The Truth About Worn Tires?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: CKN
Really don't understand this thread. I had OEM Michelin MXV4 and they were terrible in rain right off the show room floor.

They would break loose from runoff from the city's overflow water from the green strip in the middle of the street.


I would believe ANYTHING on what they say their wet performance is-because I have owned some and they were terrible.


I had some Primacy MXV4's as well, and wet performance was just OK to 30K and awful to 62K when I replaced them with 5 to 6/32" tread depth left. So I can relate to what you're saying. But get this, the tires before were cheapies (Telestar Weatherizer) that had worse wet traction at zero miles than the Michelin's had at 62K. The Telestars were a tire the dealer put on new when I bought the car with 33K on it. I replaced the Telestars at less than 15K because I didn't want to die.

So, as bad as my MXV4's were, there are worse new tires out there, which kind of makes Michelin's point. (The MXV4's were replaced by Continental PureContacts Eco+, which is a better wet tire at 33K than the MXV4's ever were.)

Also, on another vehicle I am just now replacing a set of Michelin LTX M/S2's that have been fabulous in the rain, also snow, wet and dry. So not everything that Michelin makes is as bad in water as the MXV4.



People who've been on this forum a while are probably sick of seeing me post this, but my friends and I have experience with Michelin Pilot Super Sports working just fine all the way down to the cords.

I've definitely had tires that were worse at full tread than the Michelins I've owned at the wear bars. And those other tires weren't even super cheap, either (Kumho, Falken, etc.)
 
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: krzyss
Originally Posted By: CKN
Really don't understand this thread. I had OEM Michelin MXV4 and they were terrible in rain right off the show room floor.

They would break loose from runoff from the city's overflow water from the green strip in the middle of the street.


I would believe ANYTHING on what they say their wet performance is-because I have owned some and they were terrible.


You blame the car manufacturer of course.
This is how they speced them.

Krzyś


Maybe true. Then it's a business decision on Michelin's part. In my case they were down right dangerous and I wanted nothing further to do with the brand. S0- if they were "spec'ed by (in this case) by Honda-and they were that marginal in wet conditions-IMHO Michelin should have walked away from the order. And this was on a top-of-the-line Accord-not a cheap automobile!


Our resident Tire Engineer has stated numerous times that car manufacturers specify the characteristics they want for OEM tires.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour

I suspect EU laws require tire makers to recycle those worn tires.


Now, that's a cost driver I can believe in. Avoiding early recycling could save Michelin millions. Importers just send the carcasses back to China where "something happens" (let's call it "recycling" in quotes).
 
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
http://www.eurekar.co.uk/articles/2017-05-15/michelin-reveals-all-about-worn-tyres

Quote:
To debunk the myth that tread depth alone is critical, the tyre maker [Michelin] has just staged a demonstration at its Ladoux test track in France to show exactly how worn tyres perform…...
According to Michelin, safety is all about general tyre performance, not just tread depth and the results from Ladoux were an eye opener.

Michelin says there is no direct link between accident levels and tread depth and has also flagged up a study by Ernst and Young which estimates that increasing minimum tread depth from the current 1.6mm [1/16 inch] to 3.0mm would cost motorists in Europe almost £5 billion.

Point taken then that better quality tyres out-perform cheaper alternatives at the limits and to back that up Michelin produced the results of tests it has carried out on 24 different sets of tyres showing the differences in stopping distances when new and worn.

"All tyres are not equal when they are new - and what our tests at Ladoux have shown us is that tyre performance is even less equal when worn," said Terry Gettys, Michelin's boss of research and development.

"In fact the differences are very much accentuated once a tyre is in the latter stages of its life. Quite surprisingly we have discovered that some tyres worn to the legal limit have a wet braking distance virtually the same as some new tyres."


According to the article, there were wet and dry braking tests, and wet and dry skidpad tests. But no mention of hydroplaning tests.


