Hypothesis: The rolling resistance of a vehicle riding on eight tires will be less than that of the

same vehicle riding on four tires, everything else being equal (i.e., constant).

Proof: The most common linearized rolling resistance tire model is 1…

FR = CR N
…where:

FR = The rolling resistance of a tire (lb).

CR = The linearized rolling resistance coefficient of the tire (lbresist/lbwt).

N = The normal load on the tire (lb), which is taken as being equal to the
weight “W” of the vehicle considered divided by the number “n” of
load bearing tires.

This relationship by itself doesn’t give any true insight into the question at hand because
it conceals the fact that the rolling resistance coefficient itself is a function of normal load. To
include that fact in this investigation we need another relationship, such as the one developed at
the University of Michigan by Prof. Samuel K. Clark (et al) of the Department of Applied
Mechanics and Engineering Science (c. 1974) 2…

𝑵 𝑺𝑯
𝑪𝑹 = 𝑪 � �𝑺𝑵
𝑫𝒊

…where:
1
A slightly less simplified variation is “FR = CR (1 + V/100) N”, which is a supposedly reasonable approximation
for use up to 80 mph (129 kph). Such equations were developed mainly for use with tables of general roll resistance
coefficients appropriate for passenger car bias ply tires inflated to 32-40 psi (221-276 kPa); various value sets/tables
exist which depend on the type of vehicle/road surface considered, plus the general level of tire technology (i.e.,
point in time) in effect when the particular data was formulated, so care must be exercised. Such simple
relationships are used for crude calculations valid only for low speeds, the rolling resistance coefficient is more
complex than just a simple value; the coefficient has both static (“CS”) and dynamic (“CD”) components as per an
equation that includes the vehicle velocity (“V”) in mph units and was developed at the Institute of Technology in
Stuttgart (c. 1938): “FR = CS N + 3.24 CD (V/100)2.5 N”. This is perhaps the ultimate in rolling resistance modeling
(or at least this author’s favorite), but none of this has any bearing on the matter of concern, which is: what happens
to “FR” when the number of tires is doubled for the same vehicle, not how inclusive the determination “CR” is (i.e.,
whether temperature, velocity, inflation pressure, etc., is accounted for).

2
Reference: Gillespie, Thomas D.; Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Warrendale, PA; SAE R-114, 1992, pg.
116.

1
 CR = Tire coefficient of rolling resistance (lb resistance/lb weight).

C = Tire material coefficient (in/lb).

Di = Tire “no-load” (inflated) outer diameter (in).

SH = Tire section height (in).

N = Normal load on tire (lb).

SN = Tire nominal section width (in).

SH/SN = Tire section aspect ratio ( ).

Now, the total rolling resistance of the four wheeled vehicle is:

𝑭𝑹𝟒 = 𝑪𝑹𝟒 𝑾

For which the coefficient of rolling resistance is:

𝑾⁄𝟒 𝑺𝑯
𝑪𝑹𝟒 = 𝑪 �𝑺
𝑫𝒊 � 𝑵

So, substituting the above for “CR4” in the resistance equation:

𝑾⁄𝟒 𝑺𝑯
𝑭𝑹𝟒 = 𝑪 �𝑺 𝑾
𝑫𝒊 � 𝑵

Now we find the rolling resistance of the same vehicle but with eight wheels:

𝑭𝑹𝟖 = 𝑪𝑹𝟖 𝑾

For which the coefficient of rolling resistance is:

𝑾⁄𝟖 𝑺𝑯
𝑪𝑹𝟖 = 𝑪 �𝑺
𝑫𝒊 � 𝑵

Again substituting:

𝑾⁄𝟖 𝑺𝑯
𝑭𝑹𝟖 = 𝑪 �𝑺 𝑾
𝑫𝒊 � 𝑵

2
 So the ratio of the total rolling resistance of the eight wheeled vehicle to the total rolling
resistance of the four wheeled vehicle is:

𝑾⁄𝟖 𝑺
𝑪 𝑫 � 𝑯�𝑺 𝑾
𝒊 𝑵
𝑭𝑹𝟖
=
𝑭𝑹𝟒 𝑾⁄𝟒 𝑺
𝑪 𝑫 � 𝑯�𝑺 𝑾
𝒊 𝑵

Since “everything else is equal” except the rolling resistances this simplifies immediately
to:

𝑭𝑹𝟖 1⁄8
= = 0.50
𝑭𝑹𝟒 1⁄4

Which means (!!):

𝑭𝑹𝟖 = 0.50 𝑭𝑹𝟒

The total rolling resistance of the eight wheeled vehicle is less, by one half, that of the
four wheeled vehicle, Q.E.D.

Brian Paul Wiegand, PE

6/14/2014