View Full Version : Bald Tyres
Quick one:
Is it three points per tyre, or three points regardless of number of bald tyres?
wazza
19-12-2005, 06:20 AM
each tyre is a seperate offence so you can get points per tyre.. but we in TVP generally unless real bad and nasty will give you a VDRS Vehicle defect notice which does not give points.
oldcodger
19-12-2005, 08:47 AM
This is one that really gets me going.:mad:
The rules are that for any number of offences committed on the same occasion we should impose points for the most serious only. So 4 bald tyres might well get you 3 points plus a fine which should reflect the seriousness of the offending.
It is technically possible to impose points for each offence, especially if they are of different origin, so for no insurance (a document offence) a bald tyre (vehicle condition) and fail to stop for red light (moving vehicle offence) we could do points for each.
In practice, when I deal offences like these I try very hard to persuade my colleagues to disqualify in view of the overall risk to other road users.
stuart30
19-12-2005, 12:51 PM
Disqualify for bald tyres....:eek: Bit harsh isnt it.....or do you mean multiple offences.
Would it be a bit harsh if your daughter/son stepped in the road and a vehicle with defective tyres ran them down because they couldnt stop in time?
Then surely you'd prosecute under S1
Then surely you'd prosecute under S1
Was responding to Stuarts comment that banning for 4 bold tyes was a bit harsh as opposed to what offences to prosecute for!
Understood. My point being that disqual. for four bald tyres seems harsh. If those bold tyres led to an incident, then a DD charge would probably come into it.
I wonder out loud if its less dangerous to have four bald tyres than two grippy ones and two bald ones.
Understood. My point being that disqual. for four bald tyres seems harsh. If those bold tyres led to an incident, then a DD charge would probably come into it.
I wonder out loud if its less dangerous to have four bald tyres than two grippy ones and two bald ones.
I think your looking at the charge after the accident. Im saying that with a ban for four bold tyres then there would be no accident and DD wouldnt be an issue.
You are right - I am saying it is more severe if the dangerous condition of the vehicle actually leads to an accident.
If we banned everyone who got into their car, there would be fewer accidents -- I think the question is whether a disqual. is proportionate for 4 bald tyres, with no accident arising.
oldcodger
19-12-2005, 02:58 PM
Disqualify for bald tyres....:eek: Bit harsh isnt it.....or do you mean multiple offences.If someone is driving a car with all four tyres with no tread at all then I have no hesitation in taking his licence for a few weeks.
I have been to skid training sessions and driven cars in that state on a damp surface - you have virtually no directional control and the brakes have very little effect. As one of my colleagues said "its an accident looking for somewhere to happen".
If its a case of all four just a fraction under the limit I wouldn't want to disqualify unless there are other factors - poor driving, no insurance, other vehicle defects.
oldcodger
19-12-2005, 03:04 PM
I think the question is whether a disqual. is proportionate for 4 bald tyres, with no accident arising.That issue is often raised by people facing drink driving charges.
They point out that they were stopped for a dud rear light, or some similar thing not related to the standard of their driving. Then go on to say that as there was no problem with their driving its obvious that there was no danger so a small fine would be the correct sentence.
I have been to skid training sessions and driven cars in that state on a damp surface - you have virtually no directional control and the brakes have very little effect. As one of my colleagues said "its an accident looking for somewhere to happen"
I've driven cars like that, with fully slick tyres on oil/water surfaces. You have very low levels of grip, but with a bit of practice very good directional control. Certainly enough to maintain tight figures-of-eight or circuits -- but it's a lot like ice skating. I suspect, however, that level of control might be out of reach of most motorists passing before the bench.
Point about drink drivers not causing accidents is taken. Of course, most drink drivers aren't caught.
noyourrights
19-12-2005, 03:25 PM
I think the question is whether a disqual. is proportionate for 4 bald tyres, with no accident arising.
i think the idea is to prevent an accident not wait for it to happen and then inspect the car
deffinately 4 bald tyres take away thier licence and the car should not be permitted to continue its journey from when the officer discovered the defect
a person who is willing to drivea car with 4 bald tyres would be willing to drive with any number of defects and without insurance or mot so its best they dont drive at all
a person who is willing to drivea car with 4 bald tyres would be willing to drive with any number of defects and without insurance or mot so its best they dont drive at all
Don't forget that they are rapists too, according to the London minicab posters.
noyourrights
19-12-2005, 03:46 PM
are you saying that these minicabs have posters saying
Warning
people who drive with 4 bold tyres
are
rapists
are you sure db have you seen these on your way out or home from a good night out:eek:
I think they spelt bald right, but that was the gist of it.
