Seeing as the new tyre ratings are for rolling resistance, wet braking and noise are about to come into force, I thought I'd check out how my tyres fared. My tyres are 175/70R13T
The new Kleber came up with a pretty poor rating:
Rolling resistance: F, wet braking: C, noise 69
Fair enough, it's a cheap tyre. What about the old Michelin Energy?
Rolling resistance: E, wet braking: B, noise 68
Better, but not not great for a 'premium' price tyre.
What about other sizes. In 205/55 R16 91V the Michelin Energy scores
Rolling resistance: B, wet braking: A, noise 70
Curiouser and curiouser. Is the bigger tyre really more efficient than the smaller one, contrary to what we see in the real world? Well yes, if you test the tyre at its rated load. This is what they do. The smaller tyre is more heavily deformed under its maximum permitted load and hence has higher rolling resistence.The problem is that this you can't extrapolate this data down to the sort of loads that you normally experience while driving normally.
It's a bit like measuring fuel economy at the maximum speed a vehicle is capable of reaching! It doesn't tell you anything meanigful about how the economy of the vehicle at normal road speeds.
But this apples to oranges comparison isn't particularly helpful because of the unnecessary variable of load rating that's been thrown into the equation. Is this yet another example of EU bureaucrats wading into an area in which they know nothing, convinced that only they have the solutions to making the world a better place?
Edited by unthrottled on 28/10/2012 at 17:18
|