|
Diesel on the road, plus damp = lethal. Anyone who rides a bike knows this only too well. Plus the paint banding, yes, get a wheel on that in the wet and same thing- no grip. Do the bikers a favour and report your incident to the Highways Authority and/or local council, they have a duty of care etc, before someone gets killed.
|
|
Check tracking: ATS do check free.
Son's Yaris did same: tarcking way out. Spun in wet twice before checked and adjusted.
|
|
195's on the rear?....do you have 195's all round?....regardless, are the wheels standard?...could be tyres too wide for the wheels.
Anyway, thats only an aside as you obviously manage well enough normally.
Whats sort of traffic does the road carry, if it takes a lot of 3 axle trailer lorries then the surface will be badly worn and surfaced in rubber from tyre scrub, the last roundabout as you enter start of A14 at M6/M1 junction is like this, worn out, often find vehicles spun out several yards down the A14, in my truck i can still have wheelspin when empty at 40mph plus accelerating up to speed after that section.
Contractors often put down anti skid surfaces approaching junctions but seldom continue the surface to a point where most are re-applying power whilst straightening up...which is where these events often happen.
The above posts re spillages and general road filth are valid, it all adds up, and its such circumstances that show a tyre's worth, they're all the same in the dry even bald, its when slippery that you find the tenner you saved on each one might not have been such a good saving after all.
Remember the worse time of all is coming up and the scenario thats catches many out in the early winter evenings...road salted previously possibly over several days, and the damp descends early evening but nowhere near freezing...turns that salt into the most slippery mush.
|
|
How old are the tyres, rubber hardens with age and looses grip.
Putting larger tyres on one end of the car is not a good idea unless the manufacturer designed it like that. BMW/Merc often fit bigger tyres on the rear but thay are RWD and have more power than a Yoric. I have never seen a FWD car with bigger tyres on the rear as part of the original design.
One thing to note about wider tyres is they can have less grip in poor conditions than narrow tyres, this may have been the cause of your near accident.
If you change tyre size you need to inform your insurance company, its a modification that will render your comprehensive insurance void, any damage you do to others will still be covered of course.
My money is still on diesel, has happened to me in the past.
|
|
My son spun our Granada 20 yrs ago into a concrete bollard whilst exiting a roundabout........witness was a neighbour who said he doing 10-15 mph............Diesel made the car spin.............£1,000 insurance excess for a young driver was difficult to swallow
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure on the age of the tyres, I had them fitted maybe 2 years ago as part-worns. I was misadvised to get 195s all round to help the grip, I changed the front two back to 175s earlier this year but haven't got around to changing the back two yet. (My normal source of part worns only had one pair of 175s at the time) I've put off changing the other two as I was planning to change the car soon, although a possible change of circumstances has meant that has been put on hold so I may wander down to the tyre place tomorrow afternoon and see what they have in stock. It will only be £50-60 for a pair so worth it really.
|
I'm not sure on the age of the tyres, I had them fitted maybe 2 years ago as part-worns.
So you fitted the wrong size tyre 2 years ago and just to add to your problems they had been used and abbused by someone else before you. Get them replaced ASAP, I still say diesel was probabaly to blame but to carry on with those tyres is a death wish.
|
|
I really can't understand the phobia against part-worn tyres. I've been using them as long as I've been driving with only the odd exception. I've never had a problem and have always had a better ride and felt more secure on good quality part-worn tyres than new budget tyres. My understanding is that they have to be up to standard so anything dangerous can't be supplied anyway so what is the problem?
|
|
Ditto. I'm fairly pleased with mine. Pair of mid range tyres for forty quid.Loads of tread left and I can replace them early and still be cost effective. I'd rather have my part worns than a pair of Ling Longs that'll last about 100,000 miles assuming I dn't wrap the car round a tree first.
I'm not going to panic about damaged carcasses. I've yet to see someone pre-emptively replace "new" tyres that hit a pothole or kerb too hard on the off chance that the carcass may be compromised.
|
|
|
|
The previous advice about be weary of part-worn or older tyres is sound - I recently changed my Bridgestone ER30s on my Mazda3 even though they were still only part worn (4mm tread on the fronts/ 6mm on the rears after 42k miles [I have a light foot]), beacuse they were 6.5 years old and starting to step out on damp roundabout etc like yours (though not as bad).
