M+S MOTORHOME TYRES

[DAVLINS]

I am looking to replace my motorhome tyres and I am really perplexed by the completely different and contradictory advice I get from tyre suppliers. My current tyres are the old Michelin XC type - from new (2004). Have now done 38000 miles and its time for changing. Have trawled the net re the benefits of Camper Tyres v Commercial Tyres with the same load ratings. The same 2 names come up repeatedly ie Continental Vanco Camper v Michelin Agilis CP tyres. However was looking at a Motorhome magazine where the Hankook ra18 vantra lt 215/70 r15c 109s was stated as being fitted as standard on a lot of motorhomes in Germany. I duly contacted Camskill who informed me that the Hankook tyre was not suita le for a motorhome - I then phoned up another supplier who said they would be suitable - who do you believe?

Therefore my question is - " has anyone first hand experience of using a Commercial Tyre on a 3.5 t motorhome and if so - how did it rate against the CP tyres? There is a real price difference between the Hankook tyre and the VancoCamper/ Michelin ( in excess of £40 per tyre). But I don't mind paying the extra if experience has shown others that the CP Camper tyres are far better particularly in mud and snow( Hankook does have the M+S marking conicidentally ).

 

Thanks

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Welcome to the Out&AboutLive forums.

 

Let’s start with the “M+S” tyre marking.

 

If you look at the following links you’ll see that there’s nothing magical about this.

 

http://www.continental-tyres.co.uk/www/tyres_uk_en/themes/car-tyres/winter-tyres/markings/markings_en.html

 

http://www.snowtyres.com.au/severe-service-emblem

 

A tyre with an M+S marking does not need to meet defined technical test/performance criteria and, although an M+S-marked tyre might reasonably be expected to provide SOME improvement in mud/snow conditions over a tyre not M+S-marked, there’s no guarantee how much (if any) better it will be in that respect than a non-M+S-marked tyre.

 

It has recently come to light that the “CP” marking is somewhat similar. A CP-marked tyre does not need to meet defined technical test/performance criteria – the CP marking merely indicates that a tyre manufacturer has designed a tyre with motorcaravans particularly in mind.

 

Currently there are just 3 European tyre manufacturers marketing ‘motorcaravan’ tyres – Continental, Michelin and Pirelli - and, of these, only the Continental and Michelin tyres are CP-marked. Michelin’s “Agilis Camping” CP-marked tyre is also M+S-marked, so MIGHT be a bit better in mud/snow conditions than the Continental or Pirelli equivalents. However, there’s absolutely no reason to expect Agilis Camping to be better in mud/snow conditions than any M+S-marked tyre that is not CP-marked (eg. Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18). A CP-marked tyre (even one that is M+S-marked) won’t be worth paying a premium price for if you are primarily interested in mud/snow grip. If you wanted best grip in snow conditions, you'd need to opt for a specialised 'cold weather' tyre (eg. Michelin's "Agilis Alpin" pattern).

 

I don’t know which motorhome magazine you've been looking at, but I'm doubtful that many new motorhomes (in Germany or elsewhere) are being fitted as standard with Hankook tyres - Continental and Michelin still dominate the coachbuilt motorcaravan tyre market. However, in 2013 the German motorhome magazine “Pro-mobil” published a report that included tests of six 215/70 R15-size tyres on panel-van-based motorcaravans and Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18 scored highest.

 

There have been arguments about ‘ordinary’ light-commercial-vehicle tyres versus ‘motorhome’ tyres since the latter type began to be marketed by Michelin (the XC Camping pattern) over 20 years ago. Rather than try to summarise shed-loads of discussion, I suggest you browse through this selection of earlier forum threads

 

http://tinyurl.com/prh9krf

 

 

[Billggski]

Welcome to the confusing world of motorhome tyres.

The only bit of information I can offer is that camper vans tyres can be inflated to 80psi, whereas van tyres have a 69psi maximum, but whether you need 80psi is another minefield, prepare for a load of conflicting advice!

(M&S tyres are different from winter tyres, theyhave a snowflake symbol)

[clifford60]

hi there, 2 years ago my van needed new tyres. for a laugh i had a look in my local commercial vehical scrap yard and to my suprise and delight they had just taken delivery of an ambulance shod with 4 nearly new michelin agillis. when i say nearly new, they still had the rubber mould bits on the side of the tread. complete with wheels £30 each. if they were good enough for an ambulance, they are good enough for my van. my point is, get out there and have a look in the scrappers. there are real bargains to be had. once i had fitted them i took the van to my local ats tyre fitters for the wheelnuts torquing up ( £10 quid in back pocket of fitter, who also inspected the tyres) he confirmed their quality and suitability for the vehicle. job done! :->

[yeti]

I had Gislaved M+S tyres on my VW and they wore out quicker as they had a softer compound also on firm roads they were noisy. I then fitted Hankook or Barum,both excellent boots. My recent vehicle has Michelin Camping,which can be bought from Costco.

[DAVLINS]

Derek Uzzell - 2014-02-17 2:09 PM

 

Welcome to the Out&AboutLive forums.

 

Let’s start with the “M+S” tyre marking.

 

If you look at the following links you’ll see that there’s nothing magical about this.

 

http://www.continental-tyres.co.uk/www/tyres_uk_en/themes/car-tyres/winter-tyres/markings/markings_en.html

 

http://www.snowtyres.com.au/severe-service-emblem

 

A tyre with an M+S marking does not need to meet defined technical test/performance criteria and, although an M+S-marked tyre might reasonably be expected to provide SOME improvement in mud/snow conditions over a tyre not M+S-marked, there’s no guarantee how much (if any) better it will be in that respect than a non-M+S-marked tyre.

 

It has recently come to light that the “CP” marking is somewhat similar. A CP-marked tyre does not need to meet defined technical test/performance criteria – the CP marking merely indicates that a tyre manufacturer has designed a tyre with motorcaravans particularly in mind.

 

Currently there are just 3 European tyre manufacturers marketing ‘motorcaravan’ tyres – Continental, Michelin and Pirelli - and, of these, only the Continental and Michelin tyres are CP-marked. Michelin’s “Agilis Camping” CP-marked tyre is also M+S-marked, so MIGHT be a bit better in mud/snow conditions than the Continental or Pirelli equivalents. However, there’s absolutely no reason to expect Agilis Camping to be better in mud/snow conditions than any M+S-marked tyre that is not CP-marked (eg. Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18). A CP-marked tyre (even one that is M+S-marked) won’t be worth paying a premium price for if you are primarily interested in mud/snow grip. If you wanted best grip in snow conditions, you'd need to opt for a specialised 'cold weather' tyre (eg. Michelin's "Agilis Alpin" pattern).

 

I don’t know which motorhome magazine you've been looking at, but I'm doubtful that many new motorhomes (in Germany or elsewhere) are being fitted as standard with Hankook tyres - Continental and Michelin still dominate the coachbuilt motorcaravan tyre market. However, in 2013 the German motorhome magazine “Pro-mobil” published a report that included tests of six 215/70 R15-size tyres on panel-van-based motorcaravans and Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18 scored highest.

 

There have been arguments about ‘ordinary’ light-commercial-vehicle tyres versus ‘motorhome’ tyres since the latter type began to be marketed by Michelin (the XC Camping pattern) over 20 years ago. Rather than try to summarise shed-loads of discussion, I suggest you browse through this selection of earlier forum threads

 

http://tinyurl.com/prh9krf

 

Thanks Derek for your input. Firstly, I am well aware of the M+ S markings and what they stand for and what they don't guarantee. The simple reason I want a tyre with these markings is because I want to be legal when I drive through Austria and Germany on my way back from Turkey in December. As far as I know ( or what I have been told by tyre suppliers ) is that they are no winter tyres with a CP marking. I have all season tyres on my light commercial van - simply because they are the best compromise suited to my needs. A winter tyre on my motorhome would be a waste of money as I am in Turkey for 4 months of the year - the hot weather simply deteriorates winter tyres very quickly.

 

As I have said, I cannot trust the tyre suppliers - because of the ridiculously contradictory advice and info they give. For example Camskill said that if I fitted 70psi tyres to the motorhome it would invalidate my insurance. MANY other tyre suppliers say that Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18). would be ok as it meets the load and speed rating of the current camper tyres. Also this tyre has a supposedly stronger sidewall than the ordinary commercial tyre. So I am really back to square one in that I know what the markings mean on a tyre and what the qualities an M+S tyre can give me and what it can't. What I am hopeful of is that somebody will give me the benefit of first hand experience re changing from a CP tyre to a Light Truck/Commercial Tyre with a 70psi inflation limit. For interests sake , my vehicle is a 3.5t Swift Kontiki 610 - Coachbuilt profile on a Fiat Ducato 14 base vehicle .

[DAVLINS]

Derek Uzzell - 2014-02-17 2:09 PM

 

Welcome to the Out&AboutLive forums.

 

Let’s start with the “M+S” tyre marking.

 

If you look at the following links you’ll see that there’s nothing magical about this.

 

http://www.continental-tyres.co.uk/www/tyres_uk_en/themes/car-tyres/winter-tyres/markings/markings_en.html

 

http://www.snowtyres.com.au/severe-service-emblem

 

A tyre with an M+S marking does not need to meet defined technical test/performance criteria and, although an M+S-marked tyre might reasonably be expected to provide SOME improvement in mud/snow conditions over a tyre not M+S-marked, there’s no guarantee how much (if any) better it will be in that respect than a non-M+S-marked tyre.

 

It has recently come to light that the “CP” marking is somewhat similar. A CP-marked tyre does not need to meet defined technical test/performance criteria – the CP marking merely indicates that a tyre manufacturer has designed a tyre with motorcaravans particularly in mind.

 

Currently there are just 3 European tyre manufacturers marketing ‘motorcaravan’ tyres – Continental, Michelin and Pirelli - and, of these, only the Continental and Michelin tyres are CP-marked. Michelin’s “Agilis Camping” CP-marked tyre is also M+S-marked, so MIGHT be a bit better in mud/snow conditions than the Continental or Pirelli equivalents. However, there’s absolutely no reason to expect Agilis Camping to be better in mud/snow conditions than any M+S-marked tyre that is not CP-marked (eg. Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18). A CP-marked tyre (even one that is M+S-marked) won’t be worth paying a premium price for if you are primarily interested in mud/snow grip. If you wanted best grip in snow conditions, you'd need to opt for a specialised 'cold weather' tyre (eg. Michelin's "Agilis Alpin" pattern).

 

I don’t know which motorhome magazine you've been looking at, but I'm doubtful that many new motorhomes (in Germany or elsewhere) are being fitted as standard with Hankook tyres - Continental and Michelin still dominate the coachbuilt motorcaravan tyre market. However, in 2013 the German motorhome magazine “Pro-mobil” published a report that included tests of six 215/70 R15-size tyres on panel-van-based motorcaravans and Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18 scored highest.

 

There have been arguments about ‘ordinary’ light-commercial-vehicle tyres versus ‘motorhome’ tyres since the latter type began to be marketed by Michelin (the XC Camping pattern) over 20 years ago. Rather than try to summarise shed-loads of discussion, I suggest you browse through this selection of earlier forum threads

 

http://tinyurl.com/prh9krf

 

Thanks Derek for your input. Firstly, I am well aware of the M+ S markings and what they stand for and what they don't guarantee. The simple reason I want a tyre with these markings is because I want to be legal when I drive through Austria and Germany on my way back from Turkey in December. As far as I know ( or what I have been told by tyre suppliers ) is that they are no winter tyres with a CP marking. I have all season tyres on my light commercial van - simply because they are the best compromise suited to my needs. A winter tyre on my motorhome would be a waste of money as I am in Turkey for 4 months of the year - the hot weather simply deteriorates winter tyres very quickly.

 

As I have said, I cannot trust the tyre suppliers - because of the ridiculously contradictory advice and info they give. For example Camskill said that if I fitted 69 psi tyres to the motorhome it would invalidate my insurance. MANY other tyre suppliers say that Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18). would be ok as it meets the load and speed rating of the current camper tyres. Also this tyre has a supposedly stronger sidewall than the ordinary commercial tyre. So I am really back to square one in that I know what the markings mean on a tyre and what the qualities an M+S tyre can give me and what it can't. What I am hopeful of is that somebody will give me the benefit of first hand experience re changing from a CP tyre to a Light Truck/Commercial Tyre with a 69psi inflation limit. For interests sake , my vehicle is a 3.5t Swift Kontiki 610 - Coachbuilt profile on a Fiat Ducato 14 base vehicle .

[Brian Kirby]

Billggski - 2014-02-17 4:54 PM.............(M&S tyres are different from winter tyres, theyhave a snowflake symbol)

I hesitate to add further to the confusion, but not all M+S marked tyres carry the snowflake symbol: for example Continental VancoFourSeason tyres are M+S marked, but not snowflake marked!

 

One further point that may be relevant is the relatively recent introduction of legislation requiring all tyres to carry at least the M+S marking in Germany (and I believe also Austria and Switzerland) between (roughly) November and March. There aren't teams of government tyre geeks inhabiting the non-existent borders, but if you get stuck in slippery conditions and cause a traffic snarl-up, and your tyres aren't M+S marked (50% min remaining tread required), you will be liable to an on-the-spot fine.

 

When comparing CP designated tyres with C designated, remember to check that the tyres are of exactly equivalent size, section, speed, and load ratings, as not all manufacturers offer full range of sizes/ratings. As an example, Continental market a 215/75 R 16 116/114R tyre as suitable for motorhome use although it is not CP designated. However, the 215/70 R 15 109R is available in both CP and C designations, and is widely available in the latter form.

 

The three CP tyre manufacturers are cagey on what the differences are that allow them to claim the CP designation, but some degree of reinforcement, some difference in tread pattern, and possibly some difference in tread compound, seem probable. If you are confident that you do/will not over-load either axle (but especially the rear), and will remain within your MAM, that the selected tyres give some margin over the maximum permissible rear axle load, and that the speed rating is appropriate to the maximum speed the vehicle can attain (not the maximum speed at which you drive it! :-)) there is, IMO, no overriding need to stick to CP tyres. Our last van came direct from the factory with plain vanilla C designated tyres, although other examples of the same van were on CP tyres. It is that significant!

 

Edit to say apologies, I missed you subsequent reply to Derek on the December run through Germany. I opted to leave the explanation to stand, as others may not be aware. As stated above, the Hankooks were well reviewed by Pro-Mobil, so if all the parameters are correct, they look to be a good choice.

[Billggski]

Sorry if I confused myself, but I was saying there is a difference between M&S tyres and winter tyres, ( the ones with the snowflake on) this is a problem because some motoring sites say winter tyres are compulsory, in Austria and Germany between certain dates, but others indicate that M&S tyres are OK. Some even say that carrying chains is an alternative.

I have separate winter and summer tyres for my cars, with M&S on the land rover and motorhome.

As a matter of interest I checked what new MH's were fitted with at a dealers, and it seemed that Fiat based ones had CP tyres, and Ford based ones had van tyres.

It could be worth checking if you're going to the NEC this week.

You won't get a definitive answer here or anywhere else.

[George Collings]

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of motorcaravan milage is during the six allegedly summer months I doubt the makers of CP tyres factored M+S into the mix when drawing up that type of tyres specification.

 

I am under the impression that for an M+S tyre to bear a snowflake symbol it must match a set of at least EU and possibly wider International standards.

 

The development of CP tyres was in response to ignorant drivers overloading their vehicles and streaking across Europe in midsummer overheating the tires so they disintegrated with tragic consequences.

 

If I remember correctly Continental were at one time recomending that motorcaravans should be fitted with tyres that had a 10% loading margin for ther axle loads. This was on the basis that motorcaravans are normally close to their permitted axle weights while LCVs typically load and unload each working day.

 

Personally I fit the standards LCV tyres and avoid high speed cruising in very hot weather and regard slding on snow as one for the birds( penguins in this case) .

 

 

 

[DAVLINS]

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-17 6:31 PM

 

Billggski - 2014-02-17 4:54 PM.............(M&S tyres are different from winter tyres, theyhave a snowflake symbol)

I hesitate to add further to the confusion, but not all M+S marked tyres carry the snowflake symbol: for example Continental VancoFourSeason tyres are M+S marked, but not snowflake marked!

