Talk:Traction (mechanics)

debate about microscopic structure as a cause/factor of friction

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)[reply]

This article should be changed to Traction (physics).

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 agree that "Traction (Engineering)" is the wrong disambiguation title. Traction (Mechanics) might be even more appropriate than Traction (Physics) since mechanics is the smallest branch of physics that fully contains the topic. Can someone who knows how to move an article do this? -- Another Stickler (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, Classical Mechanics is even smaller and more precise than Mechanics. The article should be moved to "Traction (Classical Mechanics)" because Mechanics divides into Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics and Traction is a term defined by Classical Mechanics, not Quantum Mechanics. -- Another Stickler (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== 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 ==

Deleting another author's work.

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)[reply]

Tire vs Tyre

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.

Pollen?

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)[reply]

Proposed merge into Friction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please see the new discussion below. Wizard191 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I disagree. "Traction" in solid-mechanics means something related to friction and tractive force, but it is not the same thing; it's a generalization of the two. As I understand it it is a tensor-valued surface boundary condition. It's not just an initial condition. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just went back and looked at the article. As it is, you are absolutely right, it is conflated with friction and tractive force, but those should be disambiguation links, IMO. There is a need for the topic I mention above, but this page isn't presently filling that need. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Factor of adhesion - which seems to be a railway specific term. I think that "factor of adhesion" should be included in this (or a related) article - as a subsection - it's a subtly different value - but refers to essentially the same principle. ie it's a measure of "traction"

I'm not sure what the correct solution is, potentially tractive force could be merged into this article. It seems obvious that having several different articles relating to the same topic requires some sort of consolidation.

How about merging tractive force , factor of adhesion into traction (engineering) - I'm still not sure that my understanding of the phrase "traction" is correct.

None of the articles are particularily good - being mostly of "hand waving" explanations and examples - I've done a little work of some of them. I would guess that most of the scientific explanations will exist at friction, force etc. These articles seem to mostly refer to explanations of jargon, and terminology.FengRail (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for action after 1 year. SF₅Xe⁺ 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf5xeplus (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

Oppose with respect to tractive force. This article now is much closer to rail adhesion (dealing with coefficient of friction) than it is to tractive force (dealing with pulling force) with respect to railways, for example. A merger of various existing articles into two articles in those two types of "traction" makes more sense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throw road slipperiness into the discussion as well. Either merging it and rail adhesion here or at factor of adhesion or some other article or having summaries with "main article" links makes more sense. How many other related articles should be considered? Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

forces, where the primary concern is the force which will cause acceleration and make an object, a train or whatever, move (overcoming friction and slippage and using friction to achieve traction are just side-issues in achieving that objective), and
friction and the coefficients of friction.

There's no reason to jumble such dissimilar articles together. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Gene, no offense, but could you please organize your proposal in a way that I could understand? At one point you are talking about merging other articles together, and it seems at the end you are saying they should all remain un-merged. Please clarify...thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing it--I was addressing Feng-Rail's proposal. I think some merger may be in order, including one of the two that he proposed. The merger of this article and factor of adhesion makes more sense (both of them are in number 2 in my last comment), but tractive force which is under number 1 of that last comment should not be merged with either of them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Traction or Friction

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)[reply]

Undesirable merger

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)[reply]