I generally distrust knee-jerk truisms like the above

the difference between a decent tyre and a cheapo, could easily be the difference between having an accident and not having an accident.

'Knee jerk', means a reaction without thinking or consideration. My views on the performance of cheapo tyres goes back about 20 years reading various tyre tests published in various magazines. These tests are carried out by independent bodies, using 1 car and a range of identical sized tyres of the same type. So, while you are of course entitled to your own opinion, personally, I wouldn't consider mine 'knee jerk' in any way.

Of course this one ""could easily be"" true. It also ""could easily be"" untrue, especially as "decent tyre" and cheapo are undefined.

I said, "could easily", simply because I have not looked up the results of tyre tests for Maxxis tyres*. But if you want to be picky about it, tell me the exact 'model' of Maxxis tyre you have and I will see if I can find some test figures to compare with others. One thing I can tell you though, is that an over inflated tyre is not going to perform well under any circumstances other than efficiency and (possibly) noise (due to the smaller contact area).

To be generally true, more expensive tyres would generally offer better braking and lateral acceleration performance than cheaper tyres.

A couple of minutes Googling reveals that they do not..

Surprise!

( Except it isn't, particularly).

www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/Tire-Study-Report...f

Key Findings: 1. On average, new high-priced tires did not perform significantly better than new low-priced tires in terms of stopping distance on a wet road surface, maximum lateral acceleration on a wet road surface and NVH characteristics.

Of course, since cheapo is undefined, it could be the cheap tyres in this study were not cheap enough to show the alleged Cheapo Circle Of Death effect. I had heard of some of them which might mean they were actually "decent".

The expensive tyres were about 250 USD more per set for a Toyota Camry test car

This is a US report, and as the tyres sold there may well not be the same as the UK, I decided against looking up the specific tyre models. What I did instead was put in the size of (all weather) tyre I need for my van (195/65x15 with a load rating between 91 and 95). From Ebay, the lowest price for a Goodyear Vector 4 Seasons Gen2 (this is what I have on the front of my van) was £57.10. Cheapest Nexen, the NBLUE 4 Seasons, was £52. Cheapest Khumo, the Solus HA31 was £53.90. No listing for Fuzion on Ebay. So going by the prices I can get the respective brands listed for, not so much a case of comparing cheap with expensive, more a case of comparing tyres of more or less the same price. Even ignoring this, as I am very familiar with both Nexen and Khumo, I wouldn't consider either a cheapo, that would be for brands I'd never heard of, such as Fuzion.

As for comparing the differences in performance, this short What Car clip shows in no uncertain terms where the extra money goes in a good quality tyre (in this case a Michelin was best) over a cheapo tyre in wet braking, with well over 20 extra meters required to stop from whatever speed they were doing (iit doesn't actually say, but won't be more than the max UK speed limit of 70mph)

watch

So you define "cheapo" as "I've never heard of it"?

As I've spent a lot of time over the years looking at tyre tests and reviews, yes. Though the price is also a factor, but I don't see what is so odd about that. I also wouldn't buy a car from a brand I'd never heard of, nor a pair of shoes. And just to point out, I'd have no problem buying a cheaper tyre if it had received good results in a tyre test, this isn't just a 'expensive is better than cheap' mentality.

Perhaps the best one can do, but it does tend to imply that, at least for most punters, "decent" simply means "advertised"

Maybe for most punters, but unless they have taken the time to look into the relative performance of various tyres, that is just how it should be. The tyre is the cars only point of contact with the road, so why would you chance your (and your family's) safety in the off chance that the cheap Chinese ditchfinder actually performs OK under duress on a streaming wet road.

The Fuzion that you'd never heard of doesn't seem to do significantly worse than the others in that US test, which appeared to be well conducted.

That may well be the case, but given (a) I can't actually buy them on Ebay, and (b) that US article considers them a cheap tyre, along with Nexen and Kuhmo, both of which are barely any cheaper than a Goodyear for me, its a moot point.

The What Car video is journalism.

I wouldn't be astonished to learn they had selected the tyres and/or the results to make an editorial point they'd already decided on,

You don't sell magazines (or advertising) by challenging received opinion

Unless you feel the results are fake, that is entirely irrelevant.

Anyway, I'd heard of Maxxis, so I'm covered. There's a poster in the railway station,

I've also heard of Maxxis, I bought a pair for my mountain bike years ago on the recommendation of a friend, and they were decent enough. But I wouldn't put them on my van or the car without looking into reviews or test results on them. Because, y'know, I care about what tyres I put on a vehicle (despite not having a performance car).

According to Bridgestone tyres, the cracking is called ozone cracking, and is, unless severe, not covered under warranty as the cracking is natural, so not really any need to change them.

Cracked Tyres - Why Do Car Tyres Crack | Bridgestone MEA (bridgestone-mea.com)

Hope this helps....!

Unfortunately, MOT testers don't appear to always see it that way.