TIRES - why you'll never get them replaced under warranty

[nerys]

I notice zero change in stopping distance. Then again my max speed in this vehicle is 50mph and more typically 35 to 40mph delivering. I notice zero performance change at all.

Not sure if they are summer or all season. Cornering is unaffected. At least i can not tell any difference.

They are not wonderful on snow but seem to work ok enough. Granted i am comparing them to my jeep with 31" meats that ear snow for breakfast.

The only time i have issues is when the snow gets deep enough to impact the undercarriage.

 

[macnut]

.....
Either you have temperatures below 7C / 44F or you don't. If you have them, you should use another set of tires.
(below 0C / 32F pure winter tire or M/S is the best). If not, use SUMMER tires, not all-weather. It is that easy

Not that easy.

This 7 deg. C figure gets overworked.

That may be the temperature point below which tire manufacturers found in the lab their winter tread compound stayed softer than a summer or A/S tread compound.

But in real life I am sure there is no specific magical point where the air temp. suddenly dictates you are significantly better off with a winter tire. (Somewhere in the vicinity of freezing, but let's not get carried away with this 7C.)

It depends on so many other factors. Such as:
- how the tire is heating up from just driving, cornering, etc.
- the type of road surface
- wet or dry road
- difference between air temperature and road surface temperature
- differences between winter tire tread design and composition from different manufacturers

All tires are a compromise. You cannot have it all. And all tires are different.

And I would definitely not suggest that if your locale never has temps. below 7C to use "summer tires".
That decision should involve how much rainfall you get, and whether you use the vehicle to travel occasionally outside your domain to colder areas, ski hills, etc.
For most the decision to use summer tires rather than A/S or All-Weather is based solely on a driving performance objective - with acceptance that they will perform badly in the rare rainstorm and will also wear down much quicker.

All-weather tires can be a good choice for some in N. America. Otherwise, although it's a misnomer, all-seasons do an adequate job for many others.
And for those whose location or usage pattern requires it, certainly go with the seasonal swap-over with true winter tires.

Tire rotation to balance out wear is a completely different topic and is based mostly on economics and the noble desire to have all tires looking and behaving the same at any point in time.

 

[RockyNv]

Recommendation is that tires should be used within 7 years after production.
In good storing condition (no direct sunlight, not wet, cleaned) can be few years more.

Point is that "I drive more carefully" is more-or-less a myth. It doesn't help if it is snowing or water solidifies on the road.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wimQSTtCEEY&list=RDwimQSTtCEEY#t=43

This kind of thing is pretty funny :lol:

And 5 years after first being mounted on a rim they should be replaced. Yes Michelin claims 10 years however there is the requirement that from the fifth year on you have to have a Michelin trained inspector remove the tire from the rim and re-certify it as safe for another years usage. The cost of the inspections is so much that its cheaper (safer to IMHO) to just get a new tire.

Here with our Tropical Rains many folks who use the extreme high mileage tires end up in sliding accidents or rear ending other cars. Even on cool dry roads on a 60 to 70 degree F day you can end up with diminished grip. If the roads are slightly damp on a cool morning they can end up sliding so badly you'd think they were on Black Ice. My Father who designed rubber formulations for tires, etc use to warn us to stay away from the 60,000 + mile tires as they required some pretty sophisticated engineering in the tread design to get a passable grip in cool weather and when half worn out but that there would be compromises that one may not appreciate. Those super long wearing tires are not the best choice for many people. My mother surprised him once with some 80,000 mile Yokohama tires and thought he was kidding when he told her that he did not feel they would be safe here. That day she rear ended someone when she tried to drive as she normally did on the 45,000 mile tires my Father had been getting and found out how much less wet braking performance the new long wearing tires had compared to the old 45,000 mile ones. The new Yokohama tires were replaced that day with a 45,000 mile tire with much better wet grip and Mom made sure to take Dad with her that time.

So aside from climate considerations there is the need to be cautious about tires rated for extreme high mileage over 45,000 or so miles. The longer lasting the tire the more likely they will be to loose their grip when you need it most.

 

[jkline]

I've never seen 'summer tires' for sale in my part of the world. You can buy 'winter' and 'all season'.

I've driven 'all seasons' all year 'round until two years ago-- bought winter tires for my Suburban and Cummins diesel. The only difference I can tell is that they drive noisy.

When these wear out, I'm not buying winter tires again. I'll stick with non-Schwab Cooper all-season from now on. Not saying they are a rip-off-- just saying I don't see value in buying two sets of tires and rims.

