Tires, tires, tires

paisan · May 2007

There are HUGE implications, and I think the bottom line: a lot of tires are "prematurely" retired. In fact the consequences is more for added profit than "real safety"

My tires generally will lose grip long before the tread is gone. Perhaps I push my cars harder than the average driver, but for the price of tires, I keep mine 30-40k or 3 years or until I can feel the grip being lost. I drive the same roads day in and day out. If I feel myself losing traction on a particular turn, I can pretty much bank on the fact that I need tires and it's usually long before the tread is gone.

-mike
Motorsports and Tuning Host

ruking1 · May 2007

Well I think this would be an interesting discussion. First of all I FULLY understand what you are saying and post. BUT... to explore the options fully....what do YOU really mean? If you start with 10-12/32nds, do you need tires at 8/32nds? As you and most folks know, 2/32nds is the definition of legally bald.

On a more practical level, a good driver adjusts their driving styles and expectations, given the plethora of variables. So for example, I would do your SAME roads in anyone of 5 cars....

paisan · May 2007

Hmm, I don't know what "depth" the tires are at. I generally will drive them until they feel slippery, and a look at the tires indicates they are no where near the wear bars at that point.

For example if I'm taking a particular exit ramp at 55 normally and then for 3 or 4 days I notice I can only take it at 45, all other variables being the same, I can pretty confidently say it's my tires causing the issue and it might be time to replace them. Being a race car driver, I drive very consistently, as anyone who races knows that it's not a single lap that tells the tale of a winning race, it is the driver who can consistently turn decent lap times that wins. So I carry this over to my daily driving routine as well.

-mike
Motorsports and Tuning Host

jipster · May 2007

I'm not a tire expert, but it would seem to me that a new tire out of the factory will have superior gripping power over the same set of tires that have been on a vehicle 3 or 4 years with very low miles. Hard rubber will tend to skid more... as opposed to fresh rubber will will tend to stick more. So, the fact that a tire has little or no tred is immaterial on dry surface. The quality and condition of the rubber in the tire is more important.

ruking1 · May 2007

I would swag your driving style is a tire vendor's DREAM!! I would also swag that you are in a very very thin minority. Not bad, not good, but certainly more expensive than most folks would care to bear.

mz6greyghost · May 2007

As a racecar driver, I believe you are way way off-base here. First race tires don't have tread, yes, but the compound is setup to take the heat generated from having all that rolling resistance, also as race tires wear down, they get more slippery, even in the dry, despite the fact that there is no tread left.

You just said it yourself, race car tires don't have tread. So therefore, the tires get more slippery due to the compound of the tires deteriorating. It absolutely has nothing to do with tread, since, as you stated, race car tires don't have tread in the first place.

Tire compound and age notwithstanding, pathstar is still correct:

On dry road worn tires actually have better grip than new tires. Only when the tread is needed (on slippery surfaces) is it better.

ruking1 · May 2007

Right. The real reason for "tread" is to spin off rain, light snow, etc., to lessen the factors contributing to hydro planing

imidazol97 · May 2007

There are many factors as whether particular tire will be adquate in gripping at a later point in its wear life than another brand. The depth of the tread is a factor because the shorter the tread ridges become the less give there is between any one ridge and the high or low spots in the road. The older rubber becomes less forgiving and the tire loses grip more easily during cornering or braking on uneven roads--not racetracks.

Most of us aren't driving our cars like race cars and several of us here are talking about maneuvers like racing type driving.

I'll say that a person atuned to their car's behavior as tires wear, will determine that deeper treads on front may help them more; others may want the deeper treads on the back and assume the modifications to their driving style that shallower front treads mandate. I.e., I'm driving on tires with 4 years of age and about 30% of their tread depth. They have become noisier on certain textured concrete because of same. I am vacillating among putting on new Harmony tires and doing two only or doing none before out first summer trip of 350 miles early June. I accept that radical lane changes in rain won't be as grippy and that slowing down at the least amount of water on the road will be necessary if I continue with these tires and a partially worn tread> I have the deepest on the front.

paisan · May 2007

You just said it yourself, race car tires don't have tread. So therefore, the tires get more slippery due to the compound of the tires deteriorating. It absolutely has nothing to do with tread, since, as you stated, race car tires don't have tread in the first place.

Tire compound and age notwithstanding, pathstar is still correct:

Correct but then saying that a bald bias ply tire or a non-rubber tire with no treads would also be correct. It's just not a fact that is relavent in any tire discussion as the heat build up of a tire with no treads would destroy the tire and leave you in a far worse spot.

So if you want to talk about 1 particular aspect in a vacum including a CLEAN road etc. You are correct. This would be akin to saying a super narrow tire gets better gas milage than a "normal" tire. Which in a vacum is correct, however in the real practical world isn't a consideration.

-mike

paisan · May 2007

I would swag your driving style is a tire vendor's DREAM!! I would also swag that you are in a very very thin minority. Not bad, not good, but certainly more expensive than most folks would care to bear.

Small price to pay to be safe. I not only follow this routine on my "performance" daily driver (Legacy GT Wagon) and my race-prepped car (94 Legacy Turbo) but also on my tow vehicle (04 Armada) and my trailers (Flatbed car hauler and triple axle boat trailer).

-mike

sandman46 · May 2007

I usually swap out our tires if the treads are wearing a bit, usually use the Lincoln penny method, or if any skidding occurs in the rain. My wife has accussed me of swapping out a bit too early, but I don't want any tire issues to crop up, especially for her or the kids. Could probaly wait a bit longer sometimes, but the peace of mind is well worth it to me.
Funny thing is that when she has a tire issue, like this past December when she ran over a huge piece of metal which obliterated the tire and cracked an alloy rim, I get the phone call to drop what I was doing and take care of the problem. She just wanted to replace the destroyed tire and the other worn one on the same axle, but since the other 2 had only about 3k miles left according to the tire guy, I just purchased all four. I still got grief about waiting the 3 extra months to purchase the other 2, but we were already there and I knew I'd have that peace of mind with all the tires being the same brand and same tread.

The Sandman

ruking1 · May 2007

Well for sure, safety can be an issue. But I think in both our cases it is NOT. And I thought I had it bad to have to monitor 24 tires and up!

paisan · May 2007

I just counted up and I'm looking at something like 30+ tires especially with 3 or 4 sets for the race car alone.

-mike

ruking1 · May 2007

In my old age, I am trying to cut down the amount of monitoring!!!

gasman1 · May 2007

The dry pavement tires discussion is interesting to say the least. IMHO - Most people would (or should) err on the side of caution and replace tires before they become slicks. There are several reasons for this:

1. Tread less tires on public streets/highways are illegal. (I'm sure someone may find an exception to this, but why?)
2. Slick tires may have more traction on dry pavement. Does that mean that the driver will only drive on dry pavement? (no rain in sight)
3. Once tread less or slick, I can imagine that tire wear will increase. How does one determine how long to long to drive on this type of tire.
4. Someone mentioned the expense of replacing tires to early. Early replacement is surely less expensive than replacing them to late. What happens when the accident investigator determines that "bald" "slick" "tread less" tires were a contributing factor to the accident? Can the driver receive a citation? Can the insurance company use this "failure to maintain minimum safety standards" or some similar term as a good reason to cancel the policy holder?

paisan · May 2007

1. Tread less tires on public streets/highways are illegal. (I'm sure someone may find an exception to this, but why?)

Yes these do exist, "DOT Race Tires" which essentially are race tire slicks with 2-grooves down the middle of the tire. But as you said you don't want to drive on them in Rain, Snow, Cold or and this is a big or, any kind of dirt, pebbles, or "road grime"

They are DOT Legal in name alone.

-mike

capriracer · May 2007

I hope we haven't forgotten that the issue is hyrdoplaning.

With that in mind, it's pretty much all about tread depth. Tread compound, whether hard or soft, is almost immaterial.

paisan · May 2007

Actually we are talking about dry-weather tires. Discussing how "bald" tires may or may not grip better. What I'm saying is that the tire compounds on not-made for racing tires would not withstand the heat generated by the rolling resistance of a bald tire.

