Yes, this is where I was coming from…
Yes, that is scary. My Mrs had a slightly similar experience after a water leak ‘in the road’ wasn’t repaired and the escaping water froze in the night. On a hill she carried on into the parallel, main road a good 1/2 a car’s length, and a passing big lorry luckily swerved to the right.
Still who knows really how AS tyres would have fared.
1 Like
I think saying that AS are just flawed is oversimplification.
They are absolutely better on light snow than summers. They also shine on cold wet. What is the difference between summer and AS on a damp cold road is quite hard to test reliably. I would guess they are about the same as summer tyres. But that’s just me guessing.
Where they are mediocre or bad, compared to actual winter and summer tyres, is dry, heavy (subzero) snow and ice.
Aquaplaning resistance is clear win for summers even in cold, but on the other hand true winter tyres usually suck at this. So AS once again is in the middle
Softer compounds and carcasses in AS + block patterns affects handling, but they are better than true winters.
I could probably think couple of more examples where AS sits tightly in the middle, but I think I made my point already.
For me AS tires are, as someone mentioned, jack of all trades. It’s not necessarily bad thing. If you get them all, sun, rain and snow and you just want one set of tyres, AS is the answer.
If you want best for all particular weather’s, you need three sets. Summers, winters and all seasons.
If you want best for sunny and dry but you are ready to compromise on cold and wet go with summers.
Up here where we compromise is quite obvious. Wet “season” is about 2 months, so summers and winters.
What is your particular blend is up to you. All I can say with confidence is that physics is a ■■■■■ and trying to create a tyre that is perfect with everything would mean that we need a new material that isn’t rubber.
3 Likes
I think I replaced the bridgestones well before they ran out of tread as they would slide quite easily in the cold/wet. They were relatively old tyres though so that age would have gone against them.
The michelins didnt do that at all, even when I replaced them with the rears near the legal limit.
Bridgestones were also oem tyres on the mk3 MR2 (the roadster) and they were not popular with owners either generally. I agree with what someone said above, oem tyre specs are more likely to do with the cost they can get them for than ultimate performance (unless it is a tyre developed solely for a high performance car!).
3 Likes
This I think is very good point. Comparing worn tyre to new one is like comparing apples and oranges.
Finnish car magazine compared used tyres to new ones and results were quite clear:
Driveability on wet asphalt (score)
-
Best new tire — 10
-
Worst new tire — 5
-
Worn summer tire — 4 (2)
-
Worn winter tire — 4 (0)
The worn tires have been given the minimum passing school grade, i.e. four, even though in reality a worn summer tire would have deserved roughly a two and a studless winter tire a flat zero. In fast driving situations and evasive maneuvers its behavior is truly surprising and dangerous, as there is simply not enough grip to maintain control at all. Even motorway on-ramps become a risky place for a driver using such a tire if there is even a small amount of water on the road.
For background Finnish school grades go from 4-10. Where 4 is fail. Also winter tyres in question are nordic friction tyres. So not comparable as such to all-season tyres.
Link to original article : Mittaukset eivät valehtele – TM:n kesärengasvertailun tulokset näyttävät, miksi et halua käyttää vanhoja kitkoja kesärenkaina (in Finnish, but translators should be able to handle it)
1 Like
I’m in an NC but have 2 sets of tyres. I’ve got CrossClimate 2’s in 205 guise, plus Kumho PS72’s in 215.
I haven’t put the CC2’s on this year. My experience with them last year was quite unsettling during a morning commute which includes around 15 miles of off camber chopped B-road, where water runs along a channel down the side. The CC2’s pulled uncomfortably when running through this water. When the temperature dropped, I also found a loss of grip on loaded corners that others didn’t. The CC2’s didn’t give me any confidence in light snow or slush either.
The PS72’s, I find, have no adverse reaction in similar conditions. They seem to perform better in the very wet, than on slightly greasy surfaces however.
I haven’t fitted the CC2’s this season yet and have stuck with the PS72’s. I am still on the lookout for a reasonably priced spare set of wheels to fit the CC2’s to and will likely fit them at some point in the next month to give them a bit of usage, if nothing else.
1 Like
And every scenario when it’s not snowing and the temp is 7 degrees or above. Braking distances, everything is better on a premium summer than a premium all season for 8 or so months of the year. Again though, no one seems to say ‘I’m not using all seasons in May as I don’t appreciate their worse performance in all conditions, compared to summers.’
Also, we’re in January, we’ve had no snow and an outside temp of 8-10 degrees, (6 or so in the night, granted), for a decent 10 days. Summers win there too. Maybe lifestyle is also a big factor. Shift worker finishing at 3am in December a bit different to a pensioner, ‘coming around’ in the morning, then going out at 11am, coming back at 12:15pm.
2 Likes
Never had the CC2 on MX-5 as I don’t drive it in bad weather. But on another car they were amazing, loads of grip in wet and dry, and in the snow they felt like there wasn’t any snow there.
I remember ‘Tyre Review’ saying that if they had been put into a winter tyre test they would have finished mid table, which I thought was impressive.
1 Like
Manufacturers chose tyres based on a huge number of factors from testable criteria to subjective ones. Noise, response, balance, feel, bump absorption, and on and on are the things that mater at the point the car is signed off for production. Cost is a minimum factor as the manufacturer will be dictating the price for which supplying companies will have to conform. A given model of BMW for instance may come on a Michelin, Continental, Hankook, Pirelli or Goodyear. Whilst I’m not in the purchasing department, it is highly improbable that there would be any difference to the delivered cost of these tyres from any of these manufacturers as that would affect the overall economics of production.
Then, a tyre may be tweaked between manufacturers. An OE Michelin Premacy tyre on a Ford Puma may have a different carcase and rubber compound to one for a Citroen Aircross, and both different to the “standard” Premacy tyre offered at KikFit.
The testing that is performed, cannot account for all situations and senecios either. Testing is lengthy and expensive. Testing a car’s performance at different tread depths yields little relevant data for a vehicle manufacturer relating to the showroom, that side is down to tyre manufacturers. The priority of the engineers at Hiroshima to understand the wet performance of a OE tyre 4 years after the car was originally sold is likely to less than their concern for the drinks in the vending machine being the right temperature.
All tyres are compromises. In F1, where you are never more than 100 seconds from a 2 second tyre change, tyres are picked for the situation. We don’t have that option so must accept a compromise. Fitting All Season tyres to a car from new is always going to be one of those compromises to any manufacturer. You would be selecting a tyre based on what? Are people living on the South Coast worried about the same climatic conditions as those in the Scottish Highlands? The ultimate question is at which point does one tyre become the better option than another one and is there a penalty for running one tyre all year round compared to another? We have all experienced or seen RWD cars particularly, struggling for grip, to the point some can’t even get off their drive, once snow has fallen. On that basis alone, if you need your car and you expect to have to drive in snow, "non winter rated” tyres are not suitable and therefore not suitable for all round use, where as it is quite possible to drive on a Winter or AS tyre all year, even in a heat wave. So what are the down sides? Winter rated tyres, the three peaks and snowflake symbol, so that includes full Winter and AS tyres, use different rubber compounds, usually having a higher natural rubber content, than Sumer tyres. While you will not notice this to the touch, their compounds are softer and composition different, so their chemical grip, the actually sticking to the road, and mechanical grip, the bending and locking into the features of the surface, are optimised for lower temperatures. They also have a more cut or siped tread pattern allowing the tread in the contact patch to move around more under load and provide traction and by association, braking in snowy and freezing weather. There is no question that these type of tyres offer far superior performance in these conditions. The downside are very much when you are not in these conditions. Apart from a very small number of outliers, the wet performance of AS and Winter tyres is one to two levels of wet braking performance lower that the equivalent summer tyre. That is 4 to 8m longer stopping distance from 50mph, and given that most of the speed comes off in the last part of braking, you would still be going 20mph when the A rated Summer tyre has stopped. Is this the same in cold conditions? Much is said about a Summer tyre being limited to 7 deg, but what does this actually mean? Air temperature, surface temperature or something else? It actually refers to temperature of the rubber in the tread and carcase, and is considered the point where performance starts to reduce. It does not suddenly fall off a cliff. Summer compounds are harder, at a given temperature than Winter ones, they like a bit of heat or temperature to allow them to grip and flex. However, the act of driving will heat the rubber. The movement of the tyre, the constant flexing of the sidewall and tread produce heat within the rubber. On a dry road, even if it was minus 2, after 3 or 4 miles your tyre rubber will be capable of gripping well. It is water, and snow, that will suck the heat out of the tyre. But even then, if it is 4 or 5 deg a decent Summer tyre is still going to have very good performance and still possibly better braking performance than an AS and Winter tyre. It all comes down to tyre condition though. All these performance figures are derived from new tyres. Few MK3 drivers complained about their tyres when new, a 4 year old Bridgestone RE50 could be a spiteful thing though.
So basically you need to decide if AS or Winter tyres are appropriate for your driving need. In the dry, particularly in the summer, that soft, flexible tread can be imprecise, lack feel and communication and ultimate grip, you will notice understeer on a winter tyre. And if pushed, wear surprisingly quickly. They will wear faster in just general like for like driving anyway, but the final considerations are that they are generally more expensive than a comparable Summer tyre, typically require replacing at 5 years even if not being used and all winter rated tyres should be replaced at 3mm tread depth. If you need them though, they are priceless.
8 Likes
So I did a Gemini search comparing the tyres a 7, 10 and then 11C. Was surprised at how good the AS as claimed to be eleven at 11… Of course this is AI so…
1 Like
Another moral is get what you want 
On an enthusiasts forum, no one is going to be putting on ditch finder tyres, so I’m sure any forum member makes an informed decision based on their own needs, and puts on decent quality/brand tyres anyway of whatever season or flavour. When you think of it, AS tyres of one of the top brands is going to be better than 80% of average joe’s ditch finder summers, even in mid June.
2 Likes
When I was younger we just fitted tyres. 
5 Likes
I remember remoulds very well. 
My father used to talk about driving round challenging corners and the car would drift from one side of the road to the other as he did it 
. He didn’t mention remoulds (and was an enthusiast so unlikely to have used them).
1 Like
My first car in 1974 was a 1964 Austin 1100 in Connaught Green, my then brother in law got it for me for £80. It cost me £88 to insure it through the dodgy Swann Insurance company. As an apprentice fabricator welder earning a pittance, buying tyres was an unnecessary expenditure that I could do without, buying beer was much more important. I then found a tyre place that sold Kelly Springfield remoulds, two for a tenner and they looked the part although the performance and wear rate was pretty dismal. 
2 Likes
I remember those!
The good old days eh. 
was the only person able to keep an Austin 1100 going!
2 Likes
Definitely. The floor sills were pop riveted on when I got it and it had an mot. Those were the days 
2 Likes
Summers.
1 Like
All year round?
Well I suppose if you’re an owner who leaves the vehicle largely unused during the winter period, nor uses it during inclement periods of weather, it’s very much a moot point…
1 Like