The campaign makes the thrust:-
If he isn't a licenced cab, then he probably isn't insured.
If he isn't insured, then he probably hasn't passed his MOT
If he hasn't got an MOT then he isn't roadworthy
If he isn't roadworthy then he's a rapist.
It's something like that, at least.
Of course if you drive a licenced black taxicab, then you probably make so much in the daytime on Monday that you don't need to be out in town on a Sturday night before Christmas, so the only way to get home is to hop in with a nice Nigerian chap who will give you a ride home for a negotiated amount.
Ooh - am I ranting again?
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/pco/images/banner-big-rape-victim.jpg
This is the latest incarnation.
noyourrights
19-12-2005, 04:16 PM
ah ha i see where you are coming from i couldnt see the direct connection between BALD:D tyres and rapists
Halski
19-12-2005, 04:55 PM
hmmmmmmm - what they are trying to get across is that there is no vetting for minicabs but some for black cabs - and the numbers do stack up - a single rape in a black cab in the last year vs I-don't-know-how-many-but-more-than-1-in-an-UNLICENCED-minicab...
what could possibly be wrong with that?
anyway back to the disqualification foir four bald tyres.
I'm all for it.
One bald tyre - the other thre might just about take up the slack.
Two - very careless but might get away with the two OK ones....
Three - cocking a snook at construction & use regs.
Four - RACING SLICKS. If Jensen Button can't control an F1 in the wet with slicks on then neither can we.....
I think they spelt bald right, but that was the gist of it.
The campaign makes the thrust:-
If he isn't a licenced cab, then he probably isn't insured.
If he isn't insured, then he probably hasn't passed his MOT
If he hasn't got an MOT then he isn't roadworthy
If he isn't roadworthy then he's a rapist.
It's something like that, at least.
Of course if you drive a licenced black taxicab, then you probably make so much in the daytime on Monday that you don't need to be out in town on a Sturday night before Christmas, so the only way to get home is to hop in with a nice Nigerian chap who will give you a ride home for a negotiated amount.
Ooh - am I ranting again?
...an the numbers do stack up - a single rape in a black cab in the last year vs I-don't-know-how-many-but-more-than-1-in-an-UNLICENCED-minicab...
11 sexual assaults a month, according to TfL, the organisers of the cartel. Dont know if that is reported, convicted or projected.
Of course you would need to know population densities to make any sense of that figure.
I've never been touched up in a cab.
One bald tyre - the other thre might just about take up the slack.
Two - very careless but might get away with the two OK ones....
Three - cocking a snook at construction & use regs.
Four - RACING SLICKS.
You haven't read Milliken yet, have you?
Halski
19-12-2005, 05:05 PM
AND - they always smell of those digusting and oxymoronically named 'air fresheners'.....
AND
the last time I was in a minicab the driver had an alarming tendency to look over his shoulder to talk to me - with both arms outstretched on the wheel - which was OK if he was just saying 'yes' or 'no' but I realised I had made a mistake when I asked what he thought the best explanation for Fermat's theorem was....
Halski
19-12-2005, 05:06 PM
You haven't read Milliken yet, have you?
:oops:
Its my Christmas read - you knows it......
And you've never had a bad taxi driver / smelly cab? I get them all the time.
Minicabs do tend to be worse drivers, it should be admitted - in my experience. Although taxi drivers which have driven me do tend to take liberties. I'm sure Smiffy will be along to defend them shortly...
Halski
19-12-2005, 05:13 PM
No, I was trying to be witty & satirical....
I on your side on this one mate.
there's good and bad.
It's true - there's good and bad. And then there's available. I know what sort of cab I get home.
I also know that I wouldn't want Mrs 7db getting a dodgey minicab home on her own.
Halski
19-12-2005, 06:40 PM
anyway back to the disqualification foir four bald tyres.
I'm all for it.
One bald tyre - the other thre might just about take up the slack.
Two - very careless but might get away with the two OK ones....
Three - cocking a snook at construction & use regs.
Four - RACING SLICKS. If Jensen Button can't control an F1 in the wet with slicks on then neither can we.....
Wouldn't a balanced car with two bald tyres on the rear wheels be better than one bald front tyre?
Jensen can't control his slicks in the wet as he has a very light overpowered car. A lorry is easier to control on slicks.
