I'm having trouble working out a price differential here.

225/50 R17 98H XL is £127.50 on mytyres - (extra load capacity, multiple ply)

225/50 R17 94V is £148.70 on mytyres - OEM size

I can't understand why a seemingly higher spec tyre is cheaper than a lesser spec (and OEM size)

Anyone give me a sensible explanation please?

I can't understand why a seemingly higher spec tyre is cheaper than a lesser spec (and OEM size)

Because it's not a higher-spec tyre.

The cheaper one is H-rated to 130 mph, the more expensive one V-rated to 149 mph.

Simple supply and demand also play a part.

Look just how expensive winter tyres become when everybody wants them.

Because it's not a higher-spec tyre.

The cheaper one is H-rated to 130 mph, the more expensive one V-rated to 149 mph.

Yes, I know that thanks - a bit irrelevant as I can't do more that 70 mph

Extra plies, extra load capacity - and cheaper?

Supply and demand - still struggling to make sense of the price difference. I may not want the larger load capacity, just intrigued as to the price variation.

Yes, I know that thanks - a bit irrelevant as I can't do more that 70 mph

Extra plies, extra load capacity - and cheaper?

Just what is it you are struggling to understand? It is cheaper to make a tyre that can carry extra load than it is to make a tyre that can withstand higher speed. They do tend to fly apart at higher speed. You appear to think that they should cost no more just because you personally won't be driving that fast.

The tyre with a higher load capacity may be the version for vans. They tend to have additional reinforcement but are not rated for higher speeds.

Just what is it you are struggling to understand? It is cheaper to make a tyre that can carry extra load than it is to make a tyre that can withstand higher speed. They do tend to fly apart at higher speed. You appear to think that they should cost no more just because you personally won't be driving that fast.

Mmm. not sure about that though either. The speed difference is only 15% - academic really at the quoted maximum speeds. Surely the materials used in extra plies etc would be more expensive that marginal carcass strengthening?

The tyre with a higher load capacity may be the version for vans. They tend to have additional reinforcement but are not rated for higher speeds.

Good point - I can buy that (no, not really )

Looks like the V rated OEM tyre is the one to go for then.

The tyre with a higher load capacity may be the version for vans. They tend to have additional reinforcement but are not rated for higher speeds.

Low profile van tyres?

Construction as well as the popularity of the tyre spec will have the greatest bearing on the price of the tyres, the 98 XL’s will have a stiffer sidewall so therefore you will compromise on comfort a tiny bit as well.

Mmm. not sure about that though either. The speed difference is only 15% - academic really at the quoted maximum speeds. Surely the materials used in extra plies etc would be more expensive that marginal carcass strengthening?

This is wrong on two counts.

A speed difference of "only" 15% is not academic. Centrifugal force rises as the square of speed, so a 149mph tyre has to withstand over 30% more force than a 130 mph tyre. Not to mention heat. (Yet the V-rated tyre you mentioned is only 16% more expensive than the H, which makes it cheap for what it provides.)

Surely the materials used in extra plies etc would be more expensive that marginal carcass strengthening?

That's not how tyres are made. The "marginal carcass strengthening" is what's done to the tyre with the higher load factor, not the one with the higher speed rating as you assume. To achieve a higher speed rating takes a lot more effort and sophisticated construction than just strengthening the carcase. A principal problem is to prevent the tread delaminating. The carcase can be as strong as you like, but that won't help when the tyre throws off its tread at high speed.

Everyone already knows all the information necessary to understand the question you posed, so long as one is able and willing to think about it. Consider the heaviest vehicles you can think of: earth-moving machines, military vehicles, or whatever. Their huge weight has never been an obstacle to building suitable tyres. Now consider the fastest road vehicles you can think of. Making a tyre that can withstand the top speed of a Veyron or an Agera is extremely difficult; and making a tyre that will get anywhere near the land speed record is impossible. Ergo, adding load capacity is relatively cheap and easy; adding speed capacity is hard and expensive.

Everyone already knows all the information necessary to understand the question you posed, so long as one is able and willing to think about it.

Interesting - thanks for the information that I'm sure lots of people will find informative. Tyres/ tyre construction is a complex subject that is often not considered.

Also, thanks for correcting my thought processes

I can't see Yeti's being driven anywhere near the tyre rating speed,so it's all a bit academic. The Dunlops on mine are W rated,why? 94H or V are accaeptable for 90,103 and 118 engines, as per Plumbers tech info.

I question I have wondered is, are higher load rating tyres more resistant to pothole and other damage?

I can't see Yeti's being driven anywhere near the tyre rating speed,so it's all a bit academic. The Dunlops on mine are W rated,why?

A higher speed rating comes about as a result of higher-quality construction in all sorts of ways. Think of it as buying a tyre that is more uniformly round, has a more sophisticated structure, is more capable of being driven long distances in the heat, and (for all I know, as I'm not a tyre designer) perhaps better on other aspects such as rolling resistance or wear rate or ride quality. All these are (or would be) desirable attributes however slow your car is. The higher speed rating can be thought of as a free side effect of buying a better-made tyre.

The idea that 'I don't need the best tyres' is die-hard and penny-pinching and all too common in this country. Where I live in particular, I see many, many quite expensive, quite high-performance cars that have been fitted with the cheapest possible replacement tyres, including the lethal East Asian brands. A lot of people need to get smarter about tyres, starting by getting rid of the idea that second- or third-best is good enough.

Edited 25 March, 201313 yr by r999

I agree-there are some savings to be made, for example shopping around and considering the second-line brands. But budget tyres which you haven't heard of seems an odd thing to do.

Less well known Tyres can be excellent-For me at least my Nokians were a move away from first line tyres but were a choice based on research and recommendation. Similarly I have had perfectly good performance and life from Falken tyres on an earlier car.

Goodyear were once first line but I feel are no longer in the lead group. They do have a respectable history and maintain high standards but it is a while since they have been a premium choice.

Goodyear were once first line but I feel are no longer in the lead group. They do have a respectable history and maintain high standards but it is a while since they have been a premium choice.

Sorry, but that is complete rubbish. The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Here is just a little of it:

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2 - top tyre in 2012 Auto Bild Max Performance Tyre Test. 2nd-top tyre in Which? test of 225/45 R17 tyres, April 2013. Also 2nd-top in ADAC test 2013, Evo's 2012 test, and so on. (And from my experience its predecessor the F1 GS D3 is also a formidably good tyre.)

Goodyear OptiGrip - 2nd-top tyre in ADAC's test of 205/55 R16V tyres, 2012 and 3rd-top tyre in Which? test of 205/55 R16 V tyres, April 2013

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance - top tyre in 2012 AutoExpress Summer Tyre test, and 2nd-top tyre in Which? test of 185/60 R15H tyres, April 2013.

Goodyear Vector 4Seasons - top all-season tyre in nearly every test since it appeared, usually by a wide margin.

Goodyear UltraGrip 8 and Goodyear UltraGrip 8 Performance - top winter tyre in any number of tests, now pushed into second place by the Conti TS850 as an all-rounder, but the Goodyear still beats it on wet roads.

I have no particular brief for Goodyear. Every manufacturer makes some weaker tyres - Goodyear does so in the smaller sizes. We own cars on Goodyears and cars on tyres from other top manufacturers. But the fact is Goodyear have been getting better and better in recent years. In my view, of the big six they are currently second only to Continental.

Edited 26 March, 201313 yr by r999

Oops! Simple ignorance based on the assumption that the eagle F1 was an old tyre

Eagle F1 is tyre of choice for most Scoobys and Evos. There has to be a reason.

Reviews are a bain of society.......and personally I take everyone I read (if I can be bothered) with a pinch of salt....especially now with the 'web' where everyone's an expert. Surely you would have to keep the tyre on the car for the whole of its life before deciding how good or bad it is...and I am sure these reviewers dont do this....and of course 'tyre choice' is so subjective anyway. I am not letting some bloke from 'What Car' tell which car is right for me...and I am certainly not going to let them tell me which tyre I need on the car. . Secondly, you don't know how much money the editor is getting for saying tyre 'x' is better than 'tyre' 'y'.

I would love to try out different tyres on the Yeti (just to see) but this is an expensive business. Sometimes its the better the devil you know. I would be 'naffed off' if I forked out twice the amount for a set of tyre only to find out that there is no difference to the ones that came standard with the car.

Edited 26 March, 201313 yr by MCAMRA

I use Goodyear F1 GS D2 on my MG TF on one set of wheels, although production is limited to small batches, and Toyo Proxes T1-R on another set for the summer.

Both very different ride and handling, so yes, very subjective.

It must also be remembered that these tyre tests are done by professional drivers invariably "on the limit" and not as you or I would drive.

I've been using Kumho's for some years but many people still refer to them as "ditch finders", and I've never had a problem with them.

Reviews are a bain of society.......and personally I take everyone I read (if I can be bothered) with a pinch of salt....especially now with the 'web' where everyone's an expert. Surely you would have to keep the tyre on the car for the whole of its life before deciding how good or bad it is...and I am sure these reviewers dont do this....and of course 'tyre choice' is so subjective anyway. I am not letting some bloke from 'What Car' tell which car is right for me...and I am certainly not going to let them tell me which tyre I need on the car. . Secondly, you don't know how much money the editor is getting for saying tyre 'x' is better than 'tyre' 'y'.

You are confusing two completely different kinds of thing here:

1. Tyre reviews by consumers commenting on their purchase. You need to take these with more than a pinch of salt: they are mostly worthless. All that most people have to compare to their new set of tyres is the old, worn-out set of tyres they just threw away. And surprise, surprise, the new ones are much better. It's because they are new! In addition, there is purchaser's confirmation bias, where people yearn to find reasons for thinking they have spent their money wisely, and so are confirmed in their belief that their new tyres are great. The only user reviews worth taking notice of are those where people realise their new tyres are markedly worse in some way than their old ones and are sufficiently free of self-delusion to say so.

2. Tyre tests (not 'reviews') by the better motoring organisations conducted according to strictly-controlled procedures. If you think these are subjective, or done by 'some bloke from What Car', you simply haven't read their test procedures, which go to great lengths to eliminate subjectivity and actually measure things in a properly-grounded, scientific, repeatable way. I agree with you only to the extent that you will not read first-rate work of this kind in What Car or its like, i.e. slung-together UK publications. Standards of journalism in the UK are a lot lower than in many other countries. The serious, rigorous testing is done by the membership-only motoring organisations in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Any suggestion that these organisations have editors taking back-handers is self-defeating cynicism. Their responsibility is only to their members who pay the subscriptions, not to any manufacturer. It may be hard to grasp this as we have nothing comparable to these organisations in the UK: AA and RAC are junk in comparison.

Tyre tests, to be worth anything, have to be done in cars that are identical except for the tyres, on the same route or track, in the same session, at the same temperature and moisture level, etc. etc. And they have to be done with a rigorous methodology that is open to scrutiny by anyone. Anything else can be disregarded. Anything done well, on these lines, is silly to disregard.

I agree with you about the proper tests and the very high degree of uselessness inherent in individual user reviews. There is, I think, something in collective/crowd opinion. I follow three forums relating to my motorbike (Triumph Street triple 675) and feel that the endless tyre discussions can give a sense of the attributes of particular tyres. I'm currently considering new tyres for the bike based in part on such emerging consensus.

I've just bought Nokian WR cold weather tyres for the Yeti significantly influenced by views on here by people whose contributions on various topics have impressed me.

On tyres you have become someone who's views I would value.

There is, I think, something in collective/crowd opinion. I follow three forums relating to my motorbike (Triumph Street triple 675) and feel that the endless tyre discussions can give a sense of the attributes of particular tyres

I know exactly where you're coming from with regard to bike tyres as we have to start somewhere & what else have we got?

However, I'm either just too nostalgic or just too bitter & twisted, but I miss some of the real detailed reviews/tests we used to get in some of the better publications.

For anyone pushing the limits - and this, rightly or wrongly, occurs more with bikes - it's important to understand the difference between out & out grip & feedback.

Going back 10 yrs or so, I remember reading, for example, that (in the view of a professional test rider) tyre A gave ultimately more grip, but would let go without warning, whereas tyre B gave slightly less grip but gave way more warning & better general feedback. Inevitably, when you read the consumer reviews, tyre A would always come out top because people always thought it felt more 'planted'. Proof that us great unwashed don't always appreciate, or know how to read feedback in the way that a tester or racer might. (We always blame an invisible patch of diesel when we fall off )

Aplologies to the OP for going way OT, but when motorbikes & tyres are mentioned in the same sentence, I can't help myself.

Good to see comments from bikers. Bikers understand the importance of learning about tyres.

Good to see comments from bikers. Bikers understand the importance of learning about tyres.

Agreed

As motorcycles have so little in contact with the road it is vital.

I no longer ride. I got fed up with 16 year olds trying to kill themselves. The Direct Access stuff was more fun, but to be honest, riding in all weathers, sun, rain or snow even, and doing about 20,000 miles a year, for several years, I don't really miss them. I really liked my 'old' '92 Triumph Trident with its blueprinted engine. But it had to be riden daily, or it would cost a fortune to keep on the road. So I sold it, as I didn't (and still don't) have the time to ride one.

Back on topic.......

Sent using whatever device I'm using at the time.