I've just got around to watching my recording of the recent Watchdog that
talked about ultra-low profile tyres.  Seems that the rims are prone to
cracking on the UK's roads and that the car manufacturers are loathe to
replace them on warranty, tending to reject the claims and blame the
driver, saying that cars with such wheels require careful driving to avoid
potholes etc. 

Uh huh.  I once holed a tyre (but not the rim) myself on the moderately
low profile tyres on my MK5 RS2000 by taking avoiding action that drove
the tyre over a low curb.  I know I'd have got away with it if the tyre
hadn't been low profile.  At least I don't have to worry much about
potholes.

So the present trend seems to be that "sporty" cars are to be given tyres
that only allow them to be driven hard on a well-maintained race track.
But on UK roads, sporty cars should no longer be driven sportily.  That's
what the *manufacturers* are saying.  Is this bonkers or what?

And the "Range Rover Sport"...  Seriously, WTF?

http://eurocars.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tuning_range_rover_sport.jpg

--
Dave Farrance

Dave Farrance wrote:
> I've just got around to watching my recording of the recent Watchdog that
> talked about ultra-low profile tyres.  Seems that the rims are prone to
> cracking on the UK's roads and that the car manufacturers are loathe to
> replace them on warranty, tending to reject the claims and blame the
> driver, saying that cars with such wheels require careful driving to avoid
> potholes etc. 
> 
> Uh huh.  I once holed a tyre (but not the rim) myself on the moderately
> low profile tyres on my MK5 RS2000 by taking avoiding action that drove
> the tyre over a low curb.  I know I'd have got away with it if the tyre
> hadn't been low profile.  At least I don't have to worry much about
> potholes.
> 
> So the present trend seems to be that "sporty" cars are to be given tyres
> that only allow them to be driven hard on a well-maintained race track.
> But on UK roads, sporty cars should no longer be driven sportily.  That's
> what the *manufacturers* are saying.  Is this bonkers or what?
> 
> And the "Range Rover Sport"...  Seriously, WTF?
> 
> http://eurocars.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tuning_range_rover_sport.jpg
> 
> --
> Dave Farrance

I thought that Watchdog prog was only about some 
BMW low profile wheels?

Bod

Dave Farrance wrote:
> I've just got around to watching my recording of the recent Watchdog
> that talked about ultra-low profile tyres.  Seems that the rims are
> prone to cracking on the UK's roads and that the car manufacturers
> are loathe to replace them on warranty, tending to reject the claims
> and blame the driver, saying that cars with such wheels require
> careful driving to avoid potholes etc.
>
> Uh huh.  I once holed a tyre (but not the rim) myself on the
> moderately low profile tyres on my MK5 RS2000 by taking avoiding
> action that drove the tyre over a low curb.  I know I'd have got away
> with it if the tyre hadn't been low profile.  At least I don't have
> to worry much about potholes.
>
> So the present trend seems to be that "sporty" cars are to be given
> tyres that only allow them to be driven hard on a well-maintained
> race track. But on UK roads, sporty cars should no longer be driven
> sportily.  That's what the *manufacturers* are saying.  Is this
> bonkers or what?
>
> And the "Range Rover Sport"...  Seriously, WTF?
>
> http://eurocars.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tuning_range_rover_sport.jpg

I laughed my socks off at this Watchdog article. Ultra low profile tyres on 
UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot spoilers. The 
owners think they 'look good', but practically speaking they are a nonsense. 
They are a boy racer's accessory.

They give an appallingly hard ride, they transmit far more road noise 
through to the cabin, they are extremely expensive to replace, and if you 
drive legally, they achieve nothing that ordinary tyres cannot achieve. On 
top of that, on some BMWs, they wreck the alloy wheels if you drive over one 
of the many pot-holes littering our roads!

Kev

Bod  wrote:

>I thought that Watchdog prog was only about some 
>BMW low profile wheels?

BMW was the specific company that they were taking to task, yes.  But they
did have some more general commentary about this wheel type.

Dave Farrance wrote:
> Bod  wrote:
> 
>> I thought that Watchdog prog was only about some 
>> BMW low profile wheels?
> 
> BMW was the specific company that they were taking to task, yes.  But they
> did have some more general commentary about this wheel type.

I must have missed that, but I'll take your word.

Bod

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

> I laughed my socks off at this Watchdog article. Ultra low profile tyres
> on UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot spoilers.

What profile are the tyres on your Rover, Kevin?

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> I laughed my socks off at this Watchdog article. Ultra low profile
>> tyres on UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot
>> spoilers.
>
> What profile are the tyres on your Rover, Kevin?

215/55 R16.  Hardly 'Ultra-Low' !  I preferred the 15" wheels on my first 
75 - gave a more comfortable ride.

There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow *assume* that 
owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec' cars in a model's range 
have bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. Why?  Don't you think that 
prospective purchasers should be given a choice (and given information on 
the implications of that choice?) I don't think that many prospective 
purchaser fully realise the extra cost they are letting themselves in for 
when those 18" ultra low profile tyres require replacing.

It's difficult to do precise comparisons but, for example, a Pirelli 195/65 
R15 costs £58.40  A Pirelli 255/45 ZR18 costs £197.00.

I'm not suggesting that those two tyres/wheel sizes would be interchangeable 
on any particular car - but there is no doubt that the difference in price 
between 'standard' tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres is quite dramatic - 
and, IMO, an utter waste of money because on UK roads there is no real 
advantage to ultra low profile tyres - but significant disadvantages in 
terms of ride, road noise, and expense.

Kev

Kev

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

>>> I laughed my socks off at this Watchdog article. Ultra low profile
>>> tyres on UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot
>>> spoilers.

>> What profile are the tyres on your Rover, Kevin?

> 215/55 R16.  Hardly 'Ultra-Low' !

By the standards of a decade or two ago, very much so.

> There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow *assume*
> that owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec' cars in a model's
> range have bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. Why?  Don't you think
> that prospective purchasers should be given a choice (and given
> information on the implications of that choice?)

We've been here before. You clearly don't understand the money that's 
spent on market research and customer clinics by manufacturers.
 
> It's difficult to do precise comparisons but, for example, a Pirelli
> 195/65 R15 costs £58.40  A Pirelli 255/45 ZR18 costs £197.00.

A Michelin 125/90 15 costs about £100. So?

> I'm not suggesting that those two tyres/wheel sizes would be
> interchangeable on any particular car

Good.
What's the speed rating on that 195/65 15? What's the load rating?

> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between 'standard' 
tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres
is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an utter waste of money because on UK roads
there is no real advantage to ultra low profile tyres - but significant
disadvantages in terms of ride, road noise, and expense.

Adrian  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between 'standard'
> tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres
> is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an utter waste of money because on UK
> roads there is no real advantage to ultra low profile tyres - but
> significant disadvantages in terms of ride, road noise, and expense.

Arse. Sent before finished.

>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between 'standard'
>> tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an 
>> utter waste of money because on UK roads there is no real advantage to 
>> ultra low profile tyres - but significant disadvantages in terms of 
>> ride, road noise, and expense.

Yes, well. You're the man who doesn't see any reason to buy anything but 
cheap shit teflonfred rubbish.

"Dave Farrance"  wrote in message 
news:2e4te5tj885891o0jkmd4dqgn03l38931r@4ax.com...
> I've just got around to watching my recording of the recent Watchdog that
> talked about ultra-low profile tyres.  Seems that the rims are prone to
> cracking on the UK's roads and that the car manufacturers are loathe to
> replace them on warranty, tending to reject the claims and blame the
> driver, saying that cars with such wheels require careful driving to avoid
> potholes etc.

Yes, mate of mine recently got a new BMW with 19"ers. Looks good but a very 
harsh ride. Must have a slightly negative effect on fuel economy too.

Z

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> I laughed my socks off at this Watchdog article. Ultra low profile
>>>> tyres on UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot
>>>> spoilers.
>
>>> What profile are the tyres on your Rover, Kevin?
>
>> 215/55 R16.  Hardly 'Ultra-Low' !
>
> By the standards of a decade or two ago, very much so.

And not something that I had any choice about unfortunately.

