"nolife" <nolife@fake.inv> wrote in message
news:KtadnZHV6_EWGaDYnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com ...


> We finally gave up and sat around until and a resort
> employee on his way to work pulled me with a tow strap the last 3 miles
> to the resort with his Samuri (4x4 with all season tires oddly enough).

You would not believe the mountains of snow that I have plowed with nothing
more than good ASR's on my truck. Of course, it's 4WD, but then again, it's
pushing a lot more load than any passenger car simply driving down the road.
I generally keep M&S tires on it but I have used simple ASR's in the past.

> Being stuck out in the middle of absolutely nowhere is not a good
> feeling. I still had at least 4/32 of tread left with about 35k miles
> on those tires but ruined them tires from the constant spinning (chewed
> up from at least an hour of trying).

I'm surprised you chewed off any amount of tread in that experience. With
that little traction - thus little coeffiecient of friction, I would not
expect you to wear off tread.

For me the big thing is the tread design. I look for big sipes and
channeling outward. Some might call it an aggressive tread. I stay
completely away from touring tires and the more contemporary tread designs
typical of today's low profile tires.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> The reason that they're not more popular are obvious:
>>
>> - Tire manufacturers, car manufacturers and people like you push ASR
>> tires, so most people incorrectly assume that they're actually good for
>> winter conditions.
>>
>> - Many people are simply too cheap to spring for them.
>
> You forgot to add "the roads are plowed much better and faster now than they
> were years ago"

That's true. The roads around here (NH) are generally only a mess during
and immediately after storms. Cross the border into the People's
Republic of Massachusetts and it's a different story. ;-)

> While you both make good points, I've not had a situation personally where a
> better tire would have made a big difference. Maybe I'm just lucky. If I
> lived on a more rural road, had a 2000 foot unplowed, rut filled, dirt
> driveway, then yes, I've have a better winter tire.

That's really not the point. The difference in traction and control in
even moderate amounts of snow/slush/ice is substantial. Obviously, it's
not mandatory to have winter tires, but they really do help.

> I live on a hill and
> pull out of my driveway and make a left turn up the hill. In 25 years, I've
> never gotten stuck, slid, or did not make it.

The last time I got "stuck" was many years ago and it was during the
heaviest storm I've ever seen. Snow was falling at 4" per hour! I got
bogged down in ~20" of snow when I pulled off into a side road near my
house so I could get out, walk home and clear the driveway. It took me
all of five minutes to kick enough snow away from car to get moving
again, so I don't know if "stuck" is even the right term.

> I did have the traction
> control kick in a couple of times That 500 feet is usually the worst part
> of my commute.
>
> Years ago, it was common to drive with snow tires and even chains over them
> at times. In some parts of the country, it is still needed.

Yeah, times have changed, though I don't recall ever owning tire chains.

>> - Oddly enough, many of the same people will waste thousands of dollars on
>> unnecessary - and in some cases ill handling - AWD and 4WD vehicles when
>> they would be better off with FWD and a set of snow tires (lower initial
>> cost, lower maintenance cost, better fuel mileage, etc). Go figure.
>
> Some people should not drive if a snowflake falls no matter what tires they
> have. Going to work in the snow one day, I rounded a curve and saw a car
> that was being towed out from the side where the woman slid off the road.
> Evidently, it was a gentle slide and no damage was done because on the way
> home, there she was again, on a different stretch of road where she slid off
> again. Given that thousands of cars passed that same road all day and only
> one managed to slide off (twice), you just have to wonder.

I hear ya! In the past few years I've noticed an increase in the number
of cars I see off the side of the road on their roofs. These are cars,
mind you, not SUVs as one might expect. In many cases, it's not at all
clear how it happened. It seems that as cars get more sophisticated,
drivers rely more on technology and less on skill, largely because
they're told they can. Unfortunately, that technology often lets them
down when they need it most. Then again, some people should just never
be given a driver's license at all...

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ml2%g.843$%T3.563@trndny03...
>>
>>
>>> That doesn't mean that they're not a huge improvement over "all season"
>>> crap tires, it just means that you're willing to tolerate having poor
>>> traction and take the added risks of driving in winter on inferior
>>> tires. The difference in snow/slush performance with dedicated winter
>>> tires is night and day.
>>
>>
>> We've had this discussion before Brian and I believe that if you want
>> snow
>> tires, then by all means, put them on and enjoy. As I have stated in the
>> past, I drive for my business and it is not a matter of "tolerating poor
>> traction, and added risks". If I suffered poor traction, I would not
>> hesitate to employ a better solution. My point always has been, and
>> continues to be that with decades of experience behind me, good All
>> Season
>> radials are plenty sufficient for winter driving.
>>
>> I have never suffered a loss of control that a car with snow tires
>> didn't, I
>> have never suffered an inability to start, stop or navigate that a car
>> equipped with snows didn't, and I have plowed snow with the grill of
>> my car
>> with nothing more than good ASR tires. Likewise, in an area where we
>> get a
>> lot of snow, the percentage of cars equipped with snow tires is
>> significantly less than those that successfully negotiate winter driving
>> conditions without them.
>
> I'm with you Mike. My Chevy truck came with Goodyear AT tires which are
> essentially all season tires for a truck. I plowed snow with them and
> never even had to put my chains on, although a few times I probably
> should have. When they got worn they didn't work as well as is to be
> expected. I replaced them with the heaviest lug M&S tires I could find
> since I plow a long driveway. I expected a dramatic increase in
> traction. The difference in plowing traction was nothing more than I
> would have expected from simply having new tires. However the different
> in noise was dramatic. I never forget that I now have REAL mud and snow
> tires on as they howl like crazy!

There's a big difference between car and truck tires. We're talking cars
here, or at least I am.

> I believe that dedicated snow tires on a car are better in some
> conditions than all season tires (deep snow, slush and ice), however,
> they are also worse on wet and dry pavement.

The difference is not much on dry pavement and the difference on wet
pavement depends on the amount of water. The more there is, the less the
difference.

> Even in northern PA, we
> have at least 10:1 more winter days where the roads are wet or dry than
> we do with snow, slush or ice. So the question for me is: Do I want
> better traction in the conditions that prevail 90% of the time or 10% of
> the time? This is an easy question for me to answer. :-)

That's a good point, but if the 10% of bad conditions causes 90% of the
problems...?

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
newslo%g.7064$ke4.6956@trndny02...

>
> That's true. The roads around here (NH) are generally only a mess during
> and immediately after storms. Cross the border into the People's
> Republic of Massachusetts and it's a different story. ;-)

Yeahbut the real problem in the great state of oblivion is the drivers, not
the driving conditions. Volvo's ought to be made illegal...


>
> The last time I got "stuck" was many years ago and it was during the
> heaviest storm I've ever seen. Snow was falling at 4" per hour! I got
> bogged down in ~20" of snow when I pulled off into a side road near my
> house so I could get out, walk home and clear the driveway. It took me
> all of five minutes to kick enough snow away from car to get moving
> again, so I don't know if "stuck" is even the right term.

That's a big part of my position. I could make the very same statement,
using just radial tires. Now that we've both said that...

>
> Yeah, times have changed, though I don't recall ever owning tire chains.

Ugh! I do. For my first car. Back in the days of bias ply tires.

>
> I hear ya! In the past few years I've noticed an increase in the number
> of cars I see off the side of the road on their roofs. These are cars,
> mind you, not SUVs as one might expect. In many cases, it's not at all
> clear how it happened. It seems that as cars get more sophisticated,
> drivers rely more on technology and less on skill, largely because
> they're told they can. Unfortunately, that technology often lets them
> down when they need it most. Then again, some people should just never
> be given a driver's license at all...
>

Therein lies what I believe to be the biggest downfall of technology in
cars. Not that I am opposed to technology at all, but the effect of certain
improvements is often a certain degradation.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> "nolife" <nolife@fake.inv> wrote in message
>>> news:9pKdnXuV-LPH2aHYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Junk yard.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd think twice about those tires though. Are they really that
>>>>> worn? I
>>>>> drive All Season Radials for 60K on a regular basis, all through the
>>>>> seasons, and I live north of Syracuse.
>>>>>
>>>> What brand and model tires are you using? I've never had an all season
>>>> tire that had acceptable snow traction after 25-35k miles. It seems
>>>> that one year they are great but 15K more miles and the next winter
>>>> they
>>>> completely suck.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I've had everything from Michelin to Dunlop to PepBoys Futuras
>>> on my
>>> vehicles. The worst I've ever owned were Generals. I'm in the snow
>>> belt
>>> north of Syracuse and we get nearly 300" of snow a year. I've not
>>> owned a
>>> snow tire in decades.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean that they're not a huge improvement over "all
>> season" crap tires, it just means that you're willing to tolerate
>> having poor traction and take the added risks of driving in winter on
>> inferior tires. The difference in snow/slush performance with
>> dedicated winter tires is night and day.
>
> Brian, I don't disagree with you here, but as I just wrote in reply to
> Mike's post "I believe that dedicated snow tires on a car are better in
> some conditions than all season tires (deep snow, slush and ice),
> however, they are also worse on wet and dry pavement. Even in northern
> PA, we have at least 10:1 more winter days where the roads are wet or
> dry than we do with snow, slush or ice. So the question for me is: Do
> I want better traction in the conditions that prevail 90% of the time or
> 10% of the time? This is an easy question for me to answer. :-)"
>
> If I lived in an area where snow, slush and ice prevailed more than 50%
> of the winter days, then I'd almost certainly buy snow tires. However,
> where I live the number of days with these conditions is, at best, 10%
> of my driving days. I therefore optimize for the conditions that
> prevail most of the time.

And I just wrote "That's a good point, but if the 10% of bad conditions
causes 90% of the problems...?" I agree that much of the time they're
not necessary, but that's even more true of AWD and 4WD, yet look at how
many people buy vehicles with them. It's ironic that almost all of them
would be better off simply with better tires, or even with just checking
their tire pressures once in a while. ;-)

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> I agree that much of the time they're not necessary, but that's even more
> true of AWD and 4WD, yet look at how many people buy vehicles with them.
> It's ironic that almost all of them would be better off simply with better
> tires, or even with just checking their tire pressures once in a while.
> ;-)

Most would be better off slowing down a bit too. I don't have any
statistics, but it seems as though many of the AWD and 4WD drivers think
they can steer and stop in snow the same as they drive all the time. I've
seen many of them by the side of the road. They don't comprehend the
difference between traction to move through deep snow versus traction on
slippery road. Slowing from 75 to 70 just doesn't do it., no matter what
tires you have.

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> I agree that much of the time they're not necessary, but that's even more
>> true of AWD and 4WD, yet look at how many people buy vehicles with them.
>> It's ironic that almost all of them would be better off simply with better
>> tires, or even with just checking their tire pressures once in a while.
>> ;-)
>
> Most would be better off slowing down a bit too. I don't have any
> statistics, but it seems as though many of the AWD and 4WD drivers think
> they can steer and stop in snow the same as they drive all the time. I've
> seen many of them by the side of the road. They don't comprehend the
> difference between traction to move through deep snow versus traction on
> slippery road. Slowing from 75 to 70 just doesn't do it., no matter what
> tires you have.

Absolutely! They don't understand that the extra traction that allows
them to accelerate to extra-legal speeds in snow means NOTHING when you
have to corner or stop. Many of the truck-based 4WD systems are actually
worse for cornering and stopping than FWD. Ignorant lemmings.

 

nolife wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I've had everything from Michelin to Dunlop to PepBoys Futuras on my
>>vehicles. The worst I've ever owned were Generals. I'm in the snow belt
>>north of Syracuse and we get nearly 300" of snow a year. I've not owned a
>>snow tire in decades.
>>
>>
>
> I got grounded on some remote roads for hours going to a skiing trip in
> WV last year with my factory supplied Michelin's on my 2003 Elantra.
> It was a joke, cars going by me left and right while my son and I were
> attempting to push my wife up the hills and bouncing and sitting on the
> hood. There was only about 2 inches of snow. Tried everything out of
> desperation, riding on the edge trying to get traction from the rocks,
> in the grass, clearing a path with my feet, even tried the traction
> control which did not help because of the rapid changes caused too much
> erratic changes causing more problems. A few times the front end would
> drift too far and slide off the road but we never actually left the road
> completely. We finally gave up and sat around until and a resort
> employee on his way to work pulled me with a tow strap the last 3 miles
> to the resort with his Samuri (4x4 with all season tires oddly enough).
> Being stuck out in the middle of absolutely nowhere is not a good
> feeling. I still had at least 4/32 of tread left with about 35k miles
> on those tires but ruined them tires from the constant spinning (chewed
> up from at least an hour of trying). The previous year I made it around
> with no problems where I live but I only have small rolling hills here.
> I've had one of my 5.0 Mustangs in the snow a few times for one reason
> or another. It was a joke and the AS tires are just a very small part
> of that problem.
> Obviously your luck was much better then mine but I'll keep the chains
> in my trunk from now on.

Luck has little to do with it. While 1/8" of tread is still legal in
most states, it certainly isn't adequate in snow. And that has nothing
to do with the type of tire. No tire will give decent snow traction
with that little tread remaining.

I run my tires down to 2/32" generally, but only if that occurs during
the summer. I just replaced the tires on my minivan and they had a
little more than 2/32" left, but it was getting too close to winter to
risk running them longer.


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:

>> Even in northern PA, we have at least 10:1 more winter days where the
>> roads are wet or dry than we do with snow, slush or ice. So the
>> question for me is: Do I want better traction in the conditions that
>> prevail 90% of the time or 10% of the time? This is an easy question
>> for me to answer. :-)
>
>
> That's a good point, but if the 10% of bad conditions causes 90% of the
> problems...?

It may for some folks, but I've driven in snow for 30+ years and it
hasn't been a problem. The only accident I've had occurred just last
December on a nice dry day ... I was hit by a drunk.


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> I agree that much of the time they're not necessary, but that's even
>>> more true of AWD and 4WD, yet look at how many people buy vehicles
>>> with them. It's ironic that almost all of them would be better off
>>> simply with better tires, or even with just checking their tire
>>> pressures once in a while. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Most would be better off slowing down a bit too. I don't have any
>> statistics, but it seems as though many of the AWD and 4WD drivers
>> think they can steer and stop in snow the same as they drive all the
>> time. I've seen many of them by the side of the road. They don't
>> comprehend the difference between traction to move through deep snow
>> versus traction on slippery road. Slowing from 75 to 70 just doesn't
>> do it., no matter what tires you have.
>
>
> Absolutely! They don't understand that the extra traction that allows
> them to accelerate to extra-legal speeds in snow means NOTHING when you
> have to corner or stop. Many of the truck-based 4WD systems are actually
> worse for cornering and stopping than FWD. Ignorant lemmings.

Baloney. My truck will easily outrun either of my FWD minivan/cars in
the yucky stuff and is much more stable at speed. Why do you think
truck based 4WD systems are worse than FWD? Have you ever owned a 4WD
truck?

Matt


Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> Baloney. My truck will easily outrun either of my FWD minivan/cars in the
> yucky stuff and is much more stable at speed.

What speed would that be? Surely, you don't think that any car is as stable
at 70 mph with an inch of snow/slush on the road as it is when dry. That
was my point. What was perfectly safe at 70+ is not very safe when the road
is covered, but some people just don't slow down until they are out of
control. Relatively speaking, you may be right, but not in absolute terms.

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
>>Baloney. My truck will easily outrun either of my FWD minivan/cars in the
>>yucky stuff and is much more stable at speed.
>
>
> What speed would that be? Surely, you don't think that any car is as stable
> at 70 mph with an inch of snow/slush on the road as it is when dry. That
> was my point. What was perfectly safe at 70+ is not very safe when the road
> is covered, but some people just don't slow down until they are out of
> control. Relatively speaking, you may be right, but not in absolute terms.

