• MentalEdge
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Are you seriously suggesting that more advanced propulsion and suspension systems would eliminate the need for traction?

    Have you ever ridden a bike on just the rims?

    It sucks. And I don’t mean just in terms of comfort. There’s a reason mountain bikes with the most advanced suspension systems still need soft knobbly tires in addition to their suspension systems to do what they do.

    Trains and trams are far more efficient large scale transport options, but cars and smaller personal transport options like scooters and bicycles have their place, too. Despite our current over-reliance on them, they aren’t useless. There are use-cases where they are the best option. The same goes for the tire.

    The compliant tire is the best option for an off-rails vehicle. No, suspension cannot replace it, not in terms of cost (and I don’t mean money, I mean materials and energy) and especially not in terms of functionality.

    That’s not how wheels work.

    You can’t just ignore traction and claim you can make an effective vehicle of any kind with materials that don’t wear if only sufficiently advanced propulsion and suspension were applied.

    Even on skateboards, warehouse vehicles, and similar, the wheel isn’t just a solid cylinder of metal or some other non-compliant low-wear material.

    It’s a hard hub, wrapped in plastic, or rather, polyurethane. A compliant grippy material that serves a very important purpose in improving the performance of the wheel. You can’t replace a compliant wheel material with somehow better suspension. You still need it for grip, even on perfectly flat surfaces.

    Trains make up for their low traction (and therefore high efficiency) with slow steady acceleration/deceleration and extreme weight. Their design principles cannot be applied to personal vehicles, which do serve their own purposes.