On almost every occasion over the last few years that I have HAD to change tyres-it was because a repair could not be safely done.
That's another of my reasons for not buying new tyres. An unrepairable puncture on a new Michelin would hurt me more than on a just-bought part-worn, and is just, or almost, as likely.
I suppose it might also be reason not to be too bothered about tread depth on new tyres, if you feel you are likely to bust rather than wear them out. That was my impression when I did more miles and wasn't at all conscious of tyre age.
Now, my tyres are likely to age-out instead.
|
|
Tyres are a minor motoring expense compared to all your other costs so why risk your life (and that of others) fitting used tyres that you probably have no idea why they were discarded by the previous user.
Take my Superb. Its currently on Michelins but should I ever need to buy replacements (unlikely unless I get an irreparable puncture) I would go on line and check current deals on known brands - today the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance would win at £86.
A set of 4 would cost about £400 all in and based on my experience with the previous Superb if rotated front to back annually would last about 40,000 miles for the set, for me that would be 5 years.
Over those 5 years I would spend £1500 on insurance, £750 on RFL, £4000 on fuel, £1000 on servicing, total £7250. Then there is the depreciation, that is likely to be over £20000 over 5 years taking the total to over £27000.
As I said, tyres are cheap.
|
|
"Tyres are a minor motoring expense compared to all your other costs so why risk your life (and that of others) fitting used tyres that you probably have no idea why they were discarded by the previous user."
Well, one reason would be that for me they are probably the safest option, because I'm unlikely to throw away tyres with usable tread. This means that if I bought new tyres, they might last long enough to become dangerously old.
Reprehensible, I daresay, but I know myself well enough to see the danger.
"Over those 5 years I would spend £1500 on insurance, £750 on RFL, £4000 on fuel, £1000 on servicing, total £7250."
Yeh? Well, I wouldn't.
"Then there is the depreciation..."
No. There isn't
|
|
|
|
On almost every occasion over the last few years that I have HAD to change tyres-it was because a repair could not be safely done.
Ive had same thing last few years although had reasonable wear out of my tyres, if it wasn't a screw went through tread edge it was a 6 inch roof nail, last thing was a philips screwdriver nov last year so know what you mean
Too many untidy tradesmen round my way !
|
|
50 years ago when I got my first car remoulds were the order of the day - along with breakers yards for spare parts, diy servicing, cheap 20-50 oil etc. Even drilled out the carburetter air correction jets and mixed paraffin with 4 star to make it go further on a tank.
So I can understand why some need to save money to stay mobile.
I am still somewhat careful with money (skinflint). But one thing I will not economise on now are decent tyres. They are the only thing that keeps you in contact with the road rather than a hedge. I also change them at about 3mm tread, particularly if autumn/winter is approaching.
|
... one thing I will not economise on now are decent tyres. They are the only thing that keeps you in contact with the road rather than a hedge.
While this statement is unarguable, it has become a bit of a mantra, as if to justify any replacement of tyres. Anyone with a healthy bank balance may happily shrug off £400 or more for a new set, but a bangernomics aficionado comparing that with the value of the car gets a different perspective.
If one's driving habits or the prevailing conditions are a priority in deciding when to replace tyres, fine. Presumably tyres become steadily less 'safe' as they wear from new. An arbitrary depth of 1.6mm (at one time 1mm) has been chosen as a compromise which I am happy to accept, as I am not a mad driver and I drive very little after dark or in freezing conditions.
|
"Over those 5 years I would spend £1500 on insurance, £750 on RFL, £4000 on fuel, £1000 on servicing, total £7250."
Yeh? Well, I wouldn't.
In the UK those costs are unavoidable.
£300 a year is what I pay, many pay more. pay nothing and it will cost you far more, possibly even your liberty.
£150 a year is the norm for RFL, pay nothing and it will cost you far more.
If you do about 8000 miles a year @50 mpg it will cost you about £800. There is no way to avoid that unless you choose to fill up and not pay which will eventually lead to the loss of your liberty.
Servicing is purely optional but in reality not wise but your choice.
Driving on tyres that have limited grip due to age or lack of tread is not really clever either. Tyres that may have hidden damage is not clever either. Have an accident which is attributed to faulty tyres and its possibly a custodial sentence.
