Why are low profile tyres more expensive?

marlot

There was also the BMW with the metric size tyres. Where it was cheaper to buy a new wheel and tyre in an imperial size than to buy just the metric sized tyre. I seem the recall the size was 230/55zr390 - 390 is somewhere between 15" and 16"

gilbert_and_sullivan

That's triggered a memory Marlot, didn't Citroen's DS (the real one) run on Michelin 165 x 400's.

Doesn't anyone research such things as tyre sizes before they buy a car.

pompeyrich

Back in the 1980s Montegos and Maestros had fully metric sized tyres. Tyre sizes seem a strange mix, width in mm, diameter in inches. Must have slipped through the EUs net somehow.

Hintza

missile wrote: »

and what is the purpose - in your opinion?

I was just pointing out that if you are daft enough to buy silly wheel/tyre sizes it's only sensible for the tyre company to maximise their profits and relieve you of as much hard earned as possible.

In a few years folk will realise that for most cars low profile tyres really offer a dreadful ride.

Strider590

Hintza wrote: »

In a few years folk will realise that for most cars low profile tyres really offer a dreadful ride.

For as long as arrogance rules over common sense and form rules over function, things will never change

[Deleted User]

Low profile tyres are all about looking cool, innit!

Nearly_Old

It's a mixture of wheel size and the profile up to 17" wheels prices tend to be OK but there is a jump when you go to 18" and above and part of it is the cost to manufacture. The rear tyres on my wife's car are 255x35x18 and are runflats and we wanted to change to non-runflats but have Puncturesafe put into the tyres. When I enquired about the Puncturesafe I was told that profiles of 40 and below have transverse ribs within the tyre and therefore the fluid cannot evenly coat the whole of the inner surface. I can have Puncturesafe in my 245x45x17 tyres but my wife has continued with run-flat tyres. The cost of the inner ribs is probably an additional cost as well as the smaller market as you go up in wheel size.

The only plus side is that I can corner a lot quicker in her car than I can in mine but that's nothing to do with why she needed two new tyres at just over 20k miles.

vikingaero

Material costs can be higher for low profiles as exotic materials such as kevlar may be used for the higher speed rating.

photome

missile wrote: »

For example Blackcircles list Michelin Latitude at:
235/55 R19 at £246.70 for Audi Q5 SLine.
235/65 R17 at £182.21 for Audi Q5.

I would suggest the carcass and rubber compounds are very similar. More materials are required to manufacture a 65 aspect tyre.

The 65 aspect will be a more popular size, so there would be some ecconomy of scale, but not enough to justify the huge difference in cost.

Just a thought :happylove

You havent compared like for like, how can more materials be required for the 65 profile 17 inch when the 55 profile is a 19inch tyre. (lots more steel required)

Without knowing the production runs of particular tyres its impossible to say wether economy of scale justifies the cost?

Of course it could be that tyre manufacturers and the retailers are out to make a profit... shock

Gloomendoom

photome wrote: »

You havent compared like for like, how can more materials be required for the 65 profile 17 inch when the 55 profile is a 19inch tyre. (lots more steel required)

Without knowing the production runs of particular tyres its impossible to say wether economy of scale justifies the cost?

Of course it could be that tyre manufacturers and the retailers are out to make a profit... shock

I don't think it matters. I have a sneaking suspicion that the real purpose of this thread was to rub it in to the rest of us that the OP drives an expensive Audi with big wheels.

Of course, I may be wrong.