Date:         Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:20:56 -0700
Reply-To:     Zeitgeist <gruengeist@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Zeitgeist <gruengeist@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Tires - Why oh why NOT?
In-Reply-To:  <20090314014213.933831165C1@hamburg.alientech.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I guess to my uninformed self, it seems that the failure mode for most of
these tires is focused on the sidewall, and especially the extra tall
sidewall of a 70 to 75 series 14" tire.  I would theorize that my 50/55
series sidewalls are less prone to flex and bulge issues that either blow
out or separate from the rim.  My van is primarily used as a local
people/junk/lumber/hardware hauler.  I try to never travel any more than 60
miles (to IKEA) in the thing, 'cause I have other more comfortable cruisers
for such things.  I do routinely drive @ 70-75 mph, though.  And I like to
flog this beasty around corners, especially now that my rear stays glued to
the road rather than sliding out like my old 14" Uniroyals (with proper load
rating).

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Mike S <mikes@flatsurface.com> wrote:

> Insufficient information. You have to compare load ratings.
>
> I have a pop-up camper with 10" tires (20.5x8-10 10pr, aka 205/65-10E)
> which are rated for 1535 lbs. per tire; more than most 205/65R15 passenger
> car tires (the afore mentioned M-B 560SEC ones), and almost enough of a load
> rating to run on a Vanagon (but they wouldn't fit).
>
>
--
Casey
'87 300TD
'94 100CSQ Avant
'89 Bluestar