"Tubeless" Tires Deduction

[Rick Lay]

This topic for discussion concerns the word "tubeless" on the whitewall of many collector car tires currently available. I would like to know what some of you think - I'll illustrate with this story:<P>An AACA member enters his 1948 model in a national meet to be judged. Before the team moves on to judge the next car, the team captain comes over to the owner and advises him that he has a major deduction from the chassis judge because his tires say "tubeless" on the whitewall and the chassis judge has knowledge that tubeless tires were not available in 1948. His basis for the deduction is the statement in the 2000 judging manual on page 78 which says, "Tires on all vehicles must be as specified by manufacturer."<P>Having judged chassis many times, I have never even thought of looking for this, nor do I know when tubeless tires came into being. Since the judging manual does not address this item specifically, I would not deduct - but evidently some judges feel differently, citing the above passage from the manual.<P>What do some of you think? Most of the tires available today in the correct size and whitewall width, say "tubeless." I have them on my Senior '51 Frazer, which according to some is as wrong as having radials.<P>Let me add for clarification that the tires discussed, except for the word "tubeless," are of the proper size, appearance and whitewall width for the era. Also, the examples have tubes in the "tubeless" tires.<p>[This message has been edited by Rick Lay (edited 09-24-2000).]

[ronbarn]

hvs - here's a possible solution to your problem with AOL - when you get the itchy fingers needed for a complete statement, try going off line to your WP, write the reply, then cut and paste into the DF reply. This only takes a few seconds and not even AOL can screw up in that time.<P>Am looking forward to your response re tubeless tires. Some competitors have resorted to using their Dremel tool to grind off the tubeless or off-road-only markings to get by the judges.

[Guest]

OK I'm back and ready to let go on this one.<P>In my humble opinion I feel that the Judging Committee is way off base on this thing of REQUIRING that a DEDUCTION be taken for tubeless tires on a car manufactured BEFORE tubeless tires were introduced. Now why would I be so adament in my position that they are wrong. Let's for the sake of this discussion assume that the car in question is a 1949 Chevrolet. I don't own one so this is not a personal matter, but is for all of you out there showing cars using the new low pressure tires introduced for the 1949 model year.<P>First, tubeless is a form of tire construction. You CAN use them with TUBES. The only way you can tell a tubeless 6.70x15 from a tube type is by the writing on the side. I feel that the rule should be that pre tubeless tire era cars MUST be exhibited WITH tubes installed. If no tube, then take the deduction. Don't base it on what is written on the tire. It is what is inside that matters. Any competent judge can tell if there is a tube coming through the rim or whether a tubeless stem is permanently implanted there.<P>Since my post of earlier today, I have done a little research and cannot find any 6.70, 7.10, 7.60 or 8.20 x 15 tires offered for sale that are NOT TUBELESS. Ok Judging Committee, what are we to do now?<P>I know the answer, grind off the word tubeless. This advice was offered by a member of the Judging Committee. There are a couple of problems with that approach. First, if the word "tubeless" is in the black portion of the tire you will probably come up with a white area after grinding. I know, this can be covered with black tire paint if you can still find the stuff. If not, shoe polish will work for a while.<P>Second, if the word "tubeless" is in the white sidewall part of the tire, you will likely make a visible mess of it. Dumb!<P>Finally, I asked this member of the Committee<BR>"What about the potential liability arising from the modification or alteration of the construction of a DOT approved tire." Suppose one of those altered tires blows out and there is a loss of life or major property damage involved. Would YOU like to be party to altering a tire? If this is the STATED POLICY of the Judging Committee relative to making tires comply with an AACA judging rule, then they are really asking for trouble. A smart lawyer could nail AACA to a cross for that one! I know some of you will say that it can't happen. Don't bet your life on it.<P>In conclusion, I respectfully suggest that the AACA Judging Committee change its rule to read, "A deduction will be taken for tires not fitted with tubes when the vehicle being judged originally was equipped with tube type tires. No deduction will be taken for tires bearing the word 'tubeless' when said tire is fitted with an innertube."<P>Will someone who has the ear of the Judging Committee please pass a copy of this thread along to them in a few days, after we possibly generate some more discussion on the subject.<P>I don't want to get off on a rant here, but that's just my opinion. [with apologies to Dennis Miller.]<P>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 09-24-2000).]<p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Guest]

