Date:         Thu, 7 Dec 95 11:10:22 EST
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         "Ervolina, Thomas R. (Tom)" <ervolina@watson.ibm.com>
Subject:      RE: Reinforced Snow Tires

>>but it wasn't until the spring when I
>>got four new michelin MXL reinforced's, that I realized how much better
>>the reinforced tires are -- major improvement.
>
>Tom,
>
>What do you mean by this?  I am facing my first winter with my new (used) '90
>Camper and have been reading with interest winter driving and tire tips that
>have been on the list.

Sorry for the confusion.  There are two (almost seperate) issues:
Reinforced vs non-reinforced, and snows vs non-snows.  My comment above
was strictly related to the first.

Reinforced vs Non-reinforced:
I got my van in November of last year, it came with 6 wheels, all were
non-reinforced.  Two snows were on the rear and two all-season passenger
tires on front.  All six were fairly worn.  In the spring, I got 4 new
michelin MXL reinforced.  The ride (in dry conditions) was greatly improved.
The heavy lean when cornering was gone.  The weeble-wooble handling was
gone.  Just looking at them; the non-reinforced *looked* like overloaded
tires whereas the MXL's don't have that "bulge".
This may have been in part due to going to a wider tire 195/75 to
205/70 (MXL's), but I doubt it.  The real reason I was after the reinforced
was because of the two remaining tires.  I don't remember what they were
but they were not the same and *both* of them had "bubbles" in the sidewalls.
If that was indicative of how non-reinforced tires fare on a vanagon, then
I wanted no part of them.

If you do the math, comparing GVWR with the max load rating, the
non-reinforced just about cut it.  However, I don't think that's a good
enough test.  (I'm in conjecture mode now).  The vanagon is top heavy.  Or
maybe its "footprint" (width between left tire and right tire) is narrow.
In any case, when you corner, there lots of "lean" onto those outside
tires.  This is not a max load thing, its a "gimme some tough sidewalls"
thing.

Snows vs. non-snows:
After spending mega bucks for (4) snows, I'm now wondering whether I *really*
need them.  You probably will never know until its too late, sitting in
a snowbank (or worse) saying to yourself, "Yep, I needed them."
Anyway, I don't know all of the science behind this issue but here are
some points to consider:

If there's a bad storm, do you have the luxury to sit it out and wait till
the road is clear?  (I'm an x-c ski fanatic and a corporate prisoner so, come
Friday night I'm cruising regardless of the weather -- the more snow, the
better).  If not, then maybe you can do what most people around here do:
don't use snows and when the weather is bad, drive at a catatonic speed
(argghh!).

The cost of snows is not as bad as it seems.  In the long run, you're
just buying rubber (albeit, expensive rubber).  When I bought my Jetta
new, I bought 4 extra wheels and 4 snows. I didn't need any new tires
until the odo hit 95K miles.  The wheels (rims) are a sunk cost, but they
don't lose their value.  Still, it is a lot of money to lay out.

If you do get snows, try to find reinforced (or L/T, or C rated, or 8 ply).

Its generally known that, for snows, narrower is better than wider.  The
logic is that the narrower tire has more weight per area of tire in contact
with the road (ie, you "cut through to the road").  Alternatively, the wider
tires will tend more to hydroplane (the snow version of hydroplane).  I don't
know that this would be that critical with the vanagon.  It is if you're
dealing with low profile performance tires on cars.  Within the recommended
vanagon range, you may want to opt for the 185R14, rather than the 205/70.

It is generally known that, for rear wheel drive, you want lots of weight
in the rear.  In my BMW 2002, I nearly killed myself one winter.  That
car is very light in the rear and has lots of torque.  Any sort of
acceleration could send the thing into a fishtail.  I pulled over and
put a bunch of rocks in the trunk -- no problem.  For the vanagon, isn't
there already a lot of weight in the rear?  If you're on the road and
having trouble, look for rocks.  Or better yet, pick up hitchhikers and
make them ride in the way back -- if you get stuck, they can help push
you out.

How many?  I doubt if there's a definite answer.  Clearly, going from none
to two in the back has a *lot* of benefit.  Going the extra bit and getting
two more for the front will improve further, but is it a necessity?

All-seasons for all seasons vs. an extra set of snows?  How good are those
"all-seasons" in snow?  Consumer's Report rated all-season tires a about
a year ago and didn't say *anything* about snow.  What does all-season mean?
I've seen some all-seasons that don't look at all snow-worthy.  I guess if
you can find all-seasons that are on on the "aggressive" side of the
spectrum, then that might be a good solution.  I am not sure, now, if the
Michelin MXL's are rated all-season or M+S or what.  I have no experience
with them in snow.  They don't look anything like a snow tire.

Should you get studs?  Are they legal where you plan to go?  Studs in front?
I went for studs on all four -- what the hell.

How are snows in dry and wet conditions?  Even in a really bad winter,
you'll probably do most of your driving on snow-free roads.  Snows are
noiser, so you'll have to crank the stereo a bit louder.  They're not as
good in non-snow conditions -- by how much, depends greatly on the tire
I guess.  Boy. wouldn't it be funny if you spent all that money and it
didn't snow.  (Uh-oh, I hope I didn't just offend the snow gods).

Are you waffling on this?  Wait till the first snowfall and do some
testing.  Empty parking lots are good, but you're typical road condition
can be much different than a parking lot with virgin snow.  Be careful,
of course.

Tom

Tom Ervolina
Production, Distribution and Transportation Research
IBM Research
Yorktown Heights, NY