RE: The PH guide to the EU's new tyre labels

[caine100]

The anti-trackday/ultra-high performance tyre regulations are here.

[Bill]

SimbaWC said:

This is a great idea. What could possibly be wrong with knowing more about what you buy when you buy it? We all know that a Continental/Dunlop/Bridgestone is better than a Kasakana but isn't it good to be able to say why that is with empirical/objective/scientific evidence to back it up?

Or even to know why you should go for a SportContact III over an Eagle F1 or a PilotSport based on what you want from a tyre and how they perform under those criteria? Tyres will actually become better because of this just like cars became safer when EuroNCAP was established and more economical when the European Driving Cycle test was established. Choice is good and an informed consumer forces manufacturers to up their game. The free market only works when there's competition.

It'll be a bit of a hassle for manufacturers and dealers to start with but that always happens when things change. In no time at all, it'll be par for the course; everyone will adapt and get used to it and we will laugh when we think about all those people who used to have to make the decision "back in the day" without any information to base their choice on.

It'll be like, "remember when seatbelts/ABS/ESP were only available if you paid extra for them?"

Edited by SimbaWC on Friday 30th March 12:17

Depends how you buy tyres, rolling resistance is useless info IMO unless there's also a comparison for dry grip. Otherwise I just have to assume I want the least fuel efficient tyres on the grounds they're likely to be the grippiest.

As ever it's a half arsed idea with a "green" emphasis.

[mat777]

Yorkshirepud said:

I must admit though laughter ensued reading the article when I got to the letter D not getting used for the rolling resistance. When I then read both D and G where pointless in the Wet Stopping part I did start to wonder who thought some of these processes up.

Probably the same idiot who thought up the whole tyre noise regulations in the first place without stopping to think (as usual in these cases, they never think they just do things) how it would scupper anyone who uses a 4x4 with mud tyres.

[Johnboy Mac]

Great idea, especially for the ordinary man or woman in the street. The more info the better even if the info is very basic.

[leef44]

Another nanny state waste of tax payers money. The EU has hundreds of MPs on their gravy train. The problem is they get paid hundreds of thousands (including expenses). They have to justify their existence so have to continually come up with new legislation quicker tgan any organisation can administrate it. In the long run, this one will dictate the direction which tyre manufacturers take to meet consumer requirements according to legislation. Currently you would read an EVO article and enjoy some subjectivity in choosing your tyre - driving feel is as important. In future, this will not even be a consideration because tyre manufacturers are forced in a set direction.
Just like how legislation has forced Porsche to concede to electric steering even though they know it gives less feel.

[edward1]

I welcome some information being supplied about tyre performance. After all 4 new tyres every 12-15k will cost more than the annual service in most cases. For alot of people who don't research on the web for information they are left with the advice of the supplier/fitter which is often dubious at best. Once fitted unless you want to waste £100's you are unlikely to remove if you don't like them.

What I disagree with is the categories. i want to know about wet and dry grip and wear rates. Noise is a secondary consideration. Given that the rolling resistance is related to friction and friction to grip from what I remember of my A level physics then I will just aim for the least fuel efficient tyre.

Will this mean more tyre companies trying to reduce rolling resistance. In 10years will we be just have slippy, quiet tyres. Michelin will do well!

[biggy888]

The new labelling laws are not going to affect the vast majority of car owners at all. Price is king when it comes to tyres unfortunately. Most of the public will continue to buy rubbish budgets because they cant afford or dont want to spend the extra on a tyre with decent performance.

[binnerboy]

So I shall continue to ignore everything other than comprehensive tyre tests and just hope the labels help non ph'ers understand the benefits of spending a bit more on the one thing that connects the car to the road.

I still think it is strange they chose wet grip and rolling resistance, why not wet grip and dry grip ?

[Bursar]

caine100 said:

The anti-trackday/ultra-high performance tyre regulations are here.

Where?

[MSPV12]

More bureaucratic BS that will enevitably push up the cost to produce the items, that can in due course be passed on to the punter and the governments earn more tax revenue as a result of the higher prices.

Plus, who gets the contracts to carry out the tests and pass judgement on each tyre?

STOP IT. STOP IT NOW!

[CTE]

If you decide at a later point ot fit different specification tyres (not size) to the OEM fitment, will it be used as an excuse by insurance companies to not pay out?
Definately agree that most will always by the cheapest tyre no matter what.

[garyfrogeye]

I suppose that this has absolutely nothing to do with this coming Sunday's date?

[SimbaWC]

edward1 said:

Given that the rolling resistance is related to friction and friction to grip from what I remember of my A level physics then I will just aim for the least fuel efficient tyre.

Your point has one small but significant flaw; it's based on a false premise. Rolling resistance isn't related to friction. It's governed by how a rolling object deforms as it rolls across a surface or how the surface deforms as the object rolls across it.

[MX7]

I don't see a problem with this. Economy is an increasingly important consideration in motoring, so information about what tyres are the most economical is important to some.

Most of it might not be applicable to many PHers, but it's not designed to be.

[SimbaWC]

Bill said:

SimbaWC said:

This is a great idea. What could possibly be wrong with knowing more about what you buy when you buy it? We all know that a Continental/Dunlop/Bridgestone is better than a Kasakana but isn't it good to be able to say why that is with empirical/objective/scientific evidence to back it up?

Or even to know why you should go for a SportContact III over an Eagle F1 or a PilotSport based on what you want from a tyre and how they perform under those criteria? Tyres will actually become better because of this just like cars became safer when EuroNCAP was established and more economical when the European Driving Cycle test was established. Choice is good and an informed consumer forces manufacturers to up their game. The free market only works when there's competition.

It'll be a bit of a hassle for manufacturers and dealers to start with but that always happens when things change. In no time at all, it'll be par for the course; everyone will adapt and get used to it and we will laugh when we think about all those people who used to have to make the decision "back in the day" without any information to base their choice on.

It'll be like, "remember when seatbelts/ABS/ESP were only available if you paid extra for them?"

Edited by SimbaWC on Friday 30th March 12:17

Depends how you buy tyres, rolling resistance is useless info IMO unless there's also a comparison for dry grip. Otherwise I just have to assume I want the least fuel efficient tyres on the grounds they're likely to be the grippiest.

As ever it's a half arsed idea with a "green" emphasis.

I agree with you and said as much if you read what I wrote, but only in as far as how some information about a tyre is more important than other information to different people.

You make a decision based on what you care about so you can ignore the rolling resistance then make a buying decision based on dry grip. Similarly, someone else might care more about rolling resistance (and in turn fuel efficiency) so they will choose one tyre over another based on that.

The point is, this information wasn't freely and readily available before but now it will be which is a good thing. At least now, people who want to use this information have the choice to use it at the point of sale without having to buy (and take to the tyre merchants) the specific issue of a specific magazine containing a tyre test with the specific tyres they are considering.

[White Lightning]

For me personally I'm only really interested in how good a tyre is in terms of wet weather braking, dry weather braking and just the outright grip available. I'll happily buy a tyre thats louder or less economical to have those attributes. Economy and noise mean sod all when you need a tyre to be at its best, whether thats pushing the car hard on a nice B road blast or in an emergency when you need your car to stop as quickly as possible.

These ideas are from the EU are all very nice and reek of the nanny state, but it simply won't change the way in which i buy my tyres. Which is to say based on independent tests on various surfaces and conditions and seeing which ones scored the highest.

Regards.

[The Black Flash]

"The grades used for this test are A to G, again with D not being used in order to show greater differences. Actually G isn't used either, because that would be below the minimum legal standards for a new tyre."

Dafuq? For my logical brain, that's the most offensive part of the whole thing. Kind of the reverse of "these are louder, they go up to 11"

File under "fknuttery".

[Matt UK]

Motorrad said:

What a load of bks. I wonder how much of my tax money is being wasted on this crap.

[SimbaWC]

Bacon Is Proof said:

SimbaWC said:

This is a great idea. What could possibly be wrong with knowing more about what you buy when you buy it? We all know that a Continental/Dunlop/Bridgestone is better than a Kasakana but isn't it good to be able to say why that is with empirical/objective/scientific evidence to back it up?

So you go out and buy some new tyres that are top rated for wet braking (that's the only grip bit of information you have) and find they are completely toilet in the dry compared to your old rubber round the twisties.

See why it doesn't work?
You can't measure everything, it is impractical and in some circumstances impossible.
Look at performance/target orientated policing. It does not work.

I'm not suggesting it's a perfect system but it's better to have some information than none at all. What you're suggesting there is an improvement to the system i.e. quote dry grip as well as wet grip. And I don't know why they chose to omit it but maybe the differences in dry grip just aren't as dramatic as differences in wet grip. Wet grip is also an important safety feature and that's why all road tyres have tread which is useful when it's wet but is actually a bit of a hindrance to grip in the dry see slicks versus wet tyres in F1.

[The Black Flash]

Pingman said:

Seems like a great idea to me, but its missing some key tyre info, such as:

Dry performance
Wear rate

Surely these are essential to know when buying a tyre?

Cold weather handling and cornering grip are pretty necessary too.

Yup. But they're not interested in helping people, they're interested in pushing the green agenda.