Tyre replacement advice

[duffers]

so, since I like to know reasons -

what is the stated benefit of camper tyres??

[Guest Tracker]

Simples - they make more money for Michelin!

[Syd]

If tyres should be replaced after a few years how does this time limmit apply to remold tyres or have they stopped doing remolds now

[Minstrel]

I was under the impression that the Michelin camper tyres were designed for us campers as we are usually very close to the weight limit.

[Brambles]

Camper tyre so called benefits.

 

Longer rubber life, reinforced side walls, higher safety margin for excess loading and over inflation. Special rubber formulation to resist permanent or semi permanent deformation of the tyre when parked for long periods. Treated carcase to reduce air permeability so they lose air slower.

 

The Michelin Agilis Camping is the only (unless someone else has introduced one recently) Mud and Snow rated camping tyre and is a vast improvement over the XC camping which fell behind when Continental introduced the Vanco Camping. Michelin then went one better with the Agilis Camping and it also has a lower rolling resistance or so called 'Green Tyre' improving fuel economy (propably tiny).

 

Hope that helps clarify a few points.

 

 

 

[euroserv]

This is beginning to wear thin.

 

My example would seem a little off topic, but hang on in there;

 

The Fiat Ducato 35Maxi X250 is fitted with 215 75 16 tyres that are '10 ply' and have a load rating of 116/114. The ordinary Ducato 35 has 215 70 15 '8 ply' tyres rated at 113/111. Both vans have a GVW of 3500kg and in fact the standard van (since it is a little lighter) has a higher payload. The Maxi vans used to come with metal (bolt-in) valves but since 2008 they have only standard rubber valves (not even metal/rubber ones).

 

If the above is ok by the manufacturer and is fit for the purpose intended and is type approved as such then why on earth would a camper van that will be close to it's max GVW (but NEVER over it like a white van will) possibly need anything more?

 

Also; for those that 'can feel the difference' I would state that even if you replaced some 50% worn camper tyres with some brand new far eastern van rubber you would 'notice the difference'.

 

It's all B.S.

 

Nick

 

PS. Low rolling resistance means less grip. Indisputable fact. Does that make you feel happy, or just green?

[andy mccord]

The decision I believe, on which wheels get the best tyres is relatively simple IMO to conclude, which wheels steer?, and which have the largest diameter discs? This is how I decide.

 

Andy

[Symbol Owner]

Bump

[duffers]

Tracker - 2010-09-22 7:44 PM

 

Simples - they make more money for Michelin!

 

 

thanks for that Richard :D :D

[Derek Uzzell]

There is a different ETRTO (European Tyre & Rim Technical Orgainsation) standard for 'camping-car' tyres as opposed to 'white van' tyres.

 

Now, unless it's to be argued that there's some sort of peculiar conspiracy between ETRTO, the tyre makers and the motorhome manufacturers, then it's logical to assume that a camping-car tyre that's advertised as being designed to be particularly suitable for motorhome usage actually is.

 

I'm going to suggest that, if a motorcaravanner wants a simple/safe answer as to whether or not he/she should replace 'camping-car' tyres on a like-for-like basis, then the answer is "Yes". Similarly, if he/she asks which axle the new tyres should go on, the simple/safe answer is "the rear axle". And for a "What tyre pressures should I use?" inquiry, the simple/safe answer is "Follow the recommendation in your motorhome's handbook".

 

 

[Brock]

Nicely put, Derek.

[Brambles]

Not all standard van tyres will cope with the max psi on the door piller label or max psi (or what appears as recommended) in some handbooks.

 

Another characteristic or enhancement I did not mention earlier which campinmg tyres are supposed to have is the reinforced sidewalls for improved transverse movement of the tyre (side to side movement) which is important for heavy rear loaded vehicles. Most commercial vans are loaded fairly evenly between front and back e.g loaded bewteen the Fr and Rr axles. Motorhome with rear overhangs and garages can be very rear heavy compared to the front and a standad tyre will give you more sway at the rear affecting driving stability. Stronger sidewalls for transverse movement is supposed to improve the stability and comfort whilist driving.

If you carry a lot of water in a tank sloshing around you may also get improved handling using camping tyres, so they say.

 

So protection of higher psi, higher overloading, resistance to impacts, better compounds and tread patterns etc. etc..

Is there really a diffence or all marketing hype?

Clearly some are not convinced. I make no judgement, just presenting the information.

[Guest Peter James]

euroserv - 2010-09-23 8:59 AM

 

This is beginning to wear thin.

 

My example would seem a little off topic, but hang on in there;

 

The Fiat Ducato 35Maxi X250 is fitted with 215 75 16 tyres that are '10 ply' and have a load rating of 116/114. The ordinary Ducato 35 has 215 70 15 '8 ply' tyres rated at 113/111. Both vans have a GVW of 3500kg and in fact the standard van (since it is a little lighter) has a higher payload. The Maxi vans used to come with metal (bolt-in) valves but since 2008 they have only standard rubber valves (not even metal/rubber ones).

 

If the above is ok by the manufacturer and is fit for the purpose intended and is type approved as such then why on earth would a camper van that will be close to it's max GVW (but NEVER over it like a white van will) possibly need anything more?

 

Also; for those that 'can feel the difference' I would state that even if you replaced some 50% worn camper tyres with some brand new far eastern van rubber you would 'notice the difference'.

 

It's all B.S.

 

Nick

 

Well Said.

Lets remember that their primary objective is not to make tyres. It is to make money. The marketing guys hit on a nice little earner with these so called Camping Tyres. They must be salivating at all the affluent motorhomers you see at the shows looking for something to spend their money on.

As for changing tyres every 5 years, the tyres on my bike are at least 28 years old (it was a retirement present for a gentleman who never got to use it much) run at 55psi, and still do their job very well.

 

 

euroserv - 2010-09-23 8:59 AM

PS. Low rolling resistance means less grip. Indisputable fact. Does that make you feel happy, or just green?

 

Did you mean to say that? I thought it was longer tyre life, (not lower rolling resistance) that means less grip? (because the rubber compound is harder for less wear)

[duffers]

sorry if I'm being thick [again]

but does is actually say 'camping car' on the tyre or are you supposed to go away and look up the codes??

[Guest Peter James]

duffers - 2010-09-26 1:25 PM

 

sorry if I'm being thick [again]

but does is actually say 'camping car' on the tyre or are you supposed to go away and look up the codes??

 

You do right to ask as I am sure you are not the only one who doesn't know. (I only found out recently)

I think it usually only says the codes on the tyre (at the end);

 

C = Commercial

CP = Camping

[Guest Peter James]

Often the biggest improvement you can make to your tyres is to weigh the axles then adjust the presures accordingly. I found I was able to reduce my tyre pressures from 65psi to 45psi and its made the ride a lot better.

 

click link to download pressure chart: http://www.tyresafe.org/data/files/motorhome%20leaflet.pdf

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Peter James - 2010-09-26 2:14 PM

 

duffers - 2010-09-26 1:25 PM

 

sorry if I'm being thick [again]

but does is actually say 'camping car' on the tyre or are you supposed to go away and look up the codes??

 

You do right to ask as I am sure you are not the only one who doesn't know. (I only found out recently)

I think it usually only says the codes on the tyre (at the end);

 

C = Commercial

CP = Camping

 

My understanding is that the "C" was originally derived from "Camionette" (French for a 'light van'), and there's no doubt that the "CP" derives from "Camping Pneu".

 

Not all 'camping-car' tyres will necessarily have the "CP" marking. Continental's website advises that ETRTO's 'camping-car tyre' standard only applies to 8PR tyres, hence one of the Continental VancoCamper range (because it's 10PR) just carries a "C" marking. And, obviously, older 'camping-car' tyres (like Michelin's "XC Camping") produced before the "CP" standard was introduced, will be marked "C", rather than "CP".

 

To the best of my knowledge, Continental, Michelin or Pirelli are the only three tyre-manufacturing companies ever to have marketed tyre ranges specifically aimed at European motorcaravans and all of those ranges carry (or have carried) the word "Camping" or "Camper" as part of the range-name. So it's probably easier to ignore the "C" and "CP" variation and just check if the tyre has a range-name with one of those words in it (eg. Continental "VancoCamper", Michelin "Agilis Camping", Pirelli "Chrono Camper") Basically, if the tyre has "Camper" or "Camping" moulded on its sidewall, it's a 'camping-car' tyre.

[euroserv]

Peter,

 

Yes I did mean that; Low rolling resistance can only be acheived by one or more of the following factors:

 

Harder (less sticky) compound. = less grip.

 

Higher inflation pressure. = less grip.

 

Smaller tread contact area. = less grip.

 

There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Except for B'hills xmas lunch)

 

Derek,

 

If a camper is over loaded behind the rear wheels (even if the rear axle weight has not been exceeded) then the person that loaded it is a pillock and needs far more than stiffer sidewalls to protect him from the effects of having no steering or other control over the vehicle. Besides this, van drivers bash their tyres into kerbs every day and probably do it with more vigor so I will bet that if examined by an expert they would find absolutely no difference between the sidewalls of a Michilin Agilis and the camper version. Michelin extols the virtues of their van tyre with just the same amount of attention to sidewall strenghth and abrasion resistance. Continental play the same game.

 

Nick

[Guest Peter James]

euroserv - 2010-09-27 10:09 AM

 

Peter,

 

Yes I did mean that; Low rolling resistance can only be acheived by one or more of the following factors:

 

Harder (less sticky) compound. = less grip.

 

Higher inflation pressure. = less grip.

 

Smaller tread contact area. = less grip.

 

There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Except for B'hills xmas lunch)

 

 

Nick

What about more flexible sidewalls?

I thought this was how radials got less rolling resistance than the old crossply?

 

(I'm no expert, am not trying to look clever, what would be the point when we are just anonymous names on an internet forum, am just trying to learn something.)

[Brian Kirby]

I guess the cynics will disregard, or disbelieve, this, but I made enquiries of the Michelin technical bods about five years back, when we got our first van.  They told me, and I think Derek has the same info, that the then Michelin Camping tyre was (from memory) in fact a 10PR tyre that was sold as an 8PR.  In effect, it had greater carcass strength than Michelin admitted because so few people checked either the actual laden weight, or the axle weights, of their vans.

The result, pre "Camping" tyres, had been a number of blowouts and Michelin had introduced the Camping variant, at the time the only one of its type, to protect their reputation as the number of motorhomes in use was raidly expanding, and they wanted to be the first choice fit of the producers.

At that time, it was virtually impossible to find a new motorhome shod with anything other than the Michelin Camping tyres so, whether this was merely marketing hogwash, or fact, it certainly seemed to have worked for Michelin.  :-)

[Guest Peter James]

Brian Kirby - 2010-09-27 10:44 AM

it certainly seemed to have worked for Michelin.  :-)

 

I've been watching the Lincoln Motorhome Show on TV. The reporter commented that, even in this so called recession, there was a waiting list for £100,000 motorhomes, and you could see lots of people going round buying tat. Not surprising the tyre marketeers try to get a bit more out of them.

[Guest pelmetman]

Had my 10+ year old tyres replaced a couple of weeks ago, with the same Hankooks, and I am amazed how much they have improved the ride :D

 

I can only assume that although the tyres looked fine, the rubber had gone stiff (technical term (lol) ) as the ride had become quite harsh although over the years we hadn't noticed until they were replaced :D

 

Getting some airbags next week so it will be like driving a limo (lol)

[Derek Uzzell]

euroserv - 2010-09-27 10:09 AM

 

...If a camper is over loaded behind the rear wheels (even if the rear axle weight has not been exceeded) then the person that loaded it is a pillock...

 

Nick

 

Hurrah - despite not being a motorcaravanner, you are now really getting the hang of what a lot of the beggars get up to.

 

I vaguely recall a piece in a French magazine saying that police road-side checks of motorhomes in France revealed that a huge proportion were overloaded. Something like 75% if I remember correctly. I thought at the time that, if I stood at the shoulder of a French cop and, as French-registered motorhomes rolled by, said "Test that one. Ignore that one. Test that one, etc." I could probably get a 100% hit rate.

 

The claimed technical benefits of Continental's "VancoCamper" range are shown on:

 

http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/uk/en/continental/automobile/themes/van_tyres/standard_van_tyres/vanco_camper/vanco_camper/vanco_camper_ps_en,tabNr=3.html

 

Now, if you were to suggest that there may be insufficient difference between a VancoCamper and an equivalent-size 10PR Vanco-10 tyre to justify the (probably higher) price of the former, then I might not argue. (In fact I once asked a contact in Continental why I might choose to fit VancoCampers rather than Vanco-10s and never got a proper answer.) But I'd be very wary of a suggestion that an 8PR Vanco-8 is identical to an equivalent-size VancoCamper, or that an 8PR Michelin Agilis is identical to an equivalent-size Agilis Camping. The proof of the pudding is surely in the relative inflation pressures, with all the 'camping car' tyres marketed (and marked) to have a much higher maximum inflation pressure than their equivalent 'white van' cousins.

 

I can't see much point in my own Hobby motorhome having 'camping car' tyres, as the vehicle's size and technical specification don't demand them. Essentially, if we consider camping-car tyres to be 10PR tyres in 8PR disguise (as Brian has suggested) to provide "pillocks" with a potentially life-saving loading safety margin, then my Hobby should still be OK on its standard 8PR Vanco-8 'white-van' tyres, as even a total pillock would have serious difficulty overloading it. Conversely, if some kind soul said to me "Derek, I'm going to give you a set of new tyres for your Hobby and you can choose between Vanco-8s, Vanco-10s or VancoCampers", I'd choose the VancoCampers. Not sure what that proves - perhaps that I'm just a bit more trusting than you and believe that when a major tyre company says "This tyre is purpose-designed for motorhome usage", there's a fair chance that it's true.

 

 

 

 

 

[thebishbus]

Hi. When servicing my previous motor home, I noticed that the rear offside tyre inner wall had been scraping the shock absorber, the nearside one had about 1 inch clearance, they also had slight cracking on the sidewalls and were 8 years old. I replaced them with the same type of Michelin camping car tyres, this gave over 1 inch clearance both sides, so it appears that the one tyre had got fatter with age. It maybe worth checking side clearance of older tyres, thereby possibly preventing a blow out. ;-)

Brian B.

[Brock]

I do not know whether the 'camper' tag is marketing or not. What I do know is that I am valuable, as is my wife. Add in the motorhome and we could be talking about in excess of £350,000. The question is then, over the life time of 5 tyres [say 7 years], do I really want to quibble about the extra cost of say £30 a tyre, ie 3p for every 10 miles I drive [£20 pa]? If my wife and I are worth more than £150,000 each, then spending £20pa becomes an even greater bargain.

 

Once I bought cheap tyres for my car having been assured they were great value. I went around a corner in the wet and lost the back end as the grip disappeared. Fortunately, I got away with me but experience tells me that good rubber is worth paying for.

 

I don't want to waste money but until I know for sure one way or another, I think the extra money is worth it. I'd never forgive myself if my wife was injured or worse, or somebody else was, just because I wanted to save a few quid.