Hankook Trailer Tires

Me Again wrote:

mpierce wrote:
Remember, when seeing a tire that has a 65 mph rating, that is the speed rating, at FULL WT.

IF you run less wt. than the tire is rated for, you can increase the speed. I would wager almost all 17.5 tires in RV use, are well under their rated wt. Thus, you can run faster.

That is exactly what Michelin is telling people with XTA's on 5th wheels. They are rated to 4805 pound so a trailer with 7K axles will never load them very heavily. They have the 100KM(62MPH) rating.

Now do not try to apply this same logic to a light weight ST tire! The XTA weights 58.4 pounds.

You can look at this sliding scale in several ways. Take the XPS Rib rated to 99MPH and 3042 loading. What happen with it's load carrying capability if you never operate it over 65 or 70 MPH?

Chris

Michelin is wiggling around TRA standards with their 17.5” tires on 8000# axles. The TRA specifically says that tires with speed restrictions less than 65 mph can not be manipulated with air pressure/axle loads to attain increased speeds above 62 MPH.

FastEagle

mpierce wrote:
Remember, when seeing a tire that has a 65 mph rating, that is the speed rating, at FULL WT.

IF you run less wt. than the tire is rated for, you can increase the speed. I would wager almost all 17.5 tires in RV use, are well under their rated wt. Thus, you can run faster.

That is exactly what Michelin is telling people with XTA's on 5th wheels. They are rated to 4805 pound so a trailer with 7K axles will never load them very heavily. They have the 100KM(62MPH) rating.

Now do not try to apply this same logic to a light weight ST tire! The XTA weights 58.4 pounds.

You can look at this sliding scale in several ways. Take the XPS Rib rated to 99MPH and 3042 loading. What happens with it's load carrying capability if you never operate it over 65 or 70 MPH? Michelin lowers the rating of this tire in RV service to 75 MPH. They were/are used on many smaller older Class A MH's and Class C's

Chris

I agree that we're under the weight rating, BUT no way am I going to run 75 with 17K plus behind us. Even with the Disc brakes it still takes while to stop that much weight.

Remember, when seeing a tire that has a 65 mph rating, that is the speed rating, at FULL WT.

IF you run less wt. than the tire is rated for, you can increase the speed. I would wager almost all 17.5 tires in RV use, are well under their rated wt. Thus, you can run faster.

cruz-in wrote:
"but has ISO accreditations that make it a viable tire. They meet the same stringent criterium to be a Tier 1 supplier that my company has to meet to compete in the world market... TS16949 accreditation shows that you have high standards of Quality control processes in place as well as record keeping, training, safety and management standards in place and are meeting specific criterium to show you are producing a quality product..."

While ISo certification and TS16949 acreditation is indeed a good think. What is said here is a common misconception and inaccurate.

I have lived through one certification and am in the process of getting the second of my three divisions certified. Just last week we had an audit by the certifying organization.

In the jargon of ISO, these are NOT "prescriptive" standards. They mandate that one has process and procedures.They do not mandate what those procedures are. Each company develops its own unique procedures. A fully ISO certified company can (and many do) build poor products. Why? Because they have defined poor process and procedures. But they are still ISO certified because they have process/procedures in all the areas required by ISO. ISO certification is not an indication of how good your process/procedures are. It certifies that you have process /procedures in all the areas required by the standard.

"are meeting specific criterium to show you are producing a quality product." The standards do not do this. They simply verify that you have processes and procedures in place. Not that they are good or bad processes/procedures and it certainly does not certify that you ""are meeting specific criterium to show you are producing a quality product."

I will beg to differ with you, having been through these standards processes and audits since 1993. If they are "bad processes", you get a major finding, you can lose you rating, at that point, I don't know what business you are in, but in our business, we would lose business. It does guarantee Quality processes in place and being followed..if processes were bad, not documented, not proven, you could lose your accreditation.

