Old tyres bill blocked again

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

This is where I can't understand peoples reasoning.

Sensible people will pay a premium for tyres from a known manufacturer v ling longs because they accept they're buying a better product that is the result of millions spend on R&D.

Yet when the manufacturer of that product, who spends millions on R&D, suggests it has a finite lifespan they can't be trusted as it's a scam just to sell more tyres and those sensible people believe they know best

I know.

It's quite silly.

Everyone says the manufacturers know best when they design and develop tyres, but when they tell people to change them, apparently Uncle Jeff who has never worked in the tyre business but once owned a classic Triumph TR7 knows best...

[Red 4]

bhstewie said:

This is where I can't understand peoples reasoning.

Sensible people will pay a premium for tyres from a known manufacturer v ling longs because they accept they're buying a better product that is the result of millions spend on R&D.

Yet when the manufacturer of that product, who spends millions on R&D, suggests it has a finite lifespan they can't be trusted as it's a scam just to sell more tyres and those sensible people believe they know best

They're all cheapskates with leased Audis.

It's surprising the amount of expensive cars being driven 'round on Landsails or illegal tyres.

Even more surprising is the number of car enthusiasts on this thread who appear to think decent tyres don't matter.

[garagewidow]

I like my 20 year old tyres on my classic,i can get some good sideways action coming off roundabouts and they look good as new thanks to a wipe over with an oily rag.

[Welshbeef]

I do love an MOt when you’ve had a brand new set of tyres literally before the test.

Also I nearly always put on a brand new set of tyres (Michelin) on a car I’m selling (price it accordingly) but it firstly removes that from the negotiation but also shows as an owner what I expect from my cars and the servicing/they want for nothing. I run a car for safety performance and enjoyment not for skimping and seeing how much I could eek out of x part.
Preventative servicing is key.

[davepoth]

Welshbeef said:

I do love an MOt when you’ve had a brand new set of tyres literally before the test.

Also I nearly always put on a brand new set of tyres (Michelin) on a car I’m selling (price it accordingly) but it firstly removes that from the negotiation but also shows as an owner what I expect from my cars and the servicing/they want for nothing. I run a car for safety performance and enjoyment not for skimping and seeing how much I could eek out of x part.
Preventative servicing is key.

Yup. With all of my less car-savvy mates I tell them to pay close attention to the tyres - if the car comes with four matching tyres of a decent brand with the newest ones on the back and not too much wear across any of them, then it's a reasonable bet that the rest of the car has been maintained too.

[Red 4]

davepoth said:

Yup. With all of my less car-savvy mates I tell them to pay close attention to the tyres - if the car comes with four matching tyres of a decent brand with the newest ones on the back and not too much wear across any of them, then it's a reasonable bet that the rest of the car has been maintained too.

Why the newest tyres on the back ?

[davepoth]

Red 4 said:

davepoth said:

Yup. With all of my less car-savvy mates I tell them to pay close attention to the tyres - if the car comes with four matching tyres of a decent brand with the newest ones on the back and not too much wear across any of them, then it's a reasonable bet that the rest of the car has been maintained too.

Why the newest tyres on the back ?

Because cars are designed to crash into things head first. Put the new tyres on the back and then the front will always lose grip first, meaning you'll go head first into the tree with all of the crash structures and airbags to protect you. With the new tyres on the front the rear will let go first, meaning you'll go sideways or backwards into the tree - much less safe.

Added to that, an understeer skid is much easier to sort out if you aren't expecting it - I love a dab of oppo as much as the next man, but not when I'm commuting to work in January.

[Gloria Slap]

10 years old seems a lot and hence not an unreasonable law. Tyres are often cracked and sun damaged at this age - I’ve seen old camper vans with old tyres - plenty of tread but they are clearly past their best and need junking.

I don’t think the cause has been announced yet but that I would not be surprised if that multiple fatality on the M5 when the old horse box truck went across the central barrier was tyre age related.

Is it the commercial vehicle lobby who are blocking this? It does seem a logical proposal / law.

[r11co]

Red 4 said:

It's surprising the amount of expensive cars being driven 'round on Landsails or illegal tyres.

Wow - clever bit of damning by association there. I guess you must have missed the magazine group test where a Landsail LS588 beat a Michelin overall.

Personally I am of the opinion that 'use by' dates are often pushed by sellers looking for a legal advantage to shift more produce.

Edited by r11co on Saturday 24th February 18:33

[Red 4]

davepoth said:

Because cars are designed to crash into things head first. Put the new tyres on the back and then the front will always lose grip first, meaning you'll go head first into the tree with all of the crash structures and airbags to protect you. With the new tyres on the front the rear will let go first, meaning you'll go sideways or backwards into the tree - much less safe.

Added to that, an understeer skid is much easier to sort out if you aren't expecting it - I love a dab of oppo as much as the next man, but not when I'm commuting to work in January.

OK - thanks for your rationale.

It's, well, can I just say an "interesting" philosophy.

Personally, in a FWD car, I'd prefer to have the better tyres on the front to avoid understeer in the first place.

Each to their own I suppose. Ta.

[Red 4]

r11co said:

Red 4 said:

It's surprising the amount of expensive cars being driven 'round on Landsails or illegal tyres.

Wow - clever bit of damning by association there. I guess you must have missed the magazine group test where a Landsail LS588 beat a Michelin overall.

I did.

Have you got a link to it ?

I've just parted with 220 quid today for 2 x Pirelli P7s. Should I swap 'em for some Landsails ?

[davepoth]

Red 4 said:

davepoth said:

Because cars are designed to crash into things head first. Put the new tyres on the back and then the front will always lose grip first, meaning you'll go head first into the tree with all of the crash structures and airbags to protect you. With the new tyres on the front the rear will let go first, meaning you'll go sideways or backwards into the tree - much less safe.

Added to that, an understeer skid is much easier to sort out if you aren't expecting it - I love a dab of oppo as much as the next man, but not when I'm commuting to work in January.

OK - thanks for your rationale.

It's, well, can I just say an "interesting" philosophy.

Personally, in a FWD car, I'd prefer to have the better tyres on the front to avoid understeer in the first place.

Each to their own I suppose. Ta.

Don't take my word for it.

http://kumhotyre.co.uk/kumho-news/should-you-fit-n...
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/car-ty...
https://www.kwik-fit.com/tyres/information/tyre-ro...
https://www.continental-tyres.co.uk/car/technology...
http://www.etyres.co.uk/tyre-new-on-rear/
http://btmauk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Repla...
https://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/care-...
https://www.costco.co.uk/view/content/tyreDisclaim...
https://www.goodyear.eu/en_gb/consumer/learn/when-...

I could go on, but you probably get the idea by now.

[r11co]

Red 4 said:

I did.

Have you got a link to it ?

The original article was in Finnish so unless you can read that you are probably better with an English summary of the results.

Red 4 said:

I've just parted with 220 quid today for 2 x Pirelli P7s. Should I swap 'em for some Landsails?

Going by those results I'd suggest not, but you could have saved some cash and got Nokians instead......

[Andehh]

Anyone asked their MP to explain the reasons & provide evidence? If you care enough to complain to the Internet, contact your MP.

Edited by Andehh on Saturday 24th February 18:56

[Red 4]

davepoth said:

Don't take my word for it.

http://kumhotyre.co.uk/kumho-news/should-you-fit-n...
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/car-ty...
https://www.kwik-fit.com/tyres/information/tyre-ro...
https://www.continental-tyres.co.uk/car/technology...
http://www.etyres.co.uk/tyre-new-on-rear/
http://btmauk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Repla...
https://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/care-...
https://www.costco.co.uk/view/content/tyreDisclaim...
https://www.goodyear.eu/en_gb/consumer/learn/when-...

I could go on, but you probably get the idea by now.

It's a good job them new Pirellis I had fitted today are on the back then !

It does seem counter-intuitive but I'll take your (and the testers) word for it.

I rotate my tyres (front to back) so at some stage I'll have to live dangerously. I'll wear my crash helmet when the time comes.

[Oilchange]

It is absolutely the better philosophy to have the grip at the rear, makes the car ‘weathercock’ or inherently understeer when all four tyres are under equal lateral load. To have naff tyres on the rear in cold wet and exhausting conditions makes correcting snap oversteer a big challenge and one that will catch even the most knarly drifter by surprise.
As for comparing Michelins and Landsails, I tend to go for what is best and at the moment, for me, it’s Uniroyals. Feel free to slag them off but most racers have a set for wet races. Speaks volumes.

[Welshbeef]

Red 4 said:

davepoth said:

Because cars are designed to crash into things head first. Put the new tyres on the back and then the front will always lose grip first, meaning you'll go head first into the tree with all of the crash structures and airbags to protect you. With the new tyres on the front the rear will let go first, meaning you'll go sideways or backwards into the tree - much less safe.

Added to that, an understeer skid is much easier to sort out if you aren't expecting it - I love a dab of oppo as much as the next man, but not when I'm commuting to work in January.

OK - thanks for your rationale.

It's, well, can I just say an "interesting" philosophy.

Personally, in a FWD car, I'd prefer to have the better tyres on the front to avoid understeer in the first place.

Each to their own I suppose. Ta.

If you buy tyres from Costco and do not have different size front and rear they will strictly fit new in rear and move the best oldest to the front. If you don’t like that they will not serve you period. They have Michelin videos in the store showing the many tests proving why it’s safer but regardless of that if you want to put the old on the back you’d have to change them round yourself after Costco has fitted them.



Crude season is understeer is far easier to control then oversteer hence that is why. Maybe you are an opposite lock expert and on it all the time you are driving but 99.9% of other drivers are not. Understeer is easy to get out of - slow down, opposite lock backing off can give you a tank slapped or deep water spin the back of the car out overtaking the front.

[Red 4]

r11co said:

Red 4 said:

I did.

Have you got a link to it ?

The original article was in Finnish so unless you can read that you are probably better with an English summary of the results.

Red 4 said:

I've just parted with 220 quid today for 2 x Pirelli P7s. Should I swap 'em for some Landsails?

Going by those results I'd suggest not, but you could have saved some cash and got Nokians instead......

Thanks for the link - you're a gent.

The Landsail is still some way down the list though, behind all of the premium brands apart from Michelin.

It's too late for me to save some £££ - the Pirellis are fitted (and I've now got 4 of the same)
Good to see they were joint second on the test.

[eldar]

How many cars are running 10 year old tyres, it can't be many. More a problem with caravans, trailers, and spare wheels I'd imagine.

[Previous]

A lot of commercial tyres are retreadded; i guess its then possible for a carcass to be over 10 years old: although with the amount of mileage commercial vehicles do i wonder how many times the carcass could need to be retreadded in 10 years?

In an aviation setting, Most commercial aviation tyres are retreads, and the tyre needs to be certified to the retread level. I.e a 737 or A320 tyre may be certified to be retreaded 3 times (or more) for example.

At each level that the tyre manufacturer wants to go (retreadding is cheaper than buying new ; the tyre oem can therefore sell on a lower operating cost on a cost per landing basis if its more retreadabble) they need to have a certain number of tyres returned at the previous retread level in order to complete testing to prove satey of the new tyre with the intended aircraft, to the satisfaction of the airframer (e.g airbus or boeing).

The level of retreadability can be limited by the tyre characteristics : essentially carcasses may degrade over time and not be suitable for retreadding beyond a certain point. Also, a proportion of tyres are lost at each level of retread anyway due to damage or wear thats gone too far into the carcass, so the available tyre pool at each retread level shrinks. That, coupled with the testing costs tends to put an economic limit on the retread level as well.

Does anyone know if there are maximum limits to the number of retreads a commercial tyre carcass can have??