Drifting, hellaflush, slammed, tire stretch blog/bash thread.

[TitaniumTT]

This thread is here for one reason and one reason only....... So the people who want to argue, CAN ARGUE! Do/say whatever you want in this thread, but do it in this thread ONLY!! Venturing out to other parts of the forum for the sole purpose of argueing will result in time outs. Lounge rules apply here. Call each other names, bash each other to high holy hell it's all fair game. If you get butt-hurt easily, I suggest you stay away because I will ONLY take action regarding a post if it breaks the following rules. Racial comments, attacks on the staff, and attacks on the forum will NOT be tolerated and will result in a Perma-Ban.

So, now that we are all in understanding.... let the games begin.

Allow me to start it off......



Those wheels don't fit in the front.... periord. The reason they don't fit in the front is becuase you have to run the wrong size tire to make them fit. Therefore the package doesn't fit properly. Put that rim in the rear with the right size tire on it. The right size being a 255 or BIGGER. I run 17x8 +35 F with a 235 tire and the tire is too small IMO.

And even a pull wouldn't get that to fit. You would need to run overfenders and cut ALOT of sheetmetal out to make it fit properly.

And even putting that 17x9+25 with a 255 in the rear would be DAMN close. I run a 17x9+35 with a 255 in the rear and when I FULLY compress the suspension it BARELY clears without a roll. I plan on running 275 in the rear next year and they WILL hit with that offset, but in reality, with the suspension I have, it SHOULDN'T touch.

The way to check to see if something actually fits is to remove the spring and fully compress and fully extend the suspension. If there is no contact, thedn it fits.

This is fact, not to be debated. There are cheats and shortcuts I will admit. But to say that wheel fits in the front is WRONG

[RETed]

oh no another tire stretching hater lol. im not gonna waste my time explaining it. all i gotta say is i drift and it helps alot with initiating and keeping the slide cause im still na at the moment. til i go v8 i have to have stretched tires

but i agree they wont fit with the stock fender unless you stretch or get overfenders. the panspeed knock off over fenders from corksport are pretty damn cheap or if you want something that looks close to stock i suggest the forsight 30mm fenders from shineauto.




It's a waste of time arguing with these idiots.


-Ted

[iani1.1]

ok then, explain to me why stretching tires are dysfunctional with hard evidence.

[TehMonkay]

If you like stretched tires sell your FC and go buy a fucking volkswagen

end of discussion

If you'rer drifting NA and need help breaking traction in the rear put some azenis in the front and kumho ecsta ASTs in the rear, over inflate them and toe out 1/8" and make sure you have 0 negative camber, I know I know, it doesn't look cool, right?

The loss of stength from the sidewall being stretched is NOT helping you drift.

[RETed]

yes you both are correct if your talking about road racing, autoX, etc. but the point i was trying to get at is drifting you need stretched tires on a very underpowered vehicle or else its nearly impossible to keep the tires spinning. its the opposite of both your equation. less contact less traction = easier to slide.

also i can care less about "automotive performance" been there done that. it just shows a how big you think your penis is and the only people who understands are usually dudes. sad but true. pretty homo? yes. just accept it.

now, im sorry if you guys took it the wrong way but there's no need to judge people just because you think one thing is idiotic. try drifting an na, youll know what i mean. im straying off the subject so ill just end it here.

(I'm going to ignore your poor attempt at trying to insult me and address your short sightedness directly.)

You're so tunnel-visioned about hippari stretch tires that you fail to see the big picture.

WE had no problems running proper tire fitments on our FC drift project.
Fronts were 225/50/16 (A032R) on 8" wide rims.
Rears were anything from 205 wide tires on 7" wide wheels to 225 - 245 wide tires on 8" wide wheels.
We had NO problem drifting the FC.

http://fc3spro.com/PROJECTS/SKY/20B/sky20b.html

Vid link is at the bottom.

Underpowered vehicles have no problem sliding, as long as you know what you are doing.
We regularly have a lot of "underpowered" AE86's on the track.
If you knew what you were doing, you use vehicle speed to get the car to go sideways.
It has nothing to do with the tires or the tire set-up.
A GOOD DRIVER can get any underpowered vehicle to slide regardless of the tire combination.
Beginning drifters (LIKE YOU) insist on having a specific tire set-up - poor traction in the back, so you can kick the back out easier.
This just means you don't have the BALLS to go into a corner fast enough to kick the rear out like the real drivers do and rely on poor traction in the rear to get the back end to slide out first.
This means you're relying on the fronts to keep traction - this means you're still a rookie.
Good drifters do 4 WHEEL DRIFTS where all 4 tires are sliding.
A good drifter would insist on good traction (i.e. tires) in all 4 corners to properly drift.
(Why is this point important?)
Because it's the same set-up that grip drivers do...good traction in all 4 corners.

This is not drift versus grip.
This is about you not understanding what you are talking about and insisting you are right.

There are other ways to decrease traction on tires.
One obvious way is to use cheap ass tires.
Yes, hippari stretch is another way.
Yet another way is to change the tire pressures.
Yet another way is to change or disconnect sway bars.

Be careful of what you say, cause you have no idea who you are talking to on the other side of the computer.
You see how ignorant you sound now?


-Ted

[iani1.1]

i am aware of all those things hell i pretty much go by this http://fc3spro.com/TECH/DRIFT/dori.html. which i believe you wrote a little bit ago.

as you stated "Also, wider rear tires usually makes it more tricky to throttle control due to more rubber." now since im using a 4port engine (t2 deturboed) for extra reliability, my power is waay down and not to mention torque. also as i have stated previously i have to have stretched tires to spin the 17x10 w/ federal 595 225 series tires at the rear. i should be using a smaller diameter wheel but it just looks funky

now til i blow up this engine then go v8 then ill choose to run non stretched tires but til then ill work with what i have.

[RotorDad]

As far as tire stretching goes I will simply say impractical for a street vehicle IMO. Why sacrifice real performance for this appearance or to be able to slide an underpowered car? Stretching a tire beyond it's limits is unsafe, a lot of tire shops will not do this for that reason alone. The fact that you would be raising the wear on suspension pieces, wheel bearings & the tires themselves is a reason in itself not to follow this style. I have to agree that if you can't fit a wheel with the tire manufactures suggested sizes, then it's not correct. Running a 215/45-17 on a 17"x10" wheels, with the rim exposed is asking for trouble. This just my view, so if tire stretching is your thing fine just don't impose this trend on others as being the right way to fit wheels & tires.

[RETed]

i am aware of all those things hell i pretty much go by this http://fc3spro.com/TECH/DRIFT/dori.html. which i believe you wrote a little bit ago.

as you stated "Also, wider rear tires usually makes it more tricky to throttle control due to more rubber." now since im using a 4port engine (t2 deturboed) for extra reliability, my power is waay down and not to mention torque. also as i have stated previously i have to have stretched tires to spin the 17x10 w/ federal 595 225 series tires at the rear. i should be using a smaller diameter wheel but it just looks funky

now til i blow up this engine then go v8 then ill choose to run non stretched tires but til then ill work with what i have.


So basically you're insisting to run "big" wheels (which are heavier than properly sized wheels) and then run smaller tires just to get the proper (less) traction?

So you're basically doing it just for looks?


-Ted

[RotorDad]

So basically you're insisting to run "big" wheels (which are heavier than properly sized wheels) and then run smaller tires just to get the proper (less) traction?

So you're basically doing it just for looks?


-Ted

This is honestly the real answer, instead of all that BS they try to feed you over on the other forum. It all boils down to looks, because most of the fools claim it's for drifting & they don't even drift!

[iani1.1]

As far as tire stretching goes I will simply say impractical for a street vehicle IMO. Why sacrifice real performance for this appearance or to be able to slide an underpowered car? Stretching a tire beyond it's limits is unsafe, a lot of tire shops will not do this for that reason alone. The fact that you would be raising the wear on suspension pieces, wheel bearings & the tires themselves is a reason in itself not to follow this style. I have to agree that if you can't fit a wheel with the tire manufactures suggested sizes, then it's not correct. Running a 215/45-17 on a 17"x10" wheels, with the rim exposed is asking for trouble. This just my view, so if tire stretching is your thing fine just don't impose this trend on others as being the right way to fit wheels & tires.

So basically you're insisting to run "big" wheels (which are heavier than properly sized wheels) and then run smaller tires just to get the proper (less) traction?

So you're basically doing it just for looks?


-Ted

i totally agree that tire stretching is impractical for street driving, i mean your talking about pot holes, construction zones etc. which can cause the tire to debead in some cases.

also i dont drift for the competition i drift for the fun of it and making the car look cool while its in motion simple as that, atleast for now. though at the same time dialing in suspension and still learning the car. i came from a s13 which is a really easy car to drift then went to an fc which is totally different and much harder.

you could just run lightweight 17x7.5 or 8 wheels.

hm, i might just give that some thought.

[Max777]

So you're basically doing it just for looks?

-Ted



YES, YES, YES! I think the whole point of amateur drifting is honestly to look cool... People get into it because it looks cool. If you drift, you are considered cool. When you build your car for drifting, people often say that it looks cool.

To people in the drift scene, it makes sense to run bigger wheels and less tires to get the same traction as smaller wheels and normal tires because it makes the car stand out more. What drifters like is to get noticed, and be given compliments on their car/driving/personal style.... some will deny this, but I'll openly admit that what people think, and their complements make me feel good about myself. :D

Of course, there is the driving aspect of it, the "rebel" aspect of it, and a lot of other stuff that goes behind it all.

The whole reason drifting took off was because it was "cool", which to young people, along with having fun, is all that really matters.

In the end, I hope this post at least helps people understand the MENTALITY of stretching tires, and drift wheel fitment from a different stand point.

[iani1.1]

your XJ? really? dude dont throw cars around this argument and quit changing the damn subject. the wheels fit. as i have said before cheap or expensive coilovers will not let your suspension travel far enough to bottom out.

also its a simple yes or no question i asked. "so what youre saying is people should drive like theyre at a autoX event?" and you go throwing your suspension settings and techniques.

removing the rear sway bar makes the car less "snappy" when it exits the corner. makes the car a little more controllable rather than having the car whip back in to position.

i understand your type of motor sports. here's an example
makes dicks hard due to "performance"
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac97/rotaryian7/cars/PICT0140.jpg
makes pussy's wet cause shit looks ill
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac97/rotaryian7/cars/jtp08.gif

simple as that. now if you have a better explanation feel free to throw it out there. THE WHEELS FIT.

[RETed]

removing the rear sway bar makes the car less "snappy" when it exits the corner. makes the car a little more controllable rather than having the car whip back in to position.


*bzzzt*
Wrong...

Next contestant...


-Ted

[classicauto]

i understand your type of motor sports. here's an example
makes dicks hard due to "performance"
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac97/rotaryian7/cars/PICT0140.jpg
makes pussy's wet cause shit looks ill
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac97/rotaryian7/cars/jtp08.gif


:lol:

Holy fawk you are hopeless BOY.

1: You're a JTP fan boi. The only pussy getting wet looking at that car is yours.

2: The wheels DO NOT fit because you need to run improper width tires for the rims. Earlier you asked how stretching tires could possibly be bad. If you have to ask that question you've obviously never paid attention to a tire manufacturer's recommended sizing chart. And no - the chart is not what the "think" works, its based on road force testing to the speed rating of the tires, and running too narrow or too wide can cause a variety of issues.

3: This is not about X vs Y or someone's opinion on what looks good or makes fan boi pussy wet. This is about will the wheel fit with no stretch and the answer is that it won't.

4: If you don't understand the reason to check suspension travel for wheel clearance then well.......that illustrates your lack of understanding. When you installed the knuckles from you idol JTP - did you check clearance from lock to lock? You probably did because you're probably going to use the extended travel.................if you ever plan on hitting any bumps in the road (and aren't running 15K springs like the rest of the fanbois) you will use your full suspension travel - or at least more then you will if you simply drop your coils for cool pictars to wet other fan boy va jay jays.

5: I love drifting. Its alot of fun. Whats not fun is being a mindless follower. You can admit that the wheels don't fit now. And no - I'm not a mindless follower by jumping on the myriad of people disagreeing with you - I'm MINDFUL because I know the wheels the OP is asking about do not fit a stock bodied FC without a slew of modifcations and stretched tires. End of discussion.

Thank you come again!

[Chance]

I heard there is some asshole bitching over nothing


Bitch about this, 18x9 -5 235/40, 18x10 +0 245/40

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx152/LovelyidoiInc/IMG_1473.jpg


And 18x9 -5 225/35, 18x9.5 -5 235/40

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx152/LovelyidoiInc/IMG_1832.jpg



Now go ahead and bitch about how my wheels "don't fit" when the fenders aren't pulled much at all.























When you are done with that, go ahead and complain about how not proper my other car is. 18x11 -10 235/35, 18x12 -10 265/35

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx152/LovelyidoiInc/IMG_2041.jpg





Keep in mind my car works better than yours ever will.

[RETed]

Here we go again...

I think I remember this...guy...from the evil forum.

*sigh*

I dunno...I have no problems driving my FC around as a daily driver even with the bazillion pot holes that just opened up due to the recent rains.
I doubt yours would ever make it out of one.

I dare you to try and drive that thing down here.
You'd get ticket and even impounded for no "recon".
You won't be able to even pass recon in the first place.
Go bitch at law enforcement about "proper" and "safe".

Hey, I give you credit for pulling the rear fenders...
Fricken FC rear fender wells are a pain to pull at all!


-Ted

[Chance]

Obviously you have some really odd special metal on your cars in Hawaii, because I did my fenders by hand by myself, and what the fuck are you doing driving into potholes, you have a steering wheel and unless your eyesight is fucked you can avoid them unless you are a fucking paraplegic



My car doesn't need to pass laws, it's actually cool enough to where cops pull me over to check it out not because it's a trying too hard car.

[josh18_2k]

raugh out roud

[RotorDad]

1st of I'm pretty sure he goes by SlideAlliance on the other forum. 2nd did you honestly join this forum just to argue? 3rd your pics have nothing to do with the topic, your fenders have been altered. It's simple & not my opinion you have stretched the tires beyond the manufactures limits. If you like it, fine. If the set up works for you, fine. Does it actually fit, maybe. Does that make it correct, NO. You wouldn't make it down my street, without leaving half of your car there. Making something fit by making the car impractical is not the right way of doing things. With that said I'm not going to bitch. 1st it's your car, so do what you want. 2nd until I see some info from a tire manufacture stating that it's safe & acceptable to stretch the tires & you show me that your set-up proves to be better then another around the track, you are not making a good case. It's pointless to argue style, because everyone is different. Now arguing actual performance is something where data can be collected & reviewed.

