Radial tires?
They are superior to bias ply tires, mostly because of the belt. The belt has been made of several different materials, but the industry has settled on steel wire as the most appropriate material, mostly because of 2 reasons: The adhesion of rubber to steel is fairly well understood, and the stiffness added is cost effective.
Doing my part to reach 300!
The rubber doesnât adhere to steel. High carbon steel wire rod is drawn down, then brass plated. After another drawing step the wires are stranded then a mat is produced from the stranded wires. When the belt is incorporated with rubber to make the tire, the rubber adheres to the brass plating. Individual wires are about 0.008â diameter. Amazing stuff.
Well stated. That is what is well understood.
Tire cord wire rod was my thing in the steel mill.
Most of my trailers spec out bias ply. The bigger boat needs their stiffer sidewalls due to frame clearance issues and they seem to reduce sway significantly- based on my own experience. My landscaping and smaller boat trailers seem to do better with radial tires on them. But for the small boat, the price of a bias ply already mounted on a steel rim is still cheaper than just the equivalent radial tire. They get used infrequently, live a tough life at the unimproved ramps so I go with the bias ply versions.
No, I think you are! 
Back around 1991 or soâŠI bought me a Chrysler, it was as big as a whale.
It was a 65 New Yorker, these cars came stock with 14 inch wheels. The car I bought was riding on some tall 225/75R14 bias ply tires. The ride was soft and supple but those tires would literally pull the steering wheel out of my hand if they picked up a groove or seam in the pavement.
Being the young guy that I was, I bought some chrome modular wheels and 235/60R15 Road Huggers and the handling and driving experience improved exponentially. So my real life experience is that a wider tires improves handling, cornering, and stability.
Or are we comparing apples and oranges? 
Yes, according to a recent interview by the gal in charge of wiki, it cannot be totally trusted for accuracy.
Now that 58 stock desoto with stock tires, rode and handled great and also pretty ff the line.
Also, they wandered like crazy when driving on a bridge with an open-grid steel surface. Until I got my first radial tires, I thought that it was ânormalâ for tires to pull/wander like crazy. It was only ânormalâ for bias-ply tires, it seems.
Ah, the good old days 
Yup!
Everything was so much better 
, back in the days of bias-ply tires, fade-prone drum brakes, marshmallow-soft suspensions, lousy gas mileage, rusting-out of rocker panels, fenders, and exhaust systems after 4 or 5 years, the need for a valve & ring job after 50-60k miles, very short warranties, and all of the other âwonderfulâ things about the cars of the past.
Some were good lookin though, like a 1963 Corvette. IMO the best looking of them all. Still, Iâd rather have a newer one that even in base trim is quicker and handles better than anything from the 50âs through the naughties.
Youâll get no argument from me about the styling
I agree that era Corvette looked fantastic
Generally speaking, I feel the majority of Corvettes were good looking . . . on the outside
I feel some of the interiors were a different story, especially some of the later ones
I have had radials that would follow the groves. Have a section of I-95 near me that is cement with grooves. Seems tread design more likely the culprit.
Crossed the Mississippi many times on those steel lattice bridges with bias ply tires with no problems.
How so, when what I understand is what is understood by most experts in the industry?
And what shape was the suspension in, on that by-then 25 year old Chrysler? My old man had to saw his '67 New Yorker down the Garden State Parkway, until after he had a Wildwood shop put new tie rod ends in and align it, while I was paying the boardwalk arcade ownerâs rent(!). The 75-series tires on her tracked true during the drive up the parkway home.
Nothing any of you, except for one certain retired tire industry veteran, say on here will convince me otherwise.
My sweet spot is 60-70-series, radial of course.
Something we do agree on!
From the 1980s to early 2000s, I collected dealer brochures, for cars I owned and ones I only dreamed of owning.
The early 2000s Vette, Stingray or base, was a looker in its day, until I saw the interior, especially the dash and console. More seams - it seemed - than necessary between sections of the dashboard.
Those elements seemed put together as afterthoughts, reflecting GMâs true fiscal focus for the Corvette: power and handling.
About 1981 heading south on 24 in Iâll, we crossed the river to Paducah. I was pulling the camper and they had shut the new interstate bridge down, so we were routed over the old two lane. I hung onto the wheel pretty good when I hit the grate on the bridge. There is a you tube on that bridge. Not a fun ride. Maybe the radials helped but there wasnât much room.
Nobody caught the musical reference here?
That was my point, apples and oranges. That, and the idea of a luxo-barge rolling around on 14 inch wheels is ridiculous. My 65 New Yorker, 65 Ninety Eight, and 64 Dynamic 88 all rolled on 14 inchers. Cornering in those cars was an exercise in squealing tires.
B-52s . . . ?!
Heck I said that 200 post ago⊠
Just missed the reply count by a lotâŠ
Yeah, Love Shack. You beat me to it.