> In article <0001HW.C4A7825001E517C2F02845B0@free.teranews.com>,
> nik.morgan says...

>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:22:13 +0100, Mike P wrote
>> (in article <6edtikF6l92qU1@mid.individual.net>):
>>

>>>
>>> "nik.morgan" talktalk.net> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C4A76DFC01E05422F02845B0@free.teranews.com...

>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:40:06 +0100, Adrian wrote
>>>> (in article <6ednj6F6ka97U8@mid.individual.net>):
>>>>

>>>>> nik.morgan talktalk.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>>>> they were saying:
>>>>>

>>>>>> I don 't believe you, there is/are additional factors you have failed to
>>>>>> mention, probably because they will undermine your tenious argument.

>>>>>
>>>>> Have you noticed just how few people are sharing your opinion on this,
>>>>> Nik? Have you considered what that might imply?

>>>>
>>>> As of the moment I make it three declared against however consider the
>>>> evidence.
>>>>

>>>
>>> Firestone and the Ford Explorer. Wrongly inflated and sometimes damaged
>>> tyres. Many deaths. $1billion lawsuit against Firestone. That evidence for
>>> you?
>>>

>>
>> Could be if you could point out the relevance, what has using a wrongly
>> inflated tyre on the highway to do with a static tyre having the air
>> removed?
>> Whilst the tyre is in motion and loaded heat is generated, this causes
>> degredation in the circumstances you refer. point out please where this
>> effect my argument.
>>

> Because the same heat that is generated acts on the damaged part of the
> sidewall caused by being flat and having 500kg resting on a very small
> area for a prolonged period.

>
> Do you understand basic physics? If so, how much pressure is being
> generated on the tyre sidewallwith 500kg weight placed on an area
> 100mm²
>