RE: The PH guide to the EU's new tyre labels
Discussion
All those wondering why there are so many haters of this legislation: you've already seen comments about us, the tax payer, having to foot the bill for this. In addition the EU is directing what is good for us. Driving enjoyment is not in the picture.
Take the NCAP rating. Yes, safety is a good thing. But cars have got bigger and more cumbersome as a result. To compensate for control, more electronic driving aids have had to be introduced. This takes us another step away from driver involvement. Plus manufacturers will convince the general consumer that this is what they need and then increase the price of cars for even more green foibles. So all this legislation means you have to pay more for the privelege of having less driving fun.
Can the EU leaves this alone and go back to measuring whether bananas are straight enough to be sold across borders?
Take the NCAP rating. Yes, safety is a good thing. But cars have got bigger and more cumbersome as a result. To compensate for control, more electronic driving aids have had to be introduced. This takes us another step away from driver involvement. Plus manufacturers will convince the general consumer that this is what they need and then increase the price of cars for even more green foibles. So all this legislation means you have to pay more for the privelege of having less driving fun.
Can the EU leaves this alone and go back to measuring whether bananas are straight enough to be sold across borders?
leef44 said:
All those wondering why there are so many haters of this legislation: you've already seen comments about us, the tax payer, having to foot the bill for this. In addition the EU is directing what is good for us. Driving enjoyment is not in the picture.
Take the NCAP rating. Yes, safety is a good thing. But cars have got bigger and more cumbersome as a result. To compensate for control, more electronic driving aids have had to be introduced. This takes us another step away from driver involvement. Plus manufacturers will convince the general consumer that this is what they need and then increase the price of cars for even more green foibles. So all this legislation means you have to pay more for the privelege of having less driving fun.
Can the EU leaves this alone and go back to measuring whether bananas are straight enough to be sold across borders?
Someone just above you says that it is the tyre companies who are paying for this. Remember they already did these tests, and they already stamped them on the tyre. All that has changed is that it is now a standardised test.Take the NCAP rating. Yes, safety is a good thing. But cars have got bigger and more cumbersome as a result. To compensate for control, more electronic driving aids have had to be introduced. This takes us another step away from driver involvement. Plus manufacturers will convince the general consumer that this is what they need and then increase the price of cars for even more green foibles. So all this legislation means you have to pay more for the privelege of having less driving fun.
Can the EU leaves this alone and go back to measuring whether bananas are straight enough to be sold across borders?
As for the NCAP rant, just f
k off. Cars are safer, less people are dying on the roads, this is more important than your romanticised view of dabbing oppos in a shopping trolley made of tin-foil. The price has only really moved with inflation, meaning you get more for your money.Stop making things up just to get angry at, it is pathetic.
For most people on this forum this legislation won't make any difference but if it means your nan goes into her local tyre shop in her Micra and upgrades to a mid-range tyre from a Highway Ditchfiner because of this new labelling then it's probably a good thing.
Hopefully the tyre manufacturers don't start designing tyres specifically for this legislation that perform very well against the measures at the expense of other non-tested measures like wear-rate and dry performance. Then you'll end up with a situation simialr to our teaching system where kids know how to pass exams without learning anything about the subject!
Hopefully the tyre manufacturers don't start designing tyres specifically for this legislation that perform very well against the measures at the expense of other non-tested measures like wear-rate and dry performance. Then you'll end up with a situation simialr to our teaching system where kids know how to pass exams without learning anything about the subject!
Neil G60 said:
Hopefully the tyre manufacturers don't start designing tyres specifically for this legislation that perform very well against the measures at the expense of other non-tested measures like wear-rate and dry performance. Then you'll end up with a situation simialr to our teaching system where kids know how to pass exams without learning anything about the subject!