>
>> There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow *assume*
>> that owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec' cars in a
>> model's range have bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. Why?
>> Don't you think that prospective purchasers should be given a choice
>> (and given information on the implications of that choice?)
>
> We've been here before. You clearly don't understand the money that's
> spent on market research and customer clinics by manufacturers.

Do you really think that the average uk motorist fully understands the 
implications of ultra low profile tyres?

Kev

Adrian wrote:
> Adrian  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
> 
>>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between 'standard'
>> tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres
>> is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an utter waste of money because on UK
>> roads there is no real advantage to ultra low profile tyres - but
>> significant disadvantages in terms of ride, road noise, and expense.
> 
> Arse. Sent before finished.
> 
>>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between 'standard'
>>> tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an 
>>> utter waste of money because on UK roads there is no real advantage to 
>>> ultra low profile tyres - but significant disadvantages in terms of 
>>> ride, road noise, and expense.
> 
> Yes, well. You're the man who doesn't see any reason to buy anything but 
> cheap shit teflonfred rubbish.

I thought the discussion was about the benefits 
(or not) of low profile tyres?

Bod

In article , Dave Farrance 
says...

> So the present trend seems to be that "sporty" cars are to be given tyres
> that only allow them to be driven hard on a well-maintained race track.
> But on UK roads, sporty cars should no longer be driven sportily.  That's
> what the *manufacturers* are saying.  Is this bonkers or what?
> 
No. Its reality. It is a common problem in Spain where a lot of the 
roads are shite. Its only because our roads are now as equally shite 
that the problem is occurring here.

The simple fact is that if you have super skinny tyres on an alloy rim 
with a massive offset, you're going to get bent and cracked rims because 
all the support of the wheel centre is all over to the other side of the 
alloy. Note that they only cracked on the inside.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

In article <hcm9ld$oiq$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Zimmy says...

> Yes, mate of mine recently got a new BMW with 19"ers. Looks good but a very 
> harsh ride. Must have a slightly negative effect on fuel economy too.
> 
The profile won't but the width will.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

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

>>> There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow *assume*
>>> that owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec' cars in a
>>> model's range have bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. Why? Don't
>>> you think that prospective purchasers should be given a choice (and
>>> given information on the implications of that choice?)

>> We've been here before. You clearly don't understand the money that's
>> spent on market research and customer clinics by manufacturers.

> Do you really think that the average uk motorist fully understands the
> implications of ultra low profile tyres?

I don't think the average UK motorist has the first clue, either way. Or, 
tbh, much cares beyond "they look good, innit". Don't forget - the larger 
rims/lower profile tyres tend to be OPTIONAL. Not standard. People are 
choosing to pay extra for them.

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between 'standard'
>>>> tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an
>>>> utter waste of money because on UK roads there is no real advantage
>>>> to ultra low profile tyres - but significant disadvantages in terms
>>>> of ride, road noise, and expense.

>> Yes, well. You're the man who doesn't see any reason to buy anything
>> but cheap shit teflonfred rubbish.

> I thought the discussion was about the benefits (or not) of low profile
> tyres?

Indeed. I'm merely pointing out that Kev's not exactly a newbie at trying 
to claim his blinkered cluelessness is somehow the only right answer.

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>>>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between 'standard'
>>>>> tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an
>>>>> utter waste of money because on UK roads there is no real advantage
>>>>> to ultra low profile tyres - but significant disadvantages in terms
>>>>> of ride, road noise, and expense.
> 
>>> Yes, well. You're the man who doesn't see any reason to buy anything
>>> but cheap shit teflonfred rubbish.
> 
>> I thought the discussion was about the benefits (or not) of low profile
>> tyres?
> 
> Indeed. I'm merely pointing out that Kev's not exactly a newbie at trying 
> to claim his blinkered cluelessness is somehow the only right answer.

 From what little I've read on thye subject, it 
appears that both high and low profile have their
good and bad points on the safety issue.

Bod

Bod  wrote:

>  From what little I've read 

That is, all books up to and including "The Very Hungry Caterpillar".

Ret. <xxx> wrote:

> I laughed my socks off at this Watchdog article. Ultra low profile tyres on
> UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot spoilers. The
> owners think they 'look good', but practically speaking they are a nonsense.
> They are a boy racer's accessory.

Anyone who has tyres other than 65 profile is a fashion victim. And
inevitably driving on British roads which are now among the worst in
Europe, alloy wheels will suffer rim damage from being kerbed and from
potholes.

For the avoidance of doubt, that includes the wheel/tyre combination
fitted to your Rover Shitbox. You wannabee boy racer you.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Anyone who has tyres other than 65 profile is a fashion victim.

Umm, most of my fleet has 80 profile or taller.

> And inevitably driving on British roads which are now among the worst in
> Europe, alloy wheels will suffer rim damage from being kerbed and from
> potholes.

Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking 
where the fuck you're going"?

Adrian wrote:
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
>> Anyone who has tyres other than 65 profile is a fashion victim.
> 
> Umm, most of my fleet has 80 profile or taller.
> 
>> And inevitably driving on British roads which are now among the worst in
>> Europe, alloy wheels will suffer rim damage from being kerbed and from
>> potholes.
> 
> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking 
> where the fuck you're going"?

Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a 
tad more difficult.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
>> where the fuck you're going"?

> Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a tad more difficult.

Only if you're outdriving your lights and/or visibility.

What if it's a sack of anvils, not a pothole?

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> > Anyone who has tyres other than 65 profile is a fashion victim.
> 
> Umm, most of my fleet has 80 profile or taller.

Yebbut you're weird.

> > And inevitably driving on British roads which are now among the worst in
> > Europe, alloy wheels will suffer rim damage from being kerbed and from
> > potholes.
> 
> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
> where the fuck you're going"?

Every hire car I've had in the last five years has had kerbed alloys. I
get the feeling that one of the reasons off-roaders were getting so
popular in London is that they cope well with sleeping policemen, raised
kerbs and bloody big potholes.


Swerving to avoid the ruts and potholes in the road can be a tad
difficult.

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
>>> where the fuck you're going"?
> 
>> Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a tad more difficult.
> 
> Only if you're outdriving your lights and/or visibility.
> 
> What if it's a sack of anvils, not a pothole?

True, there's not many a day goes by, that I don't 
see a sack of anvils or an upright piano in the road.

Bod

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > Anyone who has tyres other than 65 profile is a fashion victim.

>> Umm, most of my fleet has 80 profile or taller.

> Yebbut you're weird.

But am I a wierd fashion victim, or just wierd?

>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
>> where the fuck you're going"?

> Every hire car I've had in the last five years has had kerbed alloys.

"Hire cars frequently driven by people who don't give a fuck!"
Shock news! Hold the front page! Pictures at ten!

> I get the feeling that one of the reasons off-roaders were getting so
> popular in London is that they cope well with sleeping policemen, raised
> kerbs and bloody big potholes.

...without having to look where you're going.
 
> Swerving to avoid the ruts and potholes in the road can be a tad
> difficult.

It can if you don't look where you're going, yes.

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and
>>>> "looking where the fuck you're going"?

>>> Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a tad more difficult.

>> Only if you're outdriving your lights and/or visibility.
>> 
>> What if it's a sack of anvils, not a pothole?

> True, there's not many a day goes by, that I don't see a sack of anvils
> or an upright piano in the road.

Let's just hope your complacency doesn't catch you out, eh?

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>>>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and
>>>>> "looking where the fuck you're going"?
> 
>>>> Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a tad more difficult.
> 
>>> Only if you're outdriving your lights and/or visibility.
>>>
>>> What if it's a sack of anvils, not a pothole?
> 
>> True, there's not many a day goes by, that I don't see a sack of anvils
>> or an upright piano in the road.
> 
> Let's just hope your complacency doesn't catch you out, eh?

What complacency?
Haven't hit anything in 44yrs.
Must've been very lucky.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>>>>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and
>>>>>> "looking where the fuck you're going"?

>>>>> Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a tad more
>>>>> difficult.

>>>> Only if you're outdriving your lights and/or visibility.
>>>>
>>>> What if it's a sack of anvils, not a pothole?

>>> True, there's not many a day goes by, that I don't see a sack of
>>> anvils or an upright piano in the road.

>> Let's just hope your complacency doesn't catch you out, eh?

> What complacency?

This complacency!
<points down>

> Haven't hit anything in 44yrs.
> Must've been very lucky.

Of course, the other alternative explanation is that it's really not that 
difficult to avoid hitting things in the road.

Adrian  wrote:

> > I get the feeling that one of the reasons off-roaders were getting so
> > popular in London is that they cope well with sleeping policemen, raised
> > kerbs and bloody big potholes.
> 
> ...without having to look where you're going.

I think you will find that's normal for 90% of the driving, cycling and
walking public.

> > Swerving to avoid the ruts and potholes in the road can be a tad
> > difficult.
> 
> It can if you don't look where you're going, yes.

No, in North London at least it can be difficult because any serve
simply takes you into another pothole.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > I get the feeling that one of the reasons off-roaders were getting so
>> > popular in London is that they cope well with sleeping policemen,
>> > raised kerbs and bloody big potholes.

>> ...without having to look where you're going.

> I think you will find that's normal for 90% of the driving, cycling and
> walking public.

Indeed it is. But is that a _good_ thing?

>> > Swerving to avoid the ruts and potholes in the road can be a tad
>> > difficult.

>> It can if you don't look where you're going, yes.

> No, in North London at least it can be difficult because any serve
> simply takes you into another pothole.

Slow down, then.

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> I laughed my socks off at this Watchdog article. Ultra low profile
>>>> tyres on UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot
>>>> spoilers.
>
>>> What profile are the tyres on your Rover, Kevin?
>
>> 215/55 R16.  Hardly 'Ultra-Low' !
>
> By the standards of a decade or two ago, very much so.
>
>> There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow *assume*
>> that owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec' cars in a
>> model's range have bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. Why?
>> Don't you think that prospective purchasers should be given a choice
>> (and given information on the implications of that choice?)
>
> We've been here before. You clearly don't understand the money that's
> spent on market research and customer clinics by manufacturers.

If my memory serves me correctly, when I was looking recently at the C5, the 
lower spec cars had 16" wheels whilst the higher spec had 18". It is my 
belief that this is simply a way for manufacturers to add on expensive items 
to customers who are prepared to pay more for higher spec trim - but don't 
fully understand the implications.  Tell me this: if the larger wheels were 
an option, and C5 purchasers were told: "You may if you wish upgrade to 18" 
wheels and low profile tyres. The extra cost is £600. You should be aware 
that although the 18" wheels may look better - they will result in a harder 
ride, greater road noise in the cabin, and replacement tyres will cost 
considerably more than the 16" tyres" - how many purchasers do you think 
would opt to 'upgrade'? (I put the word 'upgrade' in inverted commas because 
as far as I am concerned, opting for a harder ride, more road noise, and 
greater expense down the line, is far from being an 'upgrade'!)

>
>> It's difficult to do precise comparisons but, for example, a Pirelli
>> 195/65 R15 costs £58.40  A Pirelli 255/45 ZR18 costs £197.00.
>
> A Michelin 125/90 15 costs about £100. So?
>
>> I'm not suggesting that those two tyres/wheel sizes would be
>> interchangeable on any particular car
>
> Good.
> What's the speed rating on that 195/65 15? What's the load rating?

Precisely.  Larger, lower profile tyres will invariably have higher speed 
ratings and higher load ratings, despite the fact that the lower ratings for 
the smaller tyres are more than adequate for the car being purchased.  It's 
a wholly wasteful and unnecessary extra expense.

Kev

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> > I get the feeling that one of the reasons off-roaders were getting so
> >> > popular in London is that they cope well with sleeping policemen,
> >> > raised kerbs and bloody big potholes.
> 
> >> ...without having to look where you're going.
> 
> > I think you will find that's normal for 90% of the driving, cycling and
> > walking public.
> 
> Indeed it is. But is that a _good_ thing?

I don't think anyone has suggested that it is, but it is a fact of life.
I don't consider influenza to be a good thing but it's still going to
run rampant no matter how much I protest about it.
 
> >> > Swerving to avoid the ruts and potholes in the road can be a tad
> >> > difficult.
> 
> >> It can if you don't look where you're going, yes.
> 
> > No, in North London at least it can be difficult because any serve
> > simply takes you into another pothole.
> 
> Slow down, then.

It still doesn't prevent alloys from being damaged if one has low
profile tyres. And I'd object if the low profile merchants all slowed
down and started swerving frantically to avoid potholes when I can just
drive through/over the damn things.

Ret. <xxx> wrote:

> It is my belief that this is simply a way for manufacturers to add on
> expensive items to customers who are prepared to pay more for higher spec
> trim

I'll add "car trim levels and market prices" to a long list of things
that you don't understand. A friend's father used to work as a Ford
designer at Dagenham. The father told me that the biggest difference
between the base spec and the high spec models as far as the
manufacturers were concerned was the profit. The top of the range (at
the time) Ford Escort cost not much more than £50 more than the base
model to make.

What the manufacturers do is to dress the top spec model to make people
think that it is worth paying more for. They're not "adding expensive
items" they are deliberately dressing the car with "bling" which costs
not more or little more than the stuff attached to the base car.

I was surprised at the time, but as he pointed out a 1.3L four cyclinder
engine really doesn't cost much less to make than a 2.0L four cyclinder
engine. A seat has much the same price if it's covered in Dralon or
Leather, most of the cost is in the labour which is the same in both
cases. Alloys cost slightly more than steel, but not that much more to
the maker who isn't buying at Halfords prices.

So, the reason for the low profile tyres as you've been told is
"marketing".

Adrian wrote:
> Adrian  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between
>>> 'standard'
>> tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres
>> is quite dramatic - and, IMO, an utter waste of money because on UK
>> roads there is no real advantage to ultra low profile tyres - but
>> significant disadvantages in terms of ride, road noise, and expense.
>
> Arse. Sent before finished.
>
>>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between
>>> 'standard' tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres is quite dramatic -
>>> and, IMO, an utter waste of money because on UK roads there is no
>>> real advantage to ultra low profile tyres - but significant
>>> disadvantages in terms of ride, road noise, and expense.
>
> Yes, well. You're the man who doesn't see any reason to buy anything
> but cheap shit teflonfred rubbish.


I have just recently replaced all four tyres on my car. I decided not to 
replace with the Nexens that I had bought previously (and which have lasted 
longer than the oem Dunlops) because they are 'directional' and I didn't 
want directional tyres.

I had an Ebay trader recommended to me as selling tyres at very competitive 
prices and so I had a look to see what he had on offer. He sells branded 
tyres and budget tyres and I did a bit of research and liked the look of the 
Federal FD1's he was selling.  On this tyre review website:

http://www.tyretest.com/pkw_sommerreifen/federal/formoza_fd1/index.html

The tyre gets a good write up.

Mytyres.co.uk sell this tyre, in my size, at £79.80 fully fitted.  The Ebay 
trader (who fortuitously has his depot at Macclesfield, just a 35 minute 
drive from my house) was selling them at £49.00 fully fitted. So I drove 
over to Macc and had four fitted for a total price of £196.00.  Of course, I 
could have gone for Michelin Primacies at £170.00 each - but I have more 
sense.

So what are the Federal's like?  Firstly they are extremely quiet which is a 
bonus. Secondly, after having taken the car out for a couple of 'spirited' 
drives after running the tyres in, I am more than satisfied with their level 
of grip in both wet and dry. I even did a couple of 'emergency stops' just 
to check them out and no problem at all - grip was very good. I have just 
returned from a trip to the Trafford Centre using the M56 and M60. On the 
way there the heaven's opened and it threw it down. The road surface flooded 
but the tyres behaved perfectly.  Obviously, at this stage, I have no idea 
how well the tyres will last - but at £49 each I'll still be quids in, even 
if they only last for half the distance of a Michelin.

So, chuckle all you like, - but personally I think anyone who pays three 
times the price for tyres than I do, is the one who is daft. So long as you 
do a bit of research, and avoid the really nasty rubbish, mid-price tyres 
are more than adequate for the average driver.

Kev

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>>>> but there is no doubt that the difference in price between
>>>>> 'standard' tyres and ultra-low-profile tyres is quite dramatic -
>>>>> and, IMO, an utter waste of money because on UK roads there is no
>>>>> real advantage to ultra low profile tyres - but significant
>>>>> disadvantages in terms of ride, road noise, and expense.
>
>>> Yes, well. You're the man who doesn't see any reason to buy anything
>>> but cheap shit teflonfred rubbish.
>
>> I thought the discussion was about the benefits (or not) of low
>> profile tyres?
>
> Indeed. I'm merely pointing out that Kev's not exactly a newbie at
> trying to claim his blinkered cluelessness is somehow the only right
> answer.

I can give you a list of reasons why ultra-low profile tyres are a nonsense 
on UK roads. So what are the *advantages* IYO?

I have a friend who bought a 5 series BMW about 12 months ago. It's a tidy 
car, although I didn't rate the ride quality even when he bought it. Three 
months after buying it he decided to 'smarten it up' and bought a set of 
large wheels fitted with ultra-low-profile tyres.  The next time I rode in 
his car I was appalled - the ride quality was absolutely terrible - it felt 
as though the tyres were solid rubber.  When I asked him what had possessed 
him to buy the wheels he just grinned and said; "When you've got a flash 
car, you've got to have flash wheels to go with it haven't you?"  And 
*that*, sadly, is the thinking behind many purchases of ultra-low profile 
tyres. He has since admitted that he had had no idea of just how the new 
wheels and tyres would affect the ride quality - and he would never do it 
again. He says that if he hadn't sold on his old wheels and tyres, he would 
have put them back on again.

Kev

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow
>>>> *assume* that owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec'
>>>> cars in a model's range have bigger wheels and lower profile
>>>> tyres. Why? Don't you think that prospective purchasers should be
>>>> given a choice (and given information on the implications of that
>>>> choice?)
>
>>> We've been here before. You clearly don't understand the money
>>> that's spent on market research and customer clinics by
>>> manufacturers.
>
>> Do you really think that the average uk motorist fully understands
>> the implications of ultra low profile tyres?
>
> I don't think the average UK motorist has the first clue, either way.
> Or, tbh, much cares beyond "they look good, innit". Don't forget -
> the larger rims/lower profile tyres tend to be OPTIONAL. Not
> standard. People are choosing to pay extra for them.

I think you will find that most higher spec models of new cars are now 
fitted with larger wheels as part of the spec and not as an option.

Kev

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:7l7un3F3bpeclU14@mid.individual.net...

> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
> where the fuck you're going"?

<cough>

Golfs have lowish profile tyres don't they? :-)

"Clive George"  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
>> where the fuck you're going"?

> <cough>
> 
> Golfs have lowish profile tyres don't they? :-)

No, not really.

It's just that the tyres on that side are a fuck of a long way away.

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

> Adrian wrote:
>> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>>> There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow *assume*
>>>>> that owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec' cars in a
>>>>> model's range have bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. Why? Don't
>>>>> you think that prospective purchasers should be given a choice (and
>>>>> given information on the implications of that choice?)
>>
>>>> We've been here before. You clearly don't understand the money that's
>>>> spent on market research and customer clinics by manufacturers.
>>
>>> Do you really think that the average uk motorist fully understands the
>>> implications of ultra low profile tyres?
>>
>> I don't think the average UK motorist has the first clue, either way.
>> Or, tbh, much cares beyond "they look good, innit". Don't forget - the
>> larger rims/lower profile tyres tend to be OPTIONAL. Not standard.
>> People are choosing to pay extra for them.
> 
> I think you will find that most higher spec models of new cars are now
> fitted with larger wheels as part of the spec and not as an option.

Really?

So if I look at the specs of <say> Merc C-class, I won't find that 16" 
rims are standard on the vast majority of versions?

Yes, the profile varies as tread width varies - according to engine size 
- but I'm sure you'll understand that that doesn't mean the sidewalls 
become any shorter, so there's no difference in the protection they offer 
the rim. I'm also sure you'll also understand that a C350 on 195s would 
not be a particularly great idea...

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>
>>>>>> There is a development amongst manufacturers now to somehow
>>>>>> *assume* that owners want low profile tyres. Many 'upper-spec'
>>>>>> cars in a model's range have bigger wheels and lower profile
>>>>>> tyres. Why? Don't you think that prospective purchasers should
>>>>>> be given a choice (and given information on the implications of
>>>>>> that choice?)
>>>
>>>>> We've been here before. You clearly don't understand the money
>>>>> that's spent on market research and customer clinics by
>>>>> manufacturers.
>>>
>>>> Do you really think that the average uk motorist fully understands
>>>> the implications of ultra low profile tyres?
>>>
>>> I don't think the average UK motorist has the first clue, either
>>> way. Or, tbh, much cares beyond "they look good, innit". Don't
>>> forget - the larger rims/lower profile tyres tend to be OPTIONAL.
>>> Not standard. People are choosing to pay extra for them.
>>
>> I think you will find that most higher spec models of new cars are
>> now fitted with larger wheels as part of the spec and not as an
>> option.
>
> Really?
>
> So if I look at the specs of <say> Merc C-class, I won't find that 16"
> rims are standard on the vast majority of versions?

Mercs are an exception - almost everything is an option on a Merc. I'm 
surprised that you get wheels at all on the base cars...


If you look at the Citroen C5 you will find base models have 16" wheels - 
and higher spec models have 18" wheels as standard.

Similarly with the Vx Insignia - base model is 16" and then it works up 
through 17" and 18".

This from the spec on an Insignia Elite:

Standard Features:
•Dual-zone electronic climate control with heat-relective windscreen and 
humidity sensor
•18-inch 13-spoke alloy wheels with 245/45 R 18 ultra-low profile tyres.

So not an option - a standard feature that, if given an informed choice, 
most buyers would turn down I would suggest.

Kev

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

> Similarly with the Vx Insignia - base model is 16" and then it works up
> through 17" and 18".
> 
> This from the spec on an Insignia Elite:
> 
> Standard Features:
> •Dual-zone electronic climate control with heat-relective windscreen and
> humidity sensor
> •18-inch 13-spoke alloy wheels with 245/45 R 18 ultra-low profile tyres.
> 
> So not an option - a standard feature that, if given an informed choice,
> most buyers would turn down I would suggest.

Really?

Interesting that you pick the Elite spec, since the next one down in the 
range - SE - offers 17" rims as standard with 18" as an alternative at No 
Extra Cost. I guess nobody ever ticks that box, eh? And even fewer people 
would pay the £460 extra to go to 19".

Makes you wonder why Vauxhall bother offer 'em, doesn't it?

Hmm. Go down to the S or Exclusiv spec, and I wonder why the low-CO2 tree-
hug ecoFlex diesel estate has 17" rims instead of the 16" of the rest of 
the range...? Oh, yes. It's the heaviest and most powerful body/engine 
combination at that spec level. I guess the 16" 60-profiles just can't 
quite cope with a ton and three quarters and 160bhp...

But surely the REALLY important spec change between Insignia trim levels 
has to be "Visible exhaust tip" on SE-spec... But not if you go for the 
pikey-spec engine. This is important when you're choosing your new 
company car, y'know. Got to be seen to be better than Smithers from the 
Southern region sales team. People have died for less.

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> Similarly with the Vx Insignia - base model is 16" and then it works
>> up through 17" and 18".
>>
>> This from the spec on an Insignia Elite:
>>
>> Standard Features:
>> •Dual-zone electronic climate control with heat-relective windscreen
>> and humidity sensor
>> •18-inch 13-spoke alloy wheels with 245/45 R 18 ultra-low profile
>> tyres.
>>
>> So not an option - a standard feature that, if given an informed
>> choice, most buyers would turn down I would suggest.
>
> Really?
>
> Interesting that you pick the Elite spec, since the next one down in
> the range - SE - offers 17" rims as standard with 18" as an
> alternative at No Extra Cost. I guess nobody ever ticks that box, eh?
> And even fewer people would pay the £460 extra to go to 19".

If people do tick that box - I would suggest that it would be in ignorance 
of the implications (like my friend who put the ULP tyres on his 5 series).

>
> Makes you wonder why Vauxhall bother offer 'em, doesn't it?

