Wow, and I thought I was bad...seriously.
It's funny how you like to point the finger but I can assure you that you take the prize for arguing-for-arguments-sake.
Yeah, you won.
Have fun standing on your soapbox.
I've got better things to do like cook up some steaks for dinner on the BBQ...


-Ted

Perhaps you should take a class on reading comprehension. I asked the same thing to Josh. You demand data, but you don't tell me what data you want. But since you've already accused me of belittling you, I will gladely oblige.
So, I'll ask again: What data do you want? Do you want the proper PSI for tire inflation with modified geometry, or would you like something else? Again, you're being obtuse in your desire for data.
You really need to take that class on reading coprehension. It states for suspension geometry you can remove the side wall displacement as part of the equation. People do this for looks. Is there something in particular you desire from that specific quote? It would generate the same response if the sidewall displacement was minimized in a proper fitting tire by running solid rubber tires (which that quote further goes on to state would be the same). Which shows to me that you didn't even bother reading the link I posted along with it. As such why should I waste my time and others posting the links if you're going to spout off your agenda without doing the research. Your mantra so far dictates that you are right regardless of any data or anecdotal evidences given. Need I continue? I can, and I am willing.

Actually I have never heard of a properly mounted and inflated tire ever breaking the bead without a structural defect manifesting itself. But since this is your allegation, find me a documented incident where one such occurred.

And goes to show you didn't read or learn anything. Congratulations on confirming our suspicion on your intellegence.
Which begs the question, how do you gage proper inflation when you deform the sidewall that much? You do not fill it to factory spec. What metric do you use to fill it or are you just filling it 'till it's "that'll do?" For all you have shown, you could be driving with it under inflated or over inflated and you wouldn't know would you? You're guessing on something that you have no data on. If you have data on proper pressure filling on deformed sidewall tires then I suggest you enlighten us on how the tensile strength of the sidewall is accounted for.
I did and you failed to read it with what I said, so you show you not only lack desire to know, but fail to read. Congratulations.
Is that all you'd like to have? A statistical analysis of bead breaking no stretched tires?
I haven't watched the video nor did I comment on the video. So, perhaps I should taredown your strawman for you?

I just watched it. I did not hear, nor see any mention to the tire size or rim sized used, nor a mention of stretch on the tire. Perhaps you're a little premature... But there again I think that's probably normal for you in all respects.

You are kidding right? You tried & failed at trying to be funny with the retard comment. Now on to your so called Falken tire stretched video! I think you need to watch the video buddy. Look at 1:43 of the video the tire size is clearly evident. It's a 275/35-18 & those wheels are the 18" SVE wheels & they only come in 18"x9" or 18"x10". Okay like I said tire manufactures have listed the recommended size as well as approved sizes in which these tires are designed. To save you the time per their on site they suggest a 18"x9.5" & approve the use of width from 9" to 11", so where is the stretch.

In all respects Forum = 1 & SofaKing = 0 based on your video.

Vex, you've used opinion to validate an opinion that you've made. You haven't proven the premise that the sidewalls are deformed in such a way that the strength of the sidewall is compromised when stretching a tire.

You yourself stated that you believe that the sidewalls flex .3 inches under cornering. If we take that as a fact, then stretching .3 inches is within the design specifications of the tire. If we stretch each side by .3 inches then it would still be within the design specifications of the tire. Now we have a .6 inch stretch. I.E. a 215/40-17 could be put on a 9" wide wheel and still be within spec. Obviously this relies on another fact that you haven't proven, but in this case would the inflation of the tire not be acceptable at the factory listed pressure rating?

You've attempted to belittle, avoid the point, misdirect, and argue with a premise that is based on some assumption you've made and not proven.

Another point, I watched the video too. At 5 seconds and 18 seconds into the video it showed the tire from the side. If that sidewall is vertical then I'm blind. I can't speak to what the wheels are, because obviously the 370z had aftermarket wheels it would be possible that the Mustang does too. I know there are aftermarket replica wheels for Mustangs I'm unsure if they go larger than 10" wide. I thought they did but I can't find the website now. I'm not saying it's much of a stretch but I can clearly see the sidewall rolling over towards the tread from the wheel to the contact patch.

