At 02:49 PM 4/22/99 -0400, John Whitling wrote:
>My point of bringing this up is not to have every tire company have to
reengineer it's
>existing tire line. It's to keep any tire company from coming out with an
autox only
>tire like the 226 was. You think the tire situation is bad now? In the
early ninties
>it was a real mess. Things are relatively stable now.
>
>The SCCA members have looked into ways of policing tires in the past. It
never
>happened, mainly because of complex proposals and ... ahem .. politics. If
a simple to
>implement speed rating limitation can help, why shouldn't we try it???
FWIW, under this "rule", any Kumho less than 15" in diameter would be
illegal. They are *only* V-rated tires.
Furhermore the 226 could have been Z-rated, it was the same construction as
the 230, but why the hell bother for an autox compound. But, if the rule
existed, they'd rate 'em anyway. The DOT rule is here, and let's face it,
these aren't street tires. Speed ratings have NOTHING to do with the wear
of the tires or the handling of 'em. I'm so tired of everyone thinking
that. In general it is true that Z-tires handle better than non-Z's, but
the fact they are speed rated isn't the reason. That's because a car that
needs a Z tire tends to be sporty, hence you get a handling tire. That's
the only reason it SEEMS like the speed rating dictates the wear and
handling. Example: Some Cadillac's have Z rated Goodyear Eagle GA's on
them. The same crappy tire found on grandma's Corsica. Does the fact they
are speed rated make them handle better or last longer or shorter than the
S rated ones? No.
Sam Strano Jr.
Strano Performance Parts
800-729-1831
814-849-3417 (tech.)
www.stranoparts.com
|