Tyres?
  • Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 28
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Tyres?

  1. #1
    Fellow Frogger! Dano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    616

    Default Tyres?

    Yep, time to open another can of worms...

    Tyres are like the opposite sex! Everyone has an idea of what is the perfect type/model.
    Anyhow, at least with a 404 the range can be narrowed down somewhat.
    Looking for suggestions/feedback on who has used what, availability ride, comfort, and price range. Sure, you only get what you pay for...
    I've never been a fan of Michelins. Why, don't know, just don't like 'm. It has been 30 plus years since I've had a set....
    I'm sure there is a massive range (he says in jest) for 165x15 tyres out there....

    Any advice greatly received.


    Cheers,

    Advertisement


    Dan

  2. #2
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    hampton victoria australia
    Posts
    507

    Default

    The range is a lot better if you get the wheels widened to 6" Needs attention to offsets ( some minor fouling on full lock and balance weights clicking on tie rod end when wheel distorting under hard cornering )

    The wider tyres are obvious to the cognoscenti but do not spoil the look of the car

    I am using ( faute de mieux ) Michelin XM2 195/65 x 15" as nothing else acceptable was available at the time I put him back on road in 2015. They are adequate and seem to be wearing quite well, but I have managed to make them let go in both dry and in the wet and they do not give a lot of warning when they do. I am in course of changing to Continentals PC5's.

    Range is a lot smaller in original thin tyres. People say nice things about Longstone in UK, who have a good range of these and are said to provide good service and quick delivery to Oz

    Good luck

    Andrew
    Dano likes this.

  3. #3
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    8,391

    Default

    The cheap Hankooks are actually pretty good, I've had them on my 203 for 10 years.
    Since getting the 5.5 inch rims from Tok I'm trying to decide whether to go original and spend $400 plus each on XAS for standard rims on the 404 or do the sensible thing and buy some $150 tyres to fit to the wider rims, which will probably work and look better. Wait and see how it drives when the rebuilt engine is back in I suppose.
    Dano likes this.

  4. #4
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    16,635

    Default

    Dano FWIW

    XAS were OEM standard fitment on 404 IIRC.

    And the genuine XAS tyres were very matched to the suspension.

    Wider tyres, without other suspension works can make 404 quite "twitchy" in the steering.

    As I discovered when fitting 185x 14 width Pirelli Cinturato in the 80s.
    Last edited by robmac; 5th February 2018 at 05:47 PM.
    Dano likes this.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  5. #5
    1000+ Posts Mike Tippett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Agreed, I had low profiles on a 404 sedan 30 years ago and it was super twitchy at the limit.

    Longstone ships free and each tire is about 166 pounds (XAS). I guess that's close to 300 each but what the hell.
    1966 Peugeot 404 Coupé Injection in restoration NOW!
    2013 Ford Fiesta SE 1.6 manual
    2006 smart BRABUS Tailor-Made Canada 1 cabriolet
    2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200

  6. #6
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    8,391

    Default

    $400 from Stuckeys here in Melbourne.
    Drove a 64 model 404 on XAS many years ago, felt fantastic, the reason why I'm considering them for the 404.
    Mike Tippett likes this.

  7. #7
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Penrith NSW
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Watkins View Post
    The range is a lot better if you get the wheels widened to 6" Needs attention to offsets ( some minor fouling on full lock and balance weights clicking on tie rod end when wheel distorting under hard cornering )

    The wider tyres are obvious to the cognoscenti but do not spoil the look of the car

    I am using ( faute de mieux ) Michelin XM2 195/65 x 15" as nothing else acceptable was available at the time I put him back on road in 2015. They are adequate and seem to be wearing quite well, but I have managed to make them let go in both dry and in the wet and they do not give a lot of warning when they do. I am in course of changing to Continentals PC5's.

    Range is a lot smaller in original thin tyres. People say nice things about Longstone in UK, who have a good range of these and are said to provide good service and quick delivery to Oz

    Good luck


    Andrew
    I've used a couple sets of Michelin XM2 205/65x15 in lieu of the previous fitted XM2 195/65 x 15" because they were about $20-30 less cost and were wider and increased the diameter just enough to stay with the GPS speed. Bit like fitting winter tires but the car has better ride & corners and clearance over the curb, however it was a 307Hdi. You would have to check clearance. I've found the original Conti's 195/65 x 15 wore out fast.

