Police tweet aftermath of accident, blame dodgy tyres
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
THE WORD IS TREAD, NOT THREAD.
That apart, you do know it's now 25 years since the tread depth was increased from 1mm (not 1.1mm) to 1.6mm, right? And that that 1mm requirement was introduced in 1978, at the VERY latest? (I can't easily find the predecessor to the 1978 C&U regs online, for some reason...)
So anyway, go on - which conspiracy theory is this going to be?
Still 1mm on my bike (which for your benefit only has two wheels :-) ) and I think it is still visible tread only for slowpeds, and probably still 1mm for larger vehicles.That apart, you do know it's now 25 years since the tread depth was increased from 1mm (not 1.1mm) to 1.6mm, right? And that that 1mm requirement was introduced in 1978, at the VERY latest? (I can't easily find the predecessor to the 1978 C&U regs online, for some reason...)
So anyway, go on - which conspiracy theory is this going to be?
So for all your know it all shouting, sarcasm, and trolling, still only cars that are deemed to need a minimum of 1.6mm.
guindilias said:
Not in that case - if you're aquaplaning then it makes no odds whether you are on chariot wheels or Veyron tyres, the rubber isn't touching the ground anyway. And cheapo Chinese tyres are generally made using older, discontinued moulds from the "Premium" manufacturers.
You've been listening to the bloke with high margin Chinese tyres to sell, haven't you?
Even if the tread pattern looks the same, there will be a vast difference in real world performance. Tyres aren't just about a pretty tread pattern.
TooMany2cvs said:
This isn't a terribly hard concept, y'know.
And, fwiw, I'd imagine both of those would be utterly s
te on a pissing wet motorway, resulting in aquaplaning a-plenty.
So your assertion is that all of those grooves are primary grooves? Not sure about the wet weather performance (yet). I run Yokohama AD08Rs on a road car and they're fine in standing water. A lot of racers use Toyo R888s as their wets. And, fwiw, I'd imagine both of those would be utterly s
te on a pissing wet motorway, resulting in aquaplaning a-plenty.
carl_w said:
TooMany2cvs said:
This isn't a terribly hard concept, y'know.
And, fwiw, I'd imagine both of those would be utterly ste on a pissing wet motorway, resulting in aquaplaning a-plenty.
So your assertion is that all of those grooves are primary grooves? Not sure about the wet weather performance (yet). I run Yokohama AD08Rs on a road car and they're fine in standing water. A lot of racers use Toyo R888s as their wets. And, fwiw, I'd imagine both of those would be utterly s
te on a pissing wet motorway, resulting in aquaplaning a-plenty.
Trabi601 said:
You've been listening to the bloke with high margin Chinese tyres to sell, haven't you?
Even if the tread pattern looks the same, there will be a vast difference in real world performance. Tyres aren't just about a pretty tread pattern.
ked!guindilias said:
Aye, but that was my point - if the treads are the same, they will clear water the same.
Not necessarily - the compound of the tread will make a difference to how water is dispersed - the tread pattern will be designed in conjunction with the material, so a change of material will affect the performanceI fully agree with your comment that once the tyre is aquaplaning, the make is irrelevant. However, the make is very relevant to WHEN the tyre starts aquaplaning. Quite simply, a premium tyre will resist aquaplaning more than a budget tyre using the same tread pattern, but a different compound.
guindilias said:
Not in that case - if you're aquaplaning then it makes no odds whether you are on chariot wheels or Veyron tyres, the rubber isn't touching the ground anyway. And cheapo Chinese tyres are generally made using older, discontinued moulds from the "Premium" manufacturers.
I think that is a myth. Why would Bridgestone, etc sell their moulds? Vaud said:
guindilias said:
Not in that case - if you're aquaplaning then it makes no odds whether you are on chariot wheels or Veyron tyres, the rubber isn't touching the ground anyway. And cheapo Chinese tyres are generally made using older, discontinued moulds from the "Premium" manufacturers.