Seen similar results before from a study by. IIRC, the New Zealand Highways Department, though I couldn't find it the last time I got into an argument v recieved opinion on this. Dry braking performance of worn tyres was generally superior.
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: krzyss
Originally Posted By: CKN
Really don't understand this thread. I had OEM Michelin MXV4 and they were terrible in rain right off the show room floor.

They would break loose from runoff from the city's overflow water from the green strip in the middle of the street.


I would believe ANYTHING on what they say their wet performance is-because I have owned some and they were terrible.


You blame the car manufacturer of course.
This is how they speced them.

Krzyś


Maybe true. Then it's a business decision on Michelin's part. In my case they were down right dangerous and I wanted nothing further to do with the brand. S0- if they were "spec'ed by (in this case) by Honda-and they were that marginal in wet conditions-IMHO Michelin should have walked away from the order. And this was on a top-of-the-line Accord-not a cheap automobile!


Our resident Tire Engineer has stated numerous times that car manufacturers specify the characteristics they want for OEM tires.
Then they should put a different designation on the tires. Like "MXV4 specials" or something.
 
Within EU legislative there is no tread life designation. Michelin's touring tyre( the Energy range) will outlast any of Asian or EU cheap tyres while remaining its performance.
So in the practice Michelin does cost 1/3 more but it last almost the double while staying predictable.

Most can this days make a tyre that grips and handle while sacrificing life. Or to make a tyre to last. Best can make both.
 
Resident Tire Engineer here. Some background:

For the last 10 years or so, safety advocates have been pointing out that tires have better wet traction at 4/32nds than at 2/32nds - and have been pushing to have that change made in the law. As some justification, they point to the arbitrary selection of 2/32nds when the laws were first introduced. They also point to statistics that say they could eliminate a certain percentage of fatal crashes if the law was 4/32nds.

But Michelin is in an odd position. They produce tires that are 8.5nds when new - and such a change would affect those tires more than everyone else. I think this test is trying to muddy the waters.

I find it interesting that the only data provided in the article is a picture of a bar graph WITHOUT LABELS that shows the wet traction levels new and worn tires - AND - in EVERY case, the new tire has better traction than the worst worn tire. In some respects that graph demonstrates the opposite of what Michelin is advocating.

Plus, Michelin would lose a competitive advantage in the market place.

So I see this test as self serving for Michelin. Not only do they get a chance to show how good their products are, but they can get reporters to write "news articles" on the subject.

I'm going to try to find more details on the test. I suspect their are some - oh, let's call them anomalies. I mean, if I were trying to rig the test, I would be very careful what the test conditions are. As someone has pointed out, new tires have mold release compounds on them and that could severely affect the results. The standard wet traction test is supposed to scrub off the mold release compounds, but did they do that?

Oh, and not only are there no minimum wet traction requirements, there are some states where there isn't a minimum tread depth requirement - and lots of states don't have inspections. There are lots of tires out there below 2/32nds.

And just for clarification, Federal law only says that there must be a treadwear indicator (TWI) on every passenger car and light truck tire. It doesn't say that the tire must be removed when it reaches it - except for commercial vehicles where it says that the tires must have a minimum of 4/32nd! (Some states also have this requirement.)
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
So basically, buy [censored] tires you get [censored]. Imagine that.


So I'm scratching my head at this. Why would Michelin do this test? If there is a push to require a new minimum tread depth in the EU, Wouldn't all tire manufacturers profit from such a standard? While I'm sure the pollution figures are close enough, I think it gets down to the ratings push by Michelin at the bottom of the article. I'm sure Michelins would rate above the cheap Asian imports...

Researching I just found this, but it doesn't seem to have the 2016 changes it expected:
http://www.blackcircles.com/general/tyre-labelling/tyre-label

Seems wet tire ratings are already in there. I guess Michelin wants WORN WET tire ratings.


My guess would be they want a minimum rating to allow sales... if you get the bottom 20% performers off the market, there's more market share for all other manufacturers. I believe they can get support from Goodyear, Continental Pirelli etc on that issue as all culd benefit. Now all makes have to create a low tier brand just to compete with the cheap asian imports, that drives the overall cost up aswell. Debica, Sava etc...
 
