Re: story about tyres on TV tonight

"Noddy" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:482d37bc$0$58050$c30e37c6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > That's true, but doesn't mean it has no long term negative affect on
the
> > rubber.
>
> It doesn't mean it has *any* effect.

And doesn't mean it doesn't, just as I said. If it's cost affective to
have
them structurally analysed and tested, go for it.

>It's called "grease paper" because it
> has a non stick surface. Not because it's actually covered in grease.

It is called grease paper because it *IS* impregnated with grease or
similar
compounds.
Did you think it was just normal paper waved with a magic wand?

> > Expected storage was not 50 years after all!
>
> No, but that doesn't mean it wasn't capable of being stored for that
long
> (and then some).

Not when all you require is to keep the rims off the ground I guess.

> > I'd be worried about 50 years in a tin shed too.
>
> Wouldn't worry me in the slightest.

I'd even be worried to share the road with such a moron.

> As long as they weren't getting wet, exposed to direct sunlight or
continued
> heat I wouldn't expect the change in them from the day they were first
> popped out of the mould to be so insignificantly small you'd have
trouble
> measuring it.

What *you'd* expect and reality are two different things unfortunately.

> > Yes, your point being?
>
> The point being that they're the kind of tyre that perform absolutely
> ****house on dry asphalt on their best day.

No argument there.

> > It's OK to place no value on your own life, but IF you drive it on the
> > road,
> > you have a responsibilty to other road users as well.
>
> I don't own it anymore, but I did drive it on occasion.
>
> My obligation to other road users is limited to the vehicle being
*legal*,
> and it certainly was in terms of it's mechanical condition.

What a load of crap. It's exactly that kind of stupidity that creates so
many laws trying to protect people from themselves.

>However, in
> having said that the vehicle itself was an appaling thing to drive on a
road
> compared to almost anything you'd care to name as it was built purely as
an
> off-road vehicle expected to see service in demanding conditions. As
such,
> when driven on a paved road it had woeful brakes and steering, handled
like
> a pogo stick, and had the worst ride quality of the 100 odd vehicles
I've
> ever owned.

As I would expect. So why are you proud of the fact?

> As a counter (be it purposely built-in or by accident) as it made about
as
> much power as a ride on mower, and combined with it's three speed manual
> trans, it never went anywhere quick enough to be a problem, or had
enough
> power to tax it's chassis/brakes/suspension to beyond their limits.

I'll bet even it's woeful brakes could tax those tyres in the wet.

> > In your opinion, especially if no effort to measure it is made!
>
> And how would you do that exactly? Run braking efficiency tests on a
model
T
> Ford? Do you *really* think a modern replica tyre would make the
slightest
> difference? :)

Yep, but I thought you said a Jeep, not a model T in any case?
I actually know someone with a model T, and he would not risk his baby on
50YO cracked tyres giving way.

> Bear in mind that the kind of tyres I'm talking about here are usually
> fitted to vehicles who's road manners would not be improved in the
slightest
> if they were fitted with the best racing slicks you could buy.

I already acknowledged it was unsafe at any speed no matter what tyres
were
fitted. However I will bet money there was a measureable difference in the
wet with new Vs 50YO tyres.

> > All we can really hope for is that such vehicles end up wrapped around
a
> > tree before anybody else gets hurt.
>
> When you say "we", are you speaking for everyone or have you suddenly
taken
> to addressing yourself in the royal capacity?

All the people forced to share the road (and their lives) with such
vehicles.

 > You'd probably find that the people who go to such extremes as finding
> original NOS tyres for older vehicles probably never drive their
vehicles
> for fear of getting them dirty.

We can only hope.

>Most tend to be trailer queens on the show
> circuits with things like NOS tyres being ultimate points grabbers for
the
> judges, and those like me who did the odd driving event or two did so on
> occasions where they were likely to be in the company of other similar
> vehicles and not used in normal traffic.

So all this blathering is rather pointless then. Vehicles not used on the
road would not be affected by legislation.

>For those who like to *drive* their
> cars they'd more than likely opt for a modern tyre simply because of the
> improvements in tyre designs since the days when the car was first
built.

And yet you claim there is no difference.

> I would have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in using old tyres that
> were new ( in the sense that they'd never been fitted to a vehicle)
provided
> they were of a type that was suitable for the kind of use I had in mind,
and
> they'd been stored under cover (and by that I'm talking about nothing
more
> elaborate than how your local tyre retailer stores his stock in his
> warehouse).
>
> I have a pair of unused 15 inch Yokohama 352's that have got to be ten
years
> old if they're a day sitting in the parts storage area of one of my
garages
> and they're a fantastic tyre. I won't think twice about fitting them to
my
> current project vehicle when it's completed and I don't expect them to
> perform the slightest bit differently to any that were made last week
(if
I
> could still get them).

What you expect bears no link with reality obviously. However I would
expect
10YO Yoko 352's to be a little better than 50YO X-ply bar treads, even if
you can't tell the difference :-)

The real question is at what point they become unsafe. And that depends on
so many factors besides age, that just banning tyres after 5 or ten years
is
nearly as stupid as using 50YO tyres on public roads.

MrT.