shop-talk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [slightly OT] vehicle mass, tread width, and hydroplaning

To: Matt Liggett <mml@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] vehicle mass, tread width, and hydroplaning
From: Randall <ryoung@navcomtech.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:30:13 -0800
> Hoo boy, all the guys I know (autocrossers/hard drivers, though) swear
> AT (not by) the RE92. (David Hillman agrees)

Just for the record, I was _NOT_ recommending the RE92, it was just the
first thing I ran across in a 165-wide 14" tire. 

> David Hillman wrote:
> >    There is no excuse for skimping on tires; they are the only thing
> > between you and whatever afterlife you happen to believe in.
> >
> > Unless you can afford to stay home when it snows, get snow tires.  They
> 
> Hear, hear! (on both counts)

So, unless I can afford two full sets of racing tires (or to stay home
when it snows), I should just roll over and die ?  Sorry guys, there are
some hard realities in life, one of them is that we sometimes don't get
the toys we want.  For that matter, when I leave home to go snow skiing,
it's frequently 60F or warmer.  Am I supposed to stop halfway up the
mountain and change tires ?  Oh, and are one of you going to come carry
the spare set around for me ?

> The D60A2 was a great tire, 

Must depend on the size and car then.  On the rear of my 59 TR3A, they
were like giant ball bearings in the rain.  On the front, they
hydroplaned.  My RE71s work _much_ better wet or dry (even though
they're wider, 205 vs 185).

Randall

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/shop-talk


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>