 

[RockyNv]

When living in Norther New England I did snow removal and contracting that required driving on loose fill using locking 4 wheel drive trucks which showed the superior grip of the winter/mud&snow tires over the all season or highway(summer) tires. On a ICE powered front engine rear wheel drive car/van/pickup that is not loaded in the back all season tires will not perform as well on unplowed snow and may leave you stuck however a few sand bags in the trunk can get you mostly past that. In some parts of the US you are required to have snow tires and at times chains to lawfully drive on some roads and when the weather is bad police may setup check points where they will send you back if you do not have the required tires and equipment with you.

Front wheel drive ICE powered cars can be acceptable with all season tires due to over 60% of the vehicles weight being over the front wheels while on front drive electrics depending on where the battery ends up putting the bulk of the weight can be a mixed bag and can require snow tires if you live where there are large snowfalls and you will be driving on unplowed roads.

Highway (summer) tires can be good year round even where it gets cooler but doesn't snow if you do not get the extreme high mileage formulations.

Its all a balancing act and requires a little common sense to vet out where you live and what your driving against when you really need to be out on the road.

The Leaf with its traction battery underneath and the stipulation that the warranty on the traction battery is void if you even get it partially wet does not make it a good choice for driving in highly in-climate weather. Where I currently live I understood before I purchased my Leaf that there will be times when there is a tropical downpour that I will need to take a different route than I normally would to avoid flooding that could impact the battery and if I still lived in New England I know that I could not drive the Leaf without giving consideration to the deep puddles of icy water that accumulate on certain roads during a bad winter storm.

 

[GerryAZ]

LEAF's traction battery case is sealed so there is no concern about driving through standing water of reasonable depth. I usually buy softer (sticky) tread compound tires for better traction on all of my vehicles because the tread will wear out about the same time as the sidewalls start showing significant weather (heat) related deterioration here in Phoenix. I just replaced the Michelin Energy Saver AS tires on the Leaf with somewhat stickier Continentals for better wet and dry traction without too much range reduction. It would be fun to put rea!ly sticky tires on the Leaf with its ideal weight distribution and low center of gravity, but I could not afford severe range reduction. The wet traction of original Michelins was marginal and I did not rotate them often enough so the two that spent the most time on the front were barely legal at 28,000 miles. My interpretation of the warranty information included with the 2015 is that there is no mi!eage coverage for the original tires.

Gerry

 

[arnis]

I've never seen 'summer tires' for sale in my part of the world. You can buy 'winter' and 'all season'.

I've driven 'all seasons' all year 'round until two years ago-- bought winter tires for my Suburban and Cummins diesel. The only difference I can tell is that they drive noisy.

When these wear out, I'm not buying winter tires again. I'll stick with non-Schwab Cooper all-season from now on. Not saying they are a rip-off-- just saying I don't see value in buying two sets of tires and rims.

Please show protector picture (just google it or make a photo). I'm afraid US sellers/resellers has some problems with identification.
Winter tires are clearly different from all other tires. Summer tires are usually different compared to all season.

Here with our Tropical Rains many folks who use the extreme high mileage tires

I've never even seen one for sale on EU territory. Most likely didn't get approved or got banned for unacceptable performance.
Toy cars have excellent mileage tires, made out of hard plastic - excellent wear - nonexistent grip in rain :lol:

I just replaced the Michelin Energy Saver AS..

It would be fun to put rea!ly sticky tires on the Leaf

I use Energy Saver (not AS). Very quiet, handles well in the rain.

There are tires that are A-class efficiency and are sticky. This is possible. Downside is wear. They stick because they wear fast.
But compound itself is not soft. It's kinda abrasive (like sandpaper).

 

[RockyNv]

Arnis - You never have seen tires advertised as 60,000, 75,000 or 80,000 mile tires? Yes plasticy is how one would describe their performance on wet or damp roads. The do not grip well at all on our fairly smooth concrete roads either. On the very coarse rural chip and tar oil roads they are passable because the roads are so very rough and tend to wear (grind) tires down very quickly.

 

[arnis]

Arnis - You never have seen tires advertised as 60,000, 75,000 or 80,000 mile tires? Yes plasticy is how one would describe their performance on wet or damp roads. The do not grip well at all on our fairly smooth concrete roads either. On the very coarse rural chip and tar oil roads they are passable because the roads are so very rough and tend to wear (grind) tires down very quickly.

Never. I've never even seen ads about tire mileage. Nobody believes these random numbers made by manufacturers.
In EU all tires have to have Eurolabel: which show three main categories: fuel efficiency, wet grip, noise. Illegal to sell without those parameters.

If tires fails to get the worst category it is banned. So 60 000 mile tire will most likely fail. At least with wet grip. Or noise.
If it doesn't and it really gets longer mileage then at least buyer is informed about weak performance in something.

For example, best pure winter tire. It hardly gets good scores as there is no "snowy road" rating.
https://www.nokiantyres.com/winter-tyres/nokian-hakkapeliitta-r2/

Open any size and click "Show EU labels". All sizes have their own specifications for every category.
So 255 tire may make much more noise and consume more than 205 to get the same rating.

Also all tires that are allowed by law to be used in winter (where mandatory) must have a symbol

I'm surprised Nokian offers All-Weather tires (not the same as All-Season, check webpage for more).

 

[macnut]

I use Energy Saver (not AS). Very quiet, handles well in the rain.

The Energy Saver is marketed as an A/S in N. America because it meets the required tread blocks to voids ratio as determined by the tire maker. (No performance test required, just a parameter in the design.)
Which is consistent with your experience of good handling in the rain.

Michelin have no motivation to brand it as an A/S in Europe as the whole A/S concept never was foisted on car owners there to the degree it was in N. America.
If you are buying a tire for its low rolling resistance or because it is "green" you quite correctly don't expect (or believe) it to be A/S, or it's a very secondary consideration.

To market a tire here that doesn't qualify as a winter (mountain snowflake symbol) tire nor an all-season (M&S symbol) is a tough sell.
So it had better be really good at dry road cornering - hence the somewhat rarer "summer tire" at a premium price with very stiff sidewalls and typically fast-wearing tread.
But in Europe that is much more of a mainstream tire.

 

[RockyNv]

Arnis - You never have seen tires advertised as 60,000, 75,000 or 80,000 mile tires? Yes plasticy is how one would describe their performance on wet or damp roads. The do not grip well at all on our fairly smooth concrete roads either. On the very coarse rural chip and tar oil roads they are passable because the roads are so very rough and tend to wear (grind) tires down very quickly.

Never. I've never even seen ads about tire mileage. Nobody believes these random numbers made by manufacturers.

Then how do you know about those numbers to say you don't believe them if you have not seen them in a manufactures brochure or advertised on their web page or in some other reference? Are you playing word games on the word advertised to just mean printed sales flyers or television commercials? Brochures, warranty pamphlets, tire placards and manufacturers web page descriptions are still advertisements or if you prefer propaganda.

Be mindful that the experience in Estonia which is smaller that the two small states of New Hampshire and Vermont combined and located at a lesser range of latitudes North of them will be far less broad then in the US which spans from the Southern Arctic Circle to the just about the Northern latitudes of Sudan.

Note that here in the US a tire can't be sold without the uniform label showing traction, temperature, treadwear in an Alpha rating scale along a numeric comparative ranking, standard date code and a speed rating. A tire that is so bad it can't be ranked on the scale or does not have the date code stamped into it per DOT standards can't be sold here. A tire that is below the speed rating of the vehicle its intended can't legally be installed and a tire dealer who does install a tire with an insufficient speed rating for the vehicle can and will loose their installers license if caught.

 

[arnis]

Energy Saver and Energy Saver AS have clearly different tread design.
http://www.autorno.com/userfiles/products/michelin-energy-saver-plus-side.png
http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/michelin/mi_energysaver_as_pdptrd.jpg

AS is much more capable in wet and snow but makes more noise and handles worse in corners.

Estonia is small but weather here is very demanding. I would even say sophisticated.
The only thing we don't have is temperatures above 30C. But as 25C already needs pure summer tires
then knowledge about tires is wide-ranging.
Same for the other extreme, below -25C is rare. But that also requires absolute winter compounds,
second grade winter fuel, second grade washer fluid, more expensive ICE oils... etc.
The hard part is exactly in between. For example, did you know that ice that is near freezing temperature
is much more slippery than ice that is really cold. Or that studs are not helping much in very cold temperatures.
Therefore studded tires are best at -5C/+1C at the same time asphalt ruins the head of the stud too fast - dilemma :lol:
Also winter grade tires are sometimes worse than AS or all-weather due to slush acting like water, not like snow.
Imagine 1" of water and choose the best tire now for highway :lol: .

hence the somewhat rarer "summer tire" at a premium price with very stiff sidewalls and typically fast-wearing tread.

Summer tires do not have stiff sidewalls. On contrary winter tires do. Also RFT has exceptionally hard sidewalls for obvious reasons.
Summer tires cost lest than winter tires on average. Therefore if there is a premium price in US it is only because they are not common.
Wear speed depends on compound. Most performance tires wear faster.

Then how do you know about those numbers to say you don't believe them

Experience. Those who buy their first set usually guess. Sometimes manufacturers mention something like "longer lasting"
or "non-performance driving". All praising taken with a grain of salt. But we have EU sites that do reviews (or everybody just adds their experience) for those who are doing more research before choosing a set. These feedbacks tend to be very valuable.

Also tire mileage depends on the surface it grips to. It is not rare to hear about winter tires lasting for more than 4-5 seasons or
50 000+ miles. But this is not because they are "wear resistant". It is because those users either live in non-urban area and/or
drive on roads that are covered with soft white powder called snow. Snow doesn't wear tire at all. Same for ice. And as soon as
spring melts roads we switch to summer set. Therefore tires last "too damn long".
Main problem is the summer set. Hot weather and asphalt that has been roughed with studs during winter is the main problem.
In addition it is popular to use bigger rims in summer and smaller for winter for best driving comfort and best looks. But 17" set
would cost twice as much as 15". Also wider tires will almost always wear faster. Alignment is never ideal.

 

[RockyNv]

Arnis - You say you are guessing through experience about the numbers that manufacturers advertise their tires as lasting to know that they are unbelievable? That is a very interesting methodology. Saying that I have to believe that you are now putting me on is the kindest way to put it.

It was interesting to see that some tire manufactures listed by the Estonian Tyre Association lease tires in Estonia based on how many kilometers of wear they are rated for/advertised to last.

 

[arnis]

Manufacturers do not claim ANY NUMBERS. Just random people do who always tend to praise
something they own. Like BMW owners recommend BMW's and VW owners recommend VW's.
Tire review sites are those that sometimes mention average tire longevity. That data is taken
from users who rate tires they used. Not manufacturers nor resellers.
But like I said it all depends on how/where tires are used and therefore any estimations should be taken not literally.

It was interesting to see that some tire manufactures listed by the Estonian Tyre Association lease tires in Estonia based on how many kilometers of wear they are rated for/advertised to last.

Do they lease tires? What. Where did you get that information

 

[RockyNv]

Manufacturers do not claim ANY NUMBERS. Just random people do who always tend to praise
something they own. Like BMW owners recommend BMW's and VW owners recommend VW's.
Tire review sites are those that sometimes mention average tire longevity. That data is taken
from users who rate tires they used. Not manufacturers nor resellers.
But like I said it all depends on how/where tires are used and therefore any estimations should be taken not literally.

It was interesting to see that some tire manufactures listed by the Estonian Tyre Association lease tires in Estonia based on how many kilometers of wear they are rated for/advertised to last.

Do they lease tires? What. Where did you get that information

I logged on to the Estonian Tyre Association web site and checked out for myself what the association and its member tire manufacturers along with the dealers in Estonia advertise about the tires and purchasing options. I found the option to lease tires an interesting concept.

Saw for myself that tires sold in Estonia are referred to by the manufacturers and sellers as 75,000 km tires (most common which is about 45,000 miles), etc. Also saw that unlike with the US DOT uniform standard for selling tires there was not good uniformity there for relaying to a consumer exactly what they were buying. I saw comparatively now that the US DOT and Federal Bureau of Standards (I forget what their new designation is) here in the USA while they are not perfect are doing a pretty good job.

 

[arnis]

There is massive misunderstanding here. I checked
http://www.rehviliit.ee/web2/?cat_ID=13&page_id=32
Estonian Tyre Association website and there is nothing you mentioned.

Also I repeat, that EU has EUROLABEL for many consumer products (vacuum cleaners, washing machines,
fridges, AC-devices, cars, tyres etc). Every product has its own "main parameters". Usually devices
that require electricity get their energy rating and how much power each product on average will waste.
For example incandescence bulbs failed to get the lowest rating and have been phased out from market.
Tyres have: Grip on wet surface, noise, efficiency. For European drivers these are also the main
parameters. Longevity is not primary. Manufacturer can only disappoint once - if tires wear unacceptably fast
they will run out of clients even faster. Competition is incredibly hard here. Check out this:
http://www.tyrepress.com/leading-tyre-manufacturers/

Anyway, consumers are very well informed in EU. It is very very hard to find a tyre with excellent ratings no matter the price:

I heard quite the opposite about US. Especially a lot of talk about blowouts, why they happen and why nobody fixes the problem.
Blowouts on certified tires in EU are very rare. We have much stricter demands for speed rating. This has been discussed here I believe.

 

[RockyNv]

People who have blowouts usually are the ones who don't read the labels and buy old stock tires past their end of life or buy used tires without verifying the date codes first or simply run them past their end of life underinflating them to get a softer ride.

The case that made international headlines was when Bridgstone bought FireStone, fired the engineers and then tried to run the old production lines faster than they were capable of to increase short term profits manufacturing tires at uneven and inconsistant temperatures. Purely a case of extreme greed on the part of the forien equity investors.