Judging, as far as tires go?

[Guest Eric Maxwell]

Recently, many customers have said they have been deducted points for not having the correct tires. When I say "correct", I mean right down to being either tubeless or tube type. I know this subject has come up in other forums, but I really would like to know what kind of training is given to people who judge these cars. Obviously, if a certain tire is not being produced, how can a person have the "correct" tires. Which brings me to another point. Some say that an original name tire will not get points deducted, but a tire which brand was not original will. How does this work if a certain size is only available in a non original named tire? I think maybe judges need to learn what is available and what is not. We were always told brand name does not matter, yet customer have told me they did get points taken off. Is there something we can do to educate judges as to what is and what is not available?<BR>I sure would like to hear from a person of authority regarding this subject!

[Guest]

I agree<BR>The tires ,was on my 69 Mach One,when it was brand new are not aveable,of crose they are in the catalog,if you willing to pay for the high priced shipping charge.But unforcnely they are to expiceto buy and ship and mount.

[Guest]

Since when did the concept that the cost of a restoration part should create an exemption from a deduction for an incorrect component become valid.<P>Allyn, how can a part be "not available" and in the catalogue at the same time. What you are saying is that it is not available on the cheap and that you are unwilling to pay the price of the correct tires. So for this, you should not have to do it right?<P>That arguement is something that eminates from the south end of a north bound horse.<P>hvs<p>[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: hvs ]

[Guest]

Ok where can I find the corect tires for my 69 Mach One when it was brand new?

[Rick Hoover]

One of three places.<P>Kelsey Tire at: <A HREF="http://www.kelseytire.com" TARGET=_blank>www.kelseytire.com</A> <BR>This would be for the Goodyear F-70X14 RWL Polyglas 2/2 N/S (no-size) That means the tire size is not in white lettering.) That is correct for the 1969 til 1970 1/2<P>Universal Vintage Tire: <A HREF="http://www.universaltire.com" TARGET=_blank>www.universaltire.com</A> <BR>Here you will find both the Goodyear and the Firestone F-70X14 Wide Oval RWL available to you.<P>Coker Tire: <A HREF="http://www.coker.com" TARGET=_blank>www.coker.com</A> <BR>Available here is the Firestone Wide Oval <BR>F-70X14 RWL<P> Price ranges are from $115.00 for the Firestones to $140.00 for the Goodyears

[Guest Randy Berger]

Since we are discussing tires and judging, I'll throw my two cents in. I run BFG WWW radials on my 56 Packard 400. I paid a good bit more for these tires than the "correct" bias ply junk I was running. It is a safety issue. Those bias-ply tires, (which I believe are not made to the same standard as the originals back in the late 50's), were unsafe and caused the vehicle to be unstable at highway speeds. Yet, I am to be "docked" for maintaining my vehicle at a higher standard than someone running tires made of old tennis shoes. This matter needs to be addressed.

[Guest]

Randy ~ This is an old discussion that has previously been discussed to death on this forum. Suggest you go back and bring up those discussions because I doubt that most of us who were involved previously are going to go around again.<P>I will put in this much however. I do not think that today's bias ply tires are built to the standards of the '50s. If they were, we would not be encountering the conditions we do now. I agree that some of the tires we are getting are CRAP, but not all. I have a '41 Cadillac conv. sedan that I have owned and driven since 1951 [50 years]. It has always had bias ply tires. It drives GREAT, except on <B>GROOVED ROADS</B> <BR>We didn't have grooved roads in the '50s<P>I also own and drive a '55 Buick. It drove so badly on bias ply tires that I put radials on it. What is the difference? The Cadillac rides on Firestones and the Buick had Universals. One is very good and based on my experience the others are junk. However, Universal builds GREAT high pressure tires. I would be curious as to the brand you had on the Packard and whether you were doing much driving on grooved highways? ~ hvs<p>[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: hvs ]

[novaman]

<A HREF="http://www.aaca.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000061" TARGET=_blank>Topic: Radial Tires? </A><P><A HREF="http://www.aaca.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000104" TARGET=_blank>Topic: Judging Question </A> (about half way down the page it were the tires start)<P><A HREF="http://www.aaca.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000058" TARGET=_blank>Topic: "Tubeless" Tires Deduction </A><P>These are the links for those of you that can't operate your Pentium III computers safely because the Pentium IVs are available.<P>I have NO PROBLEMS with driving a car WITH bias-ply tires (have driven several). I learned to drive on radials as bias-ply tires no longer came on car when I was 16. You don't drive a Jaguar at 160 MPH on a traffic packed road . Well bias-ply tires weren't meant to be running 65 - 80 MPH all day either. And if they are that much safer, how comes I had the sidewall blow out of my radial tire on my Chevyy II on the Founders Tour??? huh??? huh??? Can't hear you......(It was properly inflated)

[Tom Deering]

Well stated novaman! Your experience is very close to my experience and observations. My mid 50s hobby cars all have bias ply tires of OEM brand name. (whatever that's worth) This Summer I have had to stay pretty close to home for car related activities; so they were driven to the events. This usually meant they were driven 200-400 miles per day at a sustained speed in the mid 60s for hours on end. There were shorter periods (cooler weather) at 70-75 MPH. Zero Problems. The majority of my friends with the same marque have chosen radial tires. Yeah you guessed it. 13 cars with old fashioned bias ply tires = zero problems. 39 cars with radials = 2 blowouts.<BR> I strenuously disagree with these radial tire proponents. I wish they would stop this B.S. about bias ply tires being unsafe! Radial tires ARE superior to bias ply construction, but those of us to whom authenticity is important pay a very high cost per mile to retain that original appearance. And ---- don't tell me they are not safe just because you can't juggle your double cappachino with one hand and keep the car on a straight course with the other. That is an insult to those of us who logged hundreds of thousands of miles on that obsolete technology called bias ply tires.<BR>Howard; try experimenting with your tire pressure. For my particular cars, 28-32 PSI appears optimum. One final thought on "Rain Groove Wander": In the 70s, I had a set of radials with 7 rows of tread. They would wander dangerously. (Like driving on street car tracks) Cured the problem by changing to a 5 row tread. Apparently tread design can be critical.<P> Tom

[novaman]

Tom, you got it with the be able to hold your double cappachino with one hand and keep the car on track. Number one you shouldn't drink and drive. You might spill it. But mainly, the radails give you a better ride because the sidewalls act like shocks, they handle BETTER (not safer) because the contact spot on the road is bigger along with the flex in the sidewall, and we have improved on tread design. Well tread improvement most of the time. Remember the Goodyear "Flap-O-Matics" the Vector design. <P>One last thought: IF radials are SO MUCH SAFER, how's come we have so many coming apart and flipping Ford Explorers?

[Guest]

Tom ~ I believe the problem rests with the cucumber sandwich with sprouts that they are having with their lattes or cappachinos. It makes it just so hard to drive on those bias ply tires <P>Seriously, I have always operated my bias ply tires at 32 psi, just as I did back in the '50s & '60s. Even back in '49 when the recommended pressure on the new air ride tires was 24 psi, I ran 30 to 32, otherwise they squeeled like pigs and the local gendarmes thought you were going around corners @ 60 mph.<P>I believe that the Firestones on my '41 Cadillac and '51 Chevy are both 7 rib tires and they are squirrely on groved highways. However they are fine on ungroved roads, every bit as good as the radials on my '55 Buick. Solution -- Put down the latte and sprouts, put both hands on the wheel and <B>DRIVE</B> the damned car for a change. The radial tire fanatics have either forgotten how to DRIVE a car or never learned how in the first place. I admit to having radials on one car, but that was to appease the other half of the family.<P>I came to the conclusion some time back that it is the tread design that is causing the poor handling of some bias ply tires. The worst I ever drove were the Denmans with straight grooves. TERRIBLE!!! Next in line were Universals in the 7.60x15 and 6.50x16 sizes. The ribs wore down in some very strange patterns. An entire rib would wear down leaving the one on either side much higher. How would you like to drive a set of those General 11 or 13 rib tires from the '40s on a grooved road. I think it is the tread design on the modern radial that keeps it from being affected by the grooves in the road and not entirely the radial construction.<P>hvs

