I think it is clear that some cheapo tyres are second rate and I would like the car behind me to have first rate tyres if I have to brake hard in the wet.
So establishing high standards that the manufacturers have to adhere to makes sense, after that it doesent really matter where they are made or who by I guess.
|
establishing high standards that the manufacturers have to adhere to
They have been, and they do have to!
|
They have been and they do have to!
>>
Standards arent high enough then because some tyres perform poorly in tests.
|
>>Standards arent high enough then because some tyres perform poorly in tests.
Just because some tyres perform better or worse than others doesn't mean that current standards are inadequate. I suspect that the tyre standards are quite sensibly drafted, and that modern, premium tyres can exceed them easily. Again, this doesn't mean the standards are inadequate - as long as they keep truly shoddy and dangerous tyres out of the marketplace, the standards are working.
Number_Cruncher
|
Something to do with CO2 emissions and reducing them.
AFAIR it was saying it would apply in cases where an energy saving tyre is fitted as an intrinsic part of the manufacturers CO2 reduction measures? Such as on Polo Bluemotion.
So if it was introduced, it may not apply to all cars immediately, but probably to an increasing number of models in the future.
|
|
|
The article appears to refer to new cars fitted with low energy tyres as standard and not budget tyres in general - see link tinyurl.com/322ywb
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 17/01/2008 at 19:10
|
Rich 9-3 is right the basis of the report being that if a manufacturer fits a special tyre to get a lower CO2 classification, the EU is considering whethr to insist in the same tyres being used throughout its life.
What starts as a sensible idea could rapidly become unworkable in practice - what if a tyre is no longer made? Or in short supply? Or suddenly becomes premium priced because they have a captive market?
|
The article talked about requiring the same "type-approved" tyres to be used for subsequent replacements. I'm sure that tyre manufacturers have a method of measurement but there is no public classification for "eco" tyres.
On an "EC Certificate of Conformity" for a specific vehicle, the only information specified for tyre and wheel homologation is eg "195/60R 15 88H 6Jx15/ET49".
The tyres may be moulded "eco" but in the absence of classification/legislation that's just marketing hype with no substance.
|
|
Reminds me of the hoohar about spare parts and the EU (Germany?) wanting only manufacturers parts used as replacements Kite flying.
|
An excellent idea. It's about time people who think it's acceptable to compromise on safety to save a few quid were legislated against.
Tyres are the only link between your car and the road. Even the difference in weight braking performance between premium brand tyres can be several car lengths - let alone cheapo budget sava tyres. This can be the difference between an accident and a near miss in an emergency situation.
Cheap tyres. False economy.
|
An excellent idea. It's about time people who think it's acceptable to compromise on safety to save a few quid were legislated against.
So what you are saying Michael, is that there should be a minimum standard to which all tyres must comply?
Err, I think we have that already, irrespective of the brand or price.
|
|
Perhaps the minimum std is not high enough.
|
>> An excellent idea. It's about time people who think it's acceptable to compromise on safety >> to save a few quid were legislated against. >> So what you are saying Michael is that there should be a minimum standard to which all tyres must comply? Err I think we have that already irrespective of the brand or price.
The current standards are so poor they are not even worth mentioning. Tyres are not performance tested in the correct way, otherwise we wouldnt have people driving around in the wet on ridiculous LingLongSuperBonus tyres becuase the tyre shop guy told them that 'They are made by a bloke whose dog once walked past a Pirelli factory'.
Tyre shops all over the place do this - sell customers cheapo crap thats made by the major manufacturers becuase 'Its made by Goodyear you know' as if that means its up to the standards of the proper Goodyear tyres. It's as stupid as a Merc dealer saying 'Well no sir, I dont have an SL55 AMG in stock at the moment but I do have a Smart Car, made by the same company really...
|
I don't think there's a problem at all.
The important thing for safety is not ultimate levels of performance, or ultimate levels of grip - it is predictability of performance. Once drivers understand how their vehicle responds, its up to them to drive within the limits.
Real tyre safety problems arise when something unexpected, like a sudne blowout or tread delamination occurs - thats where tyre quality really matters, in the fundamental integrity of construction, rather than in ultimate performance criteria.
A few people have used emotive imagery of people behind them running on cheaper tyres - I don't buy into this at all. I'm more concerned in how well the driver behind is keeping a safe distance - and that safe distance is a function of vehicle, vehicle condition, tyres, tyre condition and inflation pressure, and most importnatly, if not vitally, driver skill, attitude and alertness.
Number_Cruncher
|
Rarely (if at all) do you see reports stating "if the tyres are of better quality, this accident wouldnt have happened". Ever.
On my first car, I was blissfully unaware I had remoulds (!) on the front till someone pointed it out. I could easily drive around without losing grip on the wet, but still replaced them netherless.
|
|
Oh and as for using branded tyres, I recently replaced the Michellin Energy 3A's with Kumho Matrac XM's because of how noticeably bad they were in wet situations. Couldnt believe how easy it was to lose grip in a wet situation despite having a good 3.5mm left easily. So much for brand meaning quality.
|
Tyres are the only link between your car and the road. Even the difference in weight braking performance between premium brand tyres can be several car lengths - let alone cheapo budget sava tyres. This can be the difference between an accident and a near miss in an emergency situation. Cheap tyres. False economy.
Using this logic, surely the same must be said for brake parts then (since that's another link between you and the road - or the vehicle in front!). You can get brake pads that meet a minimum standard, and you get brake pads that exceed it - and cost more. Some work better than others. Some cars still have drum rear brakes, yet it's proven that discs work better. So why are they allowed?
Some cars have halogen lights (the only mans of seeing in the dark), yet its proven that HID lights are better and safer. So why are halogen lights allowed?
So long as minimum standards are met, that should be enough. And if Joe Bloggs & Co can produce a tyre that meets or exceeds minimum standards, why should a driver be forced to buy a particular make? Do Pirelli & Michelin want to run the country as Tesco want to do?
The consumer needs choice, and most of us know from experience the Michelin tyres are not always the best. I'd certainly have nothing but Bridgestones on my CRV.
|
I'm not sure the argument that cheap tyres increase braking distance is a reason to ban them. That would be similar to saying that everyone has to have a 'reaction test' every so often and if they fail that they can't drive either?
I'm still deciding whether to go for budget tyres (Kumho or similar) or to spend the extra on some ContiPremiums on the Golf. I've used both in the past and have not noticed any difference.
And when the Shogun needs 'reshoeing', I'm not sure whether I'll push to the £110 BFG A/T or whether I'll go for the £70 erm 'LingLongSuperBonus' (Thanks MichaelR!) tyres.
Perhaps instead of legislating everything out of existence at the first opportunity, we should try driver education. Perhaps every tyre should be government tested and the results displayed at the tyre retailers outlets? I'm thinking along the lines of a pictorial representation of various braking distances with different tyres etc...
|
I guess that the tyre standards are subject to revision very so often.
I've got budget tyres on my primera - 4 Pneumants. braking performance, wet or dry is excellent; perhaps better than my Mazda 6, which was a new car on premium bridgestones.
I did check the report on mytyres before choosing. Fewer problems pulling away too.
I've also bought premium tyres which were useless - typically, I've bought such tyres in sales and been very disappointed. I don't know if they were badly stored, badly fitted or second-rate. I'm sure that one pair weren't even round.
I avoid tyre sales now.
My insurance company doesn't care that I've fitted budget tyres - why should you ?
|
The OP suggested that the supposed reason was to do with reducing CO2 emisions. This presumably means the normal rolling friction between the tyre and the road.
That is surely not necesarily the same as safety - a totally bald tyre might have a low resistance, or a big tractor-type tyre with studs have the best grip.
Tyres have to be compromise between these extremes, and that is surely what the current rules aim to achieve?
|
Were there any hard numbers as to how much co2 is actually "saved", backed up of course with the co2 "costs" of producing the various types of tyres?
After all, if the idea is to actually reduce the co2 going into the atmosphere from whatever source, anywhere on the planet that has anything to do with making, transporting and selling the tyres those numbers are critical, otherwise who knows whether it's effective?
Forgive me if I predict the answer to be be "no", but maybe I'm over-cynical (or pragmatic).
|
|
I need some new tyres,where can i buy LingLongSuperBonus tyres (or is that Tires),i guess they are made in a factory that once had a visit by a man that may have worked for Goodyear once,maybe.
|
If its any use to you, recently got some Kumho Matrac XM (I think thats the name) on my car, these won best budget buy from Autocar's review in 2007's edition.
They're 195/55/15 V. So far so good in comparison to Pirelli/Dunlop i'm used to, and far better in wet situations than Michellins in the wet.
Noise levels are good, performance in the dry is excellent, and more importantly grip and braking in the wet is superb in comparison to the Michellin's they replaced (energy 3a) - and according to the 07 review definately one of the better tyres in the wet.
The review did mention they're one of the poorer tyres for aquaplanning, but so far in soakingly-wet-Newcastle, I've not aquaplanned once yet.
I've only done 2k miles on them so far, so cant really comment on wear, but at £50 fitted each corner for me, they're not bad at all.
|
Complete and utter rubbish.
By the same arguement we should also ban 4x4s, they have poor braking performance and very poor handling. (I wouldn't have a problem with that!)
How about banning driving in the rain? That increases stopping distances too.
What about reaction times? What about reading the road ahead? What about speeding? These are all factors as well.
Should we also ban all classic cars? Maybe any car over 5years old should also be banned.
|
I think it is clear that some cheapo tyres are second rate and I would like the car behind me to have first rate tyres if I have to brake hard in the wet.
The silliest post on the entire thread?
I'd rather the tyres had legal tread, the driver was anticipating the hazard and he knew how hard to brake, all makes far more difference than the tyres grip.
At least I thought this was the silliest post on the entire thread, until I read the one below:
An excellent idea. It's about time people who think it's acceptable to compromise on safety to save a few quid were legislated against.
Tyres are the only link between your car and the road. Even the difference in weight braking performance between premium brand tyres can be several car lengths - let alone cheapo budget sava tyres. This can be the difference between an accident and a near miss in an emergency situation.
>>
The trick is, not to get into an emergency situation - drive within the limits of the car and conditions. If you're driving so close that you're relying on the difference between good tyres and bad tyres, you're too close or too fast.
|
|
|
|
