Tire Nirvana!

[zoegrlh]

Specs on Vredestein tires.
The info:

Code: [Select]

Vredestein Sprint Classic @ $135.00 each
Tire size - 186 HR 15
Section width - 185.17 mm (7.29")
Section height - 149.08 mm (5.83")
Overall diameter - 651.51 mm (25.65")
Aspect ratio - .80
Load index - 90 = 1323 lbs
Speed rating - H = 130 mph (210 Km/h)
approved wheel width - 114.3 - 152.4 mm (4.5 - 6")
The contact for these tires is Josh Spangler at 1 (800) 576-1009 ext 775 (e-mail is jspangler@tirefactory.net)  also you can see the ad at www.tiresbyweb.com


Download Attachment: Tire.JPG
207.39 KB

[Bob G MN]

I've been uising Vredestein 185/14 tires for about three years and they really ride great and look good.  I would reccoment them.  I don't think they are made in a whitewall in that size however.

[bbryant]

I too am looking to purchase new tires for my 1970 280SL. I have narrowed the search down to the Coker Phoenix 185R14 or the Vredestein Sprint Classic 185HR14. The Coker is whitewall and claims to be made for 60's and 70's Mercedes. Jaguar folks speak highly of the Vredestein's.
Which tire does the forum recommend for handling, etc.

Thank you

[scoot]

quote:Originally posted by bbryant

I too am looking to purchase new tires for my 1970 280SL. I have narrowed the search down to the Coker Phoenix 185R14 or the Vredestein Sprint Classic 185HR14. The Coker is whitewall and claims to be made for 60's and 70's Mercedes. Jaguar folks speak highly of the Vredestein's.
Which tire does the forum recommend for handling, etc.

Thank you

Read all of the posts in this thread and you will see that different people have different opinions.  My Spring Classic tires are scheduled to be delivered to me on 7/25/08 -- so I guess my conclusion is that the Vredesteins are the best choice for me...

[zoegrlh]

Took my Vredesteins on the Interstate last weekend for a 300 mile round trip.  At 65 mph it was a GREAT ride.  Like driving a "new" car.  Mind you I also have PS, new brakes/pads etc, and shocks.  A really great handling tire that conforms to the car's specs.

[bbryant]

Thanks for the response. I am going to purchase the Vredesteins.

Bill Bryant
1970 280 SL
1967 Jaguar XKE

[thinktin]

Just installed Vredesteins on  5.5" w123 alluminum wheels. I can honestly say that in the 8 years I've had the car this is the best single improvement I have made. The car looks and feels terrifc, nimble and just 'feels right.' I strugled with the choice, 205s vs. 195, vs 185. Our minds are conditioned to think that wider is probably better, but in these cars it's not the case. The car sits higher, (I had 195 / 70 Bridgestones before) and the wider diameter fills the wheel well the way it was designed. Since I do not particularly care for white walls, these are the perfect choice. The wheels save about 20 lbs. per wheel and take the 14" hubcaps, so they are not noticeable. Make sure they are properly balanced and your front end is properly alligned.  They are significantly cheaper than the Phoenix, but not cheap... but worth every penny.

Rick Yepes

70 280SL
63 220S

[Longtooth]

I keep seeing references to tire age over 5 or 8 years or so meaning that the tire is less than reliable or poorer performance, or words to that effect.  FWIW, I'm of the opinion that this is pure unadulterated malarky postulated by the tire mfg'ers and dealers.  

I've been driving at high speeds (75 mph minimum mostly in US, up to 115 -120 mph on autobahns for extended periods with fully loaded cars --- in Germany on autobahns ('60's and '80's) on freeways in US, and on wild roads with pot-holes and rough surfaces since 1962.

The only times I've ever changed tires (with one exception -- see below) is when the wear became excessive --- and when I was young, "excessive" meant nearly bald.  I've never had a blow-out, tread loss, or any other hazardous event occur while driving.  I've used almost exclusively Michelins on every car I've ever owned (also see current exceptions below).  

On rare occassions over this span of driving I've replaced tires due to wear in less than 5 or 8 years, but that's maybe 2x or 3x in all these years.  I don't use bargain basement prices or brands though either.

I also have a '65 C20 Chevy pick-up that I bought in '76, put new tires on it at that time, and only replaced them 2 - 3 years ago (28 - 29 years use) --- treadwear reason finally. The truck was/is used to haul loads (I put up to 1600-1700 lbs load on it and drive at highway speeds (70-72 mph in CA on freeway's in NorCal) under these loads for extended duration... and have never had either a flat or any other problems.  

Now... granted I may be one of the great exceptions, but considering the extended period of driving Volvo's, VW's, BMW's, MB's, Honda's, Chevy Pick-up over this span of time and almost always agressively at high speeds, with narry a problem ever with the tires (I had a flat --- nails --- a couple of times while speeding down the freeway though) and with tires reaching up to 20 some-odd years old, and normally in the 6 - 12 year old range before changing them due to treadwear, I have to say that there's no objective evidence or study's I've seen (by other than a tire mfg'er... and I don't trust fox's guarding hen houses) that says older tires have a significantly greater probabilty of reliability failure than the normal variance in tire reliability when new or nearly new.  Not to offend anyone, but tire mfg's / dealers who subscribe to the "replace tires every 5-8 years" are simply using this tactic to get the nervous Nelly's to spend twice or three times as much for tires as they otherwise would need to.... and it serves the interests of the tire co's.

Just my opinion and experience.  Thought somebody should point this out though so that not everybody get's scared out of their wits when tires reach 5 or 8 years old.      

Exceptions:
1) I replaced a set of Michelins from 1984 on my 250SL this year... not because they were excessively worn (30k miles or so on them), nor side-walls cracked, nor any other issues with them... they drove superbly, cornered like there was no tomorrow, etc., but because I got nervous since I'd let the car sit on them, unmoved, in the garage for 15-16 years before I decided to pull the car out in 2000 and get it back in shape.  I drove on them from 2000 'til this year at crazy high speeds in hot (CA) weather for extended durations.  I decided finally however that 24 years, especially having sat idle for 15-16 years during that period, with consequent out of round condition --- that dissappeared after about 1000 miles of driving --- was probably a bit economically risky considering what was at stake was high cost damage to the car IF one of the tires blew while I was at high speeds.  Cost of new tires was <<<<< than cost of repairing (if repairable) the 250SL.... and time the 250SL would be hung up getting fixed or finding a replacement for it was no minor consideration in my decision to finally replace my beloved '84 Michelins.

2) My wife's SL500's --- on the first one ('94 version) we used Pirelli Pzero Neros or Bridgestone Potenza's---- great handling & performance .... but treadwear was awful... 3 years or 30k max is best we could do (and that was pushing beyond treadwear limits), and the newer one (2002 version) uses Pzero Neros... same story... we may get 25k-30k out of them in 2.5 - 3 years use.

3) My C20 Pickup uses Goodyear Truck tires --- big ones on big wheels.  I forget the exact type, but I've used the same type since '76... latest set were harder to find though, since they're now no longer mfg'ing this exact type.  I figure this latest set will outlast me this time.

[Mike Hughes]

If anyone harbors doubts about the wisdom of considering replacing aged tires, one might want to look at this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4826897

[Longtooth]

For those that would believe the inferred inference, but never stated 20/20 video that aged tires degradation has some kind of limit based on facts, I suggest a thorough reading and digestion of the NHTSA studies on Tire Aging impact on performance & reliability  to date... a study which is inconclusive as to whether the impacts to performance/reliability are dominated by or even significantly influenced by age vs mileage vs tire mfg'er and brand.  This study is not yet completed but was supposed to have been by "early 2008".. there's been no reported update since the congressional report (Aug '07).

The April 2007 report - Phase 1:  http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv20/07-0496-W.pdf

Please make note that aging of material properties of tires is related directly to temperature.. which increases oxidation rates of the polymers, and hence stiffens them relative to when they are brand new (exit mfg'ing process).  This does not mean that tire material properties aging is a significant or material cause for degradation in tire use (tread separation or side-wall failures, etc).  

The data shown in the above report shows that degradation in tire reliability occurs with both age and mileage, but the two variables cannot be differentiated as to which is dominant or most significant... in short, there's no data thus far or in that study which is able to show a statistically valid difference (at any level of confidence) between the effects of aging and mileage.  The tires with the greatest age had the greatest milage.  The correlation coefficients (Rsquared) varied more by tire mfg'er and brand/model than any other factor.

The other report August '07 is a report to Congress... it contains very little data but is lengthy in regards to what the NHTSA and industry groups have done so far (in terms of tests) and are now trying to do --- namely expand the studies evaluation methods to find statistically valid differentiators, and refine an accelerated aging test to relate to real world evaluations (based on the Phoenix Arizona tire selections used in the April Evaluation (above)).  
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crashworthiness/CongReptTireAgingFinal080907.pdf

In the congressional report the paper states that the evaluation results of the refined study should be completed in "early 2008", but I have been unable to find any "final" or other interim reports on this study.

A significant result of Ford's comprehensive study (which the NHTSA references) is that the temperature aged factors equate high temperture locations (i.e. Phoenix as base) with northern temperature locations at 1:2... that is, a 4-6 year tire road used in Phoenix is equivalent in material properties to an 8 - 12 year road used tire in Northern states.  

Also important, in the data and conclusions from the Phase 1: April study the speed rating of the tire appears to have a significant relation to it's aging properties in terms of reliability... the higher the speed rating the better it ages in reliability... though in my opinion the data is so sparse (so few samples) as to be as equally likely to be due to the brand/mfg'er than the speed rating itself.

Finally, let me point out that the relationship to aging vs mileage vs reliability has definitely not been established in any form.  The Firestone Tire fiasco (which set this whole question off) found that the mfg'ing method, Firestone's design, and quality control were the primary culprits in the high rates of failure.  In short, thus far, anecdotal evidence still points primarily to specific tire design, mfg'ing and quality as the most significant culprits.  Perhaps, therefore, my near exclusive use Michelins over the past 40 years of driving may have something to do with the fact that I've been able to use tires for periods exceeding 20 years (with low mileage) without every having experienced a problem ---- and CA is one of the medium temperature states in our inland coastal region.

For those that prefer "better safe than sorry", then one would have to recommend replacing all tires every 1.5 years, since in the Phoenix Tires (Phoenix, AZ... not Phoenix tires) studies reliability tests most brands Time to Failure was REDUCED BY 50% AT 2 YEARS....or one could even recommend being even safer... replace them every year.... or safer yet, every 6 months. You get the picture... if you're going to use arbitrary criteria to gage reliability, you can pick any number.

In terms of fatalities estimates related to tire failures ---- which failures cannot be distinguished between age, inflation, mileage, road-hazards, defective tires, out of balance, etc. ---- NHTSA estimates there have been 400 tire related fatalities / year with 300 million tires shipped / year.  Assuming a "set" of tires = 4, then there are 1.33 x 10-6 fatalities/tire or 5.33 x 10-6 fatalities / "set" of tires sold.  In other words, the probability that you will die due to a single tire failure on your "set" is ~ 1 in a million. This is the same as 187,500 tire "sets" sold per fatality related to tires... a 'set' of tires may be roughly equated to a 4-wheel vehicle.  Stats on fatalities related to tires is from NHTSA.

To put this into perspective, the number of traffic fatalities per 100,000 vehicles is ~17 (16.99 in 2006). http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

If tires account for approx. 1.87 fatalities / 100,000 vehicles, then that leaves ~15 fatalities for all other traffic related reasons, or ~7.5x - 8x more likely that you'll die from a traffic accident unrelated in any way to the set of tires on your car.... regardless of age, mileage, inflation, tire tread wear, defects, road hazard damage or any other condition of those tires.

In short, if you're inclined to drive at all, you're taking a far, far greater life risk by doing so than by using ancient tires on your vehicle.

[Richard Madison]

I appreciate all the scientific studies and experiments about older tires and safety and that opinions differ. I noticed cracks on the top surface and sidewalls on some of my tires when I first saw the car. The maunufacture date showed the tires were more than 10 years old.

Safety is an issue not only for the driver and pasenger but for those in cars and on the roadway near the car.