Rick, <P>I had a doozie of a post almost completed when 'good 'ol' AOL wiped me off the air.<P>Basically I was saying that the Judging Committee is way off base on its position regarding "tubeless" tires. <P>Right now I am too annoyed about having my thoughts wiped out by AOL to properly reconstruct them, but will do that later and post the entire arguement against the committee's position later today. ~ hvs

[Rick Lay]

Thanks, Howard! You confirmed for me what I thought was true - the tires are not available. I have to wonder why we have gone all these years without any problems about this and now, we are suddenly concerned about this issue. <P>Here's something to think about - in how many classes at a Grand National will it become an impossibility to get a Senior? With 4 tires at 3 points each - you are out of the running. Is this really something we want to see?

[ronbarn]

In an earlier post I did mention that some competitors had used a dremel tool to grind off the tubeless word, or any other words that would make the tire subject to deductions. That statement was not intended to imply that this was a Class Judging Committee approved procedure. All my statement was intended to do was to tell readers of this thread what some people have done.<P>That said, Howard has made a reasonable point that needs to be addressed by the Class Judging Committee. There are other problems with tires that need to be addressed as well. Some of the tires that were standard around the time that radials were becoming readily available, but not factory installed, are now no longer available. Are radials then accepted as replacements? This is a concern worth visiting. Don't know who the Class Judging Committee member Howard is referring to (maybe it's me) but we will bring the subject up again. Maybe we can use this to convince Coker to erase the Tubeless from their molds.

[Guest]

Rick,<P>Based on my experiences in years gone by, what we have here is a case of sudden awareness. Either someone on the judging committee or an outside individual got this bug in their bonnet that the wheel should be reinvented. It has happened before, sparkplug deduction being a good example. Over the years there have been more different deductions recommended for cadmium plated sparkplugs than there are cars on the judging field. <P>Now we arrive at tubeless tires <BR>This came up years ago while I was still on the Judging Committee and at that time the policy was set as I stated in my prior post, "If it has a tube in it, it is OK." Now nobody seems to remember that decision so as I said, the wheel must be reinvented.<P>The current policy that you must deduct for the word tubeless regardless of how the tire is configured on the vehicle is, in my opinion, STUPID <P>Now what happens in a case like this is that EVERY judge suddenly becomes aware of "TUBELESS TIRES", and says to himself, "I gotta deduct for these tires", and so he nails the car for 15 points. Never mind that the left rear fender is held on with ten penny nails, he doesn't even notice that. He's GOT to deduct for those "TUBELESS TIRES"<P>This has happened before and it is no credit to our judging system. For heavens sake, Judging Committee, get with reality and do something to defuse this mess you have created. Rick is correct. Under the current policy, no one can win a Grand National Senior with a car manufactured before 1953 [or whatever year tubeless tires were introduced], if it is equipped with NEW white sidewall low pressure tires which were introduced in, I believe, 1949. These are the 15" tires as in 6.70x15. <P>Of course you can violate federal law and alter the structure of the DOT approved tire to meet this new judging requirement. <P>Howard<BR>

[Guest]

Ron's last post came on while I was composing mine and I did not read it until after mine was complete. SO----<P>It WAS suggested to me earlier this year by a COMMITTEE MEMBER that you should just "grind off the word tubeless". It wasn't you, Ron.<P>Asking Coker to remove the word "tubeless" from their molds makes no sense. I am certain that, by law, it must be there to indicate that the tire is tubeless. To remove it would render the tire unsaleable as a tubeless tire. So what you are proposing in fact, is that Coker produce TWO entirely different tires in each of the low pressure 15' sizes. The same in construction and both a marked and unmarked format. Double inventory! If I were in the tire business and that was proposed to me I would suggest that someone is out of touch with commercial reality.<P>As an afterthought, suppose you were to get the manufacturer to eliminate the word tubeless. Then what will you do with a 1955 Chevy with non "tubeless" marked tires, when it came from the factory with tubeless. TAKE THE MAXIMUM DEDUCTION????<P>Afterthought #2: What is the policy on my 1955 Buick equipped from the factory with wire wheels. You must have tubes in those tires and they came from thre factory with tubes. What kind of tires should I use. Tube type or tubeless. I believe in 1955 the factory used tube type tires with these wheels. So I now have "tubeless" tires WITH TUBES on the car. This might be a case where you could deduct 15 points no matter what type of tires are on the car. Tube type are incorrect for a 1955 car and tubeless tires should not have tubes in them, at least by the letter of our current rule. <P>Howard<P>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 09-26-2000).]<p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Rick Lay]

Howard - thanks for the insight. I heard the same comment from a committee member - maybe at a different time. I will not argue with him (or anyone else) that "technically," tubeless tires are incorrect. But I do argue that it is not in keeping with the "spirit" of what AACA is all about. I just worry that if some clarification is not made soon, a lot of folks are going to get their feelings hurt who have spent a lot of time and energy on trying to do an authentic restoration with what's available. <P>Ron - speaking as a field judge, I was hoping that someone might bring this up to the committee. I would certainly appreciate some clarification before I am judging again in one of the classes affected. <BR><p>[This message has been edited by Rick Lay (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Rick Hoover]

Rick,<BR> Feelings already have been hurt over this at National Meets. I've witnessed it first hand several times myself and was partialy caught up in it at a couple of Meets. <BR>I brought this subject up back last November here on the forum and Ron was then the only person ( to the best of my memory) with some insight as to what to do and assured me that changes were at hand regarding these matters. <BR>Howard has nailed this one correct as being totally improper. I can assure you that no company in production / manufacturing of vintage tires is going to delete or incorrectly mark a tire for the sake of the AACA judging committee. These rules of tubeless tire labeling deductions must be changed within AACA. I dare not even mention that the next thing is that they start deducting that same tire because it is now made in polyester instead of the original nylon. So far they haven't picked up on that one yet! <BR>And yes, 1949 was the introduction year here for tubeless tires starting with Chrysler.<P>Rick<p>[This message has been edited by Rick Hoover (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Rick Lay]

Rick - I am sorry I missed the discussion last November - I should have gotten on the DF sooner! The first I heard about this was in Ft. Lauderdale earlier this year. I have heard about incidents at other national meets since.<P>An AACA friend reminded me this afternoon of a situation we had in another club which illustrates what I was saying in my last post. Kaiser windshield glass was date marked with the maker's (PPG) logo. As NOS windshields ran out, someone had some new made up by Viracon. Some members argued that we should deduct because the Viracon logo was on it. We finally went back to basics and looked at the purpose of our club: "to encourage the restoration and enjoyment of our cars." That is the "spirit" of which I spoke. Our mission at AACA ("I" think) is to encourage folks to restore their car and bring it out to enjoy and be enjoyed. We are not supposed to chase people away by requiring things that are impractical.<P>That said, I am looking forward to Hershey!

[ply33]

Gee, maybe I ought to toss some mud on my tires where it says "nylon" since the cords should be cotton. (And I am glad they are nylon. Cotton cords would age and made the tires unsafe long before the tread wears out.)<P>And while I am grinding off the "nylon" labels from the tires, I will sand the acrylic paint off the body and start looking for a source for nitrocellulose paint. <P>I thought I was doing good to have found a set of tires with a reasonably authentic tread. They just don't make Goodyear All Weather (diamond tread) tires in 5.25x17 <P>You can get the Goodyear diamond tread in a 16 inch and that was an option for the car. But my car, and most others, did not come from the factory that way. Which is more authentic 16 inch rims with the correct tread on the tire or the 17 rim that came on nearly all cars but now fitted with a different tread tire?<P>I am reminded why I prefer touring. Keeping it authentic and on the road is a challenge. Maybe not as much a challenge as going for a national show prise, but still a challenge. So far each and everyone on the tours I drive is making their own decision as to what is feasible in maintaining originality.<P>And I do try to keep mine original. I like having a smug feeling that my car is more authentic than others on a tour. ("They needed all these modern retro-fits to make their xyzmobile drivable, but my fine Chrysler built car, that is even older than their car, can do it just as it came from the factory!") But I also like the fact that when you show up for a tour nobody deducts for the lettering on the side of your tires. They are just happy to see you there.

