You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  Motorhomes -> Motorhome Matters
Jump to page : First 1 Last
Format:  Go
Tyres: Derek Uzell
AuthorMessage
userNorma
Posted: 22 January 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Well we've done it! All five tyres have been changed. We've spoken to 2 different people at Michelin and on their advice gone over to Agilis tyres. Still NO sign, in Europe, of the XC tyres. How on earth are they still putting them on new vans if no-one else can find them?

Bless them at ATS, they offered to return the good tyres to sell on - then they looked at them more closely! Only about 2,000 miles left.

At least we are legal again.
Thank for you advice.
userStuart
Posted: 22 January 2005 11:56 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


There is something strange re XC tyres.
The local tyre depot here (not national co.) got me a full set of five in 24hrs just before xmas, direct from Micchelin. Seems odd.
userMike Chapman
Posted: 23 January 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


The supply of Michelin XC Camping tyres in the UK does seem to be very patchy. When even John Wickersham with all his contacts has difficulty getting them there must be a supply problem. I wonder if the poor supply relates to all sizes or just the most popular eg. 215/70 R 15.

Spoke to a contact in the tyre game and he reckons that because these are a specialised tyre made in smaller quantities than the Agilis, the coachbuilders probably get priority. He tried to order a set from Michelin and they are on back order. You certainly seem to have been lucky Stuart.

Regards,

Mike Chapman
userTyres
Posted: 23 January 2005 3:47 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Why stck to Micheline?????????????

Do no other makers manufacture the same size tyres

All my previous vans have had tyres from other makes than were supplied

Just as long as they are the correct size it doesnt matter

And what would happen if you had a blow out while abroad??
Would you wait for a replacement sending out

At worst you could change the rims for some other SUITABLE size

userNorma
Posted: 23 January 2005 8:25 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Dear 'Tyres'

If you read Derek Uzells previous posting regarding the specialised camping tyres you would see why I put the best quality tyres I choose to pay for. In such a large and heavy vehicle I wish to stay as safe as I can for myself and other road users! And if we had a blow out (hopefully one) I would use the spare! Then worry about finding a replacement.

Regards Norma
userDerek Uzzell
Posted: 24 January 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


I had a similar experience towards the end of 2003 obtaining Michelin Agilis 81 tyres in 225/70 R15C size. These are 'normal' tyres fitting old-style Ford Transits, Mercedes Sprinters and other popular light commercial vehicles. Nobody in the UK had any or could obtain any, even tyre outlets that were part of the Michelin empire. It took about 4 months for supplies to restart.

I don't know why this happens - it's obviously something to do with the way Michelin works and it must be counter-productive as, if you must have a new tyre, would prefer to buy a Michelin but can't, you will purchase a competitor's tyre.

I'm sure (as Mike's contact suggests) that motorhome converters get priority for XC Camping tyres. This tyre pattern is becoming increasingly dominant - it's now being fitted to many Continental Ford Transit-based motorhomes (which previously had 'ordinary' tyres) where it must do nothing for ride quality, road-holding or poor-surface grip and is bound to elevate the new-vehicle price. Almost certainly this practice is because Continental motorcaravanners see XC Camping as the only choice for a motorhome and any alternative tyre as 'wrong'. It will be interesting to see if the 'camping' tyres now being produced by other tyre makers will alter this attitude.
userTyres
Posted: 24 January 2005 8:25 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


My point was that tyres made for 'light commercial' vans have to be able to carry the weight of a fully loaded van

With my commercial van that had a max load of 2500kg I had tyres made by various firms ALL fully able to withstand the Max Laden Weight weight (It had covered 150,000 miles when sold on)

I now have a van conversion running on 'Standard' tyres the max weight thet can carry is 4000 kg while the van max laden weight is 3500kg

My question was

WHY stick to Michelein??

I found them to wear out quicker than other makes
My present tyres are of some French make
userRoger Corbett
Posted: 24 January 2005 10:33 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


I have read postings in recent months about tyres, tyre pressures and particularly payload with great interest. I found that fully loaded, our van, an Autotrail Cheyenne was right on the overall payload limit of 430kg and more importantly the rear axle limit.
Looking into tyre loadings I saw that Geist fit an 8 ply Continental Vanco 225/70 R15C tyre to their comparably sized coachbuilts. This has a single wheel loading of 1120kg against the Michelin Camping XC which I think is rated at 1050kg. If its good enough for Geist it should be OK for most used sensibly? Its maximum pressure is 65psi but as my Michelins only need about 58/59psi for 1900kg this seems to be similar. Whilst some may need the bulletproof construction of the Michelin they could be grossly overloading the tyre loading and the payload capacity. It is available and my local supplier quoted £97.40, fitted and balanced.
For those needing axle loadings, West Yorkshire Trading Standards had a free 24 hour single axle loading facility at Nepshaw Lane South, Gildersome (Junction of the M621 and M62). However the site was being re-developed last autumn so a telephone call first might be wise - 0113 253 0241.
userDerek Uzzell
Posted: 25 January 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Roger: I don't think anyone will argue that 'ordinary' light commercial vehicle tyres (like Continental's Vanco pattern) are unsuitable, or somehow 'wrong', for use on motorhomes. In fact, I'm sick of saying this! Neither do I think that Michelin LCV tyres are necessarily superior to equivalent products from other premium tyre manufacturers.

However, Michelin's XC Camping tyre (as has been explained in previous postings) is different, as it has (according to Michelin) a load carrying capacity significantly in excess of its Load Index marking. Michelin say that XC Camping is essentially a 10-ply rated tyre 'marked down' to 8-ply rating. Now, you (like me) may think the 'nanny thinking' behind this assumes that, when it comes to tyre matters, motorcaravanners are a breed of uninformed idiots who can't be trusted to load their vehicles within permitted weight-limits or select appropriate tyres for their vehicles. In fact, I think there is another reason, involving chassis homologation, for XC Camping's 8-ply rating Load Index marking, but I've never explored this with Michelin.

LCV tyres of similar size tend to have similar Load Indices and Michelin's 'ordinary' Agilis 81 225/70 R15C pattern (in both standard and unidirectional snow/ice versions) has a Load Index of 112 equating to a maximum single-wheel loading of 1120kg (ie same as the Vanco equivalent). Although 225/70 R15C size is available in XC Camping pattern, it needs to be specially imported to the UK and technical data relating to it does not appear in Michelin's handbook. However, Michelin did provide me with information about it once and I can confirm that XC Camping in 225/70 R15C size also has a Load Index of 112.

Not sure where you got your 1050kg figure from for XC Camping - 215/70 R15 size has a Load Index of 109 (1030kg), while 215/75 R16 has a Load Index of 113 (1150kg). Obviously, when comparing tyre load-carrying capacity, you need to compare like-sizes.
userTyres
Posted: 25 January 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Yes SOME motor hommers are uninformed idiots.
Unfortunately some of these idiots like to spout about thing that they have very little technical knowledge and can only go by the information gained from some other uninformed idiot

Like the Ex transport manager who said he could load up to the Max Train Load as this was in his book No he didnt have any sort of trailer
userRoy Hamilton
Posted: 25 January 2005 8:11 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


It may be of interest to this thread for me to report that I have recently (November) bought a Lunar Roadstar 720 Fiat 2.8 JTD 3500 MGW. New in May 02. Mileage to date 5600 so it still has, I assume, the original tyres on it. They are:-
Pirelli Citynet 215/75 R16 C113/111 R (8 ply rating) Also on the sidewall it states that this replaces 215R16 C (8PR). More info states the max load to be Single 2535 lbs at 70psi cold and Dual 2405 lbs at 70psi cold. Plies: Sidewall 2 Polyester: Tread 2 Polyester 2 Steel 2 Nylon. Load range D. There's more DOT numbers but I have'nt noted them down. If any one wants these I'll go and look again, but it's very cold outside even in Cornwall.
userDerek Uzzell
Posted: 26 January 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


www.motorcaravanning.co.uk/vehicles/tyre_test.htm carries performance comparison details of various 'motorhome suitable' tyres. (Irritatingly, the date of the Pro Mobil report referred to is not specified, but I think it was a few years ago.)

It's interesting to note how poorly Michelin's XC Camping pattern did generally and in the aquaplaning test particularly. I can't say I'm surprised though - XC Camping is an elderly design and one should anticipate inferior performance relative to more modern patterns. It's worth mentioning perhaps that Agilis 101 (I wonder why Agilis 81 wasn't chosen instead) is 10-ply rated (while Michelin say XC Camping has 10-ply rated carrying capacity even though it's 8-ply rated by Load Index), whereas the other tyres are all 'genuine' 8-ply rated. Because of this, it might have been educational to re-test the motorhomes after they had been placed in the seriously overloaded state some motorcaravanners seem so fond of.
userMike Chapman
Posted: 28 January 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Hello Derek,

The ProMobil test was carried out in June 2002. All of the tyres tested are still available but some may have been modified. The Goodyear Cargo G91 is 10/12 ply rated.

Have a look at the website www.aasa.org.uk/healthsafety20 for another opinion on Continental tyres.

As an "informed idiot" (refer to Mr Tyres) I personally always use Goodyear or Continental tyres, when I have the choice. These are a softer tyre compound and usually perform well in wet conditions but wear more quickly. Most motorhomes come fitted with Michelin XC as standard and dealers do not like to have to change the tyres unless really pushed.

A little suspicious of a German Test that finds for Continental.

Regards,

Mike.
userDerek Uzzell
Posted: 30 January 2005 7:06 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Hi Mike: Thanks for correcting me - I blush to admit I was guessing about the 8-ply issue.

I had a look at the Goodyear website as I thought Cargo G91 might offer owners of motorhomes with 15" wheels the opportunity to have a 'tougher' tyre should they wish to have their vehicles' chassis uprated to carry higher loads. It seems this is a non-starter though, as G91 appears to be made only in 16" size like Michelin's Agilis 101.
userDerek Uzzell
Posted: 1 February 2005 7:50 AM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Mike: Shock horror! After you had mentioned G91 being 10/12-ply rated I thought I would look at the rest. I couldn't wait for the lethargic Bridgestone site to load, but it seems that all the remaining tyres tested by ProMobil are also available as 10/12-rated and, based on the Conti website that refers to the German magazine report, this is most probably the variant tested not the 8-ply version I had assumed had been employed.

I must ask Michelin sometime what the advantage (if any) there is in using XC Camping rather than a 10/12-ply rated alternative.
userMike Chapman
Posted: 3 February 2005 3:06 PM
Subject: Tyres: Derek Uzell
 


Hello Derek,

Please de-embarrass as the test does not specify the ply ratings and I picked up on the Goodyear G91 because I know the tyre.

Always a bit suspicious of these tests as different tests by differing "experts" come to different conclusions. I wonder why Pirelli was not included in a test carried out at the Pirelli test track? If aquaplaning was given major significance the Hankook would have won.

Agree with you about the Michelin XC, it does not come out too well in the wet test.

Regards,

Mike.
Jump to page : First 1 Last
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator