---- "Joseph T. " <[email protected]> wrote:
=============
As terribly ridiculous it sounds, it's true unfortunately. Tires that
are over 6 years old have aged, believe it or not from just sitting
there. The tires, despite little/no use, have deteriated enough to
make them dangerous. This article talks all about it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/27/eveningnews/consumer/main698335.shtml
I'm sorry to hear that, and I kind of doubt that any EV tires have
been produced in the last six years or so. Well, there are the Tesla
Roadster tires. I've heard that the Roadster's tires have a "good" RR
number.
On 7/26/07, Ricky Suiter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well I had one in my hand today and then it was taken
> away. I received a call late last week saying they
> found a set of them hidden in a warehouse in
> California, cool! I received a call this morning
> informing me they had arrived. Having been caught off
> guard without wheels I said I'd just come by and pay
> for them and take them so they wouldn't be taking up
> space in their store after all I had gone through to
> get them.
>
> I was on my way to get them and I received another
> call, they started looking closely at them and they
> discovered the date code on two of them was for 2000
> and the other two were for 2001. I'm not sure if it
> was a legal thing, or just corporate policy but they
> wouldn't sell me a tire that was that old. I asked if
> I could at least come look at them after all that,
> they said yes. I held one in my hand and examined the
> sidewall. Sure enough molded in to the side wall were
> the words "For Electric Vehicle Use Only" I'm sure
> they had some extra load capacity built in, they were
> 51psi tires. The tread looked all sorts of funky, this
> is the tire efficient EV wet dreams are made out of.
> It was in my hand and I couldn't take it.
>
> So we're back to the drawing board, but I'm assured I
> will eventually get a good set of them... I just have
> the feeling they are going to have to come from Japan
> now for real. I really really want to put a set on a
> car and see how they compare, I have high
> expectations.
>
> Later,
> Rick
> 92 Saturn SC conversion
> AZ Alt Fuel Plates "ZEROGAS"
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
>
>
Joseph T. wrote:
> As terribly ridiculous it sounds, it's true unfortunately. Tires that
> are over 6 years old have aged, believe it or not from just sitting
> there. The tires, despite little/no use, have deteriated enough to
> make them dangerous. This article talks all about it:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/27/eveningnews/consumer/main698335.shtml
While I don't doubt that tires age, I must say that I don't believe the
effect is nearly as bad as this article indicates. It has a
sensationalist tone, and no real facts.
I would expect that as a tire ages, its load-carrying capacity (and
other parameters) will gradually decrease. Fine... *how much* capacity
does it lose after 6 years? 1%? 10%? 50%?
I *know* I've run tires more than twice the "6 year" age that article
touts, with not one single failure. I can think of endless numbers of
cases where people with old or classic cars are running tires that are
decades old. So my guess is that the percent degradation is low. It
would only matter in cases where the tire was already being run at its
full load capacity even when new.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
> Joseph T. wrote:
>> As terribly ridiculous it sounds, it's true unfortunately. Tires that
>> are over 6 years old have aged, believe it or not from just sitting
>> there. The tires, despite little/no use, have deteriated enough to
>> make them dangerous. This article talks all about it:
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/27/eveningnews/consumer/main698335.shtml
>
> While I don't doubt that tires age, I must say that I don't believe the
> effect is nearly as bad as this article indicates. It has a sensationalist
> tone, and no real facts.
>
> I would expect that as a tire ages, its load-carrying capacity (and other
> parameters) will gradually decrease. Fine... *how much* capacity does it
> lose after 6 years? 1%? 10%? 50%?
>
> I *know* I've run tires more than twice the "6 year" age that article
> touts, with not one single failure. I can think of endless numbers of
> cases where people with old or classic cars are running tires that are
> decades old. So my guess is that the percent degradation is low. It would
> only matter in cases where the tire was already being run at its full load
> capacity even when new.
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
> 269.10.20/919 - Release Date: 7/26/2007 9:56 AM
>
>
Phil Marino wrote:
>
>
>
>> From: Brian Jackson <[email protected]>
>> Reply-To: [email protected]
>> To: [email protected]
>> CC: "Joseph T. " <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:45:16 -0700
>>
>> True, old tires are very dangerous. Even if they don't blow out, they
>> get hard and have poor traction. I am ashamed to admit that I
>> actually caused an accident this way. I have an old set of tires on
>> my Corvair truck too. They don't have many miles on them, but they're
>> about 10 years old. One of them blew out last week while the truck
>> was parked.
