Bought set of used alloys which have brand new Chinese tyres

Joe_Horner

jase1 wrote: »

It is bad practice to take the best of the premium, and the worst of the budget, and extrapolate that to say that all of the budget tyres are far worse than the premium rubber. Those figures are effectively cherrypicking.

There are some "ditchfinders" on that list, like the Achilles and GT Radial, that are within a few metres of the best on test.

These "Winda" tyres may well be garbage, but using blunt instruments to make a point is a bit sad, really.

He didn't even pick the best for the best - at a guess just read the blurb at the start rather than actually looking at the results. If he had he'd have seen that the best wet performance was 43.7, not 44 (as stated in the start blurb) because the "best overall" didn't have the best wet performance.

It's also kind of meaningless to simply add together a wet and dry figure to give an overall rating - how often are you going to find yourself having to stop hard on a road that's perfectly dry for the first half of the stop then soaking wet for the second?

There's absolutely no physical basis or justification for calculating a rating like that and the fact the study seems to think it's ok throws a question mark over its credibility no matter who did it. Gives the distinct impression of petrol-heads playing scientist without actually learning any science first

But, then, these "tests" can show up just about anything you want them to if you look hard enough. Here's one from Finland where the Landsails we have fitted at the moment out-scored offerings from Michelin (which had just WON the ADAC summer test!), Vredestein, Barum and Firestone.

Must be true - there's a study somewhere on the internet saying so


eta: forgot study link: http://www.tyrepress.com/2015/03/landsail-beats-michelin-surprise-result-in-finnish-tyre-test/

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Have a look at some ACTUAL reviews of tyres, that compare a spread including the best in class and the worst in class. The difference is quite shocking. :eek:

And the point remains - a £40 tyre with £30 transportation from the far east and profit margins added in is a £10 tyre. A £60 tyre with the same transportation and margin costs is a £30 tyre.

But the margin is invariably MUCH higher on a "brand name" because the maker adds a nice whack for the name itself - which adds nothing inherently to the performance.

Hence my point about a Tag branded ETA G10 being a £700 watch, while a no-name branded one is a sub-£100 watch. Or a £45 window motor being £75 from Ford or £700 from RR. Same movement, same motor, vastly differing margin for the manufacturer (not necessarily for the fitter, of course)

And a £60 tyre with the same transportation costs but double the margins because of the name is still only a £10 - £12 tyre at source.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But the margin is invariably MUCH higher on a "brand name" because the maker adds a nice whack for the name itself - which adds nothing inherently to the performance.

Hence my point about a Tag branded ETA G10 being a £700 watch, while a no-name branded one is a sub-£100 watch. Or a £45 window motor being £75 from Ford or £700 from RR. Same movement, same motor, vastly differing margin for the manufacturer (not necessarily for the fitter, of course)

And a £60 tyre with the same transportation costs but double the margins because of the name is still only a £10 - £12 tyre at source.

I dont agree, all manufacturers have to remain competitive, so i'd say the net margin per tyre is very small, no matter whos making them.

Back to what i posed about the Peroudua Nippa or a Volvo V40. Both pass safetly legislation but which would you rather be in, if, god forbid you'd a serious accident?

As i am sure you will duck and dive and not answer the question, i would conclude that any sane person would chose the Volvo - the one with a reputation for safety, strength and durability.

Therefore i really cant understand why any sane person would skimp on the only thing that connects their car to the road, and that can so heavily influence handling, braking distance and safety. :eek:

motorguy

dannyrst wrote: »

Of course a cheaper tyre is going to worse than a more expensive tyre. Why do you think the more expensive tyre is worth more?

Uh huh. So you've admitted that the more expensive tyre is going to be better than a chinese import, so why risk your safety and that of those around you for the sake of a few pounds? Its a no brainer to me.

dannyrst wrote: »

If it wasn't safe, it wouldn't be allowed on the road. Simple.

A Perodua Nippa is "safe", but would rather be in it or in a Volve in an accident?

dannyrst wrote: »

Yes, it may take longer to stop with these tyres, but are you aware of the last time stopping distances were updated in the highway code and how much better tyres, brakes and ABS have got since then? Aslong as you keep 2 seconds back (4 in the wet), you will be fine.

Who mentioned the highway code? It was a comparison to a quality tyre, not a comparison to the highway code.

So now theres an admittance that more expensive tyres are better and have shorter stopping distances particularly in the wet, but you'd still rather save a tenner a corner on a LingLang or whatever? :eek:

motorguy

jase1 wrote: »

I would also point to this:

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2014-Auto-Bild-50-Summer-Tyre-Shootout.htm

Which shows a significant narrowing in quality between the best and worst -- 61:46 in the wet, vs 72:44 (and if one takes away the outliers, as is commonplace with statistical data, we get 56:47, still a gap but nowhere near the one you selected).

So basically, you're "hoping" a tyre thats the cheapest of the cheap chinese import might not be too bad in real world conditions, to save a tenner a tyre. :eek:

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But it's not irrelevant. It gives an idea of just how much mark-up a "brand name" carries in and of itself. Which suggests that, at source, those expensive quality tyres are likely just as cheap as the ling-longs.

Thats a MASSIVE leap - premium brand tyre makers take a lot more profit, so they're really just the same as ling-longs :eek:

What about development costs, quality of the products used, and hundreds of thousands of miles of testing, etc? Do you think Ling-Langs go to all that trouble? Or care what quality of product is in their tyre, other than to meet the minimum standard?

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

but you'd still rather save a tenner a corner on a LingLang or whatever? :eek:

Now extrapolate that saving across the life of a set of tyres.

Let's call it £100 difference across a set of four with an average life of 20,000 miles.
That's half a penny saving per mile. At 40mpg and £1.10/litre, fuel cost alone is nearly 25x that saving, always assuming there's no difference in either life or rolling resistance of the two tyres. Then there's a thread going on around here currently where people are regarding 70p/mile in depreciation alone as nothing worth remarking on...

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

So could a lot of things.. tyres; brake pads; car; how loud the radio is; blah; blah; blah

And does that not highlight how important good tyres are? If you've pads that arent at their premium braking quality (but you cant visilby check them), and could perhaps a little distracted by a radio or something else, surely spending a bit extra on a decent tyre is all the more significant?

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

Now extrapolate that saving across the life of a set of tyres.

Let's call it £100 difference across a set of four with an average life of 20,000 miles.
That's half a penny saving per mile. At 40mpg and £1.10/litre, fuel cost alone is nearly 25x that saving, always assuming there's no difference in either life or rolling resistance of the two tyres. Then there's a thread going on around here currently where people are regarding 70p/mile in depreciation alone as nothing worth remarking on...

And then you've the increased fuel usage by a crap tyre caused by increased rolling resistance.

I just dont get it - the ONLY thing that connects your car, no matter how well maintained or how careful a driver you are, to the road and people will opt for the cheapest budget option even when - as is clear here they KNOW theres increased braking distance and handling effects.

Crazy. Absolutely Crazy.

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Back to what i posed about the Peroudua Nippa or a Volvo V40. Both pass safetly legislation but which would you rather be in, if, god forbid you'd a serious accident?

As i am sure you will duck and dive and not answer the question,

Having spent the best part of the past decade using a mixture of 1960s Triumphs and 1960s / 70s Dafs* as my daily transport - including regular motorway trips from here to Essex, the New Forest, and Devon - I honestly wouldn't care which of your choices I was in because my aim would be to not have the freaking accident in the first place.

So, the non-ducking answer to your question is: Both of the above because I'm not planning to crash it.

Before you trot out the tired old clich!d response about ".. if someone else...", I've spent 30+ years avoiding other people's mistakes and stupidity on the road without ever (yet) needing to test my tyres or car's handling to anywhere near their limit. In fact, i usually do so with so little drama that the other guy probably never even knew he'd cocked up.

Maybe I've just been supernaturally lucky, or maybe those who regularly have to take all this evasive action might find it worthwhile learning to look out for the other guy a bit more rather than noticing / reacting to things too late and blaming their tyres when it all goes pear shaped

Incidentally - no, I'm NOT claiming to be some driving God. In fact, my whole point is that if I can do it, so can anyone else. Just as soon as they stop heading out on the road with the excuses already lodged in their mind.

Since, from long experience, very few people will take that on-board, I'll just continue about my business, avoiding their !!!!-ups as usual, with whatever rubber happens to be on the car at the time as long as it has legal tread, legal structure, and holds air.



* Single circuit non-servo brakes, "ABS" might have been the plastic they made the trim out of (but I think they just called it plastic back then), no airbags, no wing / door mirrors as standard, seatbelts optional on one of them, toughened glass (not laminated) screens, no reverse lights pre-halogen 2 candlepower headlights, and you are the crumple zone.

The Perodoua is a very safe car by comparison.