I think that is a myth. Why would Bridgestone, etc sell their moulds? t- so what they do is they either buy out far eastern tyre manufacturers and manufacture continuations of their old patterns under a different brand name or form 'technical synergies'* with them whereby the far eastern tyre manufacturing company can use the old tooling and market their affiliation with a major premium brand in return for paying a cut- like a franchise model. Familiar tread patterns which were new premium or mid-range models 10 years ago frequently crop up on new budget models. Using existing tooling particularly moulds creates massive savings in manufacturing. And so does filling those moulds with high proportions of natural rubber which is produced throughout south east asia at very low cost rather than the expensive high synthetic back stuff which premium manufacturers use.
- Other corporate claptrap is available
HustleRussell said:
They don't just sell the moulds. All the premium brands want a piece of the high-margin cheapo tyre action but they don't want to sully their good name with second rate st- so what they do is they either buy out far eastern tyre manufacturers and manufacture continuations of their old patterns under a different brand name or form 'technical synergies'* with them whereby the far eastern tyre manufacturing company can use the old tooling and market their affiliation with a major premium brand in return for paying a cut- like a franchise model.
Familiar tread patterns which were new premium or mid-range models 10 years ago frequently crop up on new budget models. Using existing tooling particularly moulds creates massive savings in manufacturing. And so does filling those moulds with high proportions of natural rubber which is produced throughout south east asia at very low cost rather than the expensive high synthetic back stuff which premium manufacturers use.
So, which moulds and 'technical alliance' are Triangle partaking in? Or Windforce?t- so what they do is they either buy out far eastern tyre manufacturers and manufacture continuations of their old patterns under a different brand name or form 'technical synergies'* with them whereby the far eastern tyre manufacturing company can use the old tooling and market their affiliation with a major premium brand in return for paying a cut- like a franchise model. Familiar tread patterns which were new premium or mid-range models 10 years ago frequently crop up on new budget models. Using existing tooling particularly moulds creates massive savings in manufacturing. And so does filling those moulds with high proportions of natural rubber which is produced throughout south east asia at very low cost rather than the expensive high synthetic back stuff which premium manufacturers use.
- Other corporate claptrap is available
You're just spouting the same old nonsense told by every tyre fitter with a container of teflon s
te to shift at significantly better margin than mid or premium range tyres.Trabi601 said:
HustleRussell said:
They don't just sell the moulds. All the premium brands want a piece of the high-margin cheapo tyre action but they don't want to sully their good name with second rate st- so what they do is they either buy out far eastern tyre manufacturers and manufacture continuations of their old patterns under a different brand name or form 'technical synergies'* with them whereby the far eastern tyre manufacturing company can use the old tooling and market their affiliation with a major premium brand in return for paying a cut- like a franchise model.
Familiar tread patterns which were new premium or mid-range models 10 years ago frequently crop up on new budget models. Using existing tooling particularly moulds creates massive savings in manufacturing. And so does filling those moulds with high proportions of natural rubber which is produced throughout south east asia at very low cost rather than the expensive high synthetic back stuff which premium manufacturers use.
So, which moulds and 'technical alliance' are Triangle partaking in? Or Windforce?t- so what they do is they either buy out far eastern tyre manufacturers and manufacture continuations of their old patterns under a different brand name or form 'technical synergies'* with them whereby the far eastern tyre manufacturing company can use the old tooling and market their affiliation with a major premium brand in return for paying a cut- like a franchise model. Familiar tread patterns which were new premium or mid-range models 10 years ago frequently crop up on new budget models. Using existing tooling particularly moulds creates massive savings in manufacturing. And so does filling those moulds with high proportions of natural rubber which is produced throughout south east asia at very low cost rather than the expensive high synthetic back stuff which premium manufacturers use.
- Other corporate claptrap is available
You're just spouting the same old nonsense told by every tyre fitter with a container of teflon s
te to shift at significantly better margin than mid or premium range tyres.
It goes on in other industries so I don't see why tyres should be any different.
HustleRussell said:
Not going to dignify Trabi's post with a response, has clearly misunderstood my post and my position. I'm happy that my post is fair and factual.
There are some partnerships out there, with some upper budget and mid range brands being owned, or being technical partners of the premiums. (Eg. Barum / Continental).Edited by HustleRussell on Monday 3rd April 14:40
But if you're taking proper bargain bucket Chinese tyres, fitters will tell you anything (and I'm amazed anyone who cares enough about cars to subscribe to a forum believes it) in order to shift their latest high margin container load.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff