RV Trailer Tires

[SummitPond]

Originally Posted by chuckster57

Well mine have “aged out”, less than 5,000 miles on them in 6 years. ...

Chuckster

Either you take a lot of close-in trips or need to get out more often!

[flybouy]

Originally Posted by Local150

I recently bought a different 5er and immediately took it to my tire dealer and got 4 new tires. My 1st 5er I had a total of 3 blowouts ,and as you all know they cause some damage. Anyway told him I wanted some very good tires,, he recommended a tire by the name of Trailer King, and proposed we use nitrogen rather than air. He said not a lot of advantage with nitrogen but there was some. All 3 blowouts I had was when air temperature was around 100. The new trailer ki g tires were made in china,, ugh. Has anyone heard of these ? Would like your opinions on the tires and the nitrogen

Well looking on the "positive side" of this, at least you have lots of experience changing out blown tires. That skill will most likely be used again.

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by Local150

How many miles and how old were these tires that went bad 4 you

If you're asking about the tires I posted photos of, they were less than 3 years old (about 28 months if I remember correctly) and less than 5,000 miles. They were on a 8800 pound Cougar fifth wheel with a GVW of 10,000 pounds and a pin weight ranging from 1700 to 1900 pounds, and carrying less than 7500 pounds every time I towed. That's roughly 1875 pounds on each tire (assuming the trailer is equally loaded on all 4 tire positions) with a 2540 pound load capacity, so definitely not overloaded. And, no, they weren't abused, never towed over 65MPH and always checked for proper pressure before every leg of every tow.

[Javi]

So, what happened... I asked a fair question, especially amid the discussion and proselytizing on LT tires and their miraculous lack of deterioration, built in safety margins concerning load capacities, life expectancies, etc.

I am an engineer, I need more than... I researched it, I believe, I personally ran... etc. I need proof, documentation, results which can be quantified..

I repeat...

So, you're assuming or maybe advocating that LT tires don't degrade at all or at some much reduced rate than do ST tires...

I'd like to see documentation on that and on the much touted "SAFETY MARGIN" built into the LT tire..

It is my consideration that any mandated safety margin would most likely be in fitment, rather than in the tire capacity rating..

Can you show documentation to the contrary?

So far I have not seen irrefutable evidence to support the assertion that I break the law/rules or policies in the tire industry by mounting tires which have less load capacity than the O.E.M. fitment...


I'm waiting...

[Snoking]

Originally Posted by Javi

So, what happened... I asked a fair question, especially amid the discussion and proselytizing on LT tires and their miraculous lack of deterioration, built in safety margins concerning load capacities, life expectancies, etc.

I am an engineer, I need more than... I researched it, I believe, I personally ran... etc. I need proof, documentation, results which can be quantified..

I repeat...

So, you're assuming or maybe advocating that LT tires don't degrade at all or at some much reduced rate than do ST tires...

I'd like to see documentation on that and on the much touted "SAFETY MARGIN" built into the LT tire..

It is my consideration that any mandated safety margin would most likely be in fitment, rather than in the tire capacity rating..

Can you show documentation to the contrary?

I can only give you documented facts from my personal experience if you fail to want to do your own research or read what I posted earlier.

In June of 2004 we purchased a new 205 29WBLX Cardinal which came with Kenda Klever LT235/85R16E tires. These china bombs were noted on many forums for early failure. I contacted Kenda and presented a case to remove them before failure, as I was going to retire and travel a lot with the trailer. They gave me 110 dollars each to remove the 5 tires and have them destroyed by the tire dealer. Note: I was given a choice of replacement Kenda ST235/80R16E tires, many that took that route paid a price of failure of those replacements.

I went to a Michelin Commercial tire shop and had LT235/85R16E XPS Ribs installed include the spare. I ran these tires for 6.5 years and around 44K miles, and removed them with around 60 percent tread remaining and sold them on CL for 200 bucks to a guy tickled pink to get them for an old Ford pickup he used for garbage dump runs. I installed Bridgestone Duravis R250s and they where still going strong 4 and a half years later when I sold that trailer.

Both the Ribs and R250 are rated as recapable tire do to their steel ply carcass. There is only one other LT LRE tire that I have routinely endorsed for trailer use in the Bridgestone Duravis R500HD with has a two ply poly carcass. The R500HD is a commercial rated LT. This tire has a rib style tread without breaks in the outer ribs.



Of the three I think the R250 is the best choice for a 16" LT trailer tire for a 5200 or 6K axle.