 

One further point that may be relevant is the relatively recent introduction of legislation requiring all tyres to carry at least the M+S marking in Germany (and I believe also Austria and Switzerland) between (roughly) November and March. There aren't teams of government tyre geeks inhabiting the non-existent borders, but if you get stuck in slippery conditions and cause a traffic snarl-up, and your tyres aren't M+S marked (50% min remaining tread required), you will be liable to an on-the-spot fine.

 

Hello Brian and thanks for your post. My knowledge of the various tyre requirements was gained from bitter experience having being stranded in the snow - with summer tyres in Germany. Luckily for me it was a few days before the mandatory date for winter tyres ie 31 Oct - but up till then I was totally ignorant of the mandatory nature of winter tyre requirements abroad.

Interestingly,the Continental site blurb is misleading with regard to its advice. Continental say it is a legal requirement to have a winter tyre after 31 oct - actually you will be ok with a summer tyre with M+ S marking ( even without the snowflake).

 

 

[colin]

DAVLINS - 2014-02-17 1:02 PM

 

Therefore my question is - " has anyone first hand experience of using a Commercial Tyre on a 3.5 t motorhome and if so - how did it rate against the CP tyres? There is a real price difference between the Hankook tyre and the VancoCamper/ Michelin ( in excess of £40 per tyre). But I don't mind paying the extra if experience has shown others that the CP Camper tyres are far better particularly in mud and snow( Hankook does have the M+S marking conicidentally ).

 

Thanks

 

 

A couple of observations. My campervan came from the factory with standard Conti C tyres, these have a 116 rating as the van is on a Maxi chassis, which can be 4.05t, I'm not overly impressed by the grip levels, and this is borne out by the wet grip rating of 'C', so when replacement time comes I will be buying Hankook which are 'B' rated for wet grip.

My latest 4x4 came from the factory with Conti tyres, the wet grip is also poor and I'm considering swapping them, even though they are hardly worn.

[hallii]

I had problems with grip on wet grass, wet roads etc so I fitted Agilis Camper tyres, note they are marked on the tyre "Camper" there are other varieties.

 

They have made a great improvement in grip and general handling, however, the trade off is they seem to be wearing a lot quicker, no doubt a softer compound.

 

H

[DAVLINS]

colin - 2014-02-17 8:25 PM

 

DAVLINS - 2014-02-17 1:02 PM

 

Therefore my question is - " has anyone first hand experience of using a Commercial Tyre on a 3.5 t motorhome and if so - how did it rate against the CP tyres? There is a real price difference between the Hankook tyre and the VancoCamper/ Michelin ( in excess of £40 per tyre). But I don't mind paying the extra if experience has shown others that the CP Camper tyres are far better particularly in mud and snow( Hankook does have the M+S marking conicidentally ).

 

Thanks

 

 

Hi- can you tell me what your front and rear axle load limits are please.

 

A couple of observations. My campervan came from the factory with standard Conti C tyres, these have a 116 rating as the van is on a Maxi chassis, which can be 4.05t, I'm not overly impressed by the grip levels, and this is borne out by the wet grip rating of 'C', so when replacement time comes I will be buying Hankook which are 'B' rated for wet grip.

My latest 4x4 came from the factory with Conti tyres, the wet grip is also poor and I'm considering swapping them, even though they are hardly worn.

[colin]

DAVLINS - 2014-02-17 9:05 PM

 

colin - 2014-02-17 8:25 PM

 

DAVLINS - 2014-02-17 1:02 PM

 

Therefore my question is - " has anyone first hand experience of using a Commercial Tyre on a 3.5 t motorhome and if so - how did it rate against the CP tyres? There is a real price difference between the Hankook tyre and the VancoCamper/ Michelin ( in excess of £40 per tyre). But I don't mind paying the extra if experience has shown others that the CP Camper tyres are far better particularly in mud and snow( Hankook does have the M+S marking conicidentally ).

 

Thanks

 

 

A couple of observations. My campervan came from the factory with standard Conti C tyres, these have a 116 rating as the van is on a Maxi chassis, which can be 4.05t, I'm not overly impressed by the grip levels, and this is borne out by the wet grip rating of 'C', so when replacement time comes I will be buying Hankook which are 'B' rated for wet grip.

My latest 4x4 came from the factory with Conti tyres, the wet grip is also poor and I'm considering swapping them, even though they are hardly worn.

