|
|
 Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/04/2011 Posts: 35 Points: 101
|
Hi all
Any ideas on the dimensions of the tyres in mm ?
1. I need the tyres overall circumference
2. opening circumference for where the rim fits
3. width of tyre
and need the same for the back tyres
Thanks
|
|
|
 Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,827 Points: -13,348
|
Do you not have a set that you could measure yourself? Hope that doesn't sound derogatory, it isn't meant to be - I just thought it was a strange question to ask if you were building the McLaren yourself, as you should have all the tyres and wheels by now?    
Kev
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/04/2011 Posts: 35 Points: 101
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Super-Elite        Groups: Registered
Joined: 04/04/2010 Posts: 3,955 Points: 11,809 Location: uk
|
yer,real tricky that one,why o why do they make round wwheels?????beggars up all the measurements,specialy those back ones being so fat an all???same wiv the rims they round as well,gonna invent some squres ones,that should do it,I can measure all day and get it right.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Current builds: SotS, USS Consitution, San Felipe, D51 loco, HMS Surprise, RB7, Arab Dhow, Jotika HMS Victory Completed builds: HMS Pickel, Thermopylae, Mississipi river boat, Mary Rose, Cutty Sark, San Francisco II, HMS Victory x5, Titanic Lifeboat, Panart HMS Victory Launch, Hachette Titanic, Virginia Schooner, Endeavour Longboat. http://www.model-space.com/gb/
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,827 Points: -13,348
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Semi-Pro Level 1  Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/05/2011 Posts: 66 Points: 138 Location: Manchester
|
How about a ruler and a bit of maths. A bit of Pi would be useful. I do wonder if you havent got the tools/brains to work this out, what you could possibly do with the measurements if you had them
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,827 Points: -13,348
|
Driving4Life,
Pi = 3.14 (near as damn it) or in the old Imperial scale, 22 over 7 (written as a fraction)
If you want to be really accurate and have a calculator Pi = 3.14159 26535 89793
If you know the radius then the diameter is Pi(3.14) x 2 x Radius(?) then once you have the diameter its D(?) x Pi(3.14) to get the circumference (bl**dy PC text - that is NOT a swear word!!).
You could of course just measure the diameter with a ruler then multiply it by 3.14 (same thing as above!)....
.... or just use a bit of string, a pen and a ruler as I said earlier!! 
Hope that helps?
Why do you want those measurements anyway D4L - just curious?
Kev
|
|
|
 Rank: Beginner Level 2 Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/11/2011 Posts: 17 Points: 41 Location: Yorkshire, UK
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super-Elite Groups: Registered
Joined: 04/04/2010 Posts: 3,955 Points: 11,809 Location: uk
|
will you two stop swearing at one another?it;s upsetting me cats, Current builds: SotS, USS Consitution, San Felipe, D51 loco, HMS Surprise, RB7, Arab Dhow, Jotika HMS Victory Completed builds: HMS Pickel, Thermopylae, Mississipi river boat, Mary Rose, Cutty Sark, San Francisco II, HMS Victory x5, Titanic Lifeboat, Panart HMS Victory Launch, Hachette Titanic, Virginia Schooner, Endeavour Longboat. http://www.model-space.com/gb/
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,827 Points: -13,348
|
Hello Judder,
No, I'm not confused, I was just being overly pedantic with my method of finding the diameter which would then allow one to find the radius!! Noki49 suggested that D4L might like to use a little Pi, but I used a lot of Pi (I like Pie!! ). You can check what I say as being correct by searching for 'Circ.umference' (The 'PC' text on this site doesn't like the use of the c.u.m part in the middle of a word by the looks of it!!   ) on Wikipedia, which is what I actually said!!
Of course you yourself are still correct my friend, it IS easier to find the diameter just by using 2r, just thought that as it was a fairly inane question from D4L, then I might have a little fun with it!! You also said - Quote: "The circomeference is either diameter × pi or 2 × pi × r (As the diameter is 2r).Unquote - but if you check my post again that is exactly the same as what I said in the first place!!
No worries though, all's good and like I keep saying - just use a bit of string, a pen and a ruler - simples!!
Karl -
D4L - Why DO you need these measurements anyway? Just curious?
Kev
|
|
|
Rank: Beginner Level 2 Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/11/2011 Posts: 17 Points: 41 Location: Yorkshire, UK
|
SennaMentalMe wrote:Hello Judder,
No, I'm not confused, I was just being overly pedantic with my method of finding the diameter which would then allow one to find the radius!! Noki49 suggested that D4L might like to use a little Pi, but I used a lot of Pi (I like Pie!! ). You can check what I say as being correct by searching for 'Circ.umference' (The 'PC' text on this site doesn't like the use of the c.u.m part in the middle of a word by the looks of it!! ) on Wikipedia, which is what I actually said!!
Of course you yourself are still correct my friend, it IS easier to find the diameter just by using 2r, just thought that as it was a fairly inane question from D4L, then I might have a little fun with it!! You also said - Quote: "The circomeference is either diameter × pi or 2 × pi × r (As the diameter is 2r).Unquote - but if you check my post again that is exactly the same as what I said in the first place!!
No worries though, all's good and like I keep saying - just use a bit of string, a pen and a ruler - simples!!
Karl -
D4L - Why DO you need these measurements anyway? Just curious?
Kev You must be getting diameter and circumference (yeah it changes it for me too) confused somehow. The circumference is 2×pi×r (=pi×diameter), NOT the diameter (=2r) which is what you said in your first post. Hope this clears up my misunderstanding, Judder
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,827 Points: -13,348
|
Ooooopps!!!!! 
Just re-read my own post and realised that I didn't write what I meant to say - must get my head checked, though I did type the post late at night after a go on the vino!!
I stand corrected Judder, you win, I lose - it would appear that I DID say the diameter was Pi x 2 x r didn't I, but as you correctly say, it SHOULD be 2r to get the diameter then x 3.14 to find the circumference (bl**dy PC text) - which is what I meant to say!! I APOLOGISE and must check the connections between my brain and my hand!! Mind you, I've probably just confused D4L even more now
Sorry about the continued swearing Karl!!
Kev
|
|
|
Rank: Beginner Level 2 Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/11/2011 Posts: 17 Points: 41 Location: Yorkshire, UK
|
|
|
|
Rank: Semi-Pro Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/05/2011 Posts: 66 Points: 138 Location: Manchester
|
Well that took a few post to confirm the circumference is Pi x diameter.
The diameter of the tyre (and the rim, for opening circumference)should be able to be measured fairly accurately with a ruler.
Im still baffled as to what purpose the OP would put these measurements to.
Maybe he wants to make his own tyres or rims.
I just thought someone with the ability and equipment to do either would not have a problem obtaining these measurements themselves.
Come on D4L, enlighten us please..
|
|
|
Rank: Super-Elite Groups: Registered
Joined: 04/04/2010 Posts: 3,955 Points: 11,809 Location: uk
|
could it be that,he is a wind up geezer,nahhhhh not that intelligent. Current builds: SotS, USS Consitution, San Felipe, D51 loco, HMS Surprise, RB7, Arab Dhow, Jotika HMS Victory Completed builds: HMS Pickel, Thermopylae, Mississipi river boat, Mary Rose, Cutty Sark, San Francisco II, HMS Victory x5, Titanic Lifeboat, Panart HMS Victory Launch, Hachette Titanic, Virginia Schooner, Endeavour Longboat. http://www.model-space.com/gb/
|
|
|
Rank: Super-Elite   Groups: Official Builds, Administrators, Moderator, Global Forum Support, Registered Joined: 04/06/2011 Posts: 4,739 Points: 14,363 Location: ipswich
|
Totally off-topic here, but all the above reminds me of a post I read 'explaining' the leap year -
Apparently it's ALL wrong, as our 24 hour clock isn't actually accurate enough to measure a solar year properly.
We are still a bit 'out' even after adding the extra day every 4 years, so infact, after 38 years, we're a 1/4 of a day wrong again......
SO..... Every 100 years, (It ought to be 128 years but astronomers some time ago decided to round it down to 100) we actually leave OUT the leap year!
BUT...... To confuse things further, because the 100 year round-down is around 28 years out, every 400 years, they put the leap year back IN, which is why the year 2000 WAS a leap year - 1900 WASN'T, and 2100, 2200 and 2300 won't be either....
HOWEVER...... Even that isn't correct enough....
Every 400 years or so (but not the 'same' 400 years!) they have decided we will need a DOUBLE leap year, hence there is a Feb 30th every 400 years....... The last one was in 1712 - The next one is between 2096 and 2116 - astronomers haven't decided yet.
BUT.... That will make us 'wrong' the other way round by a few minutes as we ought to only be removing around 23hours 57 minutes, SO, we're back to square one again, with a day being too short.
Don't give up yet - none of this fixes things entirely either as the earth is getting closer to the Sun every year and eventually a year will need to have a day removed completely.........And it will still be a few minutes adrift.
Not only that, a solar year is slightly LONGER at the South pole than the North due to the axial tilt, but in about 20,000 years time, it will be the other way round as the Earth completes its 'wobble'.
All because we didn't measure a day accurately enough long ago......
Just thought you might be interested.....
Roy.
|
|
|
 Rank: Master Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/04/2010 Posts: 1,266 Points: 3,841 Location: The Quantock Hills,Somerset
|
roymattblack wrote:Totally off-topic here, but all the above reminds me of a post I read 'explaining' the leap year -
Apparently it's ALL wrong, as our 24 hour clock isn't actually accurate enough to measure a solar year properly.
We are still a bit 'out' even after adding the extra day every 4 years, so infact, after 38 years, we're a 1/4 of a day wrong again......
SO..... Every 100 years, (It ought to be 128 years but astronomers some time ago decided to round it down to 100) we actually leave OUT the leap year!
BUT...... To confuse things further, because the 100 year round-down is around 28 years out, every 400 years, they put the leap year back IN, which is why the year 2000 WAS a leap year - 1900 WASN'T, and 2100, 2200 and 2300 won't be either....
HOWEVER...... Even that isn't correct enough....
Every 400 years or so (but not the 'same' 400 years!) they have decided we will need a DOUBLE leap year, hence there is a Feb 30th every 400 years....... The last one was in 1712 - The next one is between 2096 and 2116 - astronomers haven't decided yet.
BUT.... That will make us 'wrong' the other way round by a few minutes as we ought to only be removing around 23hours 57 minutes, SO, we're back to square one again, with a day being too short.
Don't give up yet - none of this fixes things entirely either as the earth is getting closer to the Sun every year and eventually a year will need to have a day removed completely.........And it will still be a few minutes adrift.
Not only that, a solar year is slightly LONGER at the South pole than the North due to the axial tilt, but in about 20,000 years time, it will be the other way round as the Earth completes its 'wobble'.
All because we didn't measure a day accurately enough long ago......
Just thought you might be interested.....
Roy. Rob Nolli Illigitimi Carborundum!!!Current Builds: HMS Victory, SV Thermopylae
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
US
