OT: I want an OX

What about it?

Page 32 N1 class light goods

53 frontal impact

Steel isn't hard to get hold of.

Not really necessary - roads exist, even if they may not be paved.

That's a poor idea. Solid tyres are way less efficient, even at low speed.

Mmm, degrading quickly.

There's a reason that even with the increased maintenance, people use motor vehicles all over the place.

The problem I see with it is what does it do that a hilux doesn't?

What about in a rural area in a third-world country?

But a 2-metre diameter wheel probably gives only 75cm ground clearance - I would have thought anything less could be unworkable. But a thought -

2000 years ago the Romans built roads which were flat to within a few centimetres using local resources - is there some reason why this cannot now be done in third-world countries?

Efficiency is probably not high on the wish-list. However, repairability without special machinery would be.

But no doubt locally available ...

[...]

Can't get the slaves, you know. Buggers won't work for nothing, with a two- year life span. Pathetic wimps.

Chris

Engineered wood - perhaps steel reinforced - can provide a better strength/weight compromise than steel alone.

No, efficiency means it's useful. It's a lot easier to propel something with pneumatic tyres, so you don't need as much power.

It doesn't take special machinery to repair pneumatic tyres, especially ones being run at low speeed.

Rubbish.

Solid rubber tyres are neither cheap or long lived - especially on rough terrain.

Seems like you've never felt the weight of a solid tyre.

what has that to do with efficiency?

Efficiency is about the effort required to move, not the comfort.

Hence why I said the extra weight would reduce mpg. You seem to have ignored that I said that.

A lot of the 3rd world has nice roads made by the Chinese - to extract the oil and other natural resources.

Solid tyres are only good on perfectly smooth surfaces like warehouse/factory floors. Pneumatic tyres give a nice big foot print and grip. Solid tyres have very small contact patch and will skid easily.

The whole world stopped using veg/animal oils over 60 years ago. Next you will be suggesting tallow. Had a guy from Silkolene give a talk at a bike club some years ago (like about 30), he said that in his many years working there he had only ever experienced one bike (vintage/veteran) that didn't benefit from being run on mineral oil.

A good way to keep them 3rd world forever.

Very expensive, you need to go find how much labour was dedicated to looking after the horses on a farm worked by horse and how little work they can do. Horse and cart doesn't do 4mph, if you want to go faster like a mail coach averaging 12mph you need to change the whole team every 10-15 miles. Carts used for goods need at least 2 horses. To do work a horse needs a lot of food, that has to be grown in fields that could be used to grow human food and the large surplus sold. Stupid things get sick and die or lame and useless. Horse cart and roads are not what built the modern world. It was horse and canal, then the horse can pull 72 tones and becomes a viable transport. As soon as small engines that could be operated by semi-skilled bargees were available the horse got the bullet. But before that engines that required a skilled "engineer" to operate had taken to the rails and that is what really drove the development of the modern world.

3rd world is way more advanced than Victorian England. They have been buying nearly every 3rd hand tractor in UK for the last 20 years. Are you using this racist claptrap as your reference?

The difference in weight would be so minimal it would make no difference to mpg. The lower rolling resistance of solid wheels would make a serious improvement in MPG

But solid wheels don't have a lower rolling resistance, it's higher. (unless you're on a smooth surface like a rail, but I'm assuming we're not talking about that).

Hand trucks with pneumatic tyres are easier to push than the same with solid ones.

nearest reference to the case in point (from WIKI)

Rolling resistances:

0.0003 to 0.0004: Railroad steel wheel on steel rail 0.0385 to 0.073: Stage coach (19th century) on dirt road. Soft snow on road for worst case. 0.3: Ordinary car tires on sand

Making a standard tyre many times more difficult to move than a solid wheel.

Reference

Skateboard wheels are solid, if pneumatics were better then surely skateboarders would use them? After all they have to use their own power to move them, so any reduction in rolling resistance would be leapt upon (pun intended)

I did check that page before I posted :-)

Doesn't count - solid tyres will win on smooth rail

On sand. Big difference.

You missed out

0.0045 to 0.008: Large truck (Semi) tires 0.0062 to 0.015: Car tire measurements 0.010 to 0.015: Ordinary car tires on concrete

Way better than the stage coach. Rolling resistance on sand is a special case, and requires special tyres - it's about the sand moving.

Sadly they don't have "ordinary car tyre on dirt road", or "stake coach on tarmac" values, which would give useful information.

Skateboard wheels are really hard work on roads - I tried towing a friend on a board, and was surprised at quite how much effort it was. OTOH on a nice wooden or super-smooth concrete park, the losses of solid tyres won't be as significant. It's also harder to get pneumatic tyres that small.