Hi- can you tell me what your front and rear axle load limits are please.

 

Plated as Front 2100kg, rear 2400kg

[Derek Uzzell]

DAVLINS - 2014-02-17 5:53 PM

 

MANY other tyre suppliers say that Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18). would be ok as it meets the load and speed rating of the current camper tyres. Also this tyre has a supposedly stronger sidewall than the ordinary commercial tyre. So I am really back to square one in that I know what the markings mean on a tyre and what the qualities an M+S tyre can give me and what it can't. What I am hopeful of is that somebody will give me the benefit of first hand experience re changing from a CP tyre to a Light Truck/Commercial Tyre with a 69psi inflation limit. For interests sake , my vehicle is a 3.5t Swift Kontiki 610 - Coachbuilt profile on a Fiat Ducato 14 base vehicle .

 

It may be the case that the Vantra LT RA18 does have particularly strong sidewalls.

 

This is a link to the 2013 promobil report I mentioned earlier

 

http://www.promobil.de/bilder/vergleichstest-sommerreifen-gummistiefelbande-6463569.html

 

(The test was not to specifically compare the performance of the tyres, more to explore whether a valid choice could be made based on the EU label they must now carry.)

 

The tread-depth and weight of each of the six tyres was checked. This varied from 9.1mm (Michelin Agilis Camping) to 9.8mm (Continental VancoCamper) and from 12.7kg (Michelin Agilis Camping) to 14.4kg (Hankook Vantra LT RA18). The RA18's tread-depth was 9.5mm (about average for the six tyres being tested) but it was significantly the heaviest. This suggests that it has a 'beefier' construction. The test data can be seen in Bild 4 and 6, with the tyre-weights shown in the "REIFENGEWICHT" section on Bild 4.

 

All CP-marked tyres are 'summer' type. As you want M+S-marked tyres, your choice will be either Michelin Agilis Camping (CP-marked) or an M+S-marked C-marked 'commercial' tyre. Agilis Camping scored an overall 7 (second from last) in promobil's test, with a particularly uninspiring wet-conditions performance (6.2 score). Hankook's RA18 scored 9 overall, with a 9.8 wet-conditions score.

 

The promobil test confirmed what many people suspected - that the EU labelling is useful as a 'broad brush' but doesn't tell the full story. For example, the EU label does not provide information on dry-conditions performance, but the promobil tests revealed a significant variation in braking distance on a dry surface (eg. 100km/h-0km/h - GT Radial Maxmiler EX=43.6m, Michelin Agilis Camping=46.7m). Also, despite Agilis Camping and Vantra LT RA18 both having a "B" wet-grip label rating, the Michelin tyre proved to be inferior to the Hankook tyre in all 5 of promobil's wet-conditions tests.

 

My FWD Ford-Transit-based Hobby motorhome has a 3500kg chassis and was factory-fitted with Continental Vanco-8 215/75 R16C tyres. It now has Continental Vanco-2 C-marked tyres. I can't tell the difference when driving and, if I fitted Michelin or Continental CP-marked tyres, I would not expect to tell the difference either.

 

I believe you won't get conclusive feedback from anyone that would allow you to justify paying extra for Agilis Camping over, say, Vantra LT RA18. The only independent testing data for motorhome-suitable tyres seems to be promobil's and, as that test awards the gold medal to the RA18 (and the RA18 meets your M+S requirement), it would be logical to opt for that.

[DAVLINS]

Derek Uzzell - 2014-02-18 9:16 AM

 

DAVLINS - 2014-02-17 5:53 PM

 

MANY other tyre suppliers say that Hankook’s Vantra LT RA18). would be ok as it meets the load and speed rating of the current camper tyres. Also this tyre has a supposedly stronger sidewall than the ordinary commercial tyre. So I am really back to square one in that I know what the markings mean on a tyre and what the qualities an M+S tyre can give me and what it can't. What I am hopeful of is that somebody will give me the benefit of first hand experience re changing from a CP tyre to a Light Truck/Commercial Tyre with a 69psi inflation limit. For interests sake , my vehicle is a 3.5t Swift Kontiki 610 - Coachbuilt profile on a Fiat Ducato 14 base vehicle .

