Checking the SALES brochure there are no tyre specs listed.

Do you actually mean the HANDBOOK?

No I mean the SALES brochure. Take a look at the electronic version on the Skoda website.

More and more complicated.

 

The sales brochure refers to 225/50 R17 94W tyres - and that's what's fitted, of course.

 

The handbook contains the following:

 

"All four wheels must be fitted with the same tyres approved by the manufacturer to ensure the brake assist systems operate correctly.

 

Only use radial tyres of the same type, size (rolling circumference) and tread pattern on all four wheels.
? For reasons of driving safety, do not replace tyres individually."

 

and

 

"The tyre/wheel combinations which are approved for your vehicle are indicated in your vehicle documents.  Where possible, replace tyres by axle. Always fit the tyres with the deeper tread depth to the front wheels.

Explanation of tyre markings 225/50R 17 91 T

What this means is:

225 Tyre width in mm
50 Height/width ratio in %
R Code letter for the type of tyre – Radial
17 Diameter of wheel in inches
91 Load index
T Speed symbol"

 

To my knowledge, the approved tyre/wheel combinations are NOT indicated in any vehicle documents, and if you ask SUK what they are, you won't get an answer.  I've tried!

 

So where does that leave us?  You could argue that any departure from the 94W provided at the outset is a modification that needs to be declared to the insurer, but commonsense suggests that's nonsense.  On that basis you'd need their approval to change a bulb or a brake pad if it wasn't identical to the one supplied with the car, or the brand of tyre, and there's no way that would be supported by the Insurance Ombudsman, or ultimately the courts, in the unlikely even that a dodgy insurance company tried it on.

 

Provided the car isn't physically capable of exceeding the rated maximum speed of the tyre, that should satisfy any insurance requirements, and any insurer that argues to the contrary (and there's no evidence I can find that it's ever happened) will simply not succeed.
 

No I mean the SALES brochure. Take a look at the electronic version on the Skoda website.

 

And then read the disclaimer at the end!!

So where does that leave us?  You could argue that any departure from the 94W provided at the outset is a modification that needs to be declared to the insurer, but commonsense suggests that's nonsense.

TBH it baffles me who you're trying to convince. Is it yourself? This isn't ultimately about logic or commonsense, it's about trying to ensure that if you are unlucky enough to have to make a substantial insurance claim that you try to minimise any scope the insurers might have to delay or otherwise quibble with the claim. So it's safest from this POV to treat any significant departure from the vehicle's EC Type Approval as a potential modification and clear it with the insurers.

It's obviously your choice as to whether you do this or not. But if you don't and the insurers choose to raise an issue then - irrespective of whether or not you win in the end - you may encounter significant extra hassle and delay in settling the claim. For the sake of one phone call or email it scarcely seems worthwhile (IMO at least) not to do so, but it is your choice.

Edited 8 March, 201412 yr by prodata

TBH it baffles me who you're trying to convince. Is it yourself? This isn't ultimately about logic or commonsense, it's about trying to ensure that if you are unlucky enough to have to make a substantial insurance claim that you try to minimise any scope the insurers might have to delay or otherwise quibble with the claim. So it's safest from this POV to treat any significant departure from the vehicle's EC Type Approval as a potential modification and clear it with the insurers.

It's obviously your choice as to whether you do this or not. But if you don't and the insurers choose to raise an issue then - irrespective of whether or not you win in the end - you may encounter significant extra hassle and delay in settling the claim. For the sake of one phone call or email it scarcely seems worthwhile (IMO at least) not to do so, but it is your choice.

No, not trying to convince myself - I'm quite certain of the position, and I act accordingly.  Just trying to inject some commonsense into a discussion which seems always to centre on notifications which aren't actually required.

I take your point entirely, and if you have a policy which doesn't involve a charge for notifications like this - that's fine.  Notify - the worst that can happen is that they can say no, in which case you've got the extra expense involved.

 

However, many policies (all RAC and AA policies, for example, and many more) involve a charge of around £25 if you make a notification like this - they regard it as a chargeable change.  Not everyone wants to pay £25 for something which, as I say, does not need to be notified.  It's not the phone call - that's simple - it's the £25 charge.

And then read the disclaimer at the end!!

Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen such a fuss over nothing!

Are tyres rated in excess of vehicle's maximum speed? Yes.

Are your insurance company happy with the tyres you've fitted if the above condition has been followed? Yes. Unless you can provide examples to the contrary?

