r999

I noticed that, as it happens. Is that an excuse for saying whatever comes into your head and then thinking you ought to be immune from a challenge? Never been calmer, but thanks for your good wishes. Ah, I thought you just did. Thanks for the correction. On the contrary, your claim that there is roughly 150 mm between classes of car was wrong to begin with and has not 'stood' at any point. 'Pedant' is an insult used by people who are annoyed at someone showing they have been sloppy or inaccurate or careless. QED.

So you think that there is no significant difference between 'roughly the same size' and 'roughly twice as big'.

If they were directional, they would have an arrow on the sidewall indicating the direction of rotation. Usually the word 'Rotation' is next to the arrow.

A 5-series is 275mm longer than a 3-series, nearly twice as big a difference as you claim.

This ought to translate : http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.adac.de/infotestrat/tests/reifen/sommerreifen/2013_Sommerreifen_Test_225_45_R17.aspx%3FComponentId%3D160352%26SourcePageId%3D31821 except for the following words embedded in the image: Urteil = verdict, judgment Trocken = dry Nass = wet Geräusch = noise Kraftstoffverbrauch = fuel usage Verschleiß =wear

The full results of that particular test, with each tyre scored for dry grip, wet grip, noise/comfort, fuel economy, and wear, are available here without a subscription and without any infringement of copyright: http://www.adac.de/infotestrat/tests/reifen/sommerreifen/2013_Sommerreifen_Test_225_45_R17.aspx?ComponentId=160352&SourcePageId=31821 This is because the Which? tests are done in association with ADAC (which I think is their way of saying they rely almost entirely on the German facilities and expertise). However, the ADAC final rankings differ from those in the Which? table posted above because the two organisations weight the criteria differently. The Which? rankings give more weight to wet grip, less to dry grip and less to longevity.

May I suggest caution in posting detailed results as in post #9. Even though that is not the full results table with scores for each tyre attribute, it is a complete table and so it is in breach of the provisions of the Copyright Act, which I for my part always try to observe. The 'fair dealing' provisions of the Act allow one to go a bit further than I did in #7, but not much.

This may not be very relevant unless anyone is considering buying tyres with 'Eco' in the name, in which case it is a bit of a shocker: Watch it through to 5 min 40 sec and see how a premium-brand 'Eco' tyre did a lot worse in wet braking than a no-name brand, and how an ill-assorted collection of part-worn tyres beat them both, since two of them were winters. There's a price to pay for buying 'Eco', i.e. for maximising a tyre's fuel economy, and I had no idea how big a price it was till I watched this. The clip begins in mid-sentence, but it becomes clear later which set of tyres is which.

The April issue of Which?, as I've said on another thread, has some very helpful tests of tyres in a size almost identical to the Yeti summer tyre. If longevity matters to you so much that you're willing to settle for a mediocre tyre in all other respects, the current winner is probably the Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 2 K117, which had a projected life on the Which? test car of 52,900 miles. If you want to balance very good longevity with good performance (not the best) in the other attributes, i.e. wet and dry braking, wet and dry handling, noise, and fuel economy, then the current best compromise appears to be the Pirelli Cinturato P7, with a projected life on the same car of 49,500 miles. The street price is high, though. If you want the best tyre of the day in all respects except wear, it is the Continental ContiSportContact 5, with a projected life on the same car of 31,000 miles (which is average in this test). The Dunlop SP Sport 01, a factory fitment, is a dated tyre, as is the Pirelli P Zero Rosso, and I'd suggest you can easily do better. The Kumho Ecsta Le Sport KU39 has mediocre performance all round including mediocre longevity. Please note: (1) projected tyre lives in miles quoted above are not for the Yeti, where they will almost certainly be a good deal lower, but I give them so that you can compare tyres on a rational basis instead of an anecdotal one. (2) I have not checked which of the above are currently available in 225/50 R 17 except for the Conti. (3) the suggestions above are based primarily on the most recent test by Which? but also on other properly-conducted tests over recent years and some experience of my own.

No doubt that's true of highland Austria. However, in a week in Vienna recently, I saw very few Yetis. I did see a huge number of other makes of car on black steel wheels and no wheel trims at all to go with the compulsory winter tyres. Nobody in that stylish capital thinks black steel wheels need dressing up.

I can see why you'd be concerned. Better make an appointment with your GP. Or vet, maybe.

Thank you, Dom. Just think, Bobdog: if I had been your head of department, you could have taken early retirement so much sooner. Would have, in fact.

That is candid of you and it deserves an equally candid reply, though I am reluctant to describe how fortunate I have been in case it seems immodest. But I'll take the risk, to bring a close to my part in this thread, even though it may not please some. Aged 62. Semi-retired. Was head of a UK university department (modesty and privacy do not permit saying which one, or how it rates in the league tables.) Author of four books and 50 academic articles, the most recent book being a 700-page study published by Oxford University Press in 2012 and co-authored with two others who take more of the credit than me. Author of software that sells in 62 countries and keeps me busy supporting its users. The rest of my time is now spent managing a family trust and trying to look after the financial and property assets of my mother, children, and grandchildren; and travelling with my wife. Cars are a hobby.

In this thread, that is true; you have been polite. If we go back somewhat further, to the ridicule you heaped on my earlier contributions, than either you have a short memory or you are deluding yourself. I don't object in any way to you taking issue with me, whether you are polite or less so. I am probably older than most here, and I belong to an age (and a profession) where discussion was robust and speech was plain. Nowadays most people, as we see here, value polite gestures and condemn their opposite more than they care about facts or realities. I am not going to change, so the rest of you can man up or console each other in your beer. As I say, you are welcome to take issue with me as robustly or politely as you like. But if you think you are free of the sins you detect in me, you are - as I say - deluding yourself. Same goes for the person who accused me of patronage while doing it himself: several of you need to see yourselves in a mirror, and from time to time I have given in to the temptation to provide it. The huffing and puffing we have seen in the last day or so is the rage of Caliban looking in his glass, as Shakespeare so trenchantly put it.

You speak as if (1) you owned this place (2) I was posting here as a newcomer and (3) you are enfranchised to speak for everyone except me. In other words, you patronise. Please take another look at how you put your views across. Now where did I read that?