[RETed]

Obviously you have some really odd special metal on your cars in Hawaii, because I did my fenders by hand by myself,
Nah, I don't like beating metal till the paint starts to crack off...
I'd like to try and keep the car looking decently rather than some getto rig shit that you guys seem to think it's "cool".


and what the fuck are you doing driving into potholes, you have a steering wheel and unless your eyesight is fucked you can avoid them unless you are a fucking paraplegic
Oh sorry I'm not like you Superman...
I guess you've never driven into a hole and never will the rest of your life...
Give me some of that crack you're smoking...


My car doesn't need to pass laws, it's actually cool enough to where cops pull me over to check it out not because it's a trying too hard car.
Yeah, cause you're a track bitch...
Yeah, yeah, I remember.
You just want other fanboi's to drool over your piece of shit.
I see you're still living in your fantasy world.
Like I said before, give me some of that crack you're smoking.

GTFO

Keep trying to slip some new reply in before you're banned.

No, seriously...


-Ted

[Chance]

I want to see the data in which it says the tires do not perform as well stretched vs. "fit" vs. bubbled honestly because all any of you are doing is bitching like a bunch of little six year old girls without any real proof. Formula 1 used to stretch tires more than they do now but it also seems like they were faster through corners back then.


If you don't like it, don't do it. The fact that you call it the "evil forum" just proves you are nothing more than another douche bag and this forum hasn't caught on to it yet.


I would much rather be a track bitch than just a regular bitch who gets his feelings hurt over nothing. I drive my car on the street when it's not snowing or I'm not actually making my car gobs better than your "proper" car. Keep digging for cut downs, they never worked in the past and I guarantee they aren't going to get any better with age for you.




As far as the metal goes, I could REALLY make you look stupid but you aren't worth anyone's time. Stretching and forming metal after it's been slightly heated means the paint doesn't crack or chip. Try to keep up simple minded.

[RETed]

oh well

[RETed]

I want to see the data in which it says the tires do not perform as well stretched vs. "fit" vs. bubbled honestly because all any of you are doing is bitching like a bunch of little six year old girls without any real proof. Formula 1 used to stretch tires more than they do now but it also seems like they were faster through corners back then.
Wow, last time I checked, tire engineers are running as wide a tire as they can slip on the wheels.
In fact, FIA put limits on tire widths.
There is no minimum tire width.
Go figure.

Another bullshit lie.
Stick to thinking you car looks pretty, cause you don't know shit about Formula 1.
It's a disgrace you even bring it up.
Don't do it again.


If you don't like it, don't do it. The fact that you call it the "evil forum" just proves you are nothing more than another douche bag and this forum hasn't caught on to it yet.
I don't like it.
I will not ever do it.
Deal with it.



I would much rather be a track bitch than just a regular bitch who gets his feelings hurt over nothing. I drive my car on the street when it's not snowing or I'm not actually making my car gobs better than your "proper" car. Keep digging for cut downs, they never worked in the past and I guarantee they aren't going to get any better with age for you.
Feelings hurt?
You're still giving yourself too much credit.
I still daily drive me FC.
That's all that matters.
It don't care what you say or what you think.
Keep thinking otherwise.


As far as the metal goes, I could REALLY make you look stupid but you aren't worth anyone's time. Stretching and forming metal after it's been slightly heated means the paint doesn't crack or chip. Try to keep up simple minded.
That's alright...
Shrinking and stretching metal causes paint to loosen from the metal.
DUH
The metal will peel off.
DUH
It's physics.

Oh sorry, you're smoking good shit, and you live in your fantasy land which you can do no wrong.
DUH

You bend the laws of physics.

Good for you!


-Ted

[RotorDad]

Ok Tire manufactures have been designing tires for sometime now & they all have min & max wheel sizes listed for each size of tire they offer & most have a recommended size listed. To say that stretching a tire beyond their recommendations is better is to say they don't know what the fuck they are doing! Now if they are wrong it's the first I have heard. I'm sure they have done the right testing above & beyond anything us as the consumer would ever be able to do. If tire stretching is all that great then why do the manufactures & installers not warranty the tires if they will even install them.

[sofaking]

The manufacturers don't recommend stretching tires because they have to plan for retards. If you curb check hard enough it will break the bead and your tire will deflate. Crazy... good thing that can't happen with non-stretched tires. Oh wait...

I've got 215/40-17s on a 17x9.5 on the front of my car. And it sees the track every drift event we have locally (even been out of state). I've not had any issues at all with the tires doing anything out of the ordinary. Stretching the tire gives it predictable characteristics on the track, removing the ability for the sidewall to roll negates having to correct for it.

You guys are arguing shit without any backing. I personally have experienced stretched tires on the track. I have personally pushed them past their limits and had no ill effects. You can argue that it's a style thing (and it partially is), but trying to claim that it doesn't work is stupid. I've never had a tire shop tell me they couldn't mount the tire, or wouldn't warranty it because of the stretch.

If you want to argue the science of it, please explain how having the sidewall strong enough to support the weight of the car under the pressure of air is any different at a 45 degree angle as opposed to a 90 degree angle. Seems to me that at a 45 degree angle it could spread the weight along the sidewall just as easily.

Also, Chance is right. Avoid pot holes. Clearly we take more pride in our cars and pay more attention while driving. Your argument there seems to be more that you don't want to be proactive in keeping your car looking nice. P.S. not stretching your tires won't save you from curb checks and pot holes. You can still fuck up your wheels.

[RETed]

The manufacturers don't recommend stretching tires because they have to plan for retards. If you curb check hard enough it will break the bead and your tire will deflate. Crazy... good thing that can't happen with non-stretched tires. Oh wait...

I've got 215/40-17s on a 17x9.5 on the front of my car. And it sees the track every drift event we have locally (even been out of state). I've not had any issues at all with the tires doing anything out of the ordinary. Stretching the tire gives it predictable characteristics on the track, removing the ability for the sidewall to roll negates having to correct for it.

You guys are arguing shit without any backing. I personally have experienced stretched tires on the track. I have personally pushed them past their limits and had no ill effects. You can argue that it's a style thing (and it partially is), but trying to claim that it doesn't work is stupid. I've never had a tire shop tell me they couldn't mount the tire, or wouldn't warranty it because of the stretch.

If you want to argue the science of it, please explain how having the sidewall strong enough to support the weight of the car under the pressure of air is any different at a 45 degree angle as opposed to a 90 degree angle. Seems to me that at a 45 degree angle it could spread the weight along the sidewall just as easily.

Let's take your stretch versus a similar car with the proper fit tires ACCORDING TO TIRE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS and see who runs the faster time on the track.

Oh wait!
You guys don't that kinda thing!
Can grip drivers a bunch of dumbasses and retards, right?


Also, Chance is right. Avoid pot holes. Clearly we take more pride in our cars and pay more attention while driving. Your argument there seems to be more that you don't want to be proactive in keeping your car looking nice. P.S. not stretching your tires won't save you from curb checks and pot holes. You can still fuck up your wheels.
Take pride in your cars?
Bondo...
Unpainted panels...
Mismatched paint...
Misaligned panels...
Wavy panels...
Stickers up the yang...
You gotta be kidding me right?
I guess you like auto body by BFH, huh?

It's funny we got a thread in the drifting section talking how getto drifting is...


-Ted

[RotorDad]

SofaKing did you used to have a white 240sx & a member of Boostedimports? Ok back to the subject I'm not arguing without backing it up. I can name at least 9 tire shops in my area alone that will not stretch tires at all & the ones that will mount them will not warranty them. So because you and other do this that I guess is proof of what? Why is that when I look at most of the professional D1 cars it doesn't appear that they have overly stretched tires. Like I said above you all are right & the tire manufactures are wrong. BTW would you trust a product if the manufacture didn't know what they were doing? Avoiding potholes & road debris is not a clear cut as you make it seem. On my way to work there are numerous potholes & can be hard to avoid if you didn't regularly drive that route. I would think that your first post would be some sort of intro not jump in to an argument. You say the members here aren't backing their argument, but your only backing is that you use this type of set on the track. Who ever said that the others here didn't have track experience. Hey if you provide real data from a professional (same car non stretched vs. stretched) & can find me a tire company that would suggest tire stretching I will with no problem apologize & admit being wrong.

[sofaking]

1) I didn't say that running stretched tires makes you faster. I said, "Stretching the tire gives it predictable characteristics on the track, removing the ability for the sidewall to roll negates having to correct for it." Learn to read. Arguing with logical fallacies and misunderstood points doesn't make you right (I guess technically in your mind it does). I made a statement and I've put it to the test in the real world and it does exactly what I said it does.

2) @RETed Do you know anything about drifting? I liken it to rally from the standpoint of damage to the car. If you can afford to re-paint your car every event that's awesome. Most of the pros can't justify that. Not to mention that there are people that give anything a bad name and tend to try and look shitty because it's inevitable that they're going to destroy something nice. Drifting is a sport of style, looks fall into the style category.

3) @RotorDad There have got to be a bunch of morons in VA. Out here in Colorado we understand you can't warranty a tire for camber wear and drifting on them. Like responsible people we deal with the consequences of our actions and buy new tires when we need them. It's sad that they've resorted to denying warranties to stretched tire owners. No doubt related to dumbasses doing dumbass things. I'd be curious if there is a real reason behind this or if its just some old dude arguing how they never did it back in the day and technology hasn't changed and nothing has been made better since 1902. (I love these arguments, they remind me of the one I'm having right now.)

4) Sounds like you would get a ticket for following too closely. If you're driving at the legally suggested distance you can react to potholes before you hit them.

5) I'm not asking you to "admit you're wrong" I don't really care. I just decided to hop on here and argue because I'm bored and you're idiots. Find something where someone didn't hit a curb or a pothole and had problems with their stretched tires. I haven't seen any information to back up that it doesn't work well. I'm capable of saying that I'm sure having the sidewall vertical probably offers better performance (in a grip racing situation). But since you're all arguing about how you have street cars and drive them on the street, you're not pushing the tires to the limit anyway.

On another note. No, I have never been on Boostimports. Also, is it just me or does anyone else see the irony of both of your screen names?
reted, retard
rotordad, retarded
I'm just glad to be able to argue with people at length about things they have no experience with. I look forward to the incredibly insightful replies that I'm sure are coming.

[classicauto]

1) I didn't say that running stretched tires makes you faster. I said, "Stretching the tire gives it predictable characteristics on the track, removing the ability for the sidewall to roll negates having to correct for it." Learn to read. Arguing with logical fallacies and misunderstood points doesn't make you right (I guess technically in your mind it does). I made a statement and I've put it to the test in the real world and it does exactly what I said it does.

Sidewall roll is not the largest variable in your suspension setup unless you're running 14-15" wheels with really tall sidewalls. A ~40ish series sidewall on a low profile tire for a 17-18" wheel doesn't have much flex. The difference between a fitted low profile tire and a stretched low profile tire is extremely low with regards to tire flex. The predictability you're experiencing is due to the smalelr contact patch being easier to control then the more grippy, wider, proper fitting tire.

Saying something works on the track doesn't make it right. I'm sure you've seen the mythbusters where they cut a car into bits, including the roof, duct tape it together and thrash the shit out of it.

Given the fact that you can duct tape a car together and have it survive a beating on a track (ie. you can stretch your tires and have them not pop off or fail) doesn't make it correct or the right way of doing things.........nor the best way.


3) @RotorDad There have got to be a bunch of morons in VA. Out here in Colorado we understand you can't warranty a tire for camber wear and drifting on them. Like responsible people we deal with the consequences of our actions and buy new tires when we need them. It's sad that they've resorted to denying warranties to stretched tire owners. No doubt related to dumbasses doing dumbass things. I'd be curious if there is a real reason behind this or if its just some old dude arguing how they never did it back in the day and technology hasn't changed and nothing has been made better since 1902. (I love these arguments, they remind me of the one I'm having right now.)


http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Pilot%20Sport%20PS2&tab=Specs&PID=3196509&AID=10398365

Tire recommendations. Rim widths vs. tire widths. Sure, a shop can stretch tires on for you. Sure they can tell you THEY (the shop) might warranty the tire itself from falling off the rim or would help you if there was a problem - but THE TIRE MANUFACTURER doesn't warranty any tire installed on the wrong size rim. Phone any tire maker you wish and ask them, its just not true. The shop might be willing to help you if there's an issue but don't confuse that with the tire company actually warrantying the tire, or reccommending its installed on inappropriate sized wheels.

4) Sounds like you would get a ticket for following too closely. If you're driving at the legally suggested distance you can react to potholes before you hit them.

You know, there's no reason to be an idiot we can all have big boy conversations. We are all human. I'm sure you've hit pot holes. I've hit pot holes. Whoop dee doo. Is a pot hole going to just destroy a rim outright? Depends. It could happen with or without stretched tires. However, you must be able to admit that given physics and a tire's job, if there is rim epxosed -such as with a stretched tire- that there is a higher likelyhood damage can happen due to the rim being more vulnerable then when it is covered by a tire completely........yes?

Thank you for gracing our forum.

[speedjunkie]

I haven't read a whole lot since my last post, but I think the pothole argument is ridiculous. First of all, I also live in Colorado, and I have yet to see a pothole here as bad as the ones on Ft Bragg in NC. I was driving one of the back roads in my 97 Prelude with stock wheels and tires and potholes covered the entire road, I'm assuming from the Abrams crossings or something haha. Anyway, yes it was night and vision wasn't the best, but I was dodging constantly and still hit a pothole and blew the stock tire and bent the stock rim. I would love to see what it would do to your stretched tire. To say someone hits a pothole because they're retarded or any other reason is retarded in itself. If you haven't driven the roads they drive how can you or Chance claim to know so much about their potholes or how easy they should be to miss?

Where in CO are you anyway? Maybe your potholes are harder to miss yet your skills compensate, but I doubt it.

I will not run a stretched tire on my car, but I'm not going to jump into the tire debate because it's pointless. I will admit that maybe running a stretched tire will help in drifting (I've never drifted so I can't make claims for or against), and not stretching a tire is better for grip racing and for the street in general, but neither side will concede to each so it's pointless to argue. This should be added to the list of things you don't speak about at the dinner table, along with politics and religion.

Oh, fun with names.
RETed- probably Rotary Engine and his name is Ted
RotorDad- probably because he loves rotaries and he's a Dad
So let's see, sofaking...retarded? Is that last part missing?

Let's see what brilliance you come up with for speedjunkie. I'm prepared to take namecalling, let's see if you are. Or we could just stop with the childish name calling. What do you think?

I also tend to have a real problem with people that sign onto a forum just to start shit. I'll say my goodbyes to you now for when Brian gets back on with his banhammer for spammers and trolls.

[vex]

1) I didn't say that running stretched tires makes you faster. I said, "Stretching the tire gives it predictable characteristics on the track, removing the ability for the sidewall to roll negates having to correct for it." Learn to read. Arguing with logical fallacies and misunderstood points doesn't make you right (I guess technically in your mind it does). I made a statement and I've put it to the test in the real world and it does exactly what I said it does.And completely negates the speed rating of the tire. Sidewall deformation caused by stretching not only results in premature tire failure, but also eliminates the speed rating as viable metric to ensure safety of the car.

For yours and other consideration I quote the following from individuals in the business of mounting as well as designing the tires:
If you perform this miscarriage, then you (not the customer) will be liable if the tire fails unexpectedly because of incorrect fitment. You have enabled the customer to drive on a tire/wheel combination that is not sanctioned or recommended by competent authorities in the tire industry. It is just the same as installing a tire with less load capacity than the OE fitment. DO NOT DO IT! Just ask any expert witness in a suit involving tire failure if you doubt my words.

If you want to loose your business for a few dollars of profit, then it sounds like a great idea. All of the tires I have seen that have been stretched have a lower load rating than the car requires also. We used to send them to another business in town that was doing stretching but he had to close after a lawsuit cleaned him out.

Without getting too technical, when a wider or narrower tire is placed on a width wheel that is out of spec. for the size, a whole change of dynamics will occur to the tire. Number one is safety. Safety not only to the operator, but to the installer. Bead rupture is a possibility as the tire tries to conform itself unrightly to a too narrow or too wide wheel. Safety to the customer because the tires rated performance is greatly reduced, ie; speed rating, air pressure, load carrying capacity, wear characteristics, traction, bead leaking, just to mention a few.

I've done a couple AFTER explaining to the customer who was well aware of the dangers of such a setup. These guys are practicing on a drift circuit and says the Hipari setup makes drift sessions easier because of less traction and smaller contact patch. We don't mount the wheels on the car however. I've been to the drift session unknowing to the guys and saw them mounting their wheels at the circuit so I'm pretty comfortable knowing these guys are responsible and do not run these wheels on public roads.

I can go on if you'd like. But you get the issue. Stretching the tire really has no benefit beyond aesthetics (but last I checked cars were meant to be driven).


2) @RETed Do you know anything about drifting? I liken it to rally from the standpoint of damage to the car. If you can afford to re-paint your car every event that's awesome. Most of the pros can't justify that. Not to mention that there are people that give anything a bad name and tend to try and look shitty because it's inevitable that they're going to destroy something nice. Drifting is a sport of style, looks fall into the style category.You do realize he's friends with some people that participate in such events and perform well without having to deform the tires until they are completely out of spec, ya?

3) @RotorDad There have got to be a bunch of morons in VA. Out here in Colorado we understand you can't warranty a tire for camber wear and drifting on them. Like responsible people we deal with the consequences of our actions and buy new tires when we need them. It's sad that they've resorted to denying warranties to stretched tire owners. No doubt related to dumbasses doing dumbass things. I'd be curious if there is a real reason behind this or if its just some old dude arguing how they never did it back in the day and technology hasn't changed and nothing has been made better since 1902. (I love these arguments, they remind me of the one I'm having right now.) On the contrary, see the above quotes from installers and individuals in the business. Even if they tell you it's bad and you insist upon it being mounted, and a family dies because you used your predictable vehicle behavior to slam into them, who's going to take the heat for all those who died? You? Or are you going to let the buck go to the individual that broke the law in mounting your tire?


4) Sounds like you would get a ticket for following too closely. If you're driving at the legally suggested distance you can react to potholes before you hit them.Sounds like you have pristine roads and conditions to avoid all pot holes ever made.

5) I'm not asking you to "admit you're wrong" I don't really care. I just decided to hop on here and argue because I'm bored and you're idiots. Find something where someone didn't hit a curb or a pothole and had problems with their stretched tires. I haven't seen any information to back up that it doesn't work well. I'm capable of saying that I'm sure having the sidewall vertical probably offers better performance (in a grip racing situation). But since you're all arguing about how you have street cars and drive them on the street, you're not pushing the tires to the limit anyway.Do you really want me to get the information I already posted from a tire designer to prove you have altered the tire dynamics to no benefit? Just curious.

On another note. No, I have never been on Boostimports. Also, is it just me or does anyone else see the irony of both of your screen names?
reted, retard
rotordad, retarded
I'm just glad to be able to argue with people at length about things they have no experience with. I look forward to the incredibly insightful replies that I'm sure are coming.
Yes, because you're the authority on suspension setups... how?

[josh18_2k]

what use is information without a source? as far as i can tell, everything you quoted could be from the guy at les schwabb
all the arguments in this thread seem to be speculation. i've never seen/read about a tire failure due to stretching, altho the internet is pretty vast. i have however seen a properly sized tire dismount itself on track during a drift run. that was some comedy

also please leave the whole grip racing performance aspect out of this.. no one is claiming a streched tire offers better traction, so i dont know why it keeps being brought up. i rarely see any drift people try to lecture about grip, and when they do im usually the first to rectify the situation lol

[Max777]

dude, no it doesnt. the springs just wont allow for your suspension to bottom out unless your trying to pull some duke of hazzard. that with stock suspension and what not.

Yes it will, if you drift your car with a proper set up:

alignment
bump steer/angle adjustable tie rod ends
corner balance
proper wheel travel

I am arguing FOR stretched tires, yet even I can tell you don't have an in-depth understanding of suspension at all.

EDIT:

-sigh- but only a damn idiot would drive it that low or if youre really brave. also springs prevent the strut from bottoming out whether its fully compressed or not.

face it, just admit your wrong and the wheel does fit, its streetable and it fits. there's 3 pictures that prove it and 1 pointless one you wanted posted. so dude just stop you lost

No it doesnt... the bump stop does... =)

We recently had a volvo in our shop that had under 60,000k on it.. one of the front struts was blown to all hell, the other one was fine.

When I took apart the blown side, guess what? It had no bumpstop! If, like you say, it was the spring that controls the shock travel, why did the strut blow?

Spring: cusions the initial impact
shock: controls the repeated movement of the spring so that the car doesnt bounce up and down all the time
bump stop: prevents the shock from bottoming out under full compression of the shock absorber.

[RETed]

1) I didn't say that running stretched tires makes you faster. I said, "Stretching the tire gives it predictable characteristics on the track, removing the ability for the sidewall to roll negates having to correct for it." Learn to read. Arguing with logical fallacies and misunderstood points doesn't make you right (I guess technically in your mind it does). I made a statement and I've put it to the test in the real world and it does exactly what I said it does.
One person's "preditable" is another person's "unpredictable".
Again, another subjective opinion.
You're in your own fantasy world if you think THAT'S objective.
I think you need to learn and comprehend...

Dictionary.COM
"objective" : not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased; intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

Basically what you FEEL don't count as shit.

OBJECTIVE is who is quicker using a stopwatch.
OBJECTIVE is who is faster using a speed gun.

Oh shit, you don't want to do none of that...
I guess we will never know, huh.


@RETed Do you know anything about drifting? I liken it to rally from the standpoint of damage to the car. If you can afford to re-paint your car every event that's awesome. Most of the pros can't justify that. Not to mention that there are people that give anything a bad name and tend to try and look shitty because it's inevitable that they're going to destroy something nice. Drifting is a sport of style, looks fall into the style category.
Hey, I'm not the one CLAIMING drift cars look prettier...
Why don't you go reread your butt buddies comments earlier?


4) Sounds like you would get a ticket for following too closely. If you're driving at the legally suggested distance you can react to potholes before you hit them.
I think these guys seriously live in some pristine roads...

5) I'm not asking you to "admit you're wrong" I don't really care. I just decided to hop on here and argue because I'm bored and you're idiots.
Ah, finally the truth comes out...
Got bored on the other forum?
Got tired of your fanboi groupies kissing your ass so much?
Or did you pique the ire of a mod(s)?
So this whole tirade was you morons just coming in here causing trouble...
I guess you don't mind being banned and getting kicked out of here, huh.


Find something where someone didn't hit a curb or a pothole and had problems with their stretched tires. I haven't seen any information to back up that it doesn't work well.
Useless argument...
You morons refuse to put that shit on a real track and put some times up.
We were talking OBJECTIVE.
Why bother?
All you're going to do is bitch and moan about how drifting is about style (SUBJECTIVE).
Waste of time.

Oh, and get it right.
I don't think anyone said it would not work.
I think the point was that it's NOT RECOMMENDED.
COMPREHEND.
You morons already call the tire manufacturers and tire engineers idiots...


I'm capable of saying that I'm sure having the sidewall vertical probably offers better performance (in a grip racing situation). But since you're all arguing about how you have street cars and drive them on the street, you're not pushing the tires to the limit anyway.
So you're impying you drift on public streets?


reted, retard
I can't even give you a point on creativity.
You must've flunked art.
No wonder you just follow the flock like sheep.


I'm just glad to be able to argue with people at length about things they have no experience with. I look forward to the incredibly insightful replies that I'm sure are coming.
Ah, another fantasy world comment...
Glad we could accomodate you.
Enjoy it before your ass is banned.


-Ted

[iani1.1]

i thought this thread was done. well, for me anyways lol

and max777 i agree with your statement but im soo underpowered to a point where i can keep the car low but the spring keeps my car at height. nowhere close to where bump stops should be or is. with that wheel travel is sufficient for my setup, my car doest squat enough to rub or bottom out going through a corner.

[sofaking]

Defining objective with an emotional argument: awesome.

@classicauto without knowing my suspension setup you can't tell me what part of my suspension flexes the most under load. The tire did make a large difference to the handling of the car when placed up front. Previously before that I was running the same type tire on a 17x7.5 wheel. As for the pot hole thing, I've hit them when not paying attention. I've not hit one while paying attention. I adjust the steering wheel to accommodate for them while driving on the street. Obviously yes, if the lip of the wheel is exposed it's more prone to damage. I'm not saying pothole don't exist, I'm saying be proactive about keeping your wheels nice.

@speedjunkie probably the most valid argument yet. I live in Denver, driven in probably 20 states and 5 other countries. I apparently just don't find potholes as unavoidable as the rest of the masses. As for the name thing, I was pointing out the irony, not trying to come up with the wittiest thing I could think of. Just thought it was funny.

@vex Yes, I'd like to see data on how the tire is deformed (yes, technical data). I agree with Josh, throwing up some random quotes without siting the source doesn't lend itself to the viability of the argument. Another consideration is how much stretch. I've seen some pretty shady stretches, if you're trying to stretch too far I could definitely see it as unsafe. I've got about an inch of stretch on my tires. Meaning each sidewall is flexed out about 1/2 an inch. If you're laying it down at more than about a 45 degree angle I would imagine problems. all the sudden your sidewall can be driven on in the right circumstances.

@max I would imagine the strut blew because there is a range of efficient travel on a strut. Too high on the cylinder and it doesn't work well, too low on the cylinder and it will bottom out destroying it. Coilovers are a different story, they're designed to be able to adjust into their efficiency range. Mostly I see what you're doing here as an attempt to educate in the other factors of suspension and you realize this though.

@RETed You're getting way too worked up buddy. The handling of a car is definitely subjective. Every driver has a way they would prefer it to drive. I prefer my front tires stretched to achieve what I believe to be more predictable handling for my driving style. If you think I placed an argument in there saying that everyone that drives cars like it to handle the same way you read into it somewhere. Cause I didn't. I explained my experience with the words "I personally...". Also, what I FEEL does count for shit in this argument, because I FEEL control of the car. Sadly you can't objectively argue control of a car. It's past it's limits while drifting, it's for me to tell you if I have more or less control of the car. Next you're saying that your argument is based solely on performance and the safety aspect isn't valid. You would somehow be satisfied if a car performed better on stretched tires than on non-stretched tires? I think the difference would be small enough it could come down the the driver, then become a subjective argument about driver, track conditions, etc. etc. etc. Everything is subjective and up for debate. How did you jump to an implication of drifting on the streets? These are the logical fallacies I'm talking about. I don't drift on the streets, I think you're throwing in a point that didn't come from this argument about your opinion of drifters in general. The point that was implied was, "If you're going to lose minimal performance, would you notice on the streets since you're unable to drive at the limits of your tires legally?"

If you're going to argue objective, maybe you should keep your argument objective. Keep your preconceived notions of who people are out of it and argue the point at hand.

There are 2 arguments here. 1) The subjective matter of tire stretch vs. standard sizing. 2) The safety concerns of stretching a tire.

1) doesn't really have a winning side it's like politics or religion. In the end it is subjective and the driver determines if they have more or less control of the car one way or the other.

2) could have an outcome but I don't see any data to back it up one way or the other. So I can only argue from my own experience that it works and I have had no problems with the setup. Because I track my car, the tires don't last long enough to have to worry about longevity of the tire (speaking purely of front tires here since rears don't last an event). So any malformation that might be caused by driving on it for 50000 (or whatever they're rated for) miles I wouldn't have any information about. The front tires probably don't last me 30% of the warrantied mileage so I'll never know unless someone can post up a study of some sort.

I went to look up the rating for the sake of accuracy on my front tires and found this video. A test by Falken... with stretched tires, for grip. It's not a comparison of stretch vs. standard but I am looking at the tires 5sec and 18sec into the video and front and rear tires are stretched. Not huge amounts, but I can look at it and see the sidewall isn't vertical and the lip protector barely comes flush with the wheel. Whereas it's designed to overhang the wheel lip.
7Dcs22WMiuo

[Max777]

Obviously you have some really odd special metal on your cars in Hawaii, because I did my fenders by hand by myself, and what the fuck are you doing driving into potholes, you have a steering wheel and unless your eyesight is fucked you can avoid them unless you are a fucking paraplegic..

dear Ted, you lost...


Max.

[vex]

what use is information without a source? as far as i can tell, everything you quoted could be from the guy at les schwabb
all the arguments in this thread seem to be speculation. i've never seen/read about a tire failure due to stretching, altho the internet is pretty vast. i have however seen a properly sized tire dismount itself on track during a drift run. that was some comedyI was going to put it up, but thought better of it. I'll have to hunt it down again, but it was on a simple site I found. Though, if you do not agree with something inparticular I've quoted from I'd like to know what and why.

also please leave the whole grip racing performance aspect out of this.. no one is claiming a streched tire offers better traction, so i dont know why it keeps being brought up. i rarely see any drift people try to lecture about grip, and when they do im usually the first to rectify the situation lol
Just out of curiousity as the geometry is deformed, tire pressure is altered (maximum tire pressure--do you still put in the recommended amount, are you eyeballing it, or some other means outside of manufacturers spec)?

An unrelated, but potentially critical note, is that the vertical pressure secondarily effects the range of tire carcass motion, which in turn can dramatically affect tire temperature. For example, low tire pressure can result in the rubber turning hard, and blowing out the entire sidewall. This can happen in a remarkably short time on an underinflated tire operated at high speeds.
http://www.ibmwr.org/otech/tirestuff.html

Furthermore stretching tires can run aground upon other design features such as Michelin's Stress Equilibrium Casings:

A radial casing design that more evenly distributes the forces of acceleration, cornering, and braking throughout the contact patch, allowing for design enhancements in the shoulder and the use of softer, better gripping compounds.
http://www.michelinman.com/glossary/#s

From an engineer:
There is a phenomenon called "tire stretching" where the tire is mounted on rims wider than the range published by the tire manufacturers. This is done strictly for looks.For practical purposes, the sidewall is taken out of the picture, and the vehicle might as well be riding on solid rubber. (Maybe that's next?) I've heard of a couple of cases where the tire bead pops off during cornering - result is a ruined rim.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=161928&page=3

I can continue if you'd like, but you get the issue (note I haven't said one way or the other besides saying that stretching is purely aesthetic).

Sidewall defelction from what I've seen from properly maintained tires comes to about 0.3 inches give or take depending on lateral G's. I can secure that data more than likely with little issue.

[vex]

@vex Yes, I'd like to see data on how the tire is deformed (yes, technical data). I agree with Josh, throwing up some random quotes without siting the source doesn't lend itself to the viability of the argument. Another consideration is how much stretch. I've seen some pretty shady stretches, if you're trying to stretch too far I could definitely see it as unsafe. I've got about an inch of stretch on my tires. Meaning each sidewall is flexed out about 1/2 an inch. If you're laying it down at more than about a 45 degree angle I would imagine problems. all the sudden your sidewall can be driven on in the right circumstances.

What do you mean by technical data? How much tire defelction is altered during a specific corner? Would you like it arranged by contact patch size, wheel size, or some other metric? You seem to demand specifics but be purpously obtuse when it comes to defining the metrics.

Would you like to see acceleration data, lap times, or some other metric? If you have an idea of what you want, I'm sure I can hunt it down for everyone to see. Beyond what I have already posted, what specifically do you have issue with? Is something stated that is not accurate or correct? If so, what is it and why?

[sofaking]

Vex, you post up and clarify with sources for josh, then attempt to belittle me for asking the same question? You offered to post up the information from the tire manufacturers, when I asked for it... you proceeded to act like I was a moron for asking you to quote your sources. One of your quotes specifically said, "Without getting too technical..." I on the other hand would prefer someone to get technical instead of interpreting data that doesn't exist and hasn't been documented anywhere.

As for the data, any data would be good. I've not seen anything other than speculation about how this negatively effects anything. Though your quoted source in the last post (the engineer), said...

"This is done strictly for looks.For practical purposes, the sidewall is taken out of the picture, and the vehicle might as well be riding on solid rubber. (Maybe that's next?) I've heard of a couple of cases where the tire bead pops off during cornering - result is a ruined rim."

1) statement 1 contradicts statement 2. If it is only for looks, yet does something... then it's not strictly for looks. I personally find this to be exactly the response I want from the tires (on my drift car). No sidewall roll, no messing around, turn wheel, car turns. Its not terrible on the street either, I've dailied the drift car without issue.

2) if you haven't heard of a properly mounted tire bead popping off during cornering... then you probably don't spend much time with cars. I had a tire bead break just parked one time. I came out and 1 tire was completely flat. Filled it back up and it drove for many thousands of miles without issue or losing any pressure again.

So the engineer has proven my point, and not made a valid argument against it. No mention of safety or exploding tires, no mention of instant cancer to all those who drive with stretched tires. What I read was a statement of opinion about the process, mention of how it works, what the result is, and a negative scenario that can happen to any mounted tire.

The quote about the sidewall blowing out on an underinflated tire isn't even related. That's about any tire, stretched or not. Has nothing to do with a properly inflated stretched tire.

The michelen quote was unrelated too. If you're going to quote something do it about the subject.

Even a test that shows that a stretched tire will break bead more often than a standard mounted tire would be something. But currently I'm in the same situation I started, no one has shown anything negative besides pure speculation and opinion that it's bad, or doesn't work. This topic's arguments against tire stretching are falling short of proving anything at all.

Also, I notice how nobody made any mention of the fact that Falken stretched thier own tires in a grip test on video. Valid sources shown:
Sofaking = 1
Forum = 0

[RETed]

Also, I notice how nobody made any mention of the fact that Falken stretched thier own tires in a grip test on video. Valid sources shown:
Sofaking = 1
Forum = 0

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

[vex]

Vex, you post up and clarify with sources for josh, then attempt to belittle me for asking the same question? You offered to post up the information from the tire manufacturers, when I asked for it... you proceeded to act like I was a moron for asking you to quote your sources. One of your quotes specifically said, "Without getting too technical..." I on the other hand would prefer someone to get technical instead of interpreting data that doesn't exist and hasn't been documented anywhere.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.

As for the data, any data would be good. I've not seen anything other than speculation about how this negatively effects anything. Though your quoted source in the last post (the engineer), said...
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.

"This is done strictly for looks.For practical purposes, the sidewall is taken out of the picture, and the vehicle might as well be riding on solid rubber. (Maybe that's next?) I've heard of a couple of cases where the tire bead pops off during cornering - result is a ruined rim."

1) statement 1 contradicts statement 2. If it is only for looks, yet does something... then it's not strictly for looks. I personally find this to be exactly the response I want from the tires (on my drift car). No sidewall roll, no messing around, turn wheel, car turns. Its not terrible on the street either, I've dailied the drift car without issue.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.



2) if you haven't heard of a properly mounted tire bead popping off during cornering... then you probably don't spend much time with cars. I had a tire bead break just parked one time. I came out and 1 tire was completely flat. Filled it back up and it drove for many thousands of miles without issue or losing any pressure again.
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.


So the engineer has proven my point, and not made a valid argument against it. No mention of safety or exploding tires, no mention of instant cancer to all those who drive with stretched tires. What I read was a statement of opinion about the process, mention of how it works, what the result is, and a negative scenario that can happen to any mounted tire.
And goes to show you didn't read or learn anything. Congratulations on confirming our suspicion on your intellegence.

The quote about the sidewall blowing out on an underinflated tire isn't even related. That's about any tire, stretched or not. Has nothing to do with a properly inflated stretched tire.
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.


The michelen quote was unrelated too. If you're going to quote something do it about the subject.
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.

Even a test that shows that a stretched tire will break bead more often than a standard mounted tire would be something. But currently I'm in the same situation I started, no one has shown anything negative besides pure speculation and opinion that it's bad, or doesn't work. This topic's arguments against tire stretching are falling short of proving anything at all.
Is that all you'd like to have? A statistical analysis of bead breaking no stretched tires?

Also, I notice how nobody made any mention of the fact that Falken stretched thier own tires in a grip test on video. Valid sources shown:
Sofaking = 1
Forum = 0
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.

[RotorDad]

Also, I notice how nobody made any mention of the fact that Falken stretched thier own tires in a grip test on video. Valid sources shown:
Sofaking = 1
Forum = 0

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.

[sofaking]

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.

[vex]

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.
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'?

[RotorDad]

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.

http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/Product/List?brand=SVE-Wheels&page=2.

here's a blog about the video on their site as well.
http://www.mylrs.com/blogs/lrs/archive/2010/03/10/falken-tire-chooses-sve-wheels-for-its-2011-mustang-50L-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.

[sofaking]

@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.

[vex]

@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.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

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.

[RotorDad]

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.

[Kentetsu]

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








.

[josh18_2k]

hey we need something to argue about besides v8 vs rotary

[Pete_89T2]

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!

[TitaniumTT]

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

.

You just wait till x-mas, I have a special gift for the 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!

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

[sofaking]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence
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.

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.
"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.

[RotorDad]

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.

[vex]

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.You seem to be missing the point.


"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.
Show me where I said could.

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.You do not mean what you think you mean. Let me give you a little example:
http://nanopedia.case.edu/image/stress-strain%20curve%204.jpg
Plastic deformation is never good in such a thing.
The thing is that you're arguing that I don't want my tires to act the way I actually want them to act. ...What?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.From whence cometh this surety?
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.Again, apples and oranges. Momentary load in the elastic region will not cause plastic deformation of the tire. 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.Mine's not opinion. I'm stating material mechanics. Without hard technically data that I can't prove my point and you can't prove yours. Your information is speculation and theory.Actually, mines based on material mechanics which is a proven science. Additionally you can test them yourself. I'll explain how following this. 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.
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.

[RotorDad]

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

[sofaking]

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.

[sofaking]

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.

[RotorDad]

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.

[vex]

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.Let me help you better understand:
Fact (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact)
Theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory)
Material Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_science)

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


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).
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.


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'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.


YOU ARE TALKING IN THEORY.
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 (http://www.matweb.com/search/MaterialGroupSearch.aspx)


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.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.

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.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.

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).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).

Short version: Admit you're talking in theory or post data. Actual numbers of when the tire will fail.
Admit you have no idea what you're talking about at all and read what material science is and does. It's not theory.
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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy)

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.
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.

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

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.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.


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

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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

[Herblenny]

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.

[vex]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12782956/stretchgonebad%20%281%29.jpg

[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?

[EJayCe996]

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:

[Rotary no Densetsu]

So I just read through this whole thread.

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

[TitaniumTT]

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

[josh18_2k]

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

[josh18_2k]

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

couple snippets from the first page:

...there are no well
established criteria for in-service tire failures against which tire components
are designed.

...while
one can and does perform many standard laboratory tests on tires and their
components it is not clear how these are related to in-service failures.

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

[RotorDad]

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/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1293594910&.rand=35tu182ambgjv#_pg=showMessage&sMid=0&fid=Scoreland%2520pics&filterBy=&.rand=440116159&midIndex=0&mid=1_1138_AD9kxEIAACzUTRkqGA7%2FUE1BC5Y&f=1&fromId=conrel.en@michelin.epowercenterdirect.com&m=1_1138_AD9kxEIAACzUTRkqGA7%2FUE1BC5Y,1_159_AD9kx EIAAX0xS9EmogAWYALjOpw,&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&hash=9493dcdbe4e6b5b8c1dee5e4c272d58b&.jsrand=8398002
Case number: 2587883

[josh18_2k]

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

[RotorDad]

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.

[josh18_2k]

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.

[Mazdabater]

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

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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'

[Prodigy]

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


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


J.

[sofaking]

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?

[RotorDad]

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.

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.

[TitaniumTT]

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.

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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


J. I lol'd

The guy wasn't drifting when it happened, probably was over inflated though, 40-45psi.

I know the guy. lmao Just throwing that out there.

[vex]

Vex, if you can't do the math just admit it.The truth of the matter is I'm not going to waste my time and vacation doing the math when you admit the following I don't care if you can't, I can admit I can't.
Do you see the issue? What's the point in doing something when you don't understand it from the get go? I mean, I don't sit down and work with viscoelastic materials for a living, I don't work with aluminum impregnated 'tire rubber' and run simulation after simulation of stress and strain in FEA for both pressure and temperature variations. Perhaps you should look at some of my posts before pretending you know the first thing about what I can and can not do. I mean, solid rocket motors have no bearing on anything engineering related... oh wait.

Let me put it another way; why should I waste 1-4 hours of my life to prove something to you that you would not believe or understand in the first place.
Let alone do it pro bono?

But pretending you're more educated than you are doesn't help your argument.You're right. Good thing I'm not pretending. Material Science, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Kinematics, Thin wall structures are just a small portion of my interests and occupation. Do you really want me to teach you the very basics so you can even hope to understand the math behind non-linear material deformation and stress levels? How about I just hand you a book for you to read so you understand the basics.

Prove something instead of attempting to pull apart my paragraphs line by line in an attempt to change my point. You change you're own points, and have yet to address the issues I've raised. I've already given you enough information to understand the science on a basic level. Which according to your previous posts show that you have yet to even attempt to understand but attempt to dismiss Material Science as theory (which you still have yet to concede).

Everyone else can read what I'm saying. I'm not arguing emotion, I'm not trying to attack anyone.Yeah, but not everyone is able to cut through your BS as effectively as me and waste my time in responding to you (remember you said I belittle you in one of your first posts, this is what belittling from me feels like and I have a large resivour to pull from if you want to keep going).
I'm merely saying that you can either 1) Prove your point, or 2) admit you're working in theory. Unfortunately I have justified my point using material science (which contrary to your made up definition is not theory).
Just because scientific concepts (valid and all) are backing your premise, it doesn't mean that it's not theory.Then you have no idea what theory and science is and how they work together. Let me put it this way: Science is the application of laws and mathematics to model and derive real world outcomes from basic knowledge. Theory is used to test via the scientific method. For instance: Material science allows you to design, build, and test various materials and their behavior under duress. From the wiki article previously posted:
Materials science is an interdisciplinary field applying the properties of matter to various areas of science and engineering. This scientific field investigates the relationship between the structure of materials at atomic or molecular scales and their macroscopic properties. It incorporates elements of applied physics and chemistry.

You're dealing with concepts not application, that's theory.No. Sorry. It's not.
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.
As has already been shown. The science I've stated is fact. Whether YOU choose to believe it is of little consequence to me. You have as of yet, failed to address any of the numerous points I've brought up. It also appears to me that you fail to understand the basics of this science on a fundamental level. Which leads me all the way back to this point: If you don't understand how the tire is deforming or being stressed, what are you doing stretching the tire in the first place.

In an effort to help YOU better understand the science behind the deformation of the tire. Let's start even more basic than material science. What forces are acting on a tire (entire wheel assembly rim-tire combo mounted on a running car--We'll keep it simple. 2D only for right now)?

[RETed]

I dunno if this was a joke...

40 - 45psi "overinflated"?
We've run 60psi+ in autocross without any ill effects during the runs.
I've seen guys run inflations up to 80psi at the autocross without blow-out's.

Of course, this is with PROPERLY sized tires to wheels.


-Ted

[Rotary no Densetsu]

I've ran 60psi too. I'm just guesstimating. I don't know why you'd wanna run tire pressure that high though, especially during autox. Hell, I seldom go over 35psi while drifting now. I'm just saying, since people are bringing up factory recommendations. I don't really think I've ever seen any cars with a suggested tire pressure close to 50psi.

[vex]

I've ran 60psi too. I'm just guesstimating. I don't know why you'd wanna run tire pressure that high though, especially during autox. Hell, I seldom go over 35psi while drifting now. I'm just saying, since people are bringing up factory recommendations. I don't really think I've ever seen any cars with a suggested tire pressure close to 50psi.

There are BMW's with recommended tire pressure above the normal level (at least that's the rumor I've heard).

[TitaniumTT]

I guess it would depend on the setup/track. On the smoother courses I find myself running higher pressures, on the lumpier tracks I find that tire deformation is my friend.... as is the case in the vid I posted were the tire was moving all over the rim but traction was maintained even when exiting a corner HARD on the gas...


Of course your experience may and probably will differ

[Rotary no Densetsu]

Yeah, I can see what you mean. Can't really say a lot, just due to the fact that I've never really done the whole autox thing before. So I don't have any experience there.

[sofaking]

Vex...

Science is the application of laws and mathematics to model and derive real world outcomes from basic knowledge.
Note how the application of laws AND MATHEMATICS are used to model and derive real world outcomes? You're refusing to do the math under the premise that you're right? Prove it. As for thinking you're so intelligent that I wouldn't understand the math because I'm somehow beneath you for not going to the same classes as you in college? Jumping to conclusions again. I can't write programming for shit either, but it doesn't mean when a program isn't working I can't look at the code and see flaws in it. That doesn't mean I can program from scratch though.

The part I don't get is how you still can't understand that without the math you're speculating based on your understanding of the materials. YES, IT IS WEAKER. NO, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL BREAK. The math is what ties your your information about the materials to the theory that it is unsafe or will break. Without the math, you're talking theory.

If you want to argue dick size or IQ I've got enough of both. I'm not trying to argue that, I'm trying to argue that you can't stamp something as a fact without testing it or doing anything to prove it. I can cut through your BS and see that you aren't willing to do the math because of one of 2 options, 1) you don't know how (which based on your line of work I'd imagine you probably have the formulas) or 2) you're afraid that the math might give me more to argue with.

I understand the laziness factor; I wouldn't want to do 1-4 hours of math either to prove a point. But without it you're speculating. If you just admit that without the math you're speculating, then we can move on. As someone in the field of this type of mathematics I would venture to say that if you can't admit the math ties your premise to facts then I wouldn't imagine you're very good at your job. It's cool, some engineers get into the field because they heard there is money in it, not because they're naturally good at it.

Oh as for your question, I'm not sure what you're looking for here so I'll just list some stuff off the top of my head and let me know if I'm close to what you're looking for...
Tire pressure, weight on the particular wheel/tire, temperature of all materials and outside temperature, what the tires are filled with (nitrogen, air, helium), The stretch of the tire (still an inch and 1/2 of difference between the recommended wheel widths for a given tire without being outside of spec), the materials used for the wheel and tire, and camber.

Once in motion I would guess...
friction, shock/spring combination, lateral forces and additional compression from the various loads during cornering, braking, acceleration, bumps in the road, wheel/tire balance, toe, and caster.

I'm sure you'll find something I missed, but that's a basic list of shit off the top of my head.

I really can't understand why it's so hard to admit that mathematics is required to prove your point. Without it the only thing that you can say for a fact is that the tire is weaker, weaker =/= failure or unsafe.

[sofaking]

@Rotordad
Your argument is valid. If it's not your preference don't do it. I agree and I'm not saying it's the coolest or that anyone should do it. I'm just arguing with Vex about concepts of calling something a fact without proving it. EVERYTHING in this thread is speculation. Lots of facts have been stated, but none prove much. I haven't argued at all (not thinking it was directed at me but just commenting) about people needing to slam their cars or stretch their tires. I have my drift car highly modified that is slammed and stretched, but I have stock cars too. I understand the desire for a comfortable street car. Stretched tires aren't horrible on the street, but if your suspension is stiff they remove even more absorption.

@RETed
The 80psi argument sounds remarkably similar to the stretched tire argument. Though you appear to be backing the inflation out of spec, but not stretching out of spec. Just pointing out the similarities of the arguments, not trying to debate another one. I can see that you're also arguing for track purposes and not street driving. I also wouldn't be able to perform math to prove the air pressure thing either way. But I definitely see similarities between the arguments.

[vex]

Vex...


Note how the application of laws AND MATHEMATICS are used to model and derive real world outcomes? You're refusing to do the math under the premise that you're right? Prove it. As for thinking you're so intelligent that I wouldn't understand the math because I'm somehow beneath you for not going to the same classes as you in college? Jumping to conclusions again. I can't write programming for shit either, but it doesn't mean when a program isn't working I can't look at the code and see flaws in it. That doesn't mean I can program from scratch though.Holy shit. Do you know how uneducated you sound when you typed that? Here's some sample FEA, tell me if it's going to fail:

http://www.designworldonline.com/uploads/ImageGallery/mar-fea-1.jpg
http://www.schultz-creehan.com/Portals/21/SCpage3g-pic-FEA-2.jpg
http://www.ctd-materials.com/images/FEA%20Tank.JPG

Look up spring mass damper systems if you're a little hard pressed to understand. From there pick this book up:
http://www.amazon.com/Deformable-Bodies-Their-Material-Behavior/dp/0471125784/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293662630&sr=1-10

Once you understand those we'll have something to discuss.




The part I don't get is how you still can't understand that without the math you're speculating based on your understanding of the materials. YES, IT IS WEAKER. NO, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL BREAK. The math is what ties your your information about the materials to the theory that it is unsafe or will break. Without the math, you're talking theory.There is not a face palm big enough for what you just typed.

If you want to argue dick size or IQ I've got enough of both. I'm not trying to argue that, I'm trying to argue that you can't stamp something as a fact without testing it or doing anything to prove it. I can cut through your BS and see that you aren't willing to do the math because of one of 2 options, 1) you don't know how (which based on your line of work I'd imagine you probably have the formulas) or 2) you're afraid that the math might give me more to argue with.
Apparently not, but your foot size sure seems sufficient to keep putting in your mouth.

I understand the laziness factor; I wouldn't want to do 1-4 hours of math either to prove a point. But without it you're speculating. If you just admit that without the math you're speculating, then we can move on. As someone in the field of this type of mathematics I would venture to say that if you can't admit the math ties your premise to facts then I wouldn't imagine you're very good at your job. It's cool, some engineers get into the field because they heard there is money in it, not because they're naturally good at it.
Do you need to do math to understand a weaker material is present based on geometry? Nope. Do you need to do the math to tell you a material is an insulator or a conductor? Nope. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

Oh as for your question, I'm not sure what you're looking for here so I'll just list some stuff off the top of my head and let me know if I'm close to what you're looking for...We'll work with what you posted.

Tire pressure, weight on the particular wheel/tire,Yes temperature of all materials and outside temperature,Are not forces and are not needed for a preliminary analysis what the tires are filled with (nitrogen, air, helium),Again not really needed, but good to know. The stretch of the tire (still an inch and 1/2 of difference between the recommended wheel widths for a given tire without being outside of spec),This confuses me a little. Are you saying preload of the tires deflection? the materials used for the wheel and tire,Yes and camber. Yes, but only dictates the location of the force acting on the tire.

Once in motion I would guess...
friction,Okay, how are you going to calculate that force? Static friction, dynamic friction, all are based of the weight of the wheel in question. Furthermore different compounds have different friction values. shock/spring combination,Only matters if you're doing an unsteady deformation analysis (which isn't even done for rocket engines) lateral forcesThen it's not exactly 2D is it, but for 3D analysis is spot on. and additional compression from the various loads during cornering, Which are... what exactly? braking,Again, dynamic, but not really needed for preliminary analysis. acceleration, Is not a force. bumps in the road,Is not a force. wheel/tire balance, toe, and caster.Only needed for 3D analysis.

I'm sure you'll find something I missed, but that's a basic list of shit off the top of my head.
Which has basics of it, but are not everything we need. I'm keeping it simple for your benefit.

I really can't understand why it's so hard to admit that mathematics is required to prove your point. Without it the only thing that you can say for a fact is that the tire is weaker, weaker =/= failure or unsafe.
Nor have I intimated it as such. I have stated that deforming a tire outside of manufactures spec prior to normal driving forces will weaken the tire. The difference is do you know how much weaker the tire has become? The obvious answer through your posts is of course, no; you do not.

Now that we have a rough idea of forces I'm going to ask you to draw a picture. Draw a circle. This circle is representative of a tire. Draw the forces on that tire. (I'm thinking of the view you'd get if you looked at a tire from the side) Draw the forces for friction, weight, pressure, etc.

In determining the stress levels we have to use statics (unless you want to do dynamic analysis which is a whole bunch of worms worse than what you think is possible). That means, application of the forces must result in 0 displacement of the body--or the body must undergo stress to maintain unity. But that's getting ahead of ourselves. Lets keep it simple.

Draw a circle and place those forces you've described.


(Just for future reference:
In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.)

[sofaking]

Nor have I intimated it as such. I have stated that deforming a tire outside of manufactures spec prior to normal driving forces will weaken the tire. The difference is do you know how much weaker the tire has become? The obvious answer through your posts is of course, no; you do not.
Nor do you without the math, and thus stating it's unsafe, or stupid would be a statement of your opinion. Thus you have in fact intimated it as such by going on with all this scientific bullshit that's unrelated. All you had to say 25 posts ago was that you're not stating fact, you're stating your opinion.

(Just for future reference:
In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.)
Cool, an obscure definition. English is sweet how all common words have multiple meanings. I'm looking for proof as in definition 7, not definition 8.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Can you provide it or are you just rambling to make people think you're smart? I wasn't the one that insisted on having it all posted public, I genuinely want see proof (definition 7) stating that it's unsafe. When the argument was deleted I sent a PM (which you posted up here on the new topic so I didn't have to) that said I'm not trying to be an attention whore, I'm trying to get you to prove your point. You replied:
Posts aren't deleted, they're just in the process of moving to a more appropriate section. I'll respond to your critiques there.
Which leads me to think that it's more important for you to sound like an asshole trying to talk over my head than proving anything. I already said I am not an engineer, nor do I plan to be. That doesn't mean I'm not intelligent and can't debate. Be a condecending asshole if it makes you feel good inflating your ego because you went to college and learned some shit. I can talk over your head on subjects too, but I don't think that makes me smarter, just means I know some shit that you don't. If I spent the time I could do the classes for engineering, seemed boring to me so I went to school to work with computers.

Now for the sake of argument I'll show where you implied (and even stated directly), but flat out stated that it's unsafe to stretch tires...
Page 3
Sidewall deformation caused by stretching not only results in premature tire failure, but also eliminates the speed rating as viable metric to ensure safety of the car.Page 3
a family dies because you used your predictable vehicle behavior to slam into themPage 4
I stated that it's not wise, and would prove detrimental to the tire.Page 5So 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.
Those are all verifiable proof (definition 2) that you stated that it's unsafe and will prematurely fail. Now provide proof (definition 7) that the sidewall failure will happen before the tread, or remove the premise that it's unsafe. I am not arguing that it won't weaken the tire, I'm arguing that based on experience I think the tires will last through the tread before the sidewall fails on my stretch.

Being an asshat trying to flex your brain doesn't usually work like this, huh? Most people just roll over and die. I'm not wrong, you're just requiring every possible variable. How very, engineer of you. Can't think for yourself or understand plain fucking english until everything is defined. Now that you have the exact definition of proof I'm looking for I look forward to your next attempt to pick apart my words to some rediculous definition that I clearly don't mean. Being a condecending dick only works on someone who doesn't share high IQs, I choose not to be a part of MENSA, I do qualify. I found a lot of your type of people there and didn't enjoy the company. (Intellectual types that get off on being better than the rest of humanity)

As for your exercise in physics in 2 dimentional form, I see no point in going through this because you're not trying to teach me anything, you're trying to point out how much more intelligent you are. Which is to say how much more you know on the topic. I listed all the factors I could think of that would relate to the topic, 2 or 3 dimensional. If the car is parked or moving would define other metrics. Caster would effect it on 2 dimensions based on the angle the weight is applied. Toe would only effect it while moving. Bumps in the road while moving I would think would be considered a force, but I'm willing to listen to any reasoning you have there. And how is acceleration not a force? Centrifugal force? Torque? These things appear to be forces to me unless we're using an obscure definition of force. I'm using 12a, which one are you using?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force
Answering beyond what you asked for recieves much criticism as I expected from replying to just what you said. Fuck yourself, you think as an engineer that acceleration isn't force on a tire yet braking is? Awesome, please continue to take me to school. Why don't you draw the diagram and make your point, though I'm not sure what information we're going to gain from calculating the 2 dimentions of a 3 dimentional object. Hopefully we can skip to that too.

[vex]

Nor do you without the math, and thus stating it's unsafe, or stupid would be a statement of your opinion. Thus you have in fact intimated it as such by going on with all this scientific bullshit that's unrelated. All you had to say 25 posts ago was that you're not stating fact, you're stating your opinion.
I didn't say I know the specifics, I could do the math and give you a made up number that has no bearing with the discussion because you'll reduce your stance to the point of absurdum. Let me see if I can be plain for you: From what you've quoted of me in this thread (here comes your reading comprehension).
Sidewall deformation caused by stretching not only results in premature tire failure, but also eliminates the speed rating as viable metric to ensure safety of the car. This you agreed with when you stated:
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.and from a tire company itself:
Mounting a tire on the incorrect size rim could be dangerous and a safety issue. We strongly discourage it.
So, I think your point becomes moot in that respect.

Is there anything in particular you find incorrect about that statement? If so, please, pretell what is it? Incorrectly mounted tires also negates the speed rating (as the speed rating is set by standard mounting of the tire). Any issue there? Didn't think so.

Cool, an obscure definition. English is sweet how all common words have multiple meanings. I'm looking for proof as in definition 7, not definition 8.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Can you provide it or are you just rambling to make people think you're smart? I wasn't the one that insisted on having it all posted public, I genuinely want see proof (definition 7) stating that it's unsafe. When the argument was deleted I sent a PM (which you posted up here on the new topic so I didn't have to) that said I'm not trying to be an attention whore, I'm trying to get you to prove your point. You replied:Lol, mathematic proofs are not obscure in any sense of the word. But from your link:
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.
the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.
the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.
Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.
the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.
an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8.
Mathematics, Logic . a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9.
a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10.
Distilling .
a.
the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
b.
strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.
11.
Photography . a trial print from a negative.
12.
Printing .
a.
a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
b.
one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof.
13.
(in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14.
Numismatics . one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15.
the state of having been tested and approved.
16.
proved strength, as of armor.
17.
Scots Law . the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.
–adjective
18.
able to withstand; successful in not being overcome: proof against temptation.
19.
impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable: proof against outside temperature changes.
20.
used for testing or proving; serving as proof.
21.
of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor.
22.
of tested or proven strength or quality: proof armor.
23.
noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.
–verb (used with object)
24.
to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.
25.
Printing . prove ( def. 7 ) .
26.
to proofread.
27.
to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination): to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt.
28.
Cookery .
a.
to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs.
b.
to cause (esp. bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker's yeast or other leavening.You do realize we are not discussing arithmetic at all yes? If you did not know that, let me help you: Arithmetic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arithmetic)
Differential Equation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/differential+equation)
Is more closely related to the science at hand, and hence not arithmetic. If it were simple arithmetic then sure I would do a problem for you without protest. Hell I imagine you could do arithmetic without issue.

Now, back on point: Proof. I personally like definition 7 as it works fine for me, but definitions 1-4, 6-9 (just as a point of clarification I'm attempting to help you along definition 8 in understanding the application), the remaining definitions are of non-use in this application. So I do not think you helped your case any. Just sayin'.

Now back to that quote of mine.


Which leads me to think that it's more important for you to sound like an asshole trying to talk over my head than proving anything.Which is not as reality is playing out in any regard; an asshole attempts to talk over your head. As I'm taking my time to respond to you in depth about what you post you are free to take it as you want, but I'm only stating what I know. If you have issue with what I post, be specific so I can address it. If you just take issue with what I say only because it doesn't jive with what you want; that's a personal problem. More to the point, I posted it up in public because I said I would, and hey, I did! More to the point you didn't voice any objections to it, so why bring it up? Seems like an attention whore thing to do.
I already said I am not an engineer, nor do I plan to be. That doesn't mean I'm not intelligent and can't debate. Be a condecending asshole if it makes you feel good inflating your ego because you went to college and learned some shit. I can talk over your head on subjects too, but I don't think that makes me smarter, just means I know some shit that you don't.There you go with that foot in your mouth again: You are arguing an engineering issue. IE; how does improperly mounting a tire effect the strength of the tire itself. You want numbers, will you understand the math behind those numbers? Will you be able to make an educated decision about stretching from that math? I dare say you won't if you don't understand the logic/science behind it. Again, I highly doubt you could talk over my head if you wanted to, but if you want, you're welcome to try. I am very able to live up to your requests of being an asshole, belittle you, smarter than you, and artificially inflate my ego. Just remember you stated these things before I ever started doing them.
If I spent the time I could do the classes for engineering, seemed boring to me so I went to school to work with computers.Congratulations. Perhaps you should apply that knowledge here as you can easily simulate the tire as a series of circuits (again, look up spring-mass-damper systems).



Now for the sake of argument I'll show where you implied (and even stated directly), but flat out stated that it's unsafe to stretch tires... Let me help you. The first sentence of that portion was directly to the first sentence in the one I quoted:
I really can't understand why it's so hard to admit that mathematics is required to prove your point.
Nor have I intimated it as such.
Without it the only thing that you can say for a fact is that the tire is weaker, weaker =/= failure or unsafe.
I have stated that deforming a tire outside of manufactures spec prior to normal driving forces will weaken the tire. The difference is do you know how much weaker the tire has become? The obvious answer through your posts is of course, no; you do not.

Better? Now that I have that out of the way. Plastic deformation on a tire is always unsafe and can lead to failure. If you don't agree with that, I don't know if going over the very basics is going to help you. But continuing on...

Those are all verifiable proof (definition 2) that you stated that it's unsafe and will prematurely fail.See above clarification as I think you may be constructing a strawman. Now provide proof (definition 7) that the sidewall failure will happen before the tread, or remove the premise that it's unsafe.See above. I'm willing to help you understand, but as I already stated I'm not going to waste my time to do it for you.
I am not arguing that it won't weaken the tire, I'm arguing that based on experience I think the tires will last through the tread before the sidewall fails on my stretch.Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the stretch now doesn't it (and more so to the point of this whole rabbit hole we're in)?


Being an asshat trying to flex your brain doesn't usually work like this, huh? Most people just roll over and die. I'm not wrong, you're just requiring every possible variable. How very, engineer of you. Can't think for yourself or understand plain fucking english until everything is defined. Now that you have the exact definition of proof I'm looking for I look forward to your next attempt to pick apart my words to some rediculous definition that I clearly don't mean.You mean like arithmetic? LOL (did you at least look up that definition before you posted?)
Being a condecending dick only works on someone who doesn't share high IQs, I choose not to be a part of MENSA, I do qualify.And I find it hard to believe you were able to figure out how to decline MENSA. See, this is what belittling feels like. Get used to it. You wanted it, remember? I found a lot of your type of people there and didn't enjoy the company. (Intellectual types that get off on being better than the rest of humanity)You're not helping your case much with these posts.

As for your exercise in physics in 2 dimentional form, I see no point in going through this because you're not trying to teach me anything, you're trying to point out how much more intelligent you are. No, if I wanted to do that I'd waste my time and do the math myself, and then suffer through the same umbrage you present throughout this thread.
Which is to say how much more you know on the topic. I listed all the factors I could think of that would relate to the topic, 2 or 3 dimensional. If the car is parked or moving would define other metrics. Caster would effect it on 2 dimensions based on the angle the weight is applied. Toe would only effect it while moving. Bumps in the road while moving I would think would be considered a force, but I'm willing to listen to any reasoning you have there. And how is acceleration not a force?Lets look at what force is: F=ma, does it look like acceleration is a force? Is acceleration force? Nope. Sorry. Centrifugal force? Which I didn't see listed. Torque?Torque is not considered a force, but a force acting along a moment arm. An easy check is to look at the units. lbs, Newtons, are forces. ft-lbs, Newton-Meters are torques. These do play in to material mechanics but are usually derived out from the forces placed on the Free Body Diagram (FBD--which by the way I was attempting to get you to do). These things appear to be forces to me unless we're using an obscure definition of force.Nope, I'm just using the regular old mathematical definition of Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force)
I'm using 12a, which one are you using?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forceYou do realize that the force would be affecting the acceleration, or in other words if you draw a FBD with all the forces than acceleration is a byproduct of the calculation, but only matters if you're doing kinematics (which we are not) or inertial forces (which is currently outside your ball park).

Answering beyond what you asked for recieves much criticism as I expected from replying to just what you said.Lol, I didn't criticize, I just stated what you posted was beyond the mark. Hey, look you said the same thing. Fuck yourself, you think as an engineer that acceleration isn't force on a tire yet braking is?Lets see, braking is a force as it works through friction, no? Acceleration still isn't a force. Sorry. Awesome, please continue to take me to school. Why don't you draw the diagram and make your point, though I'm not sure what information we're going to gain from calculating the 2 dimentions[sic] of a 3 dimentional[sic] object.Baby steps to understand the 3 dimensional issues. Guess what's after that... Heat addition. If you'd like, we can skip directly to 3D analysis with heat addition and embrittlement.

[vex]

As I hit the post limit, here's the last point you raised:

Hopefully we can skip to that too.
:dunno: Will you understand the science and math behind it?

[RETed]

I've ran 60psi too. I'm just guesstimating. I don't know why you'd wanna run tire pressure that high though, especially during autox. Hell, I seldom go over 35psi while drifting now. I'm just saying, since people are bringing up factory recommendations. I don't really think I've ever seen any cars with a suggested tire pressure close to 50psi.

It was done old-school way...
One "owner" was an exec at the local Toyota dealership.
For shits and giggles, he brought out a brand new Tercel - very soft suspension with very tall tire profiles.
The autocross track was VERY rough and uneven - old airfield tarmac.

White shoe polish on the sidewall
Bump up the pressure until traction was OFF the sidewall
Nothing fancy

Us newbs were just horrified with how high the (hot) pressures were.
He comforted us saying that he's run tire pressures up to 80psi on very heavy Supras on the autocross course.
Scary...but you can't argue results.


-Ted

[RETed]

@RETed
The 80psi argument sounds remarkably similar to the stretched tire argument. Though you appear to be backing the inflation out of spec, but not stretching out of spec. Just pointing out the similarities of the arguments, not trying to debate another one. I can see that you're also arguing for track purposes and not street driving. I also wouldn't be able to perform math to prove the air pressure thing either way. But I definitely see similarities between the arguments.

Please keep me out of your bullshit replies.
Until you learn how to comprehend properly, keep me out of it.
I NEVER said hippari stretch doesn't work - even though you seem to insist I did.
I'm against drift fanbois who call tire engineers idiots and dumbasses cause they can't run hippari stretch while the tire engineers don't recommend it.

Get it fuckin' right already.


-Ted

[Mazdabater]

What your dealing with here is darwinism.

If these guys are willing jeopardize their contact point with the road, in which failure could lead to catastrophe at any speed over something that will help them slide if by the rare chance they ever attend a drift day or for the look of it, despite the advice of every tyre company/person that has a clue things will sort themselves out.

[Rotary no Densetsu]

It was done old-school way...
-snip- That's pretty neat. I by no means claim to be an expert on autox stuff so that just kinda threw me off for a huuuuuge loop. lmao Learn somethin' new every day I guess!

@Sofaking

There was no 80psi argument, I wasn't trying to argue, I was just stating that I've never heard of anything like that before, so it kinda blew my mind.

[TitaniumTT]

I bought a lazer/infared/however it works temp thingy but in the old days it was the shoe polish or the chalk method. Luckily today we have lower profile tires so the pressures don't need to be nearly as high

[vex]

What your dealing with here is darwinism.

If these guys are willing jeopardize their contact point with the road, in which failure could lead to catastrophe at any speed over something that will help them slide if by the rare chance they ever attend a drift day or for the look of it, despite the advice of every tyre company/person that has a clue things will sort themselves out.

Honestly my fear is that they'll sort themselves out into a family vehicle. Not only killing/injuring themselves but doing likewise to that family.

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that how Guitar Junkie(I think that's his name... I had just joined right after that happened) died/was killed?

[sofaking]

I have stated that deforming a tire outside of manufactures spec prior to normal driving forces will weaken the tire. The difference is do you know how much weaker the tire has become? The obvious answer through your posts is of course, no; you do not.

Better? Now that I have that out of the way. Plastic deformation on a tire is always unsafe and can lead to failure.
This was my argument all along. Your conveluted subject changes and misdirection while pulling apart each sentence without reading the point of the post is what caused the argument. Notice how the original posts say that it WILL lead to failure (certainty) and this one said it CAN lead to failure (possibility). Without the math niether of us can be certain. But if it doesn't lead to failure I'm not sure how it's reasonable to argue it's unsafe.The failure rate of anything is 100% on a long enough timeline. If we don't define when its going to happen then to argue the safety of it is pointless.

Also for clarification, the whole science arguement that started wasn't by me. You felt the need to justify what you were saying by trying to bury me in science that I clearly didn't go to school for. I understand basic concepts of physics and how they apply in the world. I never argued that you weren't scientifically acurate to say that it's weaker, I only argued that nothing definitive about the safety concerns can be determined from the information except the single thing defined (weakness).

I don't feel a need to continue with you picking apart every word I say, but I would like some clarification in acceleration not being a force.
a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.
Acceleration changes the tire speed in relation to the ground, the direction of the tire (from a stop), and the shape of the tire through centrifugal force and friction with the pavement. Can you clarify why acceleration would not be a force? I'm sure you would break it down into different factors of acceleration, but as a broader term why would it not be right? It doesn't look as simple as placing it in Newton's second law because there are variables to rotation, but it still seems to apply to the description. I would think that if acceleration isn't a force then braking (the removal of rotation) would not be a force. Can you clarify please with a concise thought instead of breaking down each sentence?


@RETed, Sorry about that. I re-read your posts to be clear on your stance and it purely seems to be from a performance/style standpoint. I don't see anything arguing about it not being safe or not working. Clearly my argument with Vex got applied to more people than it should've. Again, sorry.

@Rotary, I wasn't saying it's an argument from the standpoint of being combative, just that it's something that I'm sure could be debated similarly to the stretch concept because it's out of specifications. Not picking sides or anything, I have no experience with over inflated tires to speak from.

[sofaking]

Also, if you'd like to give a physics lesson I'm interested. I've made my point and am fine moving on non-combatively. If you'd like to continue with your point on the forces on a tire please do, I might learn something. I do understand more than you think, and I'm happy to learn more. Having me draw the diagram for your point doesn't make as much sense over the internet as if we were sitting in the same room (so you could more easily correct anything inaccurate), so if you'd like a diagram it probably would make more sense for you to create it.

[vex]

Starting early are we, lets see if you address any of the points I've raised thus far.

(for review)

And completely negates the speed rating of the tire. Sidewall deformation caused by stretching not only results in premature tire failure, but also eliminates the speed rating as viable metric to ensure safety of the car.

Stretching the tire really has no benefit beyond aesthetics (but last I checked cars were meant to be driven).

On the contrary, see the above quotes from installers and individuals in the business. Even if they tell you it's bad and you insist upon it being mounted, and a family dies because you used your predictable vehicle behavior to slam into them, who's going to take the heat for all those who died? You? Or are you going to let the buck go to the individual that broke the law in mounting your tire?

Do you really want me to get the information I already posted from a tire designer to prove you have altered the tire dynamics to no benefit?

Just out of curiousity as the geometry is deformed, tire pressure is altered (maximum tire pressure--do you still put in the recommended amount, are you eyeballing it, or some other means outside of manufacturers spec)?--With due respect, you answered this by stating you eyeballed it.

Furthermore stretching tires can run aground upon other design features such as Michelin's Stress Equilibrium Casings

What do you mean by technical data? How much tire defelction is altered during a specific corner? Would you like it arranged by contact patch size, wheel size, or some other metric? You seem to demand specifics but be purpously obtuse when it comes to defining the metrics.

Would you like to see acceleration data, lap times, or some other metric? If you have an idea of what you want, I'm sure I can hunt it down for everyone to see. Beyond what I have already posted, what specifically do you have issue with? Is something stated that is not accurate or correct? If so, what is it and why?
Then you dictated that I was belittling you. In all honesty I'm still waiting on those answers from page 3. Care to elaborate?

back to that list:

What data do you want? Do you want the proper PSI for tire inflation with modified geometry, or would you like something else?

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.

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.The list goes on and on, but you have yet to address those, so I'll leave it there for now.




This was my argument all along. Your conveluted subject changes and misdirection while pulling apart each sentence without reading the point of the post is what caused the argument. Notice how the original posts say that it WILL lead to failure (certainty) and this one said it CAN lead to failure (possibility).Are you telling me there's tires that will not fail? Obviously not, so it still stands that all tires fail (certainty), as you have stated stretching a tire decreases the time or life of the failure, no? So back to what I said originally; Stretching a tire beyond manufacturers spec can and will cause it to fail. Do you know when or for that matter, if you're encroaching upon the plastic region of deformation of the compound? I've given you a simple test to verify if your specific stretch does, but you refuse to run the simple test that will give you the answer you're looking for. That's your issue. Not ours.
Without the math niether of us can be certain.Actually, you don't need math to be certain. You need to understand the science to be certain, otherwise you will always wonder: "Did he just BS me, or did he just pull some number from somewhere?" So in all honesty would you be certain? But if it doesn't lead to failure I'm not sure how it's reasonable to argue it's unsafe.The failure rate of anything is 100% on a long enough timeline.Thank you for agreeing with me. Is a stretched tire going to fail before or after a properly mounted tire if they undergo the same driving conditions? How about if they hit a pot hole at speed, will they both have the same lifetime? If we don't define when its going to happen then to argue the safety of it is pointless.Yes because you don't know when you're going to crash into a wall during a circuit so lets not worry about safety. I mean, seat belts, harnesses , helmets, barriers, they don't stop failure or for that matter know when failure will occur we must not need them. Again, logical fallacy to argue this point.



Also for clarification, the whole science arguement that started wasn't by me. You felt the need to justify what you were saying by trying to bury me in science that I clearly didn't go to school for. I understand basic concepts of physics and how they apply in the world.Oh... you didn't say:
You're dealing with concepts not application, that's theory. What we've been discussing, and have been for ages is Material Science (which is an applied science, not theoretical). Your statements have been to the effect that unless I generate some random number everything I'm attempting to show you in science is just theory. Unfortunately I'm not that gullible, nor are a majority of the individuals on this board. Now continuing with your post...

I never argued that you weren't scientifically acurate to say that it's weaker, I only argued that nothing definitive about the safety concerns can be determined from the information except the single thing defined (weakness). Do you remember that little post about elastic and plastic deformation? By weaker, it means you have removed tensile strength from the tire. This translates to a closer proximity on the stress-strain curve to the yield (where plastic deformation begins), and thereby closer to the ultimate yield (where you have catastrophic failure). More to the point, as soon as you encroach upon the plastic region the tire is considered failed (in polymers it's whenever necking occurs in a test sample). Hence, weaker is not some arbitrary term you seem to think it is. It is scientific. It has value.



I don't feel a need to continue with you picking apart every word I say, but I would like some clarification in acceleration not being a force. Be happy to oblige.

Acceleration changes the tire speed in relation to the ground, the direction of the tire (from a stop), and the shape of the tire through centrifugal force and friction with the pavement. Can you clarify why acceleration would not be a force?Acceleration, by itself, is not a force. If you look at the units of acceleration they are in terms of length per second per second (or second squared). Inertial forces can be derived by using acceleration, but must by definition be coupled with mass. I'm sure you would break it down into different factors of acceleration, but as a broader term why would it not be right?Lets look at a very simple problem. Take a particle of finite mass traveling through space at a constant velocity (a=0). We now wish that particle to travel in some other direction. We therefore impart a force upon the body. At time=0 acceleration is still naught, though the force is applied, the change in direction has not occurred. As time progresses acceleration increases so long as that force is still applied (or in otherwords you have a constant force [lbs] causing an increase in acceleration [ft/s^2] over time) It doesn't look as simple as placing it in Newton's second law because there are variables to rotation, but it still seems to apply to the description.Acceleration is a derivative (as in derived from, not the mathematical operation, though it is that as well) of the forces. For instance; you will not apply an acceleration to a tire to get it to move. You can understand that the tire is accelerating, but the acceleration itself is not the cause. Using one of the previously discussed terms torque; the tire has a torque acting on the center of the hub. In other words you have a force acting through a moment arm which is then resulted into the tires acceleration. I would think that if acceleration isn't a force then braking (the removal of rotation) would not be a force.If you were using braking as a form of acceleration it would fall under the same as acceleration. I was personally using braking as another metric of force being applied to the brakes via friction which would impart a torque on the hub. Can you clarify please with a concise thought instead of breaking down each sentence?
Nope. But hopefully that helped.

[vex]

Also, if you'd like to give a physics lesson I'm interested. I've made my point and am fine moving on non-combatively. If you'd like to continue with your point on the forces on a tire please do, I might learn something. I do understand more than you think, and I'm happy to learn more. Having me draw the diagram for your point doesn't make as much sense over the internet as if we were sitting in the same room (so you could more easily correct anything inaccurate), so if you'd like a diagram it probably would make more sense for you to create it.

The FBD is the basics of understanding an engineering problem. Being only concerned with 2 dimensions right now ensures that mistakes are easy to fix. Wiki has a decent article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram

[mazpower]

Honestly my fear is that they'll sort themselves out into a family vehicle. Not only killing/injuring themselves but doing likewise to that family.

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that how Guitar Junkie(I think that's his name... I had just joined right after that happened) died/was killed?

You are very mistaken Vex. Dave (GuitarJunkie28) died because he lost control driving down a mountain road that he had driven since his teens and knew very well. It was a 4 lane road with no divider between opposing lanes. Those who knew him knew that he was not a reckless person, it was just a tragic accident. Interestingly enough, one of his tires was flat and very well could have been from a nail stuck in the road, but CHP did not go with this theory, instead stating that he just lost control around a curve. I find this hard to believe considering he knew the road, he knew his car, he wasn't a careless speed demon, and it wasn't wet or icy out.

The young woman that he hit made a full recovery and she was the only person in her car. I remember seeing her family at Dave's funeral. Fine people for sure.

Anyways just wanted to clear that up.

[sofaking]

^that's terrible.

[sofaking]

I don't feel the need to address a whole bunch of questions directed at a point I wasn't trying to make. I'll answer some though, I find that 1/2 of them are phrased in a sarcastic or rediculous nature because they're asking about things that were clarified in the topic already. The point wasn't if you could give me a million tests and contribute the rest of your life to the concern about tire safety. I was merely stating without said information which niether of us have, we can't determine a whole lot.

As for gauging proper inflation I concede, I don't know how to determine what it should be set at without feeling it out. I addressed that I fill them to 40psi, but I'm not sure what you want there. If you have an answer do share, if not... the question doesn't appear to have a point but to discredit my scientific process for determining proper tire inflation levels which I'm sure would also require math to determine anything specific.

I will offer a link to a tire that de-beaded for no apparent reason (or possibly someone deflated it). The thing is nothing can be proven in that field either without knowing 100% what all the variables are. I have personally had it happen for seemingly no reason... obviously there is a reason, but I don't know it so it's unexplained.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080714221537AA4wUoh
Someone previously in this same topic even mentioned they've seen properly mounted tires debead if I remember correctly.

I did state that I believe you're arguing theory, I don't retract that. But I will happily clarify what I'm refering to. It's not the science you're quoting that I am calling theory. I'm arguing that the conclusion you've come to about the safety is your theory, your opinion, your conclusion. I made a graph to illustrate my point. I never said that your information on tire deformation was wrong or theory. I argued your conclusion of safety concern is jumping to a conclusion from the science and that's the part I wanted proven. Obviously when you change the shape of a material that was designed for a certain shape it will stress or break it. That's common knowledge.
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3432/1169/33578084020_large.jpg

To state where on this graph you should plot a point of stretched sidewall failure would be only theory, speculation, guessing, whatever you care to call it without a pile of math that niether of us want to do, and only one of us knows the formulas (hint: not me).

As for your diagram...
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3432/1169/33578084021_large.jpg
Is this what you want? teach away.

[vex]

You are very mistaken Vex. Dave (GuitarJunkie28) died because he lost control driving down a mountain road that he had driven since his teens and knew very well. It was a 4 lane road with no divider between opposing lanes. Those who knew him knew that he was not a reckless person, it was just a tragic accident. Interestingly enough, one of his tires was flat and very well could have been from a nail stuck in the road, but CHP did not go with this theory, instead stating that he just lost control around a curve. I find this hard to believe considering he knew the road, he knew his car, he wasn't a careless speed demon, and it wasn't wet or icy out.

The young woman that he hit made a full recovery and she was the only person in her car. I remember seeing her family at Dave's funeral. Fine people for sure.

Anyways just wanted to clear that up.

I don't want to be misunderstood, I was under the impression someone else hit him. Thank you for setting the record straight.

[vex]

I don't feel the need to address a whole bunch of questions directed at a point I wasn't trying to make. I'll answer some though, I find that 1/2 of them are phrased in a sarcastic or rediculous nature because they're asking about things that were clarified in the topic already. The point wasn't if you could give me a million tests and contribute the rest of your life to the concern about tire safety. I was merely stating without said information which niether of us have, we can't determine a whole lot.I haven't seen 'em answered but if you have a post number to refer me to I'll gladly re-read them.

As for gauging proper inflation I concede, I don't know how to determine what it should be set at without feeling it out. I addressed that I fill them to 40psi, but I'm not sure what you want there. If you have an answer do share, if not... the question doesn't appear to have a point but to discredit my scientific process for determining proper tire inflation levels which I'm sure would also require math to determine anything specific. Unfortunately what you describe isn't scientific. Tensile side wall strength is compromised with stretch.

I will offer a link to a tire that de-beaded for no apparent reason (or possibly someone deflated it). The thing is nothing can be proven in that field either without knowing 100% what all the variables are. I have personally had it happen for seemingly no reason... obviously there is a reason, but I don't know it so it's unexplained.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080714221537AA4wUoh
Someone previously in this same topic even mentioned they've seen properly mounted tires debead if I remember correctly.
During normal driving conditions?

I did state that I believe you're arguing theory, I don't retract that. But I will happily clarify what I'm refering to. It's not the science you're quoting that I am calling theory. I'm arguing that the conclusion you've come to about the safety is your theory, your opinion, your conclusion. I made a graph to illustrate my point. I never said that your information on tire deformation was wrong or theory. I argued your conclusion of safety concern is jumping to a conclusion from the science and that's the part I wanted proven. Obviously when you change the shape of a material that was designed for a certain shape it will stress or break it. That's common knowledge.
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3432/1169/33578084020_large.jpgLets link two ideas here. Since you do not know how much air would be required to fill tire properly you do not know how the tire will be stressed. Underinflation will result in the previously posted picture. Overinflation will result in a blow out during normal operation. Couple that with the alteration in the geometry you now have points of stress along the tread and shoulder. The issue of a stretched tire can then be split to different points:

Failure due to underinflation or overinflation
Failure due to sidewall failure
Failure due to tread separation

Tensile strength of the sidewall affects the first two points. Since we're altering the geometry of the tire when it's stretched we can know by your own admission that:
Obviously when you change the shape of a material that was designed for a certain shape it will stress or break it Thereby removing factors of safety.


To state where on this graph you should plot a point of stretched sidewall failure would be only theory, speculation, guessing, whatever you care to call it without a pile of math that niether of us want to do, and only one of us knows the formulas (hint: not me).And I'm attempting to get you to understand the math so I'm not wasting my time. Additionally what tire would are you desiring?



As for your diagram...
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3432/1169/33578084021_large.jpg
Is this what you want? teach away.
Your forces are off. Displaced air is not needed and can be removed (unless we have lighter molecules than air). You're also missing a normal force (acts perpendicular to the tire) that keeps the tire from pushing through the ground.

[TitaniumTT]

kjWKNqskdVA

That is all

[speedjunkie]

I must say I LOATHE remixes, like when they say the same thing over and over again. I also hate when DJs mix a song on the radio, JUST LET ME HEAR THE FREAKIN SONG! lol

Therefore, I hate that video Brian. lol

[sofaking]

I haven't seen 'em answered but if you have a post number to refer me to I'll gladly re-read them.
I don't feel like going back and quoting, but everytime you asked for information about what I would like it was completely sarcastic and ended with you telling me that you didn't want to do the math. I got as specific as I was looking for and told you that you could use constants for variables if it made it easier. Your response was that you didn't want to waste your time. So quoting myself getting told that you aren't going to do it doesn't help. Move on to the physics lesson if you'd like to make a point, it's the closest thing to figuring anything out we've gotten to.
Unfortunately what you describe isn't scientific. Tensile side wall strength is compromised with stretch.I already said that was your point... so if you're not adding anything what is the point in saying it again?
Thereby removing factors of safety.So you're saying that there is no possibility that the tire can sustain this, or you're just saying that you know a lot of factors determine the safety of a tire and without the math you can't do anything but speculate what may or may not happen?

Lets define for the sake of discussion that safety is the tire not failing (in any way) before the tread is used up during normal driving conditions. I understand it doesn't meet the original specifications, but the only information we know as of yet is that it will fail to the left side of my graph. Whether it gets even close to the green area is complete speculation.
Additionally what tire would are you desiring? I'm using a Falken Azenis RT615k 215/40-17 on a 17x9.5 wheel.
Your forces are off. Displaced air is not needed and can be removed (unless we have lighter molecules than air). You're also missing a normal force (acts perpendicular to the tire) that keeps the tire from pushing through the ground.This was the point I was making about drawing the diagram and getting to the point. Going back and forth to prove you know where you're going with your point is a waste of both of our time.

[EJayCe996]

kjWKNqskdVA

That is all

oh yes, we hooked a smartphone up to someone's car audio back in Cali and blasted this when we pulled up next to Glenn on the street :rofl:

[sofaking]

For the sake of moving this along...
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3432/1169/33578084022_large.jpg

[djmtsu]

This is so retarded. I love it.

As soon as some mad tyte Affliction 4 Loco retard in a 240 with stretched tires crashes into me, I will have my lawyer/insurance absolutely destroy them based on the fact that the tires are incorrectly sized.

Then, this conversation will be over.

[mazpower]

oh yes, we hooked a smartphone up to someone's car audio back in Cali and blasted this when we pulled up next to Glenn on the street :rofl:

:ugh2:

:lol: :rofl:

Still not as bad as hearing my own balls slap and watching it on a big screen in a Vegas casino bar the night before my wedding. The people's reaction was classic once they figured out what the noise was. :rofl:

[TitaniumTT]

As long as they didn't realize who it actually was, everything should be ok :rofl: Should've had you lay some sack on my bumper while I was out there. Could've had Ty make a video called ball slapping turbo shooting sugargliders with RX7 turbo's and pissed off neighbors and recorded him doing the donuts in front of Kevins house and my block long burnout the time before the time I actually left :smilielol5:

I miss Cali, should've just left my car out there :lol:

[mazpower]

Yeah dude, if we did that, your evil car would have probably cooperated. :lol:

You should have left it in Cali. You can always come back, I got 1500 square feet of workspace now. Also gonna be getting a used synchrowave, damn thing is water cooled, 100% duty cycle. Like Robert's mangina. :rofl:

[vex]

I can't tell from how you drew the friction, does it have a direction? If it has a direction you need to apply either a torque or a force to the tire to dictate the impulse of motion (or the force enough to cancel out the 'amount' of friction acting on the tire to keep it from moving). If the tire is static (which would be easier) you have drawn the FBD correctly.

[vex]

Sorry didn't see this until just now.
I don't feel like going back and quoting, but everytime you asked for information about what I would like it was completely sarcastic and ended with you telling me that you didn't want to do the math. I got as specific as I was looking for and told you that you could use constants for variables if it made it easier.Using variables in this sort of math will cause you to get a bunch of variables in equations that do not make much sense. We'll use constants sure enough, but leaving variables into the equations of question is going to be worse than just using real values.

Your response was that you didn't want to waste your time. So quoting myself getting told that you aren't going to do it doesn't help. Move on to the physics lesson if you'd like to make a point, it's the closest thing to figuring anything out we've gotten to.This isn't physics in the true sense of the word (at least not from when I took those classes). This is basic material science.

I already said that was your point... so if you're not adding anything what is the point in saying it again?It seemed to me that you were attempting to sustain this as scientific procedure. If you're no longer sustaining that or if I misinterpreted that from your post then by all means the point is moot now.

So you're saying that there is no possibility that the tire can sustain this, or you're just saying that you know a lot of factors determine the safety of a tire and without the math you can't do anything but speculate what may or may not happen? This may better help you understand: Factor of Safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety). A reduction in the FOS reduces the ability for the tire to handle the same stresses as a properly mounted tire would otherwise be able to endure.

Lets define for the sake of discussion that safety is the tire not failing (in any way) before the tread is used up during normal driving conditions. I understand it doesn't meet the original specifications, but the only information we know as of yet is that it will fail to the left side of my graph. Whether it gets even close to the green area is complete speculation.I think this is a failure to communicate what FOS is.

I'm using a Falken Azenis RT615k 215/40-17 on a 17x9.5 wheel.
This was the point I was making about drawing the diagram and getting to the point. Going back and forth to prove you know where you're going with your point is a waste of both of our time.Again, I think you miss the point. Discussing the science isn't for my benefit but yours. If you do not understand where the number comes from at the end of the day all it's going to be to you is a number--But if you understand where that number came from at the end of the day you will know and understand what the material is doing when you stretch the tire and place it under load.

[sofaking]

Since I clearly don't understand how to apply a torque to offer a direction because I thought it could be used as a force I wouldn't know how to add it. For the sake of this analysis lets say the tire is static.

I read the FoS link, interesting stuff. To my knowledge (making an assumption without taking hours of classes on the subject)... Passenger tires would have an MoS of +3 or +4 if the sidewall lasts 3-4 times longer than the predicted load, correct? Not to mention that any given tire usually isn't at its maximum load when installed on a passenger vehicle anyway (Which is what the FoS is engineered to. I.E. max inflation pressure/weight), correct?

Also the article covered a sentence on my point as well...
Many systems are purposefully built much stronger than needed for normal usage to allow for emergency situations, unexpected loads, misuse, or degradation.

This would lead me to believe that it is possible I am right. I'm not saying that it is or isn't "safe". I'm saying that it's possible that it is safe, correct? If it is possible that it is safe, then the obvious conclusion would be that it would not be a fact to call it "unsafe", correct?

[TitaniumTT]

I heard that some asshole called me out becuase I don't know how to modify a car or even fit a wheel

When you are done with that, go ahead and complain about how not proper my other car is. 18x11 -10 235/35, 18x12 -10 265/35

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx152/LovelyidoiInc/IMG_2041.jpg





Keep in mind my car works better than yours ever will.

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

[vex]

Since I clearly don't understand how to apply a torque to offer a direction because I thought it could be used as a force I wouldn't know how to add it. For the sake of this analysis lets say the tire is static.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).


I read the FoS link, interesting stuff. To my knowledge (making an assumption without taking hours of classes on the subject)... Passenger tires would have an MoS of +3 or +4 if the sidewall lasts 3-4 times longer than the predicted load, correct?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).
Not to mention that any given tire usually isn't at its maximum load when installed on a passenger vehicle anyway (Which is what the FoS is engineered to. I.E. max inflation pressure/weight), correct?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).


Also the article covered a sentence on my point as well...


This would lead me to believe that it is possible I am right. I'm not saying that it is or isn't "safe". I'm saying that it's possible that it is safe, correct?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)? If it is possible that it is safe, then the obvious conclusion would be that it would not be a fact to call it "unsafe", correct?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.

[Rotary no Densetsu]

http://noriyaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/noriyaro_celica_hippari_001.jpg

Niggas jelly of my mad stretch dawg.

http://noriyaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/noriyaro_celica_hippari_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.

[mazpower]

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:

[RotorDad]

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

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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

[scotty305]

You know who else slides better than your average drifter?

http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/1678/a-look-inside-tanner-fousts-rockstar-scion-formula-d-drift-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).

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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.

[sofaking]

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.

[sofaking]

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-hubinette-drifts-his-new-865-hp-dodge-challenger.jpg

[vex]

Please quote my previous response as it makes things easier to keep track of.
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.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).


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.)
That's fine. It's the same as the master cylinder analogy.

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.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.


For the vulcanized rubber, where am I looking this up and what types of numbers am I looking for?
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/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=6588439546ac4492965c894ddff 3f5da&ckck=1

We want the mechanical properties.

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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

So I forgive him.

[sofaking]

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.

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.

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/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=6588439546ac4492965c894ddff 3f5da&ckck=1

We want the mechanical properties.
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/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=b797b66988ab4c50852c48cbb07 18874&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..

Mechanical Properties *** Metric ***** English ***** Comments
Hardness, Shore A ****** 30.0 - 100 *** 30.0 - 100 *** Depends on compounding
Hardness, Shore D ****** 30.0 - 45.0 *** 30.0 - 45.0 ** Depends on compounding
Tensile Strength, Ultimate * 28.0 MPa **** 4060 psi **** Compounded Tire
Elongation at Break ****** 100 - 800 % ** 100 - 800 %
100% Modulus ********** 0.00150 GPa ** 0.218 ksi
Shear Modulus ********** 0.000500 GPa * 0.0725 ksi
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.

[josh18_2k]

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.

[sofaking]

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.

[vex]

Thanks for quoting.
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?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.
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/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=b797b66988ab4c50852c48cbb07 18874&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.
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).

[RotorDad]

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.

[sofaking]

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.
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?

This is not the same as failure (encroachment into plastic region of deformation).
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.

[vex]

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?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.


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.
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).

[sofaking]

http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagames/NFS/speedhunters.com/Images/Linhbergh2010/December2010/guestblogs/larrymissile/jd20.jpg
Michael Essa (Pro) - drift missle (personal non-sponsored drift piece of shit)

http://speedhunters.com/archive/2010/12/01/guest-blog-larry-chen-gt-gt-missile-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.

[sofaking]

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.
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?

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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. 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.

[RotorDad]

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.

[TitaniumTT]

http://rotarycarclub.com/rotary_forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9489&stc=1&d=1294108122

Sorry, had to :rofl:

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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.

[josh18_2k]

edit: oopsnvm

[vex]

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?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. Then what's left of the sidewall would fold over resulting in driving on the wheel?
Not too sure what you mean here.

[sofaking]

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).

[sofaking]

"Rome wasn't built in a day... but it sure fell in one"
Where did this quote in your signature come from?

[vex]

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.

[vex]

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.

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-preview.axd?code=311wm80532073444&size=largest

[Kane]

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

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHA


*breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA

[Rotary no Densetsu]

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

[dr.occa]

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

The L33ts on both sides are out!

[Monkman33]

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

[DriFD3S]

now til i blow up this engine then go v8 then ill choose to run non stretched tires but til then ill work with what i have.

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:

[speedjunkie]

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

[DriFD3S]

he's good at it,
what a troll!

[Monkman33]

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. ;-)

[josh18_2k]

^ 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.

[RXheaven]

Well i guess this is where i need to be on this issue. Ive read thru this thread now, and all i see is the same stuff. it doesnt hurt my feelings any that people here dont like how my "wheels fit" or how my "tires dont fit". since ive had my wheels/fenders done, i get like 3 thumbs up a day. from all different kinds of people. so, i must be doing something right. yea i have to swerve pot holes? i dont care, its about a passion. you guys who dont like this have your style, and we have ours. so be it. its how cars and the car scene is always gonna be. so....feel free to rag on my car if you'd like. it wont be the first time ive heard it lol

[RETed]

You're welcome to do whatever you want with your car...
...just as long as you don't hurt anyone.

My beef is the dumbasses who claim it's better for performance to run a hippari stretch.
If you're building your car for style and getting thumbs up, then that's your choice.
I like to build my cars for performance - not to impress others.

That's it in a nutshell.


-Ted

[12arotary]

just saying
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l305/26brotary/DeLoreanTimeMachine.jpg
If this is where hella flush is heading, i'm fine with that.

[RXheaven]

Nope, I don't claim to out perform anyone. I just like style, and cleanliness. And my car isn't all beat up and crapped out. And I made sure of it when I was doing this to the car

[RETed]

Nope, I don't claim to out perform anyone. I just like style, and cleanliness. And my car isn't all beat up and crapped out. And I made sure of it when I was doing this to the car

If it's your style, then you're welcome to do whatever you want with it.
It's your car.
I don't have a problem with that.
Enjoy your ride.


-Ted

[RotorDad]

Well i guess this is where i need to be on this issue. Ive read thru this thread now, and all i see is the same stuff. it doesnt hurt my feelings any that people here dont like how my "wheels fit" or how my "tires dont fit". since ive had my wheels/fenders done, i get like 3 thumbs up a day. from all different kinds of people. so, i must be doing something right. yea i have to swerve pot holes? i dont care, its about a passion. you guys who dont like this have your style, and we have ours. so be it. its how cars and the car scene is always gonna be. so....feel free to rag on my car if you'd like. it wont be the first time ive heard it lol

Many times over I have stated do what you want to your own car on forums. It's not my place to tell someone how to build their shit.

I will say this though, the thumbs up part of your post did make me laugh. The guy down the street used to get a lot of props for his POS Civic, but that doesn't mean he was doing it right. It was a gutted out tin can that sat on the ground & bounced all over the damn road. Not to mention he couldn't even get into most parking lots or go over speed bumps. Now That's not to say anything about your car, just an example. BTW I never get thumbs up or looks of approval & that is the way I like it.

I will not rag on your car it looks pretty clean.

[RXheaven]

Many times over I have stated do what you want to your own car on forums. It's not my place to tell someone how to build their shit.

I will say this though, the thumbs up part of your post did make me laugh. The guy down the street used to get a lot of props for his POS Civic, but that doesn't mean he was doing it right. It was a gutted out tin can that sat on the ground & bounced all over the damn road. Not to mention he couldn't even get into most parking lots or go over speed bumps. Now That's not to say anything about your car, just an example. BTW I never get thumbs up or looks of approval & that is the way I like it.

I will not rag on your car it looks pretty clean.

well thank you

[TitaniumTT]

On that note..... I was leaving the shop one night in my FC with the trailer in tow... I happened upon some complete piece of shit white del sol that had harware store letters on the back that read, "run your car, not your mouth" I BUSTED out laughing. I pulled up next to him, gave him the thumbs up, then ran him... I pulled away from him towing a trailer.

When I give people thumbs up, its generally to mock them.

[RotorDad]

On that note..... I was leaving the shop one night in my FC with the trailer in tow... I happened upon some complete piece of shit white del sol that had harware store letters on the back that read, "run your car, not your mouth" I BUSTED out laughing. I pulled up next to him, gave him the thumbs up, then ran him... I pulled away from him towing a trailer.

When I give people thumbs up, its generally to mock them.

Now that's funny!

See guys like that do serve a purpose, making us laugh. :rofl:

[circuit theory]

Wow I am astounded that you guys have 169 posts/ 9 pages fighting over stretched tires.

Grip = More tire on the road is better so running a stretched tire is handicapping yourself.

Drift = no performance gain from stretched tires, however most drifting is done by people with limited funds. Limited funds means you use what ever wheels you have and get what ever tires you have to fit so you can burn through them. I was told this was where the stretched tire look came from and then later VIP car guys saw it as a way to slam their cars even more with out rubbing. It is now a phenom for those possessing JDM tightness(oh yeah and those vw kids as well.)

The stretch phenom is to real performance enthusiasts the same as dayton wheels were to classic car enthusiasts. Although ugly and although engineering facepalms, if the right person thinks they are cool or look good then many many will jump on the bandwagon.

Here is all of the facts, statistics, and resources to back it up.
www.suckit.com