|
"Tyres at the 1.6mm legal minimum tread depth must still meet same performance standards as new tyres, says the EU"
www.autoexpress.co.uk/consumer-news/363794/new-eu-...r
|
|
Interesting. Does this mean a tyre can exceed the standards when new and then merely meet them at 1.6mm. So it’s still relatively poorer than when it was new. It’s still good progress though and I suspect that Michelin (and others) already meet this.
Although I already mentioned Michelins confidence in their products down to 1.6mm I will still change when they go below 3mm and will view the full width of the tyre. If you leave the too long it’s all too easy to be caught out e.g. on the inner edge of the rears. My last Michelins were replaced when they had plenty of tread but had started to crack at around 40k miles. Probably due to hot summers and intermittent lockdown use.
It’s not all about tread.
|
It’s not all about tread.
But that is the criterion you are using to decide when to get new tyres !!
|
|
OK. Got me ;-) but it’s not all about 1.6mm
|
|
|
|
Although I already mentioned Michelins confidence in their products down to 1.6mm I will still change when they go below 3mm and will view the full width of the tyre.
I expect Michelin started having their tyres ready early for the new laws which is why they kept mentioning that you could get them down to 1.6mm tread.
|
|
|
Interesting. Does this mean a tyre can exceed the standards when new and then merely meet them at 1.6mm. So it’s still relatively poorer than when it was new. It’s still good progress though and I suspect that Michelin (and others) already meet this.
Although I already mentioned Michelins confidence in their products down to 1.6mm I will still change when they go below 3mm and will view the full width of the tyre. If you leave the too long it’s all too easy to be caught out e.g. on the inner edge of the rears. My last Michelins were replaced when they had plenty of tread but had started to crack at around 40k miles. Probably due to hot summers and intermittent lockdown use.
It’s not all about tread.
Re "So it’s still relatively poorer than when it was new." Even IF that is true,(I dont think it is explicitly stated in the article) since the article refers exclusively to wet weather performance, the 1.6mm tyre is likely to be better in the dry, and even in The Yook, its dry more often than it is wet.
Its not all about the wet
(or at least it shouldn't be)
|
|
|
|
"Tyres at the 1.6mm legal minimum tread depth must still meet same performance standards as new tyres, says the EU"
www.autoexpress.co.uk/consumer-news/363794/new-eu-...r
A phrase that comes to mind is "Ye canna defy the laws of physics".
Grasp of reality is not a strong point of the EU and its bureaucrats who issue these proclamations.
|
A phrase that comes to mind is "Ye canna defy the laws of physics".
Grasp of reality is not a strong point of the EU and its bureaucrats who issue these proclamations.
Naturally I agree with your first proposal. Please expand a little on the particular reality which the EU needs to grasp ? It seems that some science decided that 1.6mm was a reasonably safe tread depth to draw a line at. You believe differently (as you are at liberty to) but why ?
|
A phrase that comes to mind is "Ye canna defy the laws of physics".
Grasp of reality is not a strong point of the EU and its bureaucrats who issue these proclamations.
Naturally I agree with your first proposal. Please expand a little on the particular reality which the EU needs to grasp ? It seems that some science decided that 1.6mm was a reasonably safe tread depth to draw a line at. You believe differently (as you are at liberty to) but why ?
On the (now relatively rare)occasions when we have had snow and slush, I have been able to easily pass 4 WD vehicles stuck on gradients, thanks to having 3mm plus tread on all-season tyres.
I do not believe 1.6 mm treads can disperse slush or substantial surface water as well as deeper grooved treads.
I think the EU is prone to making rules and regulations on a 'one size fits all' basis, often driven by pressure from activists or special interest entities, and a feeling that 'something must be done about this',
The Euro currency itself illustrates that a 'one size fits all' policy is not viable in the long term for the many different countries within the EU.
|
|
Assuming that is all true, it would only be an argument for the superiority of 3mm plus tread if the 4 WD vehicles you were easily passing did not have it, which is (a) unsupported and (b) unlikely.
It is also, as you yourself point out, a rare situation.
Optimising for rare situations may not achieve the best performance/safety averaged across all situations
|
Assuming that is all true, it would only be an argument for the superiority of 3mm plus tread if the 4 WD vehicles you were easily passing did not have it, which is (a) unsupported and (b) unlikely.
It is also, as you yourself point out, a rare situation.
Optimising for rare situations may not achieve the best performance/safety averaged across all situations
That's one of the problems with a 'one size fits all' law, because vehicles can be light, heavy, shod on wide, low profile tyres or skinnier, higher profile ones, obviously have vastly difference performance characteristics (the cars as well as the tyres), plus FWD, RWD and 4WD of its varying guises and suspension setups.
As many of us have seen (and perhaps witnessed for ourselves), some tyres just don't work well at all - even when new (after accounting for 'scrubbing them in') from premium makes - some don't appear to work well on certain cars or drive types; others with lots of tread stop working well in non-dry / temperate conditions when they are over X years and/or if the car they are shod on gets left in the sun a lot.
I wonder if the 1.6mm legal minimum has been revisited (and how often / recently?) via newer tests to take into account changes in car design and tyre technology?
Some makes like Michelin seem confident to apparently say you don't need to change on some of their tyres until they are either >10yo, down to the legal minimum or visibly damaged that they could cause (sudden) deflation under use. Other may not be.
What is noticeable (and has been mentioned on this forum before) is how tyre manufacturers are increasingly reducing the starting tread depth.
|
What is noticeable (and has been mentioned on this forum before) is how tyre manufacturers are increasingly reducing the starting tread depth.
Well, the simple and plausible explanation would be that they sell more tyres that way.
It would also seem at least possible, though, that performance in the dry, where tyres spend most of the time, is compromised at the higher tread depths, and a reduced tread depth gives better average overall performance and safety .Even if this isn't the primary motivation, I would expect it could be used as cover.
(It could also be used as cover for my buying part-worn tyres, as I did last time, if I felt I needed cover)
After all, AFAIK no one makes "long life" tyres with 20 or 30mm tread depth, except maybe some specialist off-road stuff, and there may be non-commercial reasons for that.
Edited by edlithgow on 21/07/2024 at 01:57
|
What is noticeable (and has been mentioned on this forum before) is how tyre manufacturers are increasingly reducing the starting tread depth.
Well, the simple and plausible explanation would be that they sell more tyres that way.
It would also seem at least possible, though, that performance in the dry, where tyres spend most of the time, is compromised at the higher tread depths, and a reduced tread depth gives better average overall performance and safety .Even if this isn't the primary motivation, I would expect it could be used as cover.
(It could also be used as cover for my buying part-worn tyres, as I did last time, if I felt I needed cover)
After all, AFAIK no one makes "long life" tyres with 20 or 30mm tread depth, except maybe some specialist off-road stuff, and there may be non-commercial reasons for that.
I indeed realised that, and probably the compromise in increasing the physical stiffness of tyres with very large tread depths would mean the price would go up for the consumer.
My problem is that business makes a big thing these days about being 'environmentally conscious', and yet they could be deliberately designing / selling new products that would far longer and with higher performance than previous ones, with a smaller lifetime carbon footprint, and yet deliberately reduce the product's lifespan so they can make more profit.
This includes, in my view, deliberately marketing the use of wide, low profile tyres as 'cool' and always required to get the best performance out of cars, despite so many of them being used on models that are obviously not high performance cars.
I also suspect they have deals with the car and parts manufacturers and retailers (as in cross-subsidy) because using one helps sales in the other, e.g. suspension parts, alloy wheels, repairs themselves, because the other parts (as opposed to the air in the tyres) does far more of the work.
None of this is 'good for the planet', and yet they get away with it - even politicians (of all stripes) don't even go near it. I wonder why - too much tax revenues??
|
My problem is that business makes a big thing these days about being 'environmentally conscious', and yet they could be deliberately designing / selling new products that would far longer and with higher performance than previous ones, with a smaller lifetime carbon footprint, and yet deliberately reduce the product's lifespan so they can make more profit.
This does not apply only to tyres. Recommended replacement intervals for oil, brake fluid and other items may be unnecessarily short, manufacturers probably claim this is to ensure reliable performance even in adverse usage conditions.
I just had new igniters fitted to my 20 year old gas boiler, the temperature sensing probe was eroded to about half its original length.
The fitter remarked that replacement of these is recommended every 5 years, he was amazed that it was still working reliably. (This sensor evidently comes as as part of a three piece set, at £75 a set . Kerching!)
|
|
Cant remember where, but I've seen some test results showing wide tyres to be quite a lot more vulnerable to aquaplaning, which isn't terribly surprising.
A lot of the above is down to the twin fundamental flaws of consumer capitalism
The Manufacturer in Mendacious
And The Punter is a Prat
|
|
|
<< It would also seem at least possible, though, that performance in the dry, where tyres spend most of the time, is compromised at the higher tread depths, and a reduced tread depth gives better average overall performance and safety >>
All this is blatantly obvious, explaining why F1 drivers prefer tyres with no tread at all for dry conditions. Real-world people like us, however, don't have the luxury of a pit-crew able to fit a set of wet tyres in about 20 seconds when needed !
|
<< It would also seem at least possible, though, that performance in the dry, where tyres spend most of the time, is compromised at the higher tread depths, and a reduced tread depth gives better average overall performance and safety >>
All this is blatantly obvious, explaining why F1 drivers prefer tyres with no tread at all for dry conditions. Real-world people like us, however, don't have the luxury of a pit-crew able to fit a set of wet tyres in about 20 seconds when needed !
Well, in context it was really a technical cover for the real world reality of real manufacturers really reducing the real tread depth, as was really "blatantly obvious", so pit crews really did not/need not apply.
Following you out of context, though, I have heard of this "real world" of which you speak. I understood it to be in the USA, but perhaps there is a subsidiary branch in Surbiton.
Here in Taiwan there is really no rain for six months of the year so pit crews really need not apply here either.
|
|
|
|
|
<< I do not believe 1.6 mm treads can disperse slush or substantial surface water as well as deeper grooved treads. >>
Regards water, that will depend a lot on the depth of water and your speed, which I would hope you would moderate in such a situation.
Regards snow, having driven through three Canadian winters, my experience on standard tyres was that tread, however deep, easily gets full of compacted snow. Proper snow tyres are needed to cope with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
