Please, maintain your tires properly

[supton]

Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by supton
Legality or not, the rubber under the tread (between groove and carcass), can that be a different compound than the stuff that wears off? I'm wondering if a harder compound might be used as a layer between carcass and the area that is grooved, so as to stiffen up a tire. Or otherwise be used to mold the tires performance.

I don't think the rubber would be softer, but then again, could it be both harder (less compliant) yet quicker to wear off?

Asking for a friend. [Who might be a bit ducked in the head.] [I crack me up.]

Makes sense to me, dry weather tires don't need tread. Heck wet weather tires don't need tread either--as long as you go slow enough. Bicycle tires, at least road tires, do just fine with no tread whatsoever, even in the rain.


Go ahead and drive on them. I'll stay where I am and safe. Forget I even posted about this as some folks are plain nuts!

Where did I say I was going to do this??? FWIW I start tire shopping at 4/32's.

Geez.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ducked
Originally Posted by supton
Legality or not, the rubber under the tread (between groove and carcass), can that be a different compound than the stuff that wears off? I'm wondering if a harder compound might be used as a layer between carcass and the area that is grooved, so as to stiffen up a tire. Or otherwise be used to mold the tires performance.



Dunno, good question. I GUESS not, except maybe with ex-remoulds (demoulds?), if they are still a thing.

I'd guess they aren't still a thing because of more recent concern over tyre ageing, though I never bought anything else if I could help it when I drove in The Yook.

Incidentally, you imply I'm off my head and then you agree with me. What does that say about YOUR mental state, eh?

Get your act together.

Apologies; meant to be friendly banter.


Did mine not come across that way?

Whaddya want, SMILIES?

Eh?

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by supton
Legality or not, the rubber under the tread (between groove and carcass), can that be a different compound than the stuff that wears off? I'm wondering if a harder compound might be used as a layer between carcass and the area that is grooved, so as to stiffen up a tire. Or otherwise be used to mold the tires performance.

I don't think the rubber would be softer, but then again, could it be both harder (less compliant) yet quicker to wear off?

Asking for a friend. [Who might be a bit ducked in the head.] [I crack me up.]

Makes sense to me, dry weather tires don't need tread. Heck wet weather tires don't need tread either--as long as you go slow enough. Bicycle tires, at least road tires, do just fine with no tread whatsoever, even in the rain.


Go ahead and drive on them. I'll stay where I am and safe. Forget I even posted about this as some folks are plain nuts!

Where did I say I was going to do this??? FWIW I start tire shopping at 4/32's.

Geez.


Letting yourself down now. Don't be intimidated by name calling from the chorus.

(On a technical point, bicycle tyres are narrow and circular profile, so aquaplaning probably isn't much of an issue.)

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by supton
Legality or not, the rubber under the tread (between groove and carcass), can that be a different compound than the stuff that wears off? I'm wondering if a harder compound might be used as a layer between carcass and the area that is grooved, so as to stiffen up a tire. Or otherwise be used to mold the tires performance.

I don't think the rubber would be softer, but then again, could it be both harder (less compliant) yet quicker to wear off?

Asking for a friend. [Who might be a bit ducked in the head.] [I crack me up.]

Makes sense to me, dry weather tires don't need tread. Heck wet weather tires don't need tread either--as long as you go slow enough. Bicycle tires, at least road tires, do just fine with no tread whatsoever, even in the rain.


Go ahead and drive on them. I'll stay where I am and safe. Forget I even posted about this as some folks are plain nuts!

Where did I say I was going to do this??? FWIW I start tire shopping at 4/32's.

Geez.


It was meant for Ducked

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by Ducked
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ducked
Originally Posted by supton
Legality or not, the rubber under the tread (between groove and carcass), can that be a different compound than the stuff that wears off? I'm wondering if a harder compound might be used as a layer between carcass and the area that is grooved, so as to stiffen up a tire. Or otherwise be used to mold the tires performance.



Dunno, good question. I GUESS not, except maybe with ex-remoulds (demoulds?), if they are still a thing.

I'd guess they aren't still a thing because of more recent concern over tyre ageing, though I never bought anything else if I could help it when I drove in The Yook.

Incidentally, you imply I'm off my head and then you agree with me. What does that say about YOUR mental state, eh?

Get your act together.

Apologies; meant to be friendly banter.


Did mine not come across that way?

Whaddya want, SMILIES?

Eh?

Ah, got me on that one.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by Ducked
(On a technical point, bicycle tyres are narrow and circular profile, so aquaplaning probably isn't much of an issue.)

That's what I've read--the water has ample time to get pushed out of the way. Narrow, and slow speed. Which makes me think that a bald tire in city traffic on asphalt is going to work the same way. At low speeds the water can be pushed out fast enough, and perhaps still have more traction than if it were to have grooves.

Of course, at some point as speed rises the water can't get out of the way fast enough. No clue what the numbers are.

 

[53' Stude]

Supton: its all good.

Too bad Ducked Likes to drive on unsafe tires. Guess where he lives life isnt worth anything

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ducked
(On a technical point, bicycle tyres are narrow and circular profile, so aquaplaning probably isn't much of an issue.)

That's what I've read--the water has ample time to get pushed out of the way. Narrow, and slow speed. Which makes me think that a bald tire in city traffic on asphalt is going to work the same way. At low speeds the water can be pushed out fast enough, and perhaps still have more traction than if it were to have grooves.

Of course, at some point as speed rises the water can't get out of the way fast enough. No clue what the numbers are.

On just wet pavement, I'm sure my BFG sportcomp2's at 3/32" still out grip 95% of the all-season tires at any tread depth, but add a 1/4" plus of standing water then at some speed my tires will be losing contact with the road before some cheapo all season at 11/32.
Anyways if I watch for standing water and keep the speed reasonable in the rain, I don't feel unsafe and on some types of pavement its still amazing how much better these grip than any of all seasons I've had in the past.

 

[nthach]

In this case, even Chinese tires are safer than bald tires, or even a good set of used tires from Pick & Pull with some meat left on them to survive the rains.

And you can still skid out on slick bike tires in the rain, it's happened to me before and I had one of the best road bike tires on the market(Conti Grand Prix 4 Season).

While a Michelin engineer says that a slick tire is the best for dry roads, slick !== bald tire past the DOT legal limit. And a bald tire on a passenger car is a much different beast than a Goodyear NASCAR Eagle/Michelin Pilot for LeMans/Pirelli P Zero for F1 or even a Hoosier/Goodyear drag slick.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ducked
(On a technical point, bicycle tyres are narrow and circular profile, so aquaplaning probably isn't much of an issue.)

That's what I've read--the water has ample time to get pushed out of the way. Narrow, and slow speed. Which makes me think that a bald tire in city traffic on asphalt is going to work the same way. At low speeds the water can be pushed out fast enough, and perhaps still have more traction than if it were to have grooves.

Agreed. Bicycling in the wet, my only concern has been the stripe of muddy water up my back.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Supton: its all good.

Too bad Ducked Likes to drive on unsafe tires. Guess where he lives life isnt worth anything


Aw, again with the DISLIKE?

I suppose you thought you'd made a nice, comforting "preach to the choir" post. Y'all could pat yourself on the back over the moral superiority you'd bought. Maybe some Darwin Award stylee condescension of the baldies, plus a bit of moral outrage that they might kill a proper consumer.

Well, I never signed up for your choir. One or two other posters above seem to have missed practice as well, so the chorus may be a bit ragged.

Understandable that you'd DISLIKE that.

If you could briefly get your head out of your...er...limited local reference frame, you might see that the reason implied in "In the USA and my state we have safety inspections for a reason", which in this context is aquaplaning, doesn't apply to me, because I'm unlikely to see rain for the next six months.

There is some research evidence (though this is unlikely to be the focus of an industry-funded research effort for very obvious commercial and legal reasons), quite a lot of anecdotal evidence (including some on BITOG), and its inherently plausible, that bald tyres offer superior braking and cornering performance in the dry.

This arguably makes them safer in the dry.

Name calling and simple knee-jerk denial doesn't demonstrate this too be untrue.

For that you'd have to THINK, counter argue, or maybe find some contrary evidence, but maybe you'd DISLIKE all that stuff.

Snags?

Bald tyres are probably more vulnerable to punctures by sharp objects.

Neither last-disappearance-of tread or first-appearance-of-belt are good wear metrics, though the former is more cautious. I don't drive much so this might be tolerable.

I dunno how much more likely they are to suffer sudden and catastrophic disintegration, and I'd suspect no one else does either.

The main snag, however, is the effort involved, and the difficulty in supply. Tyre places here stack take-offs (many with supra-legal tread levels) on the pavement overnight, but thats a fairly obvious technical theft and I'm probably unlikely to do it.

So some of the name-calling is justified, not because I use unsafe bald tyres, but because I'm too lazy to use safer bald tyres.

Hope that isn't too confusing.

 

[Pew]

If bald tires performed better in the dry, everybody at the track that doesn't have slicks would have their tires shaven down as such.

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted by Ducked
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Supton: its all good.

Too bad Ducked Likes to drive on unsafe tires. Guess where he lives life isnt worth anything


Aw, again with the DISLIKE?

I suppose you thought you'd made a nice, comforting "preach to the choir" post. Y'all could pat yourself on the back over the moral superiority you'd bought. Maybe some Darwin Award stylee condescension of the baldies, plus a bit of moral outrage that they might kill a proper consumer.

Well, I never signed up for your choir. One or two other posters above seem to have missed practice as well, so the chorus may be a bit ragged.

Understandable that you'd DISLIKE that.

If you could briefly get your head out of your...er...limited local reference frame, you might see that the reason implied in "In the USA and my state we have safety inspections for a reason", which in this context is aquaplaning, doesn't apply to me, because I'm unlikely to see rain for the next six months.

There is some research evidence (though this is unlikely to be the focus of an industry-funded research effort for very obvious commercial and legal reasons), quite a lot of anecdotal evidence (including some on BITOG), and its inherently plausible, that bald tyres offer superior braking and cornering performance in the dry.

This arguably makes them safer in the dry.

Name calling and simple knee-jerk denial doesn't demonstrate this too be untrue.

For that you'd have to THINK, counter argue, or maybe find some contrary evidence, but maybe you'd DISLIKE all that stuff.

Snags?

Bald tyres are probably more vulnerable to punctures by sharp objects.

Neither last-disappearance-of tread or first-appearance-of-belt are good wear metrics, though the former is more cautious. I don't drive much so this might be tolerable.

I dunno how much more likely they are to suffer sudden and catastrophic disintegration, and I'd suspect no one else does either.

The main snag, however, is the effort involved, and the difficulty in supply. Tyre places here stack take-offs (many with supra-legal tread levels) on the pavement overnight, but thats a fairly obvious technical theft and I'm probably unlikely to do it.

So some of the name-calling is justified, not because I use unsafe bald tyres, but because I'm too lazy to use safer bald tyres.

Hope that isn't too confusing.



Do me a huge favor: STOP POSTING GARBAGE IN MY POSTS! MODS NOTIFIED NOW

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted by Pew
If bald tires performed better in the dry, everybody at the track that doesn't have slicks would have their tires shaven down as such.


I've heard of this being done (on here I think), but people who are THAT serious probably will have slicks, which are probably better, or they wouldn't exist.

Racers don't mind spending serious money for a slight edge.

So I don't feel that's a compelling argument, but it IS an argument, (as opposed to name calling) so thanks for that.

Lemme see...apart from the above, we got

SHUT UP! SHUT UP! its MY ball and I say who plays! I'm TELLING TEACHER!!

We got....

I"m IGNORING YOU! I'm IGNORING YOU! I'm IGNORING YOU!

and we got quite a lot of name calling.

Hmm....could they look any sillier?...I think my work here may be done.