Just failed MOT for tyre damage. Fair, they have numerous cuts from stones.
but the handwritten note! Second time a mechanic has commented on my Michelin cross climates being unsuitable.
but after 4 years and 20,000 miles I think I’ll be ignoring the advice and ordering 4 new ones. They’re brilliant and I don’t understand why the motor industry insists on putting english drivers on summer tyres year round.
You know what, as I’ve digested this and done some googling, I think I’m being taken for a ride.
Aside from the cuts, the front tyres are noted as “low on tread”. I’ve just measured them with callipers at 4 mm, MOT minimum is 1.6. I like to keep on top of these things
ive just looked at my 2nd car which recently passed an MOT and the tyres are covered in similar small stone cuts.
inspecting my car after the MOT, yes, the tyres have picked up a lot of gravel, but that’s because (ah the irony) I drive home last night through heavy surface flooding and mud.
Does anyone else think that he just failed my MOT for the hand written reason “avoid M&S (mud and snow) tyres”?
Maybe he sees lots of mud & snow tyres with cuts?
I've got Pirelli Cinturatos and they definitely pick up more stones than the Goodyear F1s I have before.
Very odd written note!
Ignore.
I had a new set of boots for the car this month (Crossclimate 2s 🙂 ) and the tyre place I booked it in with to replace them gave me a report on the old tyres. That's a pretty pointless exercise, right?
Very odd written note!
Ignore.
the decision I’ve gotta make is do I need 4 new tyres or do I need a new MOT tester?
Both judging by the MOT major defects.
Am left wondering if this tester has never seen siped tyres before.
Go somewhere else, this looks like they are useless
Am left wondering if this tester has never seen siped tyres before.
Go somewhere else, this looks like they are useless
Huh? The OP said their tyres actually are covered in cuts though?
I can't see any reason for the MOT person to write that kind of note except to be helpful, and as I mentioned mine do pick up a lot of gravel (and therefore cuts) too.
Can anyone spot any concerns here? Chalk marks from the MOT technician. This tyre looks fine to me, plenty of measured tread depth, plenty of stones for sure and a few cuts that absolutely do not go anywhere near the cords. I’ll be visualising a two finger salute as I take my wife and family camping next week without an MOT. I would never do anything to endanger them or other road users.
source: arrogant PhD educated engineer. 👷♂️
disclaimer: please correct me if you think I’m an idiot. I’ve inspected the tyres carefully and I’m happy.
Does the tech mean those tiny little cuts across the sipes?
I would def keep driving those
Tyres look fine to me (what do I know though).
However - no MOT = don't drive the car anywhere unless it's to a booked appoointment for an MOT (or tyre replacement!).
TBF No serious damage is obviously visible in the pics, take it back down there and ask them to show you?
edit- that possibly would line up with the chalk, see if you can open it up, also look in the grooves where they are obscured in the photo
Cynically, I would say Halfords sell tyres but don't have any all season ones your size in stock at the test station.
I would expect then to be a pretty old tyre to be cracking, what is the date stamp?
They look worn but fine to drive to me (IANAMOTtester) - not sure your tester knows what they should be measuring, frankly.
I've been driving CCs for 3 years now, and found them really good, especially in the dry, snow, slush and heavy rain. The only thing I dislike about them, and the reason I may look elsewhere when they need replacing, is their performance on slick - but not streaming - tarmac. When it's rained just enough to wet the surface and make it a bit slippery, they do slip, pulling away from a junction, going round a roundabout etc. Otherwise, great tyres.
I’m aware of the legalities regarding mot expiration/cancellation.
I also previously made the mistake of missing an MOT for a whole month and nothing happened so I’m not letting this incident ruin my weekend away. I won’t be driving far.
Mult21 has correctly circled in purple one of the stone cuts. I’ve been digging my fingers into all of these and they go nowhere. The tyre Carcass is fine.
So I’m going full cynic mode here. Rare for me, I usually bow to authority and have a very low threshold for risk. I believe my car is safe to drive. I really don’t want to harm my family or other road users but I’m going for it.
you might look down on me. That’s ok.
You can appeal an MOT with the DVSA within 14 working days, form is on the .gov site.
Go back to the tester and ask to be pointed at the cuts. They could be on sidewale inside and difficult to see.
Doesn’t no mot = no insurance?
I also previously made the mistake of missing an MOT for a whole month and nothing happened so I’m not letting this incident ruin my weekend away. I won’t be driving far
DIdn't know there an exemption for not having an MOT if you don't drive far. Just takes one idiot on the road to hit you and you'll looking at £1k fine or ANPN camera to catch you.
🫥
DIdn't know there an exemption for not having an MOT
im not expecting an exemption. I’m expecting not to get caught. Controversial I know.
‘bout time someone lit up this forum!!! 🙂
Just go and get another garage to do an mot over the weekend. That way you won't get nailed on the off chance you get caught
As part of my last couple of jobs, I had to do a tyre check during an overall condition check, and I’ve seen some pretty shonky tyres, I had to drive a BMW that had legal tyres with tread at 1.6mm; in heavy rain on a motorway! That was scary, the rear of the car was fishtailing at 50 uphill, fortunately that was to junction 18 on the M4 where I could leave for my destination.
I have seen cuts down to the tyre structure, where the tread was actually a flap of rubber, or just deep cuts showing fabric - there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with those tyres, I have those and the Continental equivalent on my car right now, those are the sipes that allow the tyre to do what it’s designed to do.
Personally, I’d try to find a tyre specialist or a dealership that does MOT’s and ask for other opinions, I think they’re taking the piss, and trying to rip you off!
I would take the car back to halfords and ask the tester to explain his decision.
Not sure about the anti ‘cross country’ tyre advice. Seems a bit rash if you’re regularly in conditions that need that kind of tread.
the cut shown does look deep and like you’re about to tear off a chunk of the tread with some rough acceleration.
I wouldn’t be driving anywhere but a test centre without a valid MOT.
“Expecting to not get caught “
sods law dictates that you’re gonna get stopped 100 yards from your house, you’ve jinxed it already
Go to another MOT tester and ask them. I get ours done by my local garage. They will also tell me about anything else they think I need to look at although not an advisory. My old car did once fail on cuts on the inner wall that I would never have seen but the tester highlighted them all. Three of four Maxxis tyres did it. Those tyres look typical for Cross Climates so I'd want to know where the fault is. We have Cross Climates on MrsF's Qashqai. Summer car tyres on my van (PS it's classed as a car so runs XL car tyres).
I'll swap to Cross Climates eventually.
They are just great tyres for crap weather.
Cross Climate on MrsF's car. Looks identical.
We can all see the photo but have you tried MOT tester protocol and seeing if the sipe have indeed torn open to the cord. A good hard look and a photo will not show that.
When assessing cuts in a tyre, it is permissible to check whether a cut is deep enough to reach the ply or cord by using a blunt instrument to open the cut taking care not to cause further damage.
The following criteria should be used when assessing a cut in a tyre:
- any ply or cord that can be seen without touching the tyre - fail
- if by folding back rubber or opening a cut with a blunt instrument, so as not to cause further damage, exposed ply or cord can be seen irrespective of the size of the cut - fail
We can all see the photo but have you tried MOT tester protocol and seeing if the sipe have indeed torn open to the cord. A good hard look and a photo will not show that.
When assessing cuts in a tyre, it is permissible to check whether a cut is deep enough to reach the ply or cord by using a blunt instrument to open the cut taking care not to cause further damage.
The following criteria should be used when assessing a cut in a tyre:
- any ply or cord that can be seen without touching the tyre - fail
- if by folding back rubber or opening a cut with a blunt instrument, so as not to cause further damage, exposed ply or cord can be seen irrespective of the size of the cut - fail
Just seen the hand written note - never noticed it on the bottom of the test cert.
Halfords you say.
Might want to let head office know about their testers giving out hazardous advice.
I've never checked the tread for cuts inside the sipes (sidewall cuts are the usual culprits) but that is what you need to do. Get a flat screwdriver and a torch and gently pry open the sipes, it may be that the stones stuck in the sipes are cutting to the cords. You will either see the cords, or if they are cut you will see them as dots in the rubber.
It's 3 points per illegal tyre if caught so seeing as you've been notified by a tester, it would be best to check yourself when if the tester has been a bit over zealous in searching, he might have just realised there is a trend with stones cutting into siped tyres!
What car is this on? I’ve got M&S tyres on my car as standard from new.
Seems like standard Halfords’s form. Surprised it doesn’t say your brakes are in need of replacing shortly. I’d be speaking to VOSA and / or getting it re-tested. A fail like that could make a prospective buyer think you neglect it.
DO NOT DRIVE YOUR VEHICLE. A fail on an early MOT overrides the remaining certificate, ANPR could easily catch you out and it’s just not worth the hassle of the points, a fine, potentially having the car seized and the subsequent insurance price hikes.
As others have suggested pry the sipes open and have a good sqy inside. Sharp end of a bike tyre lever will probably get them open.
Gut feeling is the tester’s a knacker, wants shopping to vosa and halfrauds via social media. This is exactly the reason test certs have no free text fields.
My immediate reaction to seeing your post and the photos was 3-fold...
- find a proper test centre to re-do the test. Preferably one where the tester isnt blind of guessing.
- I'd spend £20-30 on a digital depth gauge and measure the tread at various points.
- I'd be complaining to VOSA about them. Strikes me as trying to unnecessarily sell new tyres on the back of scare mongering.
The legal limit is 1.6mm tread depth. Shyster charlatans like Halfrauds, Quick-stitch-up etc will tell you thst something is "70% worn" or dangerous when that's totally bollox ("73%" worn on a CrossClimate2 = 3mm tread remaining !! Virtually double the legal minimum. The legal minimum is a well-thought-out limit, with bags of science and reasoning behind it. Doubling it os just scare mongering by tyre selling companies.
Michelin themselves state in their own literature to change at 1.6mm as per the legal limit and not before, because early change out results in millions more tyres in landfill every year, more CO2 in the atmosphere to make them, and depletion of more resources.
I've had CrossClimate2 on my Kuga for about 18 months now. About 20k+ miles. Mine are about half worn. AWD, so I have swapped front and back to try to keep diameters similar all round, as the transmission doesn't like a big diameter difference F to R. Happy as Larry with them, and looks like I'll get 35-40k miles from them at this rate.
From Michellin's own website site...
The minimum tread depth is 1.6 mm. This means that it is imperative to change your tyres once this limit has been reached to avoid compromising your safety and breaking the law.
But it also means that it is premature to change your tyres before this threshold. This paragraph below how to check if the wear level is reached.
At MICHELIN, we design tyres with performances made to last. That is, they are able to provide an excellent performance right up to the last kilometre, when the wear threshold is reached. There are two main reasons why MICHELIN optimizes the longevity of its tyres : less frequent tyre changes save you money and are more environmentally friendly. This is why MICHELIN designs tyres that perform well until the minimum tread depth is reached.
https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/advice/tyre-basics/tyre-tread-depth
A garage telling you to change them at 3 or 4mm wear is trying to fleece you.
Opinions differ on tyres being as safe right down to 1.6mm
I can feel the difference through the steering as front tyres begin squirming when hitting puddles under 3mm. I change no lower than around 2.5 to 3mm.
With 1mm of water on the road, not unknown in Scotland where I mostly drive,
"The average stopping distance from 80km/h was 36.7 metres for the 1.6mm tyres, just over ten metres longer than for their new counterparts"
https://whattyre.com/news/auto-bild-test-stirs-up-worn-tyre-debate/
The legal minimum is a well-thought-out limit, with bags of science and reasoning behind it.
Got any links to the science ?
To IRC - what tyres are you using?
Goodyear Vector 4 Seasons Gen2
Modern "regular" tires do suffer less due to having more longitudinal "tread" and hard eco compound ....at the expense of grip. Possibly fine in the south from Newcastle down but no good in the borders and the north.
I've had new cars with modern premium tires on be lethal trying to get out of our road end in the rain - joining a fast a road. You have to crawl slowly til your on the flat otherwise the combo of rain on the ground and the weight being tilted backwards means top wheel spins. Changing to all seasons stopped it.immeduately -even in snow. Even shit all seasons. But I do like the vector 4s.
Conti van contact is another tire that can get in the bin. Horrific things when there's water on the ground and your not on a motorway .
get it booked in for a retest asap. preferably at another station.
So IRC - you would have worn down two thirds of the original tread... so yes easy to believe you'd notice that.
"So IRC - you would have worn down two thirds of the original tread... so yes easy to believe you'd notice that."
Indeed, however my comment was in the context of Michelin claiming their tyres can be safely used down to 1.6mm
As it is the grooves in the tyre that shift water away I find it miraculous that Michelin grooves work as well at 1.6mm as at 3mm. In fact they don't as the Autobild test I linked to above found.
The point I was making is that the performance has degraded enough below 3mm that I can feel the difference in normal driving in wet conditions. I will ignore Michelin advice to change tyres at 1.6mm and carry on changing them earlier.
The legal minimum is a well-thought-out limit, with bags of science and reasoning behind it.
Got any links to the science ?
You don't get European-wide legal requirements on a whim.
CBA, other than the following extract from Hansard, 18 Feb 1992. The consultation in the EU took place in 1986, a directive issued 1989 (89/459/EEC) which came into effect in 1992, to set the limit at 1.6mm for cars (was 1.0mm previously in Britain. Interestingly Britain objected to the increase, but were out-voted).
The risk based argument is that from 1 to 2mm makes no material difference nearly all the time. It's the dodgy people running truly bald tyres that are the problem.
Now, if anyone wants to minimise their risk... have 2 sets of tyres, or even 3 sets. Dry, wet, and snow. And swap around as needed. As all choices have a level of compromise and don't minimise risk unless you swap around daily. New Cross Climates with 7mm tread are still worse braking than a proper summer tyre from Michelin or Conti in the dry (in fact a new tyre with more tread is less stable in cornering and braking by the nature of having taller tread). If its dry, you'rebetteroff with lower tread. It's 50/50 whether it will be wet or dry on any given day in Derbyshire.
Better still to manage risk, leave the car at home and take the train. That's 20x less risky.
But... if anyone wants to stop using their Cross Climate 2s at 4mm or 5mm, or even higher, and they are 235/50 R18, I'll take them off you hands. Sets of 4 ideally. 👍
hard eco compound ....at the expense of grip
I'm not sure this is the case these days. There aren't really 'eco' tyres any more, there are just tyres with eco ratings, and some are A rated, but plenty are B, C or D rated so you can choose. There are plenty of tyres with A or B efficiency rating and A or B wet grip. They are made more 'eco' by putting more silica in the compound, amongst other things. One thing I do notice though is that there is an inverse correlation between noise levels and efficiency at the lower end of the market - in other words, if you are making cheap tyres you can improve the grip by using softer rubber which also makes them quieter.
The issue is confused by the fact that cars often come with eco-labelled tyres but these are different to the aftermarket tyres with the same name and as far as I can tell often shite. So this makes people think 'eco' tyres are bad, when in reality it's OEM tyres.
But... if anyone wants to stop using their Cross Climate 2s at 4mm or 5mm, or even higher, and they are 235/50 R18, I'll take them off you hands. Sets of 4 ideally.
German eBay.
My winter tyre sets rarely wear out (except the velle’s roundabout tyre which erodes quicker on its shoulder than the chicken strips on Guy Martin’s motorbike), what they do however is the compound goes off and stops performing as it should. Usually this manifests itself as chronic lack of traction in all directions. My dad’s skod had some 6 year old Nokian WRs in the winter that make it handle as if it’s on the worst plasticy ditchfinders ever produced - the Pirelli P6000. We’ve finally upgraded him to some nice new all seasons.
When I had winters and I didn't put them on for a whole year, the next winter they were shocking - until they'd done a few hundred miles and they came good again. The rubber needs to be squished about periodically to get the oils moving around through the material (sounds weird but it seems to be true). So if they go off, I think they can be recovered by driving on them - carefully, at first!
The risk based argument is that from 1 to 2mm makes no material difference nearly all the time. It's the dodgy people running truly bald tyres that are the problem.
ROSPA investigated wet stopping distances and found they fall off a cliff at 2.5 - 3.0mm (approx 40% longer stopping distance between 3 and 1.6), they therefore recommend changing at 3.0mm. That's good enough for me.
If you read what Michelin say on their tread depth document, it's that a Cross Climate at 1.6mm 'might even be better' than a cheaper tyre at 3.0mm. Well I don't really give a monkeys about it being better than a Ling Long Ditchfinder Evo Gen6+ Pro, I'm only comparing it to another new tyre of the same quality.
Looking forward to getting a set of the new CrossClimate Sport fitted
Any reply from the OP and a MOT retest ?
Re OP, those look fine but definitely needs MOT elsewhere before thinking of driving anywhere.
ROSPA investigated wet stopping distances and found they fall off a cliff at 2.5 - 3.0mm (approx 40% longer stopping distance between 3 and 1.6), they therefore recommend changing at 3.0mm. That's good enough for me.
Good enough for me too - that plus personal experience. I still remember the location (M9 at Linlithgow) and tyres (Yoko Parada Spec2s) on the car I'd bought the previous week. Torrential rain, worst aquaplaning I've experienced. Tyres had about 2mm tread remaining. Bought new tyres - and new pants - immediately after that.
I recently swapped to Nankang Cross Season AW8s in standard 215/65r16C commercial van size. 3k miles in and generally impressed all round. Noticeably quieter than the Pirelli Carrier All Seasons I used for the past 7 years. I get the 'you can't put a price on safety' viewpoint, but at less than half the price of Cross Climates I thought I'd try them after being impressed with Nankang's ultra sporty summer tyre on my car.
There was an EU regulation came in last year that tyres have to still meet safety standards at 1.6mm. Of course that doesn't mean they can't far exceed the standard when new, but if I read this correctly a tyre at 1.6mm will still be as good as a crap new tyre that passes the standard test but only just.
I change my Cross Climates at around 2-2.5mm anyway as they do start to feel a bit more aqua-planey at that point.
New EU rules will make worn tyres perform better, potentially saving motorists £6 billion | evo