I erred on the side of safety and replaced all the tires. I guess my motto was "Better safe than sorry" especially when new tires can be a relatively low cost item.

I now have a nice feeling of security as I breeze down the highway.

Richard M, NYC

[Mike Hughes]

Take a look at these links:

http://www.safetyresearch.net/tires.htm

and in particular, this document:

http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/SRS_110504.pdf

for some background on the dangers of aged tires.

I call your attention to the third paragraph on page four of the document in the second link.  Starting on page 10 of the document is an 8 page table detailing 50 tire related incidents, including the page four, third paragraph incident.  At least one other collector car appears in the table, which includes tires from a variety of manufacturers, including Michelin.

[Longtooth]

Here's the link to actual NHTSA Tire Advisory of June 2008.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.f2217bee37fb302f6d7c121046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_viewID=detail_view&itemID=be9d195e85a3a110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD&pressReleaseYearSelect=2008

The items cited in that advisory are shown in italized type below. Highlighted (Bold) is my own.

The risk of a serious crash during hot weather can be heightened
 by tires that are worn out, under-inflated or too old, ...

NHTSA research shows that hot weather – and overloaded vehicles –
 can add significant stress to a tire, especially if it is not
 properly inflated. Old tires also are subject to greater stress,
 which increases the likelihood of catastrophic failure.

Note that overloaded or underinflated tires add significantly to
 greater tire temperatures... adding to the climate condition, or
 even over-riding climate (ambiant and road surface temperatures).
 Both overloading and underinflation dramatically increase the
 stress on the tires structure.  The greater the mileage on
 overloaded or underinflated tires the greater their internal
 temperature and greater their accumulated stress (cyclic fatigue)....
hence the faster they "age".  Data collected on vehicle accidents
 attributed to tire failure would have to determine the history of
 underinflation, overloading instances, and miles driven at known
 speeds under those conditions to differentiate pure relation of age
 with relation to use induced failure mechanism. Unfortunately this
 data is largly unavailable after the fact when an accident has
 occured.  It therefore appears to me that the age factor
 relationship is largly anecdotal as primary causes.  

I also pointed out in my prior post on this topic (and related NHTSA
 link to data) that the accelated stress & aging evalutions showed
 far greater variation by tire brand and model and that mileage and
 age couldn't be differentiated.  I'm not disputing that age of the
 tire alone isn't a factor... only that it's relative significance
 in tire related accidents is far, far behind history of tire use
 conditions and mfg'ing variations (internal defects).  I'm also
 guessing that tire mfg'er recommendations on maximum load ratings
 may be driven largly by the target client vehicles loads ... i.e.
 perhaps Ford Explorer's mfg'ers desired max load is X, so the
 competing tire mfg'ers would tend to bias their tests to
 be "acceptable" under load X as "max" load.  This would also have
 something to do with OEM vehicle's tire price contracts.  Just my
 opinion.
 
...tire condition is important for all vehicles, it is especially
 critical for those more prone to rollover when tires fail. That
 would include sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups or other
 vehicles with a higher center of gravity.

I can't find the report now, but while researching this last week, the tire related failures in US were ranked as:

1 -  Southwestern States, Pickups
2 -  Midwestern States, Pickups

So it turns out that hottest climates with high proportion of
 Pickups (assumedly with higher proportion used in farm &/or hauling
 applications) are the dominant vehicles with tire caused
 accidents.   That's consistant with both tendency for tires to
 often be "overloaded" during their use period, high center of
 gravity (especially when overloaded), and longevity of use
 independant of mileage. I wonder how many of these failures are for
 rear tire catastrophic failures?

... check tire inflation with an inexpensive gauge, using the
 vehicle manufacturers’ recommended pressures, which are found on
 the driver’s side door pillar or in the owner’s manual.

Some tire and vehicle manufacturers have issued recommendations
for replacing tires that range from six to ten years of age.

Consumers are advised to check with their tire or vehicle
 manufacturer for specific guidance.

“Remember that it is vitally important to check your spare tire
 too,” said Administrator Nason. “Your spare can be a real safety
 hazard if it is old or under-inflated.”