What 'rear-biased weight'?  Vanagons are front-heavy with driver, let alone
driver and passenger.

Please put your van on the scales before spreading inaccurate statements
like that around.

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Mike <mbucchino@charter.net> wrote:

>  The imbalance by the rear-biased weight, and a resultant high polar moment
> of inertia during evasive maneuvers (or during a tire blow-out), is surely
> the main reason for the C-load sidewall requirements, as evidenced by the
> tire pressure requirements (high overall and even higher in the rear).
>  No passenger tire is rated or able to withstand those high pressure
> settings.  If you inflate a passenger tire to 44 - 48 psi, it will make it
> form a different shape, causing the tread to lose total contact with the
> pavement, as well as unduly stressing the carcass and ultimately causing
> tread seperation and sudden and possibly catastrophic failure.  All this
> will likely occur at the worst possible moment, like when you've got 8
> people in the van and going 75mph down the highway.
>  If you've never experienced a high-speed tread separation, I can tell you
> it's the most out-of-control feeling you'll ever experience.  Rear tire
> incidents are much worse than on a front tire, due to being able to move the
> steering wheel to fight a front tire blow-out.  A rear tire blow-out
> controls you, not vise-versa!
>  Also, any tire retailer that sells and/or installs the wrong tire for your
> vehicle, can be held liable in court for the damages/ injuries/ deaths
> caused by it.
>  To take it one step further, if your state inspection sticker passes with
> the wrong tire(s) installed, they too could be held liable for not rejecting
> it as a failure.
>
> Mike B.
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Mike S
>  To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>   Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:00 AM
>  Subject: Re: Tires - Why oh why NOT?
>
>
>   At 08:58 AM 3/14/2009, Chris S wrote...
>
>  >Now, let's compare some more.
>  >
>  >I once had a 1993 Ford Aerostar.  Its curb weight was 3400 lbs and it
>  >could carry 7 passengers.  No where did the manufacturer specify
>  >reinforced tires.  The stock 215/70 R14 tires, which fit the Vanagon,
>  >have a max load rating of 1554 lbs.  The tires are NOT reinforced.
>
>  That's not a standard load rating:
>  http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=35
>
>  Would that be the 1993 Aerostar talked about here?
>
> http://www.allworldauto.com/comments/1993_ford_aerostar_comments_and_complaints_24771.html
>
>  Where the following comments have been made:
>
>  "Tire blew out on interstate, entire side. was driving at normal speed
>  in normal conditions."
>
>  "Tire blew out, when vehicle stopped tread was seperated from rest of
>  tire."
>
>  "my front left tire suddenly blew out."
>
>  "the left rear tire suddenly went flat"
>
>  "failed with a tread separation blowout"
>
>  "tread coming off tire"
>
>  >A 1991 Vanagon GL has its curb weight listed at 3400 lbs.  But somehow
>  >its tires are required to be reinforced.
>
>  You're not convincing anyone that you know more than the factory
>  engineers. Why would you presume to apply Ford specifications to a VW?
>  It would just as valid (that is, completely invalid, although quite
>  obviously safer) to go the other way. As has been pointed out, VW never
>  equipped the Vanagon with tires having a capacity of less than 1609
>  lbs. (load rating 97), although they could have saved money by doing
>  so.
>
>  Hey, I've got a set of el-cheapo 185R14 passenger car tires, with rims,
>  which the PO had on. Want to buy them cheap?
>

--
Jake

1984 Vanagon GL
1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie"

Crescent Beach, BC

www.crescentbeachguitar.com
http://subyjake.googlepages.com/mydixiedarlin%27