Talk:Aquaplaning

Messy

this planing stuff is a mess --

-- and whats worse I think this article is technically wrong -- surely aquaplaning (or whatever) is the loss of friction between the vehicle and the ground, the wheels can rotate or not, until there is sufficient traction then the rotation of the wheels don't effect the vehicles speed.-- IMHO the problem when aquaplaning is steering, because without the tires being on the road you cannot steer. What happens as i recall is water builds up in a wave in front of the tires, a thin layer of water is trapped between the tyre and the road. The tread of the tyre tries to force the water to the outside the tire to increase grip.

Maybe someone could spellcheck, review and do something with the above

I think i this section needs a major tidy up

--Davelane 23:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should this still be a stub?

Has this article evolved enough to remove the stub listings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epolk (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 June 2005

Dual wheels

I believe that there was a sports car that had dual wheels, arranged inline, in order to combat hydroplaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.38.195 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 July 2005

Stop rotating?

"They stop rotating," <---do they ever actually stop? This seems wrong.

Also, would planing on leaves be called "hydroplaning?" Hydro means water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.44.39.88 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 25 January 2006

Rewrite

I rewrote a lot of this article. In general, I feel it's technically accurate, though there is one particular line I'm not comfortable with:

"An element between the tires and the road that reduces friction, then, will diminish control. If that element is nonfrictional, like water, the vehicle may lose control entirely."

Water isn't 'nonfrictional'. I left it that way because clarifying would have ovewhelmed the point of that line, but what I meant is that water has very little relative friction with itself compared to that between rubber and road. I'm sure there's a technical term for this; adhesive coefficient or somesuch, though I suspect instead of finding it, that line could be rewritten to skirt around it.

Alexdi 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I should take a picture of the front of my car with the subheading: "This is what happens when a car hydroplanes into a jersey barrier on an interstate". — Deckiller 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Spammed?

I was reading the article and I noticed something that shouldn't have been there. I don't know the real thing to put instead, and I haven't altered the article, but this line needs to be changed: "Water pressure in front of the wheel forces a nigger to die under the leading edge of the tire, causing it to lift from the road." Sciwizeh (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Viscous Hydroplaning

The Crash Forensics paper referred to has no references, and seems to be a re-hash of someone else's thoughts. I think it is wrong, and have not seen similar descriptions in refereed technical papers on hydroplaning (these are not on the web), so cannot "prove" it is wrong. It is the usual 'the web is a rumour mill' result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.87.155 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Forensics paper is a partial summary of what appears in the legal book reference. The entirety of the latter's hydroplaning entry is available via Google book search, and more authoritative. Alexdi (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Longer is better?

It is easy to see why narrower tires will hydroplane less because they have less water to cut into and displace with the same weight/force. What I don't understand is why why longer contact area (therefore larger diameter)tires will help as mentioned in the article. Water skiis are long and thin yet hydroplane easily. My thinking is that you would want to minimize the area of contact in both dimensions to create maximum pressure on the road. Can any one explain how longer/larger diameter will help with a given fixed width and weight (all else equal)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.204.61 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is correct, but a ski has a perfectly flat surface, helping it skim over the top of the water. A tyre is rough and the vehicle will be slowed down more by a longer tyre, which will reduce the speed quicker than a shorter tyre would, which will might make the car less prone to aquaplaning. I'm going to add a citation needed note to this line of the article. Abhi Beckert (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I might guess that a short tire has greater curvature, which implies less time for the water to clear before the contact patch flattens. The sources linked in the article may provide a better explanation. Alexdi (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Longer is better?

It is easy to see why narrower tires will hydroplane less because they have less water to cut into and displace with the same weight/force. What I don't understand is why why longer contact area (therefore larger diameter)tires will help as mentioned in the article. Water skiis are long and thin yet hydroplane easily. My thinking is that you would want to minimize the area of contact in both dimensions to create maximum pressure on the road. Can any one explain how longer/larger diameter will help with a given fixed width and weight (ie. all else equal)? Appreciate

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 32 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Aquaplaning → Hydroplaning (tires) – Article was moved without discussion. Apparently hydroplaning is exclusive to American English. Per WP:ENGVAR we should keep the existing variety. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose for now, Aquaplaning seems to be the common name World wide[1][2][3][4][5] (except the US). Main reason for me to weak oppose rather then strongly oppose is that the Collins English Dictionary uses hydroplan. Bidgee (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Case of WP:ENGVAR, and for the record Canada predominately employs hydroplaning. Don't have a copy of the Canadian Oxford, but would change my vote if it employs Aquaplaning.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Both aquaplane and hydroplane have similar entries in Canadian Oxford. There is no explicit label of preference; however, for the meaning to "glide uncontrollably on the wet surface of a road", the entry for aquaplane does cross-refer to hydroplane, implying a preference for hydroplane. SSR (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If Hydroplaning is exclusive to AmEng then we should keep Aquaplaning as per WP:COMMONALITY. Zarcadia (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hydroplaning Aquaplaning is generally never used in American English so there is no opportunity for commonality. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a typo in your message, Marcus, because hydroplane appears to be far more common than aquaplane, if not used exclusively, in American English. Hydroplane gets 3 hits and aquaplane gets 0 hits on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website. Hydroplane gets 10 hits and aquaplane gets 0 hits on the National Transportation Safety Board website, although one of the 10 appears to be about boats. The rest are in accident reports and sound like this: "contact with the puddle in the southbound lanes of U.S. 1 was of insufficient extent and duration to have caused the vehicle to hydroplane and did not contribute to the accident."

Instead, I believe the commonality to which Zarcadia refers is in all the other English speaking countries that do not use American English. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RETAIN; it was in American English 2004-2011, and that should be retained. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: if "aquaplaning" is common to most other English-speaking areas, then it would seem that WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:RETAIN. Am I incorrect? Powers ^T 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's correct (but I could be wrong). My understanding is that for COMMONALITY to apply the term has to at least be "in use" in all (major) English-speaking regions, so that someone from, in this case, the US would at least understand the term, even if it not the one they would be most used to. Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. While I respect ENGVAR, the advantage of Aquaplaning is that it doesn't need disambiguation as with Hydroplaning (tires). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Revert per nom. The case for the move is not compelling. The move was done (in hindsight) without consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that as the admin who moved it originally, I have absolutely no opinion about the correct title; I moved it based on some sources shown by another editor, not knowing that there was a contentious issue revolving around varieties of English. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If it were just "aquaplaning" vs "hydroplaning" I'd support moving back to the original title per ENGVAR. However, as hydroplaning requires disambiguation I think that, in this specific instance, it would be better to ignore the rule and place the article at the title that doesn't require disambiguation (i.e. the current title). Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pictures

The second picture "Two vehicles aquaplaning" is misleading. The cars are going trough puddle and watter is splahing and that's all. There is no aquaplanning. But I have no better picture :( David Valenta (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aquaplaning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725022326/http://www.atlantaclaims.org/files/Newsletters/2006/10October/10-06%20Claimscene.pdf to http://www.atlantaclaims.org/files/Newsletters/2006/10October/10-06%20Claimscene.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090624023403/http://www.sago114.com:80/Inc/down_new.asp?TB_NAME=TB_MENU&idx=130&f_field=filename1&f_dir=TB_MENU&f_gubun=1 to http://www.sago114.com/Inc/down_new.asp?TB_NAME=TB_MENU&idx=130&f_field=filename1&f_dir=TB_MENU&f_gubun=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquaplaning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103125549/http://www.crashforensics.com/papers.cfm?PaperID=8 to http://www.crashforensics.com/papers.cfm?PaperID=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Possibly an ENGVAR issue, although several !votes rely on personal experience. No such user (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Aquaplaning → Hydroplaning – Hydroplaning seems to be the much more common word. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 09:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Anecdotally, "aquaplaning" is the term I'm more familiar with. Of course, both "hydro" and "aqua" just mean water, so both terms are correct. Is it a UK vs US thing? Here in Australia we tend to follow the UK for most terms but occasionally follow the US (eg truck, not lorry).  Stepho  talk  10:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Truck is pretty common in the UK. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Likewise, I'm most familiar with "aquaplaning". So I don't think there's any good reason for the move. Both are used. Maybe a WP:ENGVAR issue (I'm from the UK); the OED says "aquaplaning" is originally American in origin and "hydroplaning" is "chiefly U.S.", which suggests the latter may be more commonly used in the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think this fits within ENGVAR because no country/region has any strong WP:TIES to either term, and both terms are recognizable to all English variants. So rather than let inertia based only on who happened to create the article first (a poor rationale), lets go with something objective, like Google Ngrams which shows that "hydroplaning" has about 3-4x the prevalence across all English sources, which establishes a MOS:COMMONALITY and recognizability for the most readers. -- Netoholic @ 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Added: I'll also point out that a portion of those Ngrams results include instances related to aquaplaning (sport), so hydroplaning is be even more prevalent than at first glance. -- Netoholic @ 13:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  both terms are recognizable to all English variants. Are they? I'm not sure I'd agree. As a Brit, I would be more likely to think hydroplaning was some sort of sport! "hydroplaning" has about 3-4x the prevalence across all English sources. Yes, well obviously it's going to have if it's the common name in the USA! Using that reasoning, we'd always default to the American terminology in every article with an ENGVAR issue with no specific national ties. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't an ENGVAR issue... its more like first-mover advantage where the creator of the article happened to use "aquaplaning", and strictly based on inertia is the article still at this title. I'm exasperated by the British voters so far who are insisting on retaining their preferred minority-usage term rather than using objective measures - so self-serving - and based on wrong assumptions. Even if you limit the Ngrams to British English sources, the usages are functionally dead-even today. Now, I believe if you're an older Brit, you probably grew up with "aquaplaning" as a term, but your limited personal experience is not what we should be basing article naming on. Have some respect for the clear majority of readers and get over it. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Cambridge (UK) dictionary says hydroplaning is a US thing and that aquaplaning is a UK thing: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hydroplaning

  Merriam-Webster (US) also think that the verb aquaplane is a British thing compared to the US hydroplane: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aquaplane

  Which shows that it is an ENGVAR issue.  Stepho  talk  23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Such vehement insistence on retaining a minority-usage term is the exact opposite of the spirit of ENGVAR. Citing competing dictionaries is pointless since we already know these are definitionally the same. We should use objective standards to measure the usage, and title the article based on the most common of the two terms. I might shock you with this, but there are more places that speak English than the US and the UK. -- Netoholic @ 23:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  The spirit of ENGVAR is that we should retain the form in which and title with which the article was originally written. Nothing else. Otherwise we would always default to American usage because of the size of the US and their dominance of the internet. there are more places that speak English than the US and the UK. Indeed there are, but of those that speak it as a native language most are part of the Commonwealth, which predominantly follow British usage. And this is, in any case, irrelevant to ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Netoholic, a prominent UK dictionary and a prominent US dictionary both agree that it is a UK vs US thing. That's rather hard to ignore.

  Google Ngrams points to hydroplaning being more common and Google fights points to aquaplaning being more common. Neither explains where the numbers come from and both are suspect. Do ngrams and googlefight include hydroplaning for submarines, fast seaboats or the sport aquaplaning? See WP:GOOGLE and WP:GNUM.

  I may shock you but I've already declared that I am Australian and that we have a blend of UK and US English (plus a little of our own). I've also lived and worked in multiple countries. I'm quite used to variations of English dialects and variations among other languages (if you want real variation, try using a beginner's knowledge of written Chinese to navigate the Japanese railway system - not perfect but it sufficed).

  Vehement? Actually I was close to neutral. If the article was already 'hydroplaning' then I would not have argued for it to be 'aquaplaning'. Both terms are valid but we try not to change for the sake of change. It's your insistence that we change and your willingness to reject anything that doesn't support your argument that fuels my willingness to give counterarguments.  Stepho  talk  00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Anyone actually trying to suggest that "Googlefight" is a rational method of resolving this should have their vote weighed considerably down. Your personal experience is likewise irrelevant. The people voting oppose here are doing so for seemingly national pride reasons, also ridiculous. We are not changing this "for the sake of change". The only standard we should be using is the most COMMONNAME among all English speakers, a very reasonable position and an adequate justification for a change. -- Netoholic @ 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Anyone actually trying to suggest that "ngrams" is a rational method of resolving this should have their vote weighed considerably down. Your personal experience is likewise irrelevant. Hey, this form of trash talk discussion is fun!

  But seriously, if you think that two of the most prominent English dictionaries on the planet mean nothing then you're not playing with a full deck.  Stepho  talk  12:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Dictionaries don't establish relative usage for determining WP:COMMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 04:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The dictionaries do establish that both varieties are valid and that it is a UK vs US thing, thus establishing that ENGVAR comes into play.  Stepho  talk  04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Netoholic sorry for disappointing you so :( (do emojis weight my contributions also?). What about Google trends then? YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Its WAY ahead of using Googlefight, and I wouldn't base my vote on Trends, but if you're gonna, at least expand the timeframe beyond 12 months to see the actual trend... and note that hydroplaning is ahead. Kinda self-owned yourself on this one. -- Netoholic @ 04:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  None of the google stats are definitive in either direction. It's not about counting (because we don't know the context of how they count). Obviously you didn't read WP:GOOGLE and WP:GNUM. Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one. This discussion has been a lot more fun since you started the trash talk aspect of it!  Stepho  talk  04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  You're being vile. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop WP:BLUDGEONing my comments to others here. -- Netoholic @ 07:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. And your side of the bargain is to recognise that you can't just handwave away points that don't support your side and that there's no downvoting of those that don't agree with you. I was close to neutral until you decided your view trumps everyone else.  Stepho  talk  07:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Never heard hydroplaning before now. Aquaplaning also wins a Googlefight! YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @YorkshireExpat Aquaplaning is also an unrelated sport though Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 14:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Immanuelle at least on my google search the effect on traffic is quite clearly the primary topic. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Necro. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support The term hydroplaning is far more common, and this seems to be wiki stubbornness/proscriptivism over valuing actual usage, just like the previous article on "shoegazing" versus the far more common and recognized name "shoegaze," which took forever to rectify. The article should be named hydroplaning. 2601:405:4400:9420:50B5:BD47:2846:F0B (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  More common by what basis? See the above discussion about anecdotes, UK vs US and Google ngrams vs googlefight.  Stepho  talk  00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:ENGVAR trying to swap varieties of English for no reason as, there is no particularly reason why Britishers or Americaners have a excessive bond with losing control of cars -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Hydroplaning is provably the more common term by a wide margin [6], even with the unrelated sport artificially inflating numbers for aquaplaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal

I was thinking it might make sense to merge Mudplaning (tires) into this article since it’s so short and it doesn’t seem totally necessary for it to be a standalone article. I’m not super familiar with merging so input would be appreciated :] Eatingbugs (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

To merge, create a new section in this article and copy the contents over. Replace the contents of the mudplanning article with #redirect [[Aquaplaning]]

If not sure then try it anyway and one of us can fix up any mistakes.

But wait a few days so that others can comment.  Stepho  talk  23:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)