[Guest]

I know Father Ron will bring this up at the Judging Committee meeting at Hershey, but just so he is not greeted with a collection of blank stares, I am printing out this entire thread and forwarding it to VP Class Judging, Dave Berg, immediately. Howard<BR>

[ronbarn]

Just don't know how I got myself in this mess. I'm just a website moderator and then all this expectaton. Yes, I'll bring the tire problem up at the Class Judging Committee. Unfortunately the meeting will be on Friday, after our DFer meeting on Wed at Ricks. Bring your comments and I will give them to the committee.

[Rick Hoover]

Ron,<BR>You may just be a website moderator, but you ARE Father Ron! We depend on you to guide us and get the word passed.<P>Tod, <BR>Even if you wanted to run the reproduced 16" Goodyears available, they are incorrect for a '33. Yes, it's a diamond tread, but it has a different side plate mold. That 600 and 650X16 Goodyear, is for vehicles from 1935 though 1942. For years, I was the east coast Goodyear distributor for Kelsey Tire. Your safest bet on using a 17" proper 'brand' tire for your '33 would be the Firestone.<P>Rick

[Guest]

Father Ron ~ Maybe it is better that the Judging Committee meeting IS after the DF gathering. I'll bet you can gather a lot of ammunition there to back up our case.<P>Fellow DF'ers. Put your thoughts in writing for Father Ron. It is better that he not have to try to remember all our points and arguements. Everything up to Ron's 6:36 post of 9/26 is on its way to Dave Berg.<BR>Those who present a logical and well organized and documented case usually carry the day.<P>Go for it Father <P> Howard [who now wishes he could be there] <p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 09-26-2000).]

[ply33]

Rick Hoover,<P>At present I have a set of "Bedford Famous Coach" tires on the car. That was the closest I could find to the Goodyear tread when I last bought tires fifteen or so years ago. They have a diamond style tread pattern but the sidewalls are quite a bit different from the pictures of the Goodyears.<P>The manufacturer of my tires is no longer to be found. Makes me wonder a bit on how good (i.e. safe) they are.... And if they had cotton cords they would have been retired years ago from age alone even though the rubber and tread are still good.<P>I agree that of the tires available today the Firestone would be most authentic to the era if not the car. I suppose that the Firestone is the correct orginal style tire for Fords. Just not for Chrysler products. If I had to buy tires today that is what I'd get.<P>I am keeping my eyes open for correct tires because the tread will not last forever on the current ones.<P>Thanks for your comments about the currently available Goodyears.<P>Tod

[Rick Hoover]

Tod,<BR>Since Howard has already summited the business part of this thread to the 'Boss Man', I guess it's safe to continue to B S some more about antique car tires. It is one of my favorite subjects.<BR>The manufacturer of Bedford tires you say you can not find, was then and still is John Kelsey of Kelsey Tire in Camdenton, MO. I also distributed and retailed Bedfords for Mr. Kelsey while in the business. In their days of production, they were a premium tire, well contructed, very good looking and wore like iron. You have on your car, the best money could buy 15 years ago. A Bedford 'Air Coaster' or 'Famous Coach' whitewall 15 years ago, came in at around $100.00 each retail. (equal to todays standard 16"/17" whitewalls) I always loved selling Bedfords.<BR>Cost and demand has pretty much kept the Bedford molds idle and on the shelves as more and more 'Brand Name' and size molds came onto the market. I would call Mr. Kelsey if you have the time someday and ask John what is going to be available in the near future regarding a 17" Diamond Tread Goodyear or putting the Bedford back into production, as ONLY HE will have the answer to that question. I feel you are quite safe running your Bedfords with that age on them. However, I'd keep that Plymouth under 100 MPH with them on. <P>Rick<p>[This message has been edited by Rick Hoover (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Guest]

Like Howard, I lost my ID, but I'm back. I just don't understand all this discussion on the tubeless tires. For more than 30 years I have attended AACA judging schools and heard the famous statement "we judge cars as they were delivered to the dealers" , either we do or we don't! Everyone on this DF know that we don't. At any AACA Nat. show more than 90 percent of the vehicles on the showfield are not as they were delivered to the dealer. The committee allows for this variation and that variation , so why do we keep using this famous statement,when we know that it's not true.

[Guest]

Hi Red ~ Welcome to the retreads! I won't blow your cover, but we do go back a few years don't we. ~ hvs

[ply33]

Rick,<P>Thanks for "reminding" me of where I bought those Bedford Famous Coach tires. I don't have the receipt and I just assumed that since I could not find them in current catalogs that the maker was out of business. Good to hear that it was Kelsey.<P>I will keep the Plymouth under 100MPH... <P>I will also not overload it with children, pets, and vacation stuff and cruise at 20 MPH over the limit on a hot summer day with under inflated tires. Even it it isn't a Ford and I am not running Firestones.<P>As best my computer model can tell the max speed is just under 80MPH, and I haven't tried to see if the car can do that I have had it up to 65 from time to time but it is much happier near 50. That 4.375 rear end means the engine is really turning over at high speeds.<p>[This message has been edited by TodFitch (edited 09-28-2000).]

[ronbarn]

GOOD THREAD - GOOD COMMENTS - Am sorta looking forward to taking this to the Class Judging Committe, but sure wish I had Ol' Fireball Howard with me. He does get excited doesn't he. His picture will be up at the DFer meeting.<P>Good to hear Rick's comments on the Bedfords. That's what is on my Marmon and they look good even though they are really old.<P>However, I think red t is jerking the chain a little to hard re judging as the vehicles were received by the dealer. Yes, there are certain exceptions, but I would really question his 90% number. However, the exceptions might make an interesting discussion. For example, Whizzers (not the Sportsman, Pacer, or Ambassador) were received by the dealer in a box and then installed on whatever bike the buyer provided. But to show them, they have to be on a bike and running, not as the dealer received the unit.<P> There are some grandfather exceptions, for example whitewall tires. And we do not check the make of sparkplugs although there is the cad plating rule. For tires, the brand is not a concern, only the right size and type of tire.<P>We did have some studies on tires and some changes were made to the Judging Manual last year. Looks like more discussion will certainly follow this thread.

[Guest]

Hi Howard, Don't worry I have no cover.I was registered in my name before.The same thing happened to as did you." Sherrel Thomas "<BR> No Ron, I'm not jerking the chain.I'll post a page of facts later.

[Guest]

Welcome back Sherell. You have to get wiped out one more time to stay even with me. I've been wiped out twice. I think they do that to slow me down a bit. It only works for a short time though. I'm an incorrigable rabble rouser. ~ Howard

[Guest]

Ron ~ Never forget the immortal words of one Leo Durocher, manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, if my memory serves me correctly.<BR>"Nice guys finish last" <P>I get "excited" when it is necessary to get some action. Without a good swift kick where do you think this thing would have gone on its own. <P>Now, get in there and fight for common sense to prevail. `` Howard

[novaman]

Father Ron, in regards to your post the other night, you know how you go into this mess. You volunteered!! We also know you are someone we can openly talk to about AACA stuff and you can get the action taken that we can't as just one person. You speak, people listen. <P>I tough of this quick. you might like it.<P>23 psalms of the AACA DF<P>Father Ron is our shepherd; we shall not want.<P> He maketh us to lie down our wrenches: he leadeth us beside the still motors.<P> He restoreth his car: he leadeth us in the paths of restorations for AACA's sake.<P> Yea, though I surf through the DF's of cyberspace, I will fear no evil: for thou art with us; thy PC and thy posts they comfort me.<P> he preparest a thread for us in the presence of street rodders: thou anointest my head with motor oil; my beer cup runneth over.<P> Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the DF of the AACA for ever.<P>Hope you liked. See ya'll at Hershey<BR>

[Guest]

Yea verily! hvs<P>

[novaman]

His appearance might be slightly shaved on here(see best judges breskfast ever under the general fourm)But, Father Ron does have an answer for us and I'll let him post it.

[virginian]

LET US GO A LITTLE FURTHER ON THIS SUBJECT. WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE TIRES WITH COKER OR UNIVERSAL OR MADE IN CHINA, ETC. AND I'M SURE THERE IS MORE LETTERING ON THE MODERN REPLACEMENT TIRES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TODAY? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE ON "AS IT LEFT THE FACTORY ".

[Dynaflash8]

Grinding off the word "Tubeless" is going from the subline to the rediculous. I don't know how so much of this stuff has been changed since the seventies when most of these rules were put into place. If the size tire from the factory is unavalble, anywhere, the rule has always been since the early days that you use the next best thing; i.e. 6.25x16 tires are not made, so you use either 6.00x16 or 6.50x16. That's easy because most judges wouldn't know better. HVS is absolutely correct, if the car is earlier than 1954 (using my memory here) then you put a tube into the tire. All this stuff about tire sizes was started in my time, 1978-79 when F-G-H size wide whitewalls were popular and Universal and others were making the correct sizes. <BR>Now for a new subject, almost. Late 1960s and early 1970s cars were offered with radial tires. Larger cars had H78x15 bias, or H70x15 wide oval or HR78x15 radials. None, and I repeat, none of those tires are made today, by any manufacturer. Other sizes available were Michelin radials of 215 or 225 or 235x15, but none of those had the P in front, or the R70 or R75 behind the 225. They aren't available either. A P225R75/15 is then, the closest tire size made today.<BR>Seems like we need some more thought about where we've been, where we are, and where we're going here.<BR>

[Guest]

When restoring my 1948 Mercury Coupe, I could not find the proper 6.50 x 15 Firestone Whitewall Tires. After talking with Coker tire, I realized, they are not available! They don't make them, and the closest I could get was the 7.10 x 15. The problem with these is that they say tubeless on the side. I've showed the car at an Early Ford V-8 meet, and won Dearborn with it. Any car person, knows that this is the only tire you can get, so to take off points on a correctly restoed car just because the tires say tubelss is absolute nonsense. This rule should be changed, if it is not already.

[ronbarn]

Hokay - I'm back from Hershey where I attended the Judging Committee meeting. Regarding this thread here are the results.<P>1. Grinding the word Tubeless, or any other words or letters off of the tire will void any warrantees and should not in any way be construed as AACA policy or recommendation<P>2. If a tire has the Tubeless markings and is installed with a tube, there should be no deductions. This is consistent with an earlier post by hvs. This has always been the Judging Committee position, it has never changed, we are not "way off base".<P>3. The as they came from the factory has always been relative to size of tire and basic construction. This criteria does not include make of tire.<P>4. For tires sizes that are no longer available, use the closest size available with the same type construction.<P>The AACA Judging Committee establishes the criteria and does their best with the judging schools to educate the judges - an individual action by a field judge does not necessarily mean that AACA criteria has changed.

[Dynaflash8]

Ron: I'm restoring a 71 Riviera. On the inside of the glove box are listed all of the available tire sizes; which are more than those listed in the brochure. Radials are listed as HR78x15. Other tire sizes are H78x15 narrow whitewall bias and H70x15 wide oval. Also listed are radials with a Michelin size of 215R15 and 225R15. 7.75x15 is listed but not in red line which is available. White is not available. So, none of the sizes are available today, repeat, none. It would be dangerous and foolish to use a smaller tire that is avialable, i.e. F70x15 wide oval or a 4-inch whitewall H78x15 bias ply. Therefore, the correct size is (or should be) P215R7515 or P225R7515 radial. I saw such a tire deducted on a 72 Riviera in Florida two years ago. I hope that kind of mistake won't happen again.<BR>F <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ronbarn:<BR><B>Hokay - I'm back from Hershey where I attended the Judging Committee meeting. Regarding this thread here are the results.<P>1. Grinding the word Tubeless, or any other words or letters off of the tire will void any warrantees and should not in any way be construed as AACA policy or recommendation<P>2. If a tire has the Tubeless markings and is installed with a tube, there should be no deductions. This is consistent with an earlier post by hvs. This has always been the Judging Committee position, it has never changed, we are not "way off base".<P>3. The as they came from the factory has always been relative to size of tire and basic construction. This criteria does not include make of tire.<P>4. For tires sizes that are no longer available, use the closest size available with the same type construction.<P>The AACA Judging Committee establishes the criteria and does their best with the judging schools to educate the judges - an individual action by a field judge does not necessarily mean that AACA criteria has changed. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>

[Guest]

jal48 ~ Unless I am very much mistaken the 1948 Mercury came equipped from the factory with 6.50x16 inch tires, which means the car had 16" wheels, NOT 15". Therefore 6.50x15 tires would be incorrect even if you could find them. Ford used 6,00x16 and I believe Merc used the 6.50's. The 7.10's were not introduced until 1949 along with the 6.70's, and ALL were 15". It was not uncommon in the late 50's and later for people to switch to 15" wheels on these cars as the 16" tires became unavailable. I know of a 1939 Packard, a 1940 LaSalle and a 1948 Pontiac, all converted to 15" wheels for that reason.<BR>Get the correct wheels and you will have no trouble finding the correct tires. ~ hvs

[Guest]

Father Ron, The WHOLE Judging Committes may NOT have been "off base" on the tubeless tire issue, but the committee member who suggested to me that the word "tubeless" should just be ground off WAS indeed off base. As I mentioned on an earlier post, there was definitely some confusion which needed to be addressed. Does anyone think this issue would have been brought up and addressed by the Committee had a few "bombs" NOT been thrown on this forum? I made the "off base" statement and I stand by it on an individual basis.<P>OK, the matter has been addressed and clarified. I now hope it will be addressed in future judging schools as there is SOME confusion among SOME judges.<P>Getting things moving in the right direction is my goal. hvs<P>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 10-09-2000).]<p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 10-09-2000).]

[Dynaflash8]

No, not 30 years. Twenty-three years ago I took over teaching judging from George Liddel, and I never taught that. As delivered from the factory, WITHIN REASON. In those days many sizes were not made by anyone; and that is still true today, but to a lesser extent. AACA never deducted for the "DOT" markings required by law, or the name Coker or Universal. As I said earlier, and I started it, we deducted for letter tires in 15 inch sizes that were available in 1978 and much less expensive than 6.70x15 or 7.10x15, and people were using them. From there things seem to have gone to an extreme. However, with well over 100 judging credits, I've never known of a case where anybody took of points for the word "tubless" or the name of the company or the DOT marking. If it is being done, somebody needs to tell somebody to "get real".<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by red t:<BR><B>Like Howard, I lost my ID, but I'm back. I just don't understand all this discussion on the tubeless tires. For more than 30 years I have attended AACA judging schools and heard the famous statement "we judge cars as they were delivered to the dealers" , either we do or we don't! Everyone on this DF know that we don't. At any AACA Nat. show more than 90 percent of the vehicles on the showfield are not as they were delivered to the dealer. The committee allows for this variation and that variation , so why do we keep using this famous statement,when we know that it's not true. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>

[Guest]

Mercury did use 15" wheels and tires! It was the Fords that used 16". Most 46-48 Fords came equipped with 6.00x16 or 6.50x16 tires. However, the Mercury's used 6.50x15 in 1948. My car is an early one, and they switched to 7.10x15 in about March on 1948. Because, Coker never had a mold for the 6.50x15 tire, I went with the 7.10 and it is accepeted as correct.

[Rick Hoover]

jal48 is correct on his 15" wheels in 1948. Mercury used a 16" wheel and 600X16 tires in 1939 and 1940, then increased it one size to a 650X16 for 1941. In 1942, they went to the 15" rims with 650X15 tires and continued with them until 1949 when they came out with the new series 710X15 as Howard stated.<BR> The 1949 Ford Custom models began Fords usage of the 15" wheel and 670X 15 tires. However, Fords low end models continued using 16" wheels thru 1952.<P>Rick

[Guest]

Thanks jal48 & Rick. I stand very much corrected and apologize for any confusion I might have caused anyone. This is a renewed lesson to ME and should be for all of us. NEVER TRUST THE MEMORY. LOOK IT UP!! <P>Thanks again, HVS

[Dynaflash8]

QUOTE HVS: This is a renewed<BR> lesson to ME and should be for all of us. NEVER TRUST THE<BR> MEMORY. LOOK IT UP!!<BR>UNQUOTE<BR>I can't help but remember buying a 1955 Ford Crown in 1982. I had a 55 Fairlane Town sedan when married in '59, and drove it many miles.....but I couldn't find the dipstick on the Crown in '82. Yep, don't depend on the memory!!