Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Search
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  



Open Roads Forum  >  Search the Forums

 > Your search for posts made by 'BigToe' found 22 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 2  
Next
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: Does RV.net have a policy forbidding the discussion of EVs?

I have not been on a forum in many years that didn't have some way of blocking other members. Just block the people you don't want to see what they post. There are lots of people that I have blocked and I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who have blocked me. At least I hope so. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of other people they can waste their anger on. Some topics really mess with some people (toilet paper, boondocking, overnight parking, working people who live in RVs but don't consider themselves "RVers", old RVs, etc). Those are the topics where I usually end up blocking people. I have blocked a lot of people. What do they say? I don't know as I don't see it, nor do I care. I figure that some people are on meds, some people need to be on meds, some self-medicate and some people are just plain mean. Those people need to be blocked so I don't have that input. Not like I won't eventually find the info that I need or want somewhere else. Figure out how to block people (each forums is slightly different). If it makes you feel better, when you block someone, say "Arrrrgh! Take that you pitiful wretch!" Then finish it off with a world dominating laugh (Bwa-ha-ha-ha!). Blocking members does not stop the stifling of discussion, nor does it prevent the termination of threads and topics, nor does it diminish the discouragement of participation in threads that are devolving, or due to the topic, doomed. What blocking members may do is merely mitigate the feelings of the member who takes advantage of the blocking feature, so that they will not be exposed to being perturbed by other members who bother them. That isn't a concern of mine. My concern is the quality and value of forum discussion, and the opportunities that are lost to learn from others... their experiences, opinions, perspectives, etc. That can't happen on rv.net when threads are closed. And when a high percentage of threads on one particular topic are closed more than other threads on other topics, it is difficult to distinguish closer bias from a conflict triggering topic. An admin has checked into this thread to answer the question of this topic... that there is no policy forbidding the discussion of EV's on RV.net. That is helpful to know, because typically forums are privately owned, where there is no expectation of free speech. Often, forums will forbid the discussion of certain topics, like guns, politics, religion, the birds and the bees, etc. There may be other reasons why EV threads are closed so often on RV.net, and my blocking members will do nothing to prevent those same reasons from recurring. I've never blocked a member, on any forum, ever. My blocking members will not change their behavior. And their behavior cannot trigger me... the childhood adage "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" provides a simple and adequate coping mechanism to let that kind of stuff roll off like water on a seal... without being effected. Blocking members may limit an individual's awareness of other member's bad behavior, yet it does nothing to limit everyone's exposure to the consequences of other member's bad behavior. The consequences remain the same, and even effect the person who blocked the other members. The consequences are: Threads get closed. Topics get derailed. Good discussion gets curtailed. What bad actors say to me is of no consequence. Chances are, I will learn more from folks who disagree with me, even if disagreeably, than I will from an echo in the hall of my choir. I'd much rather have the benefit of seeing all of what those who are more likely to cause me to see things unlike how I currently see them. But threads kinda have to be open in order to engage in a dialogue with those who disagree, in order for that meeting of the minds to happen. If there are members who consistently cause threads to be closed, then suspending the posting privileges of those members is far more effective than me blocking those members, for the reasons stated. I am but one person. My donning a blindfold isn't going to help the thousands upon thousands of rv.net members have a good forum.
BigToe 11/27/22 02:00am Forum Posting Help and Support
RE: Does RV.net have a policy forbidding the discussion of EVs?

The Facebook EV RV camping groups have tens of thousands of active members. Answers to questions are almost instant and the expertise and experience from electric vehicle aspect is superior to anything one would find here whether that be hitches, loading, or accessories or whatever. What’s not as good (yet) is the RV maintenance and repair aspect. On these old RV boards there is still lots of knowledge. But that will fade as well as old members move on. Obviously EV RVer's are not going to join a caustic board like this, but the archives will be available for many years yet. Interesting... and understandable. Therein lies the trouble for many who refuse to join Facebook... or any social media platform that requires a computer science degree to figure out how to stop the platform from tracking and monetizing every other aspect of your life that it can discover before finding the settings to turn such sharing off. The old BBS and USE-NET formats that evolved into forums are somewhat limited in their technical capacity to track users, in large part because people do not typically use sites like RV.net to share personal photos and intimate family news with their relatives. The relative anonymity of a forum format focuses the conversation on the topic, not the personality, by default. Yet it appears that I am not alone in noticing that there are some bad apples that have been allowed to linger in RV.net's barrel, whose prolific posting of personal insults on every thread has poisoned the atmosphere here to such a degree that I stopped participating on this platform. I've likewise noticed that some of the more prominent RV.net members from 15 years ago have also stopped participating in discussions on RV.net, and I know that these members are still alive, because once in a great while we touch bases offline. From reading a few of those I see they turn into off-topic insult contests. That pretty much describes this forum in general as of late. It has become a toxic environment Yah. Huge change from 15 years ago. It is still useful but it is much more a hate centered political forum now. And without embracing new technologies it will just fade away in the years to come. The culture of toxicity that has been allowed to fester here on RV.net seemed to be a separate matter from the observation of how many EV threads were closed, while equally toxic threads not about EVs remained open. I was asking about the EV threads, but it could be that the issue is inextricable from the toxicity in general. Thank you to the community members who responded thus far. It would also be helpful to hear the perspective of RV.net administration.
BigToe 11/23/22 12:21pm Forum Posting Help and Support
Does RV.net have a policy forbidding the discussion of EVs?

Does RV.net have a policy forbidding the discussion of electric vehicles (EVs)? Within just the last 3 months, the following threads on EVs on RV.net's Tow Vehicles forum have been closed: Closed: GMC Sierra EV https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30366839.cfm Closed: Comical EV article https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30366296.cfm Closed: EV charging quandary https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30364774.cfm Closed: How many of you own an EV? https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30359204.cfm Closed: Ford F150 Lightning (EV) owner review https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30362846.cfm Closed: This is our RV electric future. It's the future man! https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30361680.cfm Closed: How many folks want an EV https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30360733.cfm Closed: California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars by 2035 https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30356212.cfm Closed: Cost of EV Batteries https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30355138.cfm Closed: C&D EV Tow Test https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30354957.cfm Closed: Camping in an EV... Always charging... https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30349840.cfm While some bickering between members may be found in some of the threads above, there is no less bickering (typically between the exact same members) found on other threads (discussing gas and diesel powered tow vehicles), and most of those threads remain open. Yet curiously, most of the EV related threads are closed. The seemingly odd coincidence of all these EV thread closures could potentially be interpreted as an administrative bias against the discussion of EVs vehicles, hence the question: Is the discussion of EV's against an RV.net policy? It seems that every OEM vehicle manufacturer, including all truck manufacturers, even medium and heavy truck manufacturers, are either designing, prototyping, or now incorporating electrification in their production vehicles. Laws have been passed in jurisdictions around the globe mandating the adoption of EVs of one type or another. Wouldn't it be a shame for one of the most popular RV forums on the internet to preclude the discussion of what may be a challenge for our generation to adapt to, while the up and coming future generations of RV'ers seek other forums that are more friendly toward what interests them? Rather than closing threads on hot topics, perhaps RV.net might consider closing the membership accounts of the commonly known troublemakers, so that RV.net can return to the richly informative and dynamic discussion board that it once was well over a decade ago, when there was a campfire culture of mutual respect that fostered more member participation, and healthier discussion of tow vehicle related issues. As it currently stands, one cannot blame a person for turning elsewhere if wanting to ask questions about RVing with any of the all electric trucks now introduced by all three of the "Big 3" light truck manufacturers. It appears that such threads are more likely to get closed on RV.net than elsewhere, so folks will probably go elsewhere. And that is too bad, because of the history of RV.net, and its relationship with Good Sam Club and Camping World, two of the most well known businesses serving RVers in the United States.
BigToe 11/23/22 06:00am Forum Posting Help and Support
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Thank you Pianotuna!
BigToe 11/01/22 12:52pm Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

@bigtow What part of what you quoted makes using a directional tire unsafe or undesirable to use as a spare tire? The difference between the right or wrong direction is literally not getting “optimal” traction. Sort of like a brand new tire vs one that is 50% worn out. Hardly worth the consternation about using one as a spare tire. Neither Michelin nor I said anything about reversing a directional tire being "unsafe." Michelin said that reversing a directional tire within the first 50% of tread life can result in undesirable tire performance, as well as undesirable accelerated treadwear, as detailed in the url linked Product Bulletin posted earlier, where the relevant text was also quoted within the post. On Edit, to address the "consternation" about the spare: For my requirements, there is no difference between the spare tire and any other tire on the rig. All tires, including the spare, are qualified to be run full time. When there is a need to use the spare tire, there is no need to remove the spare tire later to put back the removed rim with a repaired tire. The spare tire becomes the service tire, while the repaired or replaced tire becomes the spare tire. Hence, a spare tire that can be mounted in any position on either side of the vehicle is more desirable to me than a directional tire, which is limited to only half of the available mounting positions. I rotate the spare tire with the steer tires, to keep the wear down of the spare tire the same diameter as the wear down of all other tires. Thus the spare is indistinguishable from a service tire throughout the life cycle of that set of tires. A directional tire would disrupt that preventative maintenance.
BigToe 11/01/22 12:10am Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

And to dispell another myth posted by BigToe, there is no harm in using directional tires backwards other than less than “optimal” traction that is provided by the design of the tread. Here is the Product Bulletin Issued by Michelin on April 29, 2019: The C-metric sizes of the MICHELIN Agilis® CrossClimate® tire line utilize a directional tread pattern. These tires have arrows molded into the sidewall of the tire to indicate the intended direction of rotation. To maximize tire performance, it is important that directional tires be mounted correctly on wheels to ensure that the directionality is respected when mounted on the vehicle. Pairs of steer tires and pairs of drive tires should be mounted such that one tire has the arrows pointing clockwise, and one tire has the arrows pointing counter-clockwise. For vehicles equipped with dual rear wheels, two rear tires should have the arrows pointing clockwise and two rear tires should have the arrows pointing counter-clockwise. To optimize wear performance, it is recommended to operate directional tires exclusively in their indicated direction, at least during the first 50% of treadlife. However, once directional tires are worn to greater than 50% of their initial tread depth, there is no negative effect of running them in a direction opposite to the indicated direction of rotation. _________________________________ Not a myth. Simply the straightforward (haha) directions (haha) from the tire manufacturer. 1. Optimizing wear performance sounds like a good idea, because tires to be too expensive to waste by not following the instructions, thus increasing the likelihood of the tires wearing out prematurely. 2. Optimizing tire performance sounds like a good idea, because lives are too important to put at risk by not taking advantage of all the tire wet traction engineering one paid for with the price of the tire from installing them the wrong way. 3. In my RV usage case, the tires will never reach 50% tread wear before the tires age out. Therefore, if I were to buy directional tires, I would be stuck using them directionally for their entire service life, as they will never wear down to the point where directionality no longer matters. 4. The tire manufacturer knows more about the tires that they engineered and built than I do, so I'll follow their instructions. Edited to add URL Link to Michelin's Agilis Cross Climate C-Metric Product Bulletin: Agilis C-Metric Rotation Bulletin pdf
BigToe 10/31/22 10:50am Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

And your recommendation was greatly appreciated, Chris! I was unfamiliar with Nexen tire's offerings in this size until you identified it. The CT8 HL that you use is the OEM tire that Stellantis fits to the Ram Pro Master, in the 121/120R load index that you are highlighting. When a tire is produced as original equipment for an OEM vehicle manufacturer, it stands to reason that the CT8 HL has been put through an extra layer of engineering and vetting by the vehicle manufacturer, for the sake of their own liability. That says that while Nexen may not be as well known of a brand as Michelin or Goodyear, that particular CT8 HL Nexen tire has been approved by VW and Stellantis for their new vehicle brands to ride on it. I'm not a tire expert either, so the questions that PNichols asked above are questions that I was curious about as well. Where a given brand of tire produced in two iterations for the same application and usage has the same material weight, why would one tire have a higher weight capacity than the other? What makes the higher rated tire stronger, even while having less material weight? Michelin claims to use over 200 different raw materials to produce a tire. while another tire manufacturer claims to use only 17 different materials. While it can be assumed that Michelin, being the oldest tire company, and having introduced significant innovations to the industry such as radial tires, is more advanced... some of the ingredients introduced into tires today are to make them more environmentally friendly at end of life, and that sophisticated soup of materials may not necessarily translate into tire longevity. RV tire purchases are not routine for the long term RV owner who does not regularly trade in their RV, but rather are a once every 7 to 10 year expense now exceeding $2,000.00 to replace tires that have plenty of tread left but simply aged out. Blow outs are a much bigger deal on an RV than in a car, for reasons which SJ-Chris already mentioned. These factors inspire more questions on the selection of RV tires versus daily driver tires that may see more frequent replacement. Earlier, I failed to mention that Firestone, the manufacture of the Steeltex R4S that used to be Ford's OEM tire on the cutaways 20 years ago, now offers the Transforce CV tire in the 121/120R load rating. Unlike the F-53 Class A motorhome chassis, or any given modern day 1 ton and higher pickup or chassis cab, the Ford E-Series cutaway chassis challenges the limits of the Ford recommended LT225/75R16E tire size. I began this thread asking if any Class C owners have changed tire sizes, whether it be for increased tire capacity margin, increased ride height/ground clearance, increased approach/departure angle, increased tire contact patch, or decreased contact patch to penetrate through light snow to the ground. The relatively recent emergence of the C-Metric tire being offered in the US, with higher load index ratings, have broadened the weight capacity margin... but a tire still has to do other things besides carry weight. Wet traction comes to mind. Not skidding out in the rain. Not spinning wheels and burrowing in on grassy slimy surfaces at unimproved campground. That sort of thing. A tire must still be a tire in all other respects besides carrying weight. It appears that the ETRTO standard calls for Curb Guards (anti abrasion buttresses on tire side walls where they might repeatedly grind against a sidewalk curb in urban parcel delivery applications) in all C-Metric tires, and this is another benefit that is useful when navigating Class C RV's through destination cities. Asking about what tires people use and reciprocating the favor by posting what tire explorations I have made, is part of the process of learning, and I appreciated the opportunities to learn from you.
BigToe 10/31/22 10:12am Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

