J. D. Walter 1 and F. S.

Conant ~

Energy Losses in Tires

R E F E R E N C E : Walter, J. D. and Conant, F. S., " E n e r g y Losses in T i r e s , " Tire

Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 2, No. 4, Nov. 1974, pp. 235-260.

A B S T R A C T : Tire rotation is impeded by a drag force of 10 to 20 lb per 1000-1b

load in normal vehicle operation. The principal cause is hysteresis, which is a func-
tion of the viscoelastic properties of the rubber and cord components, the way
these materiMs are used in the tire, and the way the tire is operated. The influence
of material properties has been well documented, and many laboratory tests have
been developed for their measurement. Of even greater importance to energy
losses, however, is tire construction. This subject is developed by consideration of
the forces and moments involved in tire operation and of the mechanisms of
energy loss. The importance of service conditions is emphasized by a discussion
of the factors influencing rolling resistance. Tire rolling losses can be an important
fraction of the total power consumption in low-powered vehicles. Future trends
in tire engineering, and their effects on rolling resistance, are discussed.

K E Y W O R D S : energy dissipation, hysteresis, drag force, rolling resistance, fuel

consumption, fuel efficiency

The first practical pneumatic tire was developed and patented by John
Boyd Dunlop in 1888 [1,2] primarily to improve the riding comfort of
bicycles. Dunlop also showed that his air-inflated "pneumatic" took less
effort to rotate than did the solid rubber tires in use at that time. He
demonstrated this effect by rolling solid and pneumatic bicycle tires in the
courtyard of his Belfast workshop. The logy solid tire wobbled and fell
over before traveling the entire distance, while the pneumatic tire, pro-
pelled by approximately the same force, traveled the length of the court-
yard and rebounded vigorously from the distant wall. This qualitative
test was the first known rolling resistance experiment on pneumatic tires.
Aware of these results, many professional cyclists in England and Ireland
adopted air-inflated tires for their bicycles by the early 1890s.

Presented at the American Society for Testing and Materials Committee F-9 on
Tires Symposium on Tires and Fuel Economy, Dearborn, Mich., 8 May 1974.

1 The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio 44317.

235
236 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Before the commercial development of the pneumatic tire, the rolling

behavior of wheels and rollers on various surfaces was studied in consider-
able detail by Osborne Reynolds [3]. Reynolds was the first to show that
the rolling resistance of an "india-rubber" wheel was considerably higher
than that of an iron wheel. This early work with slip, friction, and defor-
mation in the contact zone between different surfaces in contact did much
to codify the laws of resistance to rolling.
The first known quantitative measurements of tire rolling resistance
were made at the National Bureau of Standards in the early 1920s by
Holt and Wormeley [~]. A systematic study was made of the influence of
wheel load, inflation pressure, speed, temperature, tractive effort, and vari-
ous design parameters on tire rolling resistance and automobile fuel con-
sumption. Their results showed that tire energy losses increase with speed
or load and decrease with inflation pressure. Tractive effort had a com-
paratively small effect. There was a wide variation in energy loss of tires
made by different manufacturers when tested under the same conditions.
Tread pattern design of commercial tires had no effect, but removal of the
tread--which occurs in service--lowered power loss. These same factors
are still being investigated today on production and experimental tire
constructions and compounds. Importantly, the NBS investigators recog-
nized that power loss alone does not determine the service value of a tire;
but, other things being equal, it should aid in evaluating tire quality.
In the more than eight decades that have elapsed since Dunlop's devel-
opment, a considerable number of design changes has tended to cause a
decrease in tire power consumption. For example: separate plies of cotton
cord were introduced in about 1903 to replace square-woven fabric for
improving fatigue life; in the late 1940s the radial construction was de-
veloped commercially to improve vehicle handling and extend tread life;
and for the past 20 years there has been a trend toward using larger size
tires to carry a given load. Elimination of the inner tube by tubeless tires,
the use of fewer plies in tires of bias construction, and the production of
more uniform tires have each made a small but measurable reduction in
energy losses, although each change was instituted primarily for other
reasons. The only developments that have promoted an increase in tire
energy losses have been the long-range trends toward higher vehicular
speeds and lower inflation pressures.
The object of this paper is to discuss those factors that influence tire
rolling resistance and fuel economy, without relating them either to tire
durability or to vehicle acceleration, although it is recognized that these
are important concomitant effects.

Force and Moment Characteristics of Tires

The drag force, which is responsible for energy loss, is just one of the three
component forces operative in the contact zone of a rolling tire. Figure I
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 237

R~

~ F r

FIG. 1--Side view of freely rolling tire showing offset of center of pressure.

is a side view of a freely rolling tire of loaded radius R, traveling in.~ straight
line at a constant speed under the action of a horizontal drag force Ft.
The drag force, generated in the footprint, produces a moment F,Rz about
the axle. To maintain equilibrium, the vertical reaction Fz in the contact
zone moves forward a distance e from the center of contact to the center
of pressure, producing a counter moment about the wheel axle such that
Fze = FrR~. In studies of rolling friction of relatively rigid wheels, the
distance e, expressed in fractions of an inch, is often called the coefficient
of rolling resistance. Tire engineers, however, have always used the non-
dimensional ratio of drag force to wheel load Fr/F~ as the rolling resistance
coe~cient. This coefficient is also given by the ratio e/Rz. For most tires,
regardless of size, load, construction, etc., F,/Fz is between 0.01 and 0.02
on smooth, hard surfaces and may increase to 0.03 to 0.04 at very high
speeds, high loads, and low pressures. Only in the case of the statically
deflected, nonrolling tire is the vertical wheel load aligned with the footprint
reaction, in which case the drag force vanishes.
Another convention in the tire industry has been to define rolling re-
sistance (a version of the coefficient) as the drag force per 1000 lb of wheel
load. The unit lb per ton has also been used, 40 lb/ton being typical for
an automobile tire. Power consumption P is the product of drag force F~
and speed v: P = Fr(lb)v(mph)/375 hp.
Before discussing the multitude of factors that influence the tire drag
force, let us briefly consider the nature of the force and moment field
acting in the contact zone of a tire in service. The complex reactions in the
tire footprint may be resolved into three forces and three moments. The
three forces are directed vertically, laterally, and fore-and-aft; the corre-
sponding moments, which are due to the offset of these footprint forces
from the midpoint of the tire-wheel assembly, are called the overturning
moment, the self-aligning torque, and the rolling resistance moment. Gen-
erally, in the straight-ahead (zero slip or yaw), freely rolling (zero applied
238 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

torque), noncambered condition, there are two nonzero forces (wheel load
F~ and rolling resistance drag force Fr) and one nonzero moment (rolling
resistance moment F~Rz), as shown in Fig. 1. Internal construction asym-
metries can be built into the cord plies of a tire, however, to produce
nonzero values for the remaining force and two moments. Each component
of the force and moment vector field can attain appreciable magnitude
when the tire is in the yaw and camber attitude coupled with braking or
driving torques.
It is apparent that the drag force lies in the plane of the tire-wheel
assembly only in the case of straight-ahead rolling. When a tire is cornered
or cambered, the drag force is the footprint shear force in the direction of
motion which is out of the wheel plane. Because most laboratory rolling
resistance tests are at zero slip and camber angles, while vehicle fuel econ-
omy tests conducted on the road are usually at recommended toe-in and
camber values, one cannot be directly related to the other.

Energy Loss Mechanisms in Tires

The conventional automobile tire has three distinct structural compo-
nents: a rubber matrix, cords for reinforcement, and steel bead wires
which circumferentially connect the thin-walled composite toroidal assem-
bly to the wheel of a ear. The rolling tire with these structural components
consumes energy by three distinct means [5]:

1. Hysteresis within the viscoelastic cord and rubber components of the

tire structure. This is the largest contributor to power consumption and is
responsible for 90-95% of the total loss. Losses in steel bead wire are
negligibly small, as are those in steel or glass cords used in plies.
2. Friction or scrub between the tire and road. Losses due to slip of the
tread on the road contribute from 5 to 10% of the total loss in a freely
rolling tire. This increases somewhat on surfaces with a high coefficient of
friction and with the application of tractive and cornering forces.
3. Windage or friction of the tire in air. This is the smallest contributor
to energy consumed by the tire, varying from about 1.5 to 3% of the total
loss. An aggressive (high void content with many exposed edges) tread as
used on snow tires has a higher windage loss than does a worn-out tire
with no tread design, and large tires have greater windage than small tires,
but these differences are difficult to measure.

The power loss advantage of Dunlop's original tire over the solid rubber
tire it replaced was due to lower hysteresis losses in the less massive pneu-
matic construction.
Typical uniaxial loading and unloading curves obtained on a viscoelastic
material are shown in Fig. 2. The total area under the loading curve,
called strain energy, represents energy stored within the test specimen.
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 239

" LOAD
--- UNLOAD

E:}
LOSTENERGY , ~
"~\ RECOVERED
0 ENERGY
_1

ELONGATION
FIG. 2--Load-elongation cycle showing energy lost through hysteresis.

The energy storing ability of polymers, especially rubber, is much greater

than that of metals, as shown in Table 1 [6]. Of course, energy storage is
not necessarily related to hysteresis.
When the viscoelastic test specimen (cord or rubber) is unloaded, the
lower path in Fig. 2 is followed. The area between the unloading curve
and the abscissa represents energy recovered. The area between the two
curves represents energy lost by hysteresis as heat during the deformation
cycle. Hysteretic losses of all polymeric materials are much greater than
those of the usual engineering materials used in structural applications.
The magnitude of such losses varies with temperature, strain rate, and
strain amplitude.
In practice, the hysteretic properties of a viscoelastic material are not
determined from the type of static or quasi-static stress-strain curves
shown in Fig. 2, but rather from dynamic tests. When a sinusoidal dis-
placement is applied to a viscoelastic material, the viscous reaction causes
a lag of strain behind stress, as shown in Fig. 3. This phase lag is indicative
of mechanical energy loss in each cycle, which appears as equivalent heat
generation. The amount of energy loss per uni~ volume is given by the area

T A B L E 1--Energy storing ability of various materials [6].

Material Energy, ft. lb/lb

Cast Iron 0.4

Bronze 4.0
Aluminum 7.6
Spring Steel 95
Vulcanized Rubber 14660
240 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ST RESS,,,,~,~"-~

Z / \ \ TIME SCALE
--st- \ \ ,,/

FIG. 3--Viscoelastic strain lag.

of the resulting hysteresis loop when stress is plotted against strain. At

small strains the hysteresis loop is approximately an ellipse.
The dynamic Young's modulus of a material is a complex quantity whose
real part is the ratio of the stress component in phase with the strain to
the strain itself, while the imaginary part is the ratio of the stress component
90 deg out of phase with the strain to the strain itself (see Fig. 4). The
latter component is responsible for the energy losses. The relationship
connecting these terms is given by
E* = E ' + i E "
in which E* is the complex Young's modulus, E' (the real component) is
called the storage or dynamic modulus, and E" (the imaginary component)
is called the loss modulus.
The tangent of the angular phase lag of strain behind stress, tanS, is
given by
tan5 = E"/E'
The loss tangent is a basic parameter used to express energy loss in the
viscoelastic components of a tire. Note that in an elastic material, such as
steel, the loss tangent is vanishingly small.
As is shown in Fig. 5, the loss tangent maxima for rubbers and cords
differ in both magnitude and temperature of occurrence [7]. A rubber for
which the loss tangent peaks at a low temperature, such as cis-polybuta-
diene, is usually quite resilient at room temperature. High loss polymers
such as butyl generMly show broad peaks, as do polymers having high
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 241

E'
F I G . 4--Relationships of the components of the complex }'oung' s modulus; loss tangent =
tan a = E"/E', stress = rE* I strain.

molecular weight distributions. Polymer blends usually show a peak for

each component. Generally, organic tire cords have loss peaks between
polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene terephthalate ("polyester").
When a tire is warmed by running, the loss tangent for the rubber com-
ponent decreases but that for the cord increases since it is approaching
its peak value. Since the rubber in a tire typically weighs ten times as much
as does the fabric, however, the total hysteresis Of the composite system
decreases with increase in temperature. The tire reaches an equilibrium
operating temperature where the heat dissipated equals the heat generated.
We have made rolling resistance studies on a butyl tire of bias construction.
Predictably, the drag force was very high at the start of a test but decreased
to almost that of a conventional rubber tire when warm-up was complete.

