Put away your Premier A/S tread concerns....

Messages
13,288
Location
ROCHESTER, NY
By statring out at 10/32nds of tread depth instead of 8/32nds, the rubber on the new Premire A/S, may over time, become too hard for Michelin's testing, causing less wet/dry, braking & cold weather traction as the tire ages, completely defeating Michelin's goals for this new Premire A/S tire. Nothing wrong with a tire starting out with 8/32nds of tread depth if, the driver can get more miles out of each 1/32nd of tread as Michelin claims. And also, the owner/driver of these new tires, thaking the tire closer to it's full wearout rating. IDK, what do you think?
 
Messages
1,527
Location
Mid-West, USA
But, you would also have to drink the Michelin kook-aid that states buying an inferior product for 1/3-1/2 more the price is worth it in the long run. There are way too many other options that are just as good or better for far less money.
 
Messages
13,288
Location
ROCHESTER, NY
Originally Posted By: Cooper
But, you would also have to drink the Michelin kook-aid that states buying an inferior product for 1/3-1/2 more the price is worth it in the long run. There are way too many other options that are just as good or better for far less money.
I agree! Just as good for a persons criteria. Even on sale with the $70 Michelin Rebate, they're tires are just too expensive for my budget. Especially with owning 3-4 cars. This is what tire reviews/customer reviews are for! Can we get tires that are Great to Very Good for much less money? YES! This is what I have been doing for years and am very happy with our choices in tires. Would Michelin tires have been a better choice? Well, it ramains to be seen since I didn't have any comparison to make! I have been happy with the Michelin tires that I have owned. But, I never bought Michelin tires after market. Only had them on vehicles OE! But again, as good a tire the Michelin was, they weren't the perfect tire for my criteria.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,379
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
I agree! Just as good for a persons criteria. Even on sale with the $70 Michelin Rebate, they're tires are just too expensive for my budget. Especially with owning 3-4 cars. This is what tire reviews/customer reviews are for! Can we get tires that are Great to Very Good for much less money? YES! This is what I have been doing for years and am very happy with our choices in tires. Would Michelin tires have been a better choice? Well, it ramains to be seen since I didn't have any comparison to make!
Everyone has a different criteria. For a daily driver or family sedan that doesn't get pushed hard, there are a lot of options. I went with Continental ExtremeContact DWS tires back in 2010. They seem to be really popular, as I can always spot that distinctive tread pattern. However, I like to push my car a little bit hard through corners, and those tires would squeal and break loose a little. They were getting a little worn on the edges (my car always has that) and replaced them with the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 3. Best performance tires I've every had on any car, and that includes summer tires. Yeah - they cost more. In the past I remember comparing the cost of comparable Michelin tires to the ones I got, and I couldn't justify them based on performance tests/reviews. They only seemed to be marginally better. But the A/S 3 just seemed to be a huge jump in performance, and probably well worth the $80 or more compared to a comparable set of tires.
 
Messages
6,379
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
By statring out at 10/32nds of tread depth instead of 8/32nds, the rubber on the new Premire A/S, may over time, become too hard for Michelin's testing, causing less wet/dry, braking & cold weather traction as the tire ages, completely defeating Michelin's goals for this new Premire A/S tire. Nothing wrong with a tire starting out with 8/32nds of tread depth if, the driver can get more miles out of each 1/32nd of tread as Michelin claims. And also, the owner/driver of these new tires, thaking the tire closer to it's full wearout rating. IDK, what do you think?
However - some states require a certain amount of tread depth for an all-season (or even dedicated winter) tire to be driven in certain weather conditions without chains (or more precisely "traction control devices"). In California, that's 6/32". A tire with less tread depth to begin with will probably arrive sooner at this, even if it's meant to last longer through slower wear. Suppose this tire is supposed to last about as long as competitors' tires that start with 10/32" down to the wear bars at 2/32", and the wear is roughly linear (I know - huge assumption) with reasonable rotation. For the 10/32" tire, it's going to spend about half its useful life above the 6/32" requirement. For the 8.5/32" tire it's going to spend about 39% of its useful life above this requirement. A lot of dedicated winter tires start out at about 11/32" to 13/32" tread depth - probably with minimum required tread depth in mind. Of course they can get a little squishy because of the increased tread depth, but that's a matter of a tradeoff to meet winter requirements.
 
Messages
2,767
Location
NYC
.......I see these tires as a big mistake instead of improving the already superb Primacy MXV4. Which might be bad for me soon, as there running out of stock, and I need to RMA one.
 
Messages
1,527
Location
Mid-West, USA
I don't like Michelin tires for the cost. Otherwise, I think they have made a good product. They are just too much money for what you get. Other options for far less money and equal performance overall. That being said, I think Michelin took a large step back in the new Premier A/S. Making them 2/32's away from being below my personal threshold for an A/S tire was a large mistake IMHO. Basically, that makes them a three season tire for me. There are WAY better options in that category for me. I just purchased a 3 season tire that I feel is a better choice for me. The Hankook Ventus S1 noble2. About $240 less total than the Premier A/S in my size, 215/45/17.
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
They did snow tests. Based on the responses, I'm guessing people didn't read/get to the snow test results vs tires with more tread.
 
Messages
6,379
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted By: badtlc
They did snow tests. Based on the responses, I'm guessing people didn't read/get to the snow test results vs tires with more tread.
How well they perform isn't going to matter if they don't meet a physical tread-depth requirement in some states. I looked up what it is in other states. Colorado is actually 1/8" (4/32"). Doesn't exactly seem adequate. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594537897 Nevada is the same as California, although they call it 3/16". https://www.nevadadot.com/safety/winter/chains.aspx
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Originally Posted By: badtlc
They did snow tests. Based on the responses, I'm guessing people didn't read/get to the snow test results vs tires with more tread.
How well they perform isn't going to matter if they don't meet a physical tread-depth requirement in some states. I looked up what it is in other states. Colorado is actually 1/8" (4/32"). Doesn't exactly seem adequate. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594537897 Nevada is the same as California, although they call it 3/16". https://www.nevadadot.com/safety/winter/chains.aspx
And? As you have found out not every state is the same and not every state has the requirements. It is information for everyone.
 
Messages
6,379
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Originally Posted By: badtlc
They did snow tests. Based on the responses, I'm guessing people didn't read/get to the snow test results vs tires with more tread.
How well they perform isn't going to matter if they don't meet a physical tread-depth requirement in some states. I looked up what it is in other states. Colorado is actually 1/8" (4/32"). Doesn't exactly seem adequate. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594537897 Nevada is the same as California, although they call it 3/16". https://www.nevadadot.com/safety/winter/chains.aspx
And? As you have found out not every state is the same and not every state has the requirements. It is information for everyone.
But 6/32" is a pretty common requirement. And in any case I wouldn't feel comfortable in the snow with any tire with only 4/32". The grooves have to be able to hold onto a certain amount of snow for better traction. At the price they're charging for this, I'd probably recommend something else - even if it's another Michelin tire.
 
Messages
3,558
Location
SE Pa
Originally Posted By: badtlc
. . . It looks like the fear of tread depth for this tire is likely not based in reality. The price for these tires on the other hand, is also not based on reality.
No fear here. Just legitimate reservations that counsels waiting until the first buyers report how this tire holds up after more than a few months. I refuse to pay those prices until the tire proves itself in the field with that kind of starting depth. If "worn" turns out to be 20-25k miles, then the reservations are justified.
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
But 6/32" is a pretty common requirement. And in any case I wouldn't feel comfortable in the snow with any tire with only 4/32". The grooves have to be able to hold onto a certain amount of snow for better traction. At the price they're charging for this, I'd probably recommend something else - even if it's another Michelin tire.
The half gone Michelin was BETTER in the snow than the brand new continental tire. Why would you be comfortable with a tire that has more tread depth if it performed worse? I'd choose whichever performs best in the snow if that was the objective.
 
Messages
201
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: badtlc
. . . It looks like the fear of tread depth for this tire is likely not based in reality. The price for these tires on the other hand, is also not based on reality.
No fear here. Just legitimate reservations that counsels waiting until the first buyers report how this tire holds up after more than a few months. I refuse to pay those prices until the tire proves itself in the field with that kind of starting depth. If "worn" turns out to be 20-25k miles, then the reservations are justified.
Since the tire is warrantied for 60K miles, wouldn't a place like Discount/America's Tire assist in rectifying the difference in tread life?
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
No fear here. Just legitimate reservations that counsels waiting until the first buyers report how this tire holds up after more than a few months. I refuse to pay those prices until the tire proves itself in the field with that kind of starting depth. If "worn" turns out to be 20-25k miles, then the reservations are justified.
It is a 60k mile rated tire. Not many complaints about Michelin out there overrating their tire tread life.
 
Messages
6,379
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
But 6/32" is a pretty common requirement. And in any case I wouldn't feel comfortable in the snow with any tire with only 4/32". The grooves have to be able to hold onto a certain amount of snow for better traction. At the price they're charging for this, I'd probably recommend something else - even if it's another Michelin tire.
The half gone Michelin was BETTER in the snow than the brand new continental tire. Why would you be comfortable with a tire that has more tread depth if it performed worse? I'd choose whichever performs best in the snow if that was the objective.
A shaved tire is not the same as a worn tire. Additionally, it was a lap time trial. Most people don't drive for lap time in the snow. I'd be more interested in panic/controlled braking trials. Tread depth is still important. I get what Michelin has done here. They start with less tread, which makes it less squirmy when new. However, it is absolutely going to be an issue in areas where tread depth is a criteria in whether or not a driver will be required to chain up. I bought a set of Michelins myself. However, if they started off at 8.5/32" tread depth, I would have automatically taken it out of consideration.
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
A shaved tire is not the same as a worn tire. Additionally, it was a lap time trial. Most people don't drive for lap time in the snow. I'd be more interested in panic/controlled braking trials. Tread depth is still important. I get what Michelin has done here. They start with less tread, which makes it less squirmy when new. However, it is absolutely going to be an issue in areas where tread depth is a criteria in whether or not a driver will be required to chain up. I bought a set of Michelins myself. However, if they started off at 8.5/32" tread depth, I would have automatically taken it out of consideration.
You are grasping at straws.
 
Messages
1,527
Location
Mid-West, USA
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
A shaved tire is not the same as a worn tire. Additionally, it was a lap time trial. Most people don't drive for lap time in the snow. I'd be more interested in panic/controlled braking trials. Tread depth is still important. I get what Michelin has done here. They start with less tread, which makes it less squirmy when new. However, it is absolutely going to be an issue in areas where tread depth is a criteria in whether or not a driver will be required to chain up. I bought a set of Michelins myself. However, if they started off at 8.5/32" tread depth, I would have automatically taken it out of consideration.
I agree with this. No grasping at straws at all.... That doesn't even make any sense. approved
 
Top