Reinventing the Wheel: Cubic Skateboard Wheels

It clearly is a club-like shape, with rounded corners. Look closer and carefully when they show it, it is more apparent a few times. Essentially the roll of the shape takes a right and left to make the roll complete, but it happens quick enough that it rebalances itself to a central path… The design wouldn't work if it was a flat wheel with the same shape instead of the round tubelike two or three shapes. I wonder how it would work though as it wore out more, or from sliding (likely would be affected quicker than a normal wheel). I wonder if it would flatspot quick?

You bitter bastards are almost worse than the LA'ers at the end… it's hard to form an opinion unless you ride one/ handle it. Further to that point, do you even skate bro!?!

You bitter bastards are almost worse than the LA'ers at the end… it's hard to form an opinion unless you ride one/ handle it. Further to that point, do you even skate bro!?!

I have skated, though not for many years. I know how a wheel works (and how one doesn't work), I know how physics works. I also know the smell of a scam.

The photo above, as with all other photos released, do not show the wheel end-on, looking straight along the axis of the axle shaft. They are round in that axis, guaranteed. Any effect on friction due to tread design could only be negligible, but the more likely outcome is increased rolling friction.

Does one need to skate to know how a wheel works?

Kn.

They look round to me in the video. Comeon son they have to be round! They have a wiggly sparse tread pattern. That is all that is going on there besides a sort of optical effect from a sideways view. How will a wiggly tread make you go faster?

wow he carved some tread into a wheel and made the sides wavy. what a steaming load.

Honestly, I see 90% gimmickry. It's just the same old round wheel with a tread pattern. Calling it a "perfect cube" or a "square wheel" isn't really true, but rather an optical illusion created when the wheel is held at the right angle. Notice that there are no visuals of the wheel looking straight along the axle path?

Kn.

So … round as round gets? ;)

testing two wheels of the same durometer to see if one is faster as suggested by jpi is ONLY checking to see if tread design affects rolling resistance and hence speed. it's not trying to say that one wheel "creates energy" as you suggest.

Why do high speed motorsports like F1, Indy, etc. prefer slicks to treaded tires?

Yes, a true side-by-side comparison would be conclusive, but it's pretty easy to draw inferences from other sources and debunk the "treaded is faster" theory. The only reason I see that someone could still cling to that belief is that they envision some form of energy emanating from these magic wheels.

Kn.

So … round as round gets? ;)

Why do high speed motorsports like F1, Indy, etc. prefer slicks to treaded tires?

Yes, a true side-by-side comparison would be conclusive, but it's pretty easy to draw inferences from other sources and debunk the "treaded is faster" theory. The only reason I see that someone could still cling to that belief is that they envision some form of energy emanating from these magic wheels.

Kn.

high speed motorsports use slicks because they offer greater traction - aka friction - and these vehicles need more grip (especially lateral) in order to accelerate and corner at the speeds that they do.

in terms of a comparison, as an engineer i'm sure you're aware that nothing is conclusive without definitive testing and that drawing ingferences is simply akin to putting faith in the unknown. and of course, there's no way you'd ever do something like that. :rolleyes:

So … round as round gets? ;)

Why do high speed motorsports like F1, Indy, etc. prefer slicks to treaded tires?
.

Ever wonder why the powered wheels are wider than the steering tires?

I wonder if these wheels just "act" like a larger diameter wheel (like a 29er) with a smaller contact area.

in terms of a comparison, as an engineer i'm sure you're aware that nothing is conclusive without definitive testing and that drawing ingferences is simply akin to putting faith in the unknown. and of course, there's no way you'd ever do something like that. :rolleyes:

Rather huge difference between drawing inferences based on other, similar applications as part of the evidence chain and saying "Oh gee, I don't know, so therefore god."

If a marble falls down when I drop it out a window, I don't need to test every object imaginable to conclude everything heavier than air will also fall downward.

Kn.

Rather huge difference between drawing inferences based on other, similar applications as part of the evidence chain and saying "Oh gee, I don't know, so therefore god."

lol - as usual you've filled in the story with your own preconceived notions. i never said anything about god, only faith. faith is beleiving in something which you do not know for certain to be true (or un-true). putting faith in something happens to everyone on a day-today basis, including those who prescribe strongly to the scientific method.

If a marble falls down when I drop it out a window, I don't need to test every object imaginable to conclude everything heavier than air will also fall downward.

Kn.

lol again.

as per your example you do need to know that the item in question is heavier than air. this of course would require some sort of current or previous testing; whether that be of your own volition or someone else's. and as per your example, comparing an objects weight to that of air is making some sort of test or conclusion.

it's entertaining watching you stumble your way out of situations where you've possibly made a mistake that just so happens to fly in the face of the science and methodology you so highly tout (which is perfectly acceptable and a smart thing to do). but, spaghetti monster ever forbid that you may actually admit to making a mistake of some sorts though.

It's equally entertaining watching you deploy weak and false arguments to support an untenable position.

When I'm proven wrong I will happily acknowledge it.

Kn.

It's equally entertaining watching you deploy weak and false arguments to support an untenable position.

When I'm proven wrong I will happily acknowledge it.

Kn.

what weak and untenable position was that? that tread design can have an impact on the rolling resistance of a tire?

of course your highly superior knowledge in this are was clearly identified when you pondered aloud why racing vehicles use slick tires.

so, if one were to assess that question; does tread design affect the rolling resistance of a tire? the answer happens to be yes.

i'll let you decide how you want to acknowledge that.

oh, and here's something the bridgestone people have to say about rolling resistance. you may have heard of them before as they're a popular tire manufacturer and as such may happen to know a thing or two about the subject.

There is friction between the tire and the road (largely a result of tread design and tread compound)

http://www.bridgestonetrucktires.com/us_eng/real/magazines/ra_special-edit_4/ra_special4_fuel-tires.asp

oh and one other thing; in responding to your marble example what was weak and untenable about my response? i noticed you decided to ignore that part of my post.

Wow who cares

I would demo these wheels. One thing for sure, it would be a bitch to slide em.