Since you live in a 3rd world country it may be acceptable to have lower standards with little or no legal deterrents but I prefer to have higher standards. I accept that many scroats live to your rules over here but that does not mean its acceptable.
Edited by skidpan on 14/12/2020 at 14:50
|
|
Well, as you gracelessly acknowledge, I'm not in the UK
But when I was in the UK, I managed to (legally) avoid a lot of those costs, by not being you.
There's a lot of that about.
No servicing, because DIY, and no depreciation, because bangers. Not so much petrol (which here is close to US prices) because low mileage. Low insurance, because 3PFF
In Taiwan, be it ever so Third Worldy, this is more difficult because no one else does it, and they disapprove of it perhaps more than you do. Cars must be new and shiny to avoid unbearable shame, and mechanical cluelessness rules.
To be fair though, if a sense of smug superiority triggers a knee-jerk assumption of multiple illegality and associated name-calling in the Taiwanese, I'm not aware of it, but then I don't know the Chinese for scroat.
I'm the only staffer asked to produce my registration documents to get a parking permit, which I suppose is a mild form of the same thing, but given the prevailing mechanical cluelessness that's understandable. It is, after all, the worst looking car I've seen in Taiwan, outside of the aboriginal villages. Old ladies come up and shake their heads at it.
I rather like that.
Part-worn tyres are overpriced here and if both are worn out they probably work out more expensive than new ones. I believe in the UK a lot of them come from Germany, which mandates that they be replaced as a full set, inevitably producing a supply of part worns. This, and the level of competition (Taiwanese in general don't buy anything used), seems to make them a better deal in the UK than they are here.
Edited by edlithgow on 15/12/2020 at 00:18
|
|
|
|
Presumably tyres become steadily less 'safe' as they wear from new.
A questionable assumption.
DRY performance (braking and handling) is inversely related to tread depth, as the "squirm" comments above hint. In the UK, with its unpredictable but fairly uniformly distributed pattern of light rain, it would be hard to predict the net effect of tread depth on safety. Probably need some fairly sophisticated sums.
In Taiwan, OTOH, with a reliable dry season and rainy season wetness concentrated in a few sustained multi-day downpours, it seems quite likely that baldish tyres are statistically safer.
This would be especially true for me since I hardly ever need to drive, so can avoid adverse conditions, and I have relatively narrow tyres, less subject to aquaplaning than "modern" wide rubber.
This ignores the effect of rubber ageing. Older tyres are thought to be less safe, but unpredictably so. IIRC, studies on tread depth effect have often excluded ageing as a variable by shaving the tyres.
Edited by edlithgow on 14/12/2020 at 15:08
|
|
Is edithgow having a bit of a larf here?:
Just being a bit provocative and awkward?
And what is 'driving in Taiwan on baldish tyres' going to add to any sensible debate?
|
Is edithgow having a bit of a larf here?:
Just being a bit provocative and awkward?
And what is 'driving in Taiwan on baldish tyres' going to add to any sensible debate?
Depends what you want to debate about. I gather it isn't 'driving in Taiwan on baldish tyres'
What then, is your post going to add to any sensible debate?
Generally, an argument that conflicts with received opinion is not met with "sensible debate".
Its met with name calling.
See above.
|
|
There are advantages to reduced tread depth on new tyres.
As mentioned above, better handling and grip on dry roads.
Lower rolling resistance (= improved fuel efficiency).
Lower drive-by noise.
The latter two feature on the label attached to new tyres, hence giving perceived advantages to the tyre buyer/tyre dealer selling the tyre.
New tyre tread depths in the 6 to 7mm region will not affect wet grip except in extreme conditions where aquaplaning could be expected.
|
There are advantages to reduced tread depth on new tyres.
As mentioned above, better handling and grip on dry roads.
Lower rolling resistance (= improved fuel efficiency).
Lower drive-by noise.
The latter two feature on the label attached to new tyres, hence giving perceived advantages to the tyre buyer/tyre dealer selling the tyre.
New tyre tread depths in the 6 to 7mm region will not affect wet grip except in extreme conditions where aquaplaning could be expected.
Since tread depths below 3mm make aquaplaning more likely, the reduction in new depth makes the value much lower for those who change tyres at 3mm
|
There are advantages to reduced tread depth on new tyres.
As mentioned above, better handling and grip on dry roads.
Lower rolling resistance (= improved fuel efficiency).
Lower drive-by noise.
The latter two feature on the label attached to new tyres, hence giving perceived advantages to the tyre buyer/tyre dealer selling the tyre.
New tyre tread depths in the 6 to 7mm region will not affect wet grip except in extreme conditions where aquaplaning could be expected.
Since tread depths below 3mm make aquaplaning more likely, the reduction in new depth makes the value much lower for those who change tyres at 3mm
Several of those people have said they don't care to compromise on performance merely to save money, so for them thin rubber would have cachet.
Prestige tyres are thinner tyres. Market them like After Eight Mints.
Or condoms
|
|
If (and it may be a very big IF) the rubber compounds are more resistant to wear than the older compounds I guess the reduction in original tread depth could be justified in that the tyres have the same working life.
There was also some bleatings by Michelin a couple of years ago that the "modern" tread patterns do not suffer from lack of grip at low tread depths compared with the older patterns. Not sure I believe that one though.
|
If (and it may be a very big IF) the rubber compounds are more resistant to wear than the older compounds I guess the reduction in original tread depth could be justified in that the tyres have the same working life.
There was also some bleatings by Michelin a couple of years ago that the "modern" tread patterns do not suffer from lack of grip at low tread depths compared with the older patterns. Not sure I believe that one though.
To quote Mandy Rice-Davis, "they would say that,wouldn't they?"
|
If (and it may be a very big IF) the rubber compounds are more resistant to wear than the older compounds I guess the reduction in original tread depth could be justified in that the tyres have the same working life.
There was also some bleatings by Michelin a couple of years ago that the "modern" tread patterns do not suffer from lack of grip at low tread depths compared with the older patterns. Not sure I believe that one though.
To quote Mandy Rice-Davis, "they would say that,wouldn't they?"
You would have thought they would not say it as it prevents people buying newer tyres from them...
|
If (and it may be a very big IF) the rubber compounds are more resistant to wear than the older compounds I guess the reduction in original tread depth could be justified in that the tyres have the same working life.
Hmmm. As a simple rule of thumb, Grip is a consequence of Friction, and Friction usually leads to Wear. So in simple terms, long-lasting rubber doesn't usually come with the best grip. Rubber techies have been looking for a holy grail to get round that for a long time.
|
If (and it may be a very big IF) the rubber compounds are more resistant to wear than the older compounds I guess the reduction in original tread depth could be justified in that the tyres have the same working life.
There was also some bleatings by Michelin a couple of years ago that the "modern" tread patterns do not suffer from lack of grip at low tread depths compared with the older patterns. Not sure I believe that one though.
iirc they also said there was a compromise in grip due to the harder rubber making for less rolling resistance, giving better fuel economy, which would account for the longer lasting tyre-depending on use.... don`t like the idea of less grip though
|
If (and it may be a very big IF) the rubber compounds are more resistant to wear than the older compounds I guess the reduction in original tread depth could be justified in that the tyres have the same working life.
There was also some bleatings by Michelin a couple of years ago that the "modern" tread patterns do not suffer from lack of grip at low tread depths compared with the older patterns. Not sure I believe that one though.
iirc they also said there was a compromise in grip due to the harder rubber making for less rolling resistance, giving better fuel economy, which would account for the longer lasting tyre-depending on use.... don`t like the idea of less grip though
Well, this is likely to be another "unacceptable factiod" but the compound on the surface of bald tyres, which is supposed to be internal and isn't supposed to contact the road surface, is softer...so...another reason for bald tyres having better grip in the dry.
I really should get some.
|
If (and it may be a very big IF) the rubber compounds are more resistant to wear than the older compounds I guess the reduction in original tread depth could be justified in that the tyres have the same working life.
There was also some bleatings by Michelin a couple of years ago that the "modern" tread patterns do not suffer from lack of grip at low tread depths compared with the older patterns. Not sure I believe that one though.
iirc they also said there was a compromise in grip due to the harder rubber making for less rolling resistance, giving better fuel economy, which would account for the longer lasting tyre-depending on use.... don`t like the idea of less grip though
Well, this is likely to be another "unacceptable factiod" but the compound on the surface of bald tyres, which is supposed to be internal and isn't supposed to contact the road surface, is softer...so...another reason for bald tyres having better grip in the dry.
I really should get some.
That depends on if you intend driving in the rain, not that you mentioned it.
|
Well, this is likely to be another "unacceptable factiod" but the compound on the surface of bald tyres, which is supposed to be internal and isn't supposed to contact the road surface, is softer...so...another reason for bald tyres having better grip in the dry.
As far as I am aware only Bridgestone used that type of technology (they called it dual compound) from the late 90's for about 10 years but they have abandoned it now.
The 2 tyres that I know for a fact that were made like that were the absolutely magic RE720 and the S02. They were both very popular in racing where tyres from the MSA List 1A were required since when they were shaved to about 4mm the tyres were instantly down to softer rubber and had incredible grip in the dry compared to any other road tyre available. But when they were down to under 2mm (the dry grip was even better) the wet grip was just as bad as other tyres.
The S02 was replaced by the S03 and with no dual compound the grip was much reduced.
From 1991 to 1995 I had 3 sets of RE720's on the Caterham and there was nothing better.
|
|
Thanks for the info on that specific technology, which I'd vaguely heard of but didn't know details.
Was the rationale that it would compensate for rubber ageing, so you'd get closer to steady-state performance as the tyre wore slowly in normal use?
I meant more generally though, because I've been plausibly told all tyres have soft compound on the inside. In combination with the lack of tread, which increases the contact surface, this gives bald tyres better performance in the dry.
As I noted earlier, I don't have to worry much about wet weather. If I wasn't so lazy and irresponsible I'd try and get some.
I dunno how much more likely they are to suffer catastrophic failure (and I'd bet no one else does either) but they will wear quickly, so i'd be changing them often, and I don't seem to be as good with the tyre irons as I used to be.
Plus the rational argument that they are actually safer is not likely to be any more appealing to Taiwans cops, should they take an interest, than it is on Internyet forums.
Edited by edlithgow on 19/12/2020 at 01:05
|
Was the rationale that it would compensate for rubber ageing, so you'd get closer to steady-state performance as the tyre wore slowly in normal use?
Exactly that.
I meant more generally though, because I've been plausibly told all tyres have soft compound on the inside. In combination with the lack of tread, which increases the contact surface, this gives bald tyres better performance in the dry.
Do not confuse road tyres that are bald with slicks that are designed to have no tread. Once the rubber has worn below a certain point on slicks they will offer no grip. The ones I used many years ago had holes moulded into them over the tyre and if you went below those marks you would die, the carcass offered no grip and that will also happen with a road tyre.
|
|
I was basing it on this description of the rubber between groove and carcass , from a tyre expert with industry connections.
"Typically that rubber is a cool running compound - meaning it doesn't wear well. If a good wearing rubber compound were to be used, the tire would run hotter and that would hurt the long term endurance - leading to more structural failures. That would be a bad thing!"
He didn't actually say that compound was sticky. I was assuming it , based on the association between "stickiness" and rapid wear, but maybe that association isn't universal and wouldn't apply here. If I get a chance to cautiously test it and by some bizarre fluke I don't die, I'll let y'áll know.
The intuitive positive association between better dry performance and low/no tread depth is less speculative since it has experimental support, though it will never be the focus of industry funded research for obvious commercial and legal reasons.
Tire Rack Tests: An honorable exception
www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?&...1
"While new tires can't match the dry road handling of worn and nearly worn out tires, they do come very close to equaling their ability to stop in dry conditions".
www.theday.com/article/20160430/BIZ09/160439995
"Conversely, shallower tread can actually improve vehicle handling in dry conditions. Consumer Reports says the lower tread depth puts more of the tire in contact with the road, improving cornering as well as braking. This quality makes tread-free tires ideal for professional car racing, but not for everyday driving where you're sure to encounter wet or snowy conditions at some point."
No. I'm not.
So optimising performance for my local conditions might be statistically safer, if I could be bothered.
www.ectri.org/YRS11/Documents/Final%20website/Sess...f
80% of accidents in Finland occur in the dry. That number seems very likely to be higher in Taiwan
Low tread was over-represented in dry accidents too, which they suggest is due to an association between low tread depth and other illegal or unsafe driver behaviour.
So its complicated. Surprise!
Edited by edlithgow on 22/12/2020 at 11:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
