• watson387@sopuli.xyz
    19·
    5 months ago

    They definitely tear-up the asphalt. I don’t use them, but a lot of people here do in the winter. There’s also a date at which they have to be removed or the driver will be fined.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    10·
    5 months ago

    To be honest I didn’t even know studded tires were a thing. I’ve heard of snow tires but never bought any since there is no snow here.

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    5 months ago

    Seems obvious that they would wear away the asphalt, but since non-studded tires just wear away the rubber instead, it’s not obvious to me which alternative is actually worse.

    They need to do a scientific study about it that considers both the difference in material (rubber vs asphalt) as well as potential differences in amount and particle size distribution.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.nameEnglish
      6·
      5 months ago

      I’m pretty sure Swedish engineers have studied this extensively. There’s plenty of streets in the cities that ban studded tires, and there’s harsh fines if you use studded tires outside of winter.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        5 months ago

        Banning studded tires because they’re obviously worse from the perspective of a highway maintenance engineer who wants to minimize repaving costs is one thing.

        Banning them because they’re worse than regular tires specifically in terms of dust generated isn’t the same thing, and (as a traffic engineer myself) I’m not sure that specific issue has been studied all that much.

        Think of it this way: consider all the different possible combinations of road surface and wheel material, and the amount of dust (ablated from the wheel or from the road) they might generate: knobby tires on dirt, slick tires on asphalt, studded tires on snow, every combination of the above, et cetera. I don’t know what the contours of that graph would look like. If you think about adding more and more metal to the tires (and to the road), at the limit you’ve got a railroad and the amount of dust generated would hit a minimum. But what’s the shape of the metal content vs. dust curve from “high-mileage/low rolling resistance tire” through “studded snow tire” to “train wheel,” and how does it vary depending on surface? I’d be surprised if anybody has rigorously tried to answer that question. It feels like the kind of research that would put somebody in the running for an Ig Nobel Prize, to me.

  • cron@feddit.de
    31·
    5 months ago

    Whoever uses studded tyres probably has a good reason for it. And they are very rare, even here in the alps with long and snowy winters.

    • dafo@lemmy.world
      13·
      5 months ago

      I learned recently when looking for new winter tyres for it car that there are three-ish classifications for winter tyres: unstudded, studded, Nordics.

      You will end up in a ditch without studded tyres here. In the winters we’ll have a constant decimeter of ice on the pavements. The busy roads will have two tyre tracks between a 5-10 cm thick layer of ice and snow, which looks to lead to asphalt. But no, it’s the absolutely most slippery ice you will ever come across.

      The city buses stopped using studded tyres a couple of years ago for environmental reasons. You almost feel shame hitting the stop button, because the driver has to slow down well before the stop and takes a good minute for it to get slide up to speed again

  • nyhetsjunkie@beehaw.org
    2·
    5 months ago

    That is at least the reasons for how studs are regulated i Norway. Regions with milder winter climate have fees for studs. Instead most vehicles uses studless winter tires during winter. The exeption being mostly transport and construction vehicles.

    • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
      12·
      5 months ago

      Fellas

      Fellows

      Followers

      Followers of this Lemmy community

      Language comprehension is important…

      • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
        1·
        5 months ago

        Avoiding casual misogyny is also important. You should avoid using gendered language like that when there’s really no need.

        • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
          1·
          5 months ago

          Usage of gendered language isn’t inherently casual misogyny. For it to be misogynistic, it must actively harm or belittle women. While I fundamentally agree with reducing gendered language where possible (as I am a NB gender abolitionist myself), I don’t think a silly meme on Lemmy is worth getting overly concerned about. It makes the whole movement look pedantic.

          • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
            1·
            5 months ago

            It may not be intentional, not plenty of women feel harmed, belittled, and ignored by the use of language like that. So we should stop using it. It doesn’t add anything, and it does, in fact, harm people.

            And for the record, it’s not the meme, it’s the title of the post. I just think that making the explicit or implied assumption that you’re talking to a bunch of dudes whenever you post online is just not helpful, that’s all.

            • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
              1·
              5 months ago

              It may not be intentional, not plenty of women feel harmed, belittled, and ignored by the use of language like that. So we should stop using it. It doesn’t add anything, and it does, in fact, harm people.

              I understand your concern about the unintentional harm that gendered language can cause. While it’s true that language can affect people in non-obvious ways and I support the idea of being mindful of our words and reducing gendered language where possible, I also think it’s important to balance this with context and intent.

              And for the record, it’s not the meme, it’s the title of the post

              The title is a spin on the “Fellas, is it gay…” meme