I laugh at this guy


his mobile comedy factories make me want to kill a kitten, torch my FC, slit my wrists and delete the entire thread so that abortion of a thing on 4 non fitting wheels can never be seen on this forum again

Roger. Now lets look up the material properties for the Rubber of the tire (we'll assume some generic vulcanized rubber). We'll also assume (for simplicity) the rim is solid (IE it is going to deform orders of magnitude less than the tire).

No. The factor of safety is calculated using yield and/or ultimate stress criteria. Sidewalls may or may not have 3 or 4, but it is completely determined via structural criteria (not life expectancy).
No. They're engineered to load criteria IE; cornering loads, static loads, etc. Although max inflation pressure and weight due play a roll into deciding the static loads they do not fulfill the entire criteria for the loads themselves (thermal, adhesive stress, etc factor in as well).

Not really. It would be similar to say that a non-firing round from a gun will never fire, which isn't necessarily true. There is a possibility that the round may never fire, but would you risk it (if you're a gun enthusiast)?It's arguing a logical fallacy. A car with a slow leaking break master cylinder is safe until you're sucking in air on the freeway--that is to say, no. Using a product outside of engineering criteria is going to be unsafe especially with the current trends of lean manufacturing.

http://noriyaro.com/wp-content/uploa...ippari_001.jpg

Niggas jelly of my mad stretch dawg.

http://noriyaro.com/wp-content/uploa...ippari_002.jpg

The car is hideous. I can for once understand why he's running retarded negative camber in the rear though, since it's a Front-wheel drive drift car. Less contact patch, no grip, etc etc etc.

That stretch on the front though, that is so stupid, I'm sorry.

But this guy has daily driven this car like that for years. I don't know how he hasn't killed himself, but yeah. I dunno, my mind was blown when I first saw it.

That poor Celica is the most hideous pile of shit I've laid eyes on. And front wheel drive drift car? That's an oxymoron. :lol:

There is no excuse for that car being in that condition. The owner should never touch a car again.

Yeah, it is. Funny enough though, he slides that thing better than your average drifter.

You know who else slides better than your average drifter?

http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_artic...t-machine.aspx

The second photo on the page shows tires that appear to be properly sized. I suspect they have tried quite a few setups, at that level of sponsorship I wouldn't be surprised if they receive literally pallets of tires in the size(s) they request.


I'm not a drifter myself, and I generally disagree with the 'hella flush' style. That said, anyone who dislikes drifting should still go check out a Formula D event if you're able to. The paired elimination rounds after the drivers have qualified are a pretty entertaining display of car control and big horsepower. The cars aren't as cool a ALMS, but the track is set up in a way that makes it a really good spectator event (even compared to roadracing or NASCAR).

Difference is, that's a front-wheel drive Celica, versus Foust's rear-wheel drive car with three times the horsepower, not to mention Kawashima (the guy that owns the Celica) isn't a pro. Not defending the looks or stretch, I'm just saying, totally not fair to compare the two.

Only certain guys, even at a pro level, have a selection like that, ie. All the Falken guys. Double stacker full of tools and tires.

At any rate. There are still a lot of "herrafrush" cars in Formula D. Tanner's car is set up like that, because he didn't build it. He just drives it, that's it. Same goes for 90% of the other Formula D drivers.

Vex,

Okay, I can see how I misinterpreted the MoS thing. The point about not being at max load wasn't as much a reference of the fact that it determines the whole criteria, but that it plays a role in the original engineering specifications. When I say that it's not at its maximum rating on an average vehicle I'm just saying that if it isn't at it's maximum load then changing the load (large assumption here) might have some wiggle room. <-I know there's no way you'll concede to that point.

I had to read the gun reference a couple times to pick up the point you were making there, still not 100% sure I understand what you're saying about the non-firing round. (I'm not a gun person, I stay away from them.)

I did understand the brake master reference. That's an excellent reference for anyone that has driven with a leaking brake master. I could definitely see how the two correlate. That's your best argument yet for real world relation IMO. (this was the thing I was trying to do previously with coffee and baseball bat references, it's hit and miss sometimes with metaphors)

Your reply of "Not really" is the point I've been trying to make the whole time. If you didn't see ANY validity in what I said you would've answered "No", but you did see some truth in what I'm saying. You don't agree with it as being safe by engineering standards, but obviously have to accept that the possibility that it will hold is true. I am willing to more directly concede. My only point this whole time was to get acknowledgement that it's possible it's safe (from a standard of holding for the life of the tire). I'm not saying it is, I agreed with your statements of material sciences from the get-go and agree that there will be deformation on the tire. All I've argued is that it's possible that it will hold and get you safely from point A to point B for the life of the tread. I understand your stance of safety and agree that there is definitely a possibility that it could fail as well based on using it outside of its designed specifications.

For the vulcanized rubber, where am I looking this up and what types of numbers am I looking for?


And as for the VIP Celica... that thing is awful. Also, there's no way I'd be willing to stretch a tire that far. I am definitely not arguing for what that guy is doing. That shit is wrong on so many levels.

With Rotary's point Tanner's car has a NASCAR V8 under the hood. That thing has so much torque he has to jam the widest tires he can on it to have a possibility of control, not to mention the whole "purpose built race car" thing.

Look at the guys like Mad Mike Whiddett, or Matt Powers if you want to see the "style" stuff. The guys in there with big sponsors that don't wrench on thier own cars aren't the guys that everyone shows up to watch. The guys we want to see and are cheering for are the guys with blood sweat and tears into thier car. The sport would fail if it weren't for the little guys that are still about style in my opinion. The whole sport is based on style, cars like Sam Hubinette's Dodge Challenger look like sore thumbs. If you spend NO time working on style and everything on engineering the best car in a series based on style no one will root for you. Sure he's a good driver, but I can see a car like at the dealership. Big MEH, not interesting to look at, watch, and doesn't draw you in. At least Tanner's car is widebody and some cool engineering went into converting it to RWD. It's not all about the tire stretch, it's just one of many factors of style.
http://blog.niot.net/blog-images/sam...challenger.jpg

Please quote my previous response as it makes things easier to keep track of.
Honestly there's too much variability to say for certain. For a regular all terrain tire it very well may have enough 'room' to work in a stretched application as their made with different constraints in mind where as high performance tires with high speed ratings may not (lean manufacturing; basically means that the FoS gets closer to 1).

That's fine. It's the same as the master cylinder analogy.
Not to be a dick, but that's a contradiction. Safety does not include taking a chance where it can be eliminated. Sure you could get to point A to point B, but will you make it every time with a stretched tire? It's the same issue with the leaking MC. How often can you make that trip with the cylinder like that? Once? Twice? Forty? It's a gambit at best.

Check the Matweb website, I found this one, but if you want to use a different rubber feel free to find it:
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataShe...ff3f5da&ckck=1

We want the mechanical properties.

Sam's car is kinda ugly yeah, but he's cool as fuck.

So I forgive him.

I agree. The more things that are outside of design the higher the risk. I would agree risk goes up with tire stretching. In your opinion would you think that it is more dangerous to blow out a stretched tire than a blowout for any other reason? If so, why? Obviously this is a reference to driving within the laws of the road you're traveling on, not assuming some sweet jdm drift battle on the mountain with a bunch of morons trying to get youtube footage with thier friends in the car.

I also found this one (and a couple others of different particle mesh size) but no mechanical properties are listed.
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataShe...0718874&ckck=1

I didn't see a way to post it here that would be easy to read so I separated the fields using astrix..

Would you mind explaining what the "elongation at break" field means? It seems at a glance that it would mean that it can stretch 1-8x its length before breaking... that seems like a HUGE range.

im no expert here, but is it really the rubber thats going to fail?
i would expect failure either from the bead unseating or bands in the sidewall breaking. thats kinda the point of the bands, to hold the rubber together...

this whole 'preoperties or rubber' argument seems pretty pointless considering theres much more than that to a tire.

I'm not sure where this is headed at the moment either. I'm sure I'll learn something here... not sure what yet.

I doubt it's going to change anything in the discussion; I'm continuing in the purpose of learning something about material science. Obviously there are WAY more factors involved here than just the rubber.

Thanks for quoting.
Yes. As the tire is already stressed outside of spec; damage to the wheel is more than likely to result (not to be confused with the tire). Normal blow out allows for material sacrifice to save the wheel. This is of course dependent upon the amount of stretch on the tire. The closer the stretch is to stock spec the more material will be available to sacrifice in maintaining the wheel.
Elongation at break is the elongation of the material at catastrophic failure during a tensile test. During material testing they install a test piece similar in design to these:
http://www.benztesters.com/molds.jpg
Elongation is the final distance (if given in percentage the final distance divided by the original) the sample is able to make it. This is not the same as failure (encroachment into plastic region of deformation).

Okay I have said it before at a pro level most of what I have seen the cars don't have stretched tires. The reason for the comparison is actually simple when you look at it. When defending the issue by saying it's a drifting thing, then why do some of the best at the sport not use it? To say because the driver doesn't wrench on the car is stupid at best, they are the ones driving the damn car. The car is set up accordingly & I'm sure that theses guys don't just sit around while others work on the car. Within the team they work together to find the best results Drivers & Mechanics.

I don't mean more damage to the things I own. I mean more dangerous. I.E. am I more likely to die or more kill someone else based on a blow out because of a stretched tire instead of a non-stretched tire? In my experience when you have a blow out you're driving on a shitty little band of rubber wrapped around the wheel flopping around like an epileptic on meth. Would a blow out with a stretched tire be worse or harder to control in some way?

The explaination was what I was looking for (the picture helped). I wasn't relating this to tires though, I was just wondering why the technical information about the material had such a wide range of data. Seems either really unpredictable or there is a lot of data that we aren't getting. I would imagine to have an 800% discrepancy there would have to be a lot of tests with different compounds, temperatures, etc.

Yes it would be more dangerous as you would be trying to drive on metal instead of rubber. The dynamic coefficient of friction is small when compared to rubber, thus control is going to be more difficult. If the blow out happens on the front you will have very little or no response from that tire. The rears will be similar. This is of course holding that the failure is on the material side of things.

Tests are standardized. Temperature is a variable that can be tested for as for different mixtures of vulcanized rubber (that's where the proprietary rights begins coming in).

http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagam...ssile/jd20.jpg
Michael Essa (Pro) - drift missle (personal non-sponsored drift piece of shit)

http://speedhunters.com/archive/2010...car-party.aspx

Not that it's saying anything, just showing a pro with stretched tires. I'm sure it would not be as competative in the pros to stretch tires. Wider tire = more grip = more control. His pro car doesn't have stretched tires either though.

I've never had a stretched tire blow out on the streets. But I've taken it on the track knowing that I've only got another lap and 1/2 left on the tires and go anyway just because it's funny to hear a tire blow out (not on tracks with walls). I've never damaged a wheel driving it back to the pits. I have however scratched the crap out of the side of my car when a non-stretched tire de-laminated on me and the tread swung down the side of my quarter panel repeatedly until I got into the pit. I've not noticed a difference between a stretched and non-stretched tire poping from going past the cords. If the material was the part that failed this should result in the sidewall blowing out? Then what's left of the sidewall would fold over resulting in driving on the wheel?

You should check out some of the D1GP cars then. Many of them run stretched tires and such.

You'd be wrong with your assumption about the guys working on their cars here and there. All of the "big" cars, ie team Falken and such are kept and built here in Charlotte. I'm friends with the owner of the shop.

Most of those guys don't touch their own cars, period. At least, as little as possible. The car is set up, shipped to events, they drive it. Bam, that's it. There are a few guys in Formula D that work on their cars, but most of them don't.

Essa also runs stretched tires on his old pro car, the Bimmer.

In fact, the neon wheels on the back of that FC are off of his Bimmer. Just throwing that out there.

But yeah, the million dollar race program drivers don't run stretched tires, but most everyone else does. I don't really care for it, like I've said. But it's still there.

I didn't say they built the car, I said they are involved with how it's set up. What I was saying is that just because they are not the ones doing the mods to the car doesn't mean that their insight on how the car is responding is not used. I said they are the ones driving/tracking the car. You say D1GP & what is your point? You said it yourself "Many of them run stretch tires" the key word being many not all! I already stated that some drifters use it & some don't right? My question was if it were so much better then the other then why not all run stretched. Anyways I will say it again if you feel the need to stretch tires keep it on the track where the drifters say it's needed. No sense in driving your daily around like that, I would think a person has enough common sense not to brake out into a drift on a public road. If it works for the car in the situation it's intended for all good with me.

http://rotarycarclub.com/rotary_foru...1&d=1294108122

Sorry, had to :rofl:

lmao

RotorDad, it's all a matter of personal taste. Some guys like it, some guys don't. That's pretty much all it boils down to.

edit: oopsnvm

Depends on where the break occurs. In my initial thought the stretch is sufficient that the force of the car is compressing the tire to the point where the rubber is not able to keep the lip of the wheel from making contact. Not too sure what you mean here.

I haven't had a tire fail due to the stretch before, only from going through the cords. I've had stretched tires blow out at 50+ mph while drifting and not have the wheel contact the pavement. In my experience blow outs on a drift car are more damaging to the paint/body and exhaust (from dragging) than the occupants of the car (other people on the road, spectators, confused chimpanzees at the zoo, insert situation here).

Where did this quote in your signature come from?

It's a variation on an old adage that I say sometimes which is neither true nor accurate, unless you count the burning of Rome as the fall.

Unfortunately there isn't anyone to my knowledge that would be able to engage in those mathematics out of the box. Hence why I'm taking it piece by piece. Understanding FBD's, application of appropriate formula, etc, before getting into something like this:

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...4&size=largest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-BGIcRBPHM

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHA


*breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA

Butt hurt in 5......4.......3.......2.....

This doesn't really have any bearing on anyone's soul except in the negative.

The L33ts on both sides are out!

Dude, holy thread resurrection......

But I've learned that people that don't like guns, tend to like stretched tires.

Which makes perfect sense. They are sacrificing safety either way. lol

Wow, this guy is should NOT be on this website.
he wants to get rid of his Rotary,..
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

what an idiot!
he probably wouldn't even try to rebuild it,
he'd try to stick a V8 in there!!
Wooow. He should be thinking 20B,
not V8.
:squint:

That's one of my buddies. He just likes to ruffle feathers lol.

he's good at it,
what a troll!

So, if you run a stretch because your car is underpowered....

Why are you running too wide of a wheel int he first place?

A heavier wheel is only going to amplify your "underpowered" problems.


Stretch tires is a complete "looks" thing. There is no real performance aspect. If you are underpowered, then you would want lighter smaller wheels, and then you would end up with the same size tire that you would with a stretch. So, in reality, you are doing it for looks. Underpowered argument is easily and forever proven wrong.


Being a dumbass that doesn't know how to budget is another explanation. "Oh shit bro, I want wider wheels, I guess I better go spend all my money on those ultra cool 10 inch wide wheels, cause they look mad-jdm-overnighted-tyte! Yo! Oh shit, I dont have enough power to rotate the wheels, let alone put tires on them... better stretch some shitty ass narrow tires on there and say its for performance. No one will ever know!"

Stretch is dumb. Unless you have the fucking balls to admit you do it for looks, it is dumb. THERE IS NO REAL PERFORMANCE REASON TO GO WITH STRETCHED TIRES. spend your money right and buy the right sized wheel/tire combo for your power levels and drifting abilities.

Besides, drifting is the SLOW way around the track. ;-)

^ stiffer sidewalls, something most street tires lack. because no one on a budget drifts on 140TW tires that actually do have stiff sidewalls.

im not a drifter (despite my sig). but with a shitty tire, stretching makes a huge difference. good tire, not really any difference at all.