I believe the claim was that in messy conditions a FWD car is better
than a 4WD truck. I don't believe that at all. I have two FWD vehicles
and a 4WD pickup. I'll drive the pickup over the FWD cars any day on a
snow covered or slushy road. The truck is heavier and less affected by
slush. It also handles better in deep snow and is less prone to
understeer and easier to recover from a skid should one occur. FWD cars
are very tricky to handle in a skid as the response required is nearly
opposite that for a RWD vehicle.


Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> I believe the claim was that in messy conditions a FWD car is better than
> a 4WD truck. I don't believe that at all. I have two FWD vehicles and a
> 4WD pickup. I'll drive the pickup over the FWD cars any day on a snow
> covered or slushy road. The truck is heavier and less affected by slush.

There are so many combinations of pickups and FWD vehicles that is just not
possible to make a general statement that one is better than the other. .

 

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
news:jhJ%g.4228$Wp3.1126@trndny05:

>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> I believe the claim was that in messy conditions a FWD car is
>> better than a 4WD truck. I don't believe that at all. I have two
>> FWD vehicles and a 4WD pickup. I'll drive the pickup over the FWD
>> cars any day on a snow covered or slushy road. The truck is
>> heavier and less affected by slush.
>
> There are so many combinations of pickups and FWD vehicles that is
> just not possible to make a general statement that one is better
> than the other. .

Not really taking a side here, just an anecdote. My old pickup with
part-time 4wd used to take technique to drive in the snow. Since there
was no differential in the transfer case, the front and rear wheels
were driven the same distance all the time. Any give between the two
came from wheel slippage. Thus, it was bad to use on dry pavement.
Also, on snow covered pavement, it was usually the front wheels that
would slide in a turn. Not a terrible out of control thing, it was
just that it really wanted to go straight instead of turning. It could
shift on the fly, so I got fairly adept at using 4wd to get up to
speed, and going back into rwd to make a corner, then getting back into
4wd. With a stickshift truck it looked like a lot of work, but it
worked well.

I preferred the part time 4wd though, because I used to off-road a
little, and at the time many full time systems with a differential in
the middle didn't have a lock. You could have your front wheels on dry
ground and your back wheels in mud, and your back wheels would spin
with the front not doing much.

Enjoy.
Ben

 

Richard Dreyfuss wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
> news:jhJ%g.4228$Wp3.1126@trndny05:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>> I believe the claim was that in messy conditions a FWD car is
>>> better than a 4WD truck. I don't believe that at all. I have two
>>> FWD vehicles and a 4WD pickup. I'll drive the pickup over the FWD
>>> cars any day on a snow covered or slushy road. The truck is
>>> heavier and less affected by slush.
>> There are so many combinations of pickups and FWD vehicles that is
>> just not possible to make a general statement that one is better
>> than the other. .
>
> Not really taking a side here, just an anecdote. My old pickup with
> part-time 4wd used to take technique to drive in the snow. Since there
> was no differential in the transfer case, the front and rear wheels
> were driven the same distance all the time. Any give between the two
> came from wheel slippage. Thus, it was bad to use on dry pavement.
> Also, on snow covered pavement, it was usually the front wheels that
> would slide in a turn. Not a terrible out of control thing, it was
> just that it really wanted to go straight instead of turning. It could
> shift on the fly, so I got fairly adept at using 4wd to get up to
> speed, and going back into rwd to make a corner, then getting back into
> 4wd. With a stickshift truck it looked like a lot of work, but it
> worked well.
>
> I preferred the part time 4wd though, because I used to off-road a
> little, and at the time many full time systems with a differential in
> the middle didn't have a lock. You could have your front wheels on dry
> ground and your back wheels in mud, and your back wheels would spin
> with the front not doing much.

These are the types of systems I was referring to, though perhaps
they're not what Matt and Edwin have. In addition to what Ben said,
these systems also tend to increase stopping distance in slippery
conditions.

Let's also keep in mind that there are significant differences between
"real" 4WD pickup trucks and truck-based SUVs. I would expect that the
former would be good in snow, assuming they had enough weight in the
back and the more aggressive tires that are typical. OTOH, when you try
to "civilize" the platform for SUV use, you give up performance for comfort.