So, these new tyre ratings -- waste of time? - primeradriver

This week's Auto Express has a review of eight new-model tyres, six of which have the new tyre ratings, two haven't been reviewed yet.

It's interesting to note that on the "wet grip" category, only the Michelin Energy Saver+ tyre has the highest grade A rating. This raised an eyebrow with me straight away.

Sure enough, the tyre was flat bottom of the list for wet grip, and performed similarly badly for wet handling, aquaplaning etc. The other tyres, rated B or unrated, all outperformed it, some comfortably.

This is fair enough -- the ES+ is an eco tyre, and its grip is correspondingly compromised. I had thought this was obvious really.

But a grade A? How on Earth did this happen?

Wet grip is the parameter that, for me, defines a good, vs a bad tyre. Safety is everything. If these ratings are throwing up such anomalies the first time they're even put under the spotlight, what use are they?

So, these new tyre ratings -- waste of time? - gordonbennet

Its because fuel economy figures even if if unattainable are the new hymn sheet.

Save (up to, there's always the tiny writing get out) 5% of your fuel by using our tyres, but they fail to mention that one gentle crunch of the back of the car in front where another tyre would have allowed the car to stop will negate the fuel saving from a cars entire eco tyre use.

Like you, wet grip and other strengths feature in my choice and i research independently long and hard for what i want, any claimed fuel saving i take with a pinch of salt.

Lilewise common sense tells you if a tyre has less resistance then it follows it will have less grip in some circumstances, sods law dictates when you most need it.

So, these new tyre ratings -- waste of time? - coopshere

Well put GB, these ratings fall into the same gambit as EU fuel consupmtion figures, only good under the proscribed testing conditions. If choosing a tyre from reviews ensure they are real world ones and not from the manufacturers tests.