It was noticeable how poorer the ride comfort level was compared to when I originally bought the car (factory-fitted tyres), which was all the more apparent when the new tyres were fitted. Hard (and probably brittle) tyres = little grip in the wet. My experience is that if the tyres start getting noisy, then they are probably getting hard/brittle as well, and its then time to think about changing them.
The problem with part-worn tyres is that they could've been used on a car that's done little mileage over a long time, so always check the year of manufacture (which should be part of a code on the sidewall) first before buying (amongst other parts of the inspection).
Edited by Engineer Andy on 06/10/2012 at 11:44
|
|
I think a lot depends on what the alternative is. If you are prepared to pay for decent new tyres then I agree that part-worns are not a good choice. If you would just put budget tyres on then a decent set of part worns is a better bet.
I agree with your caveat, the place I go show you the tyres before putting them on so you can decide for yourself. The last pair I got were Mitchelins so a decent make as well and still less than a new budget tyre.
It was interesting today. I went to get the back two changed for 175 part worns. There were already two cars there getting part worns fitted, a flash Disco and a 61 reg Bentley!
|
|
|
|
I changed the front two back to 175s earlier this year but haven't got around to changing the back two yet.
So the rears are more worn than the fronts and thus, when on the limit of grip, the rear end breaks first. No other factors required to explain that behaviour.
The problem with this on FWD cars is that the instinctive action when it "goes" (lifting off) only serves to make matters worse, as the gripping fronts provide deceleration, while the backs continue on their merry way. At that point the whole arrangement swaps ends very sharply. The correct (although counterintuitive) action to take in a FWD car when the rear goes is to accelerate, allowing the fronts to drag everything back into line.
As getting this right is beyond most and requires considerable practise to get it ingrained, the general recommendation is to put the better tyres on the rear to stop it happening in the first place.
|
So the rears are more worn than the fronts and thus, when on the limit of grip, the rear end breaks first. No other factors required to explain that behaviour.
Not necessarily - on a FWD car, the rears wear much less than the fronts, so despite them being older there is no reason why they would be any more worn.
I'd also had an experience a few weeks ago where I misjudged how tight a corner was on a road I'd not driven before. The behaviour was that the front washed out and the back end stayed in line. That would suggest that something else affected what happened.
I do agree about the correct behaviour and if I'd had warning it was going to happen I could have tried this, but before I knew what was going on I was already sideways with no chance of saving it, it was that sudden. Even then, it would depend what you are used to. On cars where the back does go easily you would be more likely to do this, where the back has never gone in the past you'd not realise what was happening until it was too late.
|
So the rears are more worn than the fronts and thus, when on the limit of grip, the rear end breaks first. No other factors required to explain that behaviour.
Not necessarily - on a FWD car, the rears wear much less than the fronts, so despite them being older there is no reason why they would be any more worn.
Given four new boots and a period of time I would indeed expect the fronts to be more worn. However, you have already said that you replaced the fronts recently. Presumably part-worns are much of a muchness and thus the newer fronts have more tread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195s rear, 175s front. 175s are standard, I was misadvised that 195s would improve the grip a few years back but found no real improvement and much worse fuel consumption. I changed the front two earlier this year, was going to do all four but they didn't have two pairs at the time and I've not got around to getting the back two done for various reasons since. Wheels are otherwise standard steel rims.
However, they have been on for at least two years and as the current pair for at least 6 months and I've pushed her much harder than that in the meanwhile and had no issues. As I mentioned, the usual sign that I'm overdoing it is the front washing out wide, never had so much as a twitch from the rear in the 10 years I've been driving this car.
The roundabout does carry a fair number of lorries - it isn't far off a junction of the M60. For those who know Stockport, it is the one at the top of Lancashire Hill. I was just passing the Lancashire Hill turnoff when the back end went. The surface seems reasonable but the markings were very recently repainted, maybe a week or two ago - people are still getting used to it as they have changed the lanes. Wish they'd consult the people who use the roundabouts before doing that sort of thing but that is an aside. Certainly no break up of the surface anyway and I've taken that roundabout as fast and faster in the same or worse conditions. (I make it sound like I'm a speed merchant here...)
Does new paint on roads take a while to 'bed in' and loose the initial slipperyness? Could it just be that because it is new it caused the problem and after a few weeks it will be OK?
I must admit I've been reluctant to report this as I am worried I'll get accused of dangerous driving and get done for it...
|
|
I once lost all grip and had my steering lock up at a sedate 25mph as I was slowing for a roundabout down in Warrington. I had no ABS on that car either! I think there was fuel/oil on the road but it hadn't been raining. Luckily I didn't run onto the roundabout; the car stalled and I just annoyed the driver behind by re-starting and being slow to set off again.
Everyone's had a 'brown trousers' moment - I started a thread on this ages ago (had slid husband's car round a wet roundabout a bit)....some people's stories were rather hair-raising!
|
|
|
|
I live near that roundabout and one day earlier this week I was going round it and glanced in my rear view mirror as I was exiting onto Sandy Lane and noticed a Clio going sideways which I thought was a tad strange!
|
|
Sounds like a report to Stockport Highways is definitely in order in that case...
|
|
|
|
|
>>195s rear, 175s front. 175s are standard
When you renew your insurance each year, how do you reply to the question: Has the vehicle been modified in any way?
|
|
I discussed this over the phone with my insurance company at the same time I was discussing another matter. I was advised that as the modification was not to enhance performance I did not need to declare the car as modified.
I believe this is the same as the issue which raised its head a while back as to whether winter tyres had to be declared to insurance companies and the consensus was that as they were a safety modification rather than a performance modification they didn't.
I could be wrong and it could be this only applies to my insurer but they have been made aware.
|
|
>> I was misadvised that 195s would improve the grip
>>the modification was not to enhance performance
I find those two statements mutually unacceptable!
|
>> I was misadvised that 195s would improve the grip
>>the modification was not to enhance performance
I find those two statements mutually unacceptable!
In that case, I feel sorry for you, if you can't see how reducing the likelyhood of losing control is not an improvement in safety.
Anyway, as I've mentioned it did anything but improve performance - worse fuel consumption and as best no improvement to the original problem.
The issue was that I explained to my mechanic that I was having problems in some locations with wheelspin when setting off from a junction in damp conditions. I asked him to fit 'better' tyres at the next service to try and resolve this. By better I meant a better make, he decided that wider tyres where what was needed. I really should have challenged him but didn't. The problem is probably that as the Yaris Mk 1 is so light there isn't enough weight on the front tyres. Putting bigger tyres on was never going to improve it as there is now less weight per square inch due to a bigger contact patch.
However, as I've repeated several times in this thread and suspect I will have to repeat again before I lose interest, I have driven the car for 10 years, for over 2 years with 'incorrect' tyres and for the last 6 months in the current configuration, and have never experienced this behaviour before and I've pushed it much harder than I was on this particular day.
|
The issue was that I explained to my mechanic that I was having problems in some locations with wheelspin when setting off from a junction in damp conditions.
Your mechanic must be a complete numpty. You complained of wheel spin when pulling away from juctions and he fitted bigger tyres on the REAR WHEELS. How is that going to improve the car, the Yaris is FRONT WHEEL DRIVE.
|
|
Sorry, you've missed the bit where I said all four were changed and I've only changed two back to 175 so far.
|
Sorry, you've missed the bit where I said all four were changed and I've only changed two back to 175 so far.
OK I missed that bit but you only put it on way after starting the thread, why not tell the whole story to begin with, more chance of getting a relevant answer.
With regards to buying part worn tyres IMHO you have to be crazy. They can come off write offs or be imported from abroad, you have no idea of their history. When you can get brand new Khumhos for about £40 each where is the saving
|
|
I will reiterate what I said:
check the tracking before you do anything else.
And check tyre pressures regularly.
And having different size tyres on teh car may invalidate your insurance.
And buying second hand tyres is for those who like to die unexpectedly.
|
And buying second hand tyres is for those who like to die unexpectedly.
Oh, come off it! Do you immediately go to the tyre centre every time you bought a second hand car?
Do you pre-emptively replace your tyres each time you hit a pot hole too sharply, just in case the integrity of the carcass of the tyre is compromised?
If the answer to either is "no" then you're in no place to preach!
|
|
People sell cars becuase they are fed up/want a change.
People change tyres for other reasons: mainly because they are worn out.
The difference is rather obvious...
|
|
What I was told is that part-worns tend to come from fleets where the tyres are changed on a regular basis whether they need to be or not. They are all checked before being sold on and have to be safe.
The point is valid - a second hand car could easily have old tyres or ones that have been abused. Hitting a pot hole could damage the tyres. Part worns at least have to be checked before they can be re-used, tyres on a second hand car don't.
That to be is quite a big difference you have glossed over...
|
|
|
|
|
