Which Tyres?

[Brian Kirby]

That's what I'd thought you meant, Dave.  However, isn't it the case that you can't mix tyres of different construction on the same axle, and don't M+S rate as different construction to a standard road tyre even if both are radial ply?  Due to differing numbers of tread and sidewall plies, and different widths across the tread blocks for the same nominal tyre section?  Or does this only apply elsewhere, possibly Germany?

[Dave Newell]

Just to add a bit of clarity regarding the M&S stlye tread pattern here's a photo of my new tyres. you will see that all five rows of tread are in blocks around an inch square. As the tyre rolls around the part on the ground deforms and these blocks are squeezed together. This squeezing action is what creates the self cleaning effect because it squeezes the water, mud, snow or whatever out from between the tread blocks.

 

D.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian:

 

I believe you'll find that UK tyre regulations don't bother much with 'fine print' when it comes to tyre construction. Assuming a motorhome has radial tyres on all its wheels and the tyres' load index/speed rating indicate the tyres are suitable for use on that vehicle, then that's good enough. The following links summarise the rules and provide other useful information:

 

http://www.etyres.co.uk/uk-tyre-law

 

http://www.michelin.co.uk/uk/auto/auto_cons_bib_com_cho_pne.jsp

 

M+S-marked tyres don't necessarily have specialised winter-use properties. Michelin's standard van tyres are Agilis 41, 51, 61, 81 and 101. Of these, Agilis 61 and 81 are marked M+S, while Agilis 41, 51 and 101 are marked R+W (Road + Winter - whatever that means!) Continental's equivalent standard ranges are VancoContact, and Vanco-6, -8 and -10, but these have no M+S (or R+W) markings.

 

Both companies do produce special 'winter tyres' - Agilis "Snow-Ice" 41, 51, 61 and 81 from Michelin, and VancoWinterContact and VancoWinter from Continental. These have a radically different tread pattern to their standard cousins, particularly Michelin's "Snow-Ice" where the pattern is directional.

 

Michelin and Continental also produce tyres targeting motorhomes - XC Camping from Michelin, non-M+S and with a tread pattern completely different from Agilis, and VancoCamper from Continental with a tread pattern resembling Vanco-8's.

 

Although I'm sure tyre manufacturers would strongly advise that (normally) all tyres on a vehicle be identical, as far as I'm aware there is no UK regulation preventing mixing any of the above tyres in any combination as long as the tyres are the same size and have an appropriate load index/speed rating. While it might be decidedly unwise to mix, say, XC Camping, Vanco-8 and Agilis Snow-Ice on a motorhome, I don't think it would be illegal in the UK, and it definitely wouldn't be illegal to mix (end-to-end and/or cross-axle) Agilis 81and Vanco-8, despite the former being M+S marked and the latter not.

 

I'm unconvinced that M+S-marked van-suitable tyres like Agilis 81 will automatically be noisier than the non-M+S variety (eg. Vanco-8) or wear more. I originally had non-M+S tyres on my Herald and changed them for Agilis-81 and noticed no increase in noise whatsoever. Can't comment on how long the Agilis tyres would have lasted, but Michelin advertise them as providing "very high tyre mileage".

 

As Mel E suggested, whatever makes/patterns of tyre motorhomes have as original equipment will be suitable for the task they need to perform. When tyre-replacement time arrives, unless one has concluded that certain aspects of the original tyres are unacceptable in terms of performance (or that they are too expensive), then replacing them on a like-for-like basis is the simplest course of action.

 

Basing conclusions on subjective experience and technical niceties, or transposing to motorhome tyres concepts more appropriate to high performance or competition vehicles, merely complicates the issue.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek, thanks.

I think I've just got very out of date on tyre types/classifications!  I've been doing a bit of looking around, and realise the kind of tyre I had in mind would probably now be classified as a "mud terrain tyre", and as such, unsuitable for extensive on road use.  I also note that winter tyres are generally not thought suited to summer use because of the tread compounds used, and the very large numbers of sipes designed to maximise traction on ice.

Until Dave posted his pic, I wouldn't have recognised what he has as anything even remotely like an M+S tyre, it looks far too much like an ordinary road tyre.  However, my education tells me that the development of "performance" off road vehicles, "luxury" off road vehicles and SUVs, has spawned a vast number of tyres for owners of Chelsea Tractors, all having little in common with the kind of tyre that used to be fitted to the humble SWB Land Rover!

I also note that all the "Camping" (Michelin, Conti and Pirelli) tyres are rated for Summer use, which I suppose is reasonable having regard to their normal range of use, and the tendency for the inhabitants of more extreme bits of Europe to have one set for summer and another for winter.  However, I do feel there should be a better compromise out there somewhere, since motorhome use is quite commonly virtually year round and involves rather more than always driving on tarmac.

I have to say Dave's look rather a good solution.  It will be interesting to hear from him whether they give noticeably better traction on wet grass etc than others.

Incidentally, I think the R+W probably infers they are winter tyres not deemed suitable for off road use.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian:

 

I can't find anything useful on the "Road + Winter" tyre marking, so I'll ask Michelin about it.

 

In Michelin's handbook the pictures of the Agilis range indicate that Agilis 61 and 81 share the same tread pattern, while 41, 51 and 101 each has its own unique tread design. If one were told that some Agilis tyres were M+S-marked and some not, then an educated guess would correctly identify Agilis 61and 81 as the M+S-marked tyres as their tread pattern is more 'blocky' around the centre line. The R+W-marked Agilis 41, 51 and 101 tread patterns are distinctly more 'groovy', which suggests they are also more 'summery' than 61 and 81.

