Date:         Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:22:57 -0700
Reply-To:     Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Tire question: Sorry, but ...
Comments: To: Mike S <mikes@flatsurface.com>
In-Reply-To:  <20100829212033.B1AA3136F22@hamburg.alientech.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Mike S <mikes@flatsurface.com> wrote:

> At 01:03 PM 8/29/2010, Don Hanson wrote...
>
>  The ones I just got are marked "205/70 r 14  95T M+S" with a max load
>> rating of 1527# and they are set up for studs, but have none in them   I
>> guess, from what I have found on the net, that these are likely car tires,
>> not light truck like the other Hakkas I have.  They do have an adequate
>> load
>> rating for the weight of my van,
>>
>
> They don't have enough of a load rating to allow you to load your Vanagon
> to its rated capacity.
>
> I did a bit of research on this a while ago, and put together this summary:
>
OK, thank you for the figures.

  Using the numbers you provided, it looks like the tires I just got are
'light' by about 85lbs of load, then.  So they aren't 'rated' for a fully
loaded vanagon by about 170lbs and the sidewalls will likely be too mushy
and soft for good handling.

  Knowing our US DOT, I can live with them being under the specified load
range for a light truck by 4%.  I'd bet the DOT is at least 100% on the safe
side...And for the price I paid weighed against my current spendable
resources, I might put up with some degraded performance in my  handling, if
it isn't too bad.  After all, I do not dirve my Vanagon like a performance
vehicle, I drive it like a VW bus with poor brakes, which it is, sort of.

  Thanks again, "You get what you pay for" I guess.  I better start looking
around for two more "real" LT Hakkapelitta snows to match the ones I have...

  Don Hanson