Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-14-2014, 03:32 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
lgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by bignugget View Post
I here ya. I am well below capacity. Just want the akurets gone. We used them last summer and they have about 3500 miles on them. I figured I have pushed them far enough.
That is about what I had on mine and into their second season. Good luck.
__________________

__________________
lgray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 04:35 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 141
I am into the second season with Aukret and I am gonna change mine to a better tire. I have one that he leaking so it is time to upgrade. I may go with a lt if I can find one to fit. A lot of gooseneck trailers come with lt tires.
__________________

__________________
Brandon327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 04:50 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
lgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon327 View Post
I am into the second season with Aukret and I am gonna change mine to a better tire. I have one that he leaking so it is time to upgrade. I may go with a lt if I can find one to fit. A lot of gooseneck trailers come with lt tires.
I did some research on 16 & 17.5, ST and LT before trading for my Triliogy.

One LT option for a 16 aplication is the Goodyear G614RST

Tire Size: LT235/85R16, Load Range: G Sidewal: BW, Tread Depth (32s): 12, Apprvd. Rim Widths 6.50, New Tire Width: 9.5, Outside Diameter: 30.7 Max Load at Infla. (PSI) Single: 3750@110

When I traded, I upgraded to the Goodyear 17.5 G114, "H" rated, has single: 4850 @ 125.
__________________
lgray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 05:16 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 141
They can't be wider because of the slide mechanism on one side.
__________________
Brandon327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 05:40 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 98
That's what I ran into. The one on there now are really close.
__________________
bignugget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 05:41 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
lgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon327 View Post
They can't be wider because of the slide mechanism on one side.
Not sure what you are replacing, here are some Akuret numbers:

Akuret HF188 ST Radial ST235/80R16 Tire Specifications Max Load: 3417 Tread Depth: 10.00 Uninflated Overall Width: 9.30 Uninflated Overall Diameter: 30.80 Approved Rim Width: 6.5 - See more at: $86.99 - Akuret ST235/80R16 21299624 tires at SimpleTire.com

Little difference from the LT 235/85R16 example below...

One LT option for a 16 aplication is the Goodyear G614RST

Tire Size: LT235/85R16, Load Range: G Sidewal: BW, Tread Depth (32s): 12, Apprvd. Rim Widths 6.50, New Tire Width: 9.5, Outside Diameter: 30.7 Max Load at Infla. (PSI) Single: 3750@110

you might be able to pull it off.

Out of necessity, I replaced one axle with an 85 while running 80 on the other...very little difference...as recomended by reputable tire dealer.
__________________
lgray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 02:40 PM   #17
Columbus 302 rs
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Right now in Winchester Va.
Posts: 113
I emailed Michelin and they said they don't make a tire that's the right size and specs for the Columbus. I'm thinking about the Goodyear as they say they're now made in the U.S. again instead of China.
__________________
Columbus 320rs with Ford King Ranch F350
hanging in the Shenandoah Valley and catering
to QuickSilver our 18 year old photogenic cat.
TheEdge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 03:35 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
lgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge View Post
I emailed Michelin and they said they don't make a tire that's the right size and specs for the Columbus. I'm thinking about the Goodyear as they say they're now made in the U.S. again instead of China.
The last I knew, all ST tires are made in China, with the exception of Maxxis, that are made in Thailand. However, if going with an ST, having a name brand is better in that there is someone to call if and when you have problems. Example, Goodyear, several years back, made good on a class action issues on its Chinese made ST tires.
__________________
lgray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 04:40 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 568
Take it for what it is worth

As stated take this for what it is worth. Believe it or not about ST Vs LT tires. I realize Carlisle has an agenda so make up your own mind. Don't shoot the messenger.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Trailer_Tires__Tips_Best_Practices.pdf (1.13 MB, 52 views)
__________________

2013 Ford F-350 SD Diesel, 4X4, Crew Cab, Lariat
Sabre 2014 32RCTS, Pullrite Superglide 2900 18K
Davidceder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 04:52 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
jonrjen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 766
Here is an article that I copied from another site if visit often offering another view of the ST vs. LT tire battle.

This debate will be entertained until there are no more RV's, so with that, for inquiring minds with an afternoon of spare time to read and research the references, here is one of the best informative writings on the ST vs LT that I have read. I copied it from a post on the Montana owners site where a very lively discussion ensued for days.

Here is the info a guy compiled from the government site on tire testing....

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

I found the testing requirements for both the ST and LT tires at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) webpage.

The testing for each tire is comprised of (1) bead unseating resistance, (2) strength, (3) endurance, and (4) high speed performance.

The testing for (1) bead unseating resistance and (2) strength were identical for tires representative of moderate to heavy 5th wheels and thus no advantage is given to either tire type.

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.

Conclusion:

It is reasonable to conclude that these test requirements force the tire manufacturer to construct an LT tire more substantially than an ST tire. This is also a reasonable explanation for the same size LT tire is rated at a slightly lower maximum load than a ST tire.

And now, for those of you who need to know all the details, read on!

REFERENCES

The references for my evaluation may be found at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) webpage:
ST tire standard may be found at FMCSA Part 571, subsection 109.
http://www.fmcsa.dot...90163348008f295
LT tire standard may be found at FMCSA Part 571, subsection 139.
http://www.fmcsa.dot...90163348008f2a9
Part 571, subsection 139 references Part 571 subsection 119 which can be found at:
http://www.fmcsa.dot...90163348008f29d

QUICK NOTES

Each standard for the ST and LT tires has definitions, significant constraints on labeling, etc. that I will not address. There are also tire conditioning (temperature), tire break in, etc. that are the same or similar for ST and LT that I will not address. The details are in the references.

The (3) endurance, and (4) high speed performance tests must not result in tire failure. Tire failure includes visual evidence of tread, sidewall, ply, cord, inner liner, or bead separation, chunking, broken cords, cracking, or open splices, not just a blowout.

TESTING - BEAD UNSEATING RESISTANCE

ST Tire: (reference paragraph S5.2.2)

The tire is mounted horizontally and a vertical load is applied to the tire’s outer sidewall at a rate of 50 mm (2 inches) per minute.

Increase the load until the bead unseats or a specified value is reached.

Repeat the test at least four places equally spaced around the tire circumference.

LT Tire:

Paragraph “S6.6 Tubeless tire bead unseating resistance” references the ST tire procedure noted above.

Conclusion:

The testing for bead unseating resistance is identical for a ST and LT tire.

TESTING - STRENGTH

ST Tire: (reference paragraph S5.3.2.1)

Force a 19 mm (3?4 inch) diameter cylindrical steel plunger with a hemispherical end perpendicularly into the tread rib as near to the centerline as possible, avoiding penetration into the tread groove, at the rate of 50 mm (2 inches) per minute.

Compute the breaking energy for each test point by means of a provided formula.

LT Tire: (reference paragraph S6.5.2)

Each tire shall comply with the requirements of S7.3 of 571.119, which is tires for vehicles weighing 10,000 lb or more. Per S7.3 of 571.119 for our example tire, the testing is the same as the ST tire procedure noted above.

Conclusion:

The testing for strength is identical for a ST and LT tire.

TESTING - ENDURANCE

The following is for a ST or LT tire of less than nominal cross section less than or equal to 295 mm (11.5 inches) which is typical of a 5th wheel application.

ST tire: (reference paragraph S5.4.2)

There are specifications for the contact of the tire mounted on a test axle and steel test wheel after the test that I will not address because they are similar for the ST and LT.

Inflate a load range E to 60 psi. (410 kPa)

Conduct the test at 80 kilometers per hour (km/h)(50 miles per hour) in accordance with the following schedule without pressure adjustment or other interruptions:

The loads for the following periods are the specified percentage of the maximum load rating marked on the tire sidewall:
Time and Percent of rated load
4 hours, 85%
6 hours, 90%
24 hours, 100%

LT Tire: (reference paragraph S6.3.1.2)

“Conduct the test, without interruptions, at the test speed of not less than 120 km/h…” (75 mph)

Inflate a load range E to 60 psi. (410 kPa)

This test uses the same profile as the ST tire.

Immediately following the above sequence perform a Low Inflation Pressure Performance test (reference paragraph S6.4):
This test uses the same tire/wheel as the previous sequence at a reduced pressure.

For a load range E tire the pressure is reduced to 46 psi. (320 kPa)

The same tire/wheel is run an additional 2 hours at the reduced pressure at a speed of 75 mph and 100% of rated load.

Conclusion:

The difference in endurance testing between a ST and LT tire is significant. Both tires are tested through a equivalent loading/time profile. However, the LT tire is tested at this profile at a higher speed (75 vs. 50 mph) and must still endure an additional 2 hour low pressure test without failure. Thus the overall test for the LT is far more rigorous than the ST test.

TESTING - HIGH SPEED PERFORMANCE

ST tire: (reference paragraph S5.5.4)

Load the tire to 88 percent of the tire’s maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall. Inflate to 72 psi (500 kPa). Run the test sequentially without interruption at:
75 mph (121 km/h) for 30 minutes
80 mph (129 km/h) for 30 minutes
85 mph (137 km/h) for 30 minutes

LT Tire: (reference paragraph S6.2.1.2.7)

Load the tire to 85 percent of the tire’s maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall. Inflate to 72 psi (500 kPa). Run the test sequentially without interruption at:
87 mph (140 km/h) for 30 minutes
93 mph (150 km/h) for 30 minutes
99 mph (160 km/h) for 30 minutes

Conclusion:

The difference in high speed performance testing between a ST and LT tire is significant. Both tires are tested through a 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 (nearly 100 mph!) when compared to a ST tire. This is a 16% advantage to the LT tire. Thus, again the overall test for the LT is more rigorous than the ST test.
__________________

__________________
2013 Ford F350 FX4 4x4 PSD
2013 Wildcat 353LS

2015 Day/Nights Camped 5
2014 Day/Nights Camped 29
jonrjen 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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 AM.