Anyhow, I've lost interest. I'll check back for what I'm sure will be a display of Houdini like misdirection with a book of text not addressing any point I made. I'm not interested in replying anymore if you're not actually going to do anything but post links to shit unrelated. I pass to you the trophy RETed gave me for arguing. If anyone wants to PROVE the underlined sentence please feel free. I'm not saying that I'm right, I'm saying that no one has proven me wrong. Also, no, I'm not going to click your link and read another site about something that is unrelated to the topic because you made an assumption from the data correlating it to an unproven assumption made in this argument. I did look at the engineer quote link, it was completely unrelated and it had the most promise of your links.

Feel free to puff up your chest on the internet, but in the end any intelligent person can see that you haven't proven anything, only attempted to mask the fact that you're arguing with unproven assumptions about how you think stretching tires should work.

As for Titanium... ban me if you want. I could give a shit less. If getting people to prove thier point is a bannable offense, I didn't want to be here anyway.

I've used professional opinion on the matter. If you don't like it provide data, hard fact, not subjective conjecture on the matter. Balls in your court.

More to the point let's look at the actuality of the situation:
Sidewall flex or more accurately stated; deflection under cornering load varies from tire to tire, this temporary load instigates the deformation and increased stress on the tire. This load also is temporary and allows the stress to be dissipated once the load is removed. If you're cornering with a stretched tire sidewall flex is removed which means you begin to affect the plastic deformation criteria of the rubber. Sidewall deflection under normal loading conditions of a proper tire are designed to remain in the elastic deformation region. That is the same region you are taking up when you stretch the tire. The more you stretch the less elastic region you have available to allow it to absorb stress. This is fact. Look at any stress strain curve if you don't believe me.

Furthermore you have yet to address the issue of proper tire inflation. Something as simple as inflating a tire should be easy to validate with data. Surely you can provide at least that much for us 'nay sayers'?

http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/...-Wheels&page=2.

here's a blog about the video on their site as well.
http://www.mylrs.com/blogs/lrs/archi...-test-car.aspx

I will help you out here's a site above for the SVE wheels used for the 2011 Mustang & you can see for that year the widest are 10's. Using a tire that fits within manufactures recommendations is great. My argument is for those who stretch a tire beyond the range listed form the tire company. Like a 225/45-17 on a 17"x12" is definitely not within spec.

@Vex, that's the point. There are no hard facts about it, there haven't been any studies to my knowledge that prove this one way or the other. I can only go by my experiences and stretching tires works for me.

When you say it doesn't work and quote joe_blow1 or joe_blow2 it doesn't make any difference how they THINK it should work. I've conceded that I believe there are some stretches that are probably too aggressive to be safe, but that doesn't mean that I believe all tire stretching is unsafe.

@RotorDad nice, on the SVE link. I'm not sure how but the tire looks stretched in the video. Clearly I am mistaken, it must be the design of the tire.

I totally get what you're saying about overstretching. I wouldn't personally do that because my spider sense tells me not to. But I do know the difference between knowing for a fact that it's unsafe and just having a feeling based on my understanding of physics that it doesn't look safe.

Broadly categorizing all tire stretching is the same as broadly categorizing anything, it just doesn't work to take an extreme and base your whole argument on it. Ignorance allows people to broadly categorize all Muslims as extremists because a small percentage do something stupid. It doesn't mean there aren't many hard working, intelligent, kind Muslims in the world... it means some people went off the deep end and now people have to make an assumption about everyone and everything that can be associated that they don't understand.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I never said it doesn't work. That's just silly. I stated that it's not wise, and would prove detrimental to the tire. I've provided facts on the nature of rubber and the mechanics that will cause issues. Whether or not you believe me is your call.

The real problem is this most & I say most of the people who will argue in favor of tire stretching are the ones doing the extreme stretch. Now with that said they normally have no understanding of why & what it's actually doing. Understanding the limits of anything not just a set of tires is lost to these guys & understanding the why is key. I don't go around hating on others cars, do what you want, set the car up in a way that you feel is right. Now on the other hand don't tell others they are wrong for not having the same. (Sofa this not directed towards you). To my knowledge in the drifting aspect underpowered cars tend to use stretched tires to assist in braking the car loose. Pro drivers rely more on traction so they just use really wide wheels to make up for the loss in contact patch. Why not just use a tire with a narrow sidewall & stiffer side section? After looking on numerous drifting sites I have seen this as to be the answer, they want the traction but still want the Appearance of the Hipari style. Note not all Pro drifters tire stretch. Hey man really though to each his own, I have no issues with you except that it seems as if you joined just argue. You are a member here so enjoy the forum, no reason to try to get banned by insulting or disrespecting anyone.

I nominate this to be the most amusing, and most pointless, thread on this forum. :)








.

hey we need something to argue about besides v8 vs rotary

Hmmm, the synthetic vs. conventional motor oils in a rotary debate gets folks stirred up pretty good too!

You just wait till x-mas, I have a special gift for the forum ;)

Let's not forget omp of which band/how much premix

I have experienced stretched tires. Thus my information seems more "real world" than theory. I find that whenever people discuss how things should work, and how things do work, it's completely different most of the time. Example: If you had never worked on a car before and you grabbed a Chilton's manual and decided to rebuild your motor, you would run into problems that aren't explained that real world experience would solve.

"Could prove detrimental". Based on your lack of evidence you can't say that its a certainty, thus your information is not any more correct than mine.Theory is not proven, that's why there's a special word for it.

As for the tire inflation, I keep the tires at a reasonably high pressure setting of 40psi to maintain that the lack of flex in the elastic region. The thing is that you're arguing that I don't want my tires to act the way I actually want them to act. This is a preference, telling someone how they should prefer something is... useless. Technically I'm sure I'm putting more pressure on the sidewall than the manufacturer recommends, but I don't think it's more than the tire can take. If the tire can hold up to constant flexing from racing a car and being throw into corner after corner, it doesn't seem (to me) like it wouldn't be able to take that pressure as a constant. Otherwise it would be very common for people to have the sidewall blow out of their tires while racing. Obviously this is my personal opinion on the matter, just like you have yours. Without hard technically data that I can't prove my point and you can't prove yours. Your information is speculation and theory. My information is real world testing on my car (that I'm sure can be effected by a million different factors that I can't measure), my experience says it works though without detrimental effects.

@RotorDad I did join just to argue. But that doesn't mean I'm not reasonable. If proven wrong I can admit it. The problem with this argument is that it's just like religion or politics. It can't be proven one way or the other yet people are talking like there's some proof. You can only argue your opinion on these matters, stating them as fact is inaccurate at best. Thanks for the welcome.

Well Sofa I was trying to be cool about the whole situation, but since you outright just refuse to listen to others & are set in one direction I see not point in trying to hear your side. Just say nobody can provide proper info on the negative effects of out of spec tire stretching (which in not the case at hand), what info have you provided otherwise? NONE is the answer, you failed terrible getting your point across with that video & tried to throw that up in the faces of the members here. I do thank you for amusing me with your false found victory. Joining a forum just to argue without facts to back you is foolish, not mention immature. There is other areas of the forum to use, this isn't a place to start trouble. I don't like to see people banned, but if you have nothing to add except a headache why not. You say there is no proof we can provide right? I'm sure if you & I were to contact some tire manufactures the outcome would be not to stretch the tires on wheels outside of the specified sizes.

You seem to be missing the point.

Show me where I said could.
You do not mean what you think you mean. Let me give you a little example:
http://nanopedia.case.edu/image/stre...0curve%204.jpg
Plastic deformation is never good in such a thing.
...What?From whence cometh this surety?
Again, apples and oranges. Momentary load in the elastic region will not cause plastic deformation of the tire.Mine's not opinion. I'm stating material mechanics.Actually, mines based on material mechanics which is a proven science. Additionally you can test them yourself. I'll explain how following this. Your experience is limited, and based on false presumptions.

Take a brand new tire prior to mounting. Measure all dimensions and record them. Stretch your tire and mount it. Run it a few times on the track, then remove the wheel and measure again. Are the measurements going to be the same? Depending on the amount of stretch will dictate whether you're in the plastic or elastic region of the material. Do the same with a non-stretched tire, dimensions will be almost if not identical.

If you're stretching the tire outside of manufactures spec and then putting lateral load on the tire I guarantee you will be engaging in the plastic region.

I pulled this from Toyo tires website.

1. Failure to select the proper tire and rim. Tire MUST match the width and diameter requirements
of the rim. When mounting truck type radial tires use only wheels approved for radial tires.
2. Failure to inspect both the tire and rim. The rim must be free of cracks, dents, chips, and rust.
The tire must be free of bead damage, cuts and punctures.
3. Failure to follow proper procedures. For proper mounting procedures, consult the RMA's
publication: Care and Service of Automobile and Light Truck Tires (ref: www.rma.org).
4. Exceeding the maximum bead seating pressure of 40 PSI. Be absolutely certain beads are fully
seated before adjusting inflation pressure to the level recommended for vehicle operation.
NEVER put flammable substances in tire/rim assemblies at any time. Never put any flammable
substance into a tire/rim assembly and attempt to ignite to seat the beads.
NOTE TO PROFESSIONAL TIRE INSTALLERS: Exceeding the maximum bead seating pressure. The
tire service person must NEVER INFLATE BEYOND 40 POUNDS PRESSURE TO SEAT BEADS unless
specified by the tire manufacturer! NEVER STAND, LEAN OR REACH OVER THE ASSEMBLY DURING
INFLATION!
Tire Mixing Can Be Dangerous
Driving your vehicle with an improper mix of tire sizes, constructions, and speed ratings can be

Look at #1 & #4

The part I don't think you guys are understanding is the difference between theory and fact. You're talking in theory, not fact. I'm talking in experience, not fact. I understand that all I can tell you is my experience, and that the only testing is seat of the pants and lack of problems. I agree this doesn't prove anything other than that I haven't experienced problems from the setup.

What I want from either of you is PROOF not theory. Which I don't think you can provide. I.E. even if I test with your technique of stretching the tire and driving around, then doing the same with a non-stretched tire (which isn't a bad idea). I don't have a way to test that the sidewall is:
1) weaker than it was previously
2) weaker than the non-stretched tire after the same miles
3) the strength of the tire is negatively effected enough that it's not strong enough to hold (or degrades at X rate and will not be strong enough to hold after X miles).

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm offering you the opportunity to prove me wrong. I admitted I was wrong when you showed that the wheels were 10" wide in my video. I'm not sure if you want me to jump on one foot in circles or something to make sure it's sincere, but I am willing to admit I'm wrong if proven.

YOU ARE TALKING IN THEORY.

I'm not saying that you can't be right. I'm saying if you want me to admit it, you have to prove it. Otherwise admit you're talking in theory, and you believe your theory is sound. Because that's what's currently happening. Science is theory until proven. An acceptable answer could be as simple as an equation taking into account a given car weight (take an FC), a given tire (pick one that you can find data on), all the forces in question acting on the tire (stretch 215/40-17 on 9.5" wheel, load, pressure, etc.) and tell me how long a given tire will take to explode, deform to failure, break bead, whatever your premise that's supposed to happen. Then do the same math on a non-stretched tire and see if it should fail farther out, and if so how much farther. This would still be theory because it hasn't been tested but if you want to do this without making up numbers that would be a reasonable argument. I personally know I'm not good enough at math to be able to be accurate (mainly the math about the plastic and elastic sections and force exerted on them). I would venture to guess that the rate of the non-stretched tire is WAY beyond the warrantee of the tread life, and the stretched tire would probably be less, but I'd guess still tens of thousands of miles (guess based on experience).

Short version: Admit you're talking in theory or post data. Actual numbers of when the tire will fail.