For a given tire size between the two tire types that the C-Metric version is a more rugged/stronger tire? i.e. That the C-Metric version has more plies? If so, if carrying capacity is not an issue ... should one use the C-Metric type tires if they wish for more puncture-proofness - as in occasional offroad travel with their Class C? To me, yes...it means the Commercial rated tire is stronger and thus less likely to have a blowout. Would anyone like to share the downside of getting Commercial rated tires at least on the rear? The cost (in my experience) is minimal. Downsides of a C-Metric tire are brand specific. With the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate tire, a tire which has been vetted, approved, and installed by Ford Motor Company on the E-Series Cutaway motorhome chassis in production as fleet orderable upgrade option, there are some differences between the C-Metric version of this tire, versus the LT Metric version that Ford installs on the E-Series Cutaway. The main downside is that the C-Metric version is DIRECTIONAL. With 6 tires on the ground, and one on the spare tire rack, the spare is only good to replace 3 of the tires without playing musical tires on the side of the road in order to have all tires rolling in the right direction. And unless one carries two spares, fitted with a directional tire facing each direction, there is still a 50% chance that the tire that blows will be a tire which is in the opposite direction of the spare, leaving one with 4 tires in one direction, and 2 tires in the other direction, when one really needs 3 tires in each direction. Not having to worry about which tire faces which direction simplifies a lot of factors with tire procurement, maintenance, rotation, and emergency replacement in a pinch. For a dual rear wheel application, the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate in C-Metric designation having a directional design is a significant disadvantage in convenience, that to my mind outweighs the C-Metric versions overcapacity in weight rating. Now to refer to what Michelin has to say about their two versions of Agilis Cross Climate tire in the 225/75R16 size: Q: What is the difference between the MICHELIN® AGILIS® C-Metric sizes vs. the LT sizes? A: The C-metric convention can be thought of as the European equivalent of the LT-metric. Just as LT-metric describes a tire with a higher load rating and higher pressure than the equivalently sized P-metric tire, C-metric describes a tire with a higher load rating and higher pressure than the equivalently sized European Metric tire. Q: Why is the MICHELIN® AGILIS® CROSSCLIMATE® tire offered in two different tread designs? A: The MICHELIN® AGILIS® CROSSCLIMATE® C-Metric tire was designed in Europe specifically for the European style vans that are also offered in the North American market. The C-Metric is a directional tread pattern. The LT sizes are non-directional and were designed by the North American Research and Development team to best suit ¾- and 1-ton pickups and vans. Both treads offer comparable performance. The PNichols question is whether or not the C-Metric version of the tire is "tougher" traversing unavoidable potholes at speed than the LT Metric version of the same tire. Well, the C-Metric version weighs 37 lbs, while the LT-Metric version weighs 39.9 lbs, making the LT-Metric version 2.9 lbs heavier than the C-Metric version. If this extra weight is due to there being more ingredients in the LT version of this tire, does that make it tougher? If so, then the toughest tires in this size range might be the Michelin XPS Rib, the Bridgestone R238, or the Goodyear Endurance RSA ULT... all weighing in at more than 50 lbs per tire, due to the additional steel belting in these tough commercial tires that traverses the carcass from bead to bead. Heck, the Endurance RSA is over $500 per tire in the LT225/75R16E size, and is retreadable, so it had better be tough. Yet the tread on some of these ribbed all position steer tires is designated as "Summer" only. That's fine for a lot of RV users, but what about those who travel through the rains of the Pacific Northwest, or those whose Chalet branded coaches serve as ad hoc ski chalets in the Sierra? These usage cases need not be blazing through blizzards, but light snow flurries where no 4WD nor chains are required shouldn't send a coach skidding into an embankment for lack of tread traction or sufficient sipes in the tires. So for all season recreational uses, an all season tire would be preferable over a "summer" tire. And for more adventurous RV'rs, an all terrain tire might even be considered. At the very least, a tire with a Three Peak Mountain Snowflake Rating (3PMSF) should be considered as minimum verified threshold of wet and unexpected light snow performance. And the lack of a 3PMSF symbol introduces another potential downside of some C-Metric tires. While both versions of the Agilis Cross Climate have 3PMSF certificaton, neither version of the Nexen CT8 HL are certified 3PMSF. Like Michelin, Nexen offers their commercial CT8 HL tire in both C-Metric and LT-Metric versions, neither of which are 3PMSF rated, but both of which are heavier in weight, at 42.76 lbs, than either version of the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate. Note that both C-Metric and LT-Metric Nexen CT8 HL's weigh exactly the same, at 42.76 lbs. So which tire has more ingredients? Which tire has more belts? Which tire is tougher? And unlike the directional versus non directional tread design difference in the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate, to my understanding, there is no difference in tread between either version of the Nexen CT8 HL. However, Nexen makes 5 commercial tires in the 225/75R16 range (not including their snow tire that receives studs). Other than the two CT8 HL tire versions, the three remaining Nexen light truck tires are 3PMSF certified. Nexen's latest tire, their new ATX, weighs in at 43.50 lbs, which is about a pound heavier than their C-Metric CT8 HL. So which is tougher on the day to day, irrespective of weight rating? I'm not qualified to answer to that question, but will close with one more interesting difference between the two versions of the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate. As previously discussed, the peak weight carrying capacity of a C-Metric tire is rated at 83 psi, which is also the maximum cold inflation pressure rating of the tire. Typically, an LT Metric load range E tire has a maximum cold inflation pressure rating of 80 psi. However, the LT Metric Michelin Agilis Cross Climate has a maximum pressure rating of 90 psi, which is higher than the 83 psi max of C-Metric version of the same tire. Now get this... there is no change in weight carrying capacity rating between 80 psi and 90 psi on the LT Metric version of the Agilis Cross Climate. The tire is simply designed to withstand more internal pressure. One would think that means that the tire is tougher...to be able to hold nearly as much pressure as a steel sidewall load range F tire, at 90 psi. Yet no additional load capacity is stated for when the tire is inflated past 80 psi, and let's not forget that the OEM wheels on this platform are limited to 80 psi cold inflation rating. An advantage that an LT-Metric version of this brand and model of tire may have over a C-Metric version of the same tire, is that in the summer, while traveling for hundreds of miles on hot Arizona roads, with heat expanding the air within the tire while increasing the tire's internal pressure... having a 10 psi margin of allowable pressure build up all fall within the 90 psi rating of the tire, offers some comfort not unlike the comfort felt with having a larger margin in tire weight carrying capacity.
BigToe 10/31/22 02:54am Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

