Tyre ratings....

DUTR

Just preparing for some new tyres in the near future, as I understand the new ratings go from A-G with A being the better choice over G.
Where I'm getting confused is that the more expensive tyres appear to have a lower rating than medium range tyres.

Fuel , water displacement noise

Branded EC 72db
medium BB 72db

even with some branded sporting F for fuel. Whats the actual catch?
If it's mileage to wear then the medium can be half the price of the branded yet last more than half the mileage of the branded.

neilmcl

Depend's one what you rate as a "better choice". Personally, for tyres I'll make an informed decision regarding overall safety. The rest is just marketing nonsense imho.

DUTR

neilmcl wrote: »

Depend's one what you rate as a "better choice". Personally, for tyres I'll make an informed decision regarding overall safety. The rest is just marketing nonsense imho.

How is the informed descion arrived if not through marketing hype or hysteria hype?
I thought the ratings thing was a standardised measure now.
Eg my previous car came with Continental sport contacts, they were fine although some reading said they were rubbish. My current car has Bridgestone Potenzas, again they are fine but some reading says they are rubbish. Only thing with medium and budget tyres is finding many/any reviews. I guess if the tyres were ok for OEM then they are fine to use again? Although I may go all season type.

bowlhead99

There's always a compromise between noise, wear rate, grippiness in wet, grippiness in dry, grippiness in damp, fuel economy etc etc. Some would prefer tyres that are super-sticky but wear down in 6-10k miles and so on.

If it's mileage to wear then the medium can be half the price of the branded yet last more than half the mileage of the branded.

Sure, but some customers will find it much more convenient to spend £100 a corner every 23 months instead of £50 every 12 months. It's annoying going to get your tyres changed, and if the looming annual change coincided with a big driving holiday you might end up sacrificing economy for convenience anyway (e.g. changing early, or buying expensive replacements en route).

So, paying twice the cost doesn't necessarily get you twice the grip or twice the longevity or half the stopping distance. It might just get you 2% extra "something". Maybe the 2% is a rubber compound that shaves two inches off a stopping distance and saves a life ; maybe it's 2% more marketing to get you to notice them.

Certainly if you are buying fine wine, dinner, computer processors, cars, TVs, employees etc, you can spend twice as much on the top option than a lower-placed option and not get something that "does the job" twice as well. But people buy because it's better, it doesn't need to be as much as twice as good to cost twice the price.

With tyres, it might just buy you 10% more "feelgood factor" that your car is driving on the top tyres from a big brand with massive r&d and marketing budget that pumps out millions of tyres every year and you would have heard about it if the product was shoddy.

On my main car, I use Pilot Super Sports at £250 for each rear corner -even though the factory approved big name brand (Dunslip) would be 10-20% cheaper and lesser names perhaps 30%+.

On my other car I pay £50-60 a tyre for Toyo which are great for the money for what I want them for (handling).

user1168934

I have been reading around for the last couple of days as I am also looking to replace the front two (I believe you replied on my thread too so thanks for that )
I was also getting confused by the same thing as to why its F or even G for fuel efficiency for very good sporty tyres. From what I understood fuel efficiency is directly related to the rolling resistance or the surface area of the tyre in contact with the road. So having an F fuel rating will mean there is probably more surface area in contact and thus more friction which would help with improved handling but will use more fuel. Surely for more sporty tyres you would want more friction for better handling.
For the same reason I went for Continental premium contact 5 which is A for wet grip and E for fuel economy even though there were other options for A-C and even B-B.

Hope this helps mate.

DUTR

user1168934 wrote: »

I have been reading around for the last couple of days as I am also looking to replace the front two (I believe you replied on my thread too so thanks for that )
I was also getting confused by the same thing as to why its F or even G for fuel efficiency for very good sporty tyres. From what I understood fuel efficiency is directly related to the rolling resistance or the surface area of the tyre in contact with the road. So having an F fuel rating will mean there is probably more surface area in contact and thus more friction which would help with improved handling but will use more fuel. Surely for more sporty tyres you would want more friction for better handling.
For the same reason I went for Continental premium contact 5 which is A for wet grip and E for fuel economy even though there were other options for A-C and even B-B.

Hope this helps mate.

I will probably end up getting the OEMs again, (even though I'm semi sure they are a summer tyre) , I would have imagined that the brand names would give towards (A) more so than budget /mid band tyres.

forgotmyname

The issue is that the tyre manufacturer create the tests to get the ratings so there is some element of "cheating" to obtain a better result.

Gloomendoom

user1168934 wrote: »

I have been reading around for the last couple of days as I am also looking to replace the front two (I believe you replied on my thread too so thanks for that )
I was also getting confused by the same thing as to why its F or even G for fuel efficiency for very good sporty tyres. From what I understood fuel efficiency is directly related to the rolling resistance or the surface area of the tyre in contact with the road. So having an F fuel rating will mean there is probably more surface area in contact and thus more friction which would help with improved handling but will use more fuel. Surely for more sporty tyres you would want more friction for better handling.
For the same reason I went for Continental premium contact 5 which is A for wet grip and E for fuel economy even though there were other options for A-C and even B-B.

Hope this helps mate.

The pattern of the tread and the hardness of the rubber compound also plays a part. More aggressive patterns and softer compounds generally increase the rolling resistance.

As has been said, it's a matter of compromise.

user1168934

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The pattern of the tread and the hardness of the rubber compound also plays a part. More aggressive patterns and softer compounds generally increase the rolling resistance.

As has been said, it's a matter of compromise.

From what I understood the pattern contributes more towards the wet-grip due to water displacement but I agree with you that it must also contribute towards rolling resistance. Completely agree with you on the rubber compound.

DUTR

forgotmyname wrote: »

The issue is that the tyre manufacturer create the tests to get the ratings so there is some element of "cheating" to obtain a better result.

This may or maynot be the case (like the supermarket fuel debates)
Tyres at least have to be to a minimum standard, so none are really going to be the ditch finders for general purpose driving.
My previous car wore continentals sport contact out of desperation the one year in between xmas/new year , I had to opt for some budgets (they were called event) half the price of the conti's and to be honest they were 'better' tyres or at least as equal of course I was gobsmacked , I don't mean in the initial out of the fitters (the previous had an unrepairable puncture but lasted the 17k the contis did.

jase1

forgotmyname wrote: »

The issue is that the tyre manufacturer create the tests to get the ratings so there is some element of "cheating" to obtain a better result.

Also bear in mind that the standards allow for manufacturers to use band "E" to denote a tyre that has not been tested. It does not necessarily indicate poor performance in that area.