Old tyres bill blocked again
Discussion
jsf said:
In heavy rain the better tyres should be on the front, because they clear the water for the rear tyres.
It's why on the 6 wheel March and Williams F1 cars, that ran 2 sets of rear wheels, you can run the leading pair of rears as wets and the 2nd set of rears as slicks in the rain.
I'm probably due a parrot....It's why on the 6 wheel March and Williams F1 cars, that ran 2 sets of rear wheels, you can run the leading pair of rears as wets and the 2nd set of rears as slicks in the rain.
Yea, that might be true for all of us running 6 wheel f1 cars on the daily commute, but for anyone not driving one of those it tends to be the other way around
https://youtu.be/gSz7cm6MwH0
Edited by Previous on Saturday 24th February 19:54
Previous said:
clearly they cant drive for s
t. 
If you have tyres that are so worn that they don't clear their own water then you are screwed, which is what is going on in that video.
Tyres tend to lose their best water clearing ability when the tread depth goes below 4mm.
Red 4 said:
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.
Oh we got a driving god here, let’s all sit around and listen to this...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.
John145 said:
Red 4 said:
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.
Oh we got a driving god here, let’s all sit around and listen to this...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.
You can think of me as a driving God though, if you like.
jsf said:
clearly they cant drive for st.
If you have tyres that are so worn that they don't clear their own water then you are screwed, which is what is going on in that video.
Tyres tend to lose their best water clearing ability when the tread depth goes below 4mm.
Lol. t. If you have tyres that are so worn that they don't clear their own water then you are screwed, which is what is going on in that video.
Tyres tend to lose their best water clearing ability when the tread depth goes below 4mm.
Legal limit is 1.6mm
New threxcome with 7-8mm tread.
Heck you could have a set of 5mm all round but hit standing water deeper than 5mm... guess what happens aquaplane
What you don’t want is your rear end overtaking the front bumper as your f
ked totally out of control. If it’s front more worn than reads then you plough on without the nightmare scenario of trying to control oversteer when not expecting it.
Dotty 70yo lady driver who never goes over 50mph will not know how to oversteer she will have a massively better chance if it’s just ploughing in.
Welshbeef said:
Legal limit is 1.6mm
New threxcome with 7-8mm tread.
Heck you could have a set of 5mm all round but hit standing water deeper than 5mm... guess what happens aquaplane
I've got my head around handling characteristics with better tyres on the rear. I understand that now.New threxcome with 7-8mm tread.
Heck you could have a set of 5mm all round but hit standing water deeper than 5mm... guess what happens aquaplane
I don't think the same could be said for braking though could it ?
I always thought it depended upon which wheels were driven as to where the newest tyres should be fitted.
FWD - New on the back
RWD - New on the front
As for ten year old tyres, a tricky one. I've never had any that have lasted that long. Saying that, I do have a camping trailer I built back in 2010 which has barely worn tyres and which is stored in a dark shed. Perhaps I should consider changing them in the next year or two.
But for me, a far bigger problem is that of second hand tyres. There is a second hand tyre place near me and every time I go past when it is open I can almost guarantee that there is a mini cab or two in there! The exact cars that should have the best tyres, have the worse!
FWD - New on the back
RWD - New on the front
As for ten year old tyres, a tricky one. I've never had any that have lasted that long. Saying that, I do have a camping trailer I built back in 2010 which has barely worn tyres and which is stored in a dark shed. Perhaps I should consider changing them in the next year or two.
But for me, a far bigger problem is that of second hand tyres. There is a second hand tyre place near me and every time I go past when it is open I can almost guarantee that there is a mini cab or two in there! The exact cars that should have the best tyres, have the worse!
Red 4 said:
It's not backed by nothing.
It's what the tyre manufacturers recommend. Replace on age irrespective of tread depth or visible appearance.
If you ain't changing your tyres - you are scrimping.
Here's what the manufacturers say;
https://www.continental-tires.com/car/technology/t...
https://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/buyin...
Tyres also need to be in use to prolong longevity due to the chemicals they release.
Garage queens and old tyres don't mix.
It's in their interest to promote this.It's what the tyre manufacturers recommend. Replace on age irrespective of tread depth or visible appearance.
If you ain't changing your tyres - you are scrimping.
Here's what the manufacturers say;
https://www.continental-tires.com/car/technology/t...
https://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/buyin...
Tyres also need to be in use to prolong longevity due to the chemicals they release.
Garage queens and old tyres don't mix.
I had a pair of Pirelli's on the front on my daily, 3 years on the sides were cracking whilst the rear ones made by Falken now 5 years on are fine with no cracking.
What some of the top tyre manufacturers need to do is up their standards making tyres rather than trying to scare us into keep buying their new not fit for purpose products.
Gloria Slap said:
Is it the commercial vehicle lobby who are blocking this? It does seem a logical proposal / law.
Andehh said:
Anyone asked their MP to explain the reasons & provide evidence? If you care enough to complain to the Internet, contact your MP.
I already linked to Hansard and to the bill's progress. Nobody is "blocking" anything. This is a private member's bill, and it simply ran out of time on Friday for the second reading, as they almost all do. No more conspiracy than that.I wish the law on tread depth was increased to 3mm. The difference in stopping distance between brand new tyre and 3mm is not huge but notable - however 7/3mm to 1.6mm. Legal limit is huge.
This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
Also a bulge in the tyre wall or cuts in a tyre again hugely dangerous.
This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
Also a bulge in the tyre wall or cuts in a tyre again hugely dangerous.
I cannot see this is a problem, I get that the lady campaigning had a bereavement and it was due to a tyre failure but that event does not make her an expert nor make her opinion any more valid than anyone else.
Tyres fail, the last failure I had was a 2 year old tyre with 11mm tread left, it was a total delamination and came with no warning signs or indications, there were no lumps, wobbles or cuts and it did not hit anything in the carriageway prior to failure. It just went bang on the M5. This was on an 18 ton Volvo Lorry.
The company supplying the tyre don't want to know, the manufacturers don't want to know, "its one of those things" is what keeps getting quoted.
Since this is only the 3rd tyre failure in 40 years of running a haulage business I am not too concerned. I have removed the other identical tyre that was fitted at the same time to the same axle (steering) and put a pair of new different make tyres on. The pair to the blown tyre is now a spare.
To be honest old tyres normally show cracking to the sidewalls that fail an MOT long before they get too old or they wear out.
Tyres fail, the last failure I had was a 2 year old tyre with 11mm tread left, it was a total delamination and came with no warning signs or indications, there were no lumps, wobbles or cuts and it did not hit anything in the carriageway prior to failure. It just went bang on the M5. This was on an 18 ton Volvo Lorry.
The company supplying the tyre don't want to know, the manufacturers don't want to know, "its one of those things" is what keeps getting quoted.
Since this is only the 3rd tyre failure in 40 years of running a haulage business I am not too concerned. I have removed the other identical tyre that was fitted at the same time to the same axle (steering) and put a pair of new different make tyres on. The pair to the blown tyre is now a spare.
To be honest old tyres normally show cracking to the sidewalls that fail an MOT long before they get too old or they wear out.
Welshbeef said:
I wish the law on tread depth was increased to 3mm. The difference in stopping distance between brand new tyre and 3mm is not huge but notable - however 7/3mm to 1.6mm. Legal limit is huge.
This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
Also a bulge in the tyre wall or cuts in a tyre again hugely dangerous.
About 10 years ago I attended a BTMA meeting at which trying to get a 3mm thread depth into law was proposed. Michelin vetoed it on the grounds that there was no evidence that it would make a significant difference and that their tyres braked as well with 1.6mm as many others did at 3mm and they would be at a commercial disadvantage if that performance benefit was negated. This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
Also a bulge in the tyre wall or cuts in a tyre again hugely dangerous.
Tread depth, within current law, is not as important as aged tyres.
The risks from damaged tyres as you describe are already well understood, no need for any changes there.
I would add that I’ve rarely seen so much of ‘the blind leading the blind’ as in this thread. I sympathise with the point in question but clearly it should be left to those who know what they’re talking about.
The quoted article from CarThrottle made me laugh out loud! It’s so riddled with errors and misinformation they may just as well have written “wibble, wibble, wibble”!
I suspect that would have been good enough for some on here.
Welshbeef said:
Lol.
Legal limit is 1.6mm
New threxcome with 7-8mm tread.
Heck you could have a set of 5mm all round but hit standing water deeper than 5mm... guess what happens aquaplane
That's not how aquaplaneing works. You only get that when the clearing ability of the tyre is overcome in its local contact point. You can drive in 100mm of water and not aquaplane. Legal limit is 1.6mm
New threxcome with 7-8mm tread.
Heck you could have a set of 5mm all round but hit standing water deeper than 5mm... guess what happens aquaplane
This is a function of speed, tread depth, tread pattern and pressure on the contact point. Water depth has little to do with it. This is why a car with wide tyres will aquaplane before one on narrow tyres. It's why slowing down can prevent aquaplaneing even in the most horrendous flooding.
Uneven depth of water tends to have a steering effect due to a difference in drag on each axle.
REALIST123 said:
Welshbeef said:
I wish the law on tread depth was increased to 3mm. The difference in stopping distance between brand new tyre and 3mm is not huge but notable - however 7/3mm to 1.6mm. Legal limit is huge.
This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
Also a bulge in the tyre wall or cuts in a tyre again hugely dangerous.
About 10 years ago I attended a BTMA meeting at which trying to get a 3mm thread depth into law was proposed. Michelin vetoed it on the grounds that there was no evidence that it would make a significant difference and that their tyres braked as well with 1.6mm as many others did at 3mm and they would be at a commercial disadvantage if that performance benefit was negated. This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
Also a bulge in the tyre wall or cuts in a tyre again hugely dangerous.
Tread depth, within current law, is not as important as aged tyres.
The risks from damaged tyres as you describe are already well understood, no need for any changes there.
I would add that I’ve rarely seen so much of ‘the blind leading the blind’ as in this thread. I sympathise with the point in question but clearly it should be left to those who know what they’re talking about.
The quoted article from CarThrottle made me laugh out loud! It’s so riddled with errors and misinformation they may just as well have written “wibble, wibble, wibble”!
I suspect that would have been good enough for some on here.
I would be a very rich man if I got a pound every time I quoted for a premium tyre, then was asked is there anything cheaper, it is just the wifes car.
It was rare to see tyres cracked on the sidewalls with lots of tread left. The tyres that fail the most are trailer and caravan tyres which was more often down to overloading and poor inflation
Of course some would love to sell more tyres on tread depth but the facts are against that, if you read the article below.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/3591028/changing-t...
The police we used to service changed their motorway patrol car and fast response car tyres at 3mm, the rest was 2mm which seemed to work out well.
Red 4 said:
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.
Just out of interest, what is the purpose of rotating tyres front to back or back/front?On my FWD vehicles for example, the front tyres seem to wear out at least twice as fast as the rears, but each time this happens I usually just replace the fronts and leave the rears to continue wearing out as they are. My possibly flawed theory is that it's the front that does all the steering, braking and accelerating so I would rather just keep having the new tyres on the front.
On my front engine - rear drive cars, I find that they usually all wear out near enough the same time.
Most of my vehicles have staggered width tyres so they cannot be rotated front to back anyway...
Maybe I'm doing it wrong!
Welshbeef said:
I wish the law on tread depth was increased to 3mm. The difference in stopping distance between brand new tyre and 3mm is not huge but notable - however 7/3mm to 1.6mm. Legal limit is huge.
This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
.
As mentioned above, your friends at Michelin don’t agree. Follow the link to the pdf:This one step could reduce accidents /deaths.
Tread depth is far far more important than tyre age.
.
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-...
Lord Marylebone said:
Just out of interest, what is the purpose of rotating tyres front to back or back/front?
On my FWD vehicles for example, the front tyres seem to wear out at least twice as fast as the rears, but each time this happens I usually just replace the fronts and leave the rears to continue wearing out as they are. My possibly flawed theory is that it's the front that does all the steering, braking and accelerating so I would rather just keep having the new tyres on the front.
On my front engine - rear drive cars, I find that they usually all wear out near enough the same time.
Most of my vehicles have staggered width tyres so they cannot be rotated front to back anyway...
Maybe I'm doing it wrong!
You're doing it wrong!On my FWD vehicles for example, the front tyres seem to wear out at least twice as fast as the rears, but each time this happens I usually just replace the fronts and leave the rears to continue wearing out as they are. My possibly flawed theory is that it's the front that does all the steering, braking and accelerating so I would rather just keep having the new tyres on the front.
On my front engine - rear drive cars, I find that they usually all wear out near enough the same time.
Most of my vehicles have staggered width tyres so they cannot be rotated front to back anyway...
Maybe I'm doing it wrong!
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.
The front tyres do all the driving and braking in an FWD car, which means the rears are responsible for stability. 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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff