Interesting watch on EV Tyres For All EVs

[Les burrows]

If you have an EV this is about the tires fitted to them interesting watch.
Les.

 

[Deleted member 823]

Interesting, thanks. Tyres is one area where there needs to be more innovation to make them less harmful to the environment IMHO. I've seen a few things (devices that collect fragments of tyre as they wear, less environmentally harmful compounds, tyreless wheels) but it would be great to remove this stuff from the environment completely.

 

[Jomarkh]

Nice find @Les burrows.
I will need four tyres in the next month or so and have been looking at the Michelin Cross Climates hopefully they will do the job.

 

[TheArcher]

Nice find @Les burrows.
I will need four tyres in the next month or so and have been looking at the Michelin Cross Climates hopefully they will do the job.

Those will probably be my choice, but do check the reviews as things change. Goodyear Vectors, Vredestein, and other brand names are all good. I'm running Apollo Alnacs at the moment. Would always have all-seasons. This chap seems to talk good sense

Rotating tyres? I disagree. Best tyres should always be on the rear - and this has been the case for many years. Yes, thinking has changed.

 

[Les burrows]

Well theArcher you say you disagree about tyre rotating and to a point I agree with you, see a couple of months back my MG5 clocked 17500 miles and my thinking was swop the wheels round to even the wear I went to see a tyre fitter who I have been going to for years and years and asked if they could do this for me ( not as young as I was ) and he said it’s still a good thing to do but only move the back to the front and never move the front nearside to rear offside and the same with the others in a effect don’t cross sides on the car so I asked him to do a Check on my tyres to see if now with my mileage was a good time to do this car went on the ramp and he had a good look at all four tyres and said they are exactly the same on all four wheels no difference in the wear so advised to leave well alone.

I think but not sure rotating tyres idea came when front wheel drive vehicles came a long back in the fifties, the fronts being the driven wheels and doing the steering as well was making them wear out much quicker also that was the days when lots of vehicles where fitted with crossply tyres, the tyres today are much better I think.
Les.

 

[Jomarkh]

I had my tyres swapped front to rear.
I don't think you can swap sides nowadays as most tyres have a rotation arrow

 

[Les burrows]

Jomarth hiya you had yours swapped at what mileage was that done please just from a point of interest as i said above at 17500 mine where showing no sign of much wear at all better than I imagined really being Bridgestone as fitted from new which when I got the car I was to keen on but they wore very well indeed
Les

 

[Jomarkh]

Hi Les, I had them swapped at the 15K service at 11 months.
The fronts were at about 3mm and haven't worn that much since being on the rear and now all four are roughly the same after 28k and 21 months

 

[Lovemyev]

VW have recommended for years, that wheel & tyre rotation should be conducted in a front to back fashion, every 5,000 miles.
Diagonally wheel ? rotation stopped when tyres started to have a DOR ( direction of rotation ) marked on the outside wall of the tyre.
The thinking for FWD drive cars, were to always have the tyres with more tread, fitted to the front wheels, to get more traction due to the majority of the weight being at the front.
In the last few years, tyre companies have decided to advise that the newer tyres should be fitted at the rear.
A very common problem for low mileage users, is that side wall cracking has really become a thing now !.
Tyres getting replaced prematurely due to this now common problem.
Rotating your wheels will help mitigate this issue to a certain point.
We all are aware that on FWD cars, that it is likely that you will replace two pairs of fronts, to one set of rears ( for the reasons I have stated above ).
But is very likely that the rears will be removed prematurely, due to side wall cracking.
High mileage users don’t have this problem because the tyres are removed prior to this condition becoming an issue.
My wife has a Fiat 500 that we bought new in 2016.
It has only covered 12,000 miles.
The tyres are still in their original position on the car.
The front were about 50% worn and the rears are like new.
Only about 6 weeks ago, they all had to be thrown away due to side wall cracks prior to the MOT test.
Personally, I would always recommend rotation.
But it’s up to the individual.
If you ask your dealer to carry out this function at the time of an annual service, you are likely to be charged for the facility.
VW never changed me once, but I did have to request it !.
Having owned three Polo’s and Four Golf’s it was a common place request.

 

[BugEyed]

they all had to be thrown away due to side wall cracks prior to the MOT test.

Why cars should be kept out of the sun when not in use.

If you ask your dealer to carry out this function at the time of an annual service, you are likely to be charged for the facility.

Too true. They don't have to take the wheels off for a normal service so it is extra work for them, hence they will charge you one way or another.

In the last few years, tyre companies have decided to advise that the newer tyres should be fitted at the rear.

Due to the widespread adoption of ABS and the inability of today's drivers to cope with the back end losing grip. Effectively there are more serious accidents from the former than the latter despite 80% of heavy braking being carried out on the front wheels. Personally I don't mind lift off oversteer but it's not part of the driving test.

 

[Lovemyev]

Why cars should be kept out of the sun when not in use.

This true only to a certain point though.
My wife’s Fiat is parked in the same spot every single day and has very little use, as you can see by its low mileage.
The drivers side of the car is parked alongside a fairly tall conifer hedge that protects the car from direct UV rays.
Strangely enough, it was the O/S/R tyre that was more perished than the other three !.
I have used the same family run tyre shop for the last 40 years and the recently retired owner, is a personal friend of mine.
I asked him about this problem a few years ago and he told me that they replace more tyres now for perished / cracking side walls, than they ever did 10 years ago.
Yes - The MOT guy’s have become a little more focused on it now, but he said the compound of the tyres have changed a LOT over the last ten years or so.
More use of silicon has played a major factor in these changes.
He was invited to fort Dunlop a few years ago and this was a hot topic way back then !.
The car was originally fitted with Continental’s and I intended to replace all four of them on a like for like basis.
He told me to forget it, you are wasting your money !.
As your mileage covered is very low, you will be replacing them again for the very same reason again.
Go for a higher quality budget tyre ( likely made in the same factory ) is the best course of action, if it was my car I would do the same he said !.
Our ZS EV is our main car and covers a LOT more miles than the Fiat.
That will be getting top branded tyres though.

 

[Deleted member 7316]

I can't remember which chain of tyre dealer web site it was but a couple of years ago I read much of what is in the presentation. It therefore went on to say that when replacing EV tyres should be done using new EV tyres.

It didn't then help that although you could specify a number of parameter to choose a tyre from their stock what you couldn't get was a list of tyres suitable for EV's

 

[AK OK]

Only about 6 weeks ago, they all had to be thrown away due to side wall cracks prior to the MOT test.

Shurely that could have just resulted in an advisory ?

 

[Deleted member 7316]

As an aircraft engineer for a major airline it would be rare to find any tyre that has lasted long enough for age to be of concern. It has proved difficult to get a definitive guide to what is acceptable and what is not. Irrespective of physical condition the tyre industry guideline is to replace tyres after 10 years.

Cracking is quite difficult to define, one guide was that circumferal cracks at the base of the tread zone that is greater than 1/3rd of the overall tread base should be of concern.

This is a chart from Michelin:

which should be a reputable source except that there is no scale.

 

[AK OK]

As an aircraft engineer for a major airline it would be rare to find any tyre that has lasted long enough for age to be of concern. It has proved difficult to get a definitive guide to what is acceptable and what is not. Irrespective of physical condition the tyre industry guideline is to replace tyres after 10 years.

Cracking is quite difficult to define, one guide was that circumferal cracks at the base of the tread zone that is greater than 1/3rd of the overall tread base should be of concern.

This is a chart from Michelin:

View attachment 14509

which should be a reputable source except that there is no scale.

... & they have a somewhat predictable vested interest...

 

[Lovemyev]

Shurely that could have just resulted in an advisory ?

Absolutely bang on !.
I have always submitted my cars to my long time friend early, to the expiry date on the MOT.
Car was checked over and he said:- "All is absolutely fine mechanically" but then handed over his inspection touch.
"Right, let's see if your standards are still up to scratch, check condition of all four tyres and see how you classify them.
Are they a - pass / fail / or advisory, before I tell you what I think !".
He returned with the ticket and said :- "Well - what is it then".
Advisory would be my judgement, when he then flipped the sheet to revel the same verdict .
He said :- "They have another few months left, then get them off".
I reached into my pocket to use my phone and he said:- "You are calling John ( another friend in the trade with his own tyre shop ).
You are ordering four new tyres - right, I just knew you would !.
Tyres are the last thing between you and the road, there over haul condition is vital !.
After the test, we started a conversion on this topic.
I asked him what is the guide lines on this condition now, as it appears to have become a very common problem ?.
He said its a little vague to be honest and left to the testers experience / discretion to a large extent.
But ANY evidence of steel bracing seen inside the cracks, is an instant fail, from me it is anyway.
It was a shame to throw them away with so much tread left on them, but they had been tyres to long and just had to go !.

 

[AK OK]

Absolutely bang on !.
I have always submitted my cars to my long time friend early, to the expiry date on the MOT.
Car was checked over and he said:- "All is absolutely fine mechanically" but then handed over his inspection touch.
"Right, let's see if your standards are still up to scratch, check condition of all four tyres and see how you classify them.
Are they a - pass / fail / or advisory, before I tell you what I think !".
He returned with the ticket and said :- "Well - what is it then".
Advisory would be my judgement, when he then flipped the sheet to revel the same verdict .
He said :- "They have another few months left, then get them off".
I reached into my pocket to use my phone and he said:- "You are calling John ( another friend in the trade with his own tyre shop ).
You are ordering four new tyres - right, I just knew you would !.
Tyres are the last thing between you and the road, there over haul condition is vital !.
After the test, we started a conversion on this topic.
I asked him what is the guide lines on this condition now, as it appears to have become a very common problem ?.
He said its a little vague to be honest and left to the testers experience / discretion to a large extent.
But ANY evidence of steel bracing seen inside the cracks, is an instant fail, from me it is anyway.
It was a shame to throw them away with so much tread left on them, but they had been tyres to long and just had to go !.

Each to their own then... Including mot man "discretion".. seems rather woolly to me - if it was so dangerous you'd hope the examination & interpretation would be tightly defined...

 

[Frank]

These are my thoughts (and I see no reason to change them). First of all (other than snow tyres) the tread on tyres is nothing to do with grip/traction so I can't understand the reasoning of the statement "put the tyres with the best tread at wherever for grip". As soon as track based cars can they will be running on slicks (what we would call bald tyres) for the best grip/traction,and before anyone gets their knickers in a twist I know that it's not just the lack of Tread slicks have but softer rubber compounds that give them excellent grip/traction but no Tread means maximum rubber contact on the road so without softer compounds they would still be far better than tyres with tread.

Tread on tyres is there to disperse water which enables you to drive on wet roads ( i.e. Roads which have surface water on, not just damp roads) without sufficient tread you would be aquaplaning and have NO Grip whatsoever.

Based on the above reasoning I always have the deepest threaded tyres on the front as they are my steering tyres and that (when raining anyway ) is where I want the best grip. I also like to have the same make of tyres and tread depth on the same axle so for example if I have a puncture that can't be repaired (which I did just recently) I will buy two new tyres rather than drive around with for example 3mm on one tyre and the other new (on average 8mm) on the same axle, obviously there would be imbalance there when driving on wet roads. Lastly if the punctured tyre was on the rear then I would rotate my tyres. I also feel that having two different makes on the same axle could cause imbalance (quite happy to have different makes front and rear but NOT on the same axle.

Just my thoughts and I see no reason to change as with over 50 years of driving ( getting tyred now) I like to think my reasoning is sound.

Frank

 

[Lovemyev]

Each to their own then... Including mot man "discretion".. seems rather woolly to me - if it was so dangerous you'd hope the examination & interpretation would be tightly defined...

Same could be said for OTHER checks carried out on the MOT then ?.
Testers discretion can be hit or miss in certain situations, lets just say.
This is why a car will pass at an MOT at one station, then fail at the next station only another 2 miles further down the road ?.
This can be seen as a "Option Snag" between two different testers.
What one testers considers an advisory can be seen as a straight fail by the next tester 15 minutes latter.
I remember years ago buying a low mileage second hand ( X mobility ) Ford Fiesta for my wife to use just for going back and too for work.
The garage in question was a large local Ford main dealers, with two other sister dealerships fairly close.
The car was in great condition and had covered very few miles, but when checking the paper work, I noticed that the MOT had expired about four days earlier.
The sales guy said, no problem we will service the car and MOT it prior to collection day.
On further inspection I noticed that the front two tyres where almost bald, and salesman agreed to replace them in with the agreed cash price of the car.
We collected the car about 4 days latter.
All nice and shiny and a new MOT with the paper work, we where a bit pushed for time and we left fairly bristly.
The following day I reversed the car off the drive, to be greeted by a very large "Bang" from under the front end of the car.
I returned the car straight to the drive way and lifted the car up with my trolly jack.
Both bald front tyres had NOT been replaced ( Red Flag ) new MOT don't forget and then I started looking for where the loud knocking noise was coming from.
It did not take long to find, as O/S/F bottom ball joint had excessive ( and I mean excessive ) play !.
Straight back to the garage and demanded to meet with the service manger.
He was very rude with his approach and challenged if I was skilled enough to know what I was talking about and that my claims against his long established MOT tester was very serious and not justified.
I said that if you are that confident in the abilities of your tester, then you will no objection to putting the car on lift then for inspection ?.
Which he agreed to do and he looked on with a smile on his face, as the car was raised in to the air.
His tech then gripped the offending road wheel and said :-"Look there is no play there mate" which the manger laughed and went to work back to his office, until I called him back.
Is that the way YOU always check for ball joint play on ALL of your cars here then I said.
Tester - "Yes of course"
Okay - Well maybe you should try this unweighted method then.
At this point the ball joint almost became detached from the bottom arm and so did the service mangers jaw.
Tester now walks away with palm in face.
Sorry - You can't hide behind the old "Okay at the time of test" on this one I am sorry, a new bottom arm and two new tyres ASAP or I will report this to the necessary bodies including the MAA and some urgent retraining for your tester before somebody is seriously hurt or worse !.
I considered that in this instance alone, that my "discretion" was safer than the guy the garage had employed, but I was not the person signing the ticket of course !.
Assuming that the car had ever been on the ramp in the first place of course here ?.

 

[Deleted member 7316]

Without trying to argue against that reasoning (because I am not sure myself) there is an alternative.

1stly when you brake weight gets transferred to the front wheel so the resistance to aquaplaning increases. In other words the comparable tread depth increases and conversely the rear tyres reduces.

2nd if you can maintain grip on the rear of the vehicle you will have better stability overall if any side force occurs, when the back end lets go directional control is lost.