Tyres. Do you go premium?
Discussion
Captain Muppet said:
How do you feel about BMW (to pick a company at random) fitting worse tyres to, say, a 316 than an M3? 316 is just as likely to have to e-stop to avoid a child, yet has less grip. Irresponsible or just another point in the Venn diagram of acceptable tyre compromise?
Surely even base spec. BMW's come with premium branded tyres?Mr2Mike said:
Surely even base spec. BMW's come with premium branded tyres?
Quite, his point is rather odd. Even a 116i is supplied new on Bridgestone or Continental tyres.Just because you beleive Wan Li tyres are unsuitable for use in the UK doesn't automatically mean you think nothing short of a Pilot Super Sport or Continental SportConact 5P is acceptable.
If I shop around I can buy a set of OEM runflats for about £900. There is no way I'm spending near on a grand for a set of tyres, which really, are crap.
Now I definitely do not scrimp with tyres but there is a balance between sensible outlay and performance.
I've had Falken FK452 which were miles better than the OEM Bridgestone runflats they replaced, in every way. They also lasted for 15000 miles on the rear which is pretty good. The only negative is that they got a little slippery in the wet towards the end of their life.
I'm now on Vredestein Ultrac Sessanta's, which are a fantastic tyre, especially in this wet weather we've been having - grip is phenomenal. A better tyre than the Falken's, but not by much.
A set of either Falkens or Vredesteins would set me back around £500 vs £900 OEM or £700-900 for a "premium" Bridgestone or similar.
You get plenty of tyre snobs who slag off brands such as Falkens and Vredesteins; usually these people haven't tried either. The people who have simply rave about them. The Vredesteins came second in an Evo tyre test, amongst other much more expensive premium brands.
I'm not a sucker for buying "premium" brands. I buy based on professional and individual buyer reviews. So far I haven't gone wrong. Saying all of that, I stay well clear of Chinese tyres such as "Sunnyride" or whatever. The Chinese ethos or profit:quality surrounding mass produce products does not install confidence. Usually reviews highlight this!
Now I definitely do not scrimp with tyres but there is a balance between sensible outlay and performance.
I've had Falken FK452 which were miles better than the OEM Bridgestone runflats they replaced, in every way. They also lasted for 15000 miles on the rear which is pretty good. The only negative is that they got a little slippery in the wet towards the end of their life.
I'm now on Vredestein Ultrac Sessanta's, which are a fantastic tyre, especially in this wet weather we've been having - grip is phenomenal. A better tyre than the Falken's, but not by much.
A set of either Falkens or Vredesteins would set me back around £500 vs £900 OEM or £700-900 for a "premium" Bridgestone or similar.
You get plenty of tyre snobs who slag off brands such as Falkens and Vredesteins; usually these people haven't tried either. The people who have simply rave about them. The Vredesteins came second in an Evo tyre test, amongst other much more expensive premium brands.
I'm not a sucker for buying "premium" brands. I buy based on professional and individual buyer reviews. So far I haven't gone wrong. Saying all of that, I stay well clear of Chinese tyres such as "Sunnyride" or whatever. The Chinese ethos or profit:quality surrounding mass produce products does not install confidence. Usually reviews highlight this!
Edited by 80sboy on Tuesday 17th July 12:52
jon- said:
Blackpuddin said:
This is the way to do it. These second tier tyres are generally just as good as the premium ones, according to the German mags who test them anyway, and they don't mess around. They're basically the same as I understand it, just cheaper. German review for my BM's 225/45 x 17s rates Barums! Who would have thought that a few years back.
Erm...http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Barum/Bravuris-2...
8th of 9.
9th of 15.
10th of 15.
The only mid range brands which are consistently objectively getting close to the premiums are Hankook, and now Nokian. Fulda aren't too bad either, but the likes of Falken and Kumho rarely trouble the big 6.
The Vreds are excellent tyres I agree but its interesting you claim to rely on professional reviews. Can you show me a single professional review which rated the Falkens highly?
The only one I've seen put them 25th in wet braking. Ouch. And that was the new improved 30% better 452. I'm convinced the 452 is the most internet-hyped tyre in the universe, ever.
The only one I've seen put them 25th in wet braking. Ouch. And that was the new improved 30% better 452. I'm convinced the 452 is the most internet-hyped tyre in the universe, ever.
Blackpuddin said:
jon- said:
Blackpuddin said:
This is the way to do it. These second tier tyres are generally just as good as the premium ones, according to the German mags who test them anyway, and they don't mess around. They're basically the same as I understand it, just cheaper. German review for my BM's 225/45 x 17s rates Barums! Who would have thought that a few years back.
Erm...http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Barum/Bravuris-2...
8th of 9.
9th of 15.
10th of 15.
The only mid range brands which are consistently objectively getting close to the premiums are Hankook, and now Nokian. Fulda aren't too bad either, but the likes of Falken and Kumho rarely trouble the big 6.
Captain Muppet said:
How do you feel about BMW (to pick a company at random) fitting worse tyres to, say, a 316 than an M3? 316 is just as likely to have to e-stop to avoid a child, yet has less grip. Irresponsible or just another point in the Venn diagram of acceptable tyre compromise?
Fair point, but even a 316i come with at least 205-55/16 tyres now, which are more than adequate for stopping a car quickly. BMW still fit a premium tyre to the 316i, same as they do to the M3. It's not like they fit Michelins to the M3 and say Acceleras the 316.FoundOnRoadside said:
Captain Muppet said:
How do you feel about BMW (to pick a company at random) fitting worse tyres to, say, a 316 than an M3? 316 is just as likely to have to e-stop to avoid a child, yet has less grip. Irresponsible or just another point in the Venn diagram of acceptable tyre compromise?
Fair point, but even a 316i come with at least 205-55/16 tyres now, which are more than adequate for stopping a car quickly. BMW still fit a premium tyre to the 316i, same as they do to the M3. It's not like they fit Michelins to the M3 and say Acceleras the 316.316 has less grip than an M3. This is fine. No one seems to mind this.
However some aftermarket tyres have less grip than others, which is apparently instant death of the worst kind.
It seems like an inconsistent approach to available grip - either maximum grip is always good (in which case BMW are wrong) or less grip is fine for some cars. The only rational view is that tyre performance is always a compromise.
Fox- said:
Mr2Mike said:
Surely even base spec. BMW's come with premium branded tyres?
Quite, his point is rather odd. Even a 116i is supplied new on Bridgestone or Continental tyres.Just because you beleive Wan Li tyres are unsuitable for use in the UK doesn't automatically mean you think nothing short of a Pilot Super Sport or Continental SportConact 5P is acceptable.
>diesonP5000sandneverpostsagain<
Fox- said:
Are you suggesting a Bridgestone is as bad as a Wan Li?
No.I'm suggesting that the people who "won't compromise on tyres" are already compromising on tyres.
It's their inflexible view that I'm suggesting is
[offtopic]
I have a scratch mark on the hard top of my MX5 from a delaminating rear Bridgestone, but even I wouldn't want to make sweeping generalisations about any particular brands, or "manufacturers" as we used to call them before marketing became overwhelmingly hateful
[/offtopic]
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff