radials or bias ply?

[Shawn Miller]

I know there are radials available for Full Classics now but have hesitated to go that way more from an authenticity point of view.<P>My concern also has to do with the mechanics of running radials, which i feel may be incompatible with a good many suspension systems of the era. <P>i just got a 41 cadillac 62 series and felt this might be a car that could run radials without damaging the suspension. Any input from others? Has anyone run radials on this model? what have been your experiences?<P>Shawn Miller<BR>Indiana Region

[Guest]

Hi Shawn:<P>First, please be sure you send me an application to join your Region of the CCCA....see..I have this great Sears Riding Mower...heh...heh...couldn't resist that.<P>As for your question about radials....hopefully this info. will be useful to you.<P>First, a little background. I have been an automobile abuser since I first snuck off with my dad's '36 Packard "120" looking for mischief, agreeable girls, etc....in the late 1940's. I have owned a number of truly wierd surface vehicles, including, but not limited to my '36 American La France (which is a 800 cu. in overhead cam V-12 fire engine-drove it to New York and back to attend a national fire engine meet)...My '38 Packard Twelve (which is bone stock except for a high speed rear axle), etc..etc. Even at my advanced age, my personal belief is there are two places for a gas pedal....idle...(and only long enough to let a good looking "honey" climb aboard....! and WIDE OPEN...(anything in-between is for chickens....! ).<P>Bottom line - I think I have a pretty good idea how cars we are now interested in as "collector cars" handled on LEGITIMATE bias tires back when they were simply used cars.<P>What I am about to tell you should not be interpeted as depreciating the valuable service the "collector tire" people such as Coker perform for us. Trouble is...the present "repro" bias tires simply do not behave in service, for those of us who like to go out and beat up on our cars, the way the bias tires that were available up thru the late 1950's did. <P>Because of dangerously sloppy handling, I must have pulled the suspension apart on my Packard Twelve three times before I finally gave up - on the modern "repro" bias tires, it was "hunting", couldn't corner worth a damn, and at anything over a steady 60 mph I got severe tire heating, which resulted in several spectacular blow-outs (no damage..luckily). Of course my suspension was fine. Incidentally, it took upwards of 10 oz. to balance some of the modern "collector/repor/bias" tires, others required more than 5/32 "truing", which tells you a lot about why they should only be used on "display" cars.<P>If you look thru Hemmings, you will find several vendors selling what they claim are "authentic looking" wide whites in various collector car tires. I purchased a set for my Packard Twelve. <P>It was terrific to get my Packard Twelve back. It now handles the way it is supposed to. No more "plowing" in hard turns, no more swaying and "hunting", and of course that velvet ride the car had when running "original' style bias tires ( I still have one as a sample)...is back.<P>Incidentally, they balance out at less than an ounce each ( I have a very expensive precision wheel balancer ) and are perfectly round, and the 7:50 x 16 size I was supplied with is physically the same size as the original 8:25 x 16 the car is "spec'd" for.<P>Bottom line - I have no explanation why so many of the current bias collector tires perform so miserably. I am convinced radials ARE the answer for anything other than a "car show trailer queen". <P>I have no idea why people would say a radial is harder on a suspension or a wheel than a bias tire. <P>The greater flexibility of the side wall of a radial is going to spread incoming "loads" more equally on the wheel rim, lessening strain on the wheel rim ( bear in mind not all wheels are of the quality "spec'd" by Packard for its twelve cylinder series cars, so I would not be surprised at failures in lessor cars...but "you get what you pay for".<P>The greater flexibility of the side wall of a radial is results in MUCH cooler wheel temps, which also helps your brakes. The smoother ride and inputs should make life easier for your suspension, too.<P>I strongly recommend you run, not walk, to the nearest mail-box, and mail your check for a set of "wide white" radials for that '41 Caddy 60 S. I had one...and..this is hard for a Packard fanatic to admit...but if it was 1941...and I were shopping for a new car...my first choice would be one like yours. <P>Good luck - and let me know what happens....(now about your next Region meet....wait till you guys see my riding mower's delux plastic wheels...! )<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

typo error....I saw that your '41 Cad is a '62 Series...I had a '60 S.....no question about it...they are MAGNIFICENT cars...you will LOVE the way yours will drive AND LOOK with a modern set of "wide white" radials.

[Guest]

Shawn: Before investing in a set of tires I suggest you do some research as to the "original" correct size of the tire. In my case I contacted the publishers of something called "The Tire Guide" which is the industry bible on tires. Their web link is:http://www.tireguides.com/<P>Anyway, I was able to find out the "original" tire size for my car (diameter, cross section, etc)since sizing standards were changed a couple of times over the years. Seems there was a 1934 standard and then it was changed in the early 60's, meaning a 700X15 tire size of today was not necessarily the size under the 1934 standard. (Don't jump on me guys since I am just repeating what I was told). <P>I chose bias ply for my Packard mainly because (according to Michelin and Goodyear) the original rim was never designed to take "side flex" of a modern radial and could result in rim cracking or the tire coming off since the "lip" was not designed for a radial tire. Second, the size of the radial I would have to use would have made it near impossible to change a rear tire without dropping the rear axle. Also, clearance inside the wheel well would have been diminished as well. <P>While this is a personal decision, I suggest you use the information highway to obtain as much information before making this decision (no matter which way you go).

[Guest]

Chrs J's comments as to weak wheels/rims may be applicable for non-classic ( i.e. low quality cars with questionable quality standards). I never was much interested in the ordinary cars of ANY era, so I can't comment with any authority on them. <P>Shawn, go ahead and use radials. As I noted above, you will LOVE the result. You can be confident that Packard and Cadillac had decent wheels. As is the case with ALL motor car manufacturers, they did not make their own wheels. Packard used MOTOR RIM AND WHEEL as a wheel supplier, since the earliest days. I am not sure where Cadillac got its wheels, but you can bet they meet the SAE/ASTM standard.<P>I do not know when the modern concept of a "drop center" wheel came in - I know my '34 Packard Super Eight had a wheel of "drop center" design confirming to SAE/ASTM tech standards, as, of course, did my '38 Cad. V16, and my '41 Cad. Fleetwood. <P>I have no idea when the ordinary car's wheels came into compliance with SAE/ASTM wheel safety standards.<P>Please, readers, remember, this site is for people focused on the CLASSICS. That means the FINEST cars of the classic era. Ifa car is a legitimate classic, you can be fairly sure it is of the highest quality (it is true that the CCCA standards have lowered in recent years, but I am not clear how this is applicable to wheel standards).<P>Technical info. relevant to CLASSIC cars may NOT be relevant to ordinary old cars, and, as the above "post" points out (again...assuming the info he "heard" is correct, and, again, I have NO idea where people get the idea that the "softer" more flexible side wall of the radial would "stress" a wheel rim as much as a bias tire) attempting to apply info. provided in here, applicable to CLASSICS, to ordinary old cars, MIGHT raise safety issues.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Shawn,<BR>I put new a new set of 700 x 15 B. F. Goodrich Silvertown whites on my 1941 Cadillac 60 Special and I love them. I decided to switch from Firestones on the advice of Lee Barthel. The car rides and handles great at 35 mph, as well as 70 mph. I recommend a heavy duty tube and extra tube talc. If you cannot find tubes with large diameter stems, you should install a tube adapter to narrow the hole in the rim. Also, inspect new tires for anything inside that could wear tube (ie. tags or globs of rubber).<p>[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: JOHN MERENESS ]

[Guest]

Gentlemen, I heard that if you use an inner tube in a radial you loose the superior riding qualities of the radial. Since some old rims have trouble holding air in a tubeless tire, people may use a tube. Someone may know more.

[Guest]

RE INNER TUBES and RADIAL / TUBELESS TIRES<P>Those of you who have classic cars with wire or rivited wheels, you most certainly WILL need to either put a "sealing band" in, or use an inner tube. You would do well to have the wheels examined by a shop specializing in confirming your wheels meet SAE/ASTM standards for wheel rim security.<P>Those of you who have classic cars from the mid-1930's or later, with MOTOR RIM AND WHEEL or KESLEY HAYES standard welded "disk/drop center" wheels need read no further. You can use tube-less tires and/or radials without concern.<P>If you are planning to DRIVE your classic at anything APPROACHING modern speeds on warm days, DONT USE A TIRE UNLESS IT IS A RADIAL that meets modern DOT standards. PERIOD. A high-speed blow-out is no fun ( I've been lucky..just a little sheet metal damage as the tire came apart).<P>If you HAVE to have an inner tube in your radial because of air leakage at the rivits, use ONLY a tube specifically labled "for use in radial tires". <P>Heat destroys tires. FAST. While MOST of the internal heat build-up that WILL blow out your bias tires comes from the internal construction of the bias tire, SOME of it comes from the friction of the action of the tube inside the tire. <P>Internal heating from use of the wrong (meaning too thick and or too heavy) an inner tube, WILL destroy a radial tire. Again, "dont try and re invent the wheel"...guys !<P>Again, please do NOT assume my comments are valid for anything BUT the highest quality luxury cars we call "classics". Again, I am NOT familiar with the standards ( if any ) that the manufacturers of lesser cars used when setting up their wheel and suspension systems. As others have pointed out, sub-standard wheels typical of the ordinary cars of the classic era HAVE been reported to have failed under the stress of high speed and/or "performance" driving and this HAS occured to users of both bias and radial tires. <P>Just the other day I saw the unfortunate results when some poor fellow tried to catch my Packard Twelve, with an ordinary car of its era, on a long up-grade, here in the desert west. Please...folks...it aint my fault..I did NOT set the engineering standards for the various car manufacturers in the 1930's. Some cars ARE tougher and faster than others...dont blame ME!<P>HINT - if you are taking a classic era (roughly 1928-1925) automobile on a long trip at high speed in the Great American Desert 1) dont try and race people with the big luxury cars of that era....2) have modern radial tires on wheels that meet ASTM/SAE standards, and use the MAXIUM air pressure stated on the tire carcass. 3) carry PLENTY of water....and a "triple A towing card!<P>Those of you who have seen the movies (or video copies) of how Packard, Cadillac, and Pierce Arrow tested its chassis and wheel systems on high speed test tracks can take comfort that the big-engined luxury cars of the1930's that we now call "classics" were built to last, and handle ANYTHING you can dish out. <P>Remember, if you want to know more about technology related to the automobile, the BEST place to start, with concise, easy to read articles, is the journal of the SAE. Any large library should have copies of back-issues. A review of the SAE tech. journals from the classic era will give you a better grasp on the "hows and whys" of automotive engineering.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

typo error...of course the classic era was actually 1925-1942<P>PFH

[Ed Miller]

Peter: As I type this my 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton is having an overdrive unit (Borg Warner R10) installed. This unit first became available in 1932. The car wears 7:50X17 size tires. I know of no radial ply tire of this side available. I expect to be able to cruise up to 70 mph without engine problems (this represents 70% of the maximum engine speed also the connecting rods have insert rather than babbit bearings). Nonetheless I intend to restrict my cruising speed to between 60 and 65 mph. What is your opinion of this cruising speed vis-a-vis over heating tires and blowouts?

[Guest]

I would like to offer a final piece of evidence from a company that is one of the largest manufacturers of "custom rims": <P>"The introduction of the radial tire has had an important and serious impact on rim performance. Due to the special construction of the radial tire, it has a more flexible sidewall, causing more movement in the bead area. This deflection and movement in the bead area, which causes flange walking and rocking, and the added stresses of higher operating pressures, are the major reasons for rim back section failures and flange failures. The radial tire transfers over 75% more stress than the bias tires to the rim base."<P>If anyone would like to visit their site:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.rimex.com/technology.html" TARGET=_blank>www.rimex.com/technology.html</A> <P>Unless Counselor Hartmann can produce anything to the contrary besides conjecture, I rest my case gentlemen.

[Ed Miller]

Thank you, Peter for your input. As a reminder, I also own a 1933 Packard 12 Convertible Sedan. The Packard doesn't need an overdrive. It handles any reasonable speed I care to drive. I've been as high as 70 mph. However I limit my driving to 60 mph. She's my trailer Queen. She only travels about 800 miles per year.

[Guest]

Eddie:<P>Sorry to hear your Packard Twelve is, (using your description) a "trailer queen".<P>Unless your Packard Twelve was subject to poor or no maintainence, and/or a technically inadequate restoration, it should be an absolute joy to drive. Its combination of excellent handling, spectacular (for its day) performance, and ease of operation, should make you just "hunger" to get it out on the road.<P>I disagree with your statement that it "dosnt need an overdrive". Until 1935 introduced the improved connecting rod design and "insert type" rod bearings, Packard Twelve motors suffered the same crippling operating limitations as any other car motor with "poured babbit" rod bearings. You are "pushing your luck" with steady speeds above 50 mph. <P>Bear in mind that while your Packard Twelve, because of its superiority in both design and execution, SEEMS smooth even at high speeds, the laws of physics still apply. With the stock rear axle ratio, your engine is literally pounding itself to death at the higher speeds. An over-drive will reduce engine rpms to surviable levels.<P>Remember, modern cars have MUCH shorter strokes, and much larger rod bearing surface area, in relation to the over-all piston and rod weight, than we have in our classics. At the SAME rpm, the modern engine is putting much less strain into its connecting rod bearing/crank-shaft assembly<P>Trouble is...the RPM isn't the same...your Packard Twelve's motor is spinning faster at 60 mph than the average modern car motor is spinning at 95. <P>Please dont get the idea I am picking on you personally. I am making fun at the "human condition" we are all at times the victim of...we want to say something SO BADLY just to argue with someone, we simply arent concerned with whether WHAT we say makes any sense. If you for whatever reason do not enjoy driving your Packard Twelve very much, and maybe take it up to 60 or 70 just for a few seconds once a year then, in your particular case, an over-drive and/or high speed rear axle gear set, would be a wasted effort. <P>I have an advantage over you, in that my later Packard Twelve, came factory equipped with a MUCH stronger connecting rod design, of better grade steel, and a better design for extreme loads, AND came factory equipped with copper-lead "insert" type connecting rod bearings. Even with this advantage, I still elected to re-gear it, so I could drive it at sustained extreme speeds without worrying about excess loadings on those vital engine parts.<P>It is possible, if you "special order"...to order a DUMP TRUCK today, with gearing as "low" as your Packard Twelve came with. With your "special order" will also come a warning about sustained freeway driving. <P>C'mon..you guys..stop arguing with me...READ UP on auto technology....from technical experts..not 'back yard' guessers, or sales people.<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Chris :<P>Thank you for "posting" the interesting article on wheel rims (from the RIMEX Co. dealing with the question as to whether it is safe to use radials on classic era wheels). We all benefit when a fellow chatter takes his time to help us with new info, even if it clashes with our pre-conceived opinions. <P>I would have to agree with everything in that article IF if my classic's wheels had "side-rings", and/or "knurled rim sides" .<P>Trouble is...the article you submitted "to show how wrong I am"....is irrelevant to our discussion answering the original "poster's" question.<P>I think what is confusing you, is you are not familiar with automotive wheel technology, and how it evolved. <P>The kind of wheels (separate flange-rim and wheel) the article is referring to, to the best of my knowledge, ceased to be offered by American passenger car manufacturers in the late 1920's. I am not aware of ANY radial auto tire that would fit those rims.<P>Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I can tell us when the ASTM/SAE "standard" for the modern "drop center one piece steel wheel" came in. <P>As I noted earlier, my '34 Packard Super Eight had this "modern type" wheel design, so I was not concerned about wheel safety (remember, folks, repeating my earlier caution...you will need a standard "rubber band leak protector" if your classic has rivited or spoked wheels andyou want to use tube-less tires).<P>I am in the back-country, so I no longer have access to a library with LEGITIMATE technical info. Obvously, RIMEX is trying to scare the hell out of the layman, to sell its wheels. Obviously, IF you knew how wheels evolved, and what wheel systems were available for passenger cars in the classic era, you'd know the warnings of the article you posted, does NOT apply to our discussion here. Again, in my opinion, the best and most comprehensive source to review the evolution of ANY aspect of automotive engineering, is to trace its history down thru the pages of the SAE publication (entitled JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS).<P>I remember seeing the kind of "split rim" design referred to in the article you are quoting, on Rolls Royce cars as late as the mid 1930's. The old "standard wheel" for big trucks was the "ten hole Budd" which was a "split rim". The dangers of the "split rim" type wheel are well known. My '36 American La France fire engine has those damned fool "split rings"....few tire shops will even work on them, they are so dangerous unless you know how to handle them.<P>Fortunately, that type of wheel would not fit on ANY passenger car, and has not been manufactured for truck use for many MANY years ( this old "ten hole Budd was made in 20" and 24" sizes - trucks use a larger diameter version of the same "drop center" one-piece wheel you find on your modern passenger car ("modern"...meaning after around 1930).<P>I am afraid the article has mis-informed you about "knurling". Although no rims that I am aware of, on quality luxury cars of the 1930,s had "knurled" and/or "separate" wheel and rim type wheels, knurling did become a fairly common practice in later years. I re-mounted a tire on a neighbor's modern car recently (built LONG after the "radial" era had arrived, so obviously, that portion of the article is also not applicable).<P>Chris...I am NOT making fun of you...please take my comments in the spirit they are given...to exchange information, so that we may all enjoy a safer, more fun experience with our classics. <P>At the risk of repeating myself ad nasuem, let me still another time repeat my earlier caution...I do NOT know enough about the wheel standards that the cheaper cars of the classic era utilized. I have seen wheels come apart on the cheap cars of the 1930's, even in the "bias tire" days. It is certainly possible that wheel quality of the cheaper cars suffered along with the rest of the car - I just dont know. Again, you get what you pay for - ordinary cars of the classic era did what you paid them to do. It would be unreasonable to expect the same quality and engineering standards in a car that cost ten times as much or more. <P>Face it..folks..there is a REASON why there is a CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA. To celebrate the superiority of the classic car.<P>It isnt nice..it isnt politically correct...but there it is !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Hmm, I thought PH was boycotting this forum. Well, listing to PH is preferable to wedding requests for Classic cars.<P>Re the radials, I installed them on my 1940 LaSalle and have mixed recommendations from having used them for several years and more than 10 000 miles. <P>My car, like many makes from the late thirties, has 15" wheels that the original owner converted to (from 16") in the 50's. I found coming up with a radial with enough circumference to allow me to cruise at 60 MPH was also a rather fat tire. Result, the steering is heavy and I don't care at all for the bulky, "street rod" look of the radials. Perhaps this won't happen with the 16 in rims, I'm not sure. <P>Yes, the car steers better, but it really steered OK except for dealing with longitudinal grooves with the bias plies I had on it before. And the slow speed steering was much lighter. <P>I am quite unimpressed with the quality of the tires I got (Diamondbacks). They are really a cheap light truck radial with a wide whitewall glued on it. I see considerable yellowing around the edges of these whitewalls. These radials were expensive, I think next time I would buy a good reproduction bias ply, like a Silvertown or Goodyear. <P>BTW, mine are tubeless and the rivited rims hold air just fine. I guess years of paint and rust managed to seal them, I never seem to have to add any air to these tires.

[Guest]

Pete: While you are aware that I respect your opinion and have even asked your opinion of several technical topics I wanted to respond to your follow up post. My post was not to scare anyone and my suggestion to "do one's homework" applies to both a "Full Classic" and an "Ordinary Car". It is a matter of common sense and safety to do one's homework before making a decision. <P>However, I am surprised that you would be "fairly sure" (your words counselor)Classic Era Rims are of the highest quality, thereby implying they would be able to accomodate radials. Quite a blanket statement isn't that????? Are you sure or aren't you counselor? Please make it a statement of fact and not conjecture since someones life may be riding on this "fairly sure" statement. <P>Also, in your last paragraph you "have no idea" where information pertaining to the flexing of the sidewall and the resulting effect on the rim comes from. Yet I gave you two references, both being major tire manufacturers. (feel free to call them yourself as I did). Yet you speculated without providing even one reference from any "Major" tire manufacturer to the contrary. Have you made such an inquiry? Can you provide such information Mr. Hartmann or not? <P>The original point of my post and this follow up remains the same: Do some homework (sources are out there)and make an informed decision.

[Guest]

Hi Chris:<P>I must have literally a TON of articles and copies of articles still packed away, that I will not be able to get to until our new home is ready...good 8 to 10 months.<P>In the mean-time, if you are seriously interested in the tech. data on automotive wheels, or, for that matter, any other aspect of automobile technology, let me again suggest to you the Journal of The Society Of Automotive Engineers. <P>Bear in mind that many of the recommendations and "warning instructions" of modern industry, are "litigation" driven, rather than driven by any technical logic. (Dont you just LOVE it when you open a new eletrical applicance, to find that you 1) shouldn't operate it in your swimming pool...and/or 2) shouldnt try and insert it into your rectum.....!<P>If you think about how the forces of road impact are transferred to the wheel, you can readily see it is not rocket science - the more you cushion the impact, and the more you spread it around, the less stress on any given area. <P>As I noted previously, my comments in here should be taken in context with this particular "site". This site is for people who are concerned with CLASSIC cars.<P>Perhaps I should have made it clear ( I thought I did...but I will repeat it again ) ...I have not been interested in the ordinary cars of ANY era, (except to make a fast buck off em when I worked in a garage catering to older cars in the middle to late 1950's) so other than hearing the same rumors and seeing the same articles as you, I am not that conversant on their technical standards. From pesonal experience, I have always felt the lower class cars of pre-war days were good buys for their money, but "you get what you pays for". With a Ford, Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, etc, costing a sixth or less than what a big classic would have sold for, there is NO question in my mind that they could not possibly have been built to the same standards of the expensive luxury cars. I have personal knowledge of these "cheapo" cars spliting their wheel rims wide open, even given the lower speeds and bias tires of that day. <P>So again - those of you who are NOT classic car buffs - do your own research as to whether your particular "favorite" is going to meet your needs. And dont be angry with ME...if your NON classic dosn't meet MY needs...!<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Eddie...you lucky devil...sounds like you have quite a car ( even if it is only a Cadillac......!<P>I have not kept up on what is avail. in the market these days for classic car tire sizes. My '34 Packard Super Eight used the same size you have...but it had poured babbit bearings and stock rear axle gearing, so I never took it much over 55 mph.<BR>Interesting question....<P>The laws of physics may just help you out. That size, if I recall correctly, runs at a higher pressure than the later "super baloon" tires in the smaller wheel diameters.<P>The higher tire pressure ( I would guess about 40 lbs for yours) coupled with the much larger diameter, means your tires spin a LOT slower than a smaller wheel....and the side-walls flex a lot less.<P>If I were you, and you found there is NO CHOICE but to use a repro collector car tire, I would 1) mount them and drive around for a few days for them to settle<BR>2) take the wheels and tires to a tire shop that has a "tire truing knife" (Bob Turnquist has one in his shop...do you live near Morristown, New Jersy..?) and get them properly "rounded" and balanced (most "collector repro BIAS tires I have seen are terribly out-of-round and out-of-balance).<P>After you get them "rounded" and balanced, then just watch your tire temps. I would run the MAXIMUM tire pressure the casing recommends ( DOT rules require it to be engraved in the tire data on the sidewall) (if the tire does NOT have a DOT status imprint...that dosnt necessarily mean the tire is only good for "trailer queens"...just use your head...dont get carried away in high speeds...and LOOK YOUR TIRES OVER after each high speed run, watching for signs of over-heating and/or separation.<P>You sound like you've been gobbling up the same info. and technical journals I have...bet you will do just fine !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter:<P>No offense taken, believe me. <P>My original response to Shawn's question has been the same. Do your homework and make an informed decision. The site posted here with some very good techincal information was one of several that can be found with the click of the mouse. The information is out there. <P>But I am curious about your last post's paragraph 5 about split rims in the late 20's. Isn't that part of the classic era too? Once again, research for the owner comes into play.<P>Also, I thought they provided an excellent analysis how rim stress is increased due to the radial design - complete with pics!<P>BTW: I prefer a lively exchange of ideas and information. All I have done is present some avenues of obtaining information.<P>[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Chris NJ ]<p>[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Chris NJ ]

[Guest BillP]

Chris NJ~<P>You are attempting the impossible. You are using logic, documentation and truth in a discussion against fable, opinion and magic.<P>Rather than respond to the facts, you are instructed to either, "don't blame me," or "go look it up". Failing that, then you just "don't understand," or have "resentment against the classics". <P>I have concluded that there is no sense in presenting a sensible, documented, historically and scientifically accurate piece in this space in response to a PH fable. <P>Of course, the unfortunate situation is that all these myths wind up in the archives and thus acquire a patina of respectability. That, in addition to this militant divisiveness, is not good for the hobby. <P>Chris, if you have a better idea, let me know. ~BillP

[Ed Miller]

Peter, My Packard has the highest (albeit not very high) speed rearend available when she was a new auto...4.06:1. Also the connecting rod babbit material has been replaced with inserts. Further, she has hardened valve inserts to protect against valve recession. She's a premier 100 pointer and was judged the best twelve cylinder convertible Packard at the Packard Centennial (okay, She tied for first place.) I enjoy driving her. But I also enjoy the fact that she is perfect. The Cadillac will be driven with a vengence...after all she's only a Cadillac!

[Guest]

ED; I certainly enjoyed driving your 32 Cadillac. I must admit that I was very nervous when I got behind the wheel at first. I ejoyed every moment of it except when I clashed the gears twice. I will say this that Cadillac is very nice car. But when we went for a ride in the Packard I sure could tell the difference between the two. I would have to say the 33 is the winner hands down.

[Guest]

It isn't fair to compare a Cad V-8 of Eddie's year with a Packard Twelve of that year. They were designed (and priced) for different markets. It would have been far fairer to compare a Cad V-8 and a Packard STANDARD Eight, or a Cad V-16 with a Packard Twelve. <P>This is NOT to say that the Packard STANDARD EIGHT or the Cad V-8 of the early thirties as a bad car...they were GREAT cars...for the money. But they cost about HALF as much as the "big" classics - it is absurd to expect a upper mid-income car to have the same quality feel and power of one of the big-engined classics.<P>Had you been fair, '53...you would have compared Ed's Packard Twelve with The Cad V-16. They were about the same engine displacement, with the Packard Twelve having a bit of an "edge" in performance owing to its much more modern (and much larger induction valume) down-draft carburaton. How in hell could you expect to compare a 350 cu. in Cad V-8 with a Packard Twelve, displacing about 100 cu. in more..?<P>While I am obviously a Packard Twelve fanatic, I enjoy the engineering and quality of ALL the big classics. The very nice upper mid. income class cars..? Heck..if that is allt you aspire to....that is your business.......<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Chris J.<P>Again, I was not making fun of you. I think it is wonderful that you are interested enough in these issues to do a little research. Just so happened, you didn't have the technical background to understand what you were reading is hog-wash ! Nothing wrong with that...we all have to start somewhere ! <P>I have an unfair advantage over you in that I was playing with the big engined classics when they were still old worth-less used cars. Big deal...dosnt mean I am any smarter than you...just an accident of my time of birth !<P>Again, I do not know where RIMEX got the idea that "split rims" were still in service for passenger cars in recent years. Perhaps one of you has access to an "Options Available" list for the big classics of the 1930's, and can tell us if it would be possible to "special order" an unconventional wheel like that.<P>Remember, my comments were in response to a guy with a '41 Caddy. I would bet my favorite BRITNEY SPEARS DANCE VIDEO poster that the ONLY wheels you could have ordered on your new Caddy then, were standard "drop center" one piece wheels that met the SAE ASTM standards.<P>Again, you've got to be a little more suspicious - that RIMEX thing was clearly "litigation / sales driven". <P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

BillP..<P>Instead of whining like a spoiled, resentful, nasty child, how about being a little more friendly, and giving your thoughts WITH PRECISION on exactly where you think I led our readers astray.<P>Remember, the original "post" I responded to, was a guy with a '41 Cad. Have you ever actually SEEN a '41 Caddy wheen up close? Or that of any of the classics ? If you did, do you understand what you were looking at ? Can you explain to us WHAT relevance YOU think the RIMEX article has to Miller's question about his '41 Caddy..? <P>If you are NOT willing to join us in a friendly exchange of legitimate technical info, perhaps you can find a "fight site" where you can work out your hostilities..?<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter: When I have more time a responce willbe in regards to your reply to my post.

[Shawn Miller]

Thanks for the input guys! I think I will keep running my bias plys since they don't really NEED replaced, but will probably go radial after considerable research at some point, when they do.<P>Over the weekend several of us brought our Full Classics to a historic home tour. One guy brought a real nice 36 Auburn Cabriolet and he had installed the same diamondbacks mentioned above on stock wires (16"). They looked pretty good to me, and he was real happy with them. My 36 Auburn always followed every rut in the road with lesters.It also felt like the front wheels were miles ahead of me, but maybe it was just that long hood! HA!<P>Anyway, he said the handling was much improved with these tires. <P>I remember when he had them installed at my mechanics shop and the guys there mentioned that these were merely truck tires, as mentioned above.<P>I think it depends on the car. the 36 Auburn is a fairly modern car especially compared to a 20's car, and so is the 41 caddy, so in these cases radials probably work better than on earlier cars.<P>Shawn

[Guest]

Shawn - dont take offense...but I have some reservations about the quality of Aburn cars - in large part, because I dont know much about them. In particular, I do not know what kind of wheels they used. The "warnings" of the RIMEX article that Chris pointed out, MAY apply and be valid IF the wheels aren't "first class". See if you can see a mfg's stamp. IF it has one of the major mfg's stamps and part no's, AND is of a "modern" ( meaning post around 1930) "drop center" design, with a bead and depressed center section designed to hold the tire tightly on the wheel in the event of tire failure, AND is of a standard "one piece flange, rim, and wheel" design, then, of course the radials will work out fine, and restore the handling your car had when new.<P>I may be starting to bore you guys with my repetative warnings...but again, my interest, my focus, and my knowlege of auto technology is centered around the biggest, heaviest, and highest quality cars of the 1930's that we call CLASSIC cars. My commments should NOT be taken out of context; those of you with the so-called "lesser" cars could get yourselves into serious safety issues, if you listen to me, without first checking out if my info. is applicable to your particular appication.<P>Pete Hartmann<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter:<P>Still no offense taken. But here is a historical fact for you to ponder: Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company "introduced" the "drop center rim" you refer to in 1934. <P>Therefore, your implication that all high end vehicles of the 1930's (classics only) used this rim becomes highly suspect for 2 reasons. First, they weren't introduced until 1934, eliminating cars of the first half of the decade. Secondly, market acceptance of any new technology takes time (in any era). <P>My point is and was: Homework.

[Guest]

Chris - glad to see we agree on "homework". I couldn't agree more. That is why I keep trying to refer people to competent engineering data, rather than "back-yard mechanic's old wive's tales".<P>PFH<P>P.S. If you will re-read my "posts" above, you will see I under-scored that I am not clear as to when the "modern" wheel came in, nor do I know on which makes of cars my information is applicable. Your advise to people wondering how to properly maintain their classics is what I have been screaming about all along...DO YOUR HOMEWORK !<P>I still havnt figured out where the people who wrote that RIMEX article got the idea that cars had separate rims, wheels, and/or "flanges" after the early 1930's...!<P>PFH

[Guest]

Pete: Yes we do agree. Now in Rimex's defense, I did notice in my 1941 Audel's New Automobile Guide that they refer to the drop center rim as being the "prevailing" rim used on cars. <P>Interestingly, they also caution of "an extensive variety of rim types" besides the drop center type. They also make specific mention of the demountable split ring as being standard equipment on some cars (but do not say which cars). MMMMMMM.

[Shawn Miller]

The Packard 12 isnt the greatest car of all time. To be honest it isnt even on my top ten list!<P>OK I said it! let lightning strike me dead! yes the packard 12 is a great car but one would have to be considered myopic to think that nothing else holds a candle. <P>the word "stodgy" comes to mind. <P>While my Auburns and 41 caddys may be considered "lesser" by some snobish CCCA members, I like them just fine and they are recognised by the club as Full Classics so get off your soap box. this is a multi marque club. You need to be a little more sensitive to the fact that everyone likes different things, is entitled to their own opinion, and that people work hard to keep their cars in good order, even though they only have 6 or 8 cylinders.<P>maybe you could try learning why these cars are considered full classics instead of clinging to 50's doctrine.<P>Shawn

[Idle Swede]

Well put Shawn

[Guest]

( Looks like Shawn didn't read my previous "posts" carefully...the one in which I said something to the effect that it pains me as a Packard owner to admit...if it were 1941..and I were going to buy a 1941 car....I'd buy me a nice Cadillac 60 Special....which is MY "favorite classic" for 1941 !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Hi Chris :<P>I dont care what that book says - I played with a lot of cars from the 1930's...NEVER saw ANY big American classics with wheels other than the standard "one piece wheel, flange, rim "drop center" type.<P>Now...again...to qualify that statement, I do not know what the mfgs. of cheaper cars did, and, as I noted previously,I do recall seeing an early 1930's Rolls with the old "split rim" type wheel, and I vaguely recal some "hold-over" wheels of that type on a couple of early 1930's Lincolns.<P>But again, the fellow who was asking about radials, was asking about a car with a MODERN wheel type. <P>Please do not take this as personal criticism - you are to be commended for your interest in "how things work", and your ingenuity in locating old data. You will have to forgive me for teasing you a bit, over the fact that, at least within the scope of our discussion in here, you got "taken for a ride" by information which was just plain NUTS !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Shawn Miller]

Peter:<P>i am no longer reading any of your posts, i just don't have the time or inclination. in fact if you say radials are the greatest thing since sliced bread, i will stay with bias plys. I think your manner of expressing your opinions pretty much negates them. <P>Please stay off of any threads I start.<P>Shawn

[Guest]

Shawn :<P>Your attitude is unfortunate. Your request (that I not comment on your postings on technical matters relevant to classic cars) would be appropriate for a spoiled teen ager. It has no business in a forum were our primary interest is sharing knowledge useful to those who own and operate classic cars. <P>Because of the safety problems inherent in some "repro" bias tires, and the safety advantages in radials, it would be irresponsible of me not to share my knowledge. It would be also irresponsible for me to keep silent when information is posted in here that is irrelevant to the question at hand.<P>I am sure fellow chatter Chris meant no harm or malice when he disagreed with my discussion, and referred us to the RIMTEX article "on the dangers of using modern radials on "split rim" and/or "separate flange and rim" wheels. His apparent lack of actual "hands on" knowledge of wheel structure of classics of the later era is what led him astray. ( hey...Chris..did you ever actually de-mount a tire yourself..? ) <P>BUT...notice he took my correction of his information the way I would expect any gentleman and fellow car buff to - you might follow his lead and example. <P>Your stated preference for lighter, cheaper, more stream-lined cars is an excellent example of why I personally feel the CCCA made a major mistake and accepting cars and people of your 'ilk'. But that issue is over.<P>Accept what the CCCA is, and what it does. If you are unhappy with CCCA policies, advocate its change thru the proceedures set up for that. My own success in earlier years "fine tuning" our HandBook And Directory, shows it can be done - I found, as I am sure you will, the CCCA National Board eager to listen and learn, and make such changes as it believes are appropriate, desired by the majority of our membership, and in the Club's interest. But if you are unhappy with the individual personal opinions of fellow CCCA members, and wish them silenced, you may be in the wrong era and country, not just in the wrong Club.<P>If you would have read my posts, you would have seen that I share YOUR choice in "favorite cars" for 1941. There is no solution for your unhappiness with the fact that this chat room is open to all CCCA members ( and..apparently, to the general public). If you desire a chat-room where only views that please you are heard, I suggest you start one for that purpose.<P>Bottom line..."you post em...I will comment on them". Deal with it.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

As I would hope a diplomatic member, I appeal to the administartor and move that this forum be closed as it has taken some really nasty turns and has strayed a great deal off the topic. Thank you.