Go Back   Keystone RV Forums > Keystone Fleet | Keystone RV Models > Fifth Wheels
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2018, 07:59 PM   #31
rhagfo
Senior Member
 
rhagfo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by sourdough View Post
I have to chime in and say that there are MANY options with ST tires that are optimal for your situation that don't require buying new rims and don't require you to drive at excessive speeds to feel like you're taking advantage of those new LT tires.....with less weight rating.....???
I did not state I drive at excessive speed! I stated that the LT tires do have a lower weight rating, but in my case the tires are rated to carry that weight at 106 mph, this says to me at 60 to 65 mph I have carrying capacity reserve even if I am running at the tires max weight.

The majority of ST tires while having a 300# to 400# rating advantage, but only to speeds to 65 to 75 mph. In addition most don’t trust their ST tires to anywhere near their rated capacity. I am running my LT’s at 82% of rated capacity how many feel safe with running ST’s at 82% of capacity?
__________________

__________________
Russ & Paula
The Beagles Belle and Precious.
2005 Copper Canyon 293 FWSLS 32í GVWR 12,360
2001 Dodge 2500 5.9 CTD, 5 sp, Pacbrake, DS Power Puck, Bilstien 5100's, Just 305K.
Visit and enjoy Oregon State Parks
https://s1191.photobucket.com/albums...Smaller5th.jpg
rhagfo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2018, 02:20 AM   #32
Tinner12002
Senior Member
 
Tinner12002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Lafayette
Posts: 919
Quote:
Originally Posted by sourdough View Post
I have to chime in and say that there are MANY options with ST tires that are optimal for your situation that don't require buying new rims and don't require you to drive at excessive speeds to feel like you're taking advantage of those new LT tires.....with less weight rating.....???
There you go with that poking stick again! Lol!!
__________________

__________________
2015 Ram,3500,Dually,B&W,4.10s,Aisin,Limited,Silver
2018 Raptor,428SP w/full body paint
2012 Harley, Ultra Limited
Tinner12002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2018, 07:35 AM   #33
KHBama
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Pike Road
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank G View Post
I'll stand by what I wrote, and yes I do think there have been members bullied on this tire issue. I have been on my own all my adult life and not about to change. I wish there was a better way to collect and report tire data...not in todays world.
yes... I asked a question about tires one day and got nothing useful from the 1st 10 posters, mostly "popcorn" posts and some smart a** remarks. Finally some posters chimed in with actual experience from the tires I asked about, some good some bad. That is all we can ask for when we post a question (especially people who are fairly newbies)
KHBama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2018, 09:56 AM   #34
sourdough
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: W. Texas
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhagfo View Post
I did not state I drive at excessive speed! I stated that the LT tires do have a lower weight rating, but in my case the tires are rated to carry that weight at 106 mph, this says to me at 60 to 65 mph I have carrying capacity reserve even if I am running at the tires max weight.

The majority of ST tires while having a 300# to 400# rating advantage, but only to speeds to 65 to 75 mph. In addition most don’t trust their ST tires to anywhere near their rated capacity. I am running my LT’s at 82% of rated capacity how many feel safe with running ST’s at 82% of capacity?
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted. I didn't say you drove at excessive speed. In your original post (from memory) you said the LT's offered less load carrying ability but a higher speed rating....and in this case it would require new wheels. The only positive point out of that is that you can run at higher speeds, which isn't recommended pulling a TT. So that was what my comment alluded to. I wasn't trying to "poke" you.

As far as LTs giving a higher speed rating and lower load capacity my take is this (right or wrong); a higher speed rating refers to a tire's ability to "hold together" at speed from centrifugal force.....bonding to the carcass more or less and the compounds/designs required to do this. When driving a sports car or hot rod it's extremely important that the tread stay connected to the carcass of the tire at high speeds or if you're inclined to do a burn out - or cars/trucks running down the highway at higher speeds. The load capacity refers to a tire's ability to ....."carry/hold" a specific amount of weight - 2 different things to me. The ST then takes that "carrying" capacity and tries to complement it with a suitable speed rating that takes into account what the tire was designed for -carrying a large load. Therefore, IMO you get a stouter "load carrier" but not so much a sports car tire.

You may not agree with this but it's what I've come to think from everything I've read and observed about tires over the years.
__________________
Danny & Susan wife of 50 years
2014 Ram 2500 6.4 4x4 CC
2014 Cougar High Country 319RLS
sourdough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2018, 06:45 PM   #35
CWtheMan
Senior Member
 
CWtheMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Taylors, SC
Posts: 1,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhagfo View Post
I did not state I drive at excessive speed! I stated that the LT tires do have a lower weight rating, but in my case the tires are rated to carry that weight at 106 mph, this says to me at 60 to 65 mph I have carrying capacity reserve even if I am running at the tires max weight.

The majority of ST tires while having a 300# to 400# rating advantage, but only to speeds to 65 to 75 mph. In addition most donít trust their ST tires to anywhere near their rated capacity. I am running my LTís at 82% of rated capacity how many feel safe with running STís at 82% of capacity?
You really need to clear something up here. Your trailer was most likely certified by Keystone to use standard LT tires. Isnít that whatís on the trailerís certification label?

Note: 1. A tireís durability factor does not have anything to do with its ability to carry the maximum load listed on its sidewall. 2. The speed at which a tire can carry its maximum load is determined by its speed rating (letter), itís a durability vs. capability thing.
__________________
An Old Navy Aircraft Mechanic that writes about tires.
The Black one is mine: http://www.irv2.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=20678
CWtheMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2018, 08:07 PM   #36
rhagfo
Senior Member
 
rhagfo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWtheMan View Post
You really need to clear something up here. Your trailer was most likely certified by Keystone to use standard LT tires. Isnít that whatís on the trailerís certification label?

Note: 1. A tireís durability factor does not have anything to do with its ability to carry the maximum load listed on its sidewall. 2. The speed at which a tire can carry its maximum load is determined by its speed rating (letter), itís a durability vs. capability thing.
Well it is a 2005, no tire certification label, just a GVWR label inside a cabinet above the sink.
It came from the factory with the 235/85-16Eís per the build sheet I got from Keystone after purchase used.
This is a fact you should be aware of tire/payload sticker was not required until 2006.
The abuse an LT tire takes on a TV is far worse than it takes on a trailer. Many blame instances of curb scuffing, potholes, and hitting bad RR crossings for blowouts on ST tires, while I try to avoid these I donít worry when it does happen.
As to weight capacity, seeing how my LTs have a 3,042# capacity good to 106 mph, I would believe that at 65 to 70 mph they are capable of supporting more than that at the lower speeds. I donít expect them to support any more than their rated 3,042#, in fact they are only supporting 82% of that when fully loaded with 10,000# on the two axles.
__________________
Russ & Paula
The Beagles Belle and Precious.
2005 Copper Canyon 293 FWSLS 32í GVWR 12,360
2001 Dodge 2500 5.9 CTD, 5 sp, Pacbrake, DS Power Puck, Bilstien 5100's, Just 305K.
Visit and enjoy Oregon State Parks
https://s1191.photobucket.com/albums...Smaller5th.jpg
rhagfo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2018, 02:44 AM   #37
Tinner12002
Senior Member
 
Tinner12002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Lafayette
Posts: 919
Quote:
Originally Posted by KHBama View Post
yes... I asked a question about tires one day and got nothing useful from the 1st 10 posters, mostly "popcorn" posts and some smart a** remarks. Finally some posters chimed in with actual experience from the tires I asked about, some good some bad. That is all we can ask for when we post a question (especially people who are fairly newbies)
Well I have to say that yes, sometimes I will have a smart a** remark to make about an issue but I try not or at least I don't intend for it to be degrading to the poster. I think most that are familiar with my posts are also aware of that. You have to realize that sometimes a post comes through that has been beat to death time and time again on this forum and so many others so when another question comes up about the same topic, it gets a little humorous because we know where the post is going after seeing it, though that doesn't mean it may not a valid question. I know sometimes looking for previous posts on topics can be sometimes hard to find unless you post an exact word phrasing. The thing is, no one on here tries to or intends to devalue or degrade someones posts or questions to intentionally upset or poke fun as you say to the poster. We do try to seriously help everyone we can with issues they have on their RVs as we have the ability or knowledge to. Some on here are way more knowledgeable than others which is a good thing for the different posters asking questions but we all have nothing but good intentions in trying to help each other and newbies as well because that's why were here. Whew, with all that being said, I will still try and throw out a funny every now and again to get a smile or to try and lighten up a heated conversation, so sit back and enjoy what you read here, don't take things personal and we'll all have a great time reading and answering and educating ourselves with all the different posts and questions regardless of the number of times they've been asked!
__________________
2015 Ram,3500,Dually,B&W,4.10s,Aisin,Limited,Silver
2018 Raptor,428SP w/full body paint
2012 Harley, Ultra Limited
Tinner12002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2018, 03:52 AM   #38
CaptnJohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Ocean Isle Beach
Posts: 937
These tire threads are great. They never end while they should be so easy. The could be over with sanity quickly. Sailun , Goodyear (G614 only), maxxis, or Carlisle. Those are proven. If people go up 1 LR with a proven product they should be fine. Note, we should appreciate those paying GY to test Endurance over the next 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________

2017 Montana HC 370BR
2016 F350 6.7 4X4
Edgewater 205 EX Yamaha 150
CaptnJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2018, 11:29 AM   #39
CWtheMan
Senior Member
 
CWtheMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Taylors, SC
Posts: 1,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhagfo View Post
Well it is a 2005, no tire certification label, just a GVWR label inside a cabinet above the sink.
It came from the factory with the 235/85-16Eís per the build sheet I got from Keystone after purchase used.
This is a fact you should be aware of tire/payload sticker was not required until 2006.
The payload sticker has nothing to do with tire size. That's one of the purposes of the vehicel certification label.
The abuse an LT tire takes on a TV is far worse than it takes on a trailer. That's mostly because they are on drive and steer axles and are designed for them. The only entity that has the authority to say it's an appropriate fitment on other vehicles is the vehicle manufacturer. Many blame instances of curb scuffing, potholes, and hitting bad RR crossings for blowouts on ST tires, while I try to avoid these I donít worry when it does happen.

As to weight capacity, seeing how my LTs have a 3,042# capacity good to 106 mph, I would believe that at 65 to 70 mph they are capable of supporting more than that at the lower speeds. I donít expect them to support any more than their rated 3,042#, in fact they are only supporting 82% of that when fully loaded with 10,000# on the two axles.
On the record, no one will officially say a LT or ST tire with a 3042# maximum load capacity really has a higher load capacity. However, there are two standards for measuring a tire's load capacity. For all ST & LT tires the Load Range formula is the official number. For all passenger tires it's the load index formula. So for the LT235/85R16 LRE tire the maximum load capacity is 3042#. If a load index number of 120 was used for that same tire it would be 3086#....It's just how the industry works.
__________________

__________________
An Old Navy Aircraft Mechanic that writes about tires.
The Black one is mine: http://www.irv2.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=20678
CWtheMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This forum is owned and operated by Social Knowledge, LLC. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Keystone RV Company and is not affiliated with the Keystone RV Company or its related companies in any way. Keystone RV® is a registered trademark of the Keystone RV Company.