|
I wouldn't put Nexen in the ditchfinder category these days. They tend to be pretty decent tyres.
|
|
Global trade is undoubtedly leveling most people up (and us down - I don't support Chinese imports). However, unless the OP can provide some reliable comparative evidence, I see no reason to pejoratively refer to Landsail tyres as 'ditchfinders.'
www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre/Landsail/LS588-UHP.htm
As for cheap brake pads on powerful cars, the front pads I fitted to my 400+bhp Audi cost £33.71 from Autodoc. They seem to work just as well as the ones from the OEM even if they might not last as long (70,000miles). Half that would be fine for me, doing fewer than 3k per annum.
|
|
|
|
I understand the notion discussed here.
However, I yet to see real-life figures linking so called ditch-finders (or any brand) to post accidents forensics. Bad/no maintenance is probably more of a concern than brand.
Looking at the various 'who own what' in the tyre industry it is clear the so called ditch-finders are made in the PRC. So the question is : if there were safety concerns with Chinese tyres why was duty dropped by 0.5% in May last year? (2.5% pre Brexit and now 2%).
In my experience some brands last less then other in average 10k usage (Nexen never lasted me more than two years but LandSail lasting me now at almost three).
I, on the other hand, completely fail to see the rational that what type of tyres you buy should be determined solely on how long they will last before you have to dust your wallet off again and grudgingly spend some more money on (yes, its been said before!) the only part of your car actually in contact with the road.
You are simply not going to find any real life figures as to what impact cheap tyres have in actual accidents. Why?, because beyond whether or not the tyres have the minimum legal tread requirement, an insurance/Police investigator, won't consider it a factor.
Consider this hypothetical situation. Two identical cars side by side at the same speed on a streaming wet dual carriageway, a tree falls across both carriageways. One car, wearing good quality tyres, stops in time, while the other, wearing cheap Chinese tyres, collides with the tree. The only way it could be determined that the tyres were a factor would be if the investigators widened the investigation to include any other cars in the vicinity which didn't have an accident, and why. And that's not likely to happen is it?.
There are plenty of real tyre tests which prove conclusively (unless you think, as at least one forum member seems to, the results are 'faked') how much worse poor quality tyres perform than good quality ones, especially in poor conditions. So looking for non existent 'proof' of real accident statistics taking tyre quality into account seems like just an excuse to carry on saving money on tyres.
As for the maintenance factor, the MOT test will determine whether or not the brakes and steering work, whether or not the wipers will clear away the rain, whether or not the headlights work (etc, etc), but it won't determine how much longer it will take a poor quality tyre to stop the car on a wet/slippy road.
You are only going to find out where that extra money goes in a situation where you need to do an emergency stop, or an extreme avoidance manoeuvre. Hopefully that will never happen, but, y'know, "hope for the best, plan for the worst", etc!
|
I, on the other hand, completely fail to see the rational that what type of tyres you buy should be determined solely on how long they will last before you have to dust your wallet off again and grudgingly spend some more money on (yes, its been said before!) the only part of your car actually in contact with the road.
I don't believe you. The rationale is quite obvious. Cheap tyres are cheaper.
They may in some (or most?) cases, be less safe, but people who buy cheap tyres accept this unquantified but probably rather small additional risk in the interests of saving money.
People take such decisions all the time, in all aspects of life. Some people smoke. Or eat bacon sarnies. Or ride bicycles
Driving at all is such a decision. It would generally be much safer not to, even on the very best tyres money could buy.
I buy used tyres, body swerving the "ditchfinder" label, so I suppose I must be in the clear?
|
I, on the other hand, completely fail to see the rational that what type of tyres you buy should be determined solely on how long they will last before you have to dust your wallet off again and grudgingly spend some more money on (yes, its been said before!) the only part of your car actually in contact with the road.
I don't believe you. The rationale is quite obvious. Cheap tyres are cheaper.
They may in some (or most?) cases, be less safe, but people who buy cheap tyres accept this unquantified but probably rather small additional risk in the interests of saving money.
People take such decisions all the time, in all aspects of life. Some people smoke. Or eat bacon sarnies. Or ride bicycles
Driving at all is such a decision. It would generally be much safer not to, even on the very best tyres money could buy.
I buy used tyres, body swerving the "ditchfinder" label, so I suppose I must be in the clear?
