[vex]

I didn't have an opportunity to respond before the thread was edited to remove anything that was said. I glanced at your response but didn't have a computer handy to respond or look at your links.

I'd be glad to look at the links you posted if you want to forward them. I'm seriously not just trying to piss you off, you seem like an intelligent guy... Your argument is just lacking detail in "real world" application.

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.

You aren't willing to bend in the argument at all even to see my perspective, on the other hand I have adjusted my statements to clarify what I'm looking for and you're still shutting me down seemingly without really reading what I'm saying and focusing more on each sentence as it's own argument.

Because that's how you read. Line upon line, sentence upon sentence.

Please slow down and read what I'm saying, I really would like this to be clarified (be it in front of the forum or not).

I've never been a "follow the rules" kind of guy. From my experience in the world I find most things are over-engineered if they're mass produced and can cause death in the hands of the general public.

From this stance alone you have really no understanding of how mechanics works do you?

In my experience tires are manufactured so that the sidewall holds up LONG after the tread is gone. In some cases 4 times longer.

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/11/10504/html/usa/retread.htm

Retreading reuseses the sidewall for 3 to 4 times before it's weak enough to justify replacement. At that rate even if a stretched sidewall lasts 50% less time it would still "safe" because it will outlast the tread.

See above picture. Does it look like that sidewall lasted 50% as long as normal tire?

If you can show me how this dramatically effects the tire (in a real world application way) I'll stop using stretched tires. I'm not unreasonable, and I'm not saying the science you're using is bad, wrong, or anything else. I agree that the concepts you're talking about are sound.

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.

That doesn't show me how badly this negatively effects the tire. Based on information I have the negative effects would have to go over 50% decreased life to pose a threat of danger. If you're unable to do the math just say that and we will move on. You have repeatedly asked me for specifics and offered to clarify and they threw it in my face when I clarified or asked for specifics.

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.

If you're in the same boat as me (or anyone else on the forum for that matter) and don't feel confident in your math then just say that and we can move on. But your implying that you can do it, and from the informed argument you're making I think it's possible you might be able. I don't care if you throw some constants in to make it easier. I.E. loading the tire at 1g lateral for the life of the tire, or whatever. I just wanted some sort of math to back up the theory even if it's only a guestimation. Currently I've got nothing.

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?