puncture - new tyre?
Discussion
Just noticed my driver's side rear tyre has been losing pressure...and found a nail. Seems fairly deeply embedded with the head cutting quite a hole into the tyre. Although it's right in the middle, what's the safest advice on repair or replace? Tyres (and car!) have done 2700 miles. I usually change in pairs, but assume after so few miles no need to change the other good one. It's a 265/35 R20 Pirelli PZero on a 981 Cayman.
Money not really the main issue - just want to get it sorted safely, but of course if a simple repair is fine, I'll go for that.
Thanks for your help...
Money not really the main issue - just want to get it sorted safely, but of course if a simple repair is fine, I'll go for that.
Thanks for your help...
Edited by marky999 on Monday 21st July 21:12
Some dealers will come out with 'they shouldn't be repaired.' Personally, I don't see why not.
If the puncture is fairly central like that one, it should be OK if done properly with a rubber plug. The air pressure actually helps it to seal.
Over the years, I've had several puncture repairs done and never had a tyre fail subsequently because of it.
But, if a tyre has been driven whilst flat or almost flat, the tyre wall can be degraded and / or damaged. Any decent tyre place will inspect and advise you of this.
If the puncture is fairly central like that one, it should be OK if done properly with a rubber plug. The air pressure actually helps it to seal.
Over the years, I've had several puncture repairs done and never had a tyre fail subsequently because of it.
But, if a tyre has been driven whilst flat or almost flat, the tyre wall can be degraded and / or damaged. Any decent tyre place will inspect and advise you of this.
Edited by ianwayne on Monday 21st July 21:19
Your best course is to try to find out what repair guidelines the tire maker has. Some don't appear to have any based on visits to their web sites.
In absence of any info from the tire maker, I use the general rule that if the hole is not too close to the side wall and if it is under 1/4" diameter and the tire is otherwise ok -- driving a tire flat will ruin it in just a few score feet -- the tire can be fixed.
The best fix is an internal patch which is secured by an adhesive. I can't recall if this is supposedly be the self-vulcanizing kind or not.
The concern about the hole being to close to sidewall is if the internal patch extends onto the sidewall the patch will experience excessive flexing and this will cause it to fail over time. Based on my experience with a tire that had a hole almost to the sidewall the patch will begin to leak almost as soon as the tire is put back into service.
In absence of any info from the tire maker, I use the general rule that if the hole is not too close to the side wall and if it is under 1/4" diameter and the tire is otherwise ok -- driving a tire flat will ruin it in just a few score feet -- the tire can be fixed.
The best fix is an internal patch which is secured by an adhesive. I can't recall if this is supposedly be the self-vulcanizing kind or not.
The concern about the hole being to close to sidewall is if the internal patch extends onto the sidewall the patch will experience excessive flexing and this will cause it to fail over time. Based on my experience with a tire that had a hole almost to the sidewall the patch will begin to leak almost as soon as the tire is put back into service.
If you have a newish tyre, it's worth getting it repaired by a hot vulcanising specialist, even if ordinary repairers say no.
They're a bit thin on the ground and you might have to remove the tyre from the wheel and you might have to wait a while because they fill a furnace with truck/tractor tyres before baking them, for obvious reasons.
Cost me about £20 many moons ago.
They're a bit thin on the ground and you might have to remove the tyre from the wheel and you might have to wait a while because they fill a furnace with truck/tractor tyres before baking them, for obvious reasons.
Cost me about £20 many moons ago.
458 Italia said:
Did you not get offered the tyre and alloy policy when you bought it?
You would have got a new tyre.
That's a good point, I was. However I also turned down gap insurance...I have a quirk about not taking insurance unless I think I really need it or can't afford to take the risk. I accept it's not the right approach for most. (Also at the back of my mind was the convenience - 20 min job down the road without waiting for a tyre to be ordered, but more importantly equal tread on both back tyres. You make a fair point however).You would have got a new tyre.
Edited by marky999 on Wednesday 23 July 08:14
Edited by marky999 on Wednesday 23 July 08:20
marky999 said:
That's a good point, I was. However I also turned down gap insurance...I have a quirk about not taking insurance unless I think I really need it or can't afford to take the risk. I accept it's not the right approach for most. (Also at the back of my mind was the convenience - 20 min job down the road without waiting for a tyre to be ordered, but more importantly equal tread on both back tyres. You make a fair point however).
You take the economically rational approach - only insure for a risk that you cannot afford to carry on your own back. It is what all sane businesses and governments do.Edited by marky999 on Wednesday 23 July 08:14
Edited by marky999 on Wednesday 23 July 08:20
What I find amusing is the level of circularity to the insurance racket.
(1) Person A has a decent level of disposable income such that he can afford to carry most risks.
(2) He then buys a bunch of insurance products for his fridge, laptop, phone, tv, etc etc.
(3) He now has less disposable income so is less able to bear a new risk and has to take out insurance.
(4) Back to number (2).
This is how people end up buying things like gap insurance.
Will I crash my car? Very unlikely. Would I be able to bear the cost of its depreciation if I did? Of course. If I couldn't, I wouldn't be able to afford to run a Porsche.
(1) Person A has a decent level of disposable income such that he can afford to carry most risks.
(2) He then buys a bunch of insurance products for his fridge, laptop, phone, tv, etc etc.
(3) He now has less disposable income so is less able to bear a new risk and has to take out insurance.
(4) Back to number (2).
This is how people end up buying things like gap insurance.
Will I crash my car? Very unlikely. Would I be able to bear the cost of its depreciation if I did? Of course. If I couldn't, I wouldn't be able to afford to run a Porsche.
ORD said:
What I find amusing is the level of circularity to the insurance racket.
(1) Person A has a decent level of disposable income such that he can afford to carry most risks.
(2) He then buys a bunch of insurance products for his fridge, laptop, phone, tv, etc etc.
(3) He now has less disposable income so is less able to bear a new risk and has to take out insurance.
(4) Back to number (2).
This is how people end up buying things like gap insurance.
Will I crash my car? Very unlikely. Would I be able to bear the cost of its depreciation if I did? Of course. If I couldn't, I wouldn't be able to afford to run a Porsche.
Interesting analysis...(1) Person A has a decent level of disposable income such that he can afford to carry most risks.
(2) He then buys a bunch of insurance products for his fridge, laptop, phone, tv, etc etc.
(3) He now has less disposable income so is less able to bear a new risk and has to take out insurance.
(4) Back to number (2).
This is how people end up buying things like gap insurance.
Will I crash my car? Very unlikely. Would I be able to bear the cost of its depreciation if I did? Of course. If I couldn't, I wouldn't be able to afford to run a Porsche.
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff