Rotary Car Club - View Single Post - Drifting, hellaflush, slammed, tire stretch blog/bash thread.

sofaking · 12-24-2010, 04:58 PM

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.

12-24-2010, 04:58 PM	#58
sofaking The Newbie Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 0	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.