>  >> I wonder how many on this list today have ever had the opportunity to
>make the comparison, going from cross ply tires to radials on the same
>vehicle. <<
>
>I wonder how many on this list today have ever had the opportunity to make
>the comparison, going from cross ply tires to radials on the same vehicle.
>And especially on a vehicle that is being has been/will be driven near the
>edge?  I did on a Spitfire in about 1966 (when no one had heard of radials
>yet) and for those of you that have only know radial ply tires under your
>sleds you don't know (and hopefully never will) how much difference the
>interior design of your tires can make.  And I'm sure this applies to a
>Vanagon as well as any other vehicle (VS).

What they call "bias-ply" is just a crossply. it is NOT, despite what
some might say, an intermediate between a radial and a crossply.

Of course bald tires work better than treaded ones of the identical
type on dry pavement. By a long margin. That's why Formula 1 uses
slicks in the dry. A bald crossply can give much better traction than
a "safely treaded" one... as I know from hooning in a 64 Beetle
(tried my van's wheels on it, but the offset put the 205s hard up
against the trailing-arms). Possibly better traction than a really
bad radial such as a Firestone Cavallino "Sport", which have given me
some real frights.

Michelin brought out the first radials when, early mid60s?
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut
� Opinions stated are mine, not those of Otago University
"There is water at the bottom of the ocean"  - Talking Heads