Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      Although there is only one author of the paper, the expression "we" is always used in the text. This creates serious confusion. Also, the passive voice structure should be used to explain the setup of a research paper and present its findings and conclusions. In other words, expressions such as "we" and "you" should not be used.

2.      The analysis in the abstract is mostly qualitative, and the quantitative analysis results are lacking.

3.      In the introduction, present a synthesis of the recent papers that highlights important insights and the existing gaps in the study of these systems. Provide more information about the conclusions of these studies, showing what is new, instead of just repeating what has previously been found. In addition, the references used in the introduction are out of date. The introduction of the paper is very limited, and the number of references used is insufficient. Recent articles related to the current article have been overlooked, such as https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2019.0322.

4.      References should be given for the equations used.

5.      More detailed information about the Vericom VC4000 performance computer should be provided, such as its technical features, limitations, capabilities, usage features, and conditions. Not all readers can be expected to recognize this device.

6.      How was the placement of the Vericom VC4000 measuring device on the vehicle determined? Such devices are placed in the center of gravity of the vehicle, both in practice and in research studies. See https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2019.0322, https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407017690962. The author needs a clarification on the effect of the Vericom VC4000 performance computer's placement position on the results.

7.      "Figure 5 shows that speed does indeed affect the coefficient of friction, as other authors have found." Why were other authors not referred?

8.      The curves of different colors presented in Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 should be defined on each figure. Which one belongs to which vehicle speed condition? It is not enough for the author to know this. Readers have a right to know, too.

9.      Isn't the R2 value given in Figure 8 a rather low value? Will the author have an explanation for this result?

10.   Table 2 is not clear. If A...H each corresponds to a tire type, the tire type should be given at the first line of the table. Instead of defining the age of the tire as 1.81 years, it would be more accurate to specify it as an integer month or day. If the tire load index is defined as given on the tires (i.e., 87H), the tire speed rating can be defined similarly. Already in 87H, the first term (87) is the load index, and the H is the speed index of the tire. It's confusing. “m/s2”?

11.   Deep and mechanistic discussions are required to explain the findings and results obtained. The section "Results and discussion" is reportorial. The study's comparative analysis with others must be thoroughly discussed. The authors are obliged to explain and/or comment on all figures presented.

12.   The concluding section is very long and is prepared in the form of a story. The conclusion should summarize the main findings and results of the paper. Please provide definitive results for the paper. The analysis in the conclusion is mostly qualitative, and the quantitative analysis results are lacking. The conclusion section is missing some perspectives related to future research work.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments and review. Please find attached the file with the replies to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Influence of the tyre aging

 * for equation 1 - It will be better if you can explain all the terms, i.g. r and w.

 * i suggest to use everywhere in the paper:friction coefficent instead of coefficient of friction. 

 * On page 4, Regarding to worldwide consumption of synthetic rubber year 2010 is a lit a bit old. I may suggest for searching earliest data, at least 2020.

 *  regarding to measurement, i've seen that the author didn't take in account the tyre pressure. How it well known the tyre pressure directly affecting the friction coefficient , braking time and distance. May I suggest to write about tyre pressure for each type of tyres which was used for experimental data. 

* I have seen that the author wrote 1.81 years, 7.66 years. What is the meaning of this ? How am I suppose to consider this number ?

*At page 8 in the end, I thing the Table 3 title need to be on the next page.

*For fig. 8 I suggest to use "Friction Coefficient" instead of Coef. of friction.

* At page 12 the second sentence is finishing with "ABS" and the next sentence starts with the same word. I suggest to reformulate the sentence.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments and review. Please find attached the file with the replies to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this work, a technical study of the effects of the use of ABS and the type of road surface on the coefficient of friction of a vehicle when braking with maximum force, was reported. This manuscript will be considered for acceptable after revised based on the following comments:

1.      Abstract must be enriched via valuable results which pave the way for understanding the audiences.

2.      Written is very week. In its current state, the level of English throughout the manuscript needs language polishing. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully.

3.     The introduction section is very short and poorly described. It doesn't present the reference to the manuscript scope. In the introduction section, Authors should make an in-depth literature review concerning the application of advanced materials and composites that can be used in various fields such as improving human life, environmental protection, sustainability, and environmental remediation. Introduction has deficiency citation to valuable works published before such as: Polym Eng Sci. 2021;61:2364–2375; ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2021 Jul 7;13(26):31066-31076; Composites Part B 167 (2019) 643–653; Applied Catalysis A, General 621 (2021) 118179; authors should be cite to these works to improve introduction section.

4.      And the structure of the manuscript might need a major adjusting for a better understanding.

5.      Redesign the methods chapter the way so anybody can repeat your procedures

6.      Results and discussion: - To increase the scientific value of the manuscript Authors should consider extension of the all results section with comparison of obtained results with the results described in previous publications.

7.      What is the main significance of paper in comparison to other published works?

8.      The authors should prepare all figures with better resolution

9.      The authors should prepare all tables with better quality

10.  This work should be compared with the other work in Table form.

11.  Conclusion must be improve with obtaining data and also describe about future

12.  Indeed, there are impressive amount of results. However, the conclusions section needs to improve with selected and highlighted main findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments and review. Please find attached the file with the replies to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The ABSTRACT section is well–structured. The aims and objectives of the research are well-presented.

The paper is structured properly. The paper presents a technical study of the effects of the use of ABS and the type of 7 road surface on the coefficient of friction of a vehicle when braking with maximum force.

The INTRODUCTION section provides the necessary background information. The section is well–documented. It is comprehensive with the state of research in the field, relevant to this subject.

The MATERIALS & METHODS section is relatively well described and includes detailed information about the implementation details. This section includes all the technical details of the experimental setup, measurement procedure, and details of how the methods were validated. Overall, this section is technically and fairly detailed.

The DISCUSSIONS section succinctly summarizes the major points of the paper, presented concisely and to the point. The authors fairly conclude in just a few sentences given the rich discussion in the body of the paper. Overall, this section is well-concluded.

The Tables are representative and the Figures & Graphs have good qualities.

The list of REFERENCES is long and relatively well chosen. The entire bibliography is current.

I have not detected any mistakes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments and review. Please find attached the file with the replies to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have substantially improved their manuscript and answered most of my previous concerns. Its technical and scientific value improved fairly. English grammar errors were corrected. It now has the quality, in my opinion, to be published in its current form.

 

I accept the publication of the revised manuscript, sustainability-2298585, in Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attached document for a response to the comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, "The effect of tire age and anti-lock braking system on the coefficient of friction and braking distance”, the whole quality is not high. The discusstion is not deep and clear. So it is not recommended to be accepted.

Author Response

Please see the attached document for a response to the comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, "The effect of tire age and anti-lock braking system on the coefficient of friction and braking distance”, the whole quality is not high. The discusstion is not deep and clear. So it is not recommended to be accepted.