"So IRC - you would have worn down two thirds of the original tread... so yes easy to believe you'd notice that."
Indeed, however my comment was in the context of Michelin claiming their tyres can be safely used down to 1.6mm
As it is the grooves in the tyre that shift water away I find it miraculous that Michelin grooves work as well at 1.6mm as at 3mm. In fact they don't as the Autobild test I linked to above found.
The point I was making is that the performance has degraded enough below 3mm that I can feel the difference in normal driving in wet conditions. I will ignore Michelin advice to change tyres at 1.6mm and carry on changing them earlier.
The legal minimum is a well-thought-out limit, with bags of science and reasoning behind it.
Got any links to the science ?
You don't get European-wide legal requirements on a whim.
CBA, other than the following extract from Hansard, 18 Feb 1992. The consultation in the EU took place in 1986, a directive issued 1989 (89/459/EEC) which came into effect in 1992, to set the limit at 1.6mm for cars (was 1.0mm previously in Britain. Interestingly Britain objected to the increase, but were out-voted).
The risk based argument is that from 1 to 2mm makes no material difference nearly all the time. It's the dodgy people running truly bald tyres that are the problem.
Now, if anyone wants to minimise their risk... have 2 sets of tyres, or even 3 sets. Dry, wet, and snow. And swap around as needed. As all choices have a level of compromise and don't minimise risk unless you swap around daily. New Cross Climates with 7mm tread are still worse braking than a proper summer tyre from Michelin or Conti in the dry (in fact a new tyre with more tread is less stable in cornering and braking by the nature of having taller tread). If its dry, you'rebetteroff with lower tread. It's 50/50 whether it will be wet or dry on any given day in Derbyshire.
Better still to manage risk, leave the car at home and take the train. That's 20x less risky.
But... if anyone wants to stop using their Cross Climate 2s at 4mm or 5mm, or even higher, and they are 235/50 R18, I'll take them off you hands. Sets of 4 ideally. 👍
hard eco compound ....at the expense of grip
I'm not sure this is the case these days. There aren't really 'eco' tyres any more, there are just tyres with eco ratings, and some are A rated, but plenty are B, C or D rated so you can choose. There are plenty of tyres with A or B efficiency rating and A or B wet grip. They are made more 'eco' by putting more silica in the compound, amongst other things. One thing I do notice though is that there is an inverse correlation between noise levels and efficiency at the lower end of the market - in other words, if you are making cheap tyres you can improve the grip by using softer rubber which also makes them quieter.
The issue is confused by the fact that cars often come with eco-labelled tyres but these are different to the aftermarket tyres with the same name and as far as I can tell often shite. So this makes people think 'eco' tyres are bad, when in reality it's OEM tyres.
But... if anyone wants to stop using their Cross Climate 2s at 4mm or 5mm, or even higher, and they are 235/50 R18, I'll take them off you hands. Sets of 4 ideally.
German eBay.
My winter tyre sets rarely wear out (except the velle’s roundabout tyre which erodes quicker on its shoulder than the chicken strips on Guy Martin’s motorbike), what they do however is the compound goes off and stops performing as it should. Usually this manifests itself as chronic lack of traction in all directions. My dad’s skod had some 6 year old Nokian WRs in the winter that make it handle as if it’s on the worst plasticy ditchfinders ever produced - the Pirelli P6000. We’ve finally upgraded him to some nice new all seasons.
When I had winters and I didn't put them on for a whole year, the next winter they were shocking - until they'd done a few hundred miles and they came good again. The rubber needs to be squished about periodically to get the oils moving around through the material (sounds weird but it seems to be true). So if they go off, I think they can be recovered by driving on them - carefully, at first!
The risk based argument is that from 1 to 2mm makes no material difference nearly all the time. It's the dodgy people running truly bald tyres that are the problem.
ROSPA investigated wet stopping distances and found they fall off a cliff at 2.5 - 3.0mm (approx 40% longer stopping distance between 3 and 1.6), they therefore recommend changing at 3.0mm. That's good enough for me.
If you read what Michelin say on their tread depth document, it's that a Cross Climate at 1.6mm 'might even be better' than a cheaper tyre at 3.0mm. Well I don't really give a monkeys about it being better than a Ling Long Ditchfinder Evo Gen6+ Pro, I'm only comparing it to another new tyre of the same quality.
Looking forward to getting a set of the new CrossClimate Sport fitted
Any reply from the OP and a MOT retest ?
Re OP, those look fine but definitely needs MOT elsewhere before thinking of driving anywhere.
ROSPA investigated wet stopping distances and found they fall off a cliff at 2.5 - 3.0mm (approx 40% longer stopping distance between 3 and 1.6), they therefore recommend changing at 3.0mm. That's good enough for me.
Good enough for me too - that plus personal experience. I still remember the location (M9 at Linlithgow) and tyres (Yoko Parada Spec2s) on the car I'd bought the previous week. Torrential rain, worst aquaplaning I've experienced. Tyres had about 2mm tread remaining. Bought new tyres - and new pants - immediately after that.
I recently swapped to Nankang Cross Season AW8s in standard 215/65r16C commercial van size. 3k miles in and generally impressed all round. Noticeably quieter than the Pirelli Carrier All Seasons I used for the past 7 years. I get the 'you can't put a price on safety' viewpoint, but at less than half the price of Cross Climates I thought I'd try them after being impressed with Nankang's ultra sporty summer tyre on my car.
There was an EU regulation came in last year that tyres have to still meet safety standards at 1.6mm. Of course that doesn't mean they can't far exceed the standard when new, but if I read this correctly a tyre at 1.6mm will still be as good as a crap new tyre that passes the standard test but only just.
I change my Cross Climates at around 2-2.5mm anyway as they do start to feel a bit more aqua-planey at that point.
New EU rules will make worn tyres perform better, potentially saving motorists £6 billion | evo
but if I read this correctly a tyre at 1.6mm will still be as good as a crap new tyre that passes the standard test but only just.
Indeed. Having bought a car with chinese spec ditchfinders on and experienced how utterly shite they can be and 'pass' whatever test, I am happy to change my tyres marginally early.
Of course Michelin claim that one of their benefits is maintaining performance for longer than many rivals....
https://www.michelin.co.uk/performance-made-to-last
but if I read this correctly a tyre at 1.6mm will still be as good as a crap new tyre that passes the standard test but only just.
I get the point being made but if your ditchfinder tyres only just pass the test brand new then no way are they going to pass at 1.6, therefore they don't pass the test
I don't do cheap tyres any more - mid range stuff on a run about, but the van and MrsF's get the decent stuff. Even the cheap Aygo has a set of new Khumo's on it. Ever since I had a car which had some cheap rubber on the rear (when I bought it) and it span out at less than 30 mph on a slight bend in the dry.