 

It may be the case that the Vantra LT RA18 does have particularly strong sidewalls.

 

 

I believe you won't get conclusive feedback from anyone that would allow you to justify paying extra for Agilis Camping over, say, Vantra LT RA18. The only independent testing data for motorhome-suitable tyres seems to be promobil's and, as that test awards the gold medal to the RA18 (and the RA18 meets your M+S requirement), it would be logical to opt for that.

 

Hello Derek and thank you once again for your helpful input. I had made up my mind to go for the Hankooks as long as I could be reassured that the Hankooks ordinary C tyre categorisation was suitable and legal for the axle load limits (Front =1750KGS Rear = 1900kkgs). I was also concerned about how the insurance companies would view putting C tyres onto the vehicle rather than CP tyres? What I have found from speaking to all the tyre outlets is that the advice and opinions as to suitability of C tyres for a 3400kgs motorhome is so varied. Interestingly I had contacted Yokohama Head office re their Y354 tyre - they advised me to put a CP tyre on ! Bottom line for me is that as long as I know that it is legally ok to put a C tyre on my motorhome and that I am not compromising safety - then I would go for the Hankooks for sure . I tend to drive max 55mph/60 mph in the vehicle - simply for fuel economy reasons . My current tyres are 215/70R/15 Michelins with a 109/107 Q rating - the Hankooks are a 109/107 S rating.

[JonMac46]

I replaced very old Michelin CP tyres with the Hankooks just before starting off on this winter trip around Spain. Vehicle is rated at 3200kg. They are doing fine after 6,000 km.

 

I like having the M&S rating. I left a friend's finca going up a muddy track and had no trouble.

 

BTW, Hankook gave me the tyre pressures for my maximum axle loadings - well below the 80 psi! Use search for my earlier posting.

[Brian Kirby]

DAVLINS - 2014-02-18 10:58 AM..................I tend to drive max 55mph/60 mph in the vehicle - simply for fuel economy reasons . My current tyres are 215/70R/15 Michelins with a 109/107 Q rating - the Hankooks are a 109/107 S rating.

The 109 load index is suitable for a maximum axle load of 2,060kg. So you will be covered for your existing maximum of 1,900kg.

 

The S speed rating is suitable for a maximum of 113mph/180kph. So you will be covered for the vehicle's design maximum speed - plus downhill with a following wind! :-)

 

However, if the existing (presumably metal stem) valves are in good condition I would hang onto them and get only the cores changed.

 

If you have not already done this, it might pay you to take your fully laden van to a weighbridge to check the running axle loads, and then consult Hankook for recommended pressures.

 

If you presently have pressures for CP type tyres at around 4.75bar rear and 4.00bar front, it is probable these should be reduced for the C designated Hankooks, and if either axle is running below its maximum, they may possibly recommend reducing by a bit more.

 

New tyres and lower pressures should be quite transformative! You won't need to see your dentist for years! :-)

[DAVLINS]

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-19 6:13 PM

 

DAVLINS - 2014-02-18 10:58 AM..................I tend to drive max 55mph/60 mph in the vehicle - simply for fuel economy reasons . My current tyres are 215/70R/15 Michelins with a 109/107 Q rating - the Hankooks are a 109/107 S rating.

The 109 load index is suitable for a maximum axle load of 2,060kg. So you will be covered for your existing maximum of 1,900kg.

 

The S speed rating is suitable for a maximum of 113mph/180kph. So you will be covered for the vehicle's design maximum speed - plus downhill with a following wind! :-)

 

However, if the existing (presumably metal stem) valves are in good condition I would hang onto them and get only the cores changed.

 

If you have not already done this, it might pay you to take your fully laden van to a weighbridge to check the running axle loads, and then consult Hankook for recommended pressures.

 

If you presently have pressures for CP type tyres at around 4.75bar rear and 4.00bar front, it is probable these should be reduced for the C designated Hankooks, and if either axle is running below its maximum, they may possibly recommend reducing by a bit more.

 

New tyres and lower pressures should be quite transformative! You won't need to see your dentist for years! :-)

 

Thanks Brian. My current tyre recommendations ( from Fiat/Swift) is 80psi

[Brian Kirby]

Which I think you will find is too high for the Hankooks. That is to say, above Hankook's maximum recommended pressure.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-19 6:13 PM

 

...However, if the existing (presumably metal stem) valves are in good condition I would hang onto them and get only the cores changed....

