| Author | Message | ||
     Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 134 Registered: 5-2009 |
Hi, I am about to order five new tires for the Shadow 1; I propose to order the Khumo Solus KR 21 blackwall, size 215 75R 15 at $81 US each, free shipping. As far as I can tell from discussions, the consensus seems to be that this is the nearest available to the original size; it is about 28 inches in diameter. Any comments before I pull the trigger? | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 527 Registered: 6-2009 |
Randy, I think that 225/75R15 are actually closer to the original spec of 235/70R15. You might want to look at the comparison results you get using the Tire Size Calculator at Miata.net (which requires the Java plugin for its most useful version). Also, all tire size definitions are nominal sizes, which means that there is some latitude with regard to actual size. You may want to check out what Kumho has to say about the actual size of the tires you are considering as part of your decision making process. Brian | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 135 Registered: 5-2009 |
Remember my Car is a SY Series 1, which had smaller tires. The spare is a blackwall Dunlop, and the factory sheets indicate it was originally supplied with blackwall tires (well, Tyres). It has 235 75s on it now and they are too large: they drag the fender wells behind the tires on turns and they also appear to be too large for the Car (i.e. they don't look right). Thanks for the input; that is why I asked before I take the plunge: I don't need 5 tires which are not correct. | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 528 Registered: 6-2009 |
Randy, Not having the Owner's Handbook for a car from your era I don't know what the actual OEM tire size supplied was. I do understand that the SY-I series cars don't like 235/75R15s for the precise reasons you state. I thought this topic had come up again recently (and I was a part of it then). I believe Richard Treacy discussed putting 225/70R15s on his "one series" Bentley T. Do a search, as I'm almost certain this was discussed within the last six months. This is one of those topics that endlessly recycles itself (and one can understand why). Brian | ||
| Geoff Wootton Prolific User Username: dounraey Post Number: 262 Registered: 5-2012 |
My owners handbook for the SY-I states 205 x 15. I believe the full spec is 205 70 15. I have been running hankook optimo h724 which are 225 75 15 without any problems, however I believe my 74 SY-I is the "flared arch" model. The 70 SY-I may be different. Geoff | ||
| Robert Gardner New User Username: bobg Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2012 |
Randy, My Shadow 1 is a 72, I purchased the Kumho tires as well, but 225 70 15, And they definitely scrape the wells when turning harshly, 215 is supposedly more correct, so I have been told by someone other than the person that told me the 225 should be "just fine" | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 136 Registered: 5-2009 |
I did find this in my archives: "tyre size 8.45 x 15 cross-ply (from 1972 tyre size 205VR15; from 1974 tyre size 235/70HR15" Research reveals either the 215 75R 15 or the 225 70R 15 are just under 28 inches diameter and both will work. The 70-series is of course a little wider. The tires on my Car now do not rub because of the width, it is because of the diameter, so I don't see there will be a problem with either size. I will check with my local retailer, to see what is available. So my Car's original equipment were or may have been Dunlop blackwall, size 8.45 x 15. It seems I remember the spare is a radial, size 205 15. I know it is old and it is about to be retired. | ||
| Kevin Lagden Frequent User Username: kevin Post Number: 93 Registered: 7-2009 |
I run my Shadow 1 (1974) on Mastercraft 235x75x15 and have no issues. Low road noise as well. | ||
| Geoff Wootton Prolific User Username: dounraey Post Number: 263 Registered: 5-2012 |
In February 1974 RR increased the front track. I think this is why the earlier SY-I's have a problem with the larger tyre sizes | ||
| Geoff Wootton Prolific User Username: dounraey Post Number: 264 Registered: 5-2012 |
I've just checked Marinus Rijkers website. He has a relevent entry in his chassis numbers section regards the 1974+ SY-I models: "The front track was lengthened to 60 inch (1524 mm) and the rear track to 59,6 inch (1513,8 mm) for the saloons; the wheelbase was lengthened with 6 mm to 3049,6 mm; these modifications were necessary for adoption of larger section radial ply tyres; for the same reason the wheelarches were flared to prevent fouling, so giving rise to the term 'eyebrows' (Bentley on number 18225, Corniche on 18563, Long wheelbase on 19577)" Geoff | ||
| John Shostrom Prolific User Username: silvawraith2 Post Number: 132 Registered: 4-2005 |
Randy The correct tyres are indeed available: http://www.longstonetyres.co.uk/page/rolls-royce-silver-shadow John | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 137 Registered: 5-2009 |
Well, today I ordered five Kumho Solus KR21 blackwalls, size 215 75R 15, and I will soon know how much I like the "all black" look. I have to get the old tires off and take the wheels to the powder coater's place. | ||
| N. Craig Bryant Unregistered guest Posted From: 184.187.183.139 |