Rubbery
19-12-2005, 06:51 PM
What about the wrong tyre choice on a car? As in putting the wrong speed rating rubber on an m5? I know we will never (legally) see the speeds the tyres are capable of but is it not for the purpose of the pressures put on them while accelerating? Could be rather nasty if it went pete tong...
Or even a tyre with a bulge? I ran over a brick once (dark road and poor visibility) and put a bulge the size of a golf ball in a brand new tyre. I was not going to risk it bursting so had to stick the space saver on and get another new one.
Rubbery
19-12-2005, 06:52 PM
Should read '....eg on an m5' emphasis being a powerful car. :)
noyourrights
19-12-2005, 07:09 PM
but is it not for the purpose of the pressures put on them while accelerating? .
yes the speed rating reflects the overall performance of the car they are designed for acc. braking and handling
it is not illegal to fit tyres of a lower speed rating, might affect your insurance should you have an accident
Rubbery
19-12-2005, 07:21 PM
And therefore, would be an endorsable offence if caught?! I have never seen a polisman (or woman) check the speed rating of any of my tyres. :o
BoinkCluster
19-12-2005, 07:35 PM
I have never seen a polisman (or woman) check the speed rating of any of my tyres. :o
That's what MOTs are for.
noyourrights
19-12-2005, 07:36 PM
would be endorsable for invalid insurance but not for wrong speed rating i would have thought
noyourrights
19-12-2005, 07:40 PM
That's what MOTs are for.
not a checkable item in the mot either unless its an HGV
BoinkCluster
19-12-2005, 08:01 PM
not a checkable item in the mot either unless its an HGV
A bit of checking has found this, on www.motuk.co.uk (http://www.motuk.co.uk),:
"Note: A Class III or IV vehicle tyre which appears to be of inadequate size, ply or speed rating for the vehicle or its use is not a reason for rejection. However, the vehicle presenter should be informed."
So, you're correct :tup: and I was wrong :rolleyes: . I always thought speed-ratings were checked at the MOT.
noyourrights
19-12-2005, 08:06 PM
i wasnt allways a hairy azzed trucker spent several years of my life as a MOT tester back in the 80's hasnt changed much:rolleyes:
redvanman
19-12-2005, 08:49 PM
that reminds me, i need a pair on the back of my van - i drove back from a trackday on slicks before as one of my pit crew left me there with no other way home, very scary!very stupid - very big lesson learnt.
topcat
28-12-2005, 08:35 PM
Wouldn't a balanced car with two bald tyres on the rear wheels be better than one bald front tyre?
Jensen can't control his slicks in the wet as he has a very light overpowered car. A lorry is easier to control on slicks.
I think understeer is better then oversteer so the back tyres should have the most tread on them ideally. One of the motoring programs did a test on this and the car with bald rear tyres was uncontrollable compared to the front being bald.
Does weather conditions at the time of the offence affect judgement ? I thought there is some legal point that prevents someone being tried twice for the same offence on the same occasion, ie two speed charges in the same patch of road or is this case bald tyres
A front wheel skid is terrifying and hard to recognise and get out of, whilst a rear wheel skid is easier to feel and escape (in my experience). However, cars are better characteristically understeering than oversteering (all manufacturers build in understeer into their cars).
I was out today on the ice, and provided the front was under control, I could slide the back around all over the place and it was under control, even at high speed. The same would not have been true if the front wheels had lost traction.
(This was all done in a safe off-road environment)
Sentencing can consider road conditions as mitigating or aggravating circumstances when sentencing.
oldcodger
29-12-2005, 10:57 AM
Does weather conditions at the time of the offence affect judgement ? Depends on the offence and what you mean by "judgement".
In the case of bald tyres it would not affect the verdict because the offence is about the tyres. It might affect sentence as the loss of grip would be much worse in wet weather.
For some offences eg dangerous driving, the weather may form part of the offence and affect judgement. I had one a few years back where a driver hit a slow moving car in the back. He was charged with dangerous driving as he was doing about 70 in a 40 limit in thick fog. It was the fog that made the difference between DWDCA and dangerous driving.
I thought there is some legal point that prevents someone being tried twice for the same offence on the same occasion, ie two speed charges in the same patch of road or is this case bald tyresYou are probably thinking of double jeopardy. It used to stop someone being charged with an offence - say murder - being tried, found not guilty and then tried again and again in the hope that eventually a jury could be found that would convict. There have been some changes to this law - which may allow a re-trial if compelling new evidence comes to light.
In the case of tyres, each tyre is a separate offence. Its like an assault case - if you hit 2 people at the same time with your trusty baseball bat you would be charged with 2 offences, one for each person.
