FastEagle wrote:
CapriRacer wrote:
It doesn't matter what the composition of the rubber is. What matters is how to express the aging thing in a way that is meaningful - in a way that Mr. Joe Average can know what to do. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem possible.
And what I was aiming at is also part of a tire's final composition.
Many of the ST tire manufacturers boast the addition of ozone protection chemicals in their ST tires. Are you saying those chemicals are from an industry wide standard and in no way aid or hinder tire aging?
FastEagle
Tire performance is based on test results on standard, repeatable tests not on specifice chemical composition of a tire.
The best examples are seen in the
UTQG rating system used on passenger tires. There are standard tests used to arive at the UTQG traction rating levels and temperature rating.
Marketing claims that Company A uses "more anti-ozone chemicals" can be true but are relatively meaningless as some rubber compounds are more naturably resistant to Ozone attack than others so would need less additives to achieve equal performance. "More" than what tire? The ones they make for wheel barrows or the ones made for passenger tires?
You also are confusing the relationship between external visible sidewall cracking and the remainimg structural integrity of the internal components. In general more cracking is an indicator of the tires usage and exposure to heat, UV & O3 but is not absolute.
Think for a moment of Blood Pressure. Is there a specific number that if exceeded means you will definately have a heart attack?
Tires are organic as I pointed out in my post. Organics are very complex and not as easy to control or measure as the Aluminum and Titanium used in fighter aircraft. You know a lot more about aircraft than I do but I don't think you can say there is an age in months when an airplane is no longer safe to fly.
