new tyres on front, rears only 6mm, ok?

[chimaera]

On 13/12/2019 at 19:45, silver1011 said:

The difference in grip between a tyre at 1.6mm compared to 3mm is the same as that between 6.4mm and 8mm.

 

NO! It's completely different. The tread depth is there to allow the tyre to channel water out from under it to the sides where it won't cause aquaplaning. As the tyre wears, the cross section of the channel drops and its ability to clear water drops.

 

Think about it like draining a bath: the difference between a 50 mm waste pipe and a 40 mm pipe is a lot smaller than that between a 40 mm pipe and a 32 mm one, and so on.

 

The first 1.4 mm wear has a much smaller effect on tyre performance than the last 1.4 mm hence the recommendation to replace at 3 mm, especially going into the winter.

[SurreyJohn]

Once the tyre is below 3mm of tread there is not much to remove rain or puddles, fine in the dry, but dangerous when wet, as will aquaplane rather than have contact with road surface

You should be looking to change them when down to 3mm unless you only drive in good weather

 

If you are doing annual services at about 9000-9500 miles just get tyres rotated at same time, no need to stick to exactly 9000 miles,  often suggested upto about 14000 miles (22000Km) is a sensible distance to rotate them, so do it when it is convenient

 

Whilst generally agreed put new tyres on back, not that important if back has at least 5mm of tread (but you dont want back tyres with only 3mm of tread)

 

If you are lower mileage driver then rotating the tyres means wont get to 5-7 years with 2 aging (and likely cracking) original rear tyres 

 

 

 

 

[Gmac983]

Pretty much already been said @chimaera and @SurreyJohn re the tyre wear. 

I guess some people just don't want to hear it. 

Edited 17 December, 2019 by Gmac983

[silver1011]

4 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

Some people just don't want to hear it. 

 

Jeez, I bet you're a barrel of laughs down the pub.

[silver1011]

1 hour ago, chimaera said:

NO! It's completely different.

 

From Michelin...

 

"Replacing tyres before you reach the legal limit is a waste of money and won't make you safer on the road, according to a leading tyre maker.

Michelin said the desire from the tyre industry to raise the legal limit to 3mm from 1.6mm would only serve to add millions of pounds a year to UK motorists' bill.

 

Changing tyres early will just cost motorists money and be of no real benefit, say Michelin.

That includes buying new rubber and at the pumps. One tank of fuel in every five is needed purely to overcome rolling resistance but as tyres wear they become more fuel-efficient.

So changing tyres early would see you filling up more regularly, too.

 

Michelin estimates the law change would mean an additional 128 million tyres a year and 900 million litres of fuel across Europe.

 

A tyre comes with around 7.6mm of tread and at 3mm still has 25 per cent of its life left meaning replacing at this stage would equate to an extra tyre per car every two years.

 

Michelin's research also reveals there's no link between tread depths at 1.6mm and increasing accident rates.

In fact, braking in the dry is actually improved with a more worn tyre as it offers greater grip."

[langers2k]

While I don't disagree that more tread should help disperse water, Michelin claim that (at least some) of their tyres still meet the requirements for wet grip with only 2mm left.

 

https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/home-auto/long-lasting-performances - definition of worn as 2 or 2.1mm is in the 'legal mentions' section.

[Gmac983]

@silver1011 To avoid quoting great swaths from the old interweb I could just as easily counter post something stating that 3mm is the "safe" minimum for winter (RAC) not the legal limit of 1.6mm.

Anyway as I said earlier you pays your money and takes your choice/chances, if you choose to run well worn tyres in winter it's your call it's not illegal. 

Edited 17 December, 2019 by Gmac983

[silver1011]

Exactly, there are arguments for and against.

 

There is no need for capital letters, exclamation marks and finger pointing.

 

Offer counter arguments by all means, but we all need to be aware that the written word can be taken very different to that of a spoken one.

[chimaera]

9 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

Exactly, there are arguments for and against.

 

There is no need for capital letters, exclamation marks and finger pointing.

 

Offer counter arguments by all means, but we all need to be aware that the written word can be taken very different to that of a spoken one.

You're trying to argue against the basic laws of physics...

[silver1011]

I'll take Michelin's stance over an online forum.

[Jigger72]

On 13/12/2019 at 19:45, silver1011 said:

Too much hysteria.

 

The 1.6mm legal tread depth limit is there for a reason.

 

 

Isn't this a bit like saying the max speed limit is there for a reason. Doesn't mean you should drive at that speed all the time.

 

On 13/12/2019 at 19:45, silver1011 said:

 

The difference in grip between a tyre at 1.6mm compared to 3mm is the same as that between 6.4mm and 8mm.

 

 

Is it? The difference in mm is nearly the same but do you have evidence that an equal amount of grip is applicable between the two examples?

 

On 13/12/2019 at 19:45, silver1011 said:

 

Where do you draw the line, should we change our tyres at 4mm, 5mm, 6.4mm, 7.5mm?

 

 

That would be stupid. You're talking about 1.6mm achieving the same amount of safety and grip as 6mm.

 

On 13/12/2019 at 19:45, silver1011 said:

 

 

The puncture repair has covered close to 15,000 miles. It is perfectly fine.

 

 

Do you know this for a fact? I would say he, and other road users around him, have been extremely lucky.

[chimaera]

21 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

I'll take Michelin's stance over an online forum.

I'm a mechanical/chemical engineer with 20 years experience, I think I know what I'm talking about here compared to Michelin's sales blurb: it's dangerous to assume the marketing department talk to the engineering department!

[silver1011]

23 minutes ago, chimaera said:

I'm a mechanical/chemical engineer with 20 years experience, I think I know what I'm talking about here compared to Michelin's sales blurb: it's dangerous to assume the marketing department talk to the engineering department!

 

Snap, but I have 21 years experience.

[silver1011]

27 minutes ago, Jigger72 said:

Isn't this a bit like saying the max speed limit is there for a reason. Doesn't mean you should drive at that speed all the time.

 

Using your speed analogy, if it is deemed acceptable to drive at 30mph when legal to do so, then it is equally acceptable to drive with tyres with a tread depth of 1.6mm.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Jigger72 said:

Is it? The difference in mm is nearly the same but do you have evidence that an equal amount of grip is applicable between the two examples?

 

If you class the statement from Michelin above as evidence, then yes. Assuming the road surface is dry.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Jigger72 said:

That would be stupid. You're talking about 1.6mm achieving the same amount of safety and grip as 6mm.

 

I'm talking about 1.6mm potentially achieving more grip than that of a tyre with 6mm tread. See the quote from Michelin above, the part in bold.

 

If accurate, then it isn't stupid at all.

 

27 minutes ago, Jigger72 said:

Do you know this for a fact? I would say he, and other road users around him, have been extremely lucky.

 

Here we have to disagree. I'd say your use of the term 'extremely lucky' is an extreme exaggeration.

[Gmac983]

2 hours ago, chimaera said:

I'm a mechanical/chemical engineer with 20 years

 

1 hour ago, silver1011 said:

but I have 21 years experience.

 

Sod the lot of you's. I've been to Elevenerife. 

[Gmac983]

5 hours ago, silver1011 said:

From Michelin...

 

"Replacing tyres before you reach the legal limit is a waste of money and won't make you safer on the road, according to a leading tyre maker.

Michelin said the desire from the tyre industry to raise the legal limit to 3mm from 1.6mm would only serve to add millions of pounds a year to UK motorists' bill.

 

Changing tyres early will just cost motorists money and be of no real benefit, say Michelin.

That includes buying new rubber and at the pumps. One tank of fuel in every five is needed purely to overcome rolling resistance but as tyres wear they become more fuel-efficient.

So changing tyres early would see you filling up more regularly, too.

 

Michelin estimates the law change would mean an additional 128 million tyres a year and 900 million litres of fuel across Europe.

 

A tyre comes with around 7.6mm of tread and at 3mm still has 25 per cent of its life left meaning replacing at this stage would equate to an extra tyre per car every two years.

 

Michelin's research also reveals there's no link between tread depths at 1.6mm and increasing accident rates.

In fact, braking in the dry is actually improved with a more worn tyre as it offers greater grip."

 

Just had a read of more of the above article. It clearly states at several points in "dry conditions" as you yourself quoted in bold. Also the bases of the article is as a response from Michelin to a campaign to increase the minimum legal tread depth to 3mm.

 

"One such voice is the 3mm Tread Campaign (www.3mmtyres.co.uk) lead by Roadsafe and the National Tyre Distributors Association". 

 

From what I gathered, it was all about reduced carbon footprint from a manufacturing perspective and from the reduced rolling resistance of a well worn tyre. 

 

What they did say on performance was a modern technology tyre has more grip at 1.6mm than a historical tyre at 1.6mm as tyre technology has moved forward and meets/exceeds safe legal standards the fact that a 1.6mm tyre performs within these legal standards is not what's in question here. However at no point did they say that in a test situation would any given Michelin (or any other brand for that matter, although director dude did imply all other brands are inferior to Michelin!) tyre perform equally or better at 1.6mm to the same kind at 3mm or more. At no point did they include any actual test data or links to any other test articles. 

 

Personally I would need to see independent testing done in all conditions along with experiences of the brand myself rather than listening to green credential marketing pish from Michelins research director. 

 

Edited 17 December, 2019 by Gmac983

[olduns]

Jeez i bet the OP after agreeing to look into his situation-right or wrong- and commit to a resolution is now a nervous wreck asleep in his car 🙄

[bigjohn]

One minor point re rotating tyres. Some types such as the Michelin Crossclimate are directional so must be kept on the same side of the car swapping front to rear and rear to front.

 

 

[silver1011]

2 hours ago, Gmac983 said:

Personally I would need to see independent testing done in all conditions along with experiences of the brand myself rather than listening to green credential marketing pish from Michelins research director.

 

All valid observations.

 

However, in the absence of the independent testing you desire, I am going to choose the world's second largest tyre manufacturer over the individual personal opinions being given here, including my own.

 

Edited 17 December, 2019 by silver1011

[Gmac983]

Any manufacturer can claim anything they like when it's not genuinely verified to any standard or any actual competitors, just look at VAG and all there historic false emissions and mpg claims, governments and they buying public all believed VAG even under test conditions until the regulatory bodies involved found out they were cheating. 

@silver1011you must be a salesmans dream, if Michelin told you to pee on your tyres for more grip would you believe that too? 

Edited 17 December, 2019 by Gmac983

[silver1011]

Manufacturers are far more likely to be scrutinised publically, globally and held to account than some bloke sat behind his computer on an online forum.

 

Talking about peeing on your tyres is exactly why everything you read on here should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

Might be time to close the lid for tonight Gmac983.

[Gmac983]

@silver1011 you have a real chip on your shoulder. You really don't like it when others disagree with you do you? Also humour seems to have passed you by aswell. 

Its all good though I'll leave it as always for you to have the last word. 

Edited 17 December, 2019 by Gmac983

[silver1011]

Far from it, my observation is that you enjoy quoting a lot of my posts and disagreeing with most of my advice being offered to others.

 

I've no issue with that, but don't then claim that I have a chip on my shoulder when I choose to respond and defend my point of view.

 

Quite simply, if you think I have a chip on my shoulder stop quoting my posts, our paths then never need cross.

[john999boy]

Well that certainly proved that a ‘normal post title’ can elicit some diverse answers! 

[silver1011]

Think yourself lucky, rather than tyres it could have been a petrol vs. diesel debate, or even worse manual vs. DSG. No wait, paint colour choice!