No it doesn't - there are certainly mugs out there who are prepared to pay 
good money because they think the bigger wheels 'look better'.
>
> Hmm. Go down to the S or Exclusiv spec, and I wonder why the low-CO2
> tree- hug ecoFlex diesel estate has 17" rims instead of the 16" of
> the rest of the range...? Oh, yes. It's the heaviest and most
> powerful body/engine combination at that spec level. I guess the 16"
> 60-profiles just can't quite cope with a ton and three quarters and
> 160bhp...
>
> But surely the REALLY important spec change between Insignia trim
> levels has to be "Visible exhaust tip" on SE-spec... But not if you
> go for the pikey-spec engine. This is important when you're choosing
> your new company car, y'know. Got to be seen to be better than
> Smithers from the Southern region sales team. People have died for
> less.

Indeed. There are upgrades and there are upgrades. I wouldn't want to go 
down from my climate control to simple air-con. I like my heated seats in 
Winter, and I also like my self-dimming mirror and automatic wipers. The 
3-position memory driver's seat is a definite bonus when you pick your car 
up after its MOT and the tester has cocked up your carefully derived seat 
positioning - although I could just about live without that.

Kev

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

>> Interesting that you pick the Elite spec, since the next one down in
>> the range - SE - offers 17" rims as standard with 18" as an alternative
>> at No Extra Cost. I guess nobody ever ticks that box, eh? And even
>> fewer people would pay the £460 extra to go to 19".

> If people do tick that box - I would suggest that it would be in
> ignorance of the implications (like my friend who put the ULP tyres on
> his 5 series).

We've already established that your friend is utterly fucking clueless. 
Still, if all your friends are of such limited intellect, it does explain 
quite a bit about your posts and your view of others.

>> Makes you wonder why Vauxhall bother offer 'em, doesn't it?

> No it doesn't - there are certainly mugs out there who are prepared to
> pay good money because they think the bigger wheels 'look better'.

And yet so few people seem to ask Vauxhall for smaller wheels...

>> Hmm. Go down to the S or Exclusiv spec, and I wonder why the low-CO2
>> tree- hug ecoFlex diesel estate has 17" rims instead of the 16" of the
>> rest of the range...? Oh, yes. It's the heaviest and most powerful
>> body/engine combination at that spec level. I guess the 16" 60-profiles
>> just can't quite cope with a ton and three quarters and 160bhp...

<silence>

>> But surely the REALLY important spec change between Insignia trim
>> levels has to be "Visible exhaust tip" on SE-spec... But not if you go
>> for the pikey-spec engine. This is important when you're choosing your
>> new company car, y'know. Got to be seen to be better than Smithers from
>> the Southern region sales team. People have died for less.

> Indeed. There are upgrades and there are upgrades. I wouldn't want to go
> down from my climate control to simple air-con. I like my heated seats
> in Winter, and I also like my self-dimming mirror and automatic wipers.
> The 3-position memory driver's seat is a definite bonus when you pick
> your car up after its MOT and the tester has cocked up your carefully
> derived seat positioning - although I could just about live without
> that.

I wonder how many people disagree with you on any of those. Still, it 
doesn't matter, because you're _right_ and they're _wrong_. I'm so very 
happy for you.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:M6ednUlynMMvY3PXnZ2dnUVZ8madnZ2d@pipex.net...

> The 3-position memory driver's seat is a definite bonus when you pick your 
> car up after its MOT and the tester has cocked up your carefully derived 
> seat positioning - although I could just about live without that.

Life is so very hard for you isn't it :-)

Clive George wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
> news:M6ednUlynMMvY3PXnZ2dnUVZ8madnZ2d@pipex.net...
> 
>> The 3-position memory driver's seat is a definite bonus when you pick your 
>> car up after its MOT and the tester has cocked up your carefully derived 
>> seat positioning - although I could just about live without that.
> 
> Life is so very hard for you isn't it :-) 
> 
> 
My son has that memory function on his XKR, not 
only does it do the seat but remembers loads of 
other settings as well, like steering wheel 
height/wing mirrors etc. It's a boon when he and 
his wife swops the driving.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> My son has that memory function on his XKR

I guess those pictures just aren't helping it sell, eh?

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>> Interesting that you pick the Elite spec, since the next one down in
>>> the range - SE - offers 17" rims as standard with 18" as an
>>> alternative at No Extra Cost. I guess nobody ever ticks that box,
>>> eh? And even fewer people would pay the £460 extra to go to 19".
>
>> If people do tick that box - I would suggest that it would be in
>> ignorance of the implications (like my friend who put the ULP tyres
>> on his 5 series).
>
> We've already established that your friend is utterly fucking
> clueless. Still, if all your friends are of such limited intellect,
> it does explain quite a bit about your posts and your view of others.

You know Adrian - you're getting as bad as Steve Filth with your gratuitous 
insults. What is it about certain posters that they just feel they've got to 
keep hurling the insults about?

>
>>> Makes you wonder why Vauxhall bother offer 'em, doesn't it?
>
>> No it doesn't - there are certainly mugs out there who are prepared
>> to pay good money because they think the bigger wheels 'look better'.
>
> And yet so few people seem to ask Vauxhall for smaller wheels...

Because probably 95% of drivers don't have a clue about the size of wheels 
fitted to their cars, and what difference different sizes will make.

>
>>> Hmm. Go down to the S or Exclusiv spec, and I wonder why the low-CO2
>>> tree- hug ecoFlex diesel estate has 17" rims instead of the 16" of
>>> the rest of the range...? Oh, yes. It's the heaviest and most
>>> powerful body/engine combination at that spec level. I guess the
>>> 16" 60-profiles just can't quite cope with a ton and three quarters
>>> and 160bhp...
>
> <silence>

I'm not disputing the fact that some cars will require different 
wheels/tyres for different jobs - just arguing that most family cars are 
seriously 'over-shod' for what is expected of them. An 'H' rated tyre would 
be perfectly adequate for the vast majority of everyday drivers - so why 
sell them cars with big wheels and 'W' rated tyres?

>
>>> But surely the REALLY important spec change between Insignia trim
>>> levels has to be "Visible exhaust tip" on SE-spec... But not if you
>>> go for the pikey-spec engine. This is important when you're
>>> choosing your new company car, y'know. Got to be seen to be better
>>> than Smithers from the Southern region sales team. People have died
>>> for less.
>
>> Indeed. There are upgrades and there are upgrades. I wouldn't want
>> to go down from my climate control to simple air-con. I like my
>> heated seats in Winter, and I also like my self-dimming mirror and
>> automatic wipers. The 3-position memory driver's seat is a definite
>> bonus when you pick your car up after its MOT and the tester has
>> cocked up your carefully derived seat positioning - although I could
>> just about live without that.
>
> I wonder how many people disagree with you on any of those. Still, it
> doesn't matter, because you're _right_ and they're _wrong_. I'm so
> very happy for you.

I'm quite prepared to accept that there may be people who prefer to manually 
operate a lever on their rear view mirror in order to obtain a distorted 
view of the traffic behind - rather than have a mirror that automatically 
shades green to give a dimmed - but still perfect - view of the traffic 
behind.

I'm also prepared to accept that there may be people who prefer to be 
constantly fiddling with their intermittent wipe to adjust it for changing 
rain-fall - rather than have the wipers just switch on on their own and wipe 
when necessary according to the degree of rain-fall.

I'm certain that there will be drivers who would prefer to have a frozen 
backside in the winter - and have to spend several minutes adjusting their 
seat after a mechanic has cocked up their careful settings. I mean, after 
all, there are *certainly* strange people about who actually want to change 
gear manually when there are auto boxes that will do that for them... !

Kev

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

>>> If people do tick that box - I would suggest that it would be in
>>> ignorance of the implications (like my friend who put the ULP tyres on
>>> his 5 series).

>> We've already established that your friend is utterly fucking clueless.
>> Still, if all your friends are of such limited intellect, it does
>> explain quite a bit about your posts and your view of others.

> You know Adrian - you're getting as bad as Steve Filth with your
> gratuitous insults. What is it about certain posters that they just feel
> they've got to keep hurling the insults about?

What is it about some people that invites it?

Seriously - somebody buys a BMW (not exactly renowned for ride quality) 
then lobs thick-coat-of-black-paint tyres at it - and is surprised it 
rides like a bag of shite. Hello...?

> I'm not disputing the fact that some cars will require different
> wheels/tyres for different jobs - just arguing that most family cars are
> seriously 'over-shod' for what is expected of them. An 'H' rated tyre
> would be perfectly adequate for the vast majority of everyday drivers -

H-rated tyres would be inadequate for the performance of most modern cars 
bigger than mid-range Astra/Focus. As such, they'd actively be illegal in 
some countries.

> so why sell them cars with big wheels and 'W' rated tyres?

<shakes head> Again - you seek to apply _your_ standards to everybody.

Do you have the faintest clue as to the purpose of "load ratings" on 
tyres? Or the basic physics involved in cornering loads? Clearly, you 
don't understand the interactions between the various design factors in a 
modern tyre.

Have a brief think about what's happened to car weights and performance 
over the last decade.

Adrian wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> If people do tick that box - I would suggest that it would be in
>>>> ignorance of the implications (like my friend who put the ULP
>>>> tyres on his 5 series).
>
>>> We've already established that your friend is utterly fucking
>>> clueless. Still, if all your friends are of such limited intellect,
>>> it does explain quite a bit about your posts and your view of
>>> others.
>
>> You know Adrian - you're getting as bad as Steve Filth with your
>> gratuitous insults. What is it about certain posters that they just
>> feel they've got to keep hurling the insults about?
>
> What is it about some people that invites it?
>
> Seriously - somebody buys a BMW (not exactly renowned for ride
> quality) then lobs thick-coat-of-black-paint tyres at it - and is
> surprised it rides like a bag of shite. Hello...?

I'm not disputing that he's an idiot - but why have a go at me over it?!

>
>> I'm not disputing the fact that some cars will require different
>> wheels/tyres for different jobs - just arguing that most family cars
>> are seriously 'over-shod' for what is expected of them. An 'H' rated
>> tyre would be perfectly adequate for the vast majority of everyday
>> drivers -
>
> H-rated tyres would be inadequate for the performance of most modern
> cars bigger than mid-range Astra/Focus. As such, they'd actively be
> illegal in some countries.
>
>> so why sell them cars with big wheels and 'W' rated tyres?
>
> <shakes head> Again - you seek to apply _your_ standards to everybody.

The 'letter' ratings are speed ratings. 'H' rated tyres are good for 130 mph 
and W rated tyres are good for 168 mph. What relevance do you think that 
those different speeds have for even a boy racer in the UK?

>
> Do you have the faintest clue as to the purpose of "load ratings" on
> tyres? Or the basic physics involved in cornering loads? Clearly, you
> don't understand the interactions between the various design factors
> in a modern tyre.
>
> Have a brief think about what's happened to car weights and
> performance over the last decade.

'H' rated tyres are good for 130 mph - how many family cars will ever be 
driven at that speed? The quoted top speed of my car is 118 mph - but the 
recommended tyres are 'V' rated (149 mph). Whilst I haven't tried to match 
up load ratings with the actual weight and carrying capacity of different 
cars, I suspect that, as with speed ratings, there is serious over speccing.

Kev

In article , "Ret." <xxx> 
says...
> An 'H' rated tyre would 
> be perfectly adequate for the vast majority of everyday drivers - so why 
> sell them cars with big wheels and 'W' rated tyres?
> 
> 
Maybe for the drivers, and maybe for the UK speedlimits, but not for the 
capabilities of the vehicle.

If you fit lower rated tyres than the manufacturer specs, just because 
you don't ever drive on anything faster than a single carriageway NSL 
road and stick to the limit, even though the car is capable of 140mph, 
and you have an accident that involves losing control of the vehicle, 
the insurance company will disown you, the courts will crucify you, and 
you may get involved in a jail house marriage involving the showers and 
a bar of soap.

Tyres are rated for speed and load, because a car is capable of going 
faster, loads on the tyres increase, so the tyres are rated higher.

And don't say why do we have in the UK capable of going faster than the 
speed limit. I would expect that of Bod.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

In article , bodron57@tiscali.co.uk 
says...
> My son has that memory function on his XKR, not 
> only does it do the seat but remembers loads of 
> other settings as well, like steering wheel 
> height/wing mirrors etc. It's a boon when he and 
> his wife swops the driving.
> 
Yeah, had them in the old Celsior I had.

If I loaned the car to some one, just got in, pushed the button, 
everything moved. It even raised the wheel out of the way when you 
switched the engine off, to make it easier to get your legs out.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

In article <1j8jvtd.17zf4111vz2x60N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...
> Anyone who has tyres other than 65 profile is a fashion victim. And
> inevitably driving on British roads which are now among the worst in
> Europe, alloy wheels will suffer rim damage from being kerbed and from
> potholes.
> 
Unfortunatley Lexus chose to fit 17" wheels with 55 profile tyres to my 
current car, 10 years ago.

10 years on, it still has the original alloys (one replaced for a 
corrosion replacement which was a recall early on). Car has so much 
paperwork it is like reading War and Peace to try and work out what has 
and hasn't been done, as it missed a dealer service being in the trade 
for a long time before I bought it.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

In article , bodron57@tiscali.co.uk 
says...
> True, there's not many a day goes by, that I don't 
> see a sack of anvils or an upright piano in the road.
> 
Yeah, I've lived in areas like that.
Get the stuff out of the house, then remember they only came to rob it 
on a mountain bike.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

Elder wrote:
> In article , bodron57@tiscali.co.uk 
> says...
>> My son has that memory function on his XKR, not 
>> only does it do the seat but remembers loads of 
>> other settings as well, like steering wheel 
>> height/wing mirrors etc. It's a boon when he and 
>> his wife swops the driving.
>>
> Yeah, had them in the old Celsior I had.
> 
> If I loaned the car to some one, just got in, pushed the button, 
> everything moved. It even raised the wheel out of the way when you 
> switched the engine off, to make it easier to get your legs out.

I first thought it was an OTT facility, but soon 
changed my mind after seeing how useful it was for 
my son and his wife.

Bod

In article , bodron57@tiscali.co.uk 
says...
> 
> I first thought it was an OTT facility, but soon 
> changed my mind after seeing how useful it was for 
> my son and his wife.
> 
And when I bought it, it was only £600. Because some people run a mile 
when they see "import" in an ebay listing.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7l7jjrF3b620jU1@mid.individual.net...
> Dave Farrance wrote:
>> I've just got around to watching my recording of the recent Watchdog that
>> talked about ultra-low profile tyres.  Seems that the rims are prone to
>> cracking on the UK's roads and that the car manufacturers are loathe to
>> replace them on warranty, tending to reject the claims and blame the
>> driver, saying that cars with such wheels require careful driving to 
>> avoid
>> potholes etc. Uh huh.  I once holed a tyre (but not the rim) myself on 
>> the moderately
>> low profile tyres on my MK5 RS2000 by taking avoiding action that drove
>> the tyre over a low curb.  I know I'd have got away with it if the tyre
>> hadn't been low profile.  At least I don't have to worry much about
>> potholes.
>>
>> So the present trend seems to be that "sporty" cars are to be given tyres
>> that only allow them to be driven hard on a well-maintained race track.
>> But on UK roads, sporty cars should no longer be driven sportily.  That's
>> what the *manufacturers* are saying.  Is this bonkers or what?
>>
>> And the "Range Rover Sport"...  Seriously, WTF?
>>
>> http://eurocars.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tuning_range_rover_sport.jpg
>>
>> --
>> Dave Farrance
>
> I thought that Watchdog prog was only about some BMW low profile wheels?
>
> Bod

It was about one fault in the manufacture of a wheel fitted to a BMW.
That specific wheel had defects which BMW can't see.  The show and
report was not about any other wheel or any other car.

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7l7kk1F3bfqqaU1@mid.individual.net...
> Dave Farrance wrote:
>> Bod  wrote:
>>
>>> I thought that Watchdog prog was only about some BMW low profile wheels?
>>
>> BMW was the specific company that they were taking to task, yes.  But 
>> they
>> did have some more general commentary about this wheel type.
>
> I must have missed that, but I'll take your word.
>
> Bod

Watch it again on BBCi player.  The report was about the manufacturing
defect of one specific model of wheel fitted to a BMW car, nothing else.
Nothing to do with road conditions for other cars or tyres and wheels
fitted to other cars etc.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2558bd8d4befb0e09898d2@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article , Dave Farrance
> says...
>> So the present trend seems to be that "sporty" cars are to be given tyres
>> that only allow them to be driven hard on a well-maintained race track.
>> But on UK roads, sporty cars should no longer be driven sportily.  That's
>> what the *manufacturers* are saying.  Is this bonkers or what?
>>
> No. Its reality. It is a common problem in Spain where a lot of the
> roads are shite. Its only because our roads are now as equally shite
> that the problem is occurring here.
>
> The simple fact is that if you have super skinny tyres on an alloy rim
> with a massive offset, you're going to get bent and cracked rims because
> all the support of the wheel centre is all over to the other side of the
> alloy. Note that they only cracked on the inside.

Plus throw in the fact the tyres are runflats so more energy is transferred 
to the rim instead of being absorbed by the tyre itself...

Justin.

Dave Farrance wrote:

> I've just got around to watching my recording of the recent Watchdog that
> talked about ultra-low profile tyres.  Seems that the rims are prone to
> cracking on the UK's roads and that the car manufacturers are loathe to
> replace them on warranty, tending to reject the claims and blame the
> driver, saying that cars with such wheels require careful driving to avoid
> potholes etc.

I saw that programme too.  I couldn't quite see what the fuss was about.  
I'd be astonished if those wheels with skimpy tyres could withstand our pot-
holed roads at speed.  Same is true of bicycles.  The ones with the dainty 
wheels don't do potholes at speed as well as the clunkers with balloon 
tyres.  I don't drive or ride either fast enough to worry myself! :-)

-- 
http://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/

Bod wrote:

> My son has that memory function on his XKR, not
> only does it do the seat but remembers loads of
> other settings as well, like steering wheel
> height/wing mirrors etc. It's a boon when he and
> his wife swops the driving.

I have a wife the same size as me.  It saves a lot of hassle! :-)

-- 
http://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/

"Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Ultra low profile tyres on 
>UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot spoilers. The 
>owners think they 'look good', but practically speaking they are a nonsense. 
>They are a boy racer's accessory.

What if they are manufacturer's standard fitment?

"Roger"  wrote:

>Watch it again on BBCi player.  The report was about the manufacturing
>defect of one specific model of wheel fitted to a BMW car, nothing else.
>Nothing to do with road conditions for other cars or tyres and wheels
>fitted to other cars etc.

The item was taking BMW to task for failure of their rims, yes.  However,
the quoted responses from BMW were that this wheel type required the car
owner to drive carefully to avoid potholes.  The complainants in the
studio were asked if they complied with this, and they all said that yes,
they were careful drivers, diligently avoided potholes, and that the road
condition in their immediate vicinity was good.  The case that Watchdog
was making was that the rims were failing despite all this -- and the
point that I'm making is that they all seemed to be taking it as read that
these wheels did need to be treated as if they were as strong as
eggshells.  See what I'm getting at now?

-- 
Dave Farrance

Dave Farrance wrote:
> "Roger"  wrote:
> 
>> Watch it again on BBCi player.  The report was about the manufacturing
>> defect of one specific model of wheel fitted to a BMW car, nothing else.
>> Nothing to do with road conditions for other cars or tyres and wheels
>> fitted to other cars etc.
> 
> The item was taking BMW to task for failure of their rims, yes.  However,
> the quoted responses from BMW were that this wheel type required the car
> owner to drive carefully to avoid potholes.  The complainants in the
> studio were asked if they complied with this, and they all said that yes,
> they were careful drivers, diligently avoided potholes, and that the road
> condition in their immediate vicinity was good.  The case that Watchdog
> was making was that the rims were failing despite all this -- and the
> point that I'm making is that they all seemed to be taking it as read that
> these wheels did need to be treated as if they were as strong as
> eggshells.  See what I'm getting at now?
> 

Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always 
considered BMWs overpriced anyway. Given the 
choice, I would probably opt for a Merc instead.

Bod

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7lacgpF3da5poU1@mid.individual.net...
> Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always considered BMWs overpriced 
> anyway. Given the choice, I would probably opt for a Merc instead.
>

I can see how you could make a case that a BMW is overpriced compared to a 
more mainstream brand like a VW , but against a Mercedes they are very 
similarly priced.
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> "Bod"  wrote in message 
> news:7lacgpF3da5poU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always considered BMWs 
>> overpriced anyway. Given the choice, I would probably opt for a Merc 
>> instead.
>>
> 
> I can see how you could make a case that a BMW is overpriced compared to 
> a more mainstream brand like a VW , but against a Mercedes they are very 
> similarly priced.

What I mean, is that the Merc quality seems to 
justify the price.

Bod

On 3 Nov, 09:58, Bod  wrote:
> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> > "Bod"  wrote in message
> >news:7lacgpF3da5poU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always considered BMWs
> >> overpriced anyway. Given the choice, I would probably opt for a Merc
> >> instead.
>
> > I can see how you could make a case that a BMW is overpriced compared to
> > a more mainstream brand like a VW , but against a Mercedes they are very
> > similarly priced.
>
> What I mean, is that the Merc quality seems to
> justify the price.

What Merc quality would that be then? IME they went badly downhill
after about 1990. I've heard that quality is on the up again, but I've
no experience of anything after a T-reg E-Class, which was a rotten
old shitbox at 4 years old..

Mike P

Mike P wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 09:58, Bod  wrote:
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> "Bod"  wrote in message
>>> news:7lacgpF3da5poU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always considered BMWs
>>>> overpriced anyway. Given the choice, I would probably opt for a Merc
>>>> instead.
>>> I can see how you could make a case that a BMW is overpriced compared to
>>> a more mainstream brand like a VW , but against a Mercedes they are very
>>> similarly priced.
>> What I mean, is that the Merc quality seems to
>> justify the price.
> 
> What Merc quality would that be then? IME they went badly downhill
> after about 1990. I've heard that quality is on the up again, but I've
> no experience of anything after a T-reg E-Class, which was a rotten
> old shitbox at 4 years old..
> 
> Mike P
> 
> 
> 
I'm no expert on the differences.
Having had rides in two brand spanking BMWs over 
the years courtesy of my mates, neither time was I 
impressed with either, especially the awful 
plasticky interior.
On the other hand, the few rides I've had in Mercs 
have quite impressed me, that's all.

Bod

Mike P wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 09:58, Bod  wrote:
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> "Bod"  wrote in message
>>> news:7lacgpF3da5poU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always considered BMWs
>>>> overpriced anyway. Given the choice, I would probably opt for a
>>>> Merc instead.
>>
>>> I can see how you could make a case that a BMW is overpriced
>>> compared to a more mainstream brand like a VW , but against a
>>> Mercedes they are very similarly priced.
>>
>> What I mean, is that the Merc quality seems to
>> justify the price.
>
> What Merc quality would that be then? IME they went badly downhill
> after about 1990. I've heard that quality is on the up again, but I've
> no experience of anything after a T-reg E-Class, which was a rotten
> old shitbox at 4 years old..

I was certainly far from impressed by the 'C' class I recently had on hire 
for two weeks. Hard ride, over-firm seats, excessive diesel engine noise in 
the cabin, ghastly boring black slab of plastic for a dash. I most certainly 
would not pay the premium for a Merc after this experience. I much prefer my 
own car.

Kev

vulgarandmischevious wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Ultra low profile tyres on
>> UK road going vehicles are no different to stick-on boot spoilers.
>> The owners think they 'look good', but practically speaking they are
>> a nonsense. They are a boy racer's accessory.
>
> What if they are manufacturer's standard fitment?

Then obviously you have no choice. Having said that, I would certainly do 
all that I could to avoid buying any car that had wheels bigger than 16".

My first Rover 75 had 15" wheels. My second has 16" wheels. Had I had the 
choice I would have stuck with 15" wheels. Although the ride is still very 
good compared to most cars today, it is still firmer than my first Rover - 
also the 16", lower profile tyres are more expensive to replace than the 15" 
wheels.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> Mike P wrote:
>> On 3 Nov, 09:58, Bod  wrote:
>>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>>> "Bod"  wrote in message
>>>> news:7lacgpF3da5poU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always considered BMWs
>>>>> overpriced anyway. Given the choice, I would probably opt for a
>>>>> Merc instead.
>>>
>>>> I can see how you could make a case that a BMW is overpriced
>>>> compared to a more mainstream brand like a VW , but against a
>>>> Mercedes they are very similarly priced.
>>>
>>> What I mean, is that the Merc quality seems to
>>> justify the price.
>>
>> What Merc quality would that be then? IME they went badly downhill
>> after about 1990. I've heard that quality is on the up again, but I've
>> no experience of anything after a T-reg E-Class, which was a rotten
>> old shitbox at 4 years old..

They sorted the build quality out very shortly after that. My brother 
had an S reg E class and then an X reg one. The X was substantially 
better. He then wandered off to BMW and discovered their build quality 
was atrocious compared to Mercedes'. He's been back with Mercedes for 
the last 4 years or so and never had a problem with them in 200k miles.
> 
> I was certainly far from impressed by the 'C' class I recently had on 
> hire for two weeks. Hard ride, over-firm seats, excessive diesel engine 
> noise in the cabin, ghastly boring black slab of plastic for a dash. I 
> most certainly would not pay the premium for a Merc after this 
> experience. I much prefer my own car.

If you had a Merc instead of the Rover 75 you wouldn't need to have the 
RAC on speed-dial. I ran an 05 plate, low mileage, 75 diesel for a few 
weeks and while it was soft'n'comfy it wasn't reliable. Not in the 
least. Nice place to wait for a piggy back home though.



-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

'62 Rover P4 100
'61 Rover P5 3 litre
'78 Escort 1300 Sport
'99 Audi A6 V6 Quattro Avant


"It's an Alfa, it will go wrong, it will piss you off, why should your 
Alfa experience be different from everyone else's.
Now get back out there and swear at it before something else breaks."

Pete M wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> Mike P wrote:
>>> On 3 Nov, 09:58, Bod  wrote:
>>>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>>>> "Bod"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:7lacgpF3da5poU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> Irrespective of the wheel issue, I've always considered BMWs
>>>>>> overpriced anyway. Given the choice, I would probably opt for a
>>>>>> Merc instead.
>>>>
>>>>> I can see how you could make a case that a BMW is overpriced
>>>>> compared to a more mainstream brand like a VW , but against a
>>>>> Mercedes they are very similarly priced.
>>>>
>>>> What I mean, is that the Merc quality seems to
>>>> justify the price.
>>>
>>> What Merc quality would that be then? IME they went badly downhill
>>> after about 1990. I've heard that quality is on the up again, but
>>> I've no experience of anything after a T-reg E-Class, which was a
>>> rotten old shitbox at 4 years old..
>
> They sorted the build quality out very shortly after that. My brother
> had an S reg E class and then an X reg one. The X was substantially
> better. He then wandered off to BMW and discovered their build quality
> was atrocious compared to Mercedes'. He's been back with Mercedes for
> the last 4 years or so and never had a problem with them in 200k
> miles.
>>
>> I was certainly far from impressed by the 'C' class I recently had on
>> hire for two weeks. Hard ride, over-firm seats, excessive diesel
>> engine noise in the cabin, ghastly boring black slab of plastic for
>> a dash. I most certainly would not pay the premium for a Merc after
>> this experience. I much prefer my own car.
>
> If you had a Merc instead of the Rover 75 you wouldn't need to have
> the RAC on speed-dial. I ran an 05 plate, low mileage, 75 diesel for
> a few weeks and while it was soft'n'comfy it wasn't reliable. Not in
> the least. Nice place to wait for a piggy back home though.

I bought my current 75 new (pre-registered) in June 2004. It has not broken 
down once. The only component replacement has been the Bosch alternator 
which failed at 4.5 years. I was able to drive for two days until the 
alternator was replaced by connecting a battery charger each night.
The car is superbly quiet, very comfortable, has a great ride quality, a 
lovely interior with a dash far removed from the usual black slabs, and, for 
me, is the ideal car. Which? describe the reliablity of the 75 as 
'average' - so no better nor any worse than the average car.

The Merc 'C' class I had on hire was only a couple of years old - and the 
air-con didn't work... Frankly, I wouldn't care if it was the most reliable 
car in the world - I just didn't like it and I wouldn't want one.

Kev

Ret. <xxx> wrote:

> I was certainly far from impressed by the 'C' class I recently had on hire
> for two weeks. Hard ride, over-firm seats, excessive diesel engine noise in
> the cabin, ghastly boring black slab of plastic for a dash. I most certainly
> would not pay the premium for a Merc after this experience. I much prefer my
> own car.

And there you have it, proof that when Kevin Lunn sits down his voice is
muffled.

Ret. <xxx> wrote:

> I bought my current 75 new (pre-registered) in June 2004. It has not broken
> down once. The only component replacement has been the Bosch alternator
> which failed at 4.5 years. I was able to drive for two days until the
> alternator was replaced by connecting a battery charger each night.

I bought my Watburg Knight (pre-registered) in 1972. It has not broken
down once[1]. The only component replacement has been the entire
driveline, which failed at 4.5 days. And again every 4.5 days
thereafter. I was wable to drive for 17 years by the simply expedient of
leaving the driver's door open and pushing the car everywhere with one
hand on the steering wheel.


[1] No, it's defintely not broken down just once.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> I bought my Watburg Knight (pre-registered) in 1972. It has not broken
> down once[1]. The only component replacement has been the entire
> driveline, which failed at 4.5 days. And again every 4.5 days
> thereafter. I was wable to drive for 17 years by the simply expedient of
> leaving the driver's door open and pushing the car everywhere with one
> hand on the steering wheel.
> 
> [1] No, it's defintely not broken down just once.

A friend of mine has a Wartburg. It's bright orange. He's on the lookout 
for the third engine in his ownership. He bought it in May.

Adrian  wrote:

> A friend of mine has a Wartburg. It's bright orange. He's on the lookout
> for the third engine in his ownership. He bought it in May.

Good point: two stroke hence simple and should run forever with minmal
maintenance. Bad point - really terrible materials that wear out within
a few hundred miles because they are so soft.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> A friend of mine has a Wartburg. It's bright orange. He's on the
>> lookout for the third engine in his ownership. He bought it in May.

> Good point: two stroke hence simple and should run forever with minmal
> maintenance. Bad point - really terrible materials that wear out within
> a few hundred miles because they are so soft.

More a case of some fuckwit running it without oil in the past, and the 
"good" engine he bought was actually a pile of shit.

Ret. <xxx> wrote:

> Firth is still going on about my car is he?

I'm still laughing at you, yes.

>  I think it's become an obsession with him. 

<sigh> No Kevin, it's an obsession with you, I'm just laughing at your
obsession. I only reply to a tiny fraction of the crap you post praising
the pile of festering poo that is a Rover 75.

"Adrian"  wrote:
>>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
>>> where the fuck you're going"?
>
>> Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a tad more difficult.
>
> Only if you're outdriving your lights and/or visibility.
>
> What if it's a sack of anvils, not a pothole?

Or a child?  Remember folks, hitting kids at 30 rather than 40 is the 
official recommendation.

-- 
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."

AstraVanMann wrote:
> "Adrian"  wrote:
>>>> Hey, here's a novel idea... How about "not hitting kerbs" and "looking
>>>> where the fuck you're going"?
>>> Avoiding potholes on a dark or foggy road can be a tad more difficult.
>> Only if you're outdriving your lights and/or visibility.
>>
>> What if it's a sack of anvils, not a pothole?
> 
> Or a child?  Remember folks, hitting kids at 30 rather than 40 is the 
> official recommendation.
> 

Depends on how much you want to kill them or just 
injure them.

Bod

[This followup was posted to uk.rec.driving and a copy was sent to the 
cited author.]

In article , 
peter@swerveweb.com says...
> Or a child?  Remember folks, hitting kids at 30 rather than 40 is the 
> official recommendation.
> 
Depends on whether you want to leave witnesses.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553