Yes, the tire will fail, all tires fail. Tires are designed to fail. But if the estimated point of failure is 60,000 miles... then it's not really a problem. If the estimated point of failure is 10,000 miles... then obviously it is a problem. Meanwhile arguing with no facts about the science of it besides making it "weaker" doesn't prove anything. 1% weaker is nothing, 500% weaker is huge. No numbers are being discussed. If you break a leg after it heals it may be "weaker" but it's still going to last you your whole life. If you hit a home run with a wood baseball bat it will be "weaker" but it doesn't mean it doesn't have 500 more home runs in it. More and less are simple concepts to define larger or smaller amounts. To not define the degree of more and less is useless to argue. Can I have more coffee please? 3 drops is more, an overflowing cup is more. Obviously in that case you just want the cup topped off, but its a pre-determined amount that the person pouring assumes based on experience. If you only want a half a cup you have to specify that amount. We're not talking about amounts, we're talking about more or less.

If that's the case, with my understanding of physics I can say... Yes, I believe you're right. The tire will last less time than would be possible without stretching. But do I agree it's unsafe, or won't last the life of the tread? No.

I'm not trying to be a dick at this point. I'm not attacking either of you, I'm merely clarifying in different ways to see if you can understand what I'm saying. Sometimes when talking to people it requires explaining in different ways what you're trying to convey. I'm not belittling, I'm merely trying to get you to look at the argument from the other side using real world examples.

I'm going to say it again if the set up is working for you then it's all good. For the type of driving I do it would not be the optimal set up, so I will not be stretching the tires. Most of the info I have on the subject is from the manufactures themselves not just others opinions. Either way is whatever to me in all honesty, maybe I'm old fashioned & just set in my ways. I will not argue physics, simply I'm not the person for that. I don't care to prove anyone wrong on the forum, this site is a good way to obtain info, share info & make some friends. Enjoy your Xmas man & maybe share your build in the drifting section of this forum.

Let me help you better understand:
Fact
Theory
Material Science

Material Science is not theory (in fact do a word search for 'theory' within that article).

Measuring the plastic deformation automatically ensures weakness is present in the polymer. That's the nature of the beast. That's fact. If you wish to argue it I can freely back up that claim.

You're arguing from a false presumption. Feel free to question what I provide, but you better be able to support your question with sound understanding of the mechanics of the materials in question.
See above. It's not theory. In fact I can get you values of various materials for you. Point in fact check out this website for more information on what material science provides:
Matweb

I guess I can hang up all understanding of how materials works. I mean, how materials deform and work under load just is theory and not knowledge or application of the theory in question. I mean surely I couldn't get the yield and ultimate stress for the materials with a science... oh wait.

If you want me to take you seriously you might want to back away from what you're attempting to do as you will fail miserably.

Would you also like me to use a Monte Carlo simulation to ensure I capture 99% of all possible mileage outcomes across all proprietary tire compounds--Give me a break, I'm not going to waste my time doing that. I know how the rubber is going to react and have asked people who have worked for tire companies and I have yet to find a single individual who would endorse or recommend doing such.

So what you're saying is that you're willing to sacrifice factors of safety for deforming a tire and putting strain on the shoulder that is not normally there. Thereby negating entirely the built in factors of safety which the company determined prior to construction. (Just so you know, this is fact. It is standard operating procedure for any engineering done within any field).
Admit you have no idea what you're talking about at all and read what material science is and does. It's not theory.
Weakening a tire in any respect is not a good thing. Would you be willing to drive on a tire that has a weakness in the binding agent between the tread and sidewall?

I mean, sure what could 1% hurt

Broken legs, once healed, are actually stronger than they were before they broke. Tires are another matter, so why discuss it?

Additionally how are you going to determine 'weaker'? Are you talking yield (which is the limit before plastic deformation occurs) or ultimate (catastrophic failure)? From matweb posted above Butyl Rubber has an Ultimate Tensile stress of 17.0 MPa. Preloading the sidewalls to an unknown state of stress reduces the amount of elastic region available, loading until the ultimate stress in a corner could be possible depending on the amount of preload and the lateral force applied.

Neither here nor there in this discussion.
Unfortunately we're dealing with engineering and tires, not coffee. Keep it on point or stop talking. Your choice.

