You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Makes sense to me. If a tyre cost £150 and you get 80% of the wear before changing at 3mm you are avoiding driving for thousands of miles with compromised wet weather performance to save £30 per tyre.
I wonder if a lease company would ok new tyres at that wear level. It’s 20 years ago but I do remember every time I took a leased vehicle in for tyres, the fitter would have to get the ok from the lease company.
Best not get into that new fad called mountain biking if driving is the most dangerous thing your family do.
I've heard it's put many people in hospital, some people on multiple occasions
Makes sense to me. If a tyre cost £150 and you get 80% of the wear before changing at 3mm you are avoiding driving for thousands of miles with compromised wet weather performance to save £30 per tyre.
depends on your brand - michelin a company with a vested interest in selling you more tires .... and very vocal about how certain tires (one assumes theirs) are nearly as good at minimum wear as many other brands are when new.....
id sooner have a cross climate or a quatrac at 1.6 than an off brand ditch finder at 5mm.
id sooner have a cross climate or a quatrac at 1.6 than an off brand ditch finder at 5mm.
Agreed.
trail_rat
depends on your brand – michelin a company with a vested interest in selling you more tires …. and very vocal about how certain tires (one assumes theirs) are nearly as good at minimum wear as many other brands are when new…..
id sooner have a cross climate or a quatrac at 1.6 than an off brand ditch finder at 5mm
It's an interesting point. Specifically for wet conditions I would have thought tread depth is still the key thing (to avoid aquaplaning) but I would like to know for sure.
I haven't seen that tested anywhere.
Though if you can afford good tyres in the first place, getting them changed a little bit early is probably no issue.
Though if you can afford good tyres in the first place, getting them changed a little bit early is probably no issue.
Well Michelin sell it as an excessive waste of resources.
I had new continental van contacts they were utterly shit on standing water oh and in wet corners - and dry corners for that matter . Infact anything that wasn't 70mph straight line motorway. They were terrible.
Tread pattern has. A huge part to play down to a point.
Autobild the German tyre testers ran tests with all seasons at new, 4mm, and 2mm. The Michelin and my tyres Goodyear Vector 4 Season Gen 2, were the best.
"For AutoBild, the conclusion of the test was clear. Only 2 tyres were able to deliver optimum safety when worn: the Michelin CrossClimate + and the Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen-2."
"what was even more striking in this AutoBild test was that the performance of these tyres dropped significantly as soon as the tread depth reached 4mm, particularly in wet and snowy conditions."
Even then the aquaplaning performance of the Michelin deteriorated.
As I said up thread even my top rated Good years can be felt squirming in puddles at 3mm so I think the case for changing average or bargain tyres at 3mm remains. Especially coming into winter
3 tyres OK.
1 an advisory.
Got a good spare?
You know what to do.
"I wonder if a lease company would ok new tyres at that wear level. It’s 20 years ago but I do remember every time I took a leased vehicle in for tyres, the fitter would have to get the ok from the lease company."
My thoughts exactly. Last two jobs with company cars would have laughed me out of the tyre shop if I'd tried getting new tyres at 2.7mm.
Last two jobs with company cars would have laughed me out of the tyre shop if I’d tried getting new tyres at 2.7mm.
To be honest I can’t see what relevance a lease company’ s opinion would have on a debate on whether it is sensible to change tyres at 3mm? Their only interest is likely to be saving money not safety.
My nephew was told to carry on driving on tyres which were down to the cords on the inside edges by his lease company as the vehicle was going to be returned in a couple of months time. He refused and they eventually gave in and paid. This was in May of this year
“ To be honest I can’t see what relevance a lease company’ s opinion would have on a debate on whether it is sensible to change tyres at 3mm? Their only interest is likely to be saving money not safety”
So if you payed the BIC Tax for a fully funded lease vehicle, would you put your hand in your own pocket to change tyres at 3mm to do business miles? I think I already know most peoples answer.
Obviously unsafe tyres you have as an example need to be changed and the lease company need a kick up the arse.
Best not get into that new fad called mountain biking if driving is the most dangerous thing your family do.
I know the participation numbers are different but about 80 families will be getting a phone call or a knock on the door today to tell them a loved one has been either killed or seriously injured in a road collision.
30,000 a year. 136,000 all severity injuries.
I think for most of us, particularly those that drive regularly, that statement is not a bad one to work to every time you get behind the wheel. And given the tyres are the only contact for braking and cornering, not one I'm comfortable 'saving' a few quid on.
For AutoBild, the conclusion of the test was clear. Only 2 tyres were able to deliver optimum safety when worn: the Michelin CrossClimate + and the Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen-2.”
“what was even more striking in this AutoBild test was that the performance of these tyres dropped significantly as soon as the tread depth reached 4mm, particularly in wet and snowy conditions
Interesting extraction and juxtaposition of two quotes from completely separate parts of the linked article to sensationalize a point.
Anyway that's an asside
How did the summer tires fare at 3mm I wonder.
Fwiw I did say I'd change the tires coming into winter if I was the op. They have about 4 months to go in this hemisphere though.
Can’t believe the amount of absolute guff I just read through here. Oh. my. dear. god.
No wonder garages selling tyres make so much money on gullible people, they’re the same ones telling people their brake pads and discs need changing every year.
Tread depth makes a significant difference to aquaplaning performance, but it is really really unlikely you need that. Wet roads don't cause aquaplaning, for that you need a significant depth of water across the road for a continued period of time. For sure that can happen, briefly, a couple of times in your driving career, but it is extremely rare.
Aquaplaning is not your car lurching when you hit a puddle, it's a complete loss of grip as if you are on ice. I've only experienced it once, in 20 years of driving, and neatly pirouetted off a dual carriageway
The point about lease companies being, as much as they like saving money, killing clients due to 2mm of tyre tread isn't a good look.
The other thing that people seem to not be giving much thought to is water. If it's not going to rain between now and then, the OP might as well crack on.
I remember watching one of those things on the telly following police around. Some kid had gone off the side of Cat and Fiddle and the cop was blaming the lack of tread but it was a perfectly dry warm summer's day.
Just let me caveat that by pointing out that a little rain after a long dry spell can be even more slippery than prolonged heavy rain due to the build up of oil and unburned fuel particles on the road floating in the thin film of water. A proper heavy rain will help that run off.
We do seem to be creeping back to the surfmat days here. Is the OP talking about normal sedate journeys with the family or being a driving gif in the ragged edge? Needing new but properly bedded in discs and pads, new but warmed tyres and pressures set with a certified gauge to 0.1 psi of recommend pressure?
Yes, tyre performance drops of as they wear and it's a gradual decline that most don't notice. Is the OP ok to drive in the summer, not like a dick, where a small portion of one tyre is still over 1mm away from the legal limit? Yes, yes he is.
Did you measure the tread depth on those tyres that aquaplaned, 5lab? Or if not tell us if they were new, worn or well worn. Once in twenty years sound like a realy good advert for having plenty of tread.
Nah, crash helmet, fireproof suit and just had worn cut slicks fitted for a stage over Epynt on a wet Welsh day.
🙂
No wonder garages selling tyres make so much money on gullible people, they’re the same ones telling people their brake pads and discs need changing every year.
I've no doubt garages do make money from gullible people as well as the cautious, some would say overcautious - YMMV. I've no doubt that worn good tyres will be better than new surface-to-hedge missiles, I don't know anyone that'll dispute that, particularly if they are a serious MTBer that's tried riding plastic OEM shitetyres over wet roots before. I agree with the Robertajobb post on p1, but we already are told what the difference in performance of tyres is by the A-E system, and just a bit of education that a worn A is still better than say a new D or E seems fairly sensible. Is that what the tyre retailers should be doing - yes this one's 30% more now but at the other end of its life you can still use it at 2mm whereas we'd strongly recommend swapping the D or E brand at 3.5mm?
But it is clear that performance drops off and quite rapidly as you get towards the legal limit - and the legal limit is pretty low. Maybe you bought good tyres because you plan to run them longer. Maybe you bought them because you value the performance. IDK, you decide, I know what I do and I don't need to defend that decision.
And because I work for a major UK national testing lab (not for tyres admittedly) I have to do two more things
1/ any test we run, or any other lab worth its salt, or indeed a magazine like Autobild, you can be pretty sure it is independent, unbiased, and true. EVEN IF the manufacturer commissioned it, we don't make results up to suit their needs. Doesn't happen
2/ Michael Gove said words to the effect of 'we've all had enough of experts'. And yet.... here you are, knowing better than the independent testers. A bunch of clipboard carrying fannies, apparently. Well, I'd rather be one of them than stood shoulder to shoulder with Gove, 'cos that's what you are, you sad bunch of Gove fanboyz.
Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning 😕
I always buy tyres from names that have been around for years, French, German, Japanese,Italy but wouldn't be too worried about an advisory as some inspectors get a wee bit carried away, brake pipes on a 4 year old motor due to not getting a polish
I'm more concerned by the 20% of folk in UK that drive with dodgy eyesight too vane to wear glasses
/ Michael Gove said words to the effect of ‘we’ve all had enough of experts’. And yet…. here you are, knowing better than the independent testers. A bunch of clipboard carrying fannies, apparently. Well, I’d rather be one of them than stood shoulder to shoulder with Gove, ‘cos that’s what you are, you sad bunch of Gove fanboyz.
Much as I loath Gove he identified a very real problem which the smarter people involved in any sort of technical info communication have been working hard to fix. Unfortunately you seem to be taking us back in the other direction.
he identified a very real problem which the smarter people involved in any sort of technical info communication have been working hard to fix.
which is what?
“what was even more striking in this AutoBild test was that the performance of these tyres dropped significantly as soon as the tread depth reached 4mm, particularly in wet and snowy conditions.”
Isn't that just because the sipes and grooves designed to deal with the wet and snowy conditions are only 4mm deep? Which is why colder countries have a minimum tread depth of 4mm in the winter?
The sipes go deeper than 4mm but the tyres get progressively less effective in slush and on soft snow as the groves get shallower. One of the ways the tyres work is that snow sticks to the tyre and snow sticks to snow. The more sipes and the deeper the groves the better it sticks. Back in the day snow tyres were made with big chunky tread blocks, then Michelin came up with the rubber compound and sipes that meant snow stuck to the tyres. The first time I used them was a revelation, no need for chains or studded tyres to get up to ski resorts. Over the years they've just got better and better. The current cross climates get me up and down stuff full Winters were scrabbling on 35 years back.
I've only had a full aquaplane on the motorway once. Scary. Completely lost the steering. I'd only been driving a year or two. By luck as much as anything else I did the right thing. Didn't try and brake. Foot off the gas. After what seemed like ages but was probably only a few seconds I got steering back. I wasn't even going that fast. Maybe 50-60mph downhill. Heavy rain.
The tyres were legal but low. I don't mind spending a few quid more on tyres to never do that again.
Away from tread to summers v all seasons. Last winter I could drive easily out my estate. A neighbour on summers couldn't get up the very slight slope through snow to the main roads. I avoided a crash on snow covered ungritted or ploughed roads coming home from nightshift. Going downhill in 2nd gear a car pulled out of a side road couldn't steer and hit the far kerb partly blocking my lane. No panic just steered round the back of his car. With summers I would have been into the side of him.
99% of the time tyres tread depth, brand, or type makes no difference. If being willing to spend a few quid more to have the edge in those once a year or so moments makes me a yellow jacket clipboard carrier I plead guilty.
My only aqua plane in 35 years was also motorway driving in heavy rain. Very odd, the engine increased revs as the wheels lifted off the surface. I instantly backed off the throttle and then the wheels contacted the surface again. A few seconds later it happened again and then I was out of the rain shower. Very disconcerting for a young driver.
As a winter tyre convert over the last 15 years, I switched to CCs this winter and am astonished how good they are in deep snow. Easily as good and probably better than full winter tyres of yore
Foot off the gas.
Clutch down if you're in a manual. Listen to the motor or engine in an auto and try to keep the revs constant. Foot off the gas and you'll get engine braking - both wheels aquaplaning and the revs will drop so when you get grip again violent things will happen due sudden engine braking. IME in most aquapaning if you dip the clutch the car just carries on where it's going, the problems start when one of the wheels has more grip than the other, so if the revs have dropped and you haven't dipped the clutch the car will pull one way or the other as one wheel finds more grip before the other. Dip the clutch and there's every chance you'll maintain control as the car finds grip. All of that is most important in FWD but in AWD and RWD it's still worth dipping the clutch.
In Short: In aquaplaning you don't want engine braking so dip the clutch rather than foot off the gas.
I've never had aquaplaning in a car with ESP/traction control so I don't know how that might influence things these days.
Is that what the tyre retailers should be doing – yes this one’s 30% more now but at the other end of its life you can still use it at 2mm whereas we’d strongly recommend swapping the D or E brand at 3.5mm?
Isn't this basically Vimes' Boots theory? You can buy cheap tyres which cost less but need changing more frequently, so you wind up paying more in the long run to have shit tyres.
Not sure ESP will have a great deal of success in controlling an aquaplaning car, but should help correct the situation if and when traction is restored.
I'm not disagreeing, I think it's good advice. If the car is aquaplaning the ESP will kick in if it detects a spin, how effective that is I don't know but probably not a lot as you say.
I did see an old video on YT where Tiff Nedell was testing a Jag on ice with ESP on then off and it made quite a difference.
. If the car is aquaplaning the ESP will kick in if it detects a spin,
If it did what it claimed it would let you know before the aquaplaning started. 🙂
spin, i asked a question some hours ago that maybe you missed but interested to know what problem I'm creating?
in, i asked a question some hours ago that maybe you missed but interested to know what problem I’m creating?
It wasn't that I didn't see it it was that I didn't feel like there was much point but here goes...
The problem Gove identified is that there is a loss of public trust in 'experts'. I think this is a real phenomenon and that there are actually some valid reasons for it. And some less valid reasons obviously.
From your previous post it looked like you were suggesting that it was foolish at the very least for people not to act on information like that given by independent tyre tests. The reality is much more nuanced and the way to build trust in 'experts' is to acknowledge the nuance rather than assuming people are simply idiots for doing something different.
Thanks. I'm struggling though to understand the nuance, this isn't a matter of 'opinion' where results need interpretation. Like politics, or even to an extent climate change, where result interpretation is important.
In this case the 'experts' - independent testers - do some tests that clearly show the deterioration in braking performance as tread depth decreases. It's that simple - as per link on P1 Robertajobb's post - tyre depth = new, stopping distance = x; tyre depth = legal limit, stopping distance = 25-40% longer based on the tyres on test.
'Non experts' - on the back of no data that I can discern, other than maybe they haven't crashed and hopefully never do in a situation where better grip or braking would have helped - call those that suggest not running your tyres down to the limit "reflective vest wearing, clipboard carrying bunch of fannies" (composite quote)
I get the need to accept that there is nuance in some situations. But not here.
Clutch down if you’re in a manual. Listen to the motor or engine in an auto and try to keep the revs constant. Foot off the gas and you’ll get engine braking – both wheels aquaplaning and the revs will drop so when you get grip again violent things will happen due sudden engine braking. IME in most aquapaning if you dip the clutch the car just carries on where it’s going, the problems start when one of the wheels has more grip than the other, so if the revs have dropped and you haven’t dipped the clutch the car will pull one way or the other as one wheel finds more grip before the other. Dip the clutch and there’s every chance you’ll maintain control as the car finds grip. All of that is most important in FWD but in AWD and RWD it’s still worth dipping the clutch.In Short: In aquaplaning you don’t want engine braking so dip the clutch rather than foot off the gas.
Thanks, driving expert! 🙂 Not seen it explained like that before, makes sense.
the data is only available for tyres that were tested. For every mm of wear there will be a decrease in performance. at what point do you replace the tyres?
Wouldn’t that be the nuance? when the individual decides that they are no longer comfortable with the performance of their tyres, within the boundaries set out by the law.
I might be driving a long journey next weekend but my MOT has shown that one of my tyres outer edge (front wheel drive) is 2.7mm. The other front is 3.1mm.
Pictures of the tread would help, because a picture tells a million words.
Wouldn’t that be the nuance? when the individual decides that they are no longer comfortable with the performance of their tyres, within the boundaries set out by the law.
Not got a problem with that within reason - I mean I'd like for ditchfinders to not be available, and for a higher legal limit before performance really starts to drop off. I have to share the roads with them as well as sort myself out. But, them's the rules. The debate was fine for nearly 100 posts before a couple of folks turn up and start slinging insults about. Start an argument, expect to get some back.
For every mm of wear there will be a decrease in performance. at what point do you replace the tyres?
The decline is steady for a large part of the wear, and then drops off quickly past a certain point. Almost certainly tyre dependant but around 3-3.5mm IIRC. But pointing this out, and saying that my choice is to change around that point makes me a doom and gloom fanny apparently
@mert and @multi21 , I think that you're the ones to ask...
I've read in Roadcraft that depressing the clutch may cause problems with an operating/intervening ESP system. I haven't seen that in a manual (BMW, Kia, Nissan, Skoda, Vauxhall, Volvo) that I can recall, is this a problem?
An interesting survey was carried out in 2016 by Bridgestone who examined tyre debris (i.e. blowouts) on England's motorways, "...almost three quarters of tyre failure samples analysed by Bridgestone involved poor inflation or debris penetration issues..." https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tyre-related-deaths-and-injuries-preventable-say-highways-england-and-bridgestone
This is an article on certain Michelin tyres that work effectively in the wet at 1.6mm. NB, this isn't general advice for every tyre out there https://www.michelin.com.hk/en/performance-made-to-last
I'd be very interested to know how deep the water was in those tests. If a road is just surface wet then a semi-slick works just fine, however as water builds up on the surface things get increasingly delicate up to the water depth at which aquaplaning starts and there's no grip at all. Put a well treaded tyre on and it's back to driving as if the road were just a bit wet.
@mert and @multi21 , I think that you’re the ones to ask…
I’ve read in Roadcraft that depressing the clutch may cause problems with an operating/intervening ESP system. I haven’t seen that in a manual (BMW, Kia, Nissan, Skoda, Vauxhall, Volvo) that I can recall, is this a problem?
If you're aquaplaning dipping the clutch won't make things any worse, think the advice is probably based on when the systems are using the ABS/brakes in skid/slide/yaw scenarios, not having engine torque applied could plausibly confuse the brake controller. I would very much doubt it in a modern system though. Maybe in the days of ABS only being on the front axle?
TC/ESP/DSTC/whatever isn't much use when aquaplaning anyway as it needs accurate wheelspeed signals from at least one wheel on each axle and a steering wheel angle or it's just guessing! It will however start preparing for nastiness once it loses confidence in the signals. (There are statistical thresholds between each wheel sensor and the "total system" that i don't fully understand, but once they go out of range, the system prepares for the worst).
There is also some inertia based stuff that is floating around, you can calculate the yaw angle, steering wheel position, speed, requested torque and so on, so wheel speed becomes just one useful signal amongst many, to encourage the driver to make good decisions. But if they want to slam the brakes on and saw on the steering wheel, you can't stop them. I've not been directly involved as that tech development stuff is (now) outside my area of responsibility.
Early ABS did some things very well but could be beaten by a good driver in terms of stopping distance. The Ford Sierra advert driven by an autotester and rally driver is excellent example of how ABS allows combinations of hard steering and braking. However the advert for another company that showed an ABS equipped car stopping shorter than the normal car required some messing with brake pads to handicap the normal car. Anyhow the honest ad at 47seconds:
I’d be very interested to know how deep the water was in those tests.
The proposal was the current "EU wet braking test, which involves measuring the distance required to decelerate a vehicle from 80 to 20 km/h on a standard road surface with a water depth of 1 mm" https://www.tyrepress.com/2019/07/michelin-wet-grip-testing-at-1-6mm-will-provide-greater-transparency/
I don't know what was adopted. The article is worth a read
mert, thanks. That helps a lot 🙂
I asked one of the stability guys. It's the physics of ABS braking on *very* low traction surfaces or *very* high yaw/side slip events that can cause issues. The wheel deceleration and acceleration between each brake pulse is more difficult to calculate because the inertia/torque at the wheel is lower, hence harder to calculate the brake pressure needed (it's easier to work out and apply/release pressures when the system is heavier). So when you finally get traction the wheel speed *could* be anywhere (even completely stopped). Modern systems almost completely fix the issue as they can still read the wheel speed at very high resolution, even though it's effectively a gibberish number that's unrelated to vehicle speed.
I don't full understand it myself either...
👍
But pointing this out, and saying that my choice is to change around that point makes me a doom and gloom fanny apparently
For the record that comment wasn't aimed at you.
But the comment about getting out wrong side of the bed was.
(even completely stopped
Or turning backwards even if the car is moving forwards if you haven't dipped the clutch. If one wheel has grip and the other doesn't and engine speed is below half of road speed the differential will spin the wheel with no grip in reverse. I have no idea how ESP/ABS copes with that. "Clutch down and steer"
Whilst "clutch down and steer" still works one other 'when all seems to be lost' method doesn't work anymore. In pre-ABS cars if you'd lost it but the car was heading in a safe direction you could jump on the footbrake and grab the handbrake thus locking all four wheels. The car would then slide to a stop in whichever direction it was moving regardless of where it was pointing - sometimes you could even let the brakes off if the car ended up pointing where you wanted to go again. Modern cars don't have a handbrake and jumping on the brake doesn't lock wheels.
However ESP/traction control is so good you're much less likely to end up in those situations. The ESP on our little Zoe is probably pretty basic but it requires serious efforts at provocation to unsettle it even on ice and snow. Sure the laws of physics still apply but ESP and Cross Climates mean you've got to be making special efforts to get out of line. Early ABS was pretty crap on snow but I no longer feel the need to spend time tinkering under the bonnet to disable it (even if that's possible) on snowy days now. It's great.
You know you’ve got grip issues due to the tread depth when it’s pissing down with rain on the uphill stretch of the M4 to the Bath, Tormarton junction in a BMW, and the revs start to go up under gentle acceleration, because the rear wheels are actually spinning in the water! Mainly because the water is running along troughs caused by the weight of trucks in the inside lane. At that point I chose to leave the motorway and use the A-roads.
The Beemer had 1.6mm of tread on the back tyres, the legal limit, and it was deemed safe for me to drive it. But the heavy rain at that point hadn’t been anticipated.
If it had had between 2 and 3mm on the outside edge of one tyre, there wouldn’t have been any problems at all, I certainly wouldn’t have noticed any loss of performance.
Less than a millimetre difference across the width of any given tyre, especially when it’s well outside the legal minimum limit of 1.6mm is completely irrelevant, it’s perfectly safe and legal to drive, and I defy any regular driver to notice any difference to the actual performance of the car and/or tyres.
If, like my rear tyre, it had a foreign object stuck in it, in a position that was irreparable, I’d be changing it before any significant journey, which is exactly what I did, because of the very real likelihood of the tyre going down at the worst possible moment, but a slightly lower tread depth on the outer edge? Please, give me a break! *rolls eyes*.