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts Mike Tippett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GRAHAM WALLIS View Post
    $400 from Stuckeys here in Melbourne.
    Drove a 64 model 404 on XAS many years ago, felt fantastic, the reason why I'm considering them for the 404.
    Check Longstone. I just looked now and they're 168 pounds but shipping to Canada at least was free and I was not charged duty upon entry. If shipping to AUS is also free, that would be a lot less than $400 AUD each. In my case they arrived in less than a week after ordering them. Again, no charge for shipping, and of course VAT is not charged in GB for export.
    1966 Peugeot 404 Coupé Injection in restoration NOW!
    2013 Ford Fiesta SE 1.6 manual
    2006 smart BRABUS Tailor-Made Canada 1 cabriolet
    2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200

  9. #9
    Administrator GreenBlood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,885

    Icon3

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Tippett View Post
    Check Longstone. I just looked now and they're 168 pounds but shipping to Canada at least was free and I was not charged duty upon entry. If shipping to AUS is also free, that would be a lot less than $400 AUD each. In my case they arrived in less than a week after ordering them. Again, no charge for shipping, and of course VAT is not charged in GB for export.
    Longstone were offering free shipping to Aus a good while back but I believe that arrangement is no longer available, they do however remove the VAT for export.

    Antique tyres have a few options in 165/15, or if you like the XVS Michelin pattern you can try Nankang Retro with the same asymmetric pattern - a few Citroen D owners have used these in 185/15 at 1/3 the cost of Michelin with positive comments. 165 only available with a thin white wall at $150.00 each.
    https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Nankang-...-/142490069095

    Dano, Peter (4cvg) our forum tyre expert will see this thread and throw in a few options - I know he's not a big fan of the Nankang Retro.

    Cheers
    Chris
    74 D(very Special) >>Rejuvenation Thread<<
    08 C5 X7 HDi very Noir



    "Déesse" Roland Barthes, 'Mythologies', 1957

    The Déesse has all the characteristics of one of those objects fallen from another universe that fed the mania for novelty in the eighteenth century and a similar mania expressed by modern science fiction: the Déesse is first and foremost the new Nautilus.

    (Umberto Eco [Ed], The History of Beauty, Rizzoli, NY, 2004)

  10. #10
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    rosevale/tasmania
    Posts
    2,400

    Default

    Hmm! Basically, there are two paths forward: stick with the original rims or widen to at least 5.5".

    None of the below options is going to be forbiddingly harsh-riding so I'll ignore that consideration (& quietness & longevity - see below). I'll focus on dynamic virtue, especially in the wet.

    Regardless of what was originally fitted, fitting tubeless tyres is a better option (& do not put tubes in them - it's dangerous). Rationale available on request.

    Original rims:

    165/80-15

    Not a lot of modern tyres available readily in OZ. Longstone's do have a spread of "classic" tyres.

    Cheapest modern type in this size is Nankang's CX 668. Not a sound choice if one values crisp response & wet grip. It is cheap though.

    Dearest options are the various "classic" tyres. The Xas is crisp but an aquaplaning candidate in deepish water & snappy on the limit in the wet. (The softer-compounded FF variant is better in merely slick conditions but not available in this size.) Browse Longstone's site & a range of alternatives (including the XZX) are available but the objection to all of them is wet behaviour that is mediocre & which can be bettered for much less money with another modern type.

    That modern (or modernish) tyre is Hankook's K715. Hardly a paragon of dynamic virtue but good & decidedly superior as a wet tyre to anything else available in 165/80. I can't imagine why anyone would bother to spend lots more on a classic alternative unless the governing criterion for choice is a sort of aesthetic purity.

    185/70-15 (near identical circumference to 165/80)

    An alternative which fits rims as narrow as 4.5" is 185/70.

    Only "classic tyres" are available in this size but Longstone's have two rather good oldies in 185/70: Michelin's XWX & Pirelli's CN36. The latter is still a very good wet tyre. I'd prefer it to the XWX on wet road consistency of performance grounds as the tyre wears. The XWX becomes notably more prone to aquaplaning as it wears owing to its block design. But although the CN36 is still a good tyre, I can't see how to justify the expense over the K715.

    Widened rims:

    With rims widened to at least 5.5" (which ought to be able to be done by going in & out by a half an inch without fouling & maintaining original offset) much better options are available.

    195/65-15 (near identical in circumference to 165/80 - 1.6% lower geared)

    This seems to me to be an excellent option if widening rims. It's hardly heroically lower profile or wider & allows access to some excellent modern tyres. I would choose Continental's PremiumContact5 but excellent alternatives are its predecessor, the PremiumContact2 (a bit crisper in response & not quite as brilliant in thewet), & Dunlop's FM800 (a good wet tyre). I would avoid the Michelin XM2. It's not "cheap Chinese dreadful" atrocious in the wet but it is comparatively poor (as are its stablemates, the EnergySaver+ & the Primacy 3 ST). Unless one suffered from tribal allegiance to Michelin, I can't see why one would choose tyres which are worse in the wet than others available.

    Longevity is usually not a feature of wet-capable tyres (although there is some clever compounding work available in some of the most modern types which much lessens trade-offs of this sort). However most classic cars are not "daily drivers" & replacement on "old age" grounds (somewhere between five & ten years from manufacturing date, depending on how much the compound has degraded for the wet) is more likely than replacement on "worn out" grounds. I thus discount longevity as a criterion of choice.

    Personally, unless poverty-stricken or desiring originality, I'd widen to 5.5" & fit 195/65 PremiumContact5 tyres.

    If sticking to original rims, I'd choose the K715.

    Whatever you fit, realise that with any tyre change (even within the same size), some experimentation with tyre pressure front/rear differences is wise in order to gain the desired handling balance.

    YMMV Peter
    Last edited by 4cvg; 6th February 2018 at 12:03 AM.

  11. #11
    Fellow Frogger! Dano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Cheers Peter,

    I really appreciate your thorough response.
    It is my intention to keep the car as original as possible, but it will become a fairly regular daily drive. Not massive distances, 20KLM round trip to work. Have been seriously thinking about a second set of wider wheels for the daily running around and the originals for club days etc...

    Once again thanks.

    Dano


    Quote Originally Posted by 4cvg View Post
    Hmm! Basically, there are two paths forward: stick with the original rims or widen to at least 5.5".

    None of the below options is going to be forbiddingly harsh-riding so I'll ignore that consideration (& quietness & longevity - see below). I'll focus on dynamic virtue, especially in the wet.

    Regardless of what was originally fitted, fitting tubeless tyres is a better option (& do not put tubes in them - it's dangerous). Rationale available on request.

    Original rims:

    165/80-15

    Not a lot of modern tyres available readily in OZ. Longstone's do have a spread of "classic" tyres.

    Cheapest modern type in this size is Nankang's CX 668. Not a sound choice if one values crisp response & wet grip. It is cheap though.

    Dearest options are the various "classic" tyres. The Xas is crisp but an aquaplaning candidate in deepish water & snappy on the limit in the wet. (The softer-compounded FF variant is better in merely slick conditions but not available in this size.) Browse Longstone's site & a range of alternatives (including the XZX) are available but the objection to all of them is wet behaviour that is mediocre & which can be bettered for much less money with another modern type.

    That modern (or modernish) tyre is Hankook's K715. Hardly a paragon of dynamic virtue but good & decidedly superior as a wet tyre to anything else available in 165/80. I can't imagine why anyone would bother to spend lots more on a classic alternative unless the governing criterion for choice is a sort of aesthetic purity.

    185/70-15 (near identical circumference to 165/80)

    An alternative which fits rims as narrow as 4.5" is 185/70.

    Only "classic tyres" are available in this size but Longstone's have two rather good oldies in 185/70: Michelin's XWX & Pirelli's CN36. The latter is still a very good wet tyre. I'd prefer it to the XWX on wet road consistency of performance grounds as the tyre wears. The XWX becomes notably more prone to aquaplaning as it wears owing to its block design. But although the CN36 is still a good tyre, I can't see how to justify the expense over the K715.

    Widened rims:

    With rims widened to at least 5.5" (which ought to be able to be done by going in & out by a half an inch without fouling & maintaining original offset) much better options are available.

    195/65-15 (near identical in circumference to 165/80 - 1.6% lower geared)

    This seems to me to be an excellent option if widening rims. It's hardly heroically lower profile or wider & allows access to some excellent modern tyres. I would choose Continental's PremiumContact5 but excellent alternatives are its predecessor, the PremiumContact2 (a bit crisper in response & not quite as brilliant in thewet), & Dunlop's FM800 (a good wet tyre). I would avoid the Michelin XM2. It's not "cheap Chinese dreadful" atrocious in the wet but it is comparatively poor (as are its stablemates, the EnergySaver+ & the Primacy 3 ST). Unless one suffered from tribal allegiance to Michelin, I can't see why one would choose tyres which are worse in the wet than others available.

    Longevity is usually not a feature of wet-capable tyres (although there is some clever compounding work available in some of the most modern types which much lessens trade-offs of this sort). However most classic cars are not "daily drivers" & replacement on "old age" grounds (somewhere between five & ten years from manufacturing date, depending on how much the compound has degraded for the wet) is more likely than replacement on "worn out" grounds. I thus discount longevity as a criterion of choice.

    Personally, unless poverty-stricken or desiring originality, I'd widen to 5.5" & fit 195/65 PremiumContact5 tyres.

    If sticking to original rims, I'd choose the K715.

    Whatever you fit, realise that with any tyre change (even within the same size), some experimentation with tyre pressure front/rear differences is wise in order to gain the desired handling balance.

    YMMV Peter

  12. #12
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    rosevale/tasmania
    Posts
    2,400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dano View Post
    Cheers Peter,

    I really appreciate your thorough response.
    It is my intention to keep the car as original as possible, but it will become a fairly regular daily drive. Not massive distances, 20KLM round trip to work. Have been seriously thinking about a second set of wider wheels for the daily running around and the originals for club days etc...

    Once again thanks.

    Dano
    At around 5-7,000 kms per year, my observation would be that tyre longevity is still not worth highlighting as a choice criterion. You might well find that the K715 suits both daily & club display purposes. My inclination would be to try them & see how you like them (but have a firm conversation with your supplier about the manufacturing date being nothing before 2017 - being an obsolescent size, old stock is a worry).

    You can always add a set of wider rims later if you wish.

    enjoy! Peter

  13. #13
    Fellow Frogger! Dano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Hi Peter,

    Sage advice, specially the age (date stamp) issue.

    Your comment re: not putting tubes in tubeless tyres has got me thinking as to why? Obvious I assume, but having little to no knowledge of tyres, can you please enlighten me/others. And if I may, is there an issue with putting tubeless tyres on the old style rims. I'd heard/been told, that there was a safety issue with the bead (?). Something to do no internal lip on the rim?

    Cheers,

    Dan

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Gardenvale
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Dan ,my recollection of tubeless/tube in tubeless tyre issue comes from Tony Howman ( he was a tyre dealer many years ). He advised that tubes should not be fitted to tubeless tyres - something to do with chafing of a partly deflated tube inside a tubeless tyre thus causing safety issues with heat. As to safety rims , they date from an accident involving one of the Beaurepaire family who was killed when his new 1956 FE Holden ( fitted with the new tubeless tyres - but NO safety rim ) rolled on the way to Ballarat following a blow out and the tyre rolled off the rim. Manufacturers at some stage shortly thereafter began fitting rims with the safety indent , and auto wheel works people would roll your old rims with the lip ( one that springs to mind - Miracle Safety Rims).
    Someone with more knowledge of 404 rims may be aware as to whether they all had or whether later versions had- the safety lip.
    Cheers John
    Dano likes this.

  15. #15
    1000+ Posts Mike Tippett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    No 404 rims were FH (flat hump) type. Even in Renault 5s, they were only used from 1978 onwards. Over here, no tire shop will install a tubeless tire on a non-FH rim.
    1966 Peugeot 404 Coupé Injection in restoration NOW!
    2013 Ford Fiesta SE 1.6 manual
    2006 smart BRABUS Tailor-Made Canada 1 cabriolet
    2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200

  16. #16
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    8,391

    Default

    The 715 is the Hankook I was referring to, good tyre.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4cvg View Post
    At around 5-7,000 kms per year, my observation would be that tyre longevity is still not worth highlighting as a choice criterion. You might well find that the K715 suits both daily & club display purposes. My inclination would be to try them & see how you like them (but have a firm conversation with your supplier about the manufacturing date being nothing before 2017 - being an obsolescent size, old stock is a worry).

    You can always add a set of wider rims later if you wish.

    enjoy! Peter

  17. #17
    Member tok403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Sapphire Beach
    Posts
    52

    Default

    You can go tubeles, tyre fitters will fit them. There is more drama running tubes then going tubeless. The only issue in going tubeless you cant race them, knowing you and your driving style this wont be an issue for you.
    NOW: 1960 403 Sedan 1953 203 Ute Honda vfr800
    Previous Peugeot 1 203 6+ 403 7+ 404. 4 504 4 505. 1 205
    Renault. 3. 12’s. 2. 16’s 1. 25wagon. 1. Floride
    Citroen 1gs

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts BIGRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Rocks, Sydney
    Posts
    2,185

    Default

    Been driving my 504Ti for 44 years (360,000km) with tubes fitted to tubeless tyres on non-safety rims.

    No problems yet.
    Present fleet:-
    Peugeot 93' 205 Gti 16v
    Peugeot 73' 504 Ti from new
    Peugeot 08' 407 Hdi Coupe from new

    Previous fleet:-
    Peugeot 95' 605 Sv
    Peugeot 92' 205 Gti
    Renault 72' 16TS from new
    Renault 69' 10
    Renault 71' 10s
    Renault 68' 10 from new

    "Be reasonable do it my way!"


  19. #19
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    rosevale/tasmania
    Posts
    2,400

    Default

    OK; here's the analysis.

    First, having the safety ridges (one or two) is decidedly "a good thing". When a tyre is flat, or at very low pressure, the bead will tend to "walk" across the rim & fall into the centre trough. Thus one gets a rim-on-road scenario - not good, especially if one is in a corner. The safety ridges keep the tyre's beads from migrating.

    So, what if one has not got them?

    First, note that the only role for such ridges is when a tyre's flat or near so. When pressures are normal they do no work as air pressure keeps the bead of the tyre in place. This is so whether one has that air enclosed in a tube or sealed within the inner envelope of a tubeless tyre.

    When pressures are low enough for a bead to migrate then you'd realise that something was wrong. Say, though, that you're insensitive & don't notice; is there an advantage in such a person having a tube?

    Not really. At very low pressures, there is a considerable chance of a tube rupturing (from pinching or overheating). If this happens, then sudden air loss occurs. A tubeless tyre won't do this. Mind you, without normal air pressure maintaining a seal, one can get brief episodes of near flat tubeless tyres desealing (from road or lateral load inputs) & consequent air loss as the bead seal deforms before forming again. So far, a draw perhaps in the near-flat scenario. This scenario is the only technical reason for the suggestion that rims without the ridges should have tubes fitted & it's not quite thoroughly thought through &, in any event,swamped by other considerations. Note that if the bead does migrate into the well, then each tyre type suffers rapid loss of remaining air (any tube becomes swiftly ruptured).

    Say one does not have a rim with safety ridges & has the tyre pierced by something like a screw. Either it stays struck in the tread or not.

    Say it does.
    In the case of a tubeless tyre, one might not even notice & the likely result is a slow leak. Not dangerous & easily remedied in due course.
    In the case of a tubed tyre, & assuming that full penetration has occurred, the tube is ruptured & a comparatively rapid loss of pressure occurs via the valve stem hole. Certainly more dramatic & definitely potentially dangerous depending on what one was doing at the time.

    Say that the screw (or whatever) pierces but then works out.
    For a tubeless tyre, it will still likely be a slow leak but even if faster, it is not going to be as fast as the rapid loss from a ruptured tube unless a 1 cm hole is punched in the tyre.

    So, summary to date: safety ridges only matter the tyre is near flat & in such a scenario the tube is of no help. Moreover, having a tube makes a tyre more vulnerable to road hazards.

    But: say that, despite this, one wishes to fit a tubed tyre to such a non-ridged wheel. It might be that the only tyre available or the tyre that one really, really wants (it was original fitment & just looks so right!) is tube-type. This is technically sub-optimal & a tubeless type would be better in many ways but so be it.

    Say, though, that one wishes to fit a tubeless tyre to such a rim (for argument's sake, a tubeless 165/80-15 Hankook K715 to a non-ridged 404 rim). Originally tubed tyres were fitted, so should one fit a tube? No.

    The inside of a tube-type tyre is smooth. The inside of a tubeless tyre is ridged. The interaction of a tube on that ridged surface has two effects: chafing of the tube & heat generation. Both are causes of potential tube failure. And, recall, tube failure results in rapid pressure loss. It might be that chafing will merely cause some tube porosity & a consequential slow leak & thus that one will get some warning of a developing problem but things might move faster. Depending on vehicle use, tyre pressures, tyre ridge prominence & tube thickness one might even "escape the bullet" & not develop a problem. Fine; but however fortunate that might be, there are other potential issues with tubes (see above) & if one is going to fit tubeless tyres, then nothing is gained & much is lost (see above) by putting tubes in them.

    So, in summary, if there's a choice then fit tubeless &, although ridged wheels are best, tubeless on non- ridged wheels is better than tube-type.

    cheers! Peter
    marty 404 and lozenge like this.

  20. #20
    Fellow Frogger! Dano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Thanks heaps Peter.
    Really appreciate you taking the time to write and put this up. It is extremely informative and the whole issue makes a lot of sense to me now.
    Kind regards,
    Dan

  21. #21
    1000+ Posts BIGRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Rocks, Sydney
    Posts
    2,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4cvg View Post
    OK; here's the analysis.

    First, having the safety ridges (one or two) is decidedly "a good thing". When a tyre is flat, or at very low pressure, the bead will tend to "walk" across the rim & fall into the centre trough. Thus one gets a rim-on-road scenario - not good, especially if one is in a corner. The safety ridges keep the tyre's beads from migrating.

    So, what if one has not got them?

    First, note that the only role for such ridges is when a tyre's flat or near so. When pressures are normal they do no work as air pressure keeps the bead of the tyre in place. This is so whether one has that air enclosed in a tube or sealed within the inner envelope of a tubeless tyre.

    When pressures are low enough for a bead to migrate then you'd realise that something was wrong. Say, though, that you're insensitive & don't notice; is there an advantage in such a person having a tube?

    Not really. At very low pressures, there is a considerable chance of a tube rupturing (from pinching or overheating). If this happens, then sudden air loss occurs. A tubeless tyre won't do this. Mind you, without normal air pressure maintaining a seal, one can get brief episodes of near flat tubeless tyres desealing (from road or lateral load inputs) & consequent air loss as the bead seal deforms before forming again. So far, a draw perhaps in the near-flat scenario. This scenario is the only technical reason for the suggestion that rims without the ridges should have tubes fitted & it's not quite thoroughly thought through &, in any event,swamped by other considerations. Note that if the bead does migrate into the well, then each tyre type suffers rapid loss of remaining air (any tube becomes swiftly ruptured).

    Say one does not have a rim with safety ridges & has the tyre pierced by something like a screw. Either it stays struck in the tread or not.

    Say it does.
    In the case of a tubeless tyre, one might not even notice & the likely result is a slow leak. Not dangerous & easily remedied in due course.
    In the case of a tubed tyre, & assuming that full penetration has occurred, the tube is ruptured & a comparatively rapid loss of pressure occurs via the valve stem hole. Certainly more dramatic & definitely potentially dangerous depending on what one was doing at the time.

    Say that the screw (or whatever) pierces but then works out.
    For a tubeless tyre, it will still likely be a slow leak but even if faster, it is not going to be as fast as the rapid loss from a ruptured tube unless a 1 cm hole is punched in the tyre.

    So, summary to date: safety ridges only matter the tyre is near flat & in such a scenario the tube is of no help. Moreover, having a tube makes a tyre more vulnerable to road hazards.

    But: say that, despite this, one wishes to fit a tubed tyre to such a non-ridged wheel. It might be that the only tyre available or the tyre that one really, really wants (it was original fitment & just looks so right!) is tube-type. This is technically sub-optimal & a tubeless type would be better in many ways but so be it.

    Say, though, that one wishes to fit a tubeless tyre to such a rim (for argument's sake, a tubeless 165/80-15 Hankook K715 to a non-ridged 404 rim). Originally tubed tyres were fitted, so should one fit a tube? No.

    The inside of a tube-type tyre is smooth. The inside of a tubeless tyre is ridged. The interaction of a tube on that ridged surface has two effects: chafing of the tube & heat generation. Both are causes of potential tube failure. And, recall, tube failure results in rapid pressure loss. It might be that chafing will merely cause some tube porosity & a consequential slow leak & thus that one will get some warning of a developing problem but things might move faster. Depending on vehicle use, tyre pressures, tyre ridge prominence & tube thickness one might even "escape the bullet" & not develop a problem. Fine; but however fortunate that might be, there are other potential issues with tubes (see above) & if one is going to fit tubeless tyres, then nothing is gained & much is lost (see above) by putting tubes in them.

    So, in summary, if there's a choice then fit tubeless &, although ridged wheels are best, tubeless on non- ridged wheels is better than tube-type.

    cheers! Peter
    Good explanation.

    However back in 1974 when I removed the Australian made "tinplate" steel safety rims from my car and replaced them with the French made steel non-safety rims, I was under the impression that it was Law that tubes had to be fitted to non-safety rims. (?).

    How/where do the Australian Law (Road rules) treat this today?
    Present fleet:-
    Peugeot 93' 205 Gti 16v
    Peugeot 73' 504 Ti from new
    Peugeot 08' 407 Hdi Coupe from new

    Previous fleet:-
    Peugeot 95' 605 Sv
    Peugeot 92' 205 Gti
    Renault 72' 16TS from new
    Renault 69' 10
    Renault 71' 10s
    Renault 68' 10 from new

    "Be reasonable do it my way!"


  22. #22
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Tooradin Victoria
    Posts
    166

    Default

    G'day Dano, I just want to put in my two Bob's worth and support Graham in giving Hankook's the thumbs up.
    I have had them on a number of different vehicles over the years including the 505 AND Poubelle and can only say that they are a great tyre at a very good price. My mechanic of choice here at Tooradin says exactly the same thing!
    Swallow your principles and let the brain rule the rest of the bits........ Buy a good tyre pen and put "Le" in front of Hankook. That'll confuse them!

    Cheers mate......just think of the pocket for once.

    Deane.

  23. #23
    Fellow Frogger! Dano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Deane,

    Thanks,

    After Peter's reply (and others supporting) that is the way I am going. I appreciate your input. User advice is always better than hear say.

    Cheers,

    Dan

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeCee View Post
    G'day Dano, I just want to put in my two Bob's worth and support Graham in giving Hankook's the thumbs up.
    I have had them on a number of different vehicles over the years including the 505 AND Poubelle and can only say that they are a great tyre at a very good price. My mechanic of choice here at Tooradin says exactly the same thing!
    Swallow your principles and let the brain rule the rest of the bits........ Buy a good tyre pen and put "Le" in front of Hankook. That'll confuse them!

    Cheers mate......just think of the pocket for once.

    Deane.

  24. #24
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    rosevale/tasmania
    Posts
    2,400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dano View Post
    Deane,

    Thanks,

    After Peter's reply (and others supporting) that is the way I am going. I appreciate your input. User advice is always better than hear say.

    Cheers,

    Dan
    And comparative testing is best of all. Browsing the below site is the best quick guide for tyres that are in one or more of the summarized tests. Regrettably, a number of tyres available in 0z are regional & not European lines & thus not in the test data.

    Tyres by Brand - Tyre Reviews

    One caution is that one can't just say "Hankooks are good'. As with all brands, some types are good & some not (by reference to various criteria &/or rivals in that class). In this context, we speak only of the K715. But some Hankooks are not recommendable. I recommend a number of Continental tyres on performance criteria of importance to me (notably wet grip & limit behaviour) but would not recommend others (most notably their Asian region ComfortContact 5). I recommend against the Michelin XM2 but consider the PilotSport 4 to lead its class. And so on . . . .

    cheers! Peter
    Last edited by 4cvg; 10th February 2018 at 01:25 PM.

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    96

    Default

    over here the nearest option to the original size will be from Kumho 165 80R 15, not easy to find this couple of years.
    Tyres?-20180209_170446.jpg

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •