Packard Forum Index » General

There was a previoius topic on this subject but it wandered into Halogen headlights. As with other subjects I almost always research a topic before posting as posting incorrect or invalid information can result in confusion, conjecture or serious injury.

This post included the following entry:

"Radial tires causing wheel problems is a big myth."


The above post is WRONG AND DANGEROUS and does not seem to be based on any cridible research.



I have found a paper written by the Wheel and Tire Council (WTC) of the Specialty Equipment Marketers Assoc, a highly respected organization. Instead of basing a conclusion on anecdotal evidence, speculation and rumor, the WTC has given the question a thorough engineering analysis. While the sky is not falling as few of us have ever heard of a total rim failure ther is reason for concern and the paper gives reasonable precauitons and an easy plan of vigilence.

LINK sema.org/wtc

Hello Fred:

That link did not work for me, but I found the same paper you mentioned here:

http://www.sema.org/files/attachments/WTC-2011-05-Bias-vs-Radial-Tire-Wheel-Fitment.pdf

--Roger--

Fred & Roger, thanks for locating that article! Interesting reading. One of the more vocal and persistent commenters about rim failure (or the risk of rim failure) has been the technical "co-operators" in the Studebaker Driver's Club. Perhaps Studebaker wheels were a bit more marginal that others, I don't know - but their caution has been long-standing.

A personal observation that lends credence to the need for diligence is that of certain cars that hold their wheel shell covers for decades until radial tires are mounted, and they then regularly proceed to send them sailing off into the hinterlands. Chevrolets about 1958 seem particularly prone to this.

Fred and Roger, Thanks for the info and the link. I often wonder if the wheels on my Super Clipper are able handle the 235/75/15's presently on the car. I should maybe buy a set of of bias ply Lesters etc.

Dave, barring something unseen, I'd not think you should have any undue concern. That's an extremely popular size subsitution on the senior V8 models, myself included.

Hi folks:

The above mentioned article doesn't mention that the foundation upon which the bias ply tire is based is the angle at which the cords are woven.

An engineering phenomenon is that at a specific angle (around 57 degrees I think) when pressure is applied to a hose said hose will actually shrink. This is why brake hoses don't explode. The same is true for tires. Thus, the cords in the bias ply tires do not transfer the load the same way as radials. The cords are a load bearing aspect of the bias ply tire. This is also why bias ply tires don't flatten out until they are dangerously low on air.

Besides bias ply they had so called ballon tires which had their own problems.

I don't know who discovered the cord angle phenomenon, but without it most modern technology would be kaput.

Commercial Aircraft still use bias ply supposedly for the extreme conditions.

Quote:


I am growing tired of these posts. Something that was commented on, by a particular (or not particular in other instances) poster that does not agree with your belief or point of view evolves into one of these "in another thread" threads.

While the content is typically good, and in the case of this post I may even personally agree on, it is the tone and the way individuals are singled out and made to look stupid because of their opinion. This is a public open discussion Forum. Frankly, this amounts to nothing more than bullying.

Often, the argument is that what a poster said is wrong, based on your experience, or that of the service manual, or data cited by an independent source. The funny thing is, a poster in a previous post conveyed a friendly warning about striking an axle puller with a hammer because of possible damage to the internals of the differential. I thought "Hmm... that's odd, never heard of that", but respected the personal experience of that poster and took it as a friendly comment. You replied that you had never heard of this and it was no problem. The page from the very warning provided by the poster from the Packard service manual was presented to which you surmised as not a valid concern because lots of people in your experience had done it with only a few damaged components.

So which is it? Is only the manual correct? Is it only correct when you say so? Is the honest yet hobbyist level perspective invalid in posting in these forums? Are you the self appointed moderator and technical advisor?

In this very thread there is no consensus. You post that you and your source believe radials on rims not designed for such are dangerous (which I agree on as mentioned before). Yet, others have already reported that they run radials with no trouble, and some have seen thrown wheel covers from it. So who is right? Are you and I right? Are they dangerous? Are others right and there is no real concern? Have you ever thought we are all right? Maybe some rims give terrible service and others are fine. Perhaps "the other poster" you so clearly single out has had no issue in their experience. We are all valued contributors here and do not deserve to be singled out and repeatedly beaten about by you or anyone else.

I tell you what... I'm not very motivated to post anything of any real technical value here any more as a hobbyist or veteran of motor vehicle repair because this has turned into a tit for tat site instead of a place to share personal insight and information. Discussion is fine, debate is fine, the occasional spirited debate is fine, but these personal crusades are getting real old.

The thread about respect was subtle and directed at the kind of post that calls out another poster. My reply to this thread is not so subtle. Please use your knowledge and experience with Kanter Auto Products to enhance our experience and hobby here on Packard Info, and not to use as your personal sounding board for chastising those that do not convey information that you agree with. Disagree, but do so in a less aggressive manner.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Jim

While we are changing the focus of the thread, let us consider starting new threads for new discussions.

It's just simple web etiquette......

39Super8,

Well said.

Thanks.

(o{I}o)

I will review my former comments on the axle situation and as always corect and make amends if it turns our I was in error or inconsistent. If you check numerous former topics you will see this is my history.

When a member posts about a safety issue such as rims and says there is no problem, that is a fact they are stating and not an opinin. As such other members may take the fact and incorporate it into their base of knowledge. JUst because and individual has not personally experienced something does not mean it does not exist ( and yes I am keeping in mind the point above).

If I say that in my opinion rims/radials are not a problem that's different, that's an opinion like I like Coca Cola.
We are here to help and inform each other and misinformation especially on safety issues can imperil many.

I saw the rim issue months back and had heard things but had not facts or opinions. Maybe rims split as often on bias as radial, I didn't know?? When I found the link today from trusted source I posted it, I also posted the "fact" WITHOUT THE POSTERS NAME so those who recalled it would have more reason to read the SEMA paper. I feel that by bringng this safety issue to other members I am showing responsibility and concern for them.


Discussion and debate take different forms and I'm comfortable with all of them. While there are bounds of propriety, there's an old saying, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I had another post yesterday ?? on the use of a gas can/temporary fuel tank in the passenger compartment for testing purposes. That is a fatal accident waiting to happen. I commented on it, should I have remained silent so as not to embarass the poster??