[Tom Deering]

Gentlemen,<BR> I think this is probably the first time I've seen driver competence addressed on a discussion forum as a requirement for driving bias ply tires. I thought I was the only grouch out here. Bias ply tires do require a more attentive driver. After all, we are turning the clock back ~45 years. I can't expect to jump from my '97 car to the '57 car without making some compensation. By the same token, you couldn't turn back the clock the same number of years from '57 to '17 with making a whole heap of adjustments. BTW I'm still trying to recover from the Model A that I saw on the tour yesterday.<BR>He had 16" radials on '35 Kelsey Hayes. See the kind of "diversity" we live with in California?<BR> Tom

[Guest]

But Tom, did he have a latte holder on the dash? ~ hvs

[Tom Deering]

ERROR CORRECTION<BR>My system won't display a full response for proof reading or allow a complete display for editing.<BR>-----you couldn't expect to go from a '57 to a '17 WITHOUT a whole heap of adjusting------<BR> Tom

[novaman]

Tom, I guess I qualify for the young grouch position. Driver competence for driving bias ply tires is an issue that apparently needs to be addressed on the discussion forum. Like you stated “ Bias ply tires do require a more attentive driver”. I don’t expect to jump from my '97 car or ’95 truck into the '63 4dr that does have radials, without making some compensation, even when my Dad had his ’49 Willys. The cars I was driving are OLDER than me, and the bias-ply tires preceeded my days of learning to drive. <P>If you want to show put on the bais-ply if you don't want the deduction. If you want the radials to ride, fine. You can still show the car but be willing to take the points hit. You know the rules.<p>[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: novaman ]

[Guest]

HVS: I keep the pressure in my 48 Packard's Bias plys at 26 and you are right about the squeal! But the ride is much nicer. I have been saying for a while now how I don't seem to have any problem with my drivability with bias plys. I don't jump lanes or wander. <P>I also realize (1) the car is 53 years old, doesn't handle like a 2002 Corvette (2)doesn't accelerate as quick as a Dodge Neon and (3) won't go at 75 mph on the highway. It never would and never will and that is okay with me. I know my car's limits.

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

Hey Chris,<P>Although this thread has gotten away from the original thought, I think you said a mouthful! <P>To me, part of the charm of driving an old car is that it creates an escape vehicle. (No punn intended). When I climb behind the wheel of an old car it's like going back in time. A time when life was simpler and moved at a slower pace. <P>I don't understand why some want to take a vehicle designed to cruise at 30 - 40 MPH and are unhappy when they can't comfortably keep up with freeway traffic! <P>Relax, enjoy life and get away from the rat race. Ask someone on the tours for teens & 20's cars how much more scenery they enjoy at slower speeds!

[novaman]

Hey Ron, I don't even need a car that old. My '63 Chevy IIs do fine. Just a little 6 cyl.,automatic, luxury of power nothing including radio, (oops that's right it is a factory radio delete car) toolin' down the backroads, taking in the scenery and whistlin' classic rock tunes. Ahh the enjoyment of getting lost in the past (or is it the future for me? The car is older than me. ) and leaving the hustle of modern day life behind. <P>I went on the Founders Tour an one of the parts I enjoyed the most was just driving my car and not being in a hurry to get anywhere.

[Guest]

Novaman ~ For us old pharts, we are older than <B>ANY AND ALL</B> of the cars on Founders Tours. hvs

[novaman]

Alright. I got the point. <P>But remember we did have one driver that was younger than <B>any and all</B> cars on the tour.