The multiple speeding on a single piece of road is interesting.
There has been a significant increase recently in defendants claiming a single offence, and therefore only 3 points, after getting two tickets for speed cameras on the same road.
Sometimes this approach "succeeds" and the two tickets are converted into a single offence.
At which point the bench, having evidence from the defendant himself that his speed was above the limit for the entire distance between the cameras take it very seriously and up the sentence accordingly. I am aware of two defendants who took this route and got a ban rather than 6 points.:eek:
topcat
06-01-2006, 10:48 AM
7db was that in a FWD or RWD car.
http://www.michelin.co.uk/uk/auto/auto_cons_bib_pqr_neuf.jsp
These guys recommend new tyres on the rears for FWD cars
http://www.michelin.co.uk/uk/images/auto/Pression5.jpg
It was a RWD, but the principle is pretty much the same on FWD -- you are just more likely to lose the rear on RWD.
Interesting, I have driven FWD cars all my life and have no problems in controlling it in a skid and know pretty well what it`s going to do next (obviously within my limits, i`m not schumacher !)
However i hate rear wheel drive cars and have had some bad experiences with "fishtailing" in the past.
Each to their own i suppose.
These guys recommend new tyres on the rears for FWD cars
What are the chances of that? A tyre manufacturer recommending new tyres...
Russ - which wheels are skidding when you skid your FWD?
BillZZR
06-01-2006, 11:15 AM
But it is more controlable with a rwd Russ.
If you have reached the limit of Rear wheel adhesion then it is probably because you are putting too much power through them, or because of weight tranfer under braking, so back off gently or ease off braking untill adhesion returns. In either case you will still have maximum steering control without the added problem of putting drive through the frnt wheels as well like a fwd.
But yes it takes a bit of getting used too if you (like most folks today) drive almost exclusively FWD cars.
I know Im not very good at explaining this in writing :oops: and I try if at all possible not to get that close to tyre adhesion limits (particularly on two wheels, as it will usually end up horribly painful or expensive or both but the principles of grip, power, and weight transfer still apply) so apologies if it seems over simplistic.......over to you 7db:tup:
Think you're spot on there Bill.
Rear wheel traction loss (terminal oversteer or "spinning-out") is more of an issue under power (in RWD) and cornering when unbalanced (ie lift-off oversteer).
It is easy to correct if you catch it in time -- you natural reaction to undo what you just did is usually right -- ease off gas if over-powering rear wheels and ease off deflection if due to harsh cornering / lift-off. The trick is getting the timing right -- the car has a natural frequency which you must use in your correction.
Try to apply it too fast or too far and the car will not has a chance to respond and end up swinging like a pendulum. Try to do it too slowly and it will end up going round like a top. You need to use the inputs to apply *critical* damping to the system and get ti back on track.
Terminal understeer - a front wheel slide - is a lot scarier in my opinion. It usually happens under heavy braking and steering. This is usually becasue you are about to hit something. The correct reaction -- lifting off the brakes to get the wheels turning again and unwinding some deflection is very unnatural -- more natural to try to wind on more and more deflection as the little bit you put on fails to work. You end up going straight on and hitting whatever you were trying to avoid.
If by chance you do get the front wheels to bite, you might have the joy of missing it with the front but having so much deflection on (and unweighted rear) that you lose the back and hit it with that instead.
You guys are correct, rear wheel drive is the "proper" way to drive a car and i don`t dispute that.
7db i learnt to drive a small ford fiesta and part of that experience was being taught by my dad ( ex Job and too many driving courses to mention) in the gravel car park adjacent to the house how to control a front wheel car in a skid. What you have posted is spot on, lift your foot and let the car gain traction and then deal with it, should work for either too much power or too much braking ( not mid corner though :) )
Suppose it comes down to what you are used to, i couldn`t now get the practice i would think i need to drive a rear wheel car and be confident about driving it hard. Shame really as all the nice powerful cars are usually rear wheel drive.
You`ll have to take me out in your 7 and show me how it`s done :) :)
I can show you how I do it. I'm not sure that is always "how it's done". More power seems usually to be the answer.
BillZZR
06-01-2006, 01:29 PM
Whilst the principles are the same, from a control point of view, it gets even more complicated on most two wheelers, as most do not have linked front and rear brakes.
