Are these safe tires to install?

[labman]

Originally Posted By: benjamming
Originally Posted By: labman
I would buy the tire best suited to your driving conditions. Since you say you seldom do extended runs over 118 MPH, I would concentrate on otherthings, perhaps more important to your safety, such as wet road handling and braking. I think it is an outrage people that don't need high speed tires are forced to run them instead of ones better suited to their driving.

Nobody needs speed rated tires in this country. It is all bling.



Speed Ratings by CapriRacer Are you calling bull on Capri's article?


I am saying people that drive like that on the public highways belong in jail.

 

[UG_Passat]

Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Our Volvo XC70 needs new tires and the factory stock tires are V rated Pirelli Scorpions. Our local Volvo reapir shop reccomends Toyo Versados. They say they have installed lots of them and customers seem to like them. I looked up The Toyo Versado in my size(215/65/16) and they are T rated with a 98 load rating. Are these a good choice considering the stock tires were V rated( not sure on load rating for the Pirelli as I found several ratings on this tire in my size).
The GVWR isaprox 5,000 lbs on the XC70 and a tire rated at 98 is 1653 lbs so 4 tires = a total of 6612 lbs. V rated tires can handle speeds up to 149 MPH and T rated will handle 118 MPH. My car weighs less then 6612 lbs and I don't drive even close to 118 mph so the Toyo tires should be good to go, right?


It's safe & fine. THe factory tires have a load rating of 98 (standard load).

I would be more concerned with matching the load rating than I would be speed rating.

Originally Posted By: The Critic
By no means am I an suspension expert, but wouldn't you think that a vehicle that was equipped with "V" rated tires would have a suspension tune that would take that into consideration?


No.

What happens if Chris wanted snow tires? At least on TireRack, there are no snow tires available in 215/65r16 with a V-speed rating. Does mean all snow tires are dangerous for his XC70?

 

[fsskier]

Great point, we happily run Q rated tires in the winter...
Labman, I agree with you, rain traction may be way more important than blowout resistance at 150 mph for most of us.

OK, CapriRacer, I have to ask you: I respect your knowledge and experience a lot but I have a question:

I have written about my experiences with the worst tire I have ever purchased, Kelly Charger HR's. The would spin on upgrades on cruise control in the rain. They would break loose and offer what seemed like zero wet stopping force. Parking lot wet tests determined that once breakaway happened, you were going to slide VERY wide of your intended path, into the oncoming lane for sure. Switching to Regatta -2's totally eliminated this unbelievable problem. I have had a set of Firestone H rated tires that were so slippery in the wet that putting them on the rear resulted in wild wet oversteer, putting them on the front gave endless understeer and of course no stopping. Recent published tests, and tire rack surveys show many tires are in this dangerous category.

Now consider this: The interstate through Cedar Rapids has a pair of S curves, the result is sometimes dozens of cars sliding off during a single rain storm. Flipping, deaths, even runing off the bridge has been common. New cars with new tires, often "high performance" and "kiddy car" versions
are well represented in the carnage. We have added many signs, warning flashers, etc - all to no avail.

Now, you could sit there for years, waiting for a car to go in the ditch due to a blowout. I have never heard of one, but it could happen.

So, Capri Racer, why always the emphasis on 150 mph blowout protection as opposed to just staying on the road and avoiding collisions in the rain??

In Iowa we would be much better served by deer resistant windshields, roofs that stood up better in tornadoes and other
events that kill way more people than blowouts!!

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: fsskier
.....OK, CapriRacer, I have to ask you: ....

why always the emphasis on 150 mph blowout protection as opposed to just staying on the road and avoiding collisions in the rain??

.......


Interesting question - and I hope I have an interesting reponse.

A high speed blowout is a fairly rare thing - in the same way an airplane falling out of the sky is a rare thing.

But like then falling plane, a blowout at high speed has some pretty severe consequences - and people react strongly to that! (and remember!)

So while traction is an issue for some tires, statistically this tends to be more a "location, location, location" kind of thing. Most places don't have these kind of traction issues.

Plus, the traction issue is confounded with "driver error" - so much so that the reaction to a series of accidents is more warning signs. I would tend to think that repaving the road with a higher mu surface, or adding grooves to the pavement, or something along that line would be a better response to the situation. But, alas, that costs taxpayers money, and that is never politically acceptable.

As I pointed out in the page on speed ratings, everyone thinks that so long as you don't exceed the speed rating of a tire, that it's perfectly "safe" - and it just ain't so! These are decisions that people make upfront when buying tires - and, of course, money enters the equation.

In the same way, that you didn't immediately removed those slippery Kelly tires as soon as you found out they were slippery - or the Firestone's for that matter - the idea of spending money to be "safer" is a tough decision for most folks. They don't think about the potential consequences. So emphasising a "blowout" is just a way of getting folks to understand the severity of the "risk".

*******************************************

And to comment on the Q rated winter tire issue:

If you read my page on speed ratings, you've figured out that the speed capability of a tire is dependent on the ambient temperature. Needless to say, when you put on winter tires, it's probably cold - and likely to stay cold for some time.

So a Q rated tire operated at an ambient temp of 45°F is like an S rated tire operated at 75°F.

And just so everyone understands - this isn't a "break point" kind of thing - it's an "accumulative affect" kind of thing. Tire failures usually take a long time to develop.

 

[fsskier]

Thanks for your reply, I suspect you have also touched on another reason the tire industry worries more about blowouts then wet traction..

Blowouts seem easier to blame on the manufacturer, and lawsuits have been expensive.

Cars sliding off the road are blamed on driver error, regardless of how poorly their tires might have been performing.

Incidentally, the high accident area mentioned is paved with fairly rough concrete, good rain tires easily stick at 70 mph or more. The Kelly Charger HR's that I mentioned in a previous post had very poor wet traction even starting from a dead stop on fresh rough concrete. They struggled to hold their lane at 40 to 45 mph on the same curves, I suspect most drivers with them are unaware until an accident occurs.They spun on upgrades on concrete interstates on the Taurus MT-5 (4 cyl, 5 speed manual) in fifth gear, this car had about the same power as a bunch of squirrels.

These tires would be great in the desert!!

You are incorrect in assuming that I chose to run them anyway, out of a sense of economics. Athough it took about 120 days to determine that they failed totally in many different ways during every rain - and to purchase tires that had a very high wet rating in Consumers Reports and TireRack - they are the only tires I have ever taken off and thrown away at full tread depth.

The bad Firestones became boat trailer tires, they performed fine on a trailer that did not have brakes. On a braked trailer I suspect they would have wound up beside you if you ever braked quickly in a turn!!

 

[Trav]

" As I pointed out in the page on speed ratings, everyone thinks that so long as you don't exceed the speed rating of a tire, that it's perfectly "safe" - and it just ain't so!"


With all due respect the better rating the safer the tire philosophy isn't 100% correct either.I had a CBR 1100XX home in Germany with the finest Z rated tires money could buy and i can tell you it was a death trap in the rain.Unsafe would be charitable in reality they were outright deadly.The V rated Dunlops that came stock on the bike were much more rider friendly.
If you are correct(if this were a forum was based in Germany with no speed limit i would have no argument)then there should be no T rated tires allowed on the street.We know that isn't so.

 

[labman]

Originally Posted By: fsskier
Thanks for your reply, I suspect you have also touched on another reason the tire industry worries more about blowouts then wet traction..

Blowouts seem easier to blame on the manufacturer, and lawsuits have been expensive.

Cars sliding off the road are blamed on driver error, regardless of how poorly their tires might have been performing.


I have had a few high speed blowouts. They weren't near as scary or common as many of the wet traction problems I have had.

I wonder if some of the people that slow down to 30 in the rain are running speed rated tires?

 

[kb01]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d


2. More expensive tires from bigger brands (Michelin, Bridgestone, Pirelli) are almost always better than their cheaper counterparts (Toyo, Falken, Kumho). Sometimes they are WAY better. The price difference only seems big when you first buy them. It amounts to very little per mile, and is more than worth it every time.


Is Toyo really considered lower tier in terms of quality vs. the bigger names? The Versado LX seems to be the tire of choice for luxury cars in my neck of the woods. Between that and the Consumer Reports review (as well as price), that's why I just bought a set.

I guess I've just been burned with abysmal tires from the big names that I tend to comparison shop between models and don't have any real brand loyalty.

 

[wantin150]