sky
Part of things
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 164
|
|
|
good read this ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I would like to make the point that if your government would remove the stupid rule on the tread not allowed to protrude past the arch that would remove part of the reason that owners stretch tires in the first place . Some of the rules they have on cars over there are beyond reason !!!!!! You all have my sympathy and RESPECT for continuing in the car hobby despite the maze of rules , regs , and that insane thing you call a mot !!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the concern about protruding tyres is over the amount of spray which gets thrown up on wet roads. It rains a lot here. There is also a concern about rocks or other debris being thrown up and hitting pedestrians or whatever from un-covered wheels. Our roads are prone to debris too, TBH. I can see the sense in the law to a point. Right up until I want to run a fenderless car, LOL
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
HW, IMO the Yoko looks the better from than angle. Can we see them uprigth?
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/sweetL/tidy%20heidi%20the%20tdi/20082008378.jpg) ^^ 195/40 on a 7" rim on the left ... 195/40 on a 7" rim on the right ... Toyo on the left, Yoko on the right. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ..... who makes the strechiest sidewalls then?? ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) That's crazy!
|
|
|
|
DutyFreeSaviour
Europe
Back For More heartbreak and disappointment.....
Posts: 2,944
|
|
|
Not sure about you lot - but that ^^^looks to have a serious amount of less of a footprint for being the same size etc... Not for or against stretch - but same 'size' tyres should be equal or someone is being ripped off....... As Rmad just said - that's a crazy difference in that shot
John
|
|
Back from the dead..... kind of
|
|
|
|
|
"ripped off"? Not at all. Not all tyres are the same overall width for the tread sectional width. Thats the way tyres always have been. There is no independant specification or standard for wall-to-wall width. Each company will work to its own standards for development. So long as each Toyo is the same as the next Toyo and each Dunlop is the same as the next Dunlop then thats right.
if you put them on the "correct" size rim then they will probably look a lot similar. Note the "" around "correct".
EDIT: I'm back after looking again and I'm not sure I'd be happy with the Toyo in comparison to the Yokohama at all now. It does appear to have got a narrower tread section than the Yoko and doesn't fit the 7" rim at all well. a 195 should be fine on a 7" rim.
comes back to the original point: What rim size does Toyo recommend for that tyre though? If they say only to go fit on a 6" - 6.5" rim and you pop it on a 7" rim you can hardly complain it doesn't fit...
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 6, 2008 13:57:32 GMT by akku
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Just realised that may be an 8 inch rim ,... Thread here : forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4014030&page=1But it still stands that both those 195s stretch in different ways. I'm trying to find some photos of a 195/40/14 on a 7inch rim. Should be square with low profile... but not seen any photos yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the concern about protruding tyres is over the amount of spray which gets thrown up on wet roads. It rains a lot here. There is also a concern about rocks or other debris being thrown up and hitting pedestrians or whatever from un-covered wheels. Our roads are prone to debris too, TBH. I can see the sense in the law to a point. Right up until I want to run a fenderless car, LOL So, what I want to know is why are tractors and quad bikes allowed to run with no fenders or mudguards?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the concern about protruding tyres is over the amount of spray which gets thrown up on wet roads. It rains a lot here. There is also a concern about rocks or other debris being thrown up and hitting pedestrians or whatever from un-covered wheels. Our roads are prone to debris too, TBH. I can see the sense in the law to a point. Right up until I want to run a fenderless car, LOL So, what I want to know is why are tractors and quad bikes allowed to run with no fenders or mudguards? Agricultural vehicles are not under the same laws as road vehicles, quads got this classification not that many years ago, which is why they suddenly started appearing on the road, before that they were illegal to run on the streets.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
|
So, what I want to know is why are tractors and quad bikes allowed to run with no fenders or mudguards? cos when the laws for argricultural vehicles were written the average farm vehicle was like ![](http://blog.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/graphics/burrell_traction_engine.jpg) and could only do like 2 MPH. So throwing up stones and spray isn't much of an issue.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
kevfromwales
Posted a lot
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
the conrod's REALLY out the block now!
Posts: 3,909
|
|
|
yeah ak, fair point, but what about them new-fangled sooper dooper quads that seem to be bombing around recently (esp round here) - absolutely NO front fenders at all, and very little on the back???
- kev
|
|
Almost on the road: b11 sunny breadvan, e36 tds, 325i skidcar,
nearly there: ford f250 tathauler, suzuki alto, u11 bluey
not for a while: ford pop, 32 rails,
not in this lifetime: ruby, '29 hillman
''unfortanatly I'm quite old and scruffy and in need of some loving. my drive shaft needs a new boot....''
|
|
|
|
|
the law is slow to catch up with these things. they are meant to be used principally off road
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
www.atvworld.com/roadlegalquads.htmfound this page on quads while googling. They gertainly don't seem to have much in the way of mudguards, and certainly have exposed front wheels/suspension, but is there a special class for quads, with different rules? seems to me, they either are type approved for use as road vehicles from new, or subject to SVA as a modified vehicle, just like anything else. Suddenly getting ideas about a fenderless bike engined tot-rod..... oops ;D
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
|
|
|
If you really calculate the amount of force pushing the tyrewall out through air pressure alone (ignoring friction completely) it's quite high, from memory around 900kg for my rear tyres.
The action of the stretch alone is unlikely to be "pulling" the bead away from the seat with anything like that sort of force.
In the case of low tyre pressures, then none of us can deny that a stretched tyre is more likely to come off the rim, but what about the case of a 225/30/18 on an 8 inch rim - Perfectly legal, but many times more likely to cause grief than a 195/60/15 through low pressure/potholes etc.
Huge amounts of stretch, like that in the original post on the police forum are excessive, but in the case of most of us (195s on an 8.5 rim) we aren't creating anything more of a safety issue than by just having very low profile tyres.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just redid my calculations. They are rough but will be accurate enough for our purposes, to get a general order of magnitude of the forces involved.
Area of sidewall is 150,000 square mm for a 195/45/15 tyre. This is 233 Square inches. At 30 PSI, this is 6990Lb total force. Lets assume half of this is pushing the bead outwards. This gives us 3495Lb, or 1587Kg.
I can't really calculate how much it will take to pull the sidewall of a tyre out an inch, but I'm sure we can agree it isn't going to be much more than 200kg, still giving us a nice margin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For what its worth and not really a lot!
The police enforce the law, which does not mean they the law.
|
|
|
|
J.P
Posted a lot
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks.
Posts: 1,175
|
|
|
In the case of low tyre pressures, then none of us can deny that a stretched tyre is more likely to come off the rim, but what about the case of a 225/30/18 on an 8 inch rim - Perfectly legal, but many times more likely to cause grief than a 195/60/15 through low pressure/potholes etc. Exactly the point that many people don't seem to understand. The point to take from it is that you are using something that is modified and, in many cases exceeding 'Guidlines' so its your duty to take extra care of pressures and keeping on top of them. Huge amounts of stretch, like that in the original post on the police forum are excessive, but in the case of most of us (195s on an 8.5 rim) we aren't creating anything more of a safety issue than by just having very low profile tyres. Fully agree with the safety of a small stretch, which rarely has any major effect. To give the opinion from a 'stretcher', I run the same stretch on my daily, (195/45 on a 10J) and have covered 5000miles with no problems atall. They were fitted in the same time it takes to fit 4 unstretched tyres and have never leaked. The arches are sufficiently rolled that they don't rub the arches. Never had any problems with handling either, mainly as it's about low and slow. Tread is within the arch too, and the wheels don't stick out further than the mirrors, actually a small poke in the grand scale of things, so IMO they aren't causing a problem.
|
|
|
|
sky
Part of things
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 164
|
|
|
the concern about protruding tyres is over the amount of spray which gets thrown up on wet roads. It rains a lot here. There is also a concern about rocks or other debris being thrown up and hitting pedestrians or whatever from un-covered wheels. Our roads are prone to debris too, TBH. I can see the sense in the law to a point. Right up until I want to run a fenderless car, LOL That may be , BUT ---- roadsters look STUPID with fenders !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd get violent if someone tried to give me a ticket for it or force me to put fenders on it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![](http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m231/2SKYBANE2/parts/111111111111111111111111077.jpg)
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 6, 2008 22:45:09 GMT by sky
|
|
|
|
|
For what its worth and not really a lot! The police enforce the law, which does not mean they the law.![](http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/comics/wallpapers/judge-dredd-anthrax.jpg) ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just redid my calculations. They are rough but will be accurate enough for our purposes, to get a general order of magnitude of the forces involved. Area of sidewall is 150,000 square mm for a 195/45/15 tyre. This is 233 Square inches. At 30 PSI, this is 6990Lb total force. Lets assume half of this is pushing the bead outwards. This gives us 3495Lb, or 1587Kg. I can't really calculate how much it will take to pull the sidewall of a tyre out an inch, but I'm sure we can agree it isn't going to be much more than 200kg, still giving us a nice margin. All very lovely calculations and I'm not mathmatical enough to argue about them, but I would say if you have a 1000kg car and its pulling 1G on a corner is that not 1000kg trying to move your tyres sideways? now lets say that force is spread 75% (i think its probably way more than this after seeing a lot of fwd cars picking rear wheels up on hard cornering) onto the outside two tyres thats 750kg through 4 sidewalls which is about 187kgs each, so its not far off your 200kg is it? and it don't take into account any bumps in the road or the fact the your trying to put power down or the fact that I'm pretty much sure the forces are not spread equally between the inner and outer sidewalls on the tyres.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|