That's good data above in your post. However it raises one important question rarely discussed in any of the forums: For a given tire size between the two tire types that the C-Metric version is a more rugged/stronger tire? i.e. That the C-Metric version has more plies? If so, if carrying capacity is not an issue ... should one use the C-Metric type tires if they wish for more puncture-proofness - as in occasional offroad travel with their Class C? To me, yes...it means the Commercial rated tire is stronger and thus less likely to have a blowout. Would anyone like to share the downside of getting Commercial rated tires at least on the rear? The cost (in my experience) is minimal. Chris The potential downsides to getting a C-Metric tire depend on the brand and model of tires being compared. But first, to clarify, the term "C-Metric" is used instead of "Commercial", because there are a plethora of Commercial tires in the LT-Metric size and Load Range E rating that are not C-Metric. To suggest that only C-Metric tires are "Commercial", whereas tires in the same size without the appended "C" after the rim diameter are not, does not properly reflect the long standing tire offerings available in North America for decades prior to the importation of Euro Vans, beginning with the Sprinter, and continuing with the Fiat (Ram Pro Master) and Ford Transit. In Europe, these Euro vans are fitted with tires specified by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO), which developed a Commercial tire standard to distinguish tire characteristics from Passenger car tire standards. We have the same distinction in North America, where we have P-Metric passenger car tires, and LT-Metric light truck tires. "C" is to Europe what "LT" is to the United States. It isn't as if an LT tire is not a commercial tire. And it certainly isn't as if to get a "true" commercial tire in the United States, one must look for, or insist upon, a tire size appended with "C". That is not the case. None of the Commercial tires on Peterbilts, Kenworths, Freightliner Medium and Heavy Duty, Navister International light, medium, heavy, or severe duty trucks use tires that are C-Metric. Does that mean that these trucks are not specified with "Commercial" tires? Of course not. The same holds true for 3500/4500/5500/6500 and 350/450/550/600 trucks from the Big Three domestic pickup and chassis cab manufacturers. These trucks are specified with commercial tires that do not have "C" appended after their rim size. In otherwords, they do not use C-Metric tires. But they do use Commercial tires all the same. Some examples of LT-Metric Commercial tires include, but are not limited to, Americus Commercial LT All Season Tire - LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY BFGoodrich Commercial T/A All Season 2 LT225/75R16 115/112R LRE 10 PLY BFGoodrich Commercial T/A Traction LT225/75R16 112Q LRE 10 PLY Bridgestone Duravis R238 Commercial Summer Tire (LRE) LT225/75R16 115R LRE 10 PLY 14/32nds 50.5 lbs. $311 Steel Sidewall Casing Bridgestone Blizzak LT Commercial Winter Tire (LRE) LT225/75R16 115R LRE 10 PLY 17/32nds 36.9 lbs. $204 Bridgestone Blizzak W965 Commercial Winter Tire (LRE) LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY 17/32nds 42.5 lbs. $144 Bridgestone Duravix M700 HD Firestone Transforce HT2 Highway Terrain Commercial Light Truck Tire LT225/75R16 115R LRE 10 PLY General Grabber HD Commercial Truck Tire LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY In creating the list above, I simply worked my way through the alphabet, and grew "tired" of adding tires to this list by the time I reached letter G in the alphabet. And I didn't even cover all of the tires available by brands beginning with A-F (Falken just came to mind as I type this), but it seems certain that if I made it as far as the letter "G" without mentioning Goodyear, the Goodyear Blimp will probably dump their holding tank over my house next time they go floating by, so let me add the following two tires to the list: Goodyear Endurance RSA ULT 16" LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY 50 lbs Goodyear Endurance RSD ULT 16" LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY 49 lbs. These Endurance tire casings are so tough, Goodyear states that they are re-treadable. Not that this means a hill of beans to owners who time out their tires before they wear out, but still, the Endurance RSA ULT is in Michelin XPS Rib and Bridgestone R238 territory. Lateral scrub-resistant tread compound Premium enhanced casing Reinforced shoulders and steel-steel belt package. All of the foregoing are Commercial tires, listed for last mile delivery, school bus, emergency services ambulance, urban utility, etc. Hence, to distinguish the Euro Centric designation for the 225/75R16C tire, the "C" shall be referred to as "C-Metric", which is Europe's near equivalent to what in the USA is called LT-Metric. There are no downsides to getting commercial tires, as there exists enough variety among commercial tires available in North America, whether designated as LT Metric or C Metric, that the plethora of alternative choices effectively cancels out any downsides. So to focus only on any downsides of getting "C-Metric" tires, one has to consider the question brand by brand, where a given tire brand may make an 225/75R16 in P-Metric (out of the question), LT-Metric (as specified by Ford, the E-350/450 manufacturer), and C-Metric (as recently applied with tires specified for Euro vans). Some tire brands don't even offer a C-Metric tire in North America. Moving up a letter in the alphabet to "H", consider Hankook. Ford specifies and equips new E-350 and E-450 cutaway motorhome chassis with the Hankook Dynapro HT LT235/75R16E tire as standard equipment. Every year it seems, Ford works with Hankook to tweak the specs on this tire. The details of the changes are propietary, but the evidence that changes have been made are found in the material product code. Currently, the following product codes for this tire might still be available at any given tire distributor: 2021163 (36 lbs) 2020873 (39 lbs) 2020694 (39 lbs) 2001831 (40 lbs) If one were to take delivery of a 2023 Model Year Class C motorhome built on a Ford E-350/450 cutaway chassis today, then the standard tire would be the 2001831 material product code of the Hankook Dynapro HT LT225/75R16E LRE tire. UNLESS... the motorhome manufacturer took advantage of Ford's FIN option to have Michelin Agilis Cross Climate tires fitted instead. Unlike Hankook, Michelin offers the Agilis Cross Climate tire in both LT Metric and C Metric variants. However, Ford will only supply the LT-Metric variant on the E-350/450 cutaway, if the ordering fleet specifies (and pays for) that option. This post is getting long in the tooth, and may soon reach the character limit, so I'll stop here and examine the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate comparison between the LT225/75R16 versus the 225/75R16C in my next post.
BigToe 10/31/22 01:24am Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

The Ford E-350 DRW and E-450 DRW E-Series Cutaway Chassis OEM 16" x 6" wheels that were manufactured in Canada by Accuride, identified by eight circular hand holes, are rated to 80 psi. I haven't personally verified the wheel psi rating of the current 4 hand hole 16"x6" OEM wheels made by Maxion in Mexico, but have every indication to believe that they match the original wheel specification of 80 psi Max cold inflation pressure. I have personally verified the OEM wheels made by Accuride in Canada. The interesting, informational, and arguably irrelevant aspect of the higher rating of the European Tyre & Rim Technical Organisation commercial tire standard developed for Euro Vans such as the Sprinter, Transit, Fiat, ProMaster, and VW equivalents marketed under various names depending on country... tires which we in the United States can identify as "C-Metric" tires (as very distinct from "LT-Metric Load Range C" tires... is that the "500 lbs." higher rating per tire in the 225/75R16C size is at 83 psi. The stock wheels are only rated to 80 psi. So the "margin" of weight capacity per tire must be reduced by the C-Metric tires rated capacity at a reduced pressure, which in this case is no higher than 80 psi. Nexen doesn't offer any Load Inflation Tables. I even called Nexen tech support for this information, and spent 30 minutes on the phone with an Andrew at Nexen, who was not able to locate a Load Inflation Table for any of the five offerings that Nexen produces in the LT225/75R16 or 225/75R16C sizes. However, most other tire manufacturers do provide load inflation tables, which let the tire user know the weight capacity of a given tire when inflated to less than the maximum psi that the tire is capable of withstanding. Due to tire industry standards organizations, there is generally consistency from brand to brand in load inflation indices for any given specific tire size. In this case, to determine how much additional weight carrying "margin" a 225/75R16C C-Metric tire has over an LT225/75R16E LT-Metric tire when both types of tires are inflated to the maximum pressure that the OEM steel wheel is rated for when cold (80 psi), I reviewed the Load Inflation Tables of several different brands of C-Metric tires in this size, and all tables from every brand checked were consistent with each other. When inflated to 80 psi, a 225/75R16C tire is rated to support 3,085 lbs in single wheel configuration, as opposed to 3,195 lbs when inflated to 83 psi. In dual rear wheel configuration, the C-Metric 225/75R16C is rated to support 2,975 lbs at 80 psi, as opposed to 3,085 lbs when inflated to 83 psi. By contrast, the LT225/75R16E tire, when inflated to 80 psi, is rated at 2,680 single, 2,470 dual (per each individual tire). So to stack the weight carrying capacity differences up neatly in a row: 3,195 lbs Single / 3,085 lbs Dual - C-Metric at 83 psi 3,085 lbs Single / 2,975 lbs Dual - C-Metric at 80 psi (OEM wheel psi rating) 2,680 lbs Single / 2,470 lbs Dual - LT-Metric at 80 psi On the steer axle, there is a 405 lbs difference between C-Metric and LT-Metric at 80 psi, and on the drive axle, the difference grows to 505 lbs. at 80 psi. Where the point in REDUCING the mental margin afforded to the C-Metric tire by ignoring the tire's maximum weight capacity at any pressure beyond the pressure rating of the wheel is arguably irrelevant, as all of these ratings exceed the weight capacity of the rear axles of all Ford E-350/450 cutaways, which range from 7,800 lbs to 9,600 lbs, depending on model and year. However, it seemed to be an interesting observation to make... keeping the pressure limits of the wheel in mind.
BigToe 10/29/22 02:57pm Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Thank you SJ-Chris for your detailed response!
BigToe 10/28/22 01:21pm Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Thanks for your responses pnichols.
BigToe 10/25/22 11:08pm Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Thanks PNichols. If you have an E-450, then you must have 4.56 gearing? What transmission does your rig have? How many speeds? Did you notice any difference in shift points on grades with the taller tires?
BigToe 10/23/22 11:24pm Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Thank you for that suggestion, which did work to reveal more threads than RVnet's internal search engine.
BigToe 10/23/22 11:43am Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

In addition to dual spacing clearance between the tires when loaded, changing tire sizes also results in changes to final drive ratio gearing, affecting acceleration, shift points, and gradeability in a given gear. Still, I've read several stories (not sure if they are all from the same member or from several members) over the years on RV.net of Ford Class C owners changing to 215/85R16 (which actually results in more clearance between the duals). Moreover, I've also read of at least one member who upsized to 235/85R16, as that was the tire size that Ford used on their SRW E series vans in the late '80's and early '90's. I think that these owners were looking for a bit more ground clearance. They might have been looking for more weight capacity across the back axle too. I didn't pay much attention to the details when I stumbled across their posts, figuring that a keyword search would always retrieve their reasoning and results, whenever life presented a "need to know" demand. Well, I was shocked at how sparsely few results revealed themselves in search, so I was hoping a fresh topic would unearth the considerations and motivations of E-350 and E-450 based Class C owners who have changed their OEM tire size. Thank you for your words of caution on dually spacing.
BigToe 10/23/22 07:00am Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

SJ Chris What are "Commercial rated tires which each have ~500 lbs. more carrying capacity compared to the E-load tires?" Can you please tell us the size, numerical load index, (eg 115/112R), manufacturer brand, and model name/number of the tires that you picked out for your 30' Class C Thors? The term "Commercial" is used to broadly across too many sizes and types of tires for me to find the type of tires that you recommend. Thanks.
BigToe 10/22/22 09:06pm Class C Motorhomes
RE: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

MDKMDK Did your Sprinter come originally equipped with 215/85R16, or did you change to that size. If you did change, what was the original size? What brand of tires are on your Sprinter now? Why would you go with Falken Wild Peak AT/3 hybrid for your next Class C tire purchase, even while Michelin has always been your go to make? Are you at all concerned about "weather checking" sidewalls of Michelins? Have you considered the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate tire (available in 215/85R16 LRE)? Thanks in arrears and in advance for your responses!
BigToe 10/22/22 11:03am Class C Motorhomes
Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Tire Choices for Ford E-Series Cutaway Class C Motorhomes What replacement tires did you put on your Class C motorhome built on a Ford E-350 or E-450 (aka E-Superduty in older rigs) cutaway chassis, and what were your reasons for your tire selection? Did you stick with the stock tire size of LT225/75r16 ? Did you go taller and skinnier, changing to LT215/85r16 ? Did you go taller and wider, changing to LT235/85r16? Did you upgrade to 10 ply rating Load Range "E"? (If you have an older E-350 originally specified with 8 ply rated Load Range "D") Did you switch to European style 225/75r16C, such as what is specified for Euro van cutaways like the Transit and Sprinter? Have you had an experience with any particular brand and model of tire for your E-350/450 RV that caused you to swear "never again"? Do you have a particular brand and model of tire that is your trusted "go to"? Thank you!
BigToe 10/22/22 09:03am Class C Motorhomes
RE: How to rotate dually tires

