Bring back sensible tyres

[forddeliveryboy]

In theory, low profile (which to me means 65 aspect ratio and lower) tyres make your car feel more nimble, look sportier, cause less rolling resistance and grip harder. In reality they exist because nasty cheapo front suspension common on most modern crap demands wider tyres to work, so the sidewalls get thinner to accommodate wider rubber under the arches. On perfectly smooth and dry roads they are fine, if your suspension can hold the wider tyre tread flat on the road. Bit more drag, bit more road noise, otherwise ok.

 

In the real world they load up steering and suspension parts causing wear more rapidly, wear which controls the wheel less well and so makes for poorer steering feel and less predictable handling. Potholes and kerbs may damage wheelrims and sidewalls dangerously - at the minimum you feel as if you're crossing a river bed when on a bad bit of road.

 

Since the tyres' contact patch is crossways rather than front to back as with a taller, slightly narrower tyre there isn't really more grip, just different grip. On slippery roads it seems like there's a lot less. Less stability on rippled surfaces too, unless you've suspension from heaven.

 

In the snow I was a tight-rse and wouldn't pay daft prices for cheapo winter tyres in a 195-60x14 size - obviously a common one, so looked for something a little less common. 165x14 (80 or 82% profile) fitted under the car's arches, so with a pair of Vredestein Snow+ on the front and commercial Nankangs (M+S badged) on the back the Golf scythed its way through snow which brought many 4x4s to a halt. When the snow went, the tyres stayed for a bit and although through corners you had to be a bit smoother it was no slower. Back roads were much nicer, the rippled washboard surfaces absorbed by the sidewalls meant the suspension could remain a little less hard-worked. Comfort was better, so was noise. Deep puddles one side or the other were treated with the distain a 2CV on Michelins has for them, not threatening to pull the car off the road. Braking felt less powerful but in reality the car would stop as or more quickly. Kerbs and potholes barely intruded into the cabin.

 

Returning to the low profile rubber in March, the car felt zippier but fell apart on poorer surfaces. I changed them for a size narrower and one taller, big improvement. Seems that fashion dictates, not what works best. Since old (pre-Peugeot) Citroens would out handle and outgrip other cars with tyres two and three sizes wider and will more than hold their own today in the dry and run circles round everything when it's wet (I'm talking CX and GS on plain-jane steel wheels), it seems we're missing something with our sexy rubber bands streched over wide alloys. Which are no longer lighter than steel rims - but that's another story.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Are you on the vegetableoildiesel forum?

 

In the local 'paper there's a motoring supplement, it's actually pretty good and it's the only way I find out about new cars - the editor (who's as honest as he can be without losing advertising) is always bemoaning the trend for low profile tyres.

 

I deplore them too, most of the punctures I've experienced have been on low profile tyres.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

Daft question: do low-profile tyres wear out faster/slower/at the same speed as the more "traditional" stuff? They certainly seem a lot more expensive.

[warren t claim]

I bought a "road proven" 155/70 13 for my Micrashite the other day and the guy had to hunt in his container for 10 mins before he found one. Not that long ago they must of been the most common sized tyre in the UK.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

My Golf's tyres are 175/70/13. It's like an antique, from the past.

 

At least tyres in that size are still cheap, it might need one.

[Albert Ross]

Take a look at utility 4x4s. They mostly have tall narrow tyres. Mine are 7.50x16, but Radials, running an Imperial size carcass. They are nominally a 100% aspect ratio, meaning the sidewall height is as tall as the tyre is wide, thankfully. I have yet to try them in gloop, as they are new to me. The "previously tested by the Armed Forces" Michelins I had, got a little slippery. I find they are quieter in a drive-by situation aswell. I work be a major road, and the tyre noise is dreadful. It's like having a fan on full choke for 9 hours a day without the benefits.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

I like seeing modern Japanese pick-ups with skinny steel wheels. A very rare sight.

[forddeliveryboy]

My Golf's tyres are 175/70/13. It's like an antique, from the past.

 

At least tyres in that size are still cheap, it might need one.

 

And they were the low profile sporting tyre once, to replace the 155x13 on lower models. Golf GTi ran them, seemed wide back in the late 70s early 80s. Used to be 145x13s for small stuff, 155x13s for medium and 165x13s and 14s for a bit bigger. Only expensive and fast stuff ran exotica like 185/70x14s. Weird, huge 15 inch wheels were used by Saabs, air cooled VWs and Citroens - which people laughed at for not being 13 like everyone else. Think the 165x14 size replaced the old ubiquitious 6.00x14. As in 6 inches.

 

And yes, Leonard, I am. Who are you over there?

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

eye_flys

[Negative Creep]

The other effect is some truly comical arch gaps on some modern cars. I saw a new Beetle yesterday that looked as if it could hide a family of illegal immigrants in each arch

[andrew e]

I *think* to benefit a lower profile tyre, you need less unsprung weight - alloy wheels and suspension arms. Dunno about the snow tyres being kinder mind, I shit myself when I went sideways on j23 sliproad (hockey stick shaped) of the M25 2 days before they come off.

[forddeliveryboy]

I *think* to benefit a lower profile tyre, you need less unsprung weight - alloy wheels and suspension arms.

 

That would make sense, but modern alloys aren't lighter than steels. A bit like chicken is no longer food for special occasions - and the quality for the masses is poor.

[CIH]

195/60 14 is not a common size. Hasn't been for a good 10 years, I'd say.

[forddeliveryboy]

Well it might not be, but 165x14s - if prices were anything to go by at the time, are therefore very rare. 3rd gen Golf TDis use 195-60s and there are loads of them everywhere I go.

[Cavcraft]

My Golf's tyres are 175/70/13. It's like an antique, from the past.

 

At least tyres in that size are still cheap, it might need one.

 

The 'sports' (i.e wider) replacement for the 165/13 from memory. My Cortina is on them, had a look earlier as I assumed 155 or 165 13s. Cheap as they are as Warren said they're getting harder to find part worn now.

 

*I recall from my tyre fitting days they were like gold dust and earnt us fitters a good few quid back in the day knocking them out to Capri/Cortina/Cavalier Coupe owners.

[Pillock]

My Polo needed 175/60R13s on it - now they're pretty freaking rare, low profile 13s! It often ended up with 185s on instead which rubbed on full lock (I say "often", in my three years of ownership I destroyed about 6 pairs of front tyres, and no rear ones).