Garage fitted an old tyre last year

Aylesbury_Duck

Jibber123 wrote: »

I do check them every few weeks especially after have 2 punctures this year, has made me extra weary. Unfortunately the cracking to the side walls has only just started to become noticeable the tyre has deteriorated dramatically over the past few weeks since i first noticed about 2 weeks ago. I honestly didn't think it would fail the MOT especially as the tyre was less than 6 years old but the guy at the MOT centre told me he has seen a lot of tyres recently failing after only 5 years, but these were normally cheaper brands.

Somethings not right if it's going from not noticeable to an MOT failure in a few weeks, unless you're covering an astonishing mileage in that time. My money's on you not checking as well or as often as you say you do.

Car_54

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Somethings not right if it's going from not noticeable to an MOT failure in a few weeks, unless you're covering an astonishing mileage in that time. My money's on you not checking as well or as often as you say you do.

Is deterioration a function of mileage? I think not.

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Somethings not right if it's going from not noticeable to an MOT failure in a few weeks, unless you're covering an astonishing mileage in that time. My money's on you not checking as well or as often as you say you do.

I have to admit, I'm a little sceptical about this tyre actually being a fail, rather than simply an advisory and/or "I really don't like the look of that, you should get it changed".

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/5-axles-wheels-tyres-and-suspension#section-5-2-3

Mere age-related perisihing and cracking isn't explicitly a fail. So it'd need to go under "cuts" - which say you have to be able to see the internal cords to fail.

d) A tyre:

(i) with a cut in excess of the requirements deep enough to reach the ply or cords - Major
(ii) with a lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of its structure, including any lifting of the tread rubber or with cords exposed or damaged - Dangerous

[Deleted User]

AdrianC wrote: »

I have to admit, I'm a little sceptical about this tyre actually being a fail, rather than simply an advisory and/or "I really don't like the look of that, you should get it changed".

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/5-axles-wheels-tyres-and-suspension#section-5-2-3

Mere age-related perisihing and cracking isn't explicitly a fail. So it'd need to go under "cuts" - which say you have to be able to see the internal cords to fail.

As it happens I was using the MOT checker this morning to see if my old 2008 i10 was still running, and it failed the MOT (under my ownership) in 2013 for cuts in both original back tyres deep enough to reach the cord. It also had an advisory that the front tyres were both cracking in the sidewalls. I think from memory they were Hankook. I replaced all 4 although damned if I can remember what with.

molerat

[quote=[Deleted User];76682557]Is deterioration a function of mileage? I think not.[/QUOTE]If they are run under inflated it will be

fred246

I like to get tyres from Tyreleader. They are posted from Germany and then you can fully inspect them before getting a local place to fit them. If I ever get tyres fitted I ask to see the tyres first. I can't say that tyre places are very happy to have them inspected before fitting. They glance at each other as though to say "we've got a right one here". I did stop them fitting wrong spec to my car once though. Make sure the date of manufacture is OK too.

caprikid1

[quote=[Deleted User];76681153]Over 30 years (and probably a million miles) with company cars I had to replace countless tyres. It was never suggested either by the fleet manager, the lease company or the tyre suppliers that I needed an identical tyre on the same axle. We simply fitted the nearest available (reputable) tyre. I have followed the same practice in the subsequent 15 years without any problems.[/QUOTE]


We can debate it all we like but.. no too tyres have identical characteristics in terms of grip, wear and stopping in the wet.


Personally when I am in the outside lane of the motorway and encounter a situation requiring firm breaking I would like consistency across the car, if not the whole car then by axle.


Maybe I'm old fashioned or not a tight wad who skimps on safety.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

caprikid1 wrote: »

We can debate it all we like but.. no too tyres have identical characteristics in terms of grip, wear and stopping in the wet.


Personally when I am in the outside lane of the motorway and encounter a situation requiring firm breaking I would like consistency across the car, if not the whole car then by axle.


Maybe I'm old fashioned or not a tight wad who skimps on safety.

You might be happier but that about the 44 tonne lorry in the middle lane on remolds?

AdrianC

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

You might be happier but that about the 44 tonne lorry in the middle lane on remolds?

44t trucks are the exception - most are 38t max.
Truck tyres are designed for regrooving, which is different to remoulding/retreading.
Retreads are common on trucks, though, roughly 50% of the EU market a few years ago...
https://www.smmt.co.uk/2014/10/making-case-remould-tyres/

They're simply designed for it, unlike car tyres. Plus, of course, speeds are considerably lower.

caprikid1

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

You might be happier but that about the 44 tonne lorry in the middle lane on remolds?

Hopefully on decent tyres I can stop or steer out of his way.