Randy, I don't know why so much mis-information is bandied about concerning tires ("tyres" for you boys!) for these cars. You state your Shadow is a series 1, but that doesn't say enough. Early series 1 cars were equipped with low profile bias ply tires, not radials. Now, if I suggest you put those on, which are available in the U.S. from Coker Tire, everyone on here will have cardiac problems, so I won't. The cars were changed to radials in 1970. The correct size is 205/70-15. I don't know why everyone seems to think these are so hard to come by. I just mounted five (I won't have a mismatched spare in a Rolls-Royce) new Michelin 'Symmetry' 205/70-15 on my 1970 Shadow at CostCo's tire dept. So what's so hard about that? They did cost something over $100.00 per tire, mounted and balanced. But (sorry to cause another cardiac problem) I won't put off brand (read Hankook, Kumho, etc.) tires on a Rolls-Royce. If people want to save money, what on Earth are they doing with a Rolls-Royce motorcar? (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 139 Registered: 5-2009 |
1970 SRH 9391 The old spare on Her was a Pirelli Centurato size 205 VR 15 tube-type radial. | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 545 Registered: 6-2009 |
@N. Craig Bryant: Calling Hankook and/or Kumho "off brand" tires shows an amazing lack of knowledge about the current tire market. These two companies are major players worldwide. The issue with tires is not being able to find the correct size, per se, but being able to find whitewalls in the correct size. These seem to come into and go out of production on a constant basis. Some simply do not want blackwalls on a Rolls-Royce (I'm agnostic on that point). What I don't get is the slavish devotion some show to Avon and only Avon tires. But, to each his own. Brian | ||
| N. Craig Bryant Unregistered guest Posted From: 184.187.183.139 |
I wish to take no issue with Brian Vogel. Hankook and/or Kumho are indeed major players in the world tire market. That's because the world tire market is made up of cheap automobiles, therefore they make millions of tires I'm sure. I don't get the point. They are "B" grade tires, excellent for the uses they were intended for I'm sure. Also, I don't know if this remark was intended for me personally as well. But I have no "slavish" devotion to Avon tires. I didn't mention them! I posted that I had recently mounted new Michelin 205/70-15 tires on my 1970 Shadow fhc. Mr. Vogel seems to have made an assumption with regards to blackwalls or white walls as well. My new Michelins are white wall. In the proper, very thin, whitewall which was placed on these cars in the early 1970's. Everyone is of course, free to handle their own needs, however they see fit. Sadly, this frequently involves making a decision based on monetary factors etc. that shouldn't play a part in decisions concerning Rolls-Royce motorcars. As to Mr. Roberson's mention of the old spare in his car. That is completely correct. In the early days of the conversion from bias-ply tires to radials, Rolls-Royce specified that the radial tire be equipped with tubes. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 550 Registered: 6-2009 |
N. Craig Bryant wrote: this frequently involves making a decision based on monetary factors etc. that shouldn't play a part in decisions concerning Rolls-Royce motorcars. Reality: monetary concerns do come into play for the vast majority of motorcars, Rolls-Royce or otherwise, from the manufacturer on down. Wishing that it would be otherwise won't change that fact. Nonsense regarding the quality of Hankook or Kumho tires. Both have routinely excellent quality ratings by consumers and by consumer testing outfits like Consumer Reports. The glowing test results on Hankook Optimo H724 tires, rating them above Goodyear tires in the same class, and on the same level as Michelins and Continentals that are their direct competition, made the decision easy, as did their higher load rating. I, for one, am sick to death of the condescension of the "price should play no part regarding the maintenance of Rolls-Royce motorcars" crowd. The majority of Cloud, SY, and SZ cars are in the hands of people for whom cost is indeed a factor, and encouraging people to find quality items without ridiculous "big name brand cachet" mark-up is no sin. In fact, if we want to see these cars survive into the future, it is essential that those who own them be given options that allow them to keep the cars on the road and adequately cared for. Telling people that price should be no object helps not one whit. Brian | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 1316 Registered: 4-2003 |
Just a reminder that this Forum and the Technical Library exist for the benefit of custodians/repairers whose main priority is to keep their cars on the road and enjoy their ownership experience. I am confident most of our members are concerned with value-for-money and that the last paragraph of Brian's response more than adequately summarises their attitude towards maintenance and repair costs. | ||
| Geoff Wootton Prolific User Username: dounraey Post Number: 275 Registered: 5-2012 |
I agree with Craig and Brian. There is nothing wrong in fitting budget tires. I quite like the Michelin Symmetry as a very good low cost tire, however I could not find a whitewall symmetry in the correct size so fitted the excellent Hankook Optimo's instead. In the future, if these cars ever appreciate significantly I will consider fitting on-brand Avons at $400 a pop, but until that time I will continue to potter around in my Hankooks or equivalents. Geoff. | ||