[Guest]

I agree with Randy Berger <BR>Radial tires, as long as they are the correct<BR>type for the car they are on from, say Coker Tire. There should be no deduction of points.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Daryl, Shhh! or you will also suffer the droll wit and sarcastic responses I received just for bringing up the subject. You will receive personal insults, doubts about your ability to drive, accusations that you are having a picnic in your vehicle and you shouldn't want to go faster than 50 mph anyway, despite the fact you have a 290 HP, 2 1/2 ton automobile that is capable of sustained speeds well in excess of any posted speed limit. Don't wake up the obviously more intelligent (than any of us), just to agree with someone whom they have already written off. I DO wonder where they get that old gasoline, grease, and other supplies with which they maintain their vehicles. But thanks for the good thought anyway.

[novaman]

Randy, the rules are that if the car came with bias-ply it needs to have them to avoid point deductions. If you can present cold hard facts that there is a real safety problem with them to the national judging committee people then you might stand a chance. I have yet to see a real argument that the bais-ply tires are unsafe. <P>Unregistered User allyn (posted 08-31-2001 05:52 PM) <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>I agree<BR>The tires, was on my 69 Mach One, when it was brand new are not available, of course they are in the catalog, if you willing to pay for the high priced shipping charge. But unfortunately they are to expensive to buy and ship and mount.<BR>(I corrected spelling errors)<BR>All he stated was (I’m not sure)… the tires are not available but the are in the catalog and are expensive. This is an argument for $$$ not SAFTEY.<P>From another thread Topic: Judging Question<P><BR>Roadmaster (posted 05-09-2001 04:44 AM) <P>Now if "they" can show the same common sense in acknowleging that radial tire are safer than bias ply, people could be driving there vehicles with safer equipment. I challenge anyone to dispute the fact that radial tires are not safer. Otherwise they have their heads in the sand. Thought I'd stir the pot a little more. this is sure to get a response from people saying that radials are just cheaper, but not so for wide white radials. Let the thread grow!! <P>My response here is why doesn’t he prove that they are unsafe. Show me some staticics. Someone challenged his post and his reply was:<P>Handling safety in the rain is one excellent example. Some people actually drive their cars daily and don't just leave them in a garage until the next show. Traction in the rain is unquestionably better thus safer. Braking in the rain or on a road that is still wet is decidely better. These performance tests have been done and prove the braking is improved, thus being safer for the driver that deals with these conditions ( drives the vehicle daily). Also when you have bias ply tires and drive on a stretch of road that has ruts or grooves or where roadwork is being done and the pavement is uneven or not very good, the bias ply tire will jerk the vehicle occasionally in a way that could cause a mishap. But the main reasons I believe are the wet condition for braking and handling. I don't think the arguement that you shouldn't drive so fast in these conditions merits much at all because as all know a wet strip of road at any speed can cause a loss of control to some extent. I expect all purists to blow this off, and they will respond to have another set of radials for driving if you want and bias for show. But alot of people cannot afford all this expense. If the radial tires make the vehicle safer than they should be allowed in my opinion. Thanks for letting me state my views. I'm sure people won't support this as much as the one knee rule because "that's the way it's always been". <P>All he seems to have stated here is the bias-ply tires are better handling. Everything else could be handled by not over driving the car for the road conditions. I have had a truck hydroplane on me and a car to do the same while rounding a curve. Unfortunately I ended up in a guy’s yard with the car. Both vehicles had RADIALS. I have driven in the rain with bias-ply tires. No problems stopping or hydroplaning. If this guy has a problem about tires following grooves, he needs to drive on some of the roads and bridges in NY and PA. Radials will also follow the grooves!!<P>Later he posted:<BR>“I see oldmotorcycles point. It is just a sore spot with me that I get carried away. I did get some info on the safety differences but it is not really worth posting it. It is about the sidewalls flexibility and the handling differences. I guess my frustration is not having enough money to show and win, and drive for fun. My apologies for my outburst”<P>Note the phrase “I did get some info on the safety differences but it is not really worth posting it. It is about the sidewalls flexibility and the handling differences. “ Seems like he couldn’t come up with substantial statistics proving that radials are that much safer to really make a case for them.<P>Your own post reads:<P>“Since we are discussing tires and judging, I'll throw my two cents in. I run BFG WWW radials on my 56 Packard 400. I paid a good bit more for these tires than the "correct" bias ply junk I was running. It is a safety issue. Those bias-ply tires, (which I believe are not made to the same standard as the originals back in the late 50's), were unsafe and caused the vehicle to be unstable at highway speeds. Yet, I am to be "docked" for maintaining my vehicle at a higher standard than someone running tires made of old tennis shoes. This matter needs to be addressed.”<P> It seems your argument here is “unstable at highway speeds”. I know of plenty of guys driving Corvettes “at highway speeds” without stability problems. I’ve driven my Dad’s 1949 Jeepster and my own car with bias-ply “at highway speed” without stability problems. <P>Show us some FACTS not tell us opinions as to why they are unsafe.<P>As my earlier post stated I had tire problems on the Founders Tour. I blew out the sidewall on a radial tire on my car. And had TWO trailer tires (radials) separate. Guess what kept me going!! TWO DRY ROTTED from hell BAIS-PLY tires. They were the only spares I had to carry with me. The one actually has gaps pushing an eighth inch!! It ran 200 miles for me and I had about 100 miles on the other tire. <P><BR>this forum isn’t about who is more intelligent than who or downgrading anyone. We all are entitled to our opinions. This is still America (or at least on my end since this is the Internet). <BR> <BR>This is written offline and i'm just copying it to the post.

[Guest]

OK< I know this is a well discussed subject, and I don't get on as often as I should to get in early, but my questian is: I should have bias ply, brand name of factory supplier. I have Radial of brand name supplier, now, how many points are deducted? all or some. I have radial, ok, but I have correct manufacturer for the year, and style. Just wondering??? Thanks.

[Guest]

ez ~ You would lose 3 points per tire for the radials. It is the same as having no tires on the car, since the tires on there now did not exist at the time the car was built and therefore could not have come on the car.<P>There is no redeeming value in having radials of the same brand as the original tires, because AACA does not require that the tire be of any particular brand, just the same size and construction as the original. Cornell bias ply tires of the correct size would be acceptable even though they certainly never came on the car from the factory.<P>In AACA judging, it's the tire size and construction that matters, not the brand. ~ hvs

[novaman]

actually, only the tires per axle have to match each other and the spares match each other. (2brand "x" on front, 2brand "y" on the rear, and dual mount spares brand "z". Most people though if showing a car would normally have all the tires matching. Brand name doesn't matter in AACA.

[Guest]

To go a little further with the information put forward by novaman, the rule about tires matching in pairs dates back to much earlier times when we were judging only pre 1936 vehicles.<P>As an example, my 1924 Buick came equipped, according to the owner's manual, with "straight line" tires on the front, "non skid" tires on the rear and a spare rim mounted on the rear of the car. There was no tire on that rim, and it was up to the owner to provide a tire. I imagine many dealers mounted a tire before delivery as a convenience to the buyer and a way to make a buck. Therefore, there was no way the fronts could match the rears, and it was unlikely that the spare matched anything. <P>Immediately after the end of WWII, many new cars were delivered with only 4 tires mounted on the road wheels and a spare wheel with no tire in the trunk. In that case the 4 road wheels would match, but the spare likely was different, maybe only an old tire from the owners garage.<P>It seems reasonable that our judging rules should consider that the "matching in pairs" rule should apply only to pre WWII cars. Trucks are another story. Did bikes always have matching tires? If not, how can a "matching in pairs" rule apply there?<P>Am I opening a can of worms here? ~ hvs

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

YOU, Howard, open a can of worms? <BR>Wouldn't that be a little out of character?

[ted sweet]

i live in Gloversville, NY is there an active chapter in Sharon Springs?

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

Hey Teddy,<P>I am proud to say that the Schoharie Valley Region of the Antique Automobile Club of America is alive and well, quite active and meets every month in Cobleskill, NY (12 miles south of Sharon Springs). Contact me for more info.