Tyre Performance ratings - reliable?

Joe_Horner

EdGasket wrote: »

My apologies, I hadn't read far enough into the thread.

So basically the ratings are assigned by the manufacturers themselves and have little meaning when comparing different manufacturers; is that a fair conclusion?

Not quite.

The ratings are assigned by the manufacturer (or importer) using a standardised test. Because some parameters (such as temperature and the track surface) will naturally vary from one test to another, every test includes testing of a "reference" tyre which has a known performance. This is NOT the same as "only testing against their own products" as is suggested in some places.

There is an EU standard tyre which is used as the base for all tests, a reference tyre is tested against that under controlled conditions, and future tests use the simultaneous results from that reference tyre to adjust for conditions on the day.

It's basically like using your Homebase tape measure to measure your carpets rather than pumping all the air out and timing how long it takes a light beam to get from one side to another, remembering to use transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom to measure that second. The vacuum / light beam / caesium atom way is the only truly "standard" way to measure a length in metres, but using a reference stick that we know is 1 metre long works just as well for practical purposes!

The test methods specifically allow the ratings to be compared across brands / tyre types / different test sessions provided you trust the maker or importer to have carried out the tests fairly. None of the established makers, EU or Far East, are going to risk their market position by cheating them because they'd be withdrawn from sale as non-compliant if caught.

jaydeeuk1

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It's basically like using your Homebase tape measure to measure your carpets rather than pumping all the air out and timing how long it takes a light beam to get from one side to another, remembering to use transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom to measure that second. The vacuum / light beam / caesium atom way is the only truly "standard" way to measure a length in metres, but using a reference stick that we know is 1 metre long works just as well for practical purposes!

Joe_Horner

Yep, which is exactly why we just trust to a meter ruler (or use a reference tyre with known performance in tyre tests), jaydee

Hintza

There are plenty of tyres around that price and some very good tyres with £10 of the price.

I have Event tyres on the front of the Panda and will never ever put such carp on it again. This was the tyre that in my view coined the phrase "ditchfinders" the bad (or good) thing about them is they look as if they will last another 10 years.............:eek:

EdGasket

So based on the last post, should I buy these ultra-cheap tyres from eTyres which have a wet-grip rating of B, as good as tyres costing nearly twice that?

http://www.etyres.co.uk/car-tyres-uk...roductId=26737

Hintza

EdGasket wrote: »

So based on the last post, should I buy these ultra-cheap tyres from eTyres which have a wet-grip rating of B, as good as tyres costing nearly twice that?

http://www.etyres.co.uk/car-tyres-uk...roductId=26737

I wouldn't.

Based upon a fully fitted price on MyTyres as an example you can get

Firestone Multihawks for £48.98
Cooper CS2 for £49.28
Toyo Nano Energy 3 for £52.09
up to
Continental Premium Contact 2E for £56.45

And a whole host of better tyres inbetween.

But at the end of the day it is your choice. But as I explained in my previous post I have tried these cheap tyres and they are not worth the money in my view!

Strider590

The well known tyre/exhaust chains will aggressively promote whatever tyres they can make most profit on.
The premium brands offer them very little profit, the cheap stuff they buy from the far east at £10 a tyre and sell at £60, this offers them quite a substantial profit.

There's no reason why online retailers wouldn't do exactly the same.

EdGasket

I decided to go with Marshal MH11 which are a little more from F1 Autocentres and are C rated for wet grip but there are independent reviews that reckon they are OK/good. If I could find some user reviews of Three-A P306's that confirmed they are OK, I would have been happy to buy but I don't want to be the first to buy/review them in case they are poor.
Thanks for the replies.

jase1

Marshal are a Kuhmo second-tier brand and are OK. I can't see them being the source of too many problems.

EdGasket

Hintza wrote: »

I wouldn't.

Based upon a fully fitted price on MyTyres as an example you can get

Firestone Multihawks for £48.98
Cooper CS2 for £49.28
Toyo Nano Energy 3 for £52.09
up to
Continental Premium Contact 2E for £56.45

And a whole host of better tyres inbetween.

But at the end of the day it is your choice. But as I explained in my previous post I have tried these cheap tyres and they are not worth the money in my view!

You aren't comparing like with like. I need an H rated tyre and you are suggesting T rated which are not suitable for my car which is clearly labelled as requiring H rated tyres. MyTyres are £12 per tyre dearer than F1 for the Marshal MH11's !!

http://www.mytyres.co.uk/cgi-bin/rshop.pl