[MacDaddy]

steak_knife wrote:

gregdixon wrote:

No

So it won't suck all the water out of the creek crossing's??

[Jccck]

MacBear wrote:

steak_knife wrote:

gregdixon wrote:

No

So it won't suck all the water out of the creek crossing's??

And i was so hopeing to cause the next drought too..

[gregdixon]

Jccck wrote:

MacBear wrote:

steak_knife wrote:

gregdixon wrote:

No

So it won't suck all the water out of the creek crossing's??

And i was so hopeing to cause the next drought too..

If you travel through the water fast enough you could create a large vortex behind you and suck the water out that way if you like

[Ben_Sierra]

gregdixon wrote:

Jccck wrote:

MacBear wrote:

steak_knife wrote:

gregdixon wrote:

No

So it won't suck all the water out of the creek crossing's??

And i was so hopeing to cause the next drought too..

If you travel through the water fast enough you could create a large vortex behind you and suck the water out that way if you like

Have you seen his build thread? That monstrosity sucks so much that he wouldn't need speed

[banga]

gregdixon wrote:

It is not illegal to run your tread pattern reversed!!!
Other wise you would need two spares when they sell cars with Directional tyres. As long as there is a minimum tread depth, carrying capacity and speed rating you are fine.
Look at the Bridgestone Adrenalin tyres. They have both directional and asymetrical patterns so they will be reversed on one side of the vehicle no matter what. If you have a directional pattern on a rolling axle it is better to run them in reverse.

you don't even need a spare tyre for a car to be road worthy in queensland

[gregdixon]

Same in WA. The rule is stupid, if you don't have a spare no problem but if you have a bald spare they can sticker you

[losfer]

according to australian design rules (23a.1.1) an assymetrical tyre is required to be fitted so that one particular sidewall faces out.

so in fitting a tyre so that it travels in the reverse direction would not be adr compliant and therefore be illegal ?

[gregdixon]

[royce]

asymetrical are directional arent the same thing

[gregdixon]

I was just sugesting that when you move a tyre to the oposite side of the car the pattern/tyre changes rolling direction wether it be non-directional, directional or asymetric.

http://www.bridgestone.com.au/tyres/tre ... nalin.aspx

This tyre is the best example. It is an asymetrical tyre with a directional type pattern when you swap sides the directional pattern runs in the opposite direction as the tyre cannot be rotated on the rim due to it being asymetrical. If it was ilegal to run a a directional pattern in revese this tyre would not make it past the ADR testing if we were to follow that theory.

[royce]

We are starting to could it with asymetrical

every directional tyre I have ever seen (including bikes) has rotation and an arrow on both sidewalls, asymetrical has the side facing out, so not the same

[gregdixon]

Yes correct they are not the same, the example I gave is asymetrical but has principles of both in its tread design.

The reason I brought this up is only to show that a directional pattern design can be ran reversed with out any problems with the law. I used the asymetrical tyre to show that It cannot be rotated on the rim to correct the direction of the pattern.
Directional or Asymetric tread is exactly that tread not the tyres construction so the load/speed rating is not afected whichever way they are ran and that is the important thing and remaining tread depth.

Just to clarify,

I am not saying you run your tyres against the recomended direction. It will make the on road handling worse. I am just trying to point out that you will not be yellow stickered for running your tyres in the opposite direction.

You will more than likely be done for having a different tyre size before anyone will even look at which way you are running your tyres.

[Jccck]

Shit's gettin' technical, i love it