Goodyear Endurance Radials

[kjohn]

I read these tire discussions with great interest. The tires on our 21RBS were not a make known to me. I don't recall the name, but it did contain the word "lake". Maybe someone can enlighten me?


They had approx. 10,000 miles, and I was considering what to put on next.



Our Jayco 197 slide had some really cheezy bias ply tires and they were worn out after one season!


The shared experiences on here regarding blowouts is hair raising. I have a TPMS for the trailer. The truck has a built in one. In my humble opinion, a TPMS for a trailer is a given. Mine was easy to get up and running, just a matter of reading the manual.

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by Tireman9

"J" has got to be a typo.


The initial description shows D/8 which is the Load Range / Ply Rating.

Please read post #21 in this thread. My response to Hodgy, the poster to whom I was replying listed the "J" rating. Then please read my response in which I state: "The "J" rating on the tires in your link is NOT a "load/ply" rating which we normally see as G-14 ply, F- 12 ply, E-10 ply, D-8 ply, C-6 ply. A load range J tire is a 18 ply tire with a PSI recommendation of 127 PSI, probably much heavier than you'd ever want to put on a travel trailer of any size or weight." I go on to suggest to him that "J" rated tires are not typically used on any towable RV.

I thought (maybe I should explain further, but get tired of typing all the "what if's" that the explanation was enough to suggest "J" is not applicable... YMMV

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by kjohn

I read these tire discussions with great interest. The tires on our 21RBS were not a make known to me. I don't recall the name, but it did contain the word "lake". Maybe someone can enlighten me?

They had approx. 10,000 miles, and I was considering what to put on next.

Our Jayco 197 slide had some really cheezy bias ply tires and they were worn out after one season!

The shared experiences on here regarding blowouts is hair raising. I have a TPMS for the trailer. The truck has a built in one. In my humble opinion, a TPMS for a trailer is a given. Mine was easy to get up and running, just a matter of reading the manual.

Your tires are probably Westlake tires and yup, you're right, you are living on "borrowed time".... The three brands, for trailers in your size/weight range probably in order of choice are:
Maxxis
Carlisle
Endurance (Goodyear)

The only reason the Endurance is at the bottom is that it is a relatively new tire with limited "on the road experience" So far it has shown to be reliable, but nobody yet knows how it will hold up in the 3rd year since it's only been on the market about 18-20 months. Otherwise, it looks to be a solid choice, up there with the other two.

[CWtheMan]

Originally Posted by JRTJH

Please read post #21 in this thread. My response to Hodgy, the poster to whom I was replying listed the "J" rating. Then please read my response in which I state: "The "J" rating on the tires in your link is NOT a "load/ply" rating which we normally see as G-14 ply, F- 12 ply, E-10 ply, D-8 ply, C-6 ply. A load range J tire is a 18 ply tire with a PSI recommendation of 127 PSI, probably much heavier than you'd ever want to put on a travel trailer of any size or weight." I go on to suggest to him that "J" rated tires are not typically used on any towable RV.

I thought (maybe I should explain further, but get tired of typing all the "what if's" that the explanation was enough to suggest "J" is not applicable... YMMV

The Michelin XTA 215/75R17.5 LRJ was an OEM tire for a short period of time on the DRV Mobile Suites fiver line-up. That particular LRJ has a 4805# load capacity at 120 PSI. However, it’s a European design with a “J” speed rating (62 MPH). I know of one user with an internet forum nick “Wingnut” that had a tread separation with them. You will find him on the 5th Wheel forum.

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by CWtheMan

The Michelin XTA 215/75R17.5 LRJ was an OEM tire for a short period of time on the DRV Mobile Suites fiver line-up. That particular LRJ has a 4805# load capacity at 120 PSI. However, it’s a European design with a “J” speed rating (62 MPH). I know of one user with an internet forum nick “Wingnut” that had a tread separation with them. You will find him on the 5th Wheel forum.

Cal,

I'm sure there are some "heavy fivers" that either do, will or have used LRJ tires. My response wasn't whether it's a valid tire load range so it must have been a typo (as was suggested by another poster) but rather my post was intended to inform Hodgy that he wouldn't find LRJ tires in the size needed to fit his light weight Bullet 1800RB. It doesn't really matter if Hodgy made a "typo" or whether he accurately linked the tire to his post, he can't use them on his trailer. That was the point I was trying to convey. Maybe I need to retake typing/maybe some others need to retake reading comprehension ???? The post, by the way was from January 2018, nearly a year ago. I wonder why it's being brought up by a third party, unless there's some "spirited axes to grind?????" Otherwise, what difference, at this point, does it matter?

[KSH]

I keep losing about 5 psi from my endurance tires within the span of a week. Is that normal, abnormal? Anything i should check? This happens to all but the spare.

[JRTJH]

KSH,

That's abnormal and should not be happening. It may be something as simple as a leaking schrader valve in your valve stem, a leaking valve stem seat, a set of defective tires (not likely), slow air leaks in your wheels or any number of other "easy to fix" things. It could also be defective tires (again with 4 leaking probably not the cause).

If you're losing 5 PSI per week, you need to get the tires checked. Where did you have them installed and can they handle the trailer without you having to remove the wheels to get them there?

Remember, however, that if you have a significant temperature drop over that week, you could lose 5 PSI in a week solely based on temperature drop. That, however, should not be a "weekly event" but more likely a one time per season event.

[KSH]

It's not 5psi a week, it seems to stabilize after losing 5psi in a week. Had them done at America's tires. Put new wheels on at the same time. I'll go over there next time i pull the trailer out.

[CWtheMan]

Originally Posted by KSH

I keep losing about 5 psi from my endurance tires within the span of a week. Is that normal, abnormal? Anything i should check? This happens to all but the spare.

Are those replacement tires? If so, were the valve stems replaced? If so, are they the steel bolt-in type? If so, they may not have been torqued properly or the installer may have forgotten to install the inside or outside seals and all there would be is metal to metal sealing.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...pixs&FORM=IGRE

[flybouy]

Originally Posted by JRTJH

Cal,

I'm sure there are some "heavy fivers" that either do, will or have used LRJ tires. My response wasn't whether it's a valid tire load range so it must have been a typo (as was suggested by another poster) but rather my post was intended to inform Hodgy that he wouldn't find LRJ tires in the size needed to fit his light weight Bullet 1800RB. It doesn't really matter if Hodgy made a "typo" or whether he accurately linked the tire to his post, he can't use them on his trailer. That was the point I was trying to convey. Maybe I need to retake typing/maybe some others need to retake reading comprehension ???? The post, by the way was from January 2018, nearly a year ago. I wonder why it's being brought up by a third party, unless there's some "spirited axes to grind?????" Otherwise, what difference, at this point, does it matter?

Seems like lately there are some folks just looking to get into a confrontation and then complain that their feelings are hurt. I think you are on point on the way we communicate here. Like all writing, the author has to write to the audience and the audience needs to have the comprehension level for the material. Often, in attempting to make a point, especially where safety is concerned, some respondents (raising hand here) will take a stern approach in conveying the importance when we sense the OP isn't understanding the response. I've been criticized for "jumping" on people and insulting someone for these actions and for attempting humor which some folks apparently think is not appropriate. I understand that with the written word you don't have the tone and inflection to convey the intent of words but I've seen a lot of adhanom attacks lately from some folks in response where the tone is crystal clear.
So my point with this winded response is this, I think folks should take a breath and reflect before clicking that submit button. As you suggested in another post recently, read the OP, reread it, compose your reply, reread it then submit or edit. John you have been the voice of reason on this forum and you must have the patience of a Saint. I for one appreciate and want to thank you for what you do and how you do it.
For me personally I'm going to stay away from this forum for a few weeks. The surgery on my cervical spine was postponed until 12/21 so I'm going to focus on Christmas and family without reading the constant discontent that seems to be prevalent of late.
Here's hoping you all have a happy Christmas, or holiday.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by flybouy

Seems like lately there are some folks just looking to get into a confrontation and then complain that their feelings are hurt. I think you are on point on the way we communicate here. Like all writing, the author has to write to the audience and the audience needs to have the comprehension level for the material. Often, in attempting to make a point, especially where safety is concerned, some respondents (raising hand here) will take a stern approach in conveying the importance when we sense the OP isn't understanding the response. I've been criticized for "jumping" on people and insulting someone for these actions and for attempting humor which some folks apparently think is not appropriate. I understand that with the written word you don't have the tone and inflection to convey the intent of words but I've seen a lot of adhanom attacks lately from some folks in response where the tone is crystal clear.
So my point with this winded response is this, I think folks should take a breath and reflect before clicking that submit button. As you suggested in another post recently, read the OP, reread it, compose your reply, reread it then submit or edit. John you have been the voice of reason on this forum and you must have the patience of a Saint. I for one appreciate and want to thank you for what you do and how you do it.
For me personally I'm going to stay away from this forum for a few weeks. The surgery on my cervical spine was postponed until 12/21 so I'm going to focus on Christmas and family without reading the constant discontent that seems to be prevalent of late.
Here's hoping you all have a happy Christmas, or holiday.

Marshall,

Yes, it does seem like we've had some unhappy folks from time to time lately but don't let it get you down. It's almost like the forum is becoming a reflection of what is going on in the world unfortunately. Hopefully it will get back on track since we all should have a common denominator - RVs.

Concentrate on family and Christmas; not on the surgery. Wishing you well on the surgery, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Come back and join in when you are up to it.

[CWtheMan]

I make it a point to know a little something about a tire before I write about it. The 17.5" Michelin tire mentioned in this thread was an oddity. Michelin supported it as OEM for RV trailers. They had a rep at the DRV factory.

I actually had a sit-down with a Michelin rep at Michelin of North America - 10 miles from my home - about speed limit regulations for the tire mentioned. They cold not justify using commercial tire rules for manipulating the tires speed limit, because being fitted to RV trailers does not allow deviation from FMVSS standards.

Other than the low speed limit, the tire has a great footprint for numerous RV trailer applications. Its OD is 30.7" with a OW of 8.7" and it has a wheel/rim width range of 6.00 - 6.75". So it can surely fit into any wheelwell where 16" tires with load capacities over 4000# are found. However it would surely be over kill when fitted to any RV travel trailer and would never be recommended for such fitment by a trailer manufacturer. However, how often do they ever recommend replacement tires different from their OE tire fitments?

Reference: Michelin Tire Data Book page #56.
https://www.michelintruck.com/assets...k_Sept2011.pdf


Should this tire be discussed in this thread? The door was opened. I didn't open it, I just provided some info about the tire and it's usage on RV trailers.


One of the things this particular tire fitment did is point out that top end RV trailer manufacturers are willing to go to extremes to fit top end tires to their units. This venture failed and another top name brand tire manufacturer got the nod for OEM.


Big heavy Keystone trailers are now using a popular China ST tire manufacturer for those over 4000# load capacity tires. You know the one, starts with an "S".

Oh yes, the OP. Feedback should be after the fact. Just because I'm using them doesn't mean I'm going to endorse them before they've completed their life cycle. Of course there are those that will do it the day they make the decision to use them.

Take the GY Marathon. Got all sorts of bad feedback. I personally had five catastrophic failures with them. In my case I didn't see it as entirely a GR manufacturing problem. I saw it as just as much a manufacturer's mismanagement of resources problem. And, it got me into RV trailer tire researching. Our trailer is a 2003 Everest 363K. Its Vehicle certified axles (GAWRs) are 6000#. Their OE tires were ST235/80R16D with a load capacity of 3000# at 65 PSI. None of them, including the spare lasted a year. We were very active full timers traveling with max cargo capacity. All tires degrade, STs a lot faster when there is no reserves.

Here is a reference with the specs for the 363K. It confirms the tire size. They are none of the LRDs on the market today.


https://www.jerrystrailers.com/fckim...03_Everest.pdf

[JRTJH]

Cal,

I have great respect for your well measured, thoughtful posts regarding tires. Sometimes it seems to get a bit more technical than most of us need, but the posts do provide measured, accurate information that's useful and a good source to reference when any member tries to make the decision on what to use as replacements for existing tires.

I appreciate your efforts and wanted to be sure that you know my comments were NOT directed toward you, your posts or the manner in which you post.

Thanks for taking the time to try to provide accurate, meaningful information about "all things tire"...

[Tireman9]

Originally Posted by CWtheMan

I make it a point to know a little something about a tire before I write about it. The 17.5" Michelin tire mentioned in this thread was an oddity. Michelin supported it as OEM for RV trailers. They had a rep at the DRV factory.

I actually had a sit-down with a Michelin rep at Michelin of North America - 10 miles from my home - about speed limit regulations for the tire mentioned. They cold not justify using commercial tire rules for manipulating the tires speed limit, because being fitted to RV trailers does not allow deviation from FMVSS standards.

Other than the low speed limit, the tire has a great footprint for numerous RV trailer applications. Its OD is 30.7" with a OW of 8.7" and it has a wheel/rim width range of 6.00 - 6.75". So it can surely fit into any wheelwell where 16" tires with load capacities over 4000# are found. However it would surely be over kill when fitted to any RV travel trailer and would never be recommended for such fitment by a trailer manufacturer. However, how often do they ever recommend replacement tires different from their OE tire fitments?

Reference: Michelin Tire Data Book page #56.
https://www.michelintruck.com/assets...k_Sept2011.pdf


Should this tire be discussed in this thread? The door was opened. I didn't open it, I just provided some info about the tire and it's usage on RV trailers.


One of the things this particular tire fitment did is point out that top end RV trailer manufacturers are willing to go to extremes to fit top end tires to their units. This venture failed and another top name brand tire manufacturer got the nod for OEM.


Big heavy Keystone trailers are now using a popular China ST tire manufacturer for those over 4000# load capacity tires. You know the one, starts with an "S".

Oh yes, the OP. Feedback should be after the fact. Just because I'm using them doesn't mean I'm going to endorse them before they've completed their life cycle. Of course there are those that will do it the day they make the decision to use them.

Take the GY Marathon. Got all sorts of bad feedback. I personally had five catastrophic failures with them. In my case I didn't see it as entirely a GR manufacturing problem. I saw it as just as much a manufacturer's mismanagement of resources problem. And, it got me into RV trailer tire researching. Our trailer is a 2003 Everest 363K. Its Vehicle certified axles (GAWRs) are 6000#. Their OE tires were ST235/80R16D with a load capacity of 3000# at 65 PSI. None of them, including the spare lasted a year. We were very active full timers traveling with max cargo capacity. All tires degrade, STs a lot faster when there is no reserves.

Here is a reference with the specs for the 363K. It confirms the tire size. They are none of the LRDs on the market today.


https://www.jerrystrailers.com/fckim...03_Everest.pdf

Good ref info on the Federal Regs.


Do wonder what your opinion is regarding the new RVIA tire "reserve load" requirements? Reserve Load, for those not familiar with the term, is the excess load capacity of the subject tire above the actual loading.


RVs made before Nov 8, 2017, were only required by DOT and RVIA to be capable of supporting the GAWR. After Nov 8, RVIA requires RV be capable of supporting 10% more load than the GAWR numbers.
From a tire standpoint, this clearly results in a safety improvement.


My question is. Should owners of RV's made before Nov 8 follow the old requirements or the new, improved requirements? If they follow the new requirements are they doing something wrong?

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by Tireman9

Good ref info on the Federal Regs.


Do wonder what your opinion is regarding the new RVIA tire "reserve load" requirements? Reserve Load, for those not familiar with the term, is the excess load capacity of the subject tire above the actual loading.


RVs made before Nov 8, 2017, were only required by DOT and RVIA to be capable of supporting the GAWR. After Nov 8, RVIA requires RV be capable of supporting 10% more load than the GAWR numbers.
From a tire standpoint, this clearly results in a safety improvement.


My question is. Should owners of RV's made before Nov 8 follow the old requirements or the new, improved requirements? If they follow the new requirements are they doing something wrong?

Tireman, my thought would be that the new "reg" requiring the 10% cushion is, and always should have been, common sense. I, personally, made it a point to buy tires that exceeded both the old requirements and the new. As far as what guideline you should follow....my thought is how much attention do you pay to your towing and safety? If you do, you will have that cushion. If someone follows the new guidelines are they doing something wrong?? Obviously that has got to be a silly question trying to get CW into some conversation. Anyone trying to give themselves a cushion for safety is always doing the right thing. Maybe not so much so for folks that try to draw good, helpful folks into some sort of pointless debate trying to irritate, aggravate and demean their posts as you seem to do. You have only come on recently and seem to constantly go at CW. I don't recall that you've shared anything meaningful to me.....is there a reason for you to be here other than to shadow CW and try to irritate him? Not trying to be a pain, but that is what I see.

[Tireman9]

[QUOTE=sourdough;319046]Tireman, my thought would be that the new "reg" requiring the 10% cushion is, and always should have been, common sense. I, personally, made it a point to buy tires that exceeded both the old requirements and the new. As far as what guideline you should follow....my thought is how much attention do you pay to your towing and safety? If you do, you will have that cushion. If someone follows the new guidelines are they doing something wrong?? Obviously that has got to be a silly question trying to get CW into some conversation. Anyone trying to give themselves a cushion for safety is always doing the right thing. Maybe not so much so for folks that try to draw good, helpful folks into some sort of pointless debate trying to irritate, aggravate and demean their posts as you seem to do. You have only come on recently and seem to constantly go at CW. I don't recall that you've shared anything meaningful to me.....is there a reason for you to be here other than to shadow CW and try to irritate him? Not trying to be a pain, but that is what I see.[/QUOTEe, Not trying to "shadow" anyone. This should be obvious from THIS post.


My question was serious. There are a couple of folks on various RV forums who take issue with my recommendations for inflation. Some want to quote DOT regulations and say that to anything different is simply wrong. My posts have been nased on 40 years experience as a tire design & quality engineer.


Your reply to my questions are reasonable and IMO proper, BUT clearly the change in inflation or size or Load Range would not match or comply with a strict reading of the DOT regs or the RV Certification Label (AKA Tire Placard) that some feel are absolute rules.



I suggest that the best plan is to get educated, Understand the intent not just the words in various regulations then proceed. Not simply follow orders (regulations).

[CWtheMan]

I have never disputed the advantages/disadvantages of using inflation pressures greater than what the vehicle manufacture has recommended, as long as they don’t exceed the tire manufacturers maximum permissible tire inflation pressure they put on its sidewall. However, RV trailer manufacturers have, in the past, prevented such actions by having their inflation recommendations equal to tire sidewall max. When that’s done there’s no room for anything other than what’s been recommended for the OE tires.

Before RVIA made their – not legally binding on the vehicle manufacturer – recommendation for 10% in tire load capacity reserves above the RV trailer’s vehicle certified GAWRs, the FMVSS standard already had a provision for such action. This is an excerpt with that provision. FMVSS 571.120, paragraph S5.3.1 Tires. The size designation and the recommended cold inflation pressure for those tires such that the sum of the load ratings of the tires on each axle is appropriate for the GAWR.

IMO, when a vehicle manufacturer decides to apply the 10% load capacity reserve recommendation with their endorsement on the vehicle’s certification label, that includes that percentage, or more, they surely are saying it’s appropriate. Does it imply that to be a minimum requirement for that vehicle’s OE tire fitments? In the world of vehicle certification it does. I doubt very seriously NHTSA will say the correct inflation pressures for your tires is something less than what has been recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.

If the tire industry decides it’s not a minimum requirement, watch their standards documents for a change in this statement. “Replacement tires must have a load capacity equal to or greater than the OE tires provided (via inflation).”


Let's get this clear, I'm not saying those things, I'm just pointing out what has been said by the industry or the governing body. If the entire industry says to use nothing less than.... how do you justify defying the whole industry? NHTSA says the vehicle manufacturer has the sole responsibility for OE tires selections and their recommended cold inflation pressures. When someone decides it's okay to do less for some silly reason like a more comfortable riding vehicle, they may not pay the price but the next owner surely will.


RV trailer owners are notorious for exceeding their trailer's GVWR. Very bad mistake with RV trailers because almost everything about the building of the RV trailer revolved around minimums.

[Snoking]

RVIA's recommendation for 10% additional capacity more or less supports what a have said about special trailers tires for years. That is their inflated ratings were not justified for large heavy RV trailers, given the fact that these tires have their origins in local service on utility type trailers.

Happily for us in the last few years we have seen a hand full of tire manufactures produce upgraded products that appear more suited to RV service and America's freeways.

Now the chore is to get trailer manufactures to install these better offerings OEM.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by Snoking

RVIA's recommendation for 10% additional capacity more or less supports what a have said about special trailers tires for years. That is their inflated ratings were not justified for large heavy RV trailers, given the fact that these tires have their origins in local service on utility type trailers.

Happily for us in the last few years we have seen a hand full of tire manufactures produce upgraded products that appear more suited to RV service and America's freeways.

Now the chore is to get trailer manufactures to install these better offerings OEM.

You are right. Thankfully, in my recent visits to dealerships I am seeing more and more Maxxis, Sailun and Endurance tires as OEM equipment. I'm hoping that trend continues and one day the first thing on the checklist when looking at a new trailer isn't to make sure the tires will carry the load.

[CWtheMan]

The FMVSS have had the same fitment requirements for RV trailer tires since before 2001. Their minimum require than is the same as now. OE tires must provide a load capacity equal to the capacity of the vehicle GAWR they are fitted to. Of course that’s modified to coincide with another statement in the standard that directs the trailer manufacturer to insure the fitments are appropriate for each fitment.

There have been two conferences conducted about FMVSS standards since 2001. In the conference leading to the rules changes in 2007, a committee discussed the subject of load capacity reserves for RV trailer tire fitments. The popular figure was 12-15%. NHTSA turned it down but left the door open for further discussions. Again in 2010 when major revisions were adopted and made a part of the standards pertaining to RV cargo and how it was to be accounted for; the tire reserve subject was again benched. It’s still benched. However, IMO, NHTSA will soon act on it. In the past there was not enough designated tire sizes for RV manufacturers to build to a specific GAWR without having to use tires with little retailer support. With the ST tire manufacturers stepping in with new sizes and numerous new load capacity capabilities, I foresee NHTSA stepping in and adding a load capacity reserve for RV trailer tire fitments such as they now do for the automotive market. Will it be the 10% now supported by RVIA or something altogether different but with the same effect?


You know, brands are a marketing tool. In the eyes of the governing body a ST205/75R14 by any brand name has the same strength in load capacity and uses any tire manufacturer's load inflation chart for that designated size.


To say tire "A" is more "robust" than tire "B" requires further explanation as to why one might have that opinion. Does tire "A" have something tire "B" does not have? Maybe a Nylon overlay. Not all ST tires have them. Extra rubber molded into the tire sidewall to help prevent sidewall scuff damage. Not all ST tire have that feature. Maybe you have one of the newer designs that are all steel. Guess what, they are usually regrooveable and that's surely going to add much more weight to the already heavier steel design. Some of the LT steel tires are also retreadable. That surely must mean more dense materials were used.


Another good one is tire mileage. How does one measure "good mileage" from a ST tire? Did the owner continuously acquire those miles by constant usage or was it acquired over a 3-4 year period with numerous months of inactivity?

I've read literally thousands of tire threads. Some you couldn't get me to comment on with a crow bar.

Here are some questions that are difficult to answer by most of the tire inflation people. What is over inflation and where does it start? What is under inflation and where does it start?