Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:45:48 -0500
Reply-To: mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject: Re: Interesting Tire Info
In-Reply-To: <F85F63E8-C527-40D2-90A8-CF688E207890@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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
| 