To what are you referring in physics? More to the point; how much stress are you putting the sidewalls under and what cornering loads are nominal for the tire? When you stretch you remove the ability for the 100's of hours put into development to be applied correctly. You could have 50,000 miles on a stretched tire, or you could have 0.001 miles on a stretched tire. The issue is you alter the geometry of the wheel to the point where weight, friction, heat, cornering loads, and manufacturing defect are all applied differently than what was tested.

And I'm using proven and applied science to show you why it's not a good idea.

What's this, I don't even...

I'll put my 2 cents in after scanning through all the posts..

Start off, I'm no expert.. But though out my years of reading and trying out different tires, I do have some sense of it all.

My opinion about general thoughts on tires... Size, compound, suspension set up, wheels, etc makes your car handle totally different.. At the end, I believe in what your thoughts on how the car handles.. In order to achieve this, you really need to try out different set up (Hence at one point, I had 14 SSR comps with different size tires and different width wheels... and sometimes different compound tires).

My definition of "stretching" is going beyond the recommended wheel width by tire companies. Of course their recommendation is generalized so, I would say way beyond what they recommend is what I call "stretching".

Example...

255/35/18 that I run on 10 inch wide wheel could be considered by some as stretched.. but I don't as its the max rim width by tire companies. But to run 235/35/18s on 10, I say that's stretched.

But I do have to admit, Its more for looks than ideal set up for track nor for street driving. I'm sure you all know, stretched look require higher tire pressure and is more likely to loose bead if tires impact. The later part is not fiction but fact! If you stretch the tires so much and you accidentally hit something hard, there is much higher chance for the tires to loose bead. For me, that's not worth risking your life for gaining some special look.

That being said, If you understand all this and want to do what you want to do, than I have no issue with it. But stretching the tires and not knowing the negative affects and then recommending to newbs or others, I think that's wrong.

Another negative effects of stretching I see is looking contact area of tires. For front, some prefer because it rounds the tires and some say they prefer running smaller tires for width of the rim. But running stretched on back, I think it might be good for drifters but not sure about track guys or drag guys :)

Anyhow, most what I said, I know all of you know.. so just me rambling on.

There again attempting to say that what I'm stating is outside the realm of applied science. Look at the links. This is applied science. This is real world.Because that's how you read. Line upon line, sentence upon sentence. From this stance alone you have really no understanding of how mechanics works do you?See above picture. Does it look like that sidewall lasted 50% as long as normal tire?

I'd hope so considering that it's how the tire company does it. Whether or not you continue to kick against the pricks is your call. Such as what? I answered everything you posed to me to my knowledge. I've told you I'm not going to do the math as it's a waste of my time. You're free to do whatever you want.
So in other words what you're asking for is some sort of math that you aren't sure you will understand or know if it is accurate or if it even reflects reality. Which begs the question; why?

Physics - the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force.

So then that means

Physics = Theory
and thus is now ruled an irrelevant topic in this discussion. :lol:

So I just read through this whole thread.

And I 100% understand why no one takes drifting serious now. I am so sad.

Something along the lines of a select few ruin it for the rest?

that tire (probably) died from underinflation. seen plenty of those pics

heres the firestone report
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~sanjay/R...WEB_Secure.PDF

couple snippets from the first page:

not looking so good for "this is fact, not theory"

I have a few of these Emails from different tire manufactures.
Thank you for contacting Michelin
Monday, December 27, 2010 7:06 PM
From:
"Michelin Consumer Care" <conrel.en@michelin.epowercenterdirect.com>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
rotordad@yahoo.com

December 27, 2010

Hello Chris,

Thank you for your email. We welcome the opportunity to serve you.



Mounting a tire on the incorrect size rim could be dangerous and a safety issue. We strongly discourage it.



While there is nothing on our website at this time related to mounting tires on the incorrect rim size, we would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have if you call us at the number listed below.



We appreciate your business.



Please call us at 1-800-642-4354 (toll free) between 8:00AM and 8:00PM Eastern Time Monday through Friday or between 8:30AM and 4:30PM Eastern Time on Saturday.

Sincerely,

Sherry Cooper


Consumer Care Department
Certified Michelin Product Expert

PS: It's important that you get all the safety-related materials that come with the purchase of new Michelin passenger and light truck tires. If you did not receive a warranty book, you can download one at www.michelinman.com/warranty/. If you did not register your tires, please take a moment to do so at www.michelinman.com. Registering your tires is easy and takes just a minute.

Participate in our survey to become eligible to win a Michelin Man bobble head doll! A random drawing will take place at the end of each month. The winner will be contacted via e-mail to verify the shipping address.


Paste the line below into your browser:

http://www.asurvey.net/michelin/?2587883.85688.59

Privacy Policy - http://www.michelinman.com/privacy/

(Please include the line below if you reply to this email.)

http://us.mc574.mail.yahoo.com/mc/we...jsrand=8398002
Case number: 2587883

yah thats the same blanket statement seen on all the tire manufacturer's websites. what people want to see is something empirical. ie, not just a CYA policy

Well I sent them an email directly about tire stretching, if you don't like the response they gave call the number provided to get a better idea. I am willing to bet they have more experience & have betters ways to test then any of us. No need to dance around the issue, just because you can make something fit doesn't mean it's right. If it is suggested by the tire companies not to mount tires on wheels outside their recommendations there must be a reason. You say people want to see something more specific, that's fine I understand. Now on the other hand how about this? Where is the proof of the opposite, since it all seems to be the non stretched tire guys providing some sort of info.

i guess proof of the opposite is the lack of failure. no one has yet to find any account of a tire failing due to stretch. there are a few scattered failures, but most are due to underinflation, hitting potholes, or otherwise undetermined. if it is in fact an issue, there should be evidence of it in drifting. if a stretched tire is going to fail due to the stretch, that seems like the most likely venue


also should be noted that the burden of proof is on the dont-stretch side. evidence for something not happening is infinite.

My contribution to this thread.

If you really think tyre stretching is a good thing then


You're a fucking idiot.

It also looks bad.

Enjoy!

Also found this linked on another forum

And perhaps one should contact their insurance provider and ask them if a claim would still be valid when they find stretched tyres after you prang your car?

http://www.aus300zx.com/forum/showthread.php?t=290328

The accident in the thread posted above wasn't due to stretch. It was just a tire blow out. Shit happens all the time.

I'm not defending tire stretch, nor do I think it's MAD TYTE ILL

Just sayin'

who knows... might have been the rota wheel.... lol


J.

Vex, if you can't do the math just admit it. I don't care if you can't, I can admit I can't. But pretending you're more educated than you are doesn't help your argument. Prove something instead of attempting to pull apart my paragraphs line by line in an attempt to change my point. Everyone else can read what I'm saying. I'm not arguing emotion, I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm merely saying that you can either 1) Prove your point, or 2) admit you're working in theory. Just because scientific concepts (valid and all) are backing your premise, it doesn't mean that it's not theory. You're dealing with concepts not application, that's theory. What I have a problem with isn't your opinion, it's the fact that you're stating your opinion is some sort of fact. Though you yourself aren't proving it in anything other than theory without application.

@RotorDad
Even the letter from the manufacturer uses the word "could". Because he doesn't have the math to prove. I've got no argument with the letter, even the letter doesn't state as a certainty what's going to happen.

@Mazdabater
That's really your argument? After everyone is arguing intelligently from thier perspective you thought you would add that someone else's opinion makes them an idiot? Classy. As for the pictures that sucks, you can see at a glance how the car hit he was probably drifting. Think the insurance company covers you drifting on the streets?

To see that some but not all the professionals do it leads me to believe that it could go either way. Well let's say okay it's good for drifting on the track, that's not where I have an issue. The use of Hipari style tires on a daily basis is where I have questions. When I go to the track I use a different wheel & tire combo then what I drive around on, as do most of my friends. So why do a lot of these so called drifter boys insult others for not slamming the car & stretching the tires on a vehicle not intended for drifting. I'm not trying to shit on anyone, just simply saying tire stretching is impractical for everyday street use. Just as I would not run my slicks on a regular basis even though they work & hold up at the track.

I had a blow-out over the summer from hitting a pothole on the GWB. My tire looked NOTHING like that when I was done. I've also seen a tire that was over-inflated blow out.... it looked identical to that one.... actually, identical.