Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:35:06 -0400
Reply-To: "Chris S." <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "Chris S." <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Interesting Tire Info
In-Reply-To: <20120427094548.GOW4K.627724.imail@eastrmwml214>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Check your Vanagon weight distribution figures. It's very close to 50/50.
You've got 300 lbs of gear in the back and 300 lbs of homo sapiens over the steering wheels.
Now look at the factory recommendation at max load. Look at both PSI AND max axle load. Do you see the pattern?
My 45 psi recommendation was for lightly laden vehicle.
Chris.
Wysłane z iPhone'a
Dnia Apr 27, 2012 o godz. 9:45 <mcneely4@cox.net> napisał(a):
> Hmmm...... . The VW recommendation is based on "average" weight distribution, and the engine being in the rear. When I travel for camping, I load gear on the bed behind the rear seat. The storage under the seat is full of stuff, including a Dutch oven, tarp and poles, the jack, hatchet --- 2-3 hundred pounds of stuff between that behind and that under the seat.
>
> The ride doesn't bother me. If I loaded the thing heavier, I would assume that I was supposed to pump it up above the recommendation, not drop it if I have not loaded it to the max. I also assume that whatever pressure I run it at, the rear is supposed to be at a higher psi than the front to compensate for the engine.
>
> What do the "experts" on here say? Dennis? The tire folks I've consulted say run it at 53/43. mcneely
>
> ---- "Chris S." <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> With D plies try 45 front and back. No sense pumping up the rear so high if you are not carrying passengers back there.
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>> Wysłane z iPhone'a
>>
>> Dnia Apr 26, 2012 o godz. 17:11 Richard Duvernay <richard.duvernay@SBCGLOBAL.NET> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Just want to offer a contrary reiview. I bought my 90 westy three years ago
>>> with brand new Kumho Radial 857's on it. I run the same pressure as Dave, 53 in
>>> the rear, 43 in the front. They track and handle real well, but seriously it's
>>> like riding in a commercial truck. I feel every bump. I believe mine have worn
>>> more than 50% in only 15,000 miles. I had the brake fluid changed last month
>>> and the mechanic said they were wearing thin. Bad karma...I punctured the tire
>>> the next week when I ran over, believe it or not, one of those plastic corn on
>>> the cob holders that looks like a minature corn on the cob with two metal
>>> prongs. Thump, thump, thump, thump as I went down the road sportin an ear of
>>> corn out my tire. That was it. I refuse to be bested by a plastic vegetable.
>>> I'm now on a quest to upgrade to 15 inch wheels and wider tires :)
>>>
>>> Rick
>>> 90 Westy (one ear missing)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
>>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>>> Sent: Thu, April 26, 2012 1:37:47 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Interesting Tire Info
>>>
>>> Well, I am not going to go to all the calling Kumho and so on that I did 3 years
>>> ago. At that time, Kumho engineers told me (and evidently Karl M. also) that
>>> the Kumho Radial 857 sold in the U.S. is the same tire that is sold all over the
>>> world as a truck and van tire, and is quite suitable for trucks and vans here.
>>> The tire is not marked as for trailers only because it is not for trailers
>>> only. I was told that the tire is marketed in the U.S. for trailers because 14
>>> inch tires for trucks are of so little demand here. Interestingly, the tire is
>>> built on other rim sizes, but not imported here, so I am not sure what that is
>>> about.
>>>
>>> But, it is not marked as "ST" or "For Trailer Use Only," because it is not. It
>>> is certified for 95 mph, it is a D tire (8 ply rating in the older terminology).
>>>
>>> If interested, call Kumho, their contact information is on their web page.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you will get the same answer I did. Oh, the engineer said that by the
>>> Kumho certification in the U.S., the tire is primarily a trailer tire, but the
>>> secondary application of truck, bus, or van is an "allowed" application. That's
>>> why their web page focuses on trailer use, but does mention truck, bus, or van
>>> application. I notice that some other web pages in other countries now mention
>>> the trailer application first as well, including Canada, but still point out the
>>> truck, bus, or van use.
>>>
>>> Well, I thought I wouldn't bother with this any more, but I have wasted a good
>>> part of a day on it. Good grief!!
>>>
>>> mcneely
>>>
>>> ---- David_Vickery <david_vickery@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>>>> I thought they are required to mark them ST if it is only for trailer use?
>>>
>>> mark drillock <mdrillock@COX.NET> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not just TireRack saying they are for trailer use. The Discount
>>>> Tire website now says it too, along with many others. I wonder how easy
>>>> you would find it now if you went in again and tried to get some to put
>>>> on a Westy. I can see some tire guys refusing to order them just on that
>>>> basis. It might take some talking.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> mcneely4@cox.net wrote:
>>>>> Mark, what I can blame people for is not paying attention to legitimate
>>>>> information that describes the tire and its uses, including Kumho web pages and
>>>>> references to them by folks who have investigated the tire. Karl was fine with
>>>>> the tire only after his conversation with his engineering buddy. Fine. Good
>>>>> for him for wanting to be sure. But when the tire is marketed worldwide for
>>>>> van, bus, and truck applications, including in the U.S. though mentioned
>>>>> secondarily here to its trailer application because of size only, why would
>>>>> people be so silly as to rely only on Tire Rack?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David McNeely
>>>
>
> --
> David McNeely
| 
