[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
definition of 50% worn? Posted by Snowmobile [Email] (#686) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Snowmobile) on Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:54:45 In Reply to: Re: Tire question, new tires on the front, Craig, Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:22:24 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
Tires come with 11/32" depth (or thereabouts)... is "50% worn" 5.5/32" or is it ((11-2)/32)/2+2/32=6.5/32"... I suppose it doesn't make that much difference... 4.4mm vs 5.2mm...
Maybe the bigger question here is, at what tread depth do you consider your tires too worn out to keep? Do you wear them right down to the wear bars? I usually figure 4-5mm is about done. Especially for winter tires. Once the tread depth gets down, it is much easier to hydroplane (or in winter snow traction gets worse)...
So then, should 50% worn really be ((11-6)/2 +6)/32, ie 8.5/32" = 6.7mm??
I think if that is the case, then maybe the discussion of front vs back mounting maybe becomes less of an issue because the back end is less likely to let go, but below that is probably risky. I've had 5mm tires hydroplane at low highway speeds. Luckily, those tires were on the front, I let off the gas, and it was a non-event. It was a mismatched pair front/back when I bought the 9-5: dunlops front Pirelli oem's back. both about 5mm, maybe a hair more on the pirellis. I immediately replaced all 4 with good tires.
Anyway, my point is we should be talking tread depth, not % and also, that the top 50% of the tread depth is much more desirable than the bottom 50%!
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.