>>
>> I have been looking at these tires for my EV project.
>>
>> http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+RE92&vehicleSearch=false&partnum=665SR4RE92&fromCompare1=yes&place=0
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the long link. I have been looking at these because they
>> are as narrow and as low profile as I can find for a 14" tire.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
> Brian - do you know the rolling resistance factor for RE92's ? I
> don't think I've ever seen them in a chart of low rolling resistance
> tires.
>
> If you look at the GreenSeal paper, two of the lowest tires ( the
> Bridgestone B381's and the Sumitomo HTR 200's are available in stock
> at TireRack in 14 inch sizes - although not as narrow as the RE92 you
> are looking at.
>
> Why do you want the narrowest tire? Do you need a tire that small to
> fit in your wheel well?
>
> If not, it is more important to have a low rolling resistance tire.
> This depends on the material and construction of the tire, not its width.
>
>
> Phil Marino
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
>
>
Brian Jackson wrote:
> True, old tires are very dangerous. Even if they don't blow out, they
> get hard and have poor traction. I am ashamed to admit that I
> actually caused an accident this way. I have an old set of tires on
> my Corvair truck too. They don't have many miles on them, but they're
> about 10 years old. One of them blew out last week while the truck
> was parked.
Did you examine the tire to see what caused it to fail? Was it
over-inflated or overloaded? Was there cracking from long-term exposure
to the sun? Did it fail where the tire had been damaged from a rock or
curb, or from a previous repair?
I don't doubt that older tires aren't as good or strong as new tires. I
just wonder if that justifies calling them "very dangerous". Old cars
are also less safe than new cars; should we label them "very dangerous"
and order that no car over 6 years old can be driven?
> I have been looking at these tires for my EV project.
> http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+RE92&vehicleSearch=false&partnum=665SR4RE92&fromCompare1=yes&place=0
Low rolling resistance isn't as important on a Corvair truck, because
the suspension is not built for it. The rear swing axles have a lot of
tire scrub, and the front suspension is deliberately setup with toe-in
to imitate a front-heavy vehicle.
What matters more is the tire's load carrying capacity. This is a truck,
carrying a heavy load of batteries. The van's GVWR was 4600 lbs. The
original tires were 7.00x14 bias-ply, rated 1230 lbs at 36psi, 25"
diameter. The Bridgestone Potenza RE92 165/65SR14 is only rated 937 lbs
at 44 psi, and is only 22.5" diameter. I think it's too small a tire for
the application.
If you really like this tire for some reason, try the RE92 175/65R14 XL
(Extra Load version) for the 2001-2003 Toyota Prius. It is a bit bigger
in diameter and rated for more weight; 1102 lbs at 50 psi, 23.1"
diameter (still low, but better).
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
---- Lee Hart <x[email protected]xxx.xxx> wrote:
=============
I can think of endless numbers of cases where people with old or classic cars are running tires that are
decades old. So my guess is that the percent degradation is low. It
would only matter in cases where the tire was already being run at its
full load capacity even when new.
> ---- Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =============
> I can think of endless numbers of cases where people with old or classic
cars are running tires that are
> decades old. So my guess is that the percent degradation is low. It
> would only matter in cases where the tire was already being run at its
> full load capacity even when new.
>
> ---- Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =============
> I can think of endless numbers of cases where people with old or classic
cars are running tires that are
> decades old. So my guess is that the percent degradation is low. It
> would only matter in cases where the tire was already being run at its
> full load capacity even when new.
>
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> I sold my Electravan 750 with the orginal bias tires. They still had good
> tread & the sidewalls looked ok. I sent the new owner off to Utah with it
> in tow. Of course after 26 years it only had a few thousand miles on the
> tires. I wasn't worried one bit. If you are within load ratings tires can
> last a long time.
The tires on my LeCar were made in 1993; but they have a 959 lbs rating
and the car weighs only 2500 lbs, so there is a considerable derating.
The tires on my Corvair are too old to have a DOT number; 1980 I'd
guess. But again, they have a considerable derating; 1155 lbs tires on a
2600 lbs car.
Neither of these sets of tires show any signs of sidewall cracking or
weathering, and they seem to perform normally. Both cars are garaged,
and I have lived in small towns with generally low air pollution levels.
Now, my ComutaVan came with its original 1980 tires when I bought it in
1987. It had spent its life outdoors, and the tires were seriously
cracked and dry-rotted. They were replaced promptly.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net