 

 

I'm going to disagree with you on that.

 

DAVLINS's present valves (whatever their type) are now 10 years old - that plenty long enough for even a clamp-in valve and, when the tyres are replaced, it would make good sense to replace the valves too.

 

It will be cheaper (and a helluva lot more convenient) to replace all the present valves when the tyres are off than have to replace a single elderly valve at a later stage if its 'rubber' base-seal begins to leak.

 

I certainly agree with you, though, that the inflation pressures chosen for C-marked tyres (eg. Hankook's RA18) will need to be well below the 80psi commonly advised for 'camping-car' tyres.

 

Incidentally, I note that in the Technical Specifications section of the current Ducato handbook there's the following advice

 

"If using class C tyres on a Camping vehicle, always use wheels with a metal inflation valve. When replacing, it is always advisable to use Camping tyres."

[DAVLINS]

Derek Uzzell - 2014-02-20 9:52 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-19 6:13 PM

 

...However, if the existing (presumably metal stem) valves are in good condition I would hang onto them and get only the cores changed....

 

 

I'm going to disagree with you on that.

 

DAVLINS's present valves (whatever their type) are now 10 years old - that plenty long enough for even a clamp-in valve and, when the tyres are replaced, it would make good sense to replace the valves too.

 

It will be cheaper (and a helluva lot more convenient) to replace all the present valves when the tyres are off than have to replace a single elderly valve at a later stage if its 'rubber' base-seal begins to leak.

 

I certainly agree with you, though, that the inflation pressures chosen for C-marked tyres (eg. Hankook's RA18) will need to be well below the 80psi commonly advised for 'camping-car' tyres.

 

Incidentally, I note that in the Technical Specifications section of the current Ducato handbook there's the following advice

 

"If using class C tyres on a Camping vehicle, always use wheels with a metal inflation valve. When replacing, it is always advisable to use Camping tyres."

 

Brian/Derek- the Hankooks like most C tyres will be 65-70 max . Interestingly I phoned Swift yesterday to see whether they could enlighten me . As in most things I found them to be non committal ( and mostly unhelpful). They passed me on to their tyre suppliers for advice who ,when I contacted them said that they only supplied the Caravan tyres ! However what they did say was that as long as a tyre has the same speed/ load ratings then a C tyre would be ok for my vehicle's max axle loads. I then got back on to Swift for their Motorhome tyre supplier - the customer care section couldn't tell me and advised me to phone Fiat UK head office. This I did only to be told by Fiat that they did not have the technical expertise to comment - and gave me the local dealer's tel number. I phoned their service dept who advised keep to the 109/107 R/S ratings and a good C tyre would be appropriate and legal

[rolandrat]

The Tyre debate will roll on and on about what is good what is bad what to fit and so on. How long tyres should be used for, date of manufacture etc. Yes there are so called premium tyres on the market with household names being sold for silly money. At this moment in time I have 3 brand new 15" Continental CP and 1 part worn by less than 1/2 mil lying in storage in my garage as I'm riding on 4 brand new DoubleStar commercial tyres which cost £48.33p each including balancing and fitting. The road holding and ride cannot be faulted and the pressures are 60psi front and 65psi rear. It will be interesting to see how these tyres perform over a long period, up to now the've done 3000 miles with no sign of wear.

,

[DAVLINS]

rolandrat - 2014-02-20 10:27 AM

 

The Tyre debate will roll on and on about what is good what is bad what to fit and so on. How long tyres should be used for, date of manufacture etc. Yes there are so called premium tyres on the market with household names being sold for silly money. At this moment in time I have 3 brand new 15" Continental CP and 1 part worn by less than 1/2 mil lying in storage in my garage as I'm riding on 4 brand new DoubleStar commercial tyres which cost £48.33p each including balancing and fitting. The road holding and ride cannot be faulted and the pressures are 60psi front and 65psi rear. It will be interesting to see how these tyres perform over a long period, up to now the've done 3000 miles with no sign of wear.

,

 

what are your max axle loads?