| |
Subject |
Author |
Date Posted |
Forum
|
 |
RE: Unsafe at any speed....
Thank you for your insight and no criticism taken about the pictures. Barely got those off before the camera went dead.
Anyway, bottom line. IYHO what causes these types of failures?
It is construction, contamination or materials?
To me it looks like they are not using enough "glue" to stick things together. IOW's all of the plys are separating from each other and the casing. The plys and casing still look good to me but they are separating. Michelin had huge problems with this X Radial make of tire doing this. This is why to this day I won't put a Michelin tire even on my wheel barrel.
I was told in the cap world, this is caused by contamination. What about new tire world?
IMHO, this is all about context. Different kinds of tires suffer from different kinds of issues.
In the case of passenger car tires, it's been demonstrated that inflation pressure is a big contributor. Since inflation pressure is directly related to load carrying capacity, this could be stated as a load issue.
But when it came down to fixing this, all the tire manufacturers changed constructions.
In the case of large P metric's and LT metric on SUV's and pickup trucks, the inflation pressure situation is even worse - and again related to load carrying capacity.
P metric tires on SUV's were particularly of interest a few years ago - the Ford / Firestone situation. This was, IMHO, primarily a materials properties / design issue.
However, tire manufacturers improved the performance by changing constructions.
LT metric tires had issues too - and those were fixed by changing constructions.
We also know that loads on ST tires are suspect. But here we have some common denominators that are interesting - and that is that many of these tires are made in China.
Here the problem remains - and based on the fact that construction changes eventually fixed these issues in other type of tires, I would presume that construction changes would fix those as well. The fact that many report success with LT metric tires seems to point to using the same construction as an LT tire.
So what do I mean by "construction changes"? These are details about the thickness and the material properties of the belt edge insert (between the 2 belts). Cap plies is also something that improves the situation. There is also some belt edge treatments that have been used successfully.
And then we have the age issue. Every time an analysis is done about where these failed tires are coming from, the same 5 states always rise to the top - and more or less in order: AZ, CA, TX, NV, and FL. FL may seem the odd man out, but if you compare the yearly cycle of temperature for - say - Orlando and compare that to - say - Phoenix, you'll notice that the temperature in Orlando is warm all year round, where the temperature in Phoenix is only hot in the summer. I think this has to do with heat history. While FL doesn't get as hot, it gets heat year round.
Contamination? Haven't seen it - and that fact the construction changes also seem to be the answer, seems to confirm this is not the issue.
Or perhaps you could say, that whatever the true issue is, making construction changes overwhelms the problem enough to render it moot.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/18/13 03:17pm |
Towing
|
|
RE: Unsafe at any speed....
Here is the picture of my infamous Michelin tire. Sorry about the quality. I was fighting dead batteries in the camera.
{Deleted images to save space}
This is typical for these tires. No cuts, no damage; just junk tires that blow in the driveway.......
So here is what I see in those photos. The flap of sidewall rubber is likely separated off the ply cords at the junction between the ply cords and the sidewall rubber. It doesn't penetrate the cords - it is off the cords.
Yes, it is not a cut - it is torn.
But if you were to peel the flap of sidewall rubber back, you would find it cleanly detached from the ply cords - reflecting the fact that these would be different layers in the building process.
It is also likely that the separation extends to and around the belt edges - which would be revealed when that flap of sidewall rubber is peeled back.
This is the result of a belt edge separation that has worked its way down the sidewall and the centrifugal forces eventually caused the sidewall rubber to fail. Since it doesn't have ply cords attached, the tear is not constrained to follow the ply cords - that is, in the radial direction.
Sorry, but that is not at all like the earlier photo - where there doesn't appear to be any separation UNDER either edge of the split.
Needless to say, there is only so much that can be determined from photos - especially photos taken by folks who are not aware of what to look for - what photos would be helpful. Please note, this is not a criticism, just a comment. If I didn't know what to look for, I would just take some random photos and they may or may not reveal the important stuff.
I hope this helps. Just be aware that this is the sort of thing that both the tire manufacturers and NHTSA would look at. The fact that those sets of photos show something different is as revealing as the fact that they are failures.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/18/13 06:50am |
Towing
|
|
RE: Unsafe at any speed....