[Javi]

Originally Posted by Snoking

I can only give you documented facts from my personal experience if you fail to want to do your own research or read what I posted earlier.

In June of 2004 we purchased a new 205 29WBLX Cardinal which came with Kenda Klever LT235/85R16E tires. These china bombs were noted on many forums for early failure. I contacted Kenda and presented a case to remove them before failure, as I was going to retire and travel a lot with the trailer. They gave me 110 dollars each to remove the 5 tires and have them destroyed by the tire dealer. Note: I was given a choice of replacement Kenda ST235/80R16E tires, many that took that route paid a price of failure of those replacements.

I went to a Michelin Commercial tire shop and had LT235/85R16E XPS Ribs installed include the spare. I ran these tires for 6.5 years and around 44K miles, and removed them with around 60 percent tread remaining and sold them on CL for 200 bucks to a guy tickled pink to get them for an old Ford pickup he used for garbage dump runs. I installed Bridgestone Duravis R250s and they where still going strong 4 and a half years later when I sold that trailer.

Both the Ribs and R250 are rated as recapable tire do to their steel ply carcass. There is only one other LT LRE tire that I have routinely endorsed for trailer use in the Bridgestone Duravis R500HD with has a two ply poly carcass. The R500HD is a commercial rated LT. This tire has a rib style tread without breaks in the outer ribs.



Of the three I think the R250 is the best choice for a 16" LT trailer tire for a 5200 or 6K axle.

That's fine and also your choice.. and your trailer was fitted with LT tires to start with.. It is understandable that you replaced them with same or better.

However you have continually recommended for fitment of your choice of tire onto trailers which were not O.E.M. fitted with LT tires; regardless of that nagging little rule/law or policy of never mounting tires with less load capacity than O.E.M fitment...

Ya'll want to know why I continue to mount ST tires on my trailer.... it's because that's what came on it... Yes I look for something better than the China Bombs that were fitted... But I'm not going to de-rate my tires in doing so..

I've asked you to provide me with documentation to support the claims of hidden safety margins in load capacities, longevity, etc. in the LT tires but to no avail.. So... Adios

[rhagfo]

Originally Posted by Javi

So, what happened... I asked a fair question, especially amid the discussion and proselytizing on LT tires and their miraculous lack of deterioration, built in safety margins concerning load capacities, life expectancies, etc.

I am an engineer, I need more than... I researched it, I believe, I personally ran... etc. I need proof, documentation, results which can be quantified..

I repeat...

So, you're assuming or maybe advocating that LT tires don't degrade at all or at some much reduced rate than do ST tires...

I'd like to see documentation on that and on the much touted "SAFETY MARGIN" built into the LT tire..

It is my consideration that any mandated safety margin would most likely be in fitment, rather than in the tire capacity rating..

Can you show documentation to the contrary?

So far I have not seen irrefutable evidence to support the assertion that I break the law/rules or policies in the tire industry by mounting tires which have less load capacity than the O.E.M. fitment...


I'm waiting...

I have included sections of this post below.

http://forums.goodsamclub.com/index....g/1/page/1.cfm

The testing for (3) endurance was found to be significantly different between the ST and LT tires.

Both the ST and LT are put through the same initial pressure, time and load profile. The total profile lasts 34 hours of continuous run time starting at 85% of rated load and ending at 100% of rated load. To further stress the tires, a load range E tire (nominal 80 psi rating) is tested at a reduced pressure of 60 psi to induce additional load on the tire during testing. (This is reasonable that testing should be conservative.)

But now the endurance testing diverges significantly.

The ST tire is tested at this pressure, time and load profile at 50 mph. After that, the ST test is over.

The LT tire is tested at this pressure, time and load profile at 75 mph. This is a 50% increase over the ST and will induce significant additional load and heating on the tire during testing. After that, the LT test is not complete. Next a “Low Inflation Pressure Performance” test is performed for the LT tire only. The tire pressure is decreased to 46 psi and the tire is immediately run for an additional 2 hours at 75 mph and 100% of rated load.

Thus, the LT tire endurance test is drastically more intense than the ST endurance test.

The testing for (4) high speed performance.

The difference in high speed performance testing between a ST and LT tire is significant. Both tires are tested through a 90 minute speed/time profile.

The ST tire is tested 88% of rated load while the LT tire is tested at 85% of rated load. Thus, the loading is 3% higher based on rated load and this slight advantage goes to the ST tire.

However, the LT tire is tested at significantly higher velocities when compared to a ST tire (99 vs. 85 mph maximum speed). This is a 16% advantage to the LT tire.

Thus, again the overall test for the LT is more rigorous than the ST test.

[Javi]

Originally Posted by rhagfo

I have included sections of this post below.

http://forums.goodsamclub.com/index....g/1/page/1.cfm

Like I said, I read all that some time before this discussion started.. However, it also stands to reason that the ST tire would be tested at lower speeds as the standard MPH rating is lower than the LT tire.. that in itself supports the testing parameters. But it does not imply that within the standard fitment and documented MPH restrictions that the ST tire is somehow weaker or less desirable.

From your posts I believe that your trailer was originally fitted with LT tires and by using them you are doing correctly... Where we differ is that you are implying that because you have them that everyone else should too...

The industry rule/law or policy is to never mount tires with less capacity or size than O.E.M. fitment.. By implying that it is okay to mount tires with a documented load capacity of 500 pounds per tire less, is in my opinion irresponsible..

I am not recommending that you switch to ST tires for your trailers, in fact I support your use of the LT tire of your choice as long as its load capacity is equal to or greater than the O.E.M. fitment..

Give me an LT tire in a 235/85/16 that provides 3500 lbs. or more of documented load capacity at my wheel limit of 80 pounds and I'm all over it.. or for that matter find me a 16" x6 rime with a 6 on 5.5" pattern and I'm all over that too... I just don't want to spend several thousands of dollars to replace axles and equipment to do it.. I'd rather just wait and buy a trailer equipped with 7K axles...

[rhagfo]

Originally Posted by Javi

Like I said, I read all that some time before this discussion started.. However, it also stands to reason that the ST tire would be tested at lower speeds as the standard MPH rating is lower than the LT tire.. that in itself supports the testing parameters. But it does not imply that within the standard fitment and documented MPH restrictions that the ST tire is somehow weaker or less desirable.

From your posts I believe that your trailer was originally fitted with LT tires and by using them you are doing correctly... Where we differ is that you are implying that because you have them that everyone else should too...

The industry rule/law or policy is to never mount tires with less capacity or size than O.E.M. fitment.. By implying that it is okay to mount tires with a documented load capacity of 500 pounds per tire less, is in my opinion irresponsible..

I am not recommending that you switch to ST tires for your trailers, in fact I support your use of the LT tire of your choice as long as its load capacity is equal to or greater than the O.E.M. fitment..

Give me an LT tire in a 235/85/16 that provides 3500 lbs. or more of documented load capacity at my wheel limit of 80 pounds and I'm all over it.. or for that matter find me a 16" x6 rime with a 6 on 5.5" pattern and I'm all over that too... I just don't want to spend several thousands of dollars to replace axles and equipment to do it.. I'd rather just wait and buy a trailer equipped with 7K axles...

Javi, did you just blow past this statement.

The LT tire is tested at this pressure, time and load profile at 75 mph. This is a 50% increase over the ST and will induce significant additional load and heating on the tire during testing. After that, the LT test is not complete. Next a “Low Inflation Pressure Performance” test is performed for the LT tire only. The tire pressure is decreased to 46 psi and the tire is immediately run for an additional 2 hours at 75 mph and 100% of rated load.

Thus, the LT tire endurance test is drastically more intense than the ST endurance test.


So you feel that with an ST tire rated at 3,500# you need to replace every two years to avoid failure.
Do you replace the LT tires on your F350 every two years?

Then there is your 5er 2015 Cougar 333MKS

Dry 10,330#
Payload 1,760#
GVWR 12,090#

So LT tires in a 235/85-16E with 3,042# capacity would cover the entire GVWR, even though likely supporting less than 10,000#, more like 9,300# based on your stated pin of 2,800# (that is what I remember).
I know most likely your capacity sticker states tire size of ST 235/80-16E so can't legally go to an LT.

Our 2005 Copper Canyon came with LT 235/85-16Es even though my GVWR is 12,360. Being a 2005 I don't have the yellow sticker, just the VIN weight statement inside a cabinet door near the sink, where it holds up a lot better!
I do have an email from Keystone with the build information that states LT 235/85-16s were installed at the factory.

Just saying.
Russ

[ChuckS]

Well I’ll run my LT 14 ply tires for a few more years. Wrapping up fourth year on them. They are Chinese. I am not going to replace a tire because it may have aged.

And yes... I ride motorcycles and the rear tire on both my gold wing and VTX 1300 are car tires. Called “ the dark side”. They last much longer and with a gold wing the rear tire takes a beating.

[Javi]

Originally Posted by rhagfo

Javi, did you just blow past this statement.

The LT tire is tested at this pressure, time and load profile at 75 mph. This is a 50% increase over the ST and will induce significant additional load and heating on the tire during testing. After that, the LT test is not complete. Next a “Low Inflation Pressure Performance” test is performed for the LT tire only. The tire pressure is decreased to 46 psi and the tire is immediately run for an additional 2 hours at 75 mph and 100% of rated load.

Thus, the LT tire endurance test is drastically more intense than the ST endurance test.


So you feel that with an ST tire rated at 3,500# you need to replace every two years to avoid failure.
Do you replace the LT tires on your F350 every two years?

Then there is your 5er 2015 Cougar 333MKS

Dry 10,330#
Payload 1,760#
GVWR 12,090#

So LT tires in a 235/85-16E with 3,042# capacity would cover the entire GVWR, even though likely supporting less than 10,000#, more like 9,300# based on your stated pin of 2,800# (that is what I remember).
I know most likely your capacity sticker states tire size of ST 235/80-16E so can't legally go to an LT.

Our 2005 Copper Canyon came with LT 235/85-16Es even though my GVWR is 12,360. Being a 2005 I don't have the yellow sticker, just the VIN weight statement inside a cabinet door near the sink, where it holds up a lot better!
I do have an email from Keystone with the build information that states LT 235/85-16s were installed at the factory.

Just saying.
Russ

Russ...

Not that it really matters but the stickered GVWR of my trailer is 12,350... 2 A/C's

No I didn't blow past any part of the report, I simply maintain that standard testing principles dictate that the LT tire be tested to different limits than the ST tire... Testing the ST to the limits of the LT tire would result in higher failure rates... that is a logical conclusion..

I'm also aware of the assembled limitations of my trailer and that the axle is the weak point as it is rated for 5200 lbs. This however does not change the rule/law or policy of not mounting tires of lesser load capacity than the O.E.M.

I could make a good case for using the 3042 lbs. load limited tires in my case; but as you stated, I'd have to circumnavigate the /rule/law or policy of any legitimate tire store such as Discount Tire in order to mount the LT tires on my trailer.. It is painfully evident that the O.E.M. fitment was the ST 235/80R-16E

And I replace my ST tires every two years as relatively cheap insurance... Could I go longer? Yes definitely.. but since I can sell the used tires for $30 - $50 dollars each, and buy new ones from DT with no interest for 6 months, plus free balancing on request, I see no reason to push the odds.

My LT tires on my dually don't set for extended periods of time with any where the percentage of load capacity on them... Perhaps if they did I'd adopt the same curriculum for them..

On average my truck tires are replaced at 3 to 4 years as it is also my daily driver and the tread wears out before they age out. But again they aren't sitting with 14K on them 24/7

[Javi]

Understand my disagreement isn't with the use of the LT tire where it is the O.E.M. fitment...

My disagreement is with the misrepresentation of hidden safety margins, undocumented longevities, and degradation rates; implying that somehow these hidden attributes makes the LT tire far superior for trailer fitment over the ST tire.. Which suggests that in our own interest we should circumnavigate the rules and use the LT tire no matter the consequences or we are somehow less than smart..

[rhagfo]

Javi, Interesting that they increase the GVWR 260# for the second AC. The numbers I posted were off of Keystones web site. I guess so not eat into the 1,760# Payload.

[Javi]

Originally Posted by rhagfo

Javi, Interesting that they increase the GVWR 260# for the second AC. The numbers I posted were off of Keystones web site. I guess so not eat into the 1,760# Payload.

Most likely... 'cause full tanks would require me to unload everything from the trailer..

[CWtheMan]

Originally Posted by Snoking

Maxxis is still a 3 maybe 4 year tire. They dry rot and fail from time to time. Maxxis share never grew that large because they had to be special ordered in most cases.

Availability if the GY Endurance is pretty much universal across the county. Discount tire had them in stock when I junked my brand new Goodrides and sold them on CL.

We as tire users are not privy to the materials used by any particular manufacturer. Cording sizes, basic compounds, tread material densities or even the amount of recycled tire materials used in our “new” tires are all confidential.

When brand “A” says one of their tires is good for 60K miles and brand “B” has one that looks identical to brand “A” but its manufacturer will only say it’s good for 40K miles, there is something different, but both tires list the same construction materials on their sidewalls. (?).

My prediction is the GY Endurance will have a better track record than the GY Marathon. It’s not because I have any means of knowing it’s going to be better because of it’s construction or materials. GY has had super good timing when introducing the Endurance brand. The are going to provide OEM tires to an industry that is making a dramatic change in tire fitments for RV trailers by providing a minimum of 10% load capacities for all Original Equipment tires. The GY Marathons were used when RV trailer manufacturers made it a habit of requiring the OE tires to carry the entire load of an axle’s GAWR.

Sure, the Endurance has higher speed ratings. You’re a stickler about tire testing. You may be shocked when you read the requirements ST tire manufacturer’s used to boost the speed ratings above 65 MPH.

(NOTE: Maxxis ST tires are still at 65 MPH. There is no amount of lobbying they can do to change that short of putting speed letters on the ST tires sidewalls. The government made the China ST manufacturers do that. They cannot do less for that other China.)

[CWtheMan]

Originally Posted by Javi

Okay... back to tires...

Somewhere back in this or another thread I seem to remember that tires lose an average of 10% of their load capacity per year of use..

That 10% is from a Carlisle Tire pdf. It was written about 15 years ago. Lots of industry changes since then. But, the term most used now is fatigue.

Assuming that this is correct and it is true for both LT tires and ST tires regardless of bias ply or radial ply construction.. if this is so...

Then one considers that the passenger LT tires are required to have a safety margin built into their rating... What would that margin be??? 10%, 20% ????
Just about all tire manufacturers, any design, mention that their tire testing exceeds the NHTSA requirements. By how much is immaterial.

But the ST tire is not limited to a safety margin and can claim the maximum allowance from the get go... so "0" safety margin... ????

Am I following this correctly??

You may be confused by the fitment standards as described in FMVSS. Because the LT tires is designed exclusively for light trucks and multi passenger vehicles. When fitted to those vehicles, they are required to provide a percentage of load capacity reserves via recommended inflation pressures. Light truck manufacturers will most times fit tires to the truck's GAWR factors. Those factors will be above the vehicle GVWR, thus the tires cannot be overloaded without the axles being overloaded.

[CWtheMan]

Originally Posted by Snoking

I have only heard that 10% loss in relation to ST trailer tires. Ran Michelin OEM tire on wives Buick Rainier for 10 years or so, lot of tread left and should have not been able to hold up the SUV with zero capacity left. The RIBs on out 29' Cardinal would have only had 35 percent capacity left on 3 and 25% of the forth when I removed them and sold them for 200 bucks on CL with around 60% percent tread left after around 44K miles on them.

10 years seems to be the long service recommendation for passenger and LT truck tires. Again ST have been in a category of their own for years.

Here is a write up on testing standards.

http://forums.goodsamclub.com/index....g/1/page/1.cfm

BTW CWtheMAN is FastEagle in this tread, which is one of the many userid's he uses across the interweb. "Chris" was my original userid on RV.net.

When I joined this forum I was playing a lot of internet cribbage. CWtheMan is still well known in that venue.

While in the Navy I spent two tours with Fighter Squadron 41. Three years with F4 Phantom II aircraft and three years F14 Tomcat aircraft. While with the F14s I worked an entire cruise on the flight deck as their flight deck maintenance coordinator. My call sign for all those on the flight deck network was FastEagle.

[Javi]

Originally Posted by CWtheMan

You may be confused by the fitment standards as described in FMVSS. Because the LT tires is designed exclusively for light trucks and multi passenger vehicles. When fitted to those vehicles, they are required to provide a percentage of load capacity reserves via recommended inflation pressures. Light truck manufacturers will most times fit tires to the truck's GAWR factors. Those factors will be above the vehicle GVWR, thus the tires cannot be overloaded without the axles being overloaded.

Actually I was paraphrasing your buddy... I'm not confused.

I was asking him for clarification on his statements concerning the superiority of LT tires for trailer fitment..

[CWtheMan]

Originally Posted by Javi

Just a note... http://www.tiresafetygroup.com/tires...-in-six-years/

No one in the tire industry or even the governing body has a grip on tire aging. Some even ponder the "don't use after 10 year mark".

IMO the best ballpark figures will come from the manufacturer of the tires you're using. Each seem to have different variations.

In my research I found that Carlisle Tire, way back when, were the sort of spokesperson for the ST tire design. Others were soon to follow and the 3-5 year useage became a sort of standard for those tires.

[CWtheMan]

Originally Posted by Badbart56

Just a question: Why do the ST tires not come with a warranty?

Example: http://www.towmaxtires.com/content/t...antyUpdate.pdf