<VV>Tires

[Bryan Blackwell]

Hi Bruce,

Referencing your other post, perhaps the spec for a 7.35 (ok, is that a 
real size?) included a different aspect ratio?  It could also just be a 
matter of one manufacturer's "interpretation" of the spec vs another - 
"our tires are the lowest, fattest meats you can buy!"

--Bryan

On Jan 9, 2006, at 6:45 PM, Bruce Schug wrote:

> On Jan 9, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Padgett wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually "letter" sizes continued well into the 1980s before being 
>> replaced and were very analogous to the P-metric (which is different 
>> from pure metric) sizes. A-175, C-185, E-195, F-205, G-215, H-225, 
>> L-235 etc. and aspect ratios have not changed (yes, Virginia, there 
>> were B , D, and other sizes, just rarely seen). These were much 
>> easier to understand than the previous sizing where a 7.50 might be 
>> smaller than a 7.35  (last two digits were more aspect ratio 
>> related).
>
> I'm quite sure that the last two digits of the old "X.XX" sizes had 
> nothing at all to do with aspect ratios. The entire number was somehow 
> representative of a width dimension of the tire; probably the simply 
> cross section. Thus, I believe a 8.00-14 was 8" in cross section.
>
> Bruce