been there
Done That
survived that and got the brown stained under pants to prove it

and on both a car and more frighting on a motercycle


----------



## silkstone (Mar 6, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Been there
> Done That
> survived that and got the brown stained under pants to prove it
> 
> and on both a car and more frighting on a motercycle



Yeah, most bikes I know of (over here) have no kind of anti-lock system so it's quite easy to do at lower speeds. You just have to realize to let go of the brakes before going over and hope you are orientated in the correct direction to avoid whatever you had slammed the brakes on to avoid.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) tire wear is going to be a bitch.
> b) hydroplanning will be common and extremely dangerous
> c) the surface area of the tire on the road is likely smaller than that of a normal tire which means reduced handling, traction, and braking.
> d) how much power does it require to levitate the vehicle above the spheres?
> ...



You seem to lack creativity in this matter.  Let's go point by point.

1) Not really.  You've got a sphere, and you can rotate said sphere however you'd like.  Just like with the write leveling in an SSD, you simply need to change the wear surface.  This could be done automatically, by having the spherical tires move in something other than a circle.  As long as fricative force on each side equals zero when summed, you travel in a straight line.  This would have to be done by complex equations, but it's not unreasonable when you consider the magnetic control system that this is going to require.  In fact, given the same tread depth that sphere will have a greater surface area than a wheel of the same diameter, leading to a longer lifetime if wear leveling is done properly.

2) No more so than normal.  I'm really not sure where you're getting this.  The same surface area, and the same coefficient of friction are being experienced.  This is dependent upon vehicle mass, and contact surface properties.  If you can somehow demonstrate that the sphere would have less surface area I'd agree, but assuming tire pressure and car mass are the same simple physics demonstrates contact area would be the same.

3) Again, this is a mystery of logic.  In a traditional tire the surface area of contact is a function of the air pressure inside it.  Put simply, air pressure must equal pressure applied by the mass of the car.  The same principle applies here.  This is why you release tire air when you want to go off road, and why you increase it on pavement (think fuel efficiency).

4) None.  The point is repulsion.  Two stationary magnetic fields can repel one another sufficiently to have the car levitate indefinitely.  The catch, or course, is the strength of those fields and the fact that the vehicle would have a hard maximum in loading capacity.  It's likely that there will be a combination of static and dynamic fields, in order to provide power savings with increased loading capacity.  That sort of thing isn't going to be covered in this sort of a promotional video.

5) You're missing the design work.  The spheres are enclosed in a casing that covers more than half of them.  Think ball bearings, and the races they reside in.  The only danger of "escape" is if the cage was made out of a weak material.

6) I'm flummoxed here.  Either you don't get the concept, or entirely miss the point.  A modern car has the engine, transmission, axle, steering assembly, braking, and various other systems.  Remove all of that.  What you need is an electronic control system, some magnets, and electromagnets.  Your tires take up more space, but you suddenly don't have 80% of the bulky items.  It's all controlled by magnetic fields, which are all driven off of a computer control system.  Let's find an analog to describe it.  How much room does a Tesla lose by having motors in the wheels?  Each drive motor is a rather substantial use of space, yet because there's no transmission and central engine the actual body of a Tesla is more roomy than one would imagine (given its styling).


In short, this is the tire of a very far future.  One in which the computers in our cars have to be significantly better than anything we've got today.  While this is interesting, and surprisingly practical, it's a PR piece.  I'm not sure how they plan on dealing with road debris (a steel nail or screw sucks today, but magnets that strong will turn a nail into a bullet).  I'm not convinced they've developed a simplified algorithm for three dimensional wear leveling.  I'm not even sure if they've got the hardware to make this happen reasonably (read: copper is surprisingly expensive).  All of this is feasible from an engineering perspective, but likely a pipe dream from a cost perspective.


Edit:


FordGT90Concept said:


> If these things have air in them to provide cushion and extend the life of the tire, one would have to be able to field-replace them with a spare just like we do with spare wheels today.  Imagine the design of the socket to allow field replacement.  That same design consideration is what potentially makes the sphere escape the socket.
> 
> Neodymium could be used to suspend the vehicle from the sphere but it would not provide momentum.  Electromagnets are required.  Let's also not forget that neodymium magnets are dangerous which translates to more money to service the vehicle.



You seem to have missed the other "tires of the future" designs.  The field servicing is a reasonable issue, but remove the air filled inner tube.  You replace the air with a honeycomb of rubber, such that the tire is now directly connected to the magnetic core of the sphere.  No more problems (and the earlier comments I made involving pressure still sand, even if that's from mechanical loading rather than pneumatic forces).

You no longer have flats, and truly incompetent drives, the ones who don't pay attention to tread depth, get a reminder that it's time to replace tires whenever there's a constant vibration (due to a patch wearing through, without having the tires fail.

Yes, self-maintenance is no longer possible with a design like this.  Between the enclosed shell, and the strong magnets, you need to employ a mechanic.  Of course, that'd be a given with the entire vehicle having to be converted into a massive electronic control though.




silkstone said:


> a) it would be expensive and require a trip to the garage. Though I'm sure they wouldn't have to throw the whole thing in the trash, just send it back for recycling.
> b) That would be dependant on a lot of things. They would have to go through plenty of testing to find the general coefficient of kinetic friction, etc vs. tire pressure. At the end of the day it'd be a non-issue
> c) This is the same as point b
> d) More than if they were resting on axles. Yet, maglev trains work on the same principle and are feasible.
> ...



While we agree, you're off on some of your statements.

a) The concept is from a rubber company.  Their recycling would likely be similar to that of a starter, or alternator today.  The item has two prices, one when you buy it new and one where you turn the old one in and get a core charge reimbursement.  The core would be the magnets and metal, stripped out of the rubber by a chemical or physical process.  Please refer to above though, because the original concern was invalid.

b) This is a valid idea, applied oddly.  The video makes no mention of the surfaces, so it's pretty odd to assume that the surface will be something other than vulcanized rubber (good wear, high coefficient of friction, and relatively low cost).  As such, the initial question was invalid.  Consider that this is Good Year, a company highly invested in continuing to produce the products they're already tooled to make.

d) Completely different application.  Maglev is allowed to pull large amounts of energy, and it only moves on tracks.  Both of these limitations make the comparison unsuitable for parity.  What you should be citing is magnetic bearings.  They work with two magnetic fields constantly repelling one another, allowing for minimal friction.

e) No.  Just no.  You're applying forces via a magnetic field.  Said field generates hysterical losses, not to mention the fact that your brakes are entirely based upon hysteresis.  These wheels will likely be specified to run at the same speeds cars do today, for the simple reason that rubber to road is still the limiting factor.  I understand you falling back on the theory here, but it's too fantastic to be of practical use.

f) Wrong for so many reasons.  You lose volume with the tire, but gain it back with everything else that doesn't need to be included.  There is absolutely no reason that competent design would produce a car that has appreciably less interior space with a spherical wheel.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 6, 2016)

Assuming these are designed to be fully self contained and self propelling, they would require a substantial power source built in to the vehicle, much like electric cars do already. Until a better storage system is produced I can't see this having the range most people require.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 6, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Assuming these are designed to be fully self contained and self propelling, they would require a substantial power source built in to the vehicle, much like electric cars do already. Until a better storage system is produced I can't see this having the range most people require.



Yeah, we need a breakthrough beyond LithiumIon to really get there I think.


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Mar 6, 2016)

AsRock said:


> There is always this option loool.



This would save alot of time and frustration in those parallel parking. Why this thing is not selling now?


----------



## Vineet Reddy (Mar 6, 2016)

Even if somehow Goodyear manages to get it out for other countries, it will be out of business in India. First of all the bumps and hazardous material thrown on road will cause a lot of pain as the magnetic induction used for mechanism will be damaged due to unbalanced movement on the road. Changing the complete magnetic unit if damaged will cost a lot. And when needed to replace tires the road assist services in India are not that good so then changing that heavy tires will be like hell. Overall this concept will most probably not work for Indian or countries which have similar roads.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 6, 2016)

It just occured to me:

They did NOT reinvent the wheel.  Wheel's are circular.

They reinvented the sphere.  Marketing dumbasses need to go back to geometry class...


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 8, 2016)

Vineet Reddy said:


> Even if somehow Goodyear manages to get it out for other countries, it will be out of business in India. First of all the bumps and hazardous material thrown on road will cause a lot of pain as the magnetic induction used for mechanism will be damaged due to unbalanced movement on the road. Changing the complete magnetic unit if damaged will cost a lot. And when needed to replace tires the road assist services in India are not that good so then changing that heavy tires will be like hell. Overall this concept will most probably not work for Indian or countries which have similar roads.



Sigh.

If you missed it, the idea was for self driving vehicles.  India doesn't really have that kind of an infrastructure (too many people in too small of a space).

Barring that, you're also incorrect because you assume the wheel sphere and containment assembly are affixed to the car.  Why?  If the sphere and containment were attached to the vehicle by a shock and spring you'd have something absolutely identical to what is being used today.  The sphere assembly would be able to travel with the road, and the shock and spring would dispel and dampen the energy of this vertical travel by converting it into heat.  It's the exact same technology as all of the other vehicles on the road today.  If you want to do the math I'd suggest you look up "Mass-spring-damper system" in an engineering or physics textbook.


Edit:


R-T-B said:


> It just occured to me:
> 
> They did NOT reinvent the wheel.  Wheel's are circular.
> 
> They reinvented the sphere.  Marketing dumbasses need to go back to geometry class...



People is glass houses should be mindful of throwing stones.  A circle is two dimensional.  A wheel is anything roughly resembling a disc.  Neither of these things describe a modern tire.  The thing that Good year sells is a Torus.  It surrounds a hub and has a roughly circular cross section with the cross sections being equidistant from a central point.

It's obvious why they call it a wheel, given the common vernacular.  Insulting people, based upon your own erroneous statements, is a losing proposition.  Maybe a moment or two of introspection might allow us to be a bit more civil.  I realize that's coming from me, but this really doesn't need to devolve into a fight about how you want to interpret terminology.  There's more than enough here to discuss without dissecting individual words whose dictionary and common usage definitions differ.


----------



## erocker (Mar 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) tire wear is going to be a bitch.
> b) hydroplanning will be common and extremely dangerous
> c) the surface area of the tire on the road is likely smaller than that of a normal tire which means reduced handling, traction, and braking.
> d) how much power does it require to levitate the vehicle above the spheres?
> ...


a) Yeah. That would be the biggest problem with these since wear can almost happen anywhere on the tire.
b} goes with c) and I don't think its impossible for these to have a decent contact patch. But with uneven wear, it wouldn't matter.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 8, 2016)

Tongue in (ass)Cheek Question ?
How would you Fit Winter Snow Chains


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 8, 2016)

erocker said:


> a) Yeah. That would be the biggest problem with these since wear can almost happen anywhere on the tire.
> b} goes with c) and I don't think its impossible for these to have a decent contact patch. But with uneven wear, it wouldn't matter.



To the point A, let me state that everyone agreeing to this is not thinking about the problem in 3 dimensions.

Because a sphere is three dimensional, and travel is linear, you can vary how the sphere moves so as to cover the sphere evenly, thus making wear constant.  Let's look at this with a picture:





(image courtesy of http://www.archimedes-lab.org/How_to_Solve/9_dots.html)


The astute observer asks how you get a straight line travel, if the sphere is not spinning on only one axis.  The answer is simple mathematics.  Let's say you generate fricative force from your wheels that amount to 5 kN.  That 5 kN is pointed at 47 degrees to the left of the desired direction of travel.  Let's then assume that the other sphere is generating the same force, but at 47 degrees to the right of the desired direction of travel.  The astute among you will understand that I've constructed a 3-4-5 triangle for convenience.

Now, the tires actually generate a 4 kN force in the direction of travel each with 3 kN of force generated to the left and right respectively.  This means that the net force, what will propel the car, is now 0 kN laterally and 8 kN in the desired direction of travel.  The sphere still spins around, but the surface touching pavement is constantly different as you go around the sphere.


Does that make sense?  The video demonstrates simply turning the tires, but that solution creates two surfaces which will have increased wear.  Unsurprisingly, the PR demonstration doesn't account for this, but a moment or two of critical thought can address the issue with little to no difficulty.




As far as b and c, both of these points are irrelevant.  I'm with you on the contact patch still being a physics based value.  I'm with you on wear being a concern if it is uneven.  Where people are missing the point is the hexagon.  A shape that can interlock in three dimensions, but will increase tire creation complexity.  The reason we don't have hexagons now is that cutting straight lines with a giant straight knife is easy.  Easy is cost effective.  Cost effective means consumers buy your product.  $600 for tires every 4 years is a reasonable price, but most people would have issues with $1000 for a 4 year tire.  A sphere increases surface area, increasing effective life.  This offsets increased costs, by having them distributed over a greater lifetime.  $900 for a 6 year tire is steep one time cost, but the cost of ownership is the same over time.  That's how a solution like this sells.  The cost is higher, but you'll have them much longer.




Edit:


dorsetknob said:


> Tongue in (ass)Cheek Question ?
> How would you Fit Winter Snow Chains



Wise in ass answer: snow chains on a magnetic ball.  I can't help but think you're looking for an assisted suicide there.  Non-magnetic metals are either expensive or lack durability, and magnetic ones would functionally screw up a magnetic control system.

Would kinda be funny to see someone riding on a magnetized geodesic array of metal though.  Kinda like somebody proposing square wheels for a car.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) tire wear is going to be a bitch.
> b) hydroplanning will be common and extremely dangerous
> c) the surface area of the tire on the road is likely smaller than that of a normal tire which means reduced handling, traction, and braking.
> d) how much power does it require to levitate the vehicle above the spheres?
> ...


Did you read the article for items A and B? It (at least another article did anyway, addresses those things).


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 8, 2016)

Being" Semi Serious"  what portion of the Rich industrialized world fits Snow Chains to ensure mobility in winter weather conditions
How would this Goodyear Idea cope with 3" to 10" of freezing snow / slush in say a Montana winter

Ah worked it out   You garage your wonder wheel vehicle for 3 months of the Year because it cannot cope and get out the old 4x4  Yeh that's Progress


----------



## RealNeil (Mar 8, 2016)

This is going to be incredibly expensive.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 8, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Being" Semi Serious"  what portion of the Rich industrialized world fits Snow Chains to ensure mobility in winter weather conditions
> How would this Goodyear Idea cope with 3" to 10" of freezing snow / slush in say a Montana winter
> 
> Ah worked it out   You garage your wonder wheel vehicle for 3 months of the Year because it cannot cope and get out the old 4x4  Yeh that's Progress



Allow me the indulgence of being an ass momentarily.  Who cares about Montana?


Now let me qualify.  Montana is an outlier.  It experiences severe weather, but it represents so few people that altering things substantially for their benefit is...likely not a financially viable option.  It sucks to say this, but it's the same logic as why both giants and midgets (or whatever the PC terminology is) get the shaft when buying cars.  If you're an outlier the world might as well offer you the middle finger. 


On a less abrasive note, have you heard of inductive heating?  A magnetic field can heat up a ferrous element by hysteresis based losses.  This is basically the same technology as inductive heating stove tops.  It's theoretically possible to use the same techniques to heat the sphere up to just slightly above freezing at vehicle start.  One the vehicle is moving it could provide some minimal amount of heating, and combined with fricative heating may be sufficient to prevent freezing.

This is all theoretical, with no mathematics done.  Heating would take quite some energy, and the simpler solution might simply be to impregnate rubber with fibrous tubules so that the surface area of the tire is much greater than current technologies allow.  Either way, the issue could be addressed, though I don't care to guess what the actual solution will be.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 9, 2016)

Something like this might work in snow, to a degree.








I first saw one of these on Mythbusters a while ago


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 9, 2016)

Pretty sure mecanum wheels only work well at low speeds.  At high speeds, I imagine the road noise would be appalling.

The US Navy actually owns the patent for mecanum wheels.  I wonder if they comissioned a road going vehicle as a test.  If they made a tank-like vehicle with mecanum wheels instead of tracks, it would have really good mobility in urban warfare.  Uh, then again, why would the Navy care about urban warfare?


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 9, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> A circle is two dimensional.  A wheel is anything roughly resembling a disc.  Neither of these things describe a modern tire.  The thing that Good year sells is a Torus.  It surrounds a hub and has a roughly circular cross section with the cross sections being equidistant from a central point.
> 
> It's obvious why they call it a wheel, given the common vernacular.  Insulting people, based upon your own erroneous statements, is a losing proposition.  Maybe a moment or two of introspection might allow us to be a bit more civil.  I realize that's coming from me, but this really doesn't need to devolve into a fight about how you want to interpret terminology.  There's more than enough here to discuss without dissecting individual words whose dictionary and common usage definitions differ.


You took that comment about 5X more seriously than I would have.  If I was in a fighting mood, I'd remind whether or not this is a wheel or "something else entirely" at this point is entirely a matter of perception.  But I'm not.  I'm too busy praying to the frog god for a speedy UPS delivery to ressurect my computer.  Croak croak.


----------



## Filip Georgievski (Mar 9, 2016)

1.First and foremost, with todays roads, this is imposible. Roads will have to be totaly reconstructed to be able to drive a car like this safely on the road.
2. Magnetically controlable wheels?? That is still not reachable by todays tech. Plus, any electronic device you use in a car like this will result in death to the device or the car. They will have to come up with a good isolation to make this possible. Heck, even people with steel bone reinforcement will not be able to get in a car like this.
3. No offroad capability what so ever with a vehicle like this. Stricly meant for road purposes. 
4. Low magnetic suspension will be crude and undriveble when more that 2 people in the car, so no chance for a design like this to work with travel vehicles.  

There are so much more things against this design. It is not doable in the next 20 years or maybe more.
But 1 thing can be positive from this design. Fuel and economy will be a good point. For one, will just need a battery to start up the system and then while driving, the wheels would produce energy for a rechargeable car that you can drive forever and never run out of gas.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 9, 2016)

Good point.  I have a steel plate in my arm.  If I climb in something with a giant magnet, I'm going to regret it quickly and instantly.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 9, 2016)

Filip Georgievski said:


> But 1 thing can be positive from this design. Fuel and economy will be a good point. For one, will just need a battery to start up the system and then while driving, the wheels would produce energy for a rechargeable car that you can drive forever and never run out of gas.


Perpetual motion engines aren't going to happen any time soon.
Like a Maglev train, it will need a constant source of power, which onboard generation will not be adequate.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 9, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Uh, then again, why would the Navy care about urban warfare?



Global warming and Sea levels rising  your navy backyard is about to get bigger and gain a massive population rise of disgruntled people who will need to be Pacified/de Iman..ned/ freeded in the name of Democracy  ( and Oil Reserves )

Still that's another controversial thread..............


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 9, 2016)

Filip Georgievski said:


> 1.First and foremost, with todays roads, this is imposible. Roads will have to be totaly reconstructed to be able to drive a car like this safely on the road.
> 2. Magnetically controlable wheels?? That is still not reachable by todays tech. Plus, any electronic device you use in a car like this will result in death to the device or the car. They will have to come up with a good isolation to make this possible. Heck, even people with steel bone reinforcement will not be able to get in a car like this.
> 3. No offroad capability what so ever with a vehicle like this. Stricly meant for road purposes.
> 4. Low magnetic suspension will be crude and undriveble when more that 2 people in the car, so no chance for a design like this to work with travel vehicles.
> ...



Sigh.

1) Why would roads have to be reconstructed?  You make a statement that we presumably should take as fact, but never answer why.

2) Do you currently own anything with a brushless DC motor in it?  The answer is likely yes.  A permanent magnet is forced to move by an electric field, which induces a magnetic field.  That's what this wheel would be.  This isn't science fiction, it's applying the same technology we have now to different kind of motion.

2) Magnetic fields are easy to control If you wrap a magnet in layered steel you can effectively make the field travel inside your constructed box.  This technology already exists in things like MRIs, where despite being insanely powerful magnets they don't rip the buildings they reside in apart.

3) Why?  You've not answered basics about why this statement should be taken as reasonable.  Suspension issues are perhaps the culprit, or maybe this is related to geometry?  

4) Low magnetic suspension?  That sounds like word soup to me.  Suspension is generally a spring and damper, combining with the mass of a vehicle.  You seem to be assuming that the sphere would be caged, and the cage would be hard fixed to the frame of the vehicle.  Yes, that would be stupid.  At the same time, all you'd need to do is adopt an independent suspension for the sphere pod, and you'd have exactly the same suspension vehicles have now.  Tell me, where's the problem?



Now the last sentence is just...special.  For that to be true your braking would have to be 100% efficient, you'd never be allowed to deform the tires, you'd need to travel in a vacuum, and your control system would have to use no power.  In short, this is not a reasonable statement in the slightest.  Regenerative braking would allow for some power to be put back into the system, but you wouldn't be able to run this car without recharging it.  I'm honestly not sure how people ever come to this conclusion.  If you'd like to know why, and currently have a car, I can recommend something easy to demonstrate this.  Stick you hand out the window, and feel the air resistance pushing it backwards.  As you travel through the air, that force is being converted into random kinetic energy in your wake.  That random kinetic energy is hard to conceptualize as temperature, but you can feel the force that the car has to overcome constantly just to keep going.  If you're always using energy to overcome that force, then you couldn't have a perpetual motion car.  Some energy is lost just to the surrounding air, and feeling that force should offer a palpable explanation of the physics (even if it's a less than accurate conceptual exercise).


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 9, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Uh, then again, why would the Navy care about urban warfare?



SEALS. Marines, who are part of the Navy and through whom funding comes.


----------

