Re: story about tyres on TV tonight

"Mr.T" <MrT@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:482e939d$0$1027$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?

No, I was suggesting that it's *not* papar that's covered in a layer of 
sticky grease.

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

Worry as much as you like.

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

Experience doesn't count for much with you, huh?

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

What the **** did that bull**** have anything to do in the slightest with 
what I just said?

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

Of what fact in particular? That it was a **** handling car?

That was the whole point of my argument which was seemingly lost on you.
It 
mattered not if the car had brand spanking new tyres made yesterday or
ones 
made 50 years ago, as they made zero difference to the thing's
performance.

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

Bet all you like, but you'd be just as wrong on that score as you are on 
every other.

> Yep, but I thought you said a Jeep, not a model T in any case?

I did, but the Modet T thing was in reference to people who find and fit 
tyres from the 1920's.

> I actually know someone with a model T, and he would not risk his baby
on
> 50YO cracked tyres giving way.

Good for him.

> 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.

Bet big :)

Of course, we're talking about new bar treads versus NOS ones, right? In 
that case you'd do your balls big time.

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

What were the results of your survey?

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

Those that are unregistered certainly. Those that are are subject to the 
legislation with particulars relative to the age of the vehicle.

> And yet you claim there is no difference.

You're not big on comprehension are you?

I'm claiming that *age* makes little difference to a tyre. Not progress.

> What you expect bears no link with reality obviously.

According to you, and you've shown me nothing to conclude that you have a 
clue.

> 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 :-)

Oh, I can tell but I'd wager that you wouldn't know the difference between

either if I covered them with grease paper and pounded them sideways up
your 
fat arse :)

> The real question is at what point they become unsafe.

At the same point that *any* tyre becomes unsafe. When they are visibly 
defective, or no longer perform aqdequately.

> And that depends on so many factors besides age,

No ****ing ****?

I thought that's what I was saying all along :)

> that just banning tyres after 5 or ten years is
> nearly as stupid as using 50YO tyres on public roads.

Not quite.

What's *really* stupid is people who have never done something telling 
someone who has many times that what he is doing doesn't work.

Now *that's* stupid.

--
Regards,
Noddy.