Not just about the tyre though, the roads are not too good in a lot of places including our motorways, so even the best tyres will find it difficult going on certain surfaces even tarmac depending on how its laid can cause a tyre problems
So until all roads are properly surfaced no tyre is perfect M25 is perfect example of poor road surface and a challenge for any tyre imo.
|
I, on the other hand, completely fail to see the rational that what type of tyres you buy should be determined solely on how long they will last before you have to dust your wallet off again and grudgingly spend some more money on (yes, its been said before!) the only part of your car actually in contact with the road.
I don't believe you. The rationale is quite obvious. Cheap tyres are cheaper.
They may in some (or most?) cases, be less safe, but people who buy cheap tyres accept this unquantified but probably rather small additional risk in the interests of saving money.
People take such decisions all the time, in all aspects of life. Some people smoke. Or eat bacon sarnies. Or ride bicycles
Driving at all is such a decision. It would generally be much safer not to, even on the very best tyres money could buy.
I buy used tyres, body swerving the "ditchfinder" label, so I suppose I must be in the clear?
Not just about the tyre though, the roads are not too good in a lot of places including our motorways, so even the best tyres will find it difficult going on certain surfaces even tarmac depending on how its laid can cause a tyre problems
So until all roads are properly surfaced no tyre is perfect M25 is perfect example of poor road surface and a challenge for any tyre imo.
I've never liked concrete road surfaces, including the stretches on the SE part of the M25 and long stretches of the A30 in Cornwall/Devon. Very noisy, which presumably means more wear.
|
|
|
|
|
Autobild run tests on tyres in which they to use 9/10 big brand names, and 1/10 "ditchfinder" as some sort of control. The DF comes nowhere near the top overall, but in many cases puts up an adequate performance.
Are they worth fitting - the performance gains are likely to be illusory unless your normal driving style often challenges the limits. Otherwise they MAY only be an issue in emergency braking or steering which for a cautious driver is typically infrequent.
Do I fit them - no, despite having a generally relaxed driving style. That they may save me £150 a set every ~3 years (£50pa) is insufficient to warrant the risk.
Many cheap tyres are probably made using design and tooling from mid-market ranges from 5-10 years ago. Perhaps todays DF was the quality fitment 15 years ago!!
|
|
|
I understand the notion discussed here.
However, I have yet to see figures linking so called ditch-finders (or any brand) to post accidents forensics. Bad/no maintenance is probably more of a concern than brand..
I tend to agree. Like many other things, you get what you pay for. With tyres, I suggest that includes durability, comfortable ride, wet grip, and perhaps a formulation which stiffens sooner than pricier brands. If cheap new tyres were a serious threat to driver safety I doubt that they would be marketable for long.
Remoulds or part-worn tyres must pose a much more serious threat than new tyres with a cheap price tag. Another idea is that by spending twice as much one is twice as safe, is rather simplistic and may give a false sense of security ?
Edited by Andrew-T on 07/06/2021 at 11:08
|
Like many other things, you get what you pay for.
I had to look into the research on that (as a general proposition, not specifically tyres) a few years ago and the general conclusion from quite a lot of studies on a wide range of consumer goods, was that you don't.
Keeping it automotive, this is not all that surprising when you consider the price/performance ratio (where performance includes things like reliability and customer satisfaction) of marques like Mercedes,
|
|
I agree.
My wife had a new 2014 Q3 TFSI that she had from new as part of her job package (despite my dislike to the brand).
This car was far more expensive to purchase than my 2010 Avensis. The Audi was fairly troublesome after third year of her using it and around 90k up and down the country.
I remember bills around the £2000 mark for all sort of niggles like new ECU, ABS sensors and many other. She got rid of it after four years and chose a 2018 petrol Kia Ceed that never once had a spot of trouble and saved her employer a tonne of money.
One can o on and on about the perception that what cost more is always better, however when colliding with reality things are very different.
|
One can o on and on about the perception that what cost more is always better, however when colliding with reality things are very different.
That's not what I said - I said you get what you pay for. Tyres are a relatively simple item with a few defining characteristics. A car is more complex, in the case of an Audi most buyers get what they pay for - cachet and street cred.
|
One can o on and on about the perception that what cost more is always better, however when colliding with reality things are very different.
That's not what I said - I said you get what you pay for. Tyres are a relatively simple item with a few defining characteristics. A car is more complex, in the case of an Audi most buyers get what they pay for - cachet and street cred.
Fair enough, but if you widen the definition of value to include subjective benefits, it becomes a rather circular statement. You must get what you pay for because if you didn't you wouldn't pay it stylee.
In the case of premium tyres, the subjective benefits would include reassurance and perhaps a certain feeling of moral superiority over people like me.
Happy to have been of service :)
|
|
<< In the case of premium tyres, the subjective benefits would include reassurance and perhaps a certain feeling of moral superiority over people like me. >>
Reverting to the topic of tyres, I guess most of us are unable to judge what inner differences determine the apparent price tag. The structure of the carcass? The rubber formulation? Quality of rubber feedstock ? The accuracy of process control ? Processing cost in the country of origin? The response of demand to published surveys of driveability ? Maybe the biggest factor is the name on the badge, rather like cars.
As a chemist I would have thought that the cost of varying the formulation to optimise durability and other driving properties would be fairly marginal, so I guess economies can be made in carcass structure, and perhaps in neatness of finished appearance.
Edited by Andrew-T on 09/06/2021 at 09:37
|
<< In the case of premium tyres, the subjective benefits would include reassurance and perhaps a certain feeling of moral superiority over people like me. >>
Reverting to the topic of tyres, I guess most of us are unable to judge what inner differences determine the apparent price tag. The structure of the carcass? The rubber formulation? Quality of rubber feedstock ? The accuracy of process control ? Processing cost in the country of origin? The response of demand to published surveys of driveability ? Maybe the biggest factor is the name on the badge, rather like cars.
As a chemist I would have thought that the cost of varying the formulation to optimise durability and other driving properties would be fairly marginal, so I guess economies can be made in carcass structure, and perhaps in neatness of finished appearance.
Staying with the topic of tyres, you've got rather a mixture of factors there. Some of them are "inner differences" as you say, related to costs. but "The response of demand to published surveys of driveability" and "the name on the badge" are both external market factors, and the second one obviously has a big subjective benefit element. This is directly connected to costs via the advertising budget, which is likely to be a lot bigger for a big brand, almost by definition.
|
|
|
|
One can o on and on about the perception that what cost more is always better, however when colliding with reality things are very different.
That's not what I said - I said you get what you pay for. Tyres are a relatively simple item with a few defining characteristics. A car is more complex, in the case of an Audi most buyers get what they pay for - cachet and street cred.
Fair enough, but if you widen the definition of value to include subjective benefits, it becomes a rather circular statement. You must get what you pay for because if you didn't you wouldn't pay it stylee.
In the case of premium tyres, the subjective benefits would include reassurance and perhaps a certain feeling of moral superiority over people like me.
Happy to have been of service :)
Remind me not to accept an offer of a lift from you if it's raining out... :-)
Time and again, 99% of the top-rated tyres for grip/handling/performance, especially in poor weather (and which are at least reasonable on wear) are the more expensive ones and those at the bottom are the cheapest.
There are always outliers (as I indicated above), but in the main, the axiom of' you get what you pay for' holds true with tyres.
My car is hardly a flashy or (even when new) expensive one, but I always look for a (high) minimum quality for replacement tyres. Sometimes I get lucky that a highly rated tyre is not that expensive, but I'd never pay for one/a set that was poor quality just to save money. For the same reason, I don't buy cheap knock-off parts.
The problem with 'ditchfinder' tyres is that, IMHO, you're lulled into a false sense of security because normal driving, especially in good weather, never puts anywhere near the maxium-rated load/forces on the tyres - it's only in very bad weather and/or when trying to avoid an accident when you really know the benefit of a decent set of tyres.
|
|
<< Time and again, 99% of the top-rated tyres for grip/handling/performance, especially in poor weather (and which are at least reasonable on wear) are the more expensive ones and those at the bottom are the cheapest. There are always outliers (as I indicated above), but in the main, the axiom of' you get what you pay for' holds true with tyres. >>
I think it would be surprising if that were otherwise; but the question which I think all of us may have difficulty answering is the scale of the difference between the top and bottom ratings. I hope published comparisons are made scientifically, but if a quantifiable scale of tyre safety can be devised, I wonder how far apart the 'best' and 'worst' tyres would be. If only 10 or 20%, many drivers would be justified in buying cheap tyres if they prefer to drive moderately and in dry conditions.
And then there are considerations of noise or comfortable ride. Top-rated tyres may not tick all the boxes for everyone.
|
|
|
|
"The problem with 'ditchfinder' tyres is that, IMHO, you're lulled into a false sense of security"
Normal driving in Taiwan does not ever lull one into a false sense of security, unless one is Taiwanese, and just burned incense at the temple.
Edited by edlithgow on 10/06/2021 at 03:34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