RUBBER
1.0. r~
i ~
I--
.8.
\
Z I
I.~
(.9
Z .6, BUTYL
I--
CORD
.4'
or)
0
_1 .2 PVA
PET

0
6 --%0 ioo Ioo
TEMPERATURE-~
F I G . 5--Loss tangent as a function of temperature for two rubber materials and two
cord materials; polybutadiene (PBD), polyvinyl alcohol (P VA ), and polyethylene tere-
phthalate (PET) [9].
242 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

In comparing energy losses for tire cords and rubber compounds in the
laboratory, it is necessary to specify the conditions of deformation. At
small strains, the hysteresis loss H per cycle per unit volume of material
under sinusoidal loading is given by [8]

H = ~rz0+0sin5

where ~0 and e0 are the amplitude of stress and strain respectively, and

If materials are compared at the same strain level,

He = ve02E"

while if they are compared at the same stress level

H. = ~<~o~E"ll E * I2

In comparing hard rubber compounds versus soft rubber compounds in

the laboratory, different hysteresis rankings will be obtained depending
on whether the test is run at constant stress or constant strain amplitude.
For example, at constant stress amplitude, stiffer compounds have lower
losses per cycle.
Deformation conditions in a tire are so complicated, that is, they vary
so much from point to point, that it is difficult to consider them to be
either purely constant stress amplitude or constant strain amplitude cycles.
Furthermore, bias tires are subjected to stress and strain conditions much
different from those that occur in belted tires. Nevertheless, for a tire of
a given construction, it is usually assumed that the bending cycles in the
sidewall rubber do not depend very much on modulus, and so are approxi-
mately constant strain amplitude cycles. On the other hand, the compres-
sive stress cycles of the tread itself are more likely to be cycles of constant
stress amplitude.
This information concerning the viscoelastic properties of rubber and
cord is insufficient to predict rolling losses in tires from laboratory tests of
tire components. Such tests are, however, useful in assessing the heat gen-
eration characteristics of rubber compounds and cord constructions for
ranking the energy loss performance of such components when used in tires.

Factors Influencing Rolling Resistance of Tires

The rolling resistance data given in this paper were taken from a variety
of sources using differing experimental procedures. For example, tire losses
measured on a flat surface are 10-20% lower than measured on a labora-
tory drum, depending on drum diameter, because of the more arduous
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 243

stressing of the tire on the curved surface [91. The basic methods used to
measure tire energy losses in the laboratory are:
1. Measurement of the time interval for a test drum to come to rest
from a given speed (inertia or coast-down method) [10-13].
2. Measurement of the angle of twist of a shaft used to drive the tire
(torque method) [14].
3. Measurement of the drag force reaction at the wheel axle using
strain-gage instrumented load cells (direct force method) [15].
These methods do not always give identical results for rolling resistance, even
when measurements are made on the same size drum. The inertia method
covers a speed range; and different tires may react differently to speed
changes. Some investigators have measured rolling resistance at equilib-
rium running temperature. Others run only at room temperature and make
measurements within a few revolutions so that all parts of the tire are at
the same temperature.
Because of the varied sources of data used in this paper, absolute data
from different figures and tables should not be compared. The intent is to
convey trends regarding those factors which affect tire rolling resistance,
and consequently fuel economy, and this can be done regardless of the
particular experimental procedure used to measure drag force.

Construction
The construction (design) of pneumatic tires has a pronounced effect
on their rolling resistance. The presence or absence of a belt and the cord
angles strongly influence tire performance indices such as the rolling re-
sistance. Table 2 gives the range of cord angles for each of the three basic
constructions.
Bias tires for passenger cars normally have two or four plies of rubber-
covered cord fabric which run diagonally from bead to bead, with adjacent
layers usually laid at opposite cord bias angle. The crown angle, which we
take as the angle that the cord makes with the meridian at the tread center
line, controls the inflated shape and performance characteristics of the tire.

TABLE 2--Cord angles a used for body and belt plies.

Bias Belted Bias Radial

Tire
Condition Body Belt Body Belt Body Belt

Unvulcanized 26-36 ... 29-33 31-35 0-5 64-73

Vulcanized 54-64 ... 54-58 58-62 0-5 66-75

Angle in deg between cord and meridional plane of tire at crown.

244 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Belted bias tires have the basic two-ply or four-ply body of bias tires
plus two or more belt plies between the tread rubber and the tire body.
Cords in the belt plies are more nearly circumferential than in the body
plies. The belt extends across the full width of the crown area of the tire,
forming a restraint which raises the stiffness of the tread area, thereby
controlling the inflated tire profile and reducing tread movement in the
footprint.
Radial tires are also belted, but have body cords that lie entirely in
meridional planes of the tire, that is, perpendicular to the tread center line.
This results in an extremely flexible sidewall which acts independently of
the belt, thus further reducing tread movement in the tire footprint.
The three basic tire constructions have different rolling resistance char-
acteristics. Typical values of the rolling resistance coefficient as a function
of speed are shown in Fig. 6 [16] for new bias, belted bias, and radial ply
tires of the same load rating and aspect ratio. These data are indicative of
the reduction in rolling resistance that can be obtained by replacing bias
ply tires by belted tires.
It should be noted that the 20 to 30% rolling resistance advantage of
the radial tire compared to a bias or belted bias tire, as measured in the
laboratory, does not produce a comparable increase in fuel economy for
vehicles in service. Experiments conducted over a rather long period of
time indicate that a 20% decrease in tire rolling losses can improve fuel

.050

I,"
LI..
uj.026

F.022
_m
~ .018

~ .014
_1
0
rr..010 I I i. I I
0 20 40 60 80 I00
SPEED-MPH
FIG. 6 --Effect of speed on rolling resistance coefftcient of bias, belted bias, and radial
tires [18].
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 25,5

economy by only 2 to 6%. The fuel economy advantage of radial over

belted bias tires has been shown to be more pronounced for middle-sized
cars than for the smallest or largest cars [13].
It is possible to change the rolling resistance of any type of tire by alter-
ing the internal construction. For example, increasing the crown angle of
bias ply tires significantly reduces rolling resistance [17-19], as shown in
Fig. 7. For a given wheel load and inflation pressure, an increase in crown
angle reduces tire deflection at the expense of riding comfort. This con-
struction change is used to advantage in the design of racing tires.
Generally, any change in a tire of given construction that promotes re-
duced deflection at the same load and pressure, such as a reduction in aspect
ratio [16,18], Fig. 8, reduces rolling resistance. (Aspect ratio is 100 times
the quotient of section height by section width when mounted on design
rim and inflated to recommended pressure.)

Materials
Dunlop's original pneumatic tire was made from natural rubber rein-
forced with flax. In today's passenger tires both the rubber and the cord
are generally synthetic.
Only one kind of cord reinforcement is needed in bias ply tires and
presently this is rayon, nylon, or polyester. In belted constructions, a rela-
tively inextensible material, such as steel, fiberglass, or rayon, must be
used in the tread plies, while the body plies may be of another material.
The most popular combinations of materials are polyester bodies and steel

I10
r
Z
"]w 105
..J~J
Oz
n" ,,:I: I 0 0
I--
1,10,) I
95
I--LLI
<n.-
9.J 90
W
n.-

5O 40 50 6O
CROWN ANGLE-DEGREES
FIG. 7--Effect of crown angle on rolling resistance of bias ply tires.
246 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

L~

.018
0 84 BIAS

H: .016
CD 72
(.n
i,I .014 DIAL
tw

(.9
Z
.012
..J
_!
0 .010
n," I I I I I I I
20 50 40 50 60 70 80
SPEED-MPH
FIG. 8 Effect ~ speed on rolling resistance co~cienl ~ tires having indicated aspect
ratios.

belts for radials and polyester bodies with fiberglass belts for belted bias
tires, although rayon-rayon versions of both constructions are fairly com-
mon. In each of these designs, the cord provides tensile reinforcement to
the rubber and carries most of the load applied to the tire in service.
While only one or two types of cord are used in tires, rubber use is much
more complicated. A bias ply tire requires at least fiw~' differently com-
pounded rubber stocks for use at different locations within the tire: tread,
sidewall, inner liner, bead insulation, and calendered stock for the cord
plies. The most commonly used elastomer is styrene-butadiene rubber.
There is no general agreement within the industry on the choice of elas-
tomers or the number of compounds to be used in radial ply tires. Some
radial ply tires include as many as ten different compounds and may con-
tain appreciable quantities of natural rubber outside the tread region.
A comprehensive study [12] of the role of the cord and rubber com-
ponents of the tire in relation to energy losses shows that in new tires,
depending on size, textile cords are responsible for 30-40% of the drag
force and rubber is responsible for 60-70%. Specific results for the ex-
tremes of highway size tires are given in Table 3.
High hysteresis of the base elastomer promotes high tire energy loss
[16,18,19]. Thus, butyl tires have high loss at room temperature, cis-
polybutadiene tires low loss, and styrene-butadienc rubber tires intermedi-
ate loss. One of the simplest ways of measuring the resiliency of rubber is
by the ASTM Test for Impact Resilience and Penetration of Rubber by
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 247

TABLE 3--Loss contribution of tire components, percent.

Truck T i r e , IndustrialTire,
Component 9.00-20 2.25-8

Rubber
Tread 59 51
Other 12 9
Cord 29 40

the Rebound Pendulum [D 1054-66(1972)] 2. The lower the rebound, the

higher the hysteresis. The increase in rolling resistance caused by changing
the tread compound of a belted bias tire from relatively high to relatively
low rebound is shown in Fig. 9 [16]. Any changes in compounding of an
elastomer to make it less hysteretic should decrease tire rolling resistance
if other conditions remain constant. Equilibrium running temperature,
however, does not remain constant, so the effects of compounding changes
are not easily evaluated.
Surprisingly, replacement of high hysteresis textile cords with lower
hysteresis steel cord does not always result in tires with lower rolling re-
sistance. In fact, four-ply rayon belted radials produce about the same drag
as two-ply steel belted radials, and steel bias ply tires can give 15% higher
drag than bias tires having nylon or rayon plies [20]. The higher energy
loss in the steel bias ply construction results from the larger inter-ply
shearing strains which deform the rubber rather than the relatively stiff
cord.
Reducing the number of plies in bias truck tires leads to as much as a
1 0 ~ reduction in rolling resistance [21,22]. Nylon body plies in radial
tires produce a 7% reduction in rolling losses compared to the use of steel
body plies of the same sidewall strength [22].

External Variables
External factors that measurably influence energy losses for a tire of
given construction and material composition include: (1) vehicle speed,
(2) wheel load, (3) inflation pressure, (4) state of tire wear, (5) rim width,
(6) road surface conditions, (7) tire size, and (8) the presence of shear
forces in the tire footprint.
Before discussing these factors let us consider the effect of tire break-in
and operating temperature, both of which are influenced by all of the
listed variables. Figure 10 [23] shows both drag force and air cavity tem-
perature as a function of running time at 30 mph for a G78-15 belted bias
tire at 1380-1b load and 24-psi initial inflation pressure. After 10 rain run-

Annual Book of A S T M Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia, 1974, Part 37.
248 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

LI2
It.
.050
0
C)
.040
O3
I

rUJ . 0 3 0

o .020
Z
_J
_J
o .010
n,-

0 "~' I I I I
20 40 60 80
SPEED-MPH
FIG. 9--Effect of ~peed on rolling resistance coeJficienl of belted bias tires having tread
rubbers of different resilience.

ning, the drag force decreased by about one third, contained air tempera-
ture increased by about 50~ and (not shown) pressure increased by 4 psi.
Both rolling resistance and temperature were fairly well stabilized after
20-30 rain. Under these conditions, a vehicle would have to be driven 10-
15 miles before a minimum in tire energy loss is reached. This is compatible
with the results obtained by Glemming and Bowers [13].
Rolling resistance decreases as temperature increases because of both
the rise in pressure and the decrease in hysteretie losses (Fig. 7). A par~
of the loss in fuel economy on short trips is attributable to the high hys-
teresis of cold tires [24]. Of course, if operating temperatures become too
great (>250~ contained air temperature), tire performance in regard to
ply separation, cord fatigue, and tread wear is impaired.
Vehicle Speed--At moderate speeds, 10 to 50 mph, rolling resistance
does not increase rapidly with speed (Fig. 8). At very high speeds there is
a marked increase in energy loss, mainly related to the onset of traveling
waves in the tire [16,25]. Traveling waves, sometimes called inertial dis-
tortion, appear at a critical rolling velocity and are produced in that por-
tion of the tire which has just left contact with the road. The length and
amplitude of the waves, together with rolling resistance and temperature,
increase drastically as the velocity is increased above the critical value.
This destructive process quickly produces tire failure. Radial ply tires have
been reported [11] to have a lower critical velocity than bias ply tires, but
this can be increased by constructional changes.
 WALTER A N D C O N A N T O N ENERGY LOSSES 249

50 TEMPERATURE 60
h
0
f
~40 I
1 4 0 "n-'
30
/ ~ DRAG 120 <
l---
1.1_
2O ! n."
ILl
(.9
I fL

I I00~
"~ I0 I IaJ
1--

0 I I I I I 80
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60
TIME-MIN.
FIG. lO--Effect of break-in time on drag force and contained-air temperature of a
belted bias tire.

Wheel L o a d - - O v e r the range of design loads, drag force changes linearly

with wheel load, as shown in Fig. 11 [10]. Thus, the rolling resistance coeffi-
cient of the tire is constant in this range. At very high or low loads, the
dependence is slightly nonlinear [13,16,18,19,26,27].
Inflation P r e s s u r e - - M a n y investigators [10,16,18,19,23,25,27] have dem-
onstrated the decrease in tire drag with increase in inflation pressure. Figure

Z
140
_lU.I
JO Z~ 120

woo I00
I--UJ
80
_1
i,i
r~ 60 I I I I
6O 80 I00 120 140
% OF RATED LOAD
FIG. l l--Effect of load on relative rolling resistance of a bias ply tire.
250 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

12 [28] shows this effect on an LR78-15 radial tire at 1680-1b load and 30
mph.
Ti~'e Wear--As a tire is worn its rolling resistance decreases because of
the decrease in tread mass [13,16,19,27,29]. This effect is shown in Fig. 13
[16], which also shows that in fully worn tires the rolling resistance of
radial tires exceeds that of bias tires at speeds above 60 mph. This is ex-
plained by noting that deformation in the radial tire is associated basically
with the flexural stiffness of the carcass sidewall. Loss of the tread reduces
this stiffness at high speed by reducing the tension component in the body
ply. cords imposed by centrifugal force.
Rim Width--Variation of rim width within a normal range has been
shown to have little effect on energy loss of steel belted radial tires [16].
Generally, however, there is an optimum rim width for minimum loss, one
which depends on the tire section diameter [10,16]. Two investigators
[19,30] found a continuing decrease in tire loss with increase in rim width
and argued that the wider base increased tire stiffness, thus decreasing tire
deflection. Such effects are generally less than 5% of the total tire loss.
Road Surface--Wheel sinkage is an important power loss mechanism in
vehicles such as earthmovers, graders, and some types of aircraft, which
must operate on soft terrain. For every inch the tire sinks into the ground,
about 30 lb of resistance for every ton of load must be added to overcome
the hysteresis forces in order to move the vehicle. Estimates of rolling re-
sistance on various surfaces are given in Table 4 [31]. It is not even neces-
sary for the tires to actually penetrate the road surface for rolling resistance
to increase above that on a rigid surface. If the road surface distorts appre-
ciably under the tire load, the effect is the same as sinking into the roadway,
that is, the tire behaves as if running "uphill." Only on a very hard, smooth

m25-
_1
I

" 20
0
u..15

n~ 10

I I I
0 20 4O 60
INFLATION PRESSURE - PSI
FIG. 12--E]fecl of inflation pressure on drag force of a radial tire.
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 251

TABLE 4--Rolling resistance on different road surfaces [31].

Rolling Resistance,
lb/i000 lb
Surface vehicle weight

Concrete 10-20
Asphalt 12-22
Dirt 25-37
Sand 60-150

surface with a well-compacted base will the rolling resistance approach the
minimum level measured in the laboratory on a steel surface. When actual
penetration takes place, some variation in rolling resistance can be noted
with various inflation pressures and tread patterns. The best efficiency on
soft terrain is obtained b y choosing the tire size, tire type, and inflation
pressure so as to divide the total deformations of tire and terrain in such
a way that the irreversible part of the energy is a minimum [10].
The rolling resistance coefficients of airplane tires operating on concrete
and firm turf were determined as early as 1937 [32].
Rolling resistance on gravel roads may be more than twice that on hard
roads [30], probably because of a combination of terrain deformation and
additional tire deflection. Power consumption on wet roads is greater than

U2
m .02 4
W
o
r /
w.020 //
Z

~-- .016
(f) f
~ . . . . . " " ~ /RADIAL
w
t r .012

(.9
z
"3.008 WORN //
_.1
0
rr
I I i t i
0 20 40 60 80 I00
SPEED-MPH
FIG. 13--Effect of speed on rolling resistance of new tires and of the same tires after
having the treads buffed off.
252 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

on dry, partly because the tires run somewhat cooler and partly because
of the power used to displace the water. Energy loss in free rolling is rela-
tively independent of the coefficient of friction between the tire and the
road [19].
Tire Size--Large tires develop large drag forces because of the high
loads they carry. However, the rolling resistance coefficient of tires with
high load ratings is generally lower than that of passenger car tires because
of the increased pressure at which these tires operate. Figure 14 [33] shows
the rolling resistance coefficient as a function of speed for a 20.00-20 air-
craft tire at 33,000-1b load and inflation pressures of 60 and 125 psi. While
the drag force at speeds up to 100 mph is large--between 250 and 350
pounds for this tire--the rolling resistance coefficient is in the range from
0.008 to 0.013. The rolling resistance coefficient for truck tires is in the range
from 0.008 to 0.012 [5,29].
Shear Force--The shear forces generated in the tire footprint provide
driving, braking, and cornering traction to the vehicle. Some investigators
[34] have found that tractive effort had no effect on power loss. Others [30]
found somewhat greater loss under load than when freely rolling, and still
others [10,27,35] found a rapid increase in rolling loss with increase in
driving or braking force. The distinction between the effects of driving and
braking was attributed to the somewhat higher tire temperature under
braking conditions. The rolling resistance attributable to the tire must,
of course, be distinguished from that attributable to the brake. The total
drag is a maximum in a locked-wheel stopping situation when it becomes
equal to the product of the friction coefficient by the wheel load.
Typical rolling resistance results obtained in cornering at slip angles up
to 6 deg are shown in Fig. 15 [27] for a 7.50-14 bias tire at a load of 1085 lb,

.05"
I--:
if)
~
WII.
.0~.
n'U_
125PSI
d
d
0
n,*
O( I
40 80
' I I
120
SPEED -MPH
FIG. 14--Effect of speed on the rolling resistance of a 20.00-20 aircraft tire under a
33,000-1b load.
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 253

.08 1
.o 1
. 0 4

z .02
._1
..J
0
n," 0 I I I , I I
0 I 2 3 4 5 6
SLIP ANGLE-DEGREES
FIG. 15--Effect of cornering on the rolling resistance coe~cient of a bias tire.

a pressure of 24 psi, and a speed of 30 mph. From these data it is apparent

that rolling resistance increases rapidly with increasing slip angle. At slip
angles above 4 deg, the component of cornering force contributing to tire
drag is more important than the basic rolling resistance of the tire. The
appreciable drag at very low slip angles indicates the importance of correct
wheel alignment. The effect of slip angle on rolling resistance is fairly in-
dependent of speed [16,34,36].

Tire L o s s e s in R e l a t i o n t o O t h e r Losses in t h e V e h i c l e S y s t e m

The power consumption of pneumatic tires is comparable to that of other

energy-absorbing components of a vehicle. These include the muffler, air
cleaner, emission control devices, combustion chamber deposits, etc.
Car accessories such as the radiator fan, alternator, power steering pump,
and air conditioning also consume power. However, studies conducted by
Huebner and Gasser [37] indicate that accessories account for only 5% of
the difference in fuel economy between a subcompact car with a manual
transmission and a full-size car with an automatic transmission regardless
of the duty cycle (see Table 5). The combined effect of accessories on fuel
consumption is about 2.6 miles per gallon for a 1973 intermediate size
vehicle equipped with a V-8 engine with automatic transmission on the
urban cycle and 1.5 miles per gallon on the road load cycle. There are, of
course, large differences in the absolute mileage of a subcompact, inter-
mediate, or full-size car, most of which are attributable to size and weight
differences. A comparison of tire drag force with mileage is given in Table 6
254 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 5--Difference (percent) in fuel e~ciency between a subcompact and a luxury car
due to various factors [37].

Factor Urban Cyclea Road Load Cyclea

Size and Weight 80 90

Transmission 15 5
Accessories 5 5

a The road load cycle consists of steady-state driving on a level road at 70 mph;
the urban cycle consists of 16% idling, 31% acceleration, 18% deceleration, and 35%
road load cycle.

for belted bias tires [23]. A 22% reduction in tire losses increased fuel econ-
omy b y about one mile per gallon. A similar improvement in fuel economy
was obtained at 50 and 70 mph but the overall mileage ~was significantly
reduced at the higher speeds. Typical fuel economy ratings obtained for
passenger tires of different construction obtained at constant speed with
no acceleration or deceleration are given in Table 7 [38].
While accessories account for only a small part of the total engine losses,
it is of interest to compare their contribution to that of tires because they
are of similar magnitude and both increase with increase in speed. Typical

TABLE 6--Comparison of tire drag and!fuel economy [23].

Drag% lb Fuel Efficiency~,

Tire Set for 4 tires miles/gal at 30 mph

A 78 21.6
B 82 20.9
C 88 20.9
D 100 20.7

G78-15 belted bias tires.

b 1970 full-size vehicle, constant speed.

TABLE 7--Effect of tire construction on relative fuel economy [38].

Constructional Relative Fuel

Tire Feature Efficiency, %

HR78-15 2-ply steel belt, 106

radial 2-ply rayon body
HR78-15 4-ply rayon belt, 103
radial 2-ply rayon body
8.55-15 4-ply nylon body 100
bias
H78-15 2-ply glass belt, 99
belted bias 2oply polyester body
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 25,$

data are shown in Fig. 16 for a 200-hp engine comparing power consump-
tion among radial and bias tires, the power steering pump, and the radiator
fan [39]. The range for tires is shown shaded since actual values change
considerably with change in inflation pressure, wheel load, and other vari-
ables discussed earlier in this paper.
Similarly, the heaviest loads on the power steering pump are due to
parking or turning corners while the losses shown are for the power steering
system idling. In any case, tires, like engine accessories, consume several
horsepower with the actual level being very speed dependent.
Losses in automatic transmissions due to drag and slip are larger than
tire or accessory losses, sometimes being in the range from 10 to 20 h p - -
the actual value depending on gear ratio and engine speed, among other
factors. Losses in manual transmissions are much smaller.
Finally, let us compare the aerodynamic drag of a vehicle to the energy
consumption of tires. The drag force D acting on a moving vehicle is given
by
D = 89 CDApV 2

where
CD = drag coefficient,
A = frontal area of the vehicle,
p = air density, and
v = vehicle speed.
Most passenger cars in use today have drag coefficients from 0.4 to 0.6
and frontal areas of 18 to 25 ft 2. Figure 17 shows a comparison of aero-
dynamic with tire drag force for a vehicle having G size belted bias tires,
a drag coefficient of 0.5, and a frontal area of 22 ft 2. The tire drag shown is
for all four tires. At low and moderate speeds, aerodynamic drag is less
than tire drag. At speeds above 80 mph, it can easily be twice the tire drag.
Power consumption due to aerodynamic drag varies with the third power
of speed and that due to tires directly with speed. The speed at which
aerodynamic drag and tire drag ar e equal usually occurs in the range from
40-55 mph, varying with vehicle design and tire properties.

Future Developments
A steel tire rolling on a steel track, as used on railroad cars, represents
about the lowest possible rolling resistance value that can be achieved by
wheeled locomotion, 1 to 3 lb of drag force per 1000 lb of load. Such steel
wheels are entirely unsuitable for private vehicle use even on improved
roadways because of, among other factors: (1) their inability to envelop
road irregularities, with the attendant problem of transmitting large shock
loads to the vehicle and (2) their inability to generate controllable lateral
 256 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

5
RADIAL TIRE
5 4 RADIATOR
FAN

POWER
STEERING
PUMP

o
I
O0 I 00 i
5200 4800
ENGINE-RPM
FIG. 16--Power consumption of a single tire compared to that of a typical radiator fan
and power steering pump.

force in the tire footprint at finite slip angles, which means inability to
negotiate curves.
The ideal tire for minimizing energy consumption would be made from
such materials having little or no hysteresis; since the actual materials are
hysteretic, however, the cord and rubber strains developed in service
should be kept small. As has been shown, the present pneumatic tire does
not satisfy these ideal requirements but, nonetheless, it is a fairly efficient
load-bearing structure, which serves well as the medium for transmission
of footprint shear forces and suppression of shock loads between the wheel
and the' ground. Unfortunately, any improvements that can be made in
existing tire design to produce lower rolling resistance values will have, at
best, a marginal influence on fuel economy.
Radial tires are being produced in sufficient quantity today to be con-
sidered the standard against which future tire designs must be judged.
Some of the changes that could be considered in radial tires include:
1. Replacing the organically derived reinforcing textile cords with in-
organic steel cord or fiberglass. This, however, has little if any measurable
effect in lowering energy consumption and in some cases may increase it
because of factors previously discussed.
2. Changing the belt cord angle from the present values of 66-75 deg
to 90 deg (purely circumferential), which theoretically produces minimum
inter-ply shearing strains. This not only leads to tires which are unaccept-
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 257

300

._1
!
Ld
c) 2 0 0
0
h_

< I00- TIRES ( 4 )

n-
t~

O0 15 30 45 60
SPEED-MPH
FIG. 17--Drag force of four tires compared to the aerodynamic drag force on a vehicle
over a range of speeds.

able for ride and handling, but also has no statistically significant effect
in lowering power loss.
3. Substituting a highly elastic, resilient rubber such as cis-polybuta-
diene for the various combinations of relatively hysteretic rubber now used
in different regions of the tire. While such tires would have lower rolling
resistance they would be unacceptable for safety reasons, among others,
because of their poor stopping ability on wet roads.
The only easily changed variable controlled by the tire user that would
measurably decrease rolling resistance in existing tires, regardless of con-
struction or materials, is inflation pressure. A significant increase would,
however, decrease riding comfort and impact resistance of the tire and
simultaneously promote earlier failures of vehicle components due to the
large impact loadings transmitted through the wheel to the chassis.
For safety reasons, a renewed interest has been generated in foam-filled
and other types of solid tires because of their flat-prevention capability.
Such tires were used on combat vehicles during the 1939-1945 war years.
Because of their mass, these tires are limited in speed and have high rolling
resistance. In principle, they represent, to some extent, a return to the solid
rubber tire which the pneumatic tire began to displace from the market 86
years ago. Typical data measured at comparable deflections on H78-15
belted bias tires at 20 mph and 1500-1b wheel load are given in Table 83.

Nelson, P. J., personal communication, November 1973.

258 TiRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 8--Effect on rolling resistance oaused by filling tire with foamed polyisoprene
or solid polyurethane (H78-15 belted bias tires at 20 mph and 1500 lb load)
(see Footnote 3).

Rolling Resistance
Tire Filling Drag Force, lb Coefficient

Air at 40 psi 20 0.13

Foamed polyisoprene 23 0.15
Solid polyurethane 33 0.22

Another tire development underway is the so-called fabricless tire which

has no cord reinforcement and is composed only of an elastomer for con-
taining the air under pressure and the steel bead wires for anchoring the tire
to the wheel [40]. Such tires can be built v e r y uniformly on a u t o m a t e d
equipment, the rationale for their development. Because the cord is not
the most significant contributor to energy loss, it is not surprising t h a t such
tires have rolling resistance values comparable to those of conventional,
cord-reinforced tires, t h a t is, 10 to 20-1b drag force per 1000 lb of wheel
load, depending on speed, pressure, etc.

Conclusion
One of the fundamental properties responsible for the success of the
pneumatic tire is its low rolling resistance compared to the solid rubber
tire. Over the years the power required to advance a rolling tire has been
continually decreased. Marginal i m p r o v e m e n t s can still be achieved, usu-
ally at the expense of other desirable properties. However, the prospect of
significant further reduction in tire rolling resistance is remote. I t appears
t h a t future progress in reducing energy losses in tires will continue to be
evolutionary rather t h a n revolutionary.

References
[1] Dunlop, J. B., The History of the Pneumatic Tyre, Alex. Thorn and Co., Glasnevin,
Ireland, no date given.
[2] Schidrowitz, P. and Dawson, T. R., Eds., History of the Rubber Industry, W. Heifer
& Sons, Cambridge, England, 1952, pp. 213-222.
[8] Reynolds, O., "On Rolling Friction," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, Vol. 166, 1876, pp. 155-174.
[4] Holt, W. L. and Wormeley, P. L., U.S. Bureau of Standards Technical Papers:
No. 16, 1922; No. 240, 1923; No. 283, 1925.
[5] Novopolsky, V. I., "Passenger Tire Rolling Resistance at High Speeds," Revue
G[ndrale du Caoutchouc,Vol. 36, No. 10, 1959, pp. 1521-1529.
[6] Burton, W. E., Engineering with Rubber, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949, p. 18.
[7] Lehmicke, D. J. and Martin, F. R., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Research Report,
Akron, 1970 (unpublished).
[8] Collins, J. M., Jackson, W. L., and Oubridge, P. S., "Relevance of Elastic and Loss
Moduli of Tire Components to Tire Energy Losses," Transactions, Institution of
the Rubber Industry, Vol. 40, 1964, p. 239.
 WALTER AND CONANT ON ENERGY LOSSES 259

[9] Khromov, M. K., "Influence of the Curvature of the Surface of Drums of Rolling
Machines on the Rolling Losses of Tyres," Soviet Rubber Technology, Vol. 29, No. 1,
1970, pp. 39-41.
[10] Evans, R. D., Proceedings, Second Rubber Technology Conference, W. Heifer &
Sons, Cambridge, England, 1948, pp. 438-452.
[11] Khromov, M. K. and Bruev, E. V., "Rolling Losses of 'R' (Radial Ply) Tyres in
a Wide Speed Range," Soviet Rubber Technology, Vol. 25, No. 9, 1966, pp. 23-24.
[12] Khromov, M. K. and Konovalova, N. P., "Rolling Losses of Tyres," Soviet Rubber
Technology, Voh 29, No. 8, 1970, pp. 45-47.
[13] Glemming, D. A. and Bowers, P. A., "Tire Testing for Rolling Resistance and Fuel
Economy," Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA, VoL 2, No. 4, Nov. 1974, pp.
286-311.
[14] Frolov, L. B., Khromov, M. K., and Voronin, V. G., "Determination of the Rolling
Resistance of Tyres by an Electronic Torque Meter," Soviet Rubber Technology,
Vol. 24, No. 9, 1965, pp. 35-38.
[15] van Eldik Thieme, H. C. A. and Pacejka, H. B., "The Tire as a Vehicle Com-
ponent," Chapter 7 in Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires, S. K. Clark, Ed., National
Bureau of Standards Monograph 122, Washington, D.C., 1971, pp. 599-603.
[16] Curtiss, W. W., "Low Power Loss Tires," SAE Paper 690108, Society of Auto-
motive Engineers, New York, 1969.
[17] Yurkovski, B., "Effect of Design Parameters on the Rolling Resistance of Tyres,"
Soviet Rubber Technology, Vol. 25, No. 11, 1966, pp. 32-34.
[18] Elliott, D. R., Klamp, W. K., and Kraemer, W. E., "Passenger Tire Power Con-
sumption," SAE Paper 710575, Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit, 1971.
[19] Seki, K., Sasaki, S., and Tsunoda, H., "Tyre Rolling Resistance," Automobile
Engineer, Vol. 59, March 1969, pp. 88-91.
[20] Seleznev, I. I. and Tsukerberg, S. M., "Determining the Influence of the Rolling
Resistance of Tyres on the Fuel Economy of a Vehicle," Soviet Rubber Technology,
Vol. 28, No. 4, 1969, pp. 38-42.
[21] Rekitar, M. I., "The Influence of the Number of Carcass Plies on the Power Loss
of a Tyre in Rolling," Soviet Rubber Technology, Vol. 27, No. 7, 1968, pp. 47-49.
[22] Desidlei, L. V. and Radomyzhskaya, R. G., "Development of Cross-Ply Tyres
with a Reduced Number of Carcass Plies," Soviet Rubber Technology, Vol. 31, No.
1, 1972, pp. 45-48.
[23] Floyd, C. W., "Power Loss Testing of Passenger Tires," SAE Paper 710576, Society
of Automotive Engineers, New York, t971.
[24] Marks, C., "Which Way to Achieve Better Fuel Economy?," presented at the
California Institute of Technology Seminar Series on Energy Consumption in
Private Transportation, Pasadena, Calif., 3 Dec. 1973.
[25] Ames, W. F., "Literature Review on Traveling Waves," Textile Research Journal,
VoL 40, No. 6, 1970, pp. 498-507.
[26] Guslitser, R. L., Siletskii, V. S., and Moroz, T. G., "Rolling Loss of Tyres for the
VAZ-2101 Car," Soviet Rubber Technology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1971, pp. 38-40.
[27] Roberts, G. B., "Power Wastage in Tires," Proceedings, International Rubber Con-
ference, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1959, pp. 57-72.
[28] Conant, F. S. and Hall, G. L., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Research Report,
1973 (unpublished).
[29] Novopol'skii, V. I., "Measurement of Rolling Losses--A Laboratory Test for
Automobile Tyres," Transactions of the Scientific Research Institute of the Tire
Industry (NIIShP), Vol. 3, State Scientific and Technical Publishing House,
Moscow, 1957, pp. 122-138 (RAPRA Translation 1507 by D. A. McIlwraith,
1968).
[30] Billingsley, W. F., Evans, R. D., Hulswit, W. H., and Roberts, E. A., "Rolling
Resistance of Pneumatic Tires as a Factor in Car Economy," The S A E Journal,
Vol. 50, No. 2, 1942, pp. 37-39 and 72.
[31] "Automotive Vehicle Performance Formulas," Clark Equipment Co., Buchanan,
Mich., no date given.
260 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

[32] Wetmore, J. W., "The Rolling Friction of Several Airplane Wheels and Tires and
the Effect of Rolling Friction on Take-Off," NACA Report 583, National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D.C., 1937.
[33] Skele, P., "Rolling Resistance and Carcass Life of Tires Operating at High De-
flections," Technical Report AFFDL-TR-70-138, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio, Feb. 1972, p. 15.
[34] Stiehler, R. D., Steel, M. N., Richey, G. G., Mandel, J., and Hobbs, R. H., "Power
Loss and Operating Temperature of Tires," Proceedings, International Rubber Con-
ference, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1959, pp. 73-84.
[35] Schuring, D. J., Bird, K. D., and Martin, J. F., "Power Requirements of Tires
and Vehicle Fuel Savings," Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 2, No. 4,
Nov. 1974, pp. 261-285.
[36] Bull, A. W., "Tire Behavior in Steering," The 8 A E Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1939,
pp. 344-349.
[37] Huebner, G. J., Jr. and Gasser, D. J., "Energy and the Automobile---General
Factors Affecting Vehicle Fuel Consumption," SAE Paper 730518, Society of
Automotive Engineers, New York, 1973, pp. 25-30.
[38] Bezbatchenko, W., "The Effect of Tire Construction on Fuel Economy," SAE
Paper 740067, Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, 1974.
[39] "Where All the Power Goes," The S A E Journal, Vol. 65, No. 4, 1957, pp. 55-63.
[40] Alliger, G., "Cordless Cast Tire Performs Much Like a Radial Belted Type,"
The S A E Journal, Vol. 78, No. 5, 1970, pp. 56-59.