It seems you have switched from a 10 year cycle in Scenario A to a 7 year cycle in Scenario B . Not exactly apples to apples . Scenario A leaves the drive tires alone, and therefore does NOT expose the drive tires to any of the accelerated wear cycle of periodic tours of duty on a front axle. Instead, the rear tires are shielded from that exposure, and remain true to the rear. Remember, both Scenarios assume a problematic alignment issue, or a spirited and assertive driving style, or bad front shocks... something that causes front tires to wear out quickly enough to want to undertake a tire rotation regimen. Also, the spare tire is ignored in both scenarios. Scenario A rotates only the steer tires, and assumes that in 5 years, the steer tires are done, requiring replacement. This Scenario was prescribed by the earlier respondent who assumed that I had purchased "8 or 10 tires" in the 10 year period that my drive tires lasted unrotated, because he assumed that I had replaced the steer tires "two or three times" during that same interval. I hadn't, but it was still worth recreating the scenario he assumed, so as to explore his idea. Scenario B rotates all 6 operating tires, spreading the known tire wear issue over all 6 tires in rotation. In this scenario the rear tires are in fact exposed to all the cornering, steering, and scrub stresses typical of a front tire, as well as any alignment issues, bad shocks, and driving style characteristics. Since Scenario B uses all 6 tires in rotation, the tire life before replacement is extended by 2 years, from 5 years to 7 years. That extension is afforded by the fact that the wear is distributed over more tires. But since it is being distributed over the rear tires, the 10 year life of the rear tires is reduced by 3 years. Hence the seven year life cycle for all tires in Scenario B. Both Scenarios are hypothetical. A lot of folks burn through tires far more frequently. The more frequently one churns through sets of tires, and the longer one keeps a truck, the more savings one can realize by not rotating in the four dually pairs on the drive axle. However, an entire other group of folks change trucks every 3 to 5 years, so for them, none of this matters. For me, it matters, because in the past I have kept trucks for 20 years, but now that truck prices have climbed so high, I will likely keep this truck for 40 years, having already clocked 22 years into it, with only that one tire change 10 years ago. As I shop for the next set of tires, I consider the entire life cycle of tire ownership, and share those considerations here, in one of the best threads I have found covering a variety of tangents on the topic.
BigToe 09/26/22 10:16pm Truck Campers
RE: How to rotate dually tires

How many sets of fronts did you go through with the same set of rears, though? Two? Three? Now you've got four tires with tons of wear left in them, but have aged out and need to be replaced! So instead of rotating and only needing 6 tires, you've bought 8, or possibly 10 tires total, AND had to discard four tires with tons of tread on them. The whole premise of your argument is that tire rotation is only to compensate for alignment issues, but it isn't. You yourself have admitted that the fronts wear more quickly than the rears. Doesn't it make sense to spread the wear across all six tires and replace them all with fresh rubber at once? I went through zero (0) sets of front tires during the same time period as the rear tires. Ten years ago, I replaced all seven tires at the same time, and have not bought any new tires since. The front tires show 12/32nd remaining tread measured at the center rib (both sides). These have also aged out before they have worn out, despite also having 40,000 miles on them. The spare tire is the same type of tire (HSR, where "S" stands for steering) as the two front tires. About a year or two after installing all the tires, I noticed uneven wear on the right front tire, so I installed the spare tire, and did an alignment, which for my straight axle truck only involved resetting the toe. A few years later, I removed the front tires to grease the front wheel bearings, and I may have rotated the front tires side to side when I assembled it all back together. If I did indeed swapped front tires side to side (I'm guessing I would have, but no abnormal wear or feathering has been observed since resetting the toe) then that would have constituted two (2) front tire rotations during the 10 year, 40,000 mile period of use, with no tire replacements. I had intended to work the spare tire back in, but was waiting for evidence to manifest a reason to, and no further evidence appeared. Hence, addressing what in my case would have been the root cause of unnecessary tire wear (misaligned toe) as soon as it appeared, rather than allow every tire to be feathered in the right front, and then unfeathered by rotating it through all other tire positions, saved me a lot of work (since I do the work myself), and if I didn't do the work myself, it would have saved me a lot of money from paying others to do my tire rotations. Even though, contrary to your assumptions, I never had to buy new steer tires during the life cycle of my drive tires, let's suppose for the sake of argument that someone did. Scenario A is 6 tires purchased and installed in 2022, plus 2 intermediate replacement steer tires purchased five years later in 2027, and then a full set of 6 new tires purchased in 2032, adds up to 14 tires that will carry on until at least 2037. Scenario B is 6 tires purchased in 2022, plus 6 tires purchased seven years later in 2029, plus 6 tires purchased seven years later in 2036 adds up to 18 tires. Already, Scenario A means 4 less tires purchased, or $1,600 savings in today's dollars. Who knows what tires will cost in 2036/7. One concept that has been repeated throughout this thread is that there is no one best practice that works for every owner, in every situation. The dually tire rotation recommendations of Vehicle manufacturers not only differ from vehicle brand to vehicle brand, but also have differed diametrically from year to year for vehicles produced by the same brand. For example, Ford has published three different dually tire rotation recommendations in the Super Duty owner's manuals over the last 20 years. Another concept that was only briefly mentioned is the difference in drivers and driving style. The driving style in my household is such that either one of us can get 100,000 miles out of any set of tires on any vehicle. Ford, Chevy, Honda, Toyota, big car, little car, Bridgestone, Michelin, it doesn't matter. Our driving style is easy on tires, as well as brakes. So that could by why my front tires never needed replacing. However, for other driving styles, and for trucks that are a challenge to keep aligned, especially when the same truck is used with a truck camper and without the truck camper, which can change the geometry of some suspension designs... the merits of leaving the back four tires alone, and only rotating the fronts, or the fronts with the spare, are worthy of consideration, and that was the point that I was trying to highlight, offering my personal experience merely as an anecdote.
BigToe 09/26/22 04:34pm Truck Campers
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 2  
Next


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2023 CWI, Inc. © 2023 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.