Bill.Satellite wrote:
8 percent decrease in rolling resistance equals what? It does not equal an 8% reduction in fuel usage and it does not mean that you saved 8% on your fuel costs. You might save some fuel, but what happens if your one and only tire goes flat in the middle of nowhere? I had an inside dual go flat but I was able to limp to a town some 40 miles away without any damage to my coach. Would you be able to say the same?
You are correct but the 8% was mis-stated. That is actual fuel savings, not decrease in rolling resistance. The DOE ran tests and found savings of 6 to 10% on semi's with greater savings being on ones more heavily loaded. http://www.tirebusiness.com/article/20090413/NEWS/304139989/super-singles-deliver-better-fuel-economy-doe-study
I just wonder how much extra fuel would be saved with the flat wheel covers that are getting more popular and if there are any that are not so ugly.
Since motorhomes have a different ratio of drive axles to total axles the savings may be less but still should be significant.
I had both inside tires on my coach go flat but it was because they were duals (the valve stem extensions leaked). The worst part was that I almost didn't notice because because they were on the inside. If I had gone on a trip that way I expect that at least one would have exploded doing untold damage to the coach. I have since installed TPMS but I am game for super singles if I can find any with a low enough profile. I am running 255/70 R22.5 tires.