If there is a need to stop or slow very quickly then the tendancy for most folk is to snap shut the throttle, and Grab!!! the Front brake (on the Handlebar) which results in the front tyre loading up, and as the suspension compresses and throws too much weight forward onto an allready over loaded tyre, usally which is dealing with cornering stresses also.........oops...... :sob:
It will usually happen so quickly that nothing can be done, but like in 7's analagy, its possible but not easy to do the sensible thing (feels very alien at first), and just ease off,the front brake (not just release suddenly, as the po-go weight transfer rearward can be just as unsettling as the front goes too light and breaks traction) , and "feather" the rear foot operated rear brake, while very very gently aply a little throtle to the rear wheel, to compress the rear, returning to a more neutral balance and let the bike "sit up" a little bit and gently power through the corner, or past the hazard.
But I aint a Valantino Rossi or a Wazza, so I try do my all braking well before a corner, and holding a little power on, drive through bends and around hazards
noyourrights
06-01-2006, 02:49 PM
i have allways prefered RWD and as a lad spent most of my time behind the wheel in a power slide or doing large circles at a local industrial estate learning the art of car control
nowodays i drive a FWD car and i dislike understeer its ok on a track or runway (eg BBC top gear) but on the road there is little room for error so i prefer to use 'heel toe' thus making my FWD behave like a RWD the front wheels remain planted and going in the direction you are pointing them and the rear breaks free making the car oversteer whilst still being in full control
as bill says with bikes it is different if i find myself running wide midway round a bend ease the throttle open because if you apply the front brake the bike stands up and wants to go straight on then its either into the hedge or oncoming traffic
i also use countersteering (thats turning the handle bars the opposite way you want the bike to go) so midway round a bend running wide a bit more throttle with more pressure on the bar pointing towards the ground and you exit in one piece
however none of the above will work at 10mph in a car park as i discovered today i was leaving work to come home took a left turn towards the gates and both wheels lost grip and i ended up led out on the floor as my bike slid on its side:sob: :oops:
BillZZR
06-01-2006, 02:54 PM
OUCH
Yep all hapens in an instant. Did something similar in a garage forecourt, on some deisel spillage which is why I got a little scuff on the neerside fairing. Hope yours isnt too bad NYR
noyourrights
06-01-2006, 06:12 PM
a couple of minor scuffs a snapped foot peg and toe spigot had to ride home resting my foot on the stump
a bent crash bobbin (saved the fairing)
and a very dented pride (it was on camera and of course everybody knows ive had 3 calls this afternoon from so-called mates taking the pee)
all replaceable and no broken bones
silent nightmare
06-01-2006, 08:09 PM
This is one that really gets me going.:mad:
The rules are that for any number of offences committed on the same occasion we should impose points for the most serious only. So 4 bald tyres might well get you 3 points plus a fine which should reflect the seriousness of the offending.
It is technically possible to impose points for each offence, especially if they are of different origin, so for no insurance (a document offence) a bald tyre (vehicle condition) and fail to stop for red light (moving vehicle offence) we could do points for each.
In practice, when I deal offences like these I try very hard to persuade my colleagues to disqualify in view of the overall risk to other road users.
Thats harsh old codger, 3 points max IMO for tyres, disqualify you must be joking!
oldcodger
06-01-2006, 10:21 PM
Thats harsh old codger, 3 points max IMO for tyres, disqualify you must be joking!So its pouring with rain, one of your family is crossing the road and is killed. The car was unable to stop because of 4 bald tyres. The driver would be charged with the death and probably get significant jail time - but your relative is still dead.
Why was he driving in bad weather with 4 bald tyres? Because 3 points was not enough deterrent.
If you only want to give 3 points for 4 bald tyres what would you do for 1 tyre? Bear in mind that fatalities have occured due to one bald tyre.
snowman
06-01-2006, 10:25 PM
Thats harsh old codger, 3 points max IMO for tyres, disqualify you must be joking!
But if you view it as a potentially very serious accident that the driver could have prevented had he/she not been too tight or too lazy to buy new rubber, then perhaps not.
In poor weather conditions it could be not dissimilar to driving without any effective way of stopping a few tons of metal hitting another car/pedestrian/bike etc
noyourrights
06-01-2006, 10:27 PM
and people who drive around with 4 bald tyres arent likely to keep thier car roadwothy in other ways like brakes,suspension etc
jamesedga
06-01-2006, 10:48 PM
I use a car park. Empty of course with a new car. Just to aquint myself and see what grip loss feels like.
On tyres. Tyres that look bald must be treat more serious then a mistaken bald tyre.
I had friend who had big alloys on his lowered rover coupe. The outside looked good. The inside had strings. The result a more observant owner and two new 17 inch tyres.
I have read some of the posts with interest, although some went off at a tangent.
As a vehicle examiner, I would consider the following when dealing with defective tyres on a private car.
1. How many tyres are affected. More than one indicates at the least bad maintanence, and very probably an indifference to road safety.
2. How bad is the defect. Less than 1.6mm but tread still visible on one tyre would get told to change the tyre before leaving. A defective spare as well as the one on the axle would get a PG9 (prohibition).
3. If the tread had gone, and the cord/ply was showing, then it's ticket time plus the prohibition.
4. As at 3 but more than one tyre or one tyre plus other con & use offences then it's up the steps to meet the local beak.
I have had many interesting "discussions" with motorists who have told me how much better "SLICKS" are at road holding. I couldn't agree more, but as long as it was designed as a slick, and made from totally different compounds to the "bald" slick that adorns their car, and they're not using it on a public road/place.
The tyres your car uses when on the road have to cope with all types of conditions, from winter to summer, rain snow and sun.
Also, when on a track, if oil or other fluids are spilt, then the race is stopped/slowed, and the spillage dealt with. This doesn't happen on the road, and the oil and diesel and other contaminants on the road are very rarely cleared up. And if, half way through the race, it starts to rain, then the drivers pull into the pits and put treaded tyres on.
The speed ratings on tyres vary from car to car as to what the manufacturer recommends is the appropriate one for the performance of the vehicle. From my point of view, as long as it isn't an aggricultural tyre, or there isn't a mix and match of sizes/constuction (radial/crossply) then all I will do is make notes on it and advise the driver that he/she has a lower rated tyre on the vehicle. Examinations of vehicles involved in collisions will be treated differently if the wrong tyre is found to have been fitted.
The average family car will have an "H" rated tyre fitted. This is normally found on the side wall of the tyre in the following format. 195/65 R15 91H.
195 = tread width in mm.
65 = the height of the side wall as a percentage of the width.
R = Radial construction.
15 = Wheel size in inches.
91 = Batch number.
H = speed rating.
Most high performance vehicles should be fitted with either "W" or "V" rated tyres.
The tread depth for cars and light vans is 1.6 mm across the central 75% of the tyre and around the entire circumference. For all other vehicles it is 1 mm, except for mopeds under 50cc when the base of the original tread pattern must be visible.
I hope that this is of help.
Hoon Devil
07-01-2006, 10:39 AM
Don't forget the sidewalls of the tyres, especially the side facing the inside of the wheelarch, I've had a tyre that had plenty of tread and the outer wall was fine. The inner sidewall was badly cracked meaning the tyre was knackered. Not easy to check, either. A torch afer dark works best for me.
I forgot to mention, that you can also get asymetric tyres, directional tyres etc etc. So on these tyres, you will have things like arrows with the word "Rotation", indicating which way they should face. Asymetric tyres have an inner and outer edge.
You can also get "Rain" tyres which also have to be fitted one way only. There will also be information about maximum weights, tyre pressures and temperatures.
As tyres are sold in different countries there will be info that doesn't apply to the UK, such as Federal requirements in the USA. Tyres made in the EU will have the "E" mark on them.
One thing I left out from above was the speed ratings.
"H" rated tyres have a max design speed of 130 mph.
"V" rated = Up to 150 mph.
"W" = Up to 168 mph.
"Z" = Over 150 mph
"Y" = Up to 186 mph.
Tyres marked "ZR" will be designed for over 150 mph but the user should refer to the manufacturers guidelines.
Tyres are simple aren't they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I forgot to mention, that you can also get asymetric tyres, directional tyres etc etc. So on these tyres, you will have things like arrows with the word "Rotation", indicating which way they should face. Asymetric tyres have an inner and outer edge.
Some of these tyres are recommended mounted in the opposite direction for race series -- certainly the CR500 on se7ens is reverse mounted on the front wheels so that under extreme track work they are less likely to shred.
Yokohama also recommend reversing the side car tyre, but hey, it don't get used on the road.
I have had many interesting "discussions" with motorists who have told me how much better "SLICKS" are at road holding. I couldn't agree more, but as long as it was designed as a slick, and made from totally different compounds to the "bald" slick that adorns their car, and they're not using it on a public road/place.
That made me laugh, i can just imagine the conversation !
And apparently, something I didn't know was that the metal banding in the tyre construction aids grip in the wet when it's visible and fraying.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.2 Copyright © 2010 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.