Good point, I reckon even a brand new cheapo Chinese tyre will outperform a worn branded tyre.

Not a like-for like comparison I know but you can guarantee that the day you most need that extra grip will be the day before you planned to take the car in to have the tyres replaced!

The other problem of course is that most people go from nearly bald tyres to brand new, which regardless of how good or bad, are always going to feel better that the old bald ones.

A new tyre has less rubber in contact with the road, so will give less feel, however, what people notice is the steering been lighter. .

I reckon even a brand new cheapo Chinese tyre will outperform a worn branded tyre.

I'm not so sure about that, it would be down to tread pattern design and compound, just on compound alone I recon the cheapo Chinese would loose at. .

Still, it was good fun sliding round cones and doing energency stops from 80mph on a deserted runway to give you a feel of what happens!!

I can see how that would be fun, if your used to driving them, but not sure it's something I'd enjoy as the largest vehicle I driven is a extra long/high Sprinter van. .

There is a new tyre information sticker that has been launched and is UK law from this month and throughout the EU by November 12.

I would not buy as tyre that is not rated wet grip rating A. Lots of sources of this info and here is one http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Tire_label

"Wet grip-Basis for wet grip is the absolute stopping distance when driving 80km (50 mph-Ed) per hour. Between each class, there are 3-6 metres difference in braking distance. Classes "D" and "G" are not used."

All Michelin summer tyres are rated A wet grip. D rated tyres and below will not even be allowed to be sold it seems.

On the VRSs I would only use the AA traction rated tyres as on the old system. Fabia VRS came with Contis but will be changed to Mich PS3s when down to 3 mm or get fed up with them losing grip, overheating etc.

The 1.2 HTP we have might go over to Michelins ecos but will look carefully at their wet grip rating etc which tends to be not so good and I think they may only get the B wet grip rating similar to Winter tyres often seem to have.

Good to see there is much more information avialable but Michelin say they are already beyond the present scoring system, sounds a bit like GCSEs.

Edited 7 July, 201213 yr by lol

I can see how that would be fun, if your used to driving them, but not sure it's something I'd enjoy as the largest vehicle I driven is a extra long/high Sprinter van. .

To be fair, that's why they get you to chuck it round an airfield or some large area so that you have a better idea of how to handle it in certain situations. It's great fun if you enjoy driving as I do, and good experience. Only thing I was gutted about was that they used to take the trucks to Wisley to whirl round on a wet skid pan, but they took that out of the two week course a few years before I took it.

Good to see there is much more information avialable but Michelin say they are already beyond the present scoring system, sounds a bit like GCSEs.

The tyre lable's were a great idea, mainly to highlight how poor some budget's maybe, however, it's at gone a little wrong at the moment as no tyre was going to be graded A or above to begin with, but Pirelli have AA, Toyo, Kumho, Hankook and Goodyear Dunlop have all been given A , I've not seen anyresults pulished for Michelin yet, but Michelin have never claimed to have the best tyre's for grip. .

I thought I'd replied ,but can't find any answer .

Car miles /roads/ conditions. Last car I had had makers origonals on rear. They'd done 60k, on the rear of a FWD car. Still well legal on depth. Then my tyre fitter checked the in between the tread area- full of cracks. They'd been good tyres, but to fit them again on rear could be false economy. I drove mostly A class roads ,with the average limit approx 60 . No motorway driving, and I know about aquaplaning. So decent quality budgests went on rear ( after all it's to all effects a trailer). On front, with FWD, something better was needed .

Little Furby had makers low speed rated tyres all round. They didn't last long on the sunken road gulleys in this town. And I'm not a fan of having a tyre speed rated just below the max speed a car can do, so all four got ditched, using the principles above. This time, the front got better quality ,as it's got to cope with a heavy set up .

I'd suggest finding a tyre bloke you trust to give you impartial info .

To be fair, the guy i've been getting my tyres from for years said last year that soon it's gonna make little difference which brand you choose for tread pattern as, and I have to remember this correctly, he said something along the lines that the EU are/were trying to make them all fit within certain guidelines and this basically would restrict the differences to very little, so they're all gonna be very similar thanks to that!

Someone might be able to confirm or deny that though.

The tyre lable's were a great idea, mainly to highlight how poor some budget's maybe, however, it's at gone a little wrong at the moment as no tyre was going to be graded A or above to begin with, but Pirelli have AA, Toyo, Kumho, Hankook and Goodyear Dunlop have all been given A , I've not seen anyresults pulished for Michelin yet, but Michelin have never claimed to have the best tyre's for grip. .

The Michelin Super sport is the quickest dry weather tyre on the market at the moment but its wet weather performance is not so good so the PS3 is the better compromise. Michelin is the best choice (not a German or other tyre) IMO, chosen by Audi at Le Mans, good enough for me aso Tyre review... http://www.tyrerevie...r-Tyre-Test.htm

Even when it came forth it was reckoned to be the best blend of comfort and precision http://www.tyrerevie...-Tyre-Test.htm.

Used on cars from the Veyron downwards rather than Bridgestone, Conti, Pirelli who are finding FI and MotoGP are not always the best way to advertise!

Edited 8 July, 201213 yr by lol

There is a new tyre information sticker that has been launched and is UK law from this month and throughout the EU by November 12.

Personally I don't think the labelling system will make any difference to 99 percent of drivers - lets face it people don't wander round thier local tyre fitters looking at the tyres on offer like they do with fridges do they? So the only time they'll see the label is after the tyre has been fitted...???

And as has been shown by many of the posts on here, many people buy a 'brand' or a 'price' regardless of how the tyre actually performs...

Dying to have a crack at those Eagle's: they've got an almost perfect rating on there AND in magazine reviews!

The Michelin Super sport is the quickest dry weather tyre on the market at the moment but its wet weather performance is not so good so the PS3 is the better compromise. Michelin is the best choice (not a German or other tyre) IMO, chosen by Audi at Le Mans, good enough for me aso Tyre review... http://www.tyrerevie...r-Tyre-Test.htm

Even when it came forth it was reckoned to be the best blend of comfort and precision http://www.tyrerevie...-Tyre-Test.htm.

Used on cars from the Veyron downwards rather than Bridgestone, Conti, Pirelli who are finding FI and MotoGP are not always the best way to advertise!

Were can I find the information that the super sport is the quickest dry tyre together with there ratings? Its true Michelin tyre's offer the greatest comfort (soft sidewall's) do the most mile's (hard compound) and without checking they might also offer the most fuel efficient (design), but there are always going to be trade off's to offer that and we all like/want different things, for me I'm not keen on how the PS2's just snap out in the wet, they lack feel (soft sidewall) and are far from progrerssive, but I am been pety, so I won't go into Michelin's balance issue's. I've read lots of reports of people complaning the PS3 is no were near as good as the PS2, I think that might be what they are looking into at the moment.

Dying to have a crack at those Eagle's: they've got an almost perfect rating on there AND in magazine reviews!

Goodyears have always struggled in the wet but, I have to say the Eagle F1's IMO is the best all round tyre you can buy at the moment or the Hankoooook S1 evo2. .

Just like when you buy a washing machine, there's a label attatched to the front, on tyres from November 2012 I it starts, fuel, wet grip & noise rating, should see some of the shocking cheap budgets off, Bridgestone & Toyo are starting there label's this week.

Sorry to drag this back, but do you know who is providing the data for the stickers? or testing it?

I wondered a while ago why there wasn't a better system for comparing tyres since they are so important.

EDIT: I used my googlefu and found this article about it from which.

Shame there is nothing about wear rates though.

http://www.which.co....abel-for-tyres/

The energy label for tyres

Tyre energy label

We’ve been talking to drivers* about the impending tyre labelling system and nine out of 10 we spoke to weren’t aware of it at all. Given that more than eight out of 10 of them have purchased tyres in the last two years (and are presumably likely to buy again in the next), it’s important for all consumers to understand what it means.

The aim of the labelling system is broadly similar to the aim of all energy labels (as already seen on household goods and even on cars), which is to give consumers an indication of which products are the most economical before they buy.

As well as being a handy comparison tool, the label gives manufacturers an incentive to produce tyres with better ratings. This has worked for domestic appliances, where the level of improvement has meant the authorities have had to re-evaluate the rating scales, once all manufacturers are producing towards the top end of the scale.

What information is included?

The label will be applied to all new tyres, whether they are optional ones, sold when you buy the vehicle or aftermarket replacements.

Tyre suppliers are obliged to provide the information in any technical promotional material, including leaflets, brochures and on the internet. Retailers must ensure it is visible to buyers at point of sale – using a sticker or label like the one shown below (minimum size allowed is 7.5cm x 11cm), that the buyer can see before buying.

Every label must display all three ratings in the format shown:

1) Fuel efficiency

This is a measure of the tyre’s rolling resistance, carried out on a calibrated test rig. The lower the rolling resistance the better the fuel economy. The ratings relate to the table below.