I am 100% sure we will be getting tyres out of China with great wet grip and terrible wear. There's already evidence of it happening, with the Nexen N8000 scoring surprisingly well in the latest Autobild test ( http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2012-Auto-Bil... ) at the expense of wear.
havoc said:
Does happen (albeit perhaps not to the level that Poley is suggesting), for the following reasons:-
- Tyre sidewalls. A 'good' tyre with a soft sidewall will work well on a car with ultra-low profile tyres, as the soft sidewall will give the right amount of compliance without robbing the wheels of precision on turn-in. Conversely, fit it in a much higher sidewall application and the car will feel 'imprecise'. Certain mfrs 'tune' sportscar handling based on a certain mfr - Honda and Bridgestone have a long-standing relationship and often Hondas feel less-responsive on squidgier rubber than the OE Bridgestones.
- Weight / 'work done' - Caterhams and Elises tend to favour very different rubber from uber-barges simply because of the very different weight being applied and thus the energy being put through the rubber...use an Elise-spec tyre on an M5 and it'll overheat and be rather a mess in short order.
I'm not suggesting that a Nanking Never-grip will ever be better than a Michelin or a Conti, BUT for a given 'class' of tyre, application does make a difference.
None of those things are covered by the ratings tho - so it's not really applicable here??- Tyre sidewalls. A 'good' tyre with a soft sidewall will work well on a car with ultra-low profile tyres, as the soft sidewall will give the right amount of compliance without robbing the wheels of precision on turn-in. Conversely, fit it in a much higher sidewall application and the car will feel 'imprecise'. Certain mfrs 'tune' sportscar handling based on a certain mfr - Honda and Bridgestone have a long-standing relationship and often Hondas feel less-responsive on squidgier rubber than the OE Bridgestones.
- Weight / 'work done' - Caterhams and Elises tend to favour very different rubber from uber-barges simply because of the very different weight being applied and thus the energy being put through the rubber...use an Elise-spec tyre on an M5 and it'll overheat and be rather a mess in short order.
I'm not suggesting that a Nanking Never-grip will ever be better than a Michelin or a Conti, BUT for a given 'class' of tyre, application does make a difference.
Friction, wet grip and noise will be the same on any car (of similar size and weight) - thus the ratings are consitent.
jon- said:
Neil G60 said:
Hopefully the tyre manufacturers don't start designing tyres specifically for this legislation that perform very well against the measures at the expense of other non-tested measures like wear-rate and dry performance. Then you'll end up with a situation simialr to our teaching system where kids know how to pass exams without learning anything about the subject!
I am 100% sure we will be getting tyres out of China with great wet grip and terrible wear. There's already evidence of it happening, with the Nexen N8000 scoring surprisingly well in the latest Autobild test ( http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2012-Auto-Bil... ) at the expense of wear.
You do know that tyres have had their their wear rate index stamped on them for years? Besides, a tyre with a poor wear rating will score poorly on the eco and/or noise scores so it will show up that way instead.
Also an everyday tyre that grips well in the wet will by default also be good in the dry. I challenge anyone to disprove this.
Of course specialist tyres like 888's will get crap scores, but that's not surprising as quite simply they're a totally unsuitable tyre for everyday usage, and anyone buying them is doing so fully aware of the compromises involved.
As for the people going on about the tax payer, ffs
dvs_dave said:
People aren't really thinking about this very hard at all.
You do know that tyres have had their their wear rate index stamped on them for years? Besides, a tyre with a poor wear rating will score poorly on the eco and/or noise scores so it will show up that way instead.
I probably spend more time working with tyres than most people, yet I don't know a single tyres wear rating. Why? It's next to useless, and the people who will cheat the label will certainly print any number they like on the sidewall!You do know that tyres have had their their wear rate index stamped on them for years? Besides, a tyre with a poor wear rating will score poorly on the eco and/or noise scores so it will show up that way instead.
A soft tyre won't necessarily score poorly on the eco test or wear tests. There are several ways you can make a quiet soft tyre which grips will under wet braking but has terrible aquaplaning resistance, which isn't tested.
It will be an interesting 12 months.
dvs_dave said:
You do know that tyres have had their their wear rate index stamped on them for years?
Yes I do - do you know that the wear rating is completely useless for cross manufacturer comparison? The reference tyre is unique to each manufacturer, so whilst you may be able to compare Toyo 888s and R1-Rs, you cant use it to compare Toyos with Federal tyres or any other manufacturer.
Does this mean that Ive thought harder than you Dave? Perhaps you thought that you knew what you were talking about...