And telling your insurance what tyres you have fitted is not a change to your policy.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen such a fuss over nothing!

Are tyres rated in excess of vehicle's maximum speed? Yes.

Are your insurance company happy with the tyres you've fitted if the above condition has been followed? Yes. Unless you can provide examples to the contrary?

And telling your insurance what tyres you have fitted is not a change to your policy.

 

Don't have a go at me!

I was only pointing out that there is a nice little disclaimer at the end of the brochure that basically says that anything stated inside it is subject to change and is not to be taken as definite fact.

This isn't me having a 'go'.

The brochure comment was in relation to where people could find speed rating information. This is backed up by what is being fitted to UK FL Yetis currently.

If you buy a used car that's a good few years old and has had numerous tyre changes, you have no idea what tyres the manufacturer happened to fit when it was new.

 

Does everyone who buys a used car go to extensive lengths to unearth this information ?

 

No. Most just fit tyres that have sufficient speed rating to exceed what the car is capable of, and similarly for load rating.

Unless the handbook (that's if you have one) specifically says "You must use this speed rating and this load rating", which it seems is not the case here.

 

I really think people are worrying too much about this !

My (wife's) FL 1.2 S has H rated tyres (16 inch wheels).   An identically engined SE would have W.  How can V be in any way improper?  (Part of the reason I settled for an S.  Shark Blue - "Oh, it's beautiful!" she said...)

Mike, I'll forgive you since you live near H'ford!

I am most grateful to my esteemed colleague for his dispensation on this occasion.

Tis gratefully received.

Salutations.

On 08/03/2014 at 13:37, docc said:

More and more complicated.

 

The sales brochure refers to 225/50 R17 94W tyres - and that's what's fitted, of course.

 

The handbook contains the following:

 

"All four wheels must be fitted with the same tyres approved by the manufacturer to ensure the brake assist systems operate correctly.

 

Only use radial tyres of the same type, size (rolling circumference) and tread pattern on all four wheels.
? For reasons of driving safety, do not replace tyres individually."

 

and

 

"The tyre/wheel combinations which are approved for your vehicle are indicated in your vehicle documents.  Where possible, replace tyres by axle. Always fit the tyres with the deeper tread depth to the front wheels.

Explanation of tyre markings 225/50R 17 91 T

What this means is:

225 Tyre width in mm
50 Height/width ratio in %
R Code letter for the type of tyre – Radial
17 Diameter of wheel in inches
91 Load index
T Speed symbol"

 

To my knowledge, the approved tyre/wheel combinations are NOT indicated in any vehicle documents, and if you ask SUK what they are, you won't get an answer.  I've tried!

 

So where does that leave us?  You could argue that any departure from the 94W provided at the outset is a modification that needs to be declared to the insurer, but commonsense suggests that's nonsense.  On that basis you'd need their approval to change a bulb or a brake pad if it wasn't identical to the one supplied with the car, or the brand of tyre, and there's no way that would be supported by the Insurance Ombudsman, or ultimately the courts, in the unlikely even that a dodgy insurance company tried it on.

 

Provided the car isn't physically capable of exceeding the rated maximum speed of the tyre, that should satisfy any insurance requirements, and any insurer that argues to the contrary (and there's no evidence I can find that it's ever happened) will simply not succeed.
 

So does this mean front and rear tyres have to be the same? My front tyres need replacing soon, I’d like to upgrade to crossclimate plus. 

 

Would I meet a fiery death and invalidate insurance if I upgrade my front tyres only at this point?

 

The crossclimates 225 50r17 are only V rated. 

Different pairs of tyres front and rear do not invalidate insurance if the correct speed / load rating and with a legal tread.

V Rated is not a 'only'  that is more than meeting the vehicles / manufacturers requirements.

 

BMW / Porsche and others come with different front and rear tyres.

Audi will give the option of wider front tyres. eg RS3

 

But is it a FWD or AWD car, and are you satisfied with the safety / tread / compound of the rears staying on?

@dancing-james - Pop the fuel filler. There's usually a list of factory tyre sizes and recommended pressures (but not speed ratings) in there. Without knowing the engine I can't know if the speed rating is over-specified or not.

19 minutes ago, dancing-james said:

So does this mean front and rear tyres have to be the same? My front tyres need replacing soon, I’d like to upgrade to crossclimate plus. 

 

Would I meet a fiery death and invalidate insurance if I upgrade my front tyres only at this point?

 

The crossclimates 225 50r17 are only V rated. 

 

This is where the speed rating becomes irrelevant, because you are now introducing an operating temperature range that isn't in the normal tyre size specs.

 

Certainly makes sense in UK to move to all season tyres, but its not a great idea to only have two, (risk doing a pirouette if back doesn't grip going around a corner)

 

If the front tyres have been wearing, why didn't you swap front-back few thousand miles ago, then wouldn't have needed to change any at moment.  

Much safer to switch all 4 tyres at same time.   Ultimately its your expense and what you choose to spend depends on how you value potentially skidding into a truck coming other way)

 

Although its too late now, its always worth reminding readers that when the front tyres reach about 2mm less tread (on front wheel drive cars) do a front-back swap, you wont end up with 2 worn tyres that way

Even more important to swap on 4x4 versions as shouldn't exceed about 2.5mm tread depth diff as it will stress the 4x4 system

23 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

@dancing-james - Pop the fuel filler. There's usually a list of factory tyre sizes and recommended pressures (but not speed ratings) in there. Without knowing the engine I can't know if the speed rating is over-specified or not.

 

118mph top speed (allegedly)

 

its a 2014 Laurin and Klement 1968cc diesel, 4wd.  The CrossClimate plus appear to be an upgrade over the stock tyres (primacy 3). 

Edited 26 April, 20188 yr by dancing-james
Clarification

@dancing-james - Well, FWIW Skoda have provided attestation that V rated tyres are adequate for the Octavia 1 TDi in Elegance and L&K forms as long as you retain the load index. On that basis I'd say that the same should apply to the Yeti L&K.

13 minutes ago, SurreyJohn said:

 

This is where the speed rating becomes irrelevant, because you are now introducing an operating temperature range that isn't in the normal tyre size specs.

 

Certainly makes sense in UK to move to all season tyres, but its not a great idea to only have two, (risk doing a pirouette if back doesn't grip going around a corner)

 

If the front tyres have been wearing, why didn't you swap front-back few thousand miles ago, then wouldn't have needed to change any at moment.  

Much safer to switch all 4 tyres at same time.   Ultimately its your expense and what you choose to spend depends on how you value potentially skidding into a truck coming other way)

 

Although its too late now, its always worth reminding readers that when the front tyres reach about 2mm less tread (on front wheel drive cars) do a front-back swap, you wont end up with 2 worn tyres that way

Even more important to swap on 4x4 versions as shouldn't exceed about 2.5mm tread depth diff as it will stress the 4x4 system

Currently I have 2.5mm tread on front tyres and 4.5 on rear. Am assuming it’s too late to swap front and rears. 

14 minutes ago, dancing-james said:

Currently I have 2.5mm tread on front tyres and 4.5 on rear. Am assuming it’s too late to swap front and rears. 

 

This is from the manual.
""For uniform wear on all tyres, we recommend that you change the wheels every
10 000 km according to the scheme » Fig. 167. You will then obtain approximately
the same life for all the tyres""
 

Edited 26 April, 20188 yr by Urrell

So should I just replace all four tyres and start fresh?

Or replace the worn tyres with the same spec? As it appears that having different tyres front and rear could be problematic though I’d now have significantly different tread depths front and rear if I put new tyres on. 

 

 

If anybody would like an accident investigators point of view free, here it is.

 

We check the speed and load rating of the tyres at the time of the accident. If they are correct, job done.

 

I have never known, in 25 years of any insurance being voided for correctly rated tyres and I would suggest that if they were correctly rated and the insurance tried a, "Get out of jail free" two step any legal representative worth his salt would tear them a new one, so to speak.

1 hour ago, dancing-james said:

Currently I have 2.5mm tread on front tyres and 4.5 on rear. Am assuming it’s too late to swap front and rears. 

 

Might we worth still swapping, would probably get you through the summer months (not that it is very summer like today)

 

Then work on assumption you are changing all 4 tyres Oct-Nov

Not sure if cross climate prices rise in Autumn, but do shop around on internet, can be £50 per tyre difference between vendors

I had to run company vehicles for years before current car.

If you damaged a tyre beyond repair that single tyre would be replaced, usually with the tyre currently on discount to the lease company. The tyre at the other end of the axle and it’s remaining tread was irrelevant.

There was never a chance of swapping back to front to keep most tread at front either.

I suspect most cars on the road are actually run like this regardless of what’s in the manual.

 

Its a relief to finally be free of that and able to select tyres and move them around in a safer manner.