Not so sure that you picked good examples for "create a low tier brand just to compete with the cheap asian imports".
Per my understanding Goodyear acquired existing companies/factories in post communist countries. It is more like expanding manufacturing base while acquiring brands that the factories produced. Not exactly creating brands from scratch.
And I suspect these Polish and Slovenian (Yugoslavian) factories have captive market too that was probably not willing (or able) to pay premium prices for prime brand.


Krzys
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
So basically, buy [censored] tires you get [censored]. Imagine that.


So I'm scratching my head at this. Why would Michelin do this test? If there is a push to require a new minimum tread depth in the EU, Wouldn't all tire manufacturers profit from such a standard? While I'm sure the pollution figures are close enough, I think it gets down to the ratings push by Michelin at the bottom of the article. I'm sure Michelins would rate above the cheap Asian imports...

Researching I just found this, but it doesn't seem to have the 2016 changes it expected:
http://www.blackcircles.com/general/tyre-labelling/tyre-label

Seems wet tire ratings are already in there. I guess Michelin wants WORN WET tire ratings.


I suspect EU laws require tire makers to recycle those worn tires.

More frequent replacement may actually cost them and the consumer more.

Seems to be a bad use of resources. It takes a certain amount of energy to make a tire. If you make consumers change with 2x as much tread remaining, that's wasted energy.


Everybody pays for the disposal and recycling of consumer goods, including tyres, here in my part of Europe. It's a kind of sales tax as the levy is imposed on new goods.

However, I don't believe old tyres get recycled into raw materials or new tyres.
 
Originally Posted By: krzyss
Not so sure that you picked good examples for "create a low tier brand just to compete with the cheap asian imports".
Per my understanding Goodyear acquired existing companies/factories in post communist countries. It is more like expanding manufacturing base while acquiring brands that the factories produced. Not exactly creating brands from scratch.
And I suspect these Polish and Slovenian (Yugoslavian) factories have captive market too that was probably not willing (or able) to pay premium prices for prime brand.


Krzys


Maybe, but marketing a lower tier brand costs money, and they sure aren't top performers. If the lowest tier is off the market, you can sell more of the better and more expensive tyres.

I'm not suggesting there's no place in the world for cheap tyres though.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: andyd
1/16 remaining tread definitely limits the safe speed that a car can travel in the wet. . AKMHIK. I bought a 528e project with well worn Coopers on it. They passed MA state inspection, barely. I could drift at 30 mph on a heavy dew, let alone rain. Dry they were fine and they wore like iron.


That is the whole point of this article. Buy good tires and they are better in the wet at 1/16" than many cheaper tires at full tread depth.

I would rather be on zero tread depth slicks in damp weather than a cheap tire.

Having driven on good tires at 1/16", and cheaper tires, this is exactly my experience.


I think everybody who's tried a wide enough range of tyres experienced the same.
 
When I bought my MG, it had a set of Coopers on it that were probably 20 years old. I don't know the tread depth offhand(I still have one so could measure it if I were so inclined) but I'd guess them at 80% or better of their factory tread. Those tires would break loose with a drop of water on the road-they actually terrified me the first time I drove the car in the rain since even driving it like a little old lady I couldn't get it to grip. I finally did tame them, but "buy new tires" got a big bump up on the to-do list(I've been happy with the Yokohamas I bought).

The MKZ still has its factory rubber on the rear-a set of Michelin Energy tires(I know the history of this car from new even though I've only recently acquired it). I need to replace them sooner rather than later as there is visible sidewall cracking. Most likely it's getting Pilot Sport A/S 3s. I've been happy with both wet and dry performance of the PS A/S series all through their life in the past.

In 100K miles of ownership, my LS has had its fair share of tires. Right now it's wearing Pirelli P7s, which are just okay. I loved the Bridgestone Turanza Serenities that they replaced, but they were getting a bit squirrely in the rain. I'd probably still be running them I hadn't clipped a curb and bubbled one of them. I think my favorites on the car were the Pilot Sport A/S 2s. The MXM4s, which were the factory spec although the set I had were installed well outside the factory
smile.gif
were quite good also.

Overall, though, I have a lot of faith in the higher end Michelin tire lines. Pilot Sport All Seasons and MXM4s have given me good traction in wet, dry, snow, and ice. The Pilot Sports grip better across the board, albeit at a cost of noise and ride quality. The MXM4s are no slouches in the performance category, but definitely are a good match for their "Grant Touring" classification. Offhand, I think the PSs for the LS weigh around 20lbs each and the MXM4s are 26lb-that's a decent amount of unsprung weight.
 
Here in hot n rainy South Florida, tread depth is of major importance. A bald high quality tire, driven at speed, in standing water, will have predictable results.

However, I very much prefer to drive on extreme performance tires, shaved to minimal tread depth. Better steering response due to less tread squirm, better grip and fewer problems with heat management. Just have to go really slow if there is standing water.

Spec racing series (for example, a stock MX5) will often require street tires. Drivers universally choose to shave off about 3/4 of the tread depth for competitive reasons.

IMG_0015.jpg
 
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/Should-we-change-tyres-at-3mm.htm

Quote:
The solution favored by Michelin is simple, lets test tyres when worn too. It's easy to make a tyre work well when new, but harder to make a tyre work throughout its tread life, and worn testing would give the customer the best idea of how their chosen tyre will perform throughout the treadlife.

What about aquaplaning, which is most affected by tread depth? When testing a tyre at 2mm, in 1mm of water from 80 - 20 km/h, there's an element of aquaplaning incorporated into the tests as you'll be aquaplaning at the start of the braking phase, so it gives a good overview of how a tyre works in both disciplines.

Just because a tyre is worn, doesn't mean it's the worst tyre to be using. In a demonstration by Michelin, we drove four identical vehicles, the first with new mid range tyres, the second with worn mid range tyres, the third with new budget tyres, and the fourth with worn budget tyres, and placed them through a wet braking test in 1mm of water from 80 - 20 kph.

The results? The new mid range tyre stopped the car 19.2 meters , the worn mid range tyre 22.1 meters, the new budget tyre 22.7 meters and the worn budget tyre a massive 27.6 meters.
 
A couple of articles

http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.org/media/11323/aa_foundation_fdn34.pdf

The first one seems a pretty comprehensive review and gives the historical background, with original tread depth research suggesting a limit of around 1mm

http://www.trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...%20behaviour.pd

The second study of braking behaviour doesn't look at tread depth directly but it has a short literature review on it. 2 of the 4 studies cited found no effect of tread depth (between 2-4 and 2-8 mm respectively) .

One of the studies cited that showed an effect was conducted by a Finnish tyre company special interest group. The other (quoted often in various places)

http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/vehicles/tyre-tread-depth.pdf

backs up the 3mm limit, (unless you're on concrete, where you need to replace the tyres as soon as you've used them). It was sponsored by the British Rubber Manufacturers Association (BRMA).

Perhaps vested interest isn't restricted to Michelin?

Its suggested that some of these differences might be due to wider tyres on more recent vehicles being more sensitive to tread depth.
 
Continental test (first vid clip)not quite double-blind.

Just in case the driver forgot what result he was supposed to get, he's got a big black foam target in front of him as a reminder.

Third one. Sheesh! How to rig your pseudo-investigative journalism.

If both vehicles were identical in every way a crash would still be completely inevitable with that setup.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Blizzak 6 Enliten Winter Tire
Replies
3
Views
507
SubLGT
S
CR: Best Tire Brands
2 3
Replies
50
Views
6K
krzyss
S
Ice Grip Symbol on Tire Sidewall
Replies
16
Views
2K
Nesterenko
UG_Passat
New tire from Cooper-Goodyear
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
CheezWhiz
B
Tire recommendations in 205/75 R14 size for 1992 Toyota pickup?
Replies
6
Views
871
supton
Back
Top