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

sofaking · 01-03-2011, 12:11 PM

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.

01-03-2011, 12:11 PM	#11
sofaking The Newbie Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 0	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.