 

There's a short section in the handbook titled "Fitting winter tyres (M+S)" which seems to indicate that 'winter tyres' and 'M+S tyres' are the same. However, if one visits Michelin's website, the M+S-marked Agilis 61/81 products are referred to as "summer" tyres. All rather confusing...

 

Presumably there are tyre-industry standards that control whether a tyre may be termed "summer", "winter", "M+S", "CP", etc., but I don't know what these are.

 

The following website carries lots of general tyre-related information. It's car-tyre oriented and I'm a bit wary of some of the statements and/or whether they apply to van tyres. (For example, the advice that run-flat tyres are "...compulsory for vehicles, which are not equipped of spare wheel, and just have an anti-flat bomb"). Nevertheless, it's still worth a browse.

 

http://www.pneus-online.co.uk/tyre-technical-advice.html

[Philman]

Hi, I mentioned a few days ago that I have been running on Agilis 81 since the summer of 2004 and have covered over 30,00 miles on them and am very pleased with them. The front tyres will need changing next year the rear ones seem hardly worn. They are marked M + S, I have used them in summer and winter. The front wheels do slip on muddy ground or starting off on a steep hill, but I think this is largely due to the scooter on the back which means the weight on the front axle is at its minimum. I checked with Michelin for advice on the correct tyre pressures and told them the axle weights, they advised 45 in the front and 65 in the back, so I have kept the tyres at these pressures. The wear on the front and rear tyres is even which suggests that the pressures are correct for the loading.

 

Phil.

[panagah]

Well I finaly bit the bullet and had a set of brand new Michelien XCs fitted.

I was only going to have two and have two swapped ot the new alloys I had fitted. However safety first and all that, I had a complete set for £350. including all the normal valve, fitt and balance. Thats £87 per boot. Not bad considering most were coming in between 105-£120 PER TYRE. The companies that were offering £95 per tyre didn't have them in stock. My plan was to buy two now and another 2 in March when the van becomes 5 years old. But I thought what the heck, get it done.

The difference a new set of tyres makes is always outstanding.

[Mickt]

Well done , what tyre company did you deal with as every one i have asked so far does not have any in stock

[Brian Kirby]

Don't forget your spare will also need to be replaced due to age within the next couple of years.

[panagah]

I used ATS here in Crewe.

He actually ordered 4 by mistake instead of two.

 

I keep my spare well vaselined on the walls Brian and it is exactly that a spare. I never use one to get me home only ever to get me to a place of refitting. Of course that said on a dark winters night heading for the ferry maybee different. Talking of which whilst in the shop a young lad came in with one of these space saving wheels. He had been driving on it for over two weeks whilst saving up for a new tyre for his punctured one.

Crazy, it was like a bike wheel.

[Derek Uzzell]

panagah:

 

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of putting Vaseline on a tyre's sidewalls. (Did you come up with this protective measure yourself or were you advised to do it by a tyre specialist?) Can't say I've encountered it before, though I did find a link between tyres and Vaseline in the last posting (by "Recycler") on a thread reached by the following link:

 

http://www.xrv.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=9300

 

Most men will be aware that an oil-based product like Vaseline should not be used with condoms as it attacks natural rubber, so (in principle at least) Vaseline has the potential for damaging a tyre. (Clearly a water-based condom-friendly product like KY jelly would be no use on a tyre as it would wash off. Besides which, KY's design purpose is lubrication not protection.)

 

Michelin's advice regarding a spare tyre is to treat it in the same way one would treat a 'fitted' tyre - make sure the inflation-pressure is maintained and discard it (even if it has never been driven on) once it reaches a certain age. Assuming your spare wheel is mounted externally, if you wish to protect it from the elements and road muck, it would probably be best to wrap it in black plastic, leaving a small aperture through which you could reach the valve.

[michele]

Just a question please .

 

If people are worried about their spare would it not be an idea to take it off and use in rotation around the vehicle ?

That way it is being used and its not sitting there getting flat or perishing .

That back to black spray I would of though would give a slight coating of something but common sense would make me worry about the vaseline for all the above reasons.

Thanks.

[Derek Uzzell]

Michele:

 

It used to be standard practice to rotate vehicle tyres and include the spare-wheel in the rotation procedure. If you GOOGLE on "tyre rotation" you'll find that things are more complex today and there are conflicting opinions as to whether rotation is undesirable, acceptable or essential. I've given three examples below:

 

http://www.kwik-fit.com/tyre-rotation.asp

 

http://www.tyres-online.co.uk/techinfo/rotation.asp

 

http://www.bridgestone.com.au/tyres/products/car/care/rotation.asp

 

panagah's decision to purchase just 4 alloy wheels for his motorhome means that, if he brought the original steel spare-wheel into play, it would look darned odd. So, if he wanted to exploit fully the tyre currently on his spare-wheel, he would really need to rotate tyres rather than wheels, a process that would be both a nuisance and expensive.

 

I used to rotate the wheels regularly on my Herald, which meant that, eventually, I had to buy 5 new tyres in one go. The wheels on my present Hobby have rotated themselves by virtue of a puncture forcing me to mount the spare wheel, while the recent valve failure incident caused all the wheels to be removed and replaced. In fact, I'm not certain now which wheel went where originally.