CapriRacer, as a tire Expert could you tell us if tires are still made from REAL rubber today like they where years ago or are they mostly man made compounds like rubber.
if they are compounds do they have any real rubber in the mixture and if so what is the ratio of real rubber to man made ? like 10% real 90% MM
Thanks
I am assuming you mean natural rubber and synthetic rubber. Natural rubber is the kind they get from tapping trees. The problem here is contamination. If you think that tapping trees would result in bark, insects, leaves, and other foreign materials, you would be right. As a result they grade natural according to how it was processed and how much contaminants it has. But natural rubber is one kind of rubber - polyisoprene
Synthetic polyisoprene is made from petroleum. Chemically, it is identical to natural rubber, and it has no contaminants, making it a bit better suited for critical applications.
- BUT -
There are other types of rubber - styrene-butadiene, isobutylene, for example - and they have different properties than polyisoprene - some of those properties are quite useful in tires. So typically, tires use certain rubber blends in certain parts of the tire and other rubber blends in other parts to get the properties needed for the part of the tire they are being used. The desired properties are identified independent of the type of rubber, by a series of laboratory tests.
So natural rubber is not naturally superior to synthetic rubber. (Ha, ha, ha. I crack myself up!!) It has the benefit of being competitively priced with synthetic polyisoprene, so many tire manufacturers have mixing formulas that take advantage of the price difference between the two. So the ratio of natural to synthetic varies according to the price split.
Rubber chemists have done an excellent job of developing these mixing formulae, and the performance of tires does not follow the cost of natural rubber.
Recently, China has entered the market (actually many markets) in a big way and has been buying up the supplies of natural rubber - driving up the price. They have also been buying petrochemicals - driving those prices up as well. I don't know what the current price split is like, but because both commodities have been impacted this has had a huge impact on the manufacturing costs of tires - and those have been reflected in the price of tires.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/18/13 06:30am |
Towing
|
|
RE: Unsafe at any speed....
Bull Rider,
First, thanks for the photos. That really helps a guy like me sort all this stuff out. As a tire engineer, I struggle with reports of tires failing when not in service - especially when they are off the ground. It just doesn't make sense without some additional info.
I note the second photo where the finger is pointing to a cut. Yes, that is a cut. A crack would follow the ply cords and be more or less straight and radial. Plus, am I seeing cords in the cut? If so, this is confirmation that this is a cut caused by external forces.
One additional bit of info to help explain what is being seen is that rubber has a peculiar property. If pulled slowly, it will stretch quite a ways before it fails. Pulled quickly and it will fail at lower stretch levels (the engineering term is "strain" - as opposed to "stress".)
What this means is that is possible to damage a tire, but not have it fail immediately. The inflation pressure will continue to stretch the damaged area, and it will fail at a later time. That appears to be what I am looking in the photos.
So when I put this in context, my conclusion is that this particular failure is road hazard related.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/17/13 04:49am |
Towing
|
 |
RE: Tire problems
You guys are hilarious. Every time there is a tire thread, you guys see this as an opportunity to beat the dead horse some more. Yes, I'm pointing to both sides now.
Please. Give it a rest.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/17/13 04:33am |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: moving from 225R75/16 to 235R85/16 PROBLEMS
Hi,
After discussions with the tire dealer, I've decided on Toyo tires because the rubber compound is slightly more flexible (lower tread mileage life) and they may ride better. They are also cheaper, but that did not enter the discussion.
Just an FYi - Tread rubber has nothing whatsoever to do with ride quality. Ride quality IS related to the stiffness of the lower sidewall - which is hard to quantify. But better ride quality is sacrificed to get good handling (as in quickness of steering response and resistance to sway).
One way to explain this is that compared to the tire casing, the tread rubber is so much more flexible that changes in tread rubber hardly affect the ride quality.
- BUT -
There is a technology triangle involving treadwear, traction (especially wet traction), and rolling resistance (fuel economy). So a tire with a lower tread wear rating MIGHT have better rolling resistance (fuel economy) or better traction or both. The problem here is that a lower treadwear rating might mean the tire is worse for BOTH traction and treadwear, but much better for rolling resistance. If the tire manufacturer doesn't tell you what the difference is, you will not know for sure.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/11/13 06:51pm |
Tech Issues
|
|
RE: Tires
Hmmm, where are you getting your specs, think they might be the old specs...
Here is the new Michelin specs, same as all the new Lt specs...
These specs came from, http://www.tirerack.com/... confirmed by Michelin rep.
http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t647/allcool1/tireloadrating_zpse0346cd1.jpg width=640
It looks like Tire Rack is the one making the mistake. On the "Specs" tab for the tire, the max load is as I stated - and just like every other tire of that size and load range.
I suspect the "hover" data is wrong in Tire Rack's computer programming. I'll send a message to Tire Rack to let them know.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/11/13 05:22am |
Toy Haulers
|
|
RE: TV tire pressure (mainly the front tires)
The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that every vehicle has a vehicle tire placard that lists the original tire size and the proper pressure for that size. If you are using the tire size listed there, then that pressure has been tested by the vehicle manufacturer.
Personally, I think that is the correct pressure to use - unless there is a specific reason to deviate from that.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/11/13 05:04am |
Towing
|
|
RE: Tires
Okay Barry, help me out here. I have read your entire webpage. And to understand your "opinion" I have to read between the lines. You stated that ST tires and LT tires load ratings are calculated in a different way and that I will have to trust you on this. In your recommended replacement tire chart you state a capability difference. The difference on the 16 inch tire is a -.003789474.
So my understanding is the ST and the LT tire in that example are practically the same in load rating. Am I understanding your "opinion" correctly? If so you may have just made my life easier.
If you go back to "the Theory of Tires": (I'm using the word "theory" in the scientific sense - an explanation of the available facts - and NOT in the every day usage sense of "an untested conjecture"), you will find that speed and load are inversely related. That is, for the same tire size, the faster it goes, the lower the load capability.
No, this is not about heat generation. It's a function of how rubber reacts to the rate of load application - it fails quicker, the quicker the load is applied.
Please note: We are not talking about the load the tire is carrying - we are talking about the load a little chunk of the rubber in the tire is carrying. In engineering terms we would call this a " finite element" - as in "Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Also please note that all this was discovered long before there were high speed computers. It was done by some very sharp researchers who used the tools they had available.
So when I say, "you will have to trust me", what I am saying is that this research was done so long ago, you will not find the papers that back up the theory published on the internet. But they are imbedded in the calculation used to generate the load tables.
ST tires are speed restricted to 65 mph. - BUT - there is a provision that if you are going to use an ST tire at higher speeds, the load must be decreased (or the inflation pressure must be increased, which is the functional equivalent.)
This applies to ALL tires - ST, P type, LT type, agricultural, earthmover, etc.
Because this is terribly confusing, the tire load tables are published for a specific type of usage and worst case situations become part of the givens. Many times these tables are published without the notes that include the info on speed vs load - but they exist as part of the tire standard.
I hope that explains things.
Tires must be load rated at their speed rating.......jmo
I've truncated the post to save space. Besides, nobody re-reads those, so there isn't really a reason to re-post the entire thing.
There is an error in the post. A Load Index of 120 = 3086#, not the higher value stated. This is NOT a change.
Besides, the "Load Index" (as a concept) is a European designation that has been adopted by the US tire standardizing organization (The Tire and Rim Association) - albeit, not cleanly. An LT235/85R16 Load Range E is STILL rated to 3042# at 80 psi load carrying capacity for single usage and the 120 Load Index has been appended to the size to help connect this to the European system.
Please note that many countries (especially in Europe) have tire regulations that require the tire to be stamped with the Load Index.
So when you look at LT tires, remember the Load Index is merely a way to deal with the difference in the way tires are rated. It is NOT exact!!
OK, here's where it gets really interesting:
Tire design has not been stagnant. In the timeframe since the tire load tables were first published, it has been discovered that you could get a tire to survive higher speeds by changes in construction.
Rather than mess with the complication of re-publishing the tire load tables (once they were published, you can't go back and re-do them.), they moved forward by creating a speed rating system - which applies mostly to passenger car tires. Even with the current system of speed rating, the issue of speed vs load is embedded in the part of the tire standards that aren't published.
I hope you can see why I didn't address this in my web page - there just wasn't enough room. Besides, it has taken me over an hour to write this post - and I still think there are going to be questions asked on the subject. Go ahead and ask them, but - please - it has taken me many years to sort this whole thing out. I don't expect others to grasp this right away.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/10/13 06:51am |
Toy Haulers
|
|
RE: Tires
I am new here and don't mean to high jack this thread, but where does one begin looking when it comes to looking for a better tire for a toy hauler? I have a 27' Wolf Pack with the Provider Radial ST tires. 205/75R15, load range C with only 3000 miles on them and they are already starting to show wear on the inside of the tread. Am I understanding this right that some guys have been installing light truck tires on these smaller trailers? Are these G614's a truck tire and available in various sizes? I will keep searching. It looks like I have a lot to learn.
First step: Weigh your trailer. By wheel position if possible. If individual wheel weights is impossible add 10% to the axle weight to account for side to side variation. If you can't do individual axles, add 15% to the weight to account for front to rear variation (as well as the side to side variation).
Step 2: Add 15% to the adjusted weight and compare to the load carrying capacity of the tire. Do you need to go up? (probably)
Step 3: If you need to go up, there are 2 ways to do that:
a) Use a higher Load Range (Say, D to E) and use the higher pressure.
There are those that think that you should not exceed the max pressure rating stamped on the wheel. I am not one of those.
b) Use a physically larger tire. You'll need to check the wheel to see if it is wide enough - and you'll need to check if you have enough clearance in the fenderwell.
Variations:
Some folks will say to use Maxxis brand ST tires. I think they are newbies and the jury is still out on those.
Some folks will say to switch to LT type tires. There is some good logic here, especially since LT type tires are readily available from major tire manufacturers (as opposed to ST type tire where the manufacturers are mostly in China). The problem is that there is NOT a direct replacement. You'll have to change to a larger (dimensionally) tire and that means you need to check clearances in the fenderwell. You'll also encounter resistance at the tire shop as many of these ST to LT tire swaps involve going to tire with a lower load rating. I am of the opinion that the lower load rating is more a function of the speed restriction than actual load carrying capacity - but others disagree. This is one of the sources of the endless debate about tires.
So there you have it. My opinion as to how to do this.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/09/13 05:52am |
Toy Haulers
|
|
RE: 20" wheels...reducing tow capacity?
From the tire's perspective, it doesn't matter if the vehicle is towing or just loaded up. The tire doesn't know the difference.
Replacing a tire with one that has less load carrying capacity is directionally unsafe. Better to replace with larger load carrying capacity.
So pay attention to load carrying capacity (Load Index)
|
CapriRacer
|
06/09/13 05:26am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Towmax blown tires
Given that 4x4 models weighed around 4470 lbs, the 5100 GVWR could easily be exceeded with just passengers and a small amount of cargo. Now really load it and you could easily exceed the tire ratings at 26lbs. Sorry but in my book Ford screwed the inflation up. Chris
Funny, Edmunds says the curb weight of a 1998 Ford Explorer was 3692#:
Edmunds - 1998 Ford Explorer Specs
But then again, you pointed to 4X4's and this was a 4X2, but could there possibly be a 700# difference? And surely much of that weight was on the front where there is plenty of extra capacity.
Surely there were failures on 4X2's, otherwise NHTSA would have required the 4X4's to be recalled - and they weren't. Only the tires.
Besides, Goodyear also produced a tire for this vehicle and there were no reports of failures.
But did you read Dr. Govindjee's report? Even though it was commissioned by Firestone, it points out what was wrong with the tire. Pretty damning. It doesn't mention the vehicle at all - and if that was the source, surely Dr. Govindee would have thoroughly examined all the permutations of vehicle/tire, etc - and not spent the entire report talking about the tire.
I'm sorry, but the inflation pressure was a red herring thrown out there by Firestone to defuse some of the intense scrutiny they were getting - and it worked. After all, it convinced you.
Besides, you are not being consistent. On the one side, you are blaming the inflation pressure (and by extension, load carrying capacity), and on the other hand blaming the tire - for the same failure mode. I'm saying it is the tire in both cases. I am NOT blaming the type of tire - just the way it is constructed - and that applies to both situations.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/08/13 05:47am |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: moving from 225R75/16 to 235R85/16 PROBLEMS
I'm struggling with the idea that the wheels from an F-450 don't fit on an E-450. A bit more explanation is in order.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/08/13 05:14am |
Tech Issues
|
|
RE: Another tire dilema
For those who are wondering about the responses from Continental:
First, you have to realize that answering questions for non-standard fitments opens the door to legal liabilities. Any deviation from what is listed on the vehicle tire placard creates an opportunity for some enterprising lawyer. Tire manufacturers are fully aware of this and will be incredibly cautious about what the say - and especially about what they will "recommend".
Second, the tire in question is a "C type" tire - the European equivalent of an LT type tire. It can be used on trailers, but care has to be taken regarding loading. The way Continental worded their comment indicates that they want YOU to do the homework. THEY don't want to be held liable for a mis-application.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/07/13 06:36am |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: Got the RV weighed - now trying to find tire pressure
First, tire load tables are the same regardless of who manufacturers the tire.
So find other tire manufacturer who have load tables and use those. For an LT235/85R16, Bridgestone and Goodyear come to mind.
Second, your vehicle ought to have a sticker (commonly called the vehicle tire placard), that will list the original tire size and the proper pressure for that size. Find that placard.
Third - and you already have - compare the scale weights to the weight information published about your vehicle. If you deviate much from those values, you need to do some research.
Fourth, If your scale weights don't include individual wheel positions, you don't have a true picture. There are side to side differences that weighing axles doesn't reveal.
Fifth, in 1997 it was common to use marginal tire sizes on the chasses that were turned into RV's. In the last 10 years, there has been an effort to upgrade tire sizing so that the rated load carrying capacity of the tires is (at the specified pressure) significantly greater than the actual rated capacity of the axle (as stated by the GAWR's). It would be safer to use more inflation pressure that the minimum the tire load tables call for.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/07/13 06:20am |
Class A Motorhomes
|
|
RE: Towmax blown tires
....
I recall reading that Ford placarded 26 pounds!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy
Select "possible causes"!
Yep, 26 psi! Maybe Barry forgot about that detail?
Chris
Barry's Tire Tech - Ford / Firestone Controversy
About 2/3 the way down the page: Bottomline: Ford specified enough inflation pressure to carry the load.
You guys just slay me. Don't you ever do research before you post?
|
CapriRacer
|
06/06/13 03:49pm |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: Towmax blown tires
To add more fuel to the fire:
Many people who are reporting that they "ONLY" changed from ST tires to LT tires neglect to mention they also changed a) from size 235/80R16 to 235/85R16 (The aspect ratio change also affected the load carrying capacity) and b) they changed from a no-name brand to a name brand.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/04/13 05:34am |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: Towmax blown tires
To CapriRacer and FE:
What is not a joke is to compare sidewall strength of a ST tire and a LT tire side by side.
If after doing the comparison regardless of tread depth and the slight weight differences tread depth may produce the vast difference in sidewall strength and stiffness is not obvious to you both then we have no hope in changing your minds.......
Just so you know, I am a tire engineer and am very familiar with the strength of tire sidewalls.
But we aren't talking about sidewall failures. We are talking about failures in the belt (tread area). The strength of the sidewall has nothing to do with this type of failure. This type of failure has everything to do with the way the belt area is configured - and that is not at all related to weight.
Put a different way: The belt configuration used for LT tires can be used in ST tires. The fact that there are so many reports of failures in ST tires (in my opinion) has more to do with the level of technology applied to these tires (compared to LT tires) - and not because they are ST tires. This is likely the result of third tier tire manufacturing materials and processes (which includes 1st and 2nd tier tire manufacturers using 3rd tier materials and processes.)
The other part of the problem is that there are extremely few direct replacement sizes. This complicates matters as the way load carrying capacities are calculated is different for each type of tire. P's are different than LT's, which are different than ST's. (Please note: I disagree with FE about the load carrying capacity of LT tires when used in trailer applications.)
That's why I find this whole discussion about tire weight so funny - the key to tire durability isn't measureable by weight.
Let's take the infamous Firestone/Explorer situation some years back. The source of the problem was the material properties of the belt edge insert - AND - the thickness of the belt edge insert. The difference in weight between tires that performed adequately and tires that didn't was well within tire to tire variation. It was immeasureable. PLUS, tires produced in one plant didn't perform the same as tires produced in another plant.
I hope this explains the positions I have taken on the subject - but more importantly, the strategy used to try to fix this problem is dependent on what the true nature of the problem is. I see my role as trying to educate people as to this nature - and in particular, where they are going off on the wrong tangent.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/03/13 05:54am |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: Towmax blown tires
Let's take this a step further - and compare an ST tire:
7) ST235/80R16 Goodyear Marathon Load Range D - 10/32nds - 34#
8) ST235/80R16 Goodyear Marathon Load Range E - 10/32nds - 38#
Not to split hairs, but!
I do not believe that GY makes the ST235/80R16LRD anymore. And the references I look at state the weight of the LRE at 34-35.4 pounds.....
Well, I'm looking at Tire Rack and they list the LR D as in stock. I also know they actually weigh tires, so I think using the Tire Rack data as a source is at least consistent within itself.
And that was the important point. Consistent data to demonstrate a point.
....There are a bunch of ST tires that I call the 35 pounders. Towmax, Duro, Mission, Marathon on and on. Then there are the Maxxis and Maxmiler that weigh in at 43.xx(some of the Maxmiler's additonal weight is in deeper tread at 16/32 and wide shoulders).
Now it is the good part!
The Maxxis ST235/80R16LRE weighing 43.43 pounds has 9/32" tread!
The Marathon ST235/80R16LRE weighing 35.4 pounds has 10/32" tread!
(Marathon weight based on phone call to them a few years ago)
Maxxis Diameter is 30.8 and Marathon Diameter is 30.7 based on manufacturers web site specs.
http://www.maxxistires.com/Repository/Images/m8008.jpg
http://www.goodyearrvtires.com/images/tire-selector/Marathon.jpg
Would you like to start over on explaining the difference between these two very similar tires? Both are rated at 3420 pounds at 80 pounds inflation. Both are poly carcass tires and direct replacements for each other. Yet the M8008ST is 22.7 percent heavier that the Marathon. That is quite a bit more, and can not be written off as tread depth, as the much lighter Marathon wins that one. I suspect one would find most of the difference in the sidewall and casing below the tread. Not many other places to hide the difference. Both of these tires are what some refer to as baseball shaped tires, without wide shoulders. If one looks at the Maxmiler thread going they will see in the pictures I linked there that the Maxmiler looks a lot like an LT tire with wide shoulders that even the manufacture notes in their web site documentation.
Another Marathon weight reference
Chris
Chris,
The point of my post was that trying to explain how a tire's weight influences durability is a lesson in futuility. There is such a huge variation within a given tire manufacturer that trying to compare different tire manufacturers doesn't explain what is going on.
Sure the Maxxis is heavier - or at least, it is being reported as heavier from different sources - but that doesn't explain if there are differences that are important.
Here, I'll give you one that demonstrates my point:
On the outside of every tire casing's sidewall is a layer of rubber to protect the casing from being abraded by curbs. Each tire manufacturer has different thoughts on how much is adequate, so there is considerable variation in thickness form tire manufacturer to tire manufacturer.
The thickness of this rubber has no bearing on durability, yet it can cause variations in weight.
How about another?
Void ratio: Within tire engineering circles, a common parameter in describing a tire's tread pattern is the ratio of rubber to void. Sometimes this is called the "Land/Sea ratio". A simple difference from 50% to 60% can have profound affects on the wear - and of interest here, weight - but have no affect at all on durability.
I hope you understand that weight is but one parameter in a tire and it hardly proves a tire is more durable.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/02/13 06:06am |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: Towmax blown tires
Maxxis is not a new kid on the block. They have been around for many years. They have a lot of tire plants in many countries including their Thailand plant that for a long time was the only place that they produced their M8008ST special/service trailer tire.......
Perhaps it wasn't obvious that I was referring to the Maxxis's ST tire as the "new kid on the block". It has only been out there a few years - unlike the Goodyear Marathon and some of the others - and it takes time to develop a full picture of what is going on.
If one has access to more detailed data, then one could construct trend charts, showing length of time in service versus reports of failure factored by the number of tires produced - but we don't have that kind of detail - so skepticism should be the rule when trying to ascertain a particular tire's durability.
|
CapriRacer
|
06/01/13 07:07am |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
