Pot Hole Claim M6 J3 Northbound February 2020

Ditzy_Mitzy

Unfortunately 'them things' exist in the real world and the damage to the wheel and tyre is definitely one of them things.  The only safeguard against such expenses, I suppose, is to drive a less flashy car with cheaper wheels and tyres.  

DiddyDavies

Scrapit said:

There's some complete nonsense regarding profiles here^. Quite comical.

So explain what you think is the nonsense that's been written.
One of the physical properties of rubber is that it's generally quite flexible and as it moves, it absorbs vibration and acts as a dampener.
Air also helps to dampen out vibrations and shock loads so you don't need to be a scientist to understand that the more rubber you have and the more volume of air you have in a tyre, less vibration and shock loads will reach the wheels and the rest of the vehicle body.
A low profile tyre will not absorb as much energy as a higher profile one and if the energy from an impact doesn't get absorbed, it must get transmitted to the rest of the drive train.

Scrapit

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

There's some complete nonsense regarding profiles here^. Quite comical.

So explain what you think is the nonsense that's been written.
One of the physical properties of rubber is that it's generally quite flexible and as it moves, it absorbs vibration and acts as a dampener.
Air also helps to dampen out vibrations and shock loads so you don't need to be a scientist to understand that the more rubber you have and the more volume of air you have in a tyre, less vibration and shock loads will reach the wheels and the rest of the vehicle body.
A low profile tyre will not absorb as much energy as a higher profile one and if the energy from an impact doesn't get absorbed, it must get transmitted to the rest of the drive train.

Isnt that just lovely. 
But completely irrelevant. 
The claim is that the road is not maintained in a sufficient manner and as such has damaged a perfectly good road going vehicle.
There are not caveats such as the colour of your motor or how blingy the wheels are or even what you had for lunch. Yes, low profile tyres are susupectable to damage mores then those of a higher profile. But a pot hole is a fault with the road surface, the road surface is designed for all traffic be it a monster truck, hgv, steam roller or motor with wheels that might give a harsh ride but sporty feel. There is no distinguishing wheel sizes.

Sandtree

Scrapit said: 

But completely irrelevant. 
The claim is that the road is not maintained in a sufficient manner and as such has damaged a perfectly good road going vehicle.
There are not caveats such as the colour of your motor or how blingy the wheels are or even what you had for lunch. Yes, low profile tyres are susupectable to damage mores then those of a higher profile. But a pot hole is a fault with the road surface, the road surface is designed for all traffic be it a monster truck, hgv, steam roller or motor with wheels that might give a harsh ride but sporty feel. There is no distinguishing wheel sizes.

Not completely irrelevant at all.

The OP has already stated that their complaint has been dismissed as the Highways Agency has already confirmed that the road in question was appropriately maintained and indeed only inspected the day before the incident.

So basically goes down as “one of those things” (unless the OP can either prove the records were falsified and/or gambles on a court case not being economic to defend) and may not have been so had the OP been driving with different wheels.

Scrapit

Sandtree said:

Scrapit said: 

But completely irrelevant. 
The claim is that the road is not maintained in a sufficient manner and as such has damaged a perfectly good road going vehicle.
There are not caveats such as the colour of your motor or how blingy the wheels are or even what you had for lunch. Yes, low profile tyres are susupectable to damage mores then those of a higher profile. But a pot hole is a fault with the road surface, the road surface is designed for all traffic be it a monster truck, hgv, steam roller or motor with wheels that might give a harsh ride but sporty feel. There is no distinguishing wheel sizes.

Not completely irrelevant at all.

The OP has already stated that their complaint has been dismissed as the Highways Agency has already confirmed that the road in question was appropriately maintained and indeed only inspected the day before the incident.

So basically goes down as “one of those things” (unless the OP can either prove the records were falsified and/or gambles on a court case not being economic to defend) and may not have been so had the OP been driving with different wheels.

Yes irrelevant. It has been dismissed cos HE are effectively saying they have done all they can, which is fair enough. The size of the tyres doesn't feature at all.

DiddyDavies

Scrapit said:

Yes irrelevant. It has been dismissed cos HE are effectively saying they have done all they can, which is fair enough. The size of the tyres doesn't feature at all.

Correct, the size of the tyres is totally irrelevant and no one has said otherwise.
The profile of the tyres however is a different matter.
Even if you are driving on ultra low profile tyres that are totally road legal, this doesn't automatically mean that they are suitable for all of the road conditions that can be encountered and I doubt if there are many drivers in the UK who are unaware that in general, the roads are in a far worse state of repair than in the past and any damage that does occur may take a while before it gets addressed.

If people still want to put tyres on their vehicles that may make them more susceptible to damage that's fine. Just don't expect others to pay for that damage unless it can be proven that there was negligence by the council or highways agency.

Scrapit

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

Yes irrelevant. It has been dismissed cos HE are effectively saying they have done all they can, which is fair enough. The size of the tyres doesn't feature at all.

Correct, the size of the tyres is totally irrelevant and no one has said otherwise.
The profile of the tyres however is a different matter.
Even if you are driving on ultra low profile tyres that are totally road legal, this doesn't automatically mean that they are suitable for all of the road conditions that can be encountered and I doubt if there are many drivers in the UK who are unaware that in general, the roads are in a far worse state of repair than in the past and any damage that does occur may take a while before it gets addressed.

If people still want to put tyres on their vehicles that may make them more susceptible to damage that's fine. Just don't expect others to pay for that damage unless it can be proven that there was negligence by the council or highways agency.

More rubbish. The roads of Britain should be suitable for the vehicles of Britain. A low profiled tyre that is legal should expect to drive around without issue in most cases. In this case an issue was encountered by the OP however unfortunately the HE have dismissed it as they have carried out their due diligence. They have not dismissed it on the grounds of the tyre size, they don't appear to have considered that at all. Others should pay for the damage to a perfect good vehicle if they are proven negligent. In this case they haven't been, and the tyre size is irrelevant. Fair enough. If they had been negligent then they should be paying, again irrespective of the tyre size.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

Yes irrelevant. It has been dismissed cos HE are effectively saying they have done all they can, which is fair enough. The size of the tyres doesn't feature at all.

Correct, the size of the tyres is totally irrelevant and no one has said otherwise.
The profile of the tyres however is a different matter.
Even if you are driving on ultra low profile tyres that are totally road legal, this doesn't automatically mean that they are suitable for all of the road conditions that can be encountered and I doubt if there are many drivers in the UK who are unaware that in general, the roads are in a far worse state of repair than in the past and any damage that does occur may take a while before it gets addressed.

If people still want to put tyres on their vehicles that may make them more susceptible to damage that's fine. Just don't expect others to pay for that damage unless it can be proven that there was negligence by the council or highways agency.

More rubbish. The roads of Britain should be suitable for the vehicles of Britain. A low profiled tyre that is legal should expect to drive around without issue in most cases. In this case an issue was encountered by the OP however unfortunately the HE have dismissed it as they have carried out their due diligence. They have not dismissed it on the grounds of the tyre size, they don't appear to have considered that at all. Others should pay for the damage to a perfect good vehicle if they are proven negligent. In this case they haven't been, and the tyre size is irrelevant. Fair enough. If they had been negligent then they should be paying, again irrespective of the tyre size.

I think all @DiddyDavies is doing is adopting a pragmatic approach rather than a moralising one.  Of course it should be possible for cars with legal and approved wheels and tyres to drive unimpeded on the public highway but that isn't, in our climate of austerity, always possible.  Approval has been given to wheels and tyres that are simply too delicate for the roads as they presently are.  There are two choices: replace the wheels with a set better suited to the conditions or invest heavily in the road network and bring all the surfaces up to the standard required to allow the more highly strung sort of wheel to roll along without getting bruised.  In the US, where investment isn't being made, drivers are doing the former and having to resort to ever more drastic means of coping with a deteriorating road system.  SUVs with tough metal wheels are commonplace, as are special winter tyres and off-road items.  Needs must.  
One might be forgiven for adopting the same approach here, at least in the short term, as one is unlikely to be in a position of sufficient influence to order the completion of large scale carriageway repairs. 
Owners of custom cars, exotics and modifieds have been coping with this for years: it's common to have multiple sets of wheels and tyres, one for road and one for show, chopping and changing as is necessary. 
A £1,300 wheel and tyre set (one!), as the OP has, is veering into specialist territory.  

caprikid1

"More rubbish. The roads of Britain should be suitable for the vehicles of Britain. A low profiled tyre that is legal should expect to drive around without issue in most cases"
There is no limit on how low I can slam a car legally , can I claim for speed bump or pothole damage ? This is no requirement for how little suspension travel I can have , can I claim for teeth or split lip damage ?
Just because you can spec it or buy it does not mean you should, do my taxes need to pay for glass smooth roads because someone liked hot wheels cars as a child and now wishes their real car to look like one ?.

AdrianC

Quite.

Take two wheels of the same rolling radius - one a 30 profile 20", one a slightly narrower 50 profile 17". The 17" has a sidewall that's 50% taller than the 20".

And that's before we think about the different construction methods of the tyres, and how that'll mean that the taller sidewall is more flexibly constructed, too.

Yes, ultimately, there may be grip benefits from the very low profile tyre. But on track, not in road use - and at levels that are way above even the casual track-day user is going to be capable of exploiting. Meanwhile, the lower profile tyre is going to give a much less harsh ride, and is going to stand up to road surface issues much, MUCH better.

But people still want 20" 30 profiles, because of the cosmetics. Then they complain when the inevitable happens and think it should be everybody else's problem.