Tire Wear Observation

[Destin Skye]

Past two days I've been running two identical IVECO Hi-Way trucks to see how tire wear between the two hold up. One is a 4x2 and the other a 6x2/4. Most trips were driven outbound with cargo, and then backhaul was intentionally empty, except for the most recent trip that was outbound only with a quick travel back to the garage.

6x2/4 had midlift up only when empty, down at all times while carrying cargo.

Both trucks shod with 315/70 Goodyear Fuelmax on steer positions, 315/70 KMAX on drives.

To further test some tires, I gave both a curtainside of their own, one with 385/55 'A' Michelin tires and one with 385/65 'A' Krone tires on 2-axle trailer. I chose 2 axles to see if there was any difference in max cargo weight between the two trucks with a less-than-3-axle trailer like there is with a single axle trailer. There isn't. Also, I wanted to see if 55 tires had any impact on fuel economy as that trailer was given to 6x2/4 and whether wear rate would be different than 65 tires.

Both trucks accumulated approximately 4,300 km each, with about 60% of that carrying cargo. Both trucks ended up carrying the same amount of tonnage, as did the trailers. Only about 24 km distance separated the two trucks, 4,297 vs 4,321.

Fuel economy for the 4x2 was 27.3/100 km with 8% wear on tires.
Fuel economy for the 6x2/4 was 28.5/100 km with 7% wear on tires.
Both trailers showed 8% wear on their tires despite size difference.

Conclusion? 4x2 definitely wins on fuel efficiency, 6x2/4 surprisingly won on tire wear, albeit slightly.

I'll continue testing to see if differences separate themselves more over tens of thousands of kilometers. I'm retired, so I beta test tire wear all I want. I just hope to live long enough to beta test Star Citizen.

[KongHarald]

Originally posted by Destin Skye:

Past two days I've been running two identical IVECO Hi-Way trucks to see how tire wear between the two hold up. One is a 4x2 and the other a 6x2/4. Most trips were driven outbound with cargo, and then backhaul was intentionally empty, except for the most recent trip that was outbound only with a quick travel back to the garage.

6x2/4 had midlift up only when empty, down at all times while carrying cargo.

Both trucks shod with 315/70 Goodyear Fuelmax on steer positions, 315/70 KMAX on drives.

To further test some tires, I gave both a curtainside of their own, one with 385/55 'A' Michelin tires and one with 385/65 'A' Krone tires on 2-axle trailer. I chose 2 axles to see if there was any difference in max cargo weight between the two trucks with a less-than-3-axle trailer like there is with a single axle trailer. There isn't. Also, I wanted to see if 55 tires had any impact on fuel economy as that trailer was given to 6x2/4 and whether wear rate would be different than 65 tires.

Both trucks accumulated approximately 4,300 km each, with about 60% of that carrying cargo. Both trucks ended up carrying the same amount of tonnage, as did the trailers. Only about 24 km distance separated the two trucks, 4,297 vs 4,321.

Fuel economy for the 4x2 was 27.3/100 km with 8% wear on tires.
Fuel economy for the 6x2/4 was 28.5/100 km with 7% wear on tires.
Both trailers showed 8% wear on their tires despite size difference.

Conclusion? 4x2 definitely wins on fuel efficiency, 6x2/4 surprisingly won on tire wear, albeit slightly.

I'll continue testing to see if differences separate themselves more over tens of thousands of kilometers. I'm retired, so I beta test tire wear all I want. I just hope to live long enough to beta test Star Citizen.

This is very interesting, please keep posting

[The Pitts]

If you would like to look deeper you might care to figure out how to dig into the internals of the saved game data and look at the underlying values of the wear information which will be more detailed than displayed in the game's UI. Interesting stuff nonetheless.

[Destin Skye]

Originally posted by The Pitts:

If you would like to look deeper you might care to figure out how to dig into the internals of the saved game data and look at the underlying values of the wear information which will be more detailed than displayed in the game's UI. Interesting stuff nonetheless.

Thanks for the info, but I have no idea how to do that kind of thing. Is it in text files or something like a log file?

[Destin Skye]

I was going to mention also, one reason I had decided on the 4x2 vs 6x2/4 is not only because they are natural rivals with the 2/4 able to operate itself as a 4x2 at times, but to see if game mechanics are similar to real life in which I've read in places like trucker publications, that a 6x2/4 is said to have better tire wear than a 4x2 due to less overall loading on the rear axle tires. Besides the obvious loading from the cargo, something I hadn't considered until reading about it is that torque loads from a powerful engine can greatly reduce tire life on a single drive axle arrangement. I was just wondering if the game simulated it.

Also, I do a lot of reading about this stuff as I'm not a real truck driver, so I try to learn about everything as much as I can and try real life methods of doing things. I guess I just do it to immerse myself more into the game from a roleplaying or realism aspect, haha. I'll eventually do the 6x2 and 6x4 chassis too, just for curiosity. lol

Two other things I applied to this test.

First, I made sure I maxxed-out the "Normal Cargo" slider by using the strongest allowable engine and transmission combo that would allow the bar to be full so that both trucks are identical, aside from chassis difference. I suppose this leads to a further question, would a slightly more powerful engine allow the 6x2/4 to offset the extra weight and rolling resistance from the midlift to achieve better fuel mileage on par with the 4x2? Hmm.

Second, I never reset the truck's fuel economy display. The fuel economy and mileage are as from brand new and only driven to pick up jobs and haul the jobs and, except 1 job, all returns were driven back empty as I wanted to factor that in too that way the 6x2/4 can keep it's midlift in the air to see if that makes up some ground to the 4x2.

[Destin Skye]

Hey, I just wanted to share a couple videos where I've learned information from, one of which might have answered the golden question.

Dawson Group trucking company in the UK has a lot of brief videos about various truck subjects as an introduction to learning how to be a truck driver, etc.

This first one is for how their company operates their 6x2/4 fleet. With his accent, it sounds like he's saying that the midlift automatically deploys down when it detects 9 tonnes or more on the fifth wheel. A Mercedes New Actros 6x2/4 has a spec sheet fifth wheel load limit of 16,493 tonnes. Now I know! Still, with respect to the way the game is set up and trailers, etc., you'd need to go beyond 24,000 kg to get there. Even then the midlift in game isn't forced down. Shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbeLFWtdnpY


This next video is not about avoiding crashes, it's about increasing fuel economy by minimizing stops whenever possible and he tells how much fuel you can save by doing so. I've been trying to practice this in the game and if you watch the fuel economy display it will bear that out because you'll see much greater fuel burn getting rolling from a full stop than if you were to slow roll through a situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg9SL8B2YR8


By the way, both IVECO's in my testing have the 460 hp engine and 12-speed overdrive retarder transmission which will give you full slider on "Normal Cargo" for 4x2. Any other transmission, or a more powerful engine will drop it. So, I'm only looking at how well each chassis performs hauling standard cargo and not doing any heavy hauling with them.

[The Pitts]

Originally posted by Destin Skye:

Is it in text files or something like a log file?

Sadly not, the save game files (info.sii and game.sii) are encrypted and in the latter case in a binary format by default, so you need a tool that will decrypt and if necessary convert to text. If you are not already familiar with that I would say that doing so for this exercise is overkill.

[Destin Skye]

Thanks, and yes, that would add a whole other level of complexity to everything.

In the meantime. I'm considering actually starting the test over. Or should I? The thing I don't like about the IVECO overdrive transmissions is that they are best for 90 km/h speed limits it seems, though I could be wrong on it. But right now I'm working out of the garage in Zurich and most countries I end up traveling through are 80 speed limits like Germany, Switzerland, Austria, etc. When I venture into France, which I did as part of the test, the trucks sped much more time in 12th gear than in the 80 speed countries.

Also, considering removing all the random factors like weather, detours, etc. I was thinking one of the reasons the 6x2/4 might have gotten 1% less tire wear over the same distance is because one of it's cargo runs was almost entirely in the rain. I don't know if weather is a factor in things like that.

But I may well find a great truck brand I like and dedicate 1 garage to identical test trucks to see how they perform with the different chassis, at least a 4x2, 6x2 standard, 6x2/4 and 6x4. And I will probably also test at the different speed limits if possible. Matter of fact, I'm fixing to run a short test on some flat roads to see if the IVECO overdrive is hampered by slower 80 speed limit in other areas of Europe where it spends most of its time in 11th gear.

[kaki_gamet]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3356214277 Here, I made the work for you so you can spare some time now : )
By the way, there is nothing like "economy" in this game.

[Destin Skye]

Originally posted by kaki_gamet:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3356214277 Here, I made the work for you so you can spare some time now : )
By the way, there is nothing like "economy" in this game.

Very interesting stuff! So, yes, thanks for saving me a lot of time in testing it all myself!

So, I guess all brands of tires and trucks and engines, etc. all basically wear at the same fixed rate. I was hoping there might be some kind of variance but that's ok.

What I found most interesting is the damage buildup over time that can cause accelerated wear of various things. That was good to learn and even more of a reason to keep my trucks in top shape.

Now if only I could figure out the cargo system and fifth wheel loading so I know how much I can carry with axles up or down. I was surprised that last night I did a job that started at a construction site and took me to another construction site. While on the dirt, I could lift the taglift, which I was glad for because I'd have never gotten out of the construction pit I had to go down into, think it was in Stuttgart. Anyways, I noticed when I got to paved road it started shouting at me that the trailer was suddenly too heavy for the axle to be lifted. When I arrived at the other construction site it allowed me to raise the taglift while on dirt again.

When did they change that? Because I've gotten stuck in mining pits and construction areas with slopes so many times that I was afraid to drive taglifts for a long time and only recently started getting interested in them again.

[kaki_gamet]

Yes, that permanent wear affects all other wear surprised me too, really a romantic touch on their part : D

About your next issue I can only suggest to get your own ONE axle curtainsider trailer and go around to test all 100+ available cargoes it has : ) I'm using a taglift since a life but with automatic drop of liftable axles.

From what I seen if the cargo+trailer is light and trailer has three axles it should be possible to do the whole trip with the axle up. If trailer has only two axles it may let to maneuver(?) at low speed with axle up, but as soon as 18~20 km/h are reached it will drop automatically.
With heavier cases axle drops as soon as fifth wheel hits the kingpin. No idea if dirt may affect it anyway, my taglift is often lowered lately ^^'

Maybe those cases in which you got stuck are related to lowbed and lowloader trailers that game at times provide extended without a reason. Those can be very tricky but if you take contracts from Freight Market then you may change the trailer configuration before to accept a job. From External Contracts like I do, or occasional Quick Jobs, there is no escape -.- If you use your own in that extended configuration, then it is your fault ; )

In case it happens with standard trailers or in new area, it may be worth a bug report if there is something too odd (or either an invisible obstacle).

Oh, Stuttgart, I still remember when I had to go out of there with a heavy machinery >.<

[Wet Valley Mayor]

Originally posted by Destin Skye:

Past two days I've been running two identical IVECO Hi-Way trucks to see how tire wear between the two hold up. One is a 4x2 and the other a 6x2/4. Most trips were driven outbound with cargo, and then backhaul was intentionally empty, except for the most recent trip that was outbound only with a quick travel back to the garage.

6x2/4 had midlift up only when empty, down at all times while carrying cargo.

Both trucks shod with 315/70 Goodyear Fuelmax on steer positions, 315/70 KMAX on drives.

To further test some tires, I gave both a curtainside of their own, one with 385/55 'A' Michelin tires and one with 385/65 'A' Krone tires on 2-axle trailer. I chose 2 axles to see if there was any difference in max cargo weight between the two trucks with a less-than-3-axle trailer like there is with a single axle trailer. There isn't. Also, I wanted to see if 55 tires had any impact on fuel economy as that trailer was given to 6x2/4 and whether wear rate would be different than 65 tires.

Both trucks accumulated approximately 4,300 km each, with about 60% of that carrying cargo. Both trucks ended up carrying the same amount of tonnage, as did the trailers. Only about 24 km distance separated the two trucks, 4,297 vs 4,321.

Fuel economy for the 4x2 was 27.3/100 km with 8% wear on tires.
Fuel economy for the 6x2/4 was 28.5/100 km with 7% wear on tires.
Both trailers showed 8% wear on their tires despite size difference.

Conclusion? 4x2 definitely wins on fuel efficiency, 6x2/4 surprisingly won on tire wear, albeit slightly.

I'll continue testing to see if differences separate themselves more over tens of thousands of kilometers. I'm retired, so I beta test tire wear all I want. I just hope to live long enough to beta test Star Citizen.

It might be due to the raised mid axle when empty, the less worn middle tyres slightly raised the overall wear of the tyre. I presume the empty trips are rather short, which explains why the slight difference.

It seems it was taking the wear of all the tyres, then compute its average.

As for fuel efficiency, it might be due to the following factors:
• The efficiency rating, represented as letters.
• Tyre width, which is the three-digit numbers of the tyre.
• Number of tyres touching the ground.

[kaki_gamet]

Originally posted by Wet Valley Mayor:

It might be due to the raised mid axle when empty, the less worn middle tyres slightly raised the overall wear of the tyre. I presume the empty trips are rather short, which explains why the slight difference.

It seems it was taking the wear of all the tyres, then compute its average.

I think my guide leaves no doubts on the matter. And the wear/damage shown for the wheels IS the average of all axles, not "It seems".

[Wet Valley Mayor]

Originally posted by kaki_gamet:

Originally posted by Wet Valley Mayor:

It might be due to the raised mid axle when empty, the less worn middle tyres slightly raised the overall wear of the tyre. I presume the empty trips are rather short, which explains why the slight difference.

It seems it was taking the wear of all the tyres, then compute its average.

I think my guide leaves no doubts on the matter. And the wear/damage shown for the wheels IS the average of all axles, not "It seems".

Nor ideally, the tyre with the worst wear. On the plus side, worn tyres are great* for drifting!

[Destin Skye]

Originally posted by Wet Valley Mayor:

Originally posted by kaki_gamet:

I think my guide leaves no doubts on the matter. And the wear/damage shown for the wheels IS the average of all axles, not "It seems".

Nor ideally, the tyre with the worst wear. On the plus side, worn tyres are great* for drifting!

You know, that has me thinking. Keep in mind that I took a LONG break from the game and only started playing recently after that long break and so I missed some key updates and am in the dark about how some aspects changed the game.

With that said, I have noticed that parts now are being suggested for replacement after they reach 20-25% wear. For tires, I put around 12,000 km on it and it was wanting me to put fresh, new tires on it. Should tires being wearing out that quickly?

[kaki_gamet]

I have no idea of how they behave in real world, but in-game it would be a two weeks span of driving (used the 62 km/h average speed that the game too is using). Too fast I guess : /

But I seen wheels capping at 50% Wear, but if an accident happens when the cap is reached, then wheels will pass above and starting to get Wear again as before. No need to go so high, one is open to fines because of worn/damaged parts thus the in-game suggestion to replace them ^^'

Still the feeling remain, too fast wear.