<p>Gerontius, he said that the answer could be expressed in two words, and that one of them was a number. If the question had remained as vague as it was stated, without any hints, that would have been a technically valid answer lol.</p>
<p>what is the circumference?</p>
<p>How about this?
Pi intothicknessofthetireintoopenbracketronesquaredminusrtwosquaredclosebracket</p>
<p>Although you probably haven’t heard of the second word owing to your pitiful vocabulary. :)</p>
<p>My answer:</p>
<p>Determine the length from the tip of an upsidedown copper US penny to Lincoln’s hair. Subtract that length from the radius of a new tire. Use width<em>pi</em>(r2-r1)^2 to determine the volume lost on the tire and multiply that by the density (in units determined through dimensional analysis) of the tire.</p>
<p>Thanks Gerontius, you gave me the idea lol. Especially with your last response.</p>
<p>@michiganfall, “good” at math is meaningless. You can pretty much always be better. I’m a usamoer, and I look at the MOPers and feel dumb. The MOPers look at the IMO golds and feel dumb. The IMO golds look at Gauss and feel dumb.</p>
<p>What’s your AIME score? 10+ is pretty solid.</p>
<p>AIME score?I don’t have AIME score.I haven’t done any real competition like that.</p>
<p>I’m the same as you…</p>
<p>I am the best at processing arithmetic equations in my head and don’t need calculators where everyone else does. I am pretty good at SAT math and those types of questions.</p>
<p>But at higher level math, I am mediocre.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah,we are on the same boat.when i was in china(in elementary school),i had always been the top 2 in my class to finish the fast calculation test without calculator and i always scored 100, when i entered 7th grade,i was still top 5 or top 10 in Math,then when i was in 8th grade,i became like average in math in my class, after 8th grade,my ranking became worse[which math became harder and harder which required more than calculation but also logic and something else.</p>
<p>Where is ConCerndDad? His question is beginning to annoy me.</p>
<p>He thought we had gotten the right answer then left.</p>
<p>I just read the question and it is already annoying me</p>
<p>Can you PM me the answer, before I kill myself.</p>
<p>^Now I really want to know too! But I’m not going to even attempt it…</p>
<p>I’m thinking of PMing ConCerndDad. Has anyone already done this? I don’t want to annoy him so much that he refuses to tell us the answer.</p>
<p>Using 1/16" as radius lost (legal limitation) and 150,000 km as distance traveled to hit that limitation (from that answers page), 10kg as mass of a tire, and 1m as circumference of a tire, and treating it as like a cylinder (the bulged out middle is compensated by the fact that it is filled with air), an estimate of about “one microgram” should be close.</p>
<p>he asks for thickness though. are you sure it would be in micrograms?</p>
<p>If he’s asking for thickness, then just use area=pi*(r2-r1)^2, where r2=r1-1/16 inches and r1=initial radius of tire. Divide the distance traveled in meters by the tire’s circumference to get the number of rotations the tire makes before it must be changed. Take that number and divide it from the area to get the thickness lost per revolution.</p>
<p>I PMed him. Hopefully he hasn’t gone to sleep yet.</p>
<p>^Shouldn’t it be pi*(r2^2-r1^2)?</p>
<p>I think he hasn’t gone to sleep.Yesterday he left at 11:00+PM eastern time.</p>
<p>Haha that sounds really stalkerish that you know his cc schedule</p>