Processes are in place, being followed, manufacturing processes and testing procedures documented, along with training records...I don't know what you are dealing with, but our company manufacturers calipers and combi-calipers, almost 9,000,000 of them last year. Our customers, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Chrysler, Ford, GM, VW, Volvo to name a few...and if we don't meet these requirements, we could lose contracts....I know this for fact.

I will not belabor the point, but know what I've dealt with in this area for almost 21 years.

I will put more faith in a manufacturer who has the standards in place than a manufacturer who doesn't...

"but has ISO accreditations that make it a viable tire. They meet the same stringent criterium to be a Tier 1 supplier that my company has to meet to compete in the world market... TS16949 accreditation shows that you have high standards of Quality control processes in place as well as record keeping, training, safety and management standards in place and are meeting specific criterium to show you are producing a quality product..."

While ISo certification and TS16949 acreditation is indeed a good think. What is said here is a common misconception and inaccurate.

I have lived through one certification and am in the process of getting the second of my three divisions certified. Just last week we had an audit by the certifying organization.

In the jargon of ISO, these are NOT "prescriptive" standards. They mandate that one has process and procedures.They do not mandate what those procedures are. Each company develops its own unique procedures. A fully ISO certified company can (and many do) build poor products. Why? Because they have defined poor process and procedures. But they are still ISO certified because they have process/procedures in all the areas required by ISO. ISO certification is not an indication of how good your process/procedures are. It certifies that you have process /procedures in all the areas required by the standard.

"are meeting specific criterium to show you are producing a quality product." The standards do not do this. They simply verify that you have processes and procedures in place. Not that they are good or bad processes/procedures and it certainly does not certify that you ""are meeting specific criterium to show you are producing a quality product."

Tredent gets bashed a lot in these tire threads. Guess who supplies the Sailun/Hercules?

Ref

FastEagle

golf_bears wrote:
Hope we can hear from more users of these two brands, Hankook & Sailun, because I also am in need of new rubber for my 5th wheel. Got a recommendation and quote on the Hankook. Was reluctant to buy them because I'd never heard of them. Am doing my homework on them now so this thread is very relevant. Thanks in advance for all of you who are contributing your comments.

I personally wouldn't purchase Hankook tires, but would purchase the GY and again will price the Sailun tires...so far I've not seen a negative report on the Sailun tires. What WILL be brought up is that GY DOES stand by their product and IF you DID have a tire failure, they'll probably "make it right", (I know this from experience), but the question is; IF their is a Sailun tire failure and it's a tire issue, will Sailun take care of the issue...so far, no tire failures to answer that question...As an earlier post stated...It's nice that GY backs their product and takes care of the customer, but it does cause "downtime" if their is a tire failure and can cause damage to one's 5er, which GY will also take care of if a claim is filed...makes it nice, but would have also been nice if tire failure didn't happen in the first place, (in my case, I don't believe it was the tire's fault, as discovered AFTER the fact)...

Hope we can hear from more users of these two brands, Hankook & Sailun, because I also am in need of new rubber for my 5th wheel. Got a recommendation and quote on the Hankook. Was reluctant to buy them because I'd never heard of them. Am doing my homework on them now so this thread is very relevant. Thanks in advance for all of you who are contributing your comments.

mobilcastle wrote:

ramburgy wrote:
I am considering buying Hankook 215/75R17.5 TH-10 tires on our 5th wheel. We will be replacing 16 inch wheels with 17.5.
Any thoughts on this tire?

You may want to look at Sailons. I am running them and they are excellent. check them out

The Sailun tire is made in China, but has ISO accreditations that make it a viable tire. They meet the same stringent criterium to be a Tier 1 supplier that my company has to meet to compete in the world market... TS16949 accreditation shows that you have high standards of Quality control processes in place as well as record keeping, training, safety and management standards in place and are meeting specific criterium to show you are producing a quality product...something that is lacking in almost all China made tire's (ie, the plants they're manufactured in).

I have Goodyear G614's on my 5er and think they're a great tire and the company will stand behind it's product, but I WILL look at the Sailun tire next time I need to change out my tires due to their TS16969 accreditation... Knowing what it takes to attain this certification, I would trust this particular tire...