-mike

kyfdx · May 2007

...we were discussing which axle to put the best pair of tires..

I still vote for the rear... (or from the rear?..lol)

capriracer · May 2007

"......What I'm saying is that the tire compounds on not-made for racing tires would not withstand the heat generated by the rolling resistance of a bald tire.

-mike

......."

Here's more fuel for the fire:

RR in bald tires is better than unworn tires, so the heat build up would be less.

?????

paisan · May 2007

RR in bald tires is better than unworn tires, so the heat build up would be less.

Ok you are right, let's all ride around on bald tires. Whatever floats your boat.

-mike

ruking1 · May 2007

Well I think no, but I think the legal definition of bald (2/32 nd's) needs to be looked at in a different light. So for example, in FL where it can rain multiple times in a day, closer to 2/32nds and beyond would be an issue (hydroplanning frequency potential) . Conversely, how many times in a YEAR does it rain in the Mojave Desert?

pathstar1 · May 2007

Please read my post again. I said worn tires, not bald tires. I would never advocate driving -AT ANY SPEED- on bald tires. I'm talking of tires with more than 2/32" tread, but still almost "worn out". I don't know how many tire manufacturers do it, but some put stickier compound -under- the final tire tread surface (Bridgestone has advertised that they do this). This is to compensate for loss of tread function as they wear.

At any rate, as the tread wears, you usually end up with more rubber on the road, hence more traction, except on slippery surfaces, and excluding ice, where more rubber actually equates to better traction. Better traction is due to the tread usually being wider the closer to the tire base you get. Tires are made this way to reduce "tread squirm". On a new tire, tread squirm can reduce traction as well. It can also result in tire heating. See below re racing on street tires.

Now some of you have alluded to "harder rubber". This is usually caused by heat cycling/aging. It is another matter entirely from tread "wear", but I suppose it should be taken into account.

It's true "racing tires" loose traction as they wear. It's not true street tires do. In fact, in racing classes that require street tires, the tires are usually shaved to reduce the tread to the minimum specified in the rules. Street tires loose traction only when they harden or you wear through the "good" compound rubber. This is a complex subject and I would grant Paisan some street tires will loose traction as the tread wears, but in my experience, most do not, again, on dry roads.

This is obviously a popular topic, judging by how many posts have been made.

ruking1 · May 2007

..."Now some of you have alluded to "harder rubber". This is usually caused by heat cycling/aging. It is another matter entirely from tread "wear", but I suppose it should be taken into account. "...

I would attribute part of the perception to imprecision in written conversation. So as a result of wear, I do not think the "hard rubber" perception is as much as the rubber actually gets harder, but that there is actually PHYSICALLY LESS rubber!!!. An easy example: new tires starts out at between 10-14/32nds. Closer to legally bald (2/32nds) there is between 8-12/32nds LESS rubber.

paisan · May 2007

It's true "racing tires" loose traction as they wear. It's not true street tires do. In fact, in racing classes that require street tires, the tires are usually shaved to reduce the tread to the minimum specified in the rules. Street tires loose traction only when they harden or you wear through the "good" compound rubber. This is a complex subject and I would grant Paisan some street tires will loose traction as the tread wears, but in my experience, most do not, again, on dry roads.

While I agree somewhat with what you are saying, in racing what actually happens is that DOT Legal Race tires with an R-compound but treads will be shaved to the min depth allowed. The compound on these tires is still setup for racing and the heat buildup involved. My experience on-track with street tires is that tires which are more worn will heat up and lose traction quicker than new street tires. Here is an example, Watkins Glen International Raceway. My racecar was setup the same, similar weather, etc. In the spring, we went out with new high performance street tires on the car and after say 10-12 laps the tires would begin to get squirely and overheated. Same car setup in the fall, same weather, now with fairly used street tires but not bald ones, we could only get 5-6 laps out of them before they got squirely. We were also running similar lap times as well so we weren't pushing them any harder in the fall as opposed to the spring.

Now was this a result of the heat cycles on the tires or the lack of tread on them? I would argue that it doesn't matter because the lack of tread is inherintly going to go hand in hand with more heat cycles.

-mike

luck11 · May 2007

Hi. Have a 2005 Subaru Outback XTL. Changed out my OEM Potenza's after yr 1, because, frankly they sucked.

Put on Falken 512 last spring, and after 5,000 miles, the outer edges were worn. I know they wear quickly, but this is ridiculous. I kept inflated 2 lbs over recommended, and check of alignment says all is OK. My winters are not exhibiting such wear, nor did my Potenza's.

I'm getting credit for the Falkens, but I have to use it towards Goodyear, Falken or Dunlop. Nothing with Dunlop really excites me. So I have it down to either another set of Falkens or switching to the new Responsedge. The Goodyears will run be an extra $65 a pop.

Any thoughts?

paisan · May 2007

I've never had good luck with Goodyears nor Falkens other than the AzenisSports. One of my all time favorite tires are the Dunlop SP5000s however.

-mike

blufz1 · May 2007

Read the reviews on tirerack.com. If it's still a close call pick the tire with the longer warranty.

krzyss · May 2007

I have bought 3 sets of them for 2 different cars.

Krzys

krzyss · May 2007

and counting and I bought 4 sets of Dunlop SP5000 for 3 different cars (3 asymmetric and 1 symmetric).

Krzys

paisan · May 2007

Read the reviews on tirerack.com. If it's still a close call pick the tire with the longer warranty.

Take them with a grain of salt. I found a few on there with excellent ratings that were actually prety poor tires. Often times folks get a new set of tires and they are better than their outgoing tires with 60,000 miles on them simply because they are new and get a false positive rating.

-mike

pathstar1 · May 2007

Here's one for those of you "in the industry". On another forum, a few Prius owners, who are "hypermilers" are inflating their Goodyear Integrities way over the max. pressure on the sidewall, all the way up to 50 - 60 PSI range. Just how dangerous is this? We're talking of the 2004 to present Prius model, with P185/65R15 size Goodyear Integrities (OEM tires).

ruking1 · May 2007

I am not in the industry, nor have a Prius. I do have a Civic with 185/70/14. The oem tire has a max side wall pressure of 51 psi. I started with 85% at 43/44psi and the tire was WAY too hard and had squirrelly handling. Indeed the oem 100 mph recommendation for this tire is at 35 psi. Most of those folks who do the hyper milers get up to 45 mph, so the concerns are probably not having a higher speed blow out. Over inflation is dangerous on many levels.

imidazol97 · May 2007

>folks get a new set of tires and they are better than their outgoing tires with 60,000 miles on them simply because they are new

I second that finding about TireRack reviews. They didn't like some of the tires I was checking. Turns out they are excellent tires.

capriracer · May 2007

Well, I am "in the industry" and conventional wisdom says that the more pressure you use, the more likely you are to experience a puncture and an impact blowout.

Within a reasonable range of the placard pressure, the risk is fairly low, but the further you get away the placard pressure, the risk rises fairly rapidly.

If you couple that with the fact that the first 5 psi over the placard has a larger effect on RR than the next 5 psi - then anything over that has a decreasing effect.

Besides, there is a good reason why tire manufacturers put a maximum pressure on the sidewall. This is all about risk. I would hate it if someone were to experience an impact failure at high speed and lose their life, just in the interests of saving a few bucks in fuel.

pathstar1 · May 2007

It seems to be a bit of a competition. So far no reports of blowouts or punctures. The "norm" is to overinflate to 42PSI front 40 rear to improve mileage (non-hypermilers) - I think the door placard is 38/36 or thereabouts. A few are in the 50s and 60s. One is above that (he didn't want to say how much above). They do drive on interstates as well. One guy was on Discovery Channel's Daily Planet. They rode with him and held on tightly as he wouldn't slow much on corners (to preserve momentum), tires howling as he went around.

Funny!

Oh, and they're getting above 70 MPG, some way above. Just don't get caught behind one of these guys. They tend to drive slow most of the time.

Please don't judge all Prius owners by these guys actions. Most drive the cars "normally" and get 45 - 50 MPG avg or so.

Based on a half year of owner reports it appears that with the Prius, anyway, a tire that has good traction and feels in control will get poorer mileage than a tire most of us would get rid of due to poor traction. The Integrities are a good example. Poor in rain, lowsy in snow/ice. Not even confidence inspiring on dry roads, but good fuel economy. They are in constant search of LRR tires (low running resistance) - but ones that have some traction.

okko1 · May 2007

i would agree that going from 32psi to 35psi is of not much of a problem but what i see to much of is max cold inflation just because the tire sayes 44psi. this can cause traction issues and ride problems. recomended inflations address spring rate and other suspention tuning element that are grouped by design. most common affendor 3/4ton truck owners with 10ply tires

luck11 · May 2007

Thanks everyone. I ended up going with the Falkens again after all. I had to pay (cdn dollars) $25 per tire to get a new set of Falkens vs $100 per to get the Goodyear or Dunlops. The thought of spending another $460 for a new set of tires after dishing out $700+ last year, was not that appealing. I like the Falkens....they corner well and are awesome in heavy rain. The problem is they wear quickly. Hopefully I'll have better luck with these Falkens and they last at least 2 summers (I don't use them in winter), after which, I will likely trade in for a new car.

landrjo · May 2007

I am about to put my 4th and 5th new tires on my 06 Camry. Is there a history of allignment problems with this model, or do I need to be looking at something else?

capriracer · May 2007

Landrjo,

I think we need some more info.

Has the alignment been checked? If so, were the values "in spec" or right on nominal? Most factory alignment tolerances are too wide. Plus it is possible for a vehicle to leave the factory with misalignment.

Did you rotate your tires regularly? Front tires on a FWD wear 2 1/2 times faster than the rears. Plus certain driving conditions can cause the front tires to wear the shoulders more rapidly than the centers.

What was the wear pattern? One sided wear, center wear, etc?

What about inflation pressure? Low pressure can cause tires to wear prematurely.

How many miles do you get from a set. And why are we talking about 4th and 5th? Shouldn't we be talking about 3rd and 4th?

All these will help diagnose what may be going on.

Plus how many

laurasdada · May 2007

I'm getting close to replacing the much-maligned Bridgestone Turanza EL42s on my '05 TL. Looking at Kumho Ecsta ASX, Continental ExtremeContacts, Michelin Pilot A/S, Toyo Proxes4 and others as reviewed on TireRack and local retailer. Any experience & thoughts on any of these? Especially regarding snow traction (light/heavy)?

okko1 · May 2007

if it's a TL what does snow traction have to do with you choice. most tl cars come with above normal speed rating witch puts the tire in dry weather traction rating . if snoww and ice are major issues for more than 20% of winter drive times consider mich. blizz. the pilot as is just what is sayes it is an all season tire by nature one season compromises another maybe you need two types of tires

mz6greyghost · May 2007

If you don't want to invest in snow tires, I'd recommend the Continentals. They've got great traction in snow/slush for an all-season tire. Next on my list would be the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S, then the Kumhos and Toyos.

bremertong · May 2007

I recently traded a 2004 Cadillac Deville for a new 2006 Cadillac DTS. The old car had about 36,000 miles on it at time of trade and 16" tires, the 2006 DTS has 17" tires. I have been getting about 10% lower fuel efficiency on the new car. Both cars carry about the same weight and power stats. Would a substantial part of the lower fuel ecomony be that the 2006 has more tire tread (driven less than a thousand miles) and wider tires?

obyone · May 2007

What about tire pressure?

capriracer · May 2007

I can think of a lot reasons why you might be experiencing lower fuel economy:

* The new vehicle weighs more. It is surpising how much weight can be added between model years in what appears to be identical vehicles.

* The new vehicle has a "tighter" engine and the fuel economy will improve as the engine loosens up.

But since this is a Tire forum, I'll talk about those.

* New tires have higher RR and worn tires, even if they are otherwise identical.

* OE tires tend to have lower RR values than replacement market tires.

* I noticed that a 2006 DTS came with 2 possible tires - a 17" S rated and an 18" H rated, where the 2004 Deville only lists a 16" S rated. Larger diameter rims weigh more and will consume more fuel, plus higher speed rated tires will consume more fuel.

So to directly answer your question, yes, more tread and wider tires will be part of the answer, but I suspect it isn't as much as you think.

And you should be prepared to take another hit when you buy replacement tires.

pathstar1 · May 2007

Here's a partially unrelated question for you capriracer.
If you increase the wheel size (say 15" to 17") the wheel gets heavier, generally. But if you keep the overall diameter the same by going to a lower profile the tire gets lighter.

So as we increase wheel diameter and decrease profile do we have a "valley curve" in overall wheel+tire weight? That is, is there an "optimum" size where the combination weight is lowest? Is there any way to guesstimate where the minimum weight would be?

I'm just thinking in terms of minimum overall weight for max. performance of the suspension, and improvement in performance of the car.

I just purchased a Prius, and here in Edmonton Alberta, with six months of winter, I'll be putting "proper" all-season tires on the car this fall. Probably Nokian WRs. I'm thinking of purchasing 16" wheels for better handling (European and Japanese Prius have them), and possibly slightly wider tires, for a little more load capacity to increase safety on our pothole strewn roads. Keeping overall diameter the same, of course.

laurasdada · May 2007

"if it's a TL what does snow traction have to do with you choice" When you live in New England (or any snow belt), when evaluating your driving situation snow traction should always be a consideration.

Of course, dedicated snows are the ideal and if/when I buy a RWD car more than likely I will have a set of mounted snows just waiting for December to roll around. However, I consciously choose FWD for its advantage in the white gold (snow). I'm a lifelong New Englander/skier/FWD driver. I've done quite well (until the Bridgestones that came with the TL...!) with FWD/All Season tires and, in the latter few years, assorted electronic assists (e.g. Traction Control).

So, as long as I ride FWD, I would prefer to run on one set of tires that have a decent grip in the snow (realizing full well that they are not snow tires). Hence my query.

The Continental's have indeed gotten good reviews by consumer's on The Tire Rack site. But in comparison test, other tires have outperformed overall, the Conti's are rated best in the snow by the consumers, but not tested by Tire Rack in the snow (that I've found yet). If, for example, the Kumho's are higher rated in every category (again, by the Tire Rack tests, e.g. categories including wet & dry handling, comfort, noise...) that would pertain to 95% of my driving, I would like as much real-world review of their snow capabilities as I can find.

OTOH, none of the tires I'm consiering as replacements can be worse than the Bridgestones in the snow, can they? And note, that even with the Bridgestones I have survived two winters without incident due to winter driving skills, FWD, electronic aids and luck. Note that when it's time to head to the mountains of Northern N.E. the TL stays home...!

Thanks for the reply, I've heard nothing but good stuff re: Blizzaks.

laurasdada · May 2007

Thanks, ghost. Are you riding on the Conti's or have experience in the snow with any of the others?

If you're riding the Conti's, how are they as far as noise and ride comfort. Wet/dry grip?

My local tire shop pushes Toyos and frowned when I mentioned Kumhos (they don't sell 'em, could be why!?). Given the Kumho Ecsta ASX write up on Tire Rack, and consumer reviews, they sound like a bargain...

capriracer · May 2007

PathStar1,

You started down the path, but didn't complete the journey.

If the rims are larger diameter, then the difference in weight will be - all other things being equal, which they usually aren't - the difference in circumference plus the difference in the "spider".

For the tire, the difference would be the 2 sidewalls.

So guess what happens to the weight? Larger diameter rims (and tires) will always weigh more - all other things being equal - and this doesn't count that the tire (and rim) needs to be wider in order for the load carrying capacity to be the same.

So to answer your question - there isn't an optimum value except to say that smaller diameter rims would weigh less.

And I think you'll find that if you change the rim diameter and keep the overall diameter the same, the load carrying capacity is also the same, even though the width of the tire changes.

Tires, tires, tires

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles