replacement front tyre or tyres?

Have a look on the sidewall for a traction rating. This is a straightline locked, wet mu rating.

Rating Asphalt Concrete AA Above 0.54 0.41 A Above 0.47 0.35 B Above 0.38 0.26 C Less Than 0.38 0.26

Most tyres are A rated but there is also a treadwear rating. Although the treadwear test is open to criticism, I am guessing that the way the rubber is mixed, a low treadwear value might be a pointer to better grip in the range. (For instance, I have just swapped some Michelins for Bridgestones. Treadwear 400 and 320 respectively. Who knows...)

If you want AA tyres, Vredestein and Uniroyals are a couple I know of.

johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

You're not. The pair to the punctured one is "getting near its limit".

Or am I missing something?

johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I've driven plenty of perfectly legal tyres made out of purest teflon.

What about it? Tyre standard for the MOT is exactly the same as the legal limit. If a tyre fails an MOT, be thankful the tester just saved you three points and a big fine.

'course, the fact that the legal limit is way below the point at which wet weather grip goes for a total burton is a side issue...

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Oooh, let's conflate two completely separate issues in an attempt to misdirect the discussion to suit preconceptions... What a fun game!

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com (SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Not quite.

Remember Ray K/Mr Bitsy?

He swore by cheap s**te tyres on his Rover 75. Then he actually tried a set of mid-range boots on it.

All the zeal of a true convert after that, once he realised just how wrong he'd been.

Of course - but then there is a difference between cheap and nasty and good mid-price. Not all non-big-brand tyres are poor.

I reckon there are probably more crashes involving cars fitted with branded tyres, than there are involving cars fitted with budget/mid-price tyres.

The fact that a particular tyre may take a few feet longer to come to a halt does *not* mean that it is automatically going to crash into the car in front (or leave the road). Even amongst branded tyres there are differences in stopping distances.

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Very true. Mid-brand such as Avon are damn near as good as the Mich, Conti etc - but for not much more money than the Chinese rubbish.

Makes it even dafter to buy that sort of crap.

The Avon that I put on my rear nearside wheel a couple of years ago became illegal at 9k miles. Wore off bald on the outer edge. Because I assumed that it was a tracking problem (despite the tyre dealer saying the tracking was fine) I replaced it with a very cheap budget tyre - that wore just fine (it was still on my spare wheel when I traded the car in last month). There was something seriously wrong with that Avon.

I notice that the 205 tyres fitted to my Golf are a fair bit less expensive than the 215 tyres on the 75. I can replace the Bridgestone ER300 that are the oem fitment, at around £66 - so at that price I will probably stick with the Bridgestones.

I suggest we start a new newsgroup called 'Generalisations about motorcyclists'. Then veryone could have their say with no facts to support them.

Rob Graham

May I just say that in the early / mid 90's, I was running a modified Renault 5 GT Turbo. Lowered, stripped down to 750 Kg and 170 hp approx (149 at the wheels).

That car was unique in tyre size; 195/55/R13. No other car I was aware of used that tyre size, hence tyres were *very* expensive.

I used to use 185/65/R13 remoulds. They only cost a quarter of the cost of a non-remould 195/55/R13, but they lasted about half as long. They were so soft that they gave incredible dry grip. Had that car for three and a half years, longest of any so far.

I would not do it now though. I do not think you still get them (remoulds), can you ?

David

Well, I dive M25 every day, so I see a lot. Not all motorcyclists are bad, but a large proportion are; I would say about 50%.

You don't ride, so you don't know what is or isn't dangerous on a bike, as you have no idea about the agility and performance, so realise how a small vehicle can move through traffic without posing a danger to anyone.

I'd also counter your point by saying that at least a similar percentage of car drivers are also shit. If not a lot more.

E.g. like a motorcyclist hitting my side mirror while filtering between motorway lanes. Like motorcyclists imagine that cars must always continue driving in the same exact direction at the same speed; never accelerate, brake or turn...If they do, then it's their fault... I.e. only motorcyclists have the right to accelerate, brake or turn?

I'd imagine you're one of those drivers who sub-consciously drifts to narrow the gap. And yes, it does happen rather a lot.

So, you have poor observational skills, as well as shit tyres.

Figures.

There u are! It's always the car drivers fault innit... No Sir, I'm not the one who drift out of lane.

Again. QED.

A biker once rode into the back of my car and gave me shit for braking hard!

That said many car drivers shouldn't be on the road IMO and bikers are probably generally more skilled.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:50:03 +0000, R D S boggled us with:

I once rode my motorbike into the back of my brother's car. Following him coming up to a t-junction with iffy visibility, he stopped to look. I, sat up higher could see perfectly, had a look, and went. Only to find the rear end of his Ford Orion blocking my path. He said he just saw me disappear from view in his mirror as I went down.

The telltale sign of a bad biker is the tricks they do to obscure the licence plate.