Chrysler: Low Profile Tires are DANGEROUS

Student Mechanic: Go the fuck away.


On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

<frass about low profile tires>

Yes and the fuckin sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!








"Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" <to> wrote
in message news:to... 

"Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" <to> wrote
in message news:to...
 

What you smoking?

There's lots of ways to get around this. Jack up the air pressure. make
stronger tires.

The only reason people ought to avoid lower profile tires is because
they were invented by the tire manufacturers to enable them to sell
more rims to replace all the bent ones caused by going over standard
sized chuckholes in the road. (they also look stupid, but that's another
thing)

Ted

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
 

Ummmm.... no. Tread design plays as large, if not larger role than tire
width in determining how easily a tire hydroplanes. Of course, if you
have to rationalize the "4 for $99" whitewalls you just bought at Pep
Boys, be my guest.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: 

You're full of it and not even consistent in your own post. So is it 10
MPH or 45 MPH? Quite a difference.


Matt

In article
<to>,
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
<to> wrote:
 

[snip gibberish]

"hydroplanning?"

Isn't that what they did before they built Hoover Dam?

FWIW-- my wife bought low profiles for her 96 Concorde about a year ago. With
the new rims, they looked sharp as hell, and handling in good conditions was
really good. BUT-- first snowfall ( and we had a LOT last year) they were
horrible. She wasn't into having two sets of wheels/tires for different
seasons, so she gave them to her son for his Cavalier.

******************************
Got wood?
Check out my exotic hardwood pennywhistles at fair
prices...http://www.Busmanwhistles.com

Whether or not it's "student mechanic" posting this topic or someone
else, I tend to agree with him.

I had a virtual A/B comparision in terms of low aspect ratio tires.

I had a 1981 Plymouth TC3 ("sporty" extended hatchback Horizon) with
standard tires.

I also had a 1984 Dodge Rampage (mini-pickup based on the Horizon).
Same front wheel drive, approximate same weight, same engines (2.2
liter). The treads on the two sets of tires were similar, but the
Rampage had the low aspect ratio tires.

The Rampage was TERRIBLE in snow. The car spun out on me at slow
speeds many times. I finally totalled it when it slid down a snow
covered hill into a rock outcropping while doing less that 20 MPH.

The Plymouth TC3 was GREAT in snow....

Another similar experience happened about 14 years ago, when I pulled
a 4 wheel drive Jeep off of a snow drift with my 1937 Hudson
Terraplane (no kidding - yes, I'm an antique car collector). That car
had the old bias ply 6.00 x 16" tires - tall and skinny. Of course, it
did weigh something like 4,500 lbs.

Now my 1929 Model A doesn't do too well in snow but it has 4.50 x 21"
tires. That's carrying tall and skinny too far....sort of like balloon
bicycle tires.

My only theory is that "tall and skinny" tires put more load per sq.
inch on the road, biting better into snow.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong....

Doug








On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 03:09:59 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous via the
Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer <to> wrote: