Top speed

John

it's not so much that retreads are dangerous - it's just that they're usually driven well outside of their operating envelope (eg speed rated for 120Km/h), and are often attached as you point out, to cars which require a more capable tyre.

I don't use retreads any more, havn't done since I was penniless in my early 20's. Safety is far more important than a few £ saved.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico:
it's not so much that retreads are dangerous

---

except for their lack of grip. I had a huge slide at 70km/h in the dry, around a bend that (theoretically of course) could be taken at over 100km/h -because an unscrupulous dealer fitted them to my car and I was too trusting to check when before I left
the dealership. Even if you're not worried about cornering, what about braking distances?

quote:

---

it's just that they're usually driven well outside of their operating envelope (eg speed rated for 120Km/h), and are often attached as you point out, to cars which require a more capable tyre.

---

and when you start driving at speeds close to the maximum rating of a tyre you're going to end up with a blowout. I worked once with a guy and was telling him the story above. He said he thought retreads were fine, afterall he'd just driven to Queensland and back and *only* had 2 blowouts. Arrrrggggghhhh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
and when you start driving at speeds close to the maximum rating of a tyre you're going to end up with a blowout.

---

Speed ratings are actually more like heat ratings so if you're driving a heavy car at high speed in hot conditions for long distances then you'll want the best tyres available.

One of my motorbikes is a tourer and, despite a top speed of only around 125mph, it wears Z-rated tyres. It doesn't need them because of any speed rating, but it does need them as it's weight causes a lot of heat to build up in the tyres.

The sort of person who'll fit re-treads to a Jaguar isn't going to pay a lot of attention to maintenance so the chances are they'll allow tyre pressures to fall which can also add to heat build up and the likelyhood of a blow-out.

I once used re-treads for a short while (after being assured by the dealer that they met stringent European regulations), but in the last few years new tyres have come down in price so much that I hardly think it's worth the risk any more.

Steve B

If anyone needs assurance about how good retreads are you have just to look at the"A" roads and Motorways to see the residue left behind by this wonderful money saving device, imho they are unsafe at any speed above "0 mph"
oldie.

I'm reminded of Cozy Powell who was driving down the M4 when a lorry had blowout just in front of him. The lorry stopped very quickly, Cozy didn't. (Well he did but by then he was dead)

quote:

---

I'm reminded of Cozy Powell who was driving down the M4 when a lorry had blowout just in front of him. The lorry stopped very quickly, Cozy didn't. (Well he did but by then he was dead)

---

He can't have been going too fast as lorries generally don't do more than 56, so he must have been driving too close behind the lorry.



Regards,

Steve.

I think that you are being a bit unfair to remould tyres. There are at least two makes; Colway and Technic, who produce "V" rated (150mph) tyres. I used Technic remoulds on my Maikonics-modified Citroen CX Turbo (The correct tyres were not available) and had no problems with them whatsoever. The grip was fairly good although they wore faster than Michelins. I have also, in the past, used Colways rally tyres - these were "H" rated and, again, I had no problems at all despite using them for a full season of Tarmac rallying. The main advantage that I see to using remould tyres is environmental - tyres are pretty nasty things to get rid of (hence the disposal charge at your local tyre depot).
However, the rash of new, cheap tyre makes from far eastern sources has reduced the financial areguments for using them somewhat.

I think Cozy Powell was on the phone when he died.

FWIW hands free or not doesn't affect the accident rate for people on the phone while driving.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
He can't have been going too fast as lorries generally don't do more than 56, so he must have been driving too close behind the lorry.

---

He also can't have been paying attention as lorries don't stop very quickly, especially when they've had a puncture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I think Cozy Powell was on the phone when he died.

---

Apparently his last words were "oh shit".

Speed may not have been an issue but the point was that he didn't have time to react when someone else had an accident.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by H_F:
185 mph indicated, middle of desert, cbr1100xx.
Hugo

---

Rather you than me HF. I rode one of those and it was like a whale with collic. Not exactly capable of "sports mode". Rather you than me.
You must have the balls of a bull.

---

There is not much to top speed in a straight line, really (death Valley in that case). Speedo was still climbing but we ran out of road. In terms of sport mode, as long as you upgrade the suspension and get off the seat, it can still go. Still, it's on the - whale - heavy side.

Hugo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:
Aren't they supposed to be very stable at high speed though?

---

They are extremely stable at speed. Past 150, an r1/929/954 etc is much more of a challenge.

Hugo

Isn't there a zone during winding it up where it goes into a slow weave?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Speed may not have been an issue but the point was that he didn't have time to react when someone else had an accident.

---

If the above reports are true then it sounds like he was driving without due care and attention (aggravated by being on the phone and possibly driving too close to the vehicle in front). Contrary to the governments enforcement line it's a fuck of a lot more dangerous than speeding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Isn't there a zone during winding it up where it goes into a slow weave?

---

With the stock suspension, it happens on bumpy road surface. If you revalve the fork, change the rear shock, it pretty much goes away.

That said, there are very few Japanese bikes that come with adequate suspensions.

Hugo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:
If the above reports are true then it sounds like he was driving without due care and attention (aggravated by being on the phone and possibly driving too close to the vehicle in front). Contrary to the governments enforcement line it's a fuck of a lot more dangerous than speeding.

---

Agreed but if you're driving fast you need more time to react when someone else happens to you. Naturally I always allow a good five minutes between me and any potential accident.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Agreed but if you're driving fast you need more time to react when someone else happens to you.

---

At least when driving fast people tend to pay a bit more attention.

Instead of the big debate about speeding shouldn't we be more concerned by stories like this: Don't let another family suffer?'

I think everyone should have to pass a driving test every 3 years, and that should reflect increased experience too.

Steve,
Yes of course you are right, but as I understand it and unless the law has changed you can legaly drive a vehicle even if you only have sight in one eye but that doesn't change things In my opinion excessive speed on public roads such has been demonstrated in this thread kills. 8 dead just out side Brighton when some young person tried ,by all accounts to raceing another car, lost control and flew over the central barrier straight into the path of on coming traffic that was 6 familys ruined that day. The resulting mess was so bad that some of the ambulance crews had to go for counselling afterwards,so even more lives affected. Foolhardy, reckless, stupid call it what you will but in any other circumstances other than driving a vehical anyone killing so many people
would have been charged with manslaughter at the least or posible murder.
oldie.

Foolhardy, reckless, stupid call it what you will but in any other circumstances other than driving a vehical anyone killing so many people
would have been charged with manslaughter at the least or posible murder.

If what you say about the accident is proven to be true then the driver (if they survived) would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, which is a very serious offence and often ends in a (too short) prison sentence.

They're fairly unlikely to be charged for speeding if for no other reason than it'd be difficult to prove.

The problem I have with the way you're viewing that accident is that you seem to see it purely as a speeding/speed issue when it's cleary dangerous driving which was the cause.

quote:

---

Provided that I use lane 3 for its intended purpose, ie: overtaking without impeding (legal or Emergency) traffic*, I have every right to be there, although an absolutist may argue that anyone who is above the legal speed limit foregoes all 'rights'.

---

It's exactly this sort of bullshit that causes accidents.

You, as a responsible road user, should do EVERYTHING in YOUR power to prevent others getting into situations they cannot control. if you put someone else, no matter how irresponsible, into a position where they take further risk YOU take equal blame for any resulting accidents in my view.

As John has clearly highlighted either the advice you received from the Class 1 driver was erroneous, or mis-interpreted, Roadcraft makes that perfectly clear, you should try reading it sometime.

It's not remotely clear to me why "a reasonable driver should assume that no-one but a cretin would be coming up behind him, around (even a low-radius motorway) curve at such a speed as to require the latter to brake heavily (as evidenced by the 'dip' in his bonnet which coincided with the preadvertised 'flashing lights').".

Expect the unexpected, your judgements are based on three things: -

What you can see,

What you can't see

What you can reasonably expect to happen

Anyone who spends as much time as I do on a motorway expects exactly this sort of behaviour and looks out for it. If I find someone closing on me at a rapid rate, I'll pull over and let them pass, thereby removing myself from the danger area and potentially driving someone into doing something stupid, potentially killing even more people.

Andy.

I have every right to be there, although an absolutist may argue that anyone who is above the legal speed limit foregoes all 'rights'

The highway code explicitly states that not to be the case. Just because someone else is breaking the law doesn't absolve you of any duty of care.

Steve,
Speeding, raceing, Dangerous Driving I'm really not sure that it matters, surly excessive speeds constitutes Dangerous Driving and I'm not talking about 65mph on a dual carrigeway or even 80 mph on the motorway some of the speeds mentioned on this thread on a open public highway just don't bare thinking about.I have no problem with speed, If people wish to use excessive speeds use a race track remember not all the users of todays road are endowed with lighting reflexes and everbody[who has passed the relevant test,is licenced and insured] has the right to use the public highways.
oldie.