stonebreaker : Fiiiiiiiiiiine...

Your argument that you have gone faster than the recommended speed of the formula somehow proves that the formula is wrong is called 'begging the question'. It is a logical fallacy that pre-supposes the conclusion as proof that the conclusion is true. Also known as 'circular reasoning'.

Actually not. If I were trying to prove the formula, and stated that I had once hydroplaned at 57 MPH and therefore the formula is correct, then your assertion would be correct. My statement that the formula did not accurately predict the "experiment's" outcome is merely a statement of fact. I did exceed the formula's speed on a wet road, and I did not hydroplane. In science, when experience does not fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis is reexamined for validity. I believe that the treadless-airplane-tire formula does not directly relate to treaded automobile tires, and am presenting evidence to the effect.

Your attempt to discredit the formula by asking me how fast I go is called 'Ad Hominem'. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Actually, whether you follow the formula or not adds very little to the argument, so there is no reason for me to attempt to discredit you.

You were hoping to use my actions to discredit the formula... which proves nothing about the truth or falsity of the formula. In fact, I follow the formula religiously. If it starts raining, I don't drive 56 mph. I bump the tire pressure to max and then drive 65. But I do not exceed the recommendations of the formula. My life is worth more than two hours.

I often drive home from Maryland International Raceway with the drag radials still on my car. Even with the drag radials on the car, I have never hydroplaned while following the formula. I don't care if the formula is overly conservative. It works.

Now you are begging the question, by asserting that since you follow the formula, and have never hydroplaned, the formula must be correct.

If you wish to continue this discussion, fine, but in the future please confine your arguments to the subject at hand and be good enough to provide credible references to support your position. I had the courtesy to cite two references - NASA and the NHTSA. Please have the same courtesy.

As far as I can tell, my argument

**has** been confined to the question at hand.

Your references are at the heart of my argument. The original testing was not done with any regard to automotive application, and the NHTSA merely quoted the NASA study, without adding any new information.