cheap brake pads ??????????

Jakg

Rossy. wrote: »

Tyres don't offer hundreds of feet shorter stopping distances.

I remember seeing a chinese copy Conti sport 3 and the chinese copy stopped 3 feet after the real conti.

I could live with that tbh

budgets aren't inferior in any way

3 feet? Thats certainly not what my own experience or any other test has shown...

darich

Cheap nasty tyres ALWAYS let go before even mid range ones.
Even ignoring braking distances, they'll slide on corners more easily, aquaplane more easily, wheel spin more easily and as a result of all the spinning and sliding, probably wear out faster.

Cheap tyres will NEVER get you within 3 feet of a premium brand like Continental if measured accurately.

Mid range tyres in certain conditions can get close to premium ones under certain conditions but the premium ones generally perform better overall.

Having said all that I rarely buy Michelins/Contis/Pirelli etc - I normally go for a mid range tyre eg Avon/Falken/Kumho.

wobblegobble

Jakg wrote: »

3 feet? Thats certainly not what my own experience or any other test has shown...

I've seen numerous Auto Express tests where budget tyres perform well compared to premium brands. Once again a question of paying more for the name than any actual increase in performance....

Same argument as people who argue that food in Aldi/Lidl is inferior in quality to the big supermarkets when in fact the reverse is true, but that's another separate discussion

mikey72

Despite chinese tyres always coming off badly, they do make some good brands, compared to conti's
Nankangs come a good second, 3ft in the dry, 6ft in the wet stopping from 50mph.
I'd bet there are a lot of european tyres that aren't as good as the conti's. Like I said in another post, they're certainly getting there.
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/uk/en/continental/automobile/themes/press_services/img/autocar_tyre_test_article_en.pdf

I've had a pair of "heroes" I was given on the back of the car to test them in the snow and ice.
No problems whatsoever, with two Nokians on the front for comparison.

darich

mikey72 wrote: »

Despite chinese tyres always coming off badly, they do make some good brands, compared to conti's
Nankangs come a good second, 3ft in the dry, 6ft in the wet stopping from 50mph.
I'd bet there are a lot of european tyres that aren't as good as the conti's. Like I said in another post, they're certainly getting there.
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/uk/en/continental/automobile/themes/press_services/img/autocar_tyre_test_article_en.pdf

I've had a pair of "heroes" I was given on the back of the car to test them in the snow and ice.
No problems whatsoever, with two Nokians on the front for comparison.

Why did you post that link?
You claim that the cheap tyres aren't all that bad and that many euro copies are also improving....but that test shows that Continentals are by far and away the superior tyre with the 2nd placed tyre in the test scoring less than 70% of the conti score?
you also said Nankangs were second....they weren't....they were third.
EDIT - second in the braking test but tyres do more than simply brake - overall they were third and the test wasn't complimentary to any of the cheap tyres.

Not having a go but I'm confused by your post coupled with the link.

mikey72

darich wrote: »

Why did you post that link?
You claim that the cheap tyres aren't all that bad and that many euro copies are also improving....but that test shows that Continentals are by far and away the superior tyre with the 2nd placed tyre in the test scoring less than 70% of the conti score?
you also said Nankangs were second....they weren't....they were third.
EDIT - second in the braking test but tyres do more than simply brake - overall they were third and the test wasn't complimentary to any of the cheap tyres.

Not having a go but I'm confused by your post coupled with the link.

Despite the claims of how poor the are, the differences are very small. I would have liked to have seen a few budget european tyres in there for comparison, not just a single well respected premium.

(I posted the link so you can make up your own mind, the nunbers are the ones I quoted from it)

darich

mikey72 wrote: »

Despite the claims of how poor the are, the differences are very small. I would have liked to have seen a few budget european tyres in there for comparison, not just a single well respected premium.

(I posted the link so you can make up your own mind, the nunbers are the ones I quoted from it)

Very small between each of the cheap tyres but when compared to the premium tyre the difference is massive.....highlighting the importance of at least decent rubber on your car.

The car when wearing Linglong tyres was still doing almost 30mph when it passed the point that the car wearing Contis stopped.....shows how poor the cheap ones are.

forgotmyname

Auto express test 2009. Best tyre stopped in 35.7 metres. Cheap chinese Wanli tyres took 46.5 metres
at 50mph. Thats a big gap. Approx 30% extra.


http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/total_tyre_guide_2009/242020/wet_braking.html

mikey72

It's odd that in a test from the same year, they compared one of the poorest performers from a chinese tyre test againt european ones. The Nankang was comparable to the Conti's, now that would have been interesting if it was included.

Chinese test conti's 32m, Nankang 34m, Wanli, 36m
European test, conti's 36m, Wanli 46.5m

Not a very consistent pattern, but Wanli wouldn't be a choice I'd make.

Now who loves Pirelli?

andygb

What's that about Pirelli, you slagging off my favourite tyre again?