No it's not.

*3rd*, sorry I went and looked to make sure

Just a bunch of idiots talking about cars

I mean there are 0 results for it, unless you linked the wrong thing.

11 for compression, none of that line.

I just clicked on it

Is this not the link? https://www.nap.edu/read/12924/chapter/4#23

If you linked something else it was scrolled out before you even said that, I guess you did.

Do you guys have a favorite tread pattern

oh piss off

I like the ones that push water out of the tracks

Oh

I guess that is kind of an answer, a tread pattern doesn't have to push water out

Don't they usually

Some people put those on backwards for offroad use so the outer edges can grab the edges of rocks.

most of the off roading ones don't really push water out

they're more for digging into things

Well anyway

Your answer is wrong

The correct favorite tread pattern is no tread

You're correct.

no because that looks boring

I want pretty patterns in rubber

Well

@Fitzydog how do you reconcile the idea of an "economy car" with a higher compression ratio to increase fuel economy with the higher cost of the higher octane fuel the buyer will have to use to allow for the higher compression?

I guess I can't fault you for that. I also like pretty patterns in rubber

@Matt Mazda lowered their engine from 14:1 to 13:1 to run on 87oct

For the US

Well that would imply that US consumers are not getting that increase in efficiency.

It's still *THIRTEEN TO ONE*

It's not like they just flipped a switch and 'turned off' the efficiency

(figuratively)

https://youtu.be/hU0Whx7EZic

I wonder what the champagne compression ratio is

do you think high compression champagne is more delicious

Yes

Yeah definitely

Rat Attac should watch this video

He left

Oh ok