| Mark Aldridge Prolific User Username: mark_aldridge Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2008 |
Geoff,sorry to disillusion you but I have always had Avons on my Shadow and Bentley 8. Here in the UK I am looking for a good alternative next time. The last set of Avons are nigh on impossible to balance and are now showing signs of wall cracking and are thoroughly dissapointing. Honestly I would save my $400 !The Hankooks seem a good option if they are available in the UK. Mark | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 551 Registered: 6-2009 |
One of the main things I've culled from this thread is a "tire size guide" based on when a given SY car was produced. What's below is what I've added to the RR & Bentley Parts, Repair, Restoration & Other Resources Compilation: ---------------------------------------- There are three separate wheel arch types that were on the SY series cars over the course of their production. Each of these require a specific tire size (or narrow range of sizes): 1965-1974 Original wheel arch: 205/70R15 1974, starting with chassis number 18225 (SS/T), 18563 (Corniche), 19577 (LWB) “flared arch”: 215/75R15, 225/70R15, or 225/75R15 (OEM was 235/70R15, which is hard to find in WW) 1977-1980: 215/75R15, 225/70R15, or 235/75R15 (OEM was 235/70R15, which is hard to find in WW) What is most critical is that you pay attention to the load rating of the tire you select once you know which size you’ll be choosing. It must be above 100 due to the weight of these cars. Most tires in the above sizes meet this criterion, but some do not. The vast majority will have load ratings between 102 and 105, with some available in XL (extra load) rating of 108. Speed ratings are generally not at all important, particularly if you live in a country with speed limits and don’t routinely flagrantly violate them for extended periods of time. For instance, an ‘S’ speed rating means that a tire can carry its specified load at 112 MPH/180 kPH sustained driving speed. Most tires in the sizes above have a minimum speed rating of ‘S’. Few of these cars ever see that speed for short periods of time, let alone for sustained periods of driving. At one time, before load ratings were routinely indicated, speed rating was the closest indicator you had to roughly gauge load capacity, so speed ratings of ‘H’ and above were the OEM spec. Now that load ratings are on the tire these should be your main guide. ---------------------------------------- The tire size question pops up cyclically, and for obvious reasons. I'm trying to come up with a "canned" answer based on a wide range of data points offered here and elsewhere. Corrections or additions to the above are welcome. Brian | ||
| Benoit Leus Frequent User Username: benoitleus Post Number: 96 Registered: 6-2009 |
Concerning the quality of Hankook and others : until a few years ago I used to work for the Bridgestone group. One of their major concerns was the rise of the so called B-brands. Hankook, Kuhmo and others have started to make a quality product that's not only fit for "cheap" cars but is a good alternative for the better known A-brands. The Belgian Audi importer released an alloy wheel/tyre set for the Audi A6 on Hankook tyres. They would never have done this if the tyres didn't meet their quality standards. | ||
| N. Craig Bryant Unregistered guest Posted From: 184.187.183.139 |
David, I could not send a private email to you, as the set up of the forums wouldn't allow me to message you directly. But as you preview all of these posts, I assumed this will reach you that way. I shan't post any more remarks on the forum. It is supposed to be a discussion forum. I was polite, but stated my opinion. You promptly weighed in, not as moderator, but lending credence to Mr. Vogel's opinion, at the expense of mine. Obviously, there are "legitimate" opinions, and everyone else's are not. No need to discuss it further. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 1317 Registered: 4-2003 |
Moderators are allowed to express their personal opinions just like every other member and my comment clearly indicates it is my personal opinion with no relation to forum policy. Please note your opinion was published without editing as has your response above; I respect all points of view and will only use my moderating privileges where defamatory posts and/or potentially misleading or risky content has been submitted. I do not think I could ever be accused of creating a "mutual admiration society" where dissenting points of view are censored. | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 556 Registered: 6-2009 |
Mr. Bryant, your definition of "polite" is idiosyncratic. Condescending and arrogant are more apt descriptions. First, you start out talking about "misinformation" when the information presented is anything but. Then you proceed to spout pure garbage regarding the quality of some of the top players in the world tire market, castigating those who would deign to put them on their cars. Finally, you get yourself into a high dudgeon because several people, including one who happens to be the forum moderator, but who is not expressing anything but his own opinion, disagree with you. Clues: - None of that is polite, nor is it called for. - Opinions backed by fact tend to have more credence and get more respect and positive response. - Dropping into a forum and posting as you have, without any appreciation of various individuals' posting histories, who you're talking to, and what they do or do not have background in tends to get a negative response. Quelle surprise! Brian, who doesn't suffer fools gladly | ||
| Geoff Wootton Prolific User Username: dounraey Post Number: 276 Registered: 5-2012 |
Craig, The problem I had with your entries was not so much the content (which incidentally, I disagreed with) but with your patronizing tone. Examples being "("tyres" for you boys!)", "everyone on here will have cardiac problems", "So what's so hard about that?", "(sorry to cause another cardiac problem)" It was the general tenor of your entries, particularly your first entry, that came across as impolite and patronizing. Geoff. | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 563 Registered: 6-2009 |
Now on to the latest complication based on offline correspondence. In the UK (and, I'd presume, probably the EU as well) auto insurers are requiring that the tires fitted to any car have the same load rating as the OEM equipment. Since many of our cars predate the routine specification of load ratings, these appear to be being assigned based on original equipment speed ratings (or something else, since speed ratings didn't appear until after many Shadow series cars were already on the road). My UK correspondent says that his insurance company is using 101 as its load rating minimum (which makes perfect sense). However, an extensive search of 205/70R15 tires available in the U.S. shows nary a one with a load rating above 100. The majority are 94 through 96 load rating. Since tires are now a world commodity I'd imagine this means that very few or no tires in this size exist with a load rating of 101 or higher. So, that leads to the question, what sizes are people using on the pre-1974 SY series cars without fit problems and that have the necessary load rating? If there are 205/70R15s with load ratings of 101 or above, what are they? Brian | ||
| N. Craig Bryant Unregistered guest Posted From: 184.187.183.139 |
Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| David Penn Unregistered guest Posted From: 70.4.223.23 |
I have to input here even though this is an old thread, because many of the above posts have incorrect data which concerns safety. 205/70/15 is NOT correct for a Shadow 1. This size is way too small in diameter. CORRECT INFO: Original RR spec 205-15 205/82/15 [28" diameter, 205mm width] good, safe, modern sizes to use instead: 215/75/15 [27.7" diameter, 215mm width] 225/75/15 [28.3" diameter, 225mm width] RR spec for SSII 235/70/15 [28" diameter, 235mm width] Improper size to use 205/70/15 [26.3" diameter, 205mm width] The diameters tell the tale. In the following text I provide citations for the facts charted above. These are not opinions, they are established facts. (a good thing since I am merely an unknown guest at the moment) The original spec for radial Shadow 1 is 205-15. This fact is listed in TSB2206, TSB2476, Service Bulletins R7, R24, R25, and R26 among other places. The sidewall height is a percentage of width, or aspect ratio, and that percentage is 82. (Not 70). To verify this, ask anyone who was professionally managing a tire store in the 1970's and still has their wits about them. Or consult the highly regarded book by Jon J. Waples, known as The Shadow Owners Companion. Besides, 82 is too arbitrary of a number for me to make up. It has to be true for that reason alone. The closest modern tires to use are listed above, with the original size for comparison. No modern size exactly matches, but there are two sizes closely bracketing the original diameter with slightly wider widths, however, neither of them will scrape in the wheel wells. I personally use the 225 version on my 69 shadow ragtop, and they suffice with no ill effects and look fine. 205-VR15 tires are available for $600 each from Michelin, who actually make them in France, lovingly and by hand on the original equipment, and you will find them on many Ferraris in the $500,000-$5,000,000 range. These are not reproduction tires like 90% of classic tires. They are actually made by Michelin, not merely brand licensed, and I here they are spectacular. But I choke on "le prix". AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, Please note that RR specified sizes are 28" in diameter. The 205 70 size is about 26", which is 2" too small. I have seen cars with these fitted, and the tires look hopelessly lost in the wheelwells. Also note that the 205/70 size is not legal to fit in many jurisdictions, because it is undersized. It is also unsafe, as it is designed for light weight cars. As was mentioned above, the tire load rating of 101 or higher is deemed acceptable for a Shadow, and the 205/70 tires are 95 or 96 load rating. Also, the tires will run 6% too fast, making your speedometer inaccurate, consuming 6% more fuel, and lowering you effective speed rating. (If the tire were speed rated for 110 mph, and you actually drove 110 mph, your speedo would indicate 116 and your tires would have exceeded their speed rating thus overheating). Your car would also wear out faster, as it thinks it has covered 6% more miles, and your odometer will also be wrong, devaluing your car. A 76k mile car would show 81k miles. All these little details are not big concerns to me. I am no T-Totaler. It is just that the cars look and drive poorly with tires that are 2" too small, and people should know the facts and safety concerns. Also important, 1" less sidewall gives a substantially bumpier ride. There are ferocious lawyers about, and if you were to injure or kill someone in an accident with the wrong tires, you could lose all your assets to your victims' survivors, who would surely smell blood, and deep pockets, at the very mention of the venerable words "Rolls Royce" Now for the real problem, at least in the USA. Every few days, another one of the last few tires available gets discontinued, particularly whitewall. All that is left is a couple offshore brands and one lesser known American brand. No Michelin, no Pirelli, Bridgestone, Continental, Dunlop, Goodyear, etc. If the situation is different in Australia, I'd like to import some tires into the USA. Not only that, what little is available is at the bottom of the line of each companies offerings. This is listed in their own promotional materials. The tires that fit our cars are deemed "standard touring tires," or worse, "Standard Passenger tires", for the owners of minivans and economy sedans, etc. The expensive grand touring summer tires, designed for luxury cars, are only available in 17-22" sizes. Maybe this means nothing, and is just advertising hype, I don't know. But I do know that a few short years ago, I could buy any brand I wanted and I didn't have to take their cheapest line. The only "premium" options are the $300 each Avon Turbospeed, which is a 30 year old design, and I doubt will ride as well as the current Kumho or Cooper tires. And the Classic Michelin lines, which start at $600 each, blackwall only. So we really have very little from which to choose, and almost certainly, we will have less next year. Even the Kumho Solus whitewalls are gone already even though 6 months ago they were available. So we're down to Cooper and Hankook. And counting. There will always be custom tires made for old cars under license, but in my experience they shake at high speed. They are made for car shows and garage queens. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Paul Yorke Grand Master Username: paul_yorke Post Number: 1126 Registered: 6-2006 |
WOW! I always wondered what tyres thought . . . I wonder if the slow rated ones are just natural cowards and just don't like going fast, but could with a little coaching. ;/ 93% of tyres and owners would not notice the difference on the road. 93 is too arbitrary of a number for me to make up. It has to be true for that reason alone.  As always, check with your insurance company if you do have to fit tyres of a different size or rating, and ask them to drop you a line so you have it in writing. | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 161 Registered: 5-2009 |
I decided I like the all-black look. She was shipped from the factory all-black, so good enough.  | ||
| James Feller Grand Master Username: james_feller Post Number: 318 Registered: 5-2008 |
GOOD GRIEF.....why do some seem people dwell and flounder in petty diatribe and 'my opinion and stand point is better than yours'...are you gents 10??. It adds no value at all to Randys question and enquiry. I don't and won't suffer fools and pontificating windbags gladly either Brian.... Your additions when related to the topic are indeed helpful on our forum. However your posturing and pontificating in relation to another members posts in this thread are insufferably boring and add no value to our forum. riiight....Randy back to topic: looks very nice. take heed of the load rating on any tyres you buy for any car actually. Yes I doubt very much your series 1 SY is going to sustain 180klm per hour for any serious length of time...I know My Spirit would get there eventually but hell its a white-knuckle experience sustaining that speed for any length of time. Bentley Turbos were made for winding the needle off the clock..... Happy Motoring mate. J | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 641 Registered: 6-2009 |
James, Pot meet kettle. B | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 2914 Registered: 4-2003 |
James, Quick jot on this tyresome subject. 1972 T-Series. Scrapped the horrible original Avon Turbospeed crossplies in 1974 and had 235.70x15 102H Avon Turbospeeds for a time. Pretty ordinary or worse. Michelin 215.75x15 103V for a while, the best ever, Bridgestone CR337 215.75x15 - pity they were discontinued as they were damned good - and now back to 235.70x15. 235s are OK, but in reality they are too wide even for a 6½" Silver Spirit rim according to the tyre manufacturers let alone the 6” rim that the 235 was fitted to by Crewe first in 1974. The Turbo R 255s are shod on rims barely wide enough at 7 ½", and the early Turbo R Pirelli tyres at 275mm were out on a limb on their 7 ½" rims. Whitewall ? OK. Black ? Mount then with the whitewall on the inside. Turbo R. Hated the Avons. Loved the Michelins. Liked the Nokians. Tolerating the Maxxis. So what ! RT. | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 163 Registered: 5-2009 |
Tire load capacity was a concern, and as I recall these tires are rated 102S. Correct that She just eases along. Now, let's play nice and all get along. If I ever write something that can be interpreted in a way that is hurtful or offensive, and in another , I meant it the non-offensive way. I enjoy and value this Forum too much to mess it up. Regards all, RR |