GC8 said:
dvs_dave said:
You do know that tyres have had their their wear rate index stamped on them for years?
Yes I do - do you know that the wear rating is completely useless for cross manufacturer comparison? The reference tyre is unique to each manufacturer, so whilst you may be able to compare Toyo 888s and R1-Rs, you cant use it to compare Toyos with Federal tyres or any other manufacturer.
Does this mean that Ive thought harder than you Dave? Perhaps you thought that you knew what you were talking about...
Sure, you can engineer around the regs (as with everything) but the point is that even with the worst of the worst it will still result in a better performing tyre than the many budget items available under the comparatively lax regs currently in place.
Had you thought of that?
Ive read your reply a couple of times, but I cant really see what your point is? My understanding so far:
- You told someone who wanted a wear rating that all tyres had it already
- I pointed out to you that you were wrong, in good humour
I thought my point was made pretty clear in my previous post? i.e. It will lead to a higher performance minimum standard which can only be a good thing. So aside from being a pedant and steering this discussion into a futile off topic points scoring exercise I'm not sure what your point is?
Back on topic, whilst these categories are perhaps not broken down as much as we would like I think that you will be able to get a good idea as to how a tyre performs in these "hidden" categories by analysing the scores further.
So my thoughts:
Wear rating: will be exposed by the eco rating as the rolling resistance will be higher for a softer tyre.
Dry performance: A combination of the eco rating and wet performance. A good wet performance coupled with a middling eco performance will most likely also be a good dry performer
Noise rating: Not sure what generates most of the noise with a tyre but I'd imagine the general stiffness of the tyre structure is a major contributor. So a noisy tyre is likely a stiff tyre so will be a sharp handler.
Etc. etc.
So a quality performance road tyre will likely have excellent wet performance, and middling to poor eco and noise scores.
A budget tyre will likely have terrible wet, good eco and middling noise scores.
A quality eco tyre will have middling wet, excellent eco, and good noise scores.
A AAA tyre whilst not impossible will probably be very difficult to engineer as to get top marks in one area it involves a sacrifice elsewhere.
Not saying this is how it will pan out and it does rather depend on how high the bar is set for an "A" score but I do think that going beyond the face value scores will get you the performance info you need.
Back on topic, whilst these categories are perhaps not broken down as much as we would like I think that you will be able to get a good idea as to how a tyre performs in these "hidden" categories by analysing the scores further.
So my thoughts:
Wear rating: will be exposed by the eco rating as the rolling resistance will be higher for a softer tyre.
Dry performance: A combination of the eco rating and wet performance. A good wet performance coupled with a middling eco performance will most likely also be a good dry performer
Noise rating: Not sure what generates most of the noise with a tyre but I'd imagine the general stiffness of the tyre structure is a major contributor. So a noisy tyre is likely a stiff tyre so will be a sharp handler.
Etc. etc.
So a quality performance road tyre will likely have excellent wet performance, and middling to poor eco and noise scores.
A budget tyre will likely have terrible wet, good eco and middling noise scores.
A quality eco tyre will have middling wet, excellent eco, and good noise scores.
A AAA tyre whilst not impossible will probably be very difficult to engineer as to get top marks in one area it involves a sacrifice elsewhere.
Not saying this is how it will pan out and it does rather depend on how high the bar is set for an "A" score but I do think that going beyond the face value scores will get you the performance info you need.
Whatever they do, i hope they future proof it better than the last hair brained scheme - As long as it ends up being more helpful than existing schemes, walk into comet and all fridges have the same A rating. All you see if a wall of stickers with the same info. Kind of misses the point.
I know what youre referring to, but Id actually see that as a success. I bought a freezer before the ratings were introduced, which turned out to be terribly inefficient. I think that it was a 'G' or something when they sold the rated version...
Very few fridges or freezers were a deal better, but manufacturers have improved their products no end and now everything seems to achieve an 'A' grade with ease. As a result 'A+', 'A++' & 'A+++' grades were required to differentiate between the new and more efficient products.
Very few fridges or freezers were a deal better, but manufacturers have improved their products no end and now everything seems to achieve an 'A' grade with ease. As a result 'A+', 'A++' & 'A+++' grades were required to differentiate between the new and more efficient products.
I like it. Makes sense - aimed at the non-enthusiast. The won't read the tyre tests, they probably don't even realise such a thing as a tyre test exists. They will look at the ratings and make a decision just like they do on fridges and cookers, rating vs cost.
What this will do is give the more publicly visible consumer groups a standardised set of tests to measure against - Which? or someone like that will start taking an interest and do tests and find that the dodgy Chinese brands ARE cheating on the labels and make a big song and dance about it. You can't easily do someone for something dangerous unless its also illegal, by putting a set of legal standards out there you can then pull people up on it. It was a while ago but if I remember correctly the Chinese X5 rip offs were prevented from sale in europe, not on copyright/IP grounds, but on the basis that they were too dangerous in a crash and failed the minimum standard on the NCAP tests.
Ok it doesn't include everything on the label but you can't have everything and the EU has no interest in how good the turn in feels, just if it can stop safely in the typical worst conditions (Wet), won't destroy the universe (low RR) and won't deafen small children as it goes by or cause long term hearing damage to the 100,000 mile a month reps we have on here. I can't see any good reason why that information shouldn't be standardised and avaiable at point of sale.
What this will do is give the more publicly visible consumer groups a standardised set of tests to measure against - Which? or someone like that will start taking an interest and do tests and find that the dodgy Chinese brands ARE cheating on the labels and make a big song and dance about it. You can't easily do someone for something dangerous unless its also illegal, by putting a set of legal standards out there you can then pull people up on it. It was a while ago but if I remember correctly the Chinese X5 rip offs were prevented from sale in europe, not on copyright/IP grounds, but on the basis that they were too dangerous in a crash and failed the minimum standard on the NCAP tests.
Ok it doesn't include everything on the label but you can't have everything and the EU has no interest in how good the turn in feels, just if it can stop safely in the typical worst conditions (Wet), won't destroy the universe (low RR) and won't deafen small children as it goes by or cause long term hearing damage to the 100,000 mile a month reps we have on here. I can't see any good reason why that information shouldn't be standardised and avaiable at point of sale.
Captain Muppet said:
The tyre companies pay for the testing and the labels. It's not paid for out of our taxes, it's amortised in new tyre costs (although as the tyre companies already test their tyres and already stick labels on them it shouldn't be a massive increase in cost).
Are you suggesting there won't be a whole department set up in the EU to check and impliment standards. Odd because there is for every other fking piece of red tape crap in the EU. Somewhere (probably France) there is going to be yet another office full of highly paid bureaucrats adminstering yet another f
king thing that doesn't need those useless fking control freak middlemen to control it.Motorrad said:
Captain Muppet said:
The tyre companies pay for the testing and the labels. It's not paid for out of our taxes, it's amortised in new tyre costs (although as the tyre companies already test their tyres and already stick labels on them it shouldn't be a massive increase in cost).
Are you suggesting there won't be a whole department set up in the EU to check and impliment standards. Odd because there is for every other fking piece of red tape crap in the EU. Somewhere (probably France) there is going to be yet another office full of highly paid bureaucrats adminstering yet another f
king thing that doesn't need those useless fking control freak middlemen to control it.Do you get this angry about the labels on fridges? Same s
t different product. Maybe even the same department in the EU in probably France for some reason.For the same effort as posting on here you could write to your MEP, and your MP, and with a significantly larger chance of making a difference. It still won't do any good, but maybe you'd feel less angry.
Motorrad said:
Are you suggesting there won't be a whole department set up in the EU to check and impliment standards. Odd because there is for every other fking piece of red tape crap in the EU.
Somewhere (probably France) there is going to be yet another office full of highly paid bureaucrats adminstering yet another fking thing that doesn't need those useless fking control freak middlemen to control it.
Quite. Compliance with EU directives is not known for being cheap. king piece of red tape crap in the EU. Somewhere (probably France) there is going to be yet another office full of highly paid bureaucrats adminstering yet another f
king thing that doesn't need those useless fking control freak middlemen to control it.But there's no reason to think that this will go the same way as absolutely everything else before has.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff