Tyre wear - inside

Ultrasonic

There's no way a rear tyre should look like that after 15,000 miles. I would get some new rear tyres and get a proper 4-wheel alignment done. Have a look here for places to do this:

http://www.alignmycar.co.uk/

If you car has the similar rear suspension to a Golf then the rear camber is adjustable which should presumably help.

For tyres I'd look at reviews here:

https://www.tyre-reviews.co.uk

Not sure what size tyres you need but I'd probably be considering one of these going by proper test results:

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Dunlop/Sport-BluResponse.htm
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Goodyear/EfficientGrip-Performance.htm

Joe_Horner

Finally got the photo to load (horribly slow host, that!) and it's probably legal.

The sipes in that left hand shoulder appear to have been cut less deep than the main grooves (with the wear indicators) in the original pattern. If they were then they don't count as tread for the purposes of tyre wear and the shoulder can be bald.

But it's certainly not a normal wear pattern, especially for rear tyres, and you'll find yourself down to the wear bars on that outer groove in no time, so get them replaced and save any aggro would be the sensible way to go

reeac

Iceweasel wrote: »

Bridgestone Potenzas are not famed for long life. Mine weren't anyway.

Better to fit Continental ContiSportContact2s which give better grip and last longer.

I have Potenzas on a Jazz. The original front ones were changed at 25,000 miles [would have done 1,000/2,000 more]. The original rear ones have done 43,000 miles so far and should achieve 50,000. Get the rear wheel alignment checked.

Horizon81

As an aside, there's more than one Brigestone Potenza. I've had the RE040 before and it's a very soft compound, stiff sidewall tyre. With mine, as with most FWD cars, the outer edge on the nearside wore down the worst.

OP, your tyre looks legal but it's worth getting the alignment checked by somewhere decent when you get new tyres. And yes, the grooves in the outermost parts of the tyre are not cut as deep as the main grooves where the depth indicators are.

AdrianC

thelawnet wrote: »

Does this pic help?



I don't have a tyre gauge, but there's definitely over 3mm on the left - more worn - side.

And they USED to look like this...



A definite fail on the "visible tread pattern" test, ergo instant fail regardless of tread depth on the rest.

thelawnet

Just took them to tyre shop, he said the MOT tester was an idiot, and they are legal. However he said you should get them changed anyway, because the inside has worn.

The wear on the front is actually much heavier, but it's even, and he said get them replaced as well. The rears have worn on the inside only, and there is still 6mm in the middle.

Ordered 4 Goodyear EfficientGrips @ £108/each.

In terms of the alignment, he said for rear camber + toe and front toe, it could cost £125. Which was a bit more than I expected! Not sure if it's worth it, the car doesn't seem to pull, and if the rears will have 50% longer life, well £125 is more than the cost of one tyre.

He started to talk about fuel efficiency, but well he would say that wouldn't he?

uknick

The OP's tyre looks illegal to me. It doesn't have visible tread around the whole circumference. Quoted below is the MoT testers guide


Tyres. Tyres MUST be correctly inflated to the vehicle manufacturer’s specification for the load being carried. Always refer to the vehicle’s handbook or data. Tyres should also be free from certain cuts and other defects. Cars, light vans and light trailers MUST have a tread depth of at least 1.6 mm across the central three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and around the entire circumference. Motorcycles, large vehicles and passenger-carrying vehicles MUST have a tread depth of at least 1 mm across three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and in a continuous band around the entire circumference. Mopeds should have visible tread. Be aware that some vehicle defects can attract penalty points.
Law CUR reg 27


https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-maintenance-safety-security

LandyAndy

Iceweasel wrote: »

You need 2 new rear tyres right away - if the tread depth is disputable then they are pretty near done anyway.

These are run-flats are they?

Bridgestone Potenzas are not famed for long life. Mine weren't anyway.

Better to fit Continental ContiSportContact2s which give better grip and last longer.

I have Potenzas on my Mazda6 estate. The first set of fronts did 38k. The second set have done 42k so far and are far from needing replacement. The OS rear was punctured at 65k but the NS rear is still the original tyre at 80k and still has plenty of life left in it.


Having said that, the ones on my previous RX-8 were shot at the back after 9k every time. The fronts managed 28k.

AdrianC

uknick wrote: »

The OP's tyre looks illegal to me. It doesn't have visible tread around the whole circumference.

I can't see the whole circumference in that pic.

Quoted below is the MoT testers guide

Tyres. Tyres MUST be correctly inflated to the vehicle manufacturer’s specification for the load being carried. Always refer to the vehicle’s handbook or data. Tyres should also be free from certain cuts and other defects. Cars, light vans and light trailers MUST have a tread depth of at least 1.6 mm across the central three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and around the entire circumference. Motorcycles, large vehicles and passenger-carrying vehicles MUST have a tread depth of at least 1 mm across three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and in a continuous band around the entire circumference. Mopeds should have visible tread. Be aware that some vehicle defects can attract penalty points.
Law CUR reg 27

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-maintenance-safety-security

That isn't the tester's guide.

THIS is the exact wording of the tester's handbook...
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s04000108.htm

Reason for Rejection :
1. The grooves of the tread pattern are not at least 1.6mm throughout a continuous band comprising:
· the central three-quarters of the breadth of tread, and
· round the entire outer circumference of the tyre.
Note: Each side of the central band of the tyre can be devoid of tread (i.e. ‘bald’) and still meet the pass standard. See diagram below

So I apologise for the mistake in my earlier reply - there's no requirement for visible tread pattern across the whole width.

BUT - I've measured the width of the image on my screen, and the section where the visible tread pattern has disappeared completely IS within the central 3/4 of the width. So, again, yes - it's illegal.

I make the width 90mm on my screen. 25% of that is 22.5mm. Half that, because that's split between the two shoulders, and we're looking at 11mm either side. I make the bald bit almost about 15-16mm in from the LH side of the pic. Compare to the unworn pic - even if we ignore that circumferential groove missing entirely, the lateral grooves are very, very badly worn - invisible up to about 12mm from the edge, and there's no way that suddenly transitions to more than 1.6mm.

Whether it's illegal or not is almost secondary, since Mr MOT brought it to the OP's attention before Mr Plod did. Either way... It's knackered. It's an ex-tyre. It's dead. It's bin fodder.

Joe_Horner

The "visible tread" requirement also only applies to vehicles with a 1 mm limit (bikes etc). The testing manual, S.4.1 (Tread pattern, breadth and depth) has a note that goes with it's RFR:

Note: Each side of the central band of the tyre can be devoid of tread (i.e. ‘bald’) and still meet the pass standard. See diagrambelow

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep them like that, but it does mean they're not illegal as long as those shoulder sipes were shallower than the main grooves originally. Which the photo above of a new one seems to confirm.


eta: Beaten to it by Adrian, although we seem to disagree on the outcome thanks to the question of original depth. Is it any wonder MOT results can be a little unpredictable when your'e close to some limit or other?