Click here to see what the ratings mean (opens in a new window)

2) Wet grip

This has been added, because while most makers can make tyres with very low rolling resistance, this will be at the expense of grip.

Adding the grip rating to the label ensures tyre manufacturers don't compromise grip in order to get a good energy rating. The rating is based on wet braking in a straight line, carried out to a standard method on a controlled wet surface.

The wet grip rating is based on a standardised wet braking test. In reality, the braking distance depends on a host of additional factors, (like the efficiency of the anti-lock braking system and the tyre loadings for example), but industry analysts have estimated that using a grade A tyres over a Grade G ones (assuming all four tyres are fitted) can result in a vehicle stopping in 30% shorter a distance.

This is a useful indicator, but is nowhere near as comprehensive as our own wet grip assessments, which consider both straight-line braking and traction and resistance to aquaplaning in bends.

3) Noise

Noise has also been added, essentially treating this as another environmental concern.

Exterior noise levels are split into three categories and the figure is the noise level measured in decibel (dB). The curved bars coming out of the tyre show it in comparison with the new European tyre exterior maximum noise levels to be introduced until 2016 (72dB).

1 black sound wave = 3dB less than the future tighter European limit (very quiet).

2 black sound waves = already compliant with the future European limit (fairly quiet).

3 black sound waves = compliant with the current European limit but not with the new one (noisiest allowable).

While it will help drive noise levels down, we consider this less useful to owners, (and perhaps more relevant to their neighbours!), as it is based on a track side measurement of exterior tyre noise.

Most owners will never experience the noise from this perspective and are unlikely to be inclined to change their choice based on this rating. Our own noise assessments are of more use to buyers, as they consider measured exterior noise, and interior tyre noise, subjectively assessed by two testers in the car.

Wear's the missing rating

When we asked drivers* what they thought about the label, 71% told us it would be likely to influence their buying decisions.

However, when asked about which factors were most important, price, grip and tyre life came out as top priorities. One person commented "I want safety and economy, the grading system ought to help with this. Safety in the wet is more important - economy is no good if you are dead."

When thinking about noise, just 64% of people thought noise was important, while nearly a third specifically rated it as not important. Wear was considered important by 91% of respondents, while just 6% said it was unimportant.

Fortunately for Which? subscribers, we offer the only independent test results for tyre wear in the UK, allowing you to compare tyres on this important factor before buying.

*Which? surveyed 1,291 UK consumers (general public) in October 2011. It also surveyed 2,742 Which? members to find out how likely it was that the new labelling system will affect their decision making processes when they next buy tyres...

Thanks for that information DBT85, really interesting.

I think that it is obvious to all, that tyres are a compromise, and you have to make your choice based on your intended use. Just like Formula 1 racing, if you live in the UK, then you are not going to get away with the "Super soft" dry tyre. If you do most of your driving on motorways, then you need a combination of longevity, low noise and grip. If you are enthusiastic and have deep pockets, then you may want a super sticky set of Yokohama or Toyo - but don't expect them to last very long.

I got a ragging from some people on another forum, because I used Pirelli P6000s for years on a variety of vehicles (FWD and RWD) and never had any problems with grip. There were comments like - "they are ditchfinders", and "I wouldn't like to be stuck behind you mate, accident waiting to happen" - absolutely stupid, inane remarks, and based on - what?

My current tyres on the Octavia are Barum Bravuris, and they seem fine, maybe a bit of extra noise, but rock steady, no hint of understeer, and I think that they may last as well.

I reckon tyre choice is very much like choosing a new driver for playing golf. Many people are swayed by peer pressure, advertising, perceived superiority.

Goodyears have always struggled in the wet

Except of course the Goodyear Hydragrip - which was originally the Goodyear Eagle Ventura...

Were can I find the information that the super sport is the quickest dry tyre together with there ratings? Its true Michelin tyre's offer the greatest comfort (soft sidewall's) do the most mile's (hard compound) and without checking they might also offer the most fuel efficient (design),

Cannot find that 2010 TUV article, seems to have vanished. I imagine it was Bridgestone, Conti, Dunlop, Goodyear and Pirelli in the test.

The Conti CS5 is suppose to be very good, the Bridgestone S001 good but not great.

Goodyear Eagle F1 Assymetric 2 very good review but pipped in the dry by the Michelin Super Sport in the dry according to Tyre Review....

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2012-Sport-Auto-Summer-Tyre-Test.htm

Definately need diferent tyres for widely different weather conditions.