Is that thing about tire wear and penny still true

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
In dry New Mexico, with summer months (no snow) ahead, I would run them until they failed the yearly inspection. At 3/32, you are still very legal.

No one seems to realize that worn tires actually INCREASE traction in dry conditions. I like TireRack and the other vendors too, but keep in mind their agenda is to sell you new tires.


Worn tires may, or may not, have improved dry performance. Shaved tires certainly do.

But as tires wear, they age, and as a result, the rubber compounds can harden, which causes a loss of grip. The increased block stability from a lower tread depth will improve dry traction, but if that rubber is harder, you can't say for certain that the dry traction is better.

Might be.

Might not.

And since those tires with worn treads will have significantly poorer wet traction, they really aren't as safe as new tires.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Canadastang
Shockingly, up here in snowy Ontario, 1.5mm of tread depth is permissible.

That's actually a little bit less than 2/32. Very stupid if you ask me.

2/32 is [censored] in the wet, and I'd be surprised if the vehicle would even move in snow with those 'slicks.'


Doesn't snowy Ontario have a winter tire law? Or is that just Quebec in which winter tires are required...

 

[Canadastang]

Originally Posted By: Astro14


Doesn't snowy Ontario have a winter tire law? Or is that just Quebec in which winter tires are required...


No sir, it's only Quebec so far, and even then, I think it's only on light duty vehicles.

We do get insurance discounts of 5% for using winter tires, but only on the liability portion...so, I save about $2.00 per month.

My winter tires will pay for themselves if they last for another 15 years.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Canadastang
Originally Posted By: Astro14


Doesn't snowy Ontario have a winter tire law? Or is that just Quebec in which winter tires are required...


No sir, it's only Quebec so far, and even then, I think it's only on light duty vehicles.

We do get insurance discounts of 5% for using winter tires, but only on the liability portion...so, I save about $2.00 per month.

My winter tires will pay for themselves if they last for another 15 years.

Or, they will pay for themselves the first time that you're able to avoid a crash because of their superior traction in snow.

Using that criterion, when I lived in Vermont, my Nokian Hakapeliitta snow tires paid for themselves several times over with their phenomenal snow traction...

If I lived in snow country, as you do, I would have another set of wheels and a dedicated set of snow tires. I almost bought a set for my V70, which is in Colorado. But since I am in town only 12-15 days/month, and this was only for one or two winters, I elected not to...but I sure thought about it...

 

[Canadastang]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Or, they will pay for themselves the first time that you're able to avoid a crash because of their superior traction in snow.


They've certainly helped me avoid a few morons driving too fast for the conditions, and I wouldn't be without winter tires, discount or no discount.

I've got a separate set of rims and tires that I swap over before the snow flies. Too easy.

 

[CapriRacer]

Last year I testified in court on a law suit concerning a truck that lost control in a snow storm. The issue was whether a vehicle fleet maintenance company was negligent for not replacing tires that were at 3/32nds of an inch in northern Illinois in February - and whether or not the tires were at 3/32nds at the time of the accident. (The tires were not available, but photos were.)

I testified that the industry consensus was that 5/32nds of an inch was considered the removal state for snow traction and 4/32nds for wet traction. I supplied lots of data, and several law and regulations in the US and Europe to back it up.

So, No! The penny test is obsolete.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Last year I testified in court on a law suit concerning a truck that lost control in a snow storm. The issue was whether a vehicle fleet maintenance company was negligent for not replacing tires that were at 3/32nds of an inch in northern Illinois in February - and whether or not the tires were at 3/32nds at the time of the accident. (The tires were not available, but photos were.)

I testified that the industry consensus was that 5/32nds of an inch was considered the removal state for snow traction and 4/32nds for wet traction. I supplied lots of data, and several law and regulations in the US and Europe to back it up.

So, No! The penny test is obsolete.

Interesting, but its still technically legal to run 3/32 tires in winter though? Even Quebec with its mandatory winter tire law still doesn't state your winter tires are illegal until they are below 2/32.
I guess in a civil case, it may not matter what's legal anyways...

 

[DBMaster]

I can't remember where I saw this, but the recommendation now is to use a quarter rather than a penny. The distance between the coin edge and Washington's head is a little greater.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I've never really been concerned with dry performance. Wet performance, yes


So you don't mind having a dry accident as long as you don't have a wet accident?

Maybe a potty training thing?


I can't believe someone is actually trying to convince other that bald tires are preferable.

If I drive the speed limit - and I do - I will not exceed the performance of my at-least-half-tread tires. If it's raining, I could very well exceed the limitations of the tire in an emergency maneuver.

I suppose you are of the thought process where one does not need snow tires, just to drive slower and put on the 4 ways?

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I've never really been concerned with dry performance. Wet performance, yes


So you don't mind having a dry accident as long as you don't have a wet accident?

Maybe a potty training thing?


but dry accidents are from many things not tires

there is no chart for dry vs wet accidents caused solely by tires.

You prepare for the worst conditions not the best,


That's one approach, but statistically, you MIGHT be better off optimising your performance for the conditions you are most likely to encounter. To take an extreme case by way of illustration, it's JUST possible I could encounter snow here, in the mountains, and by your logic I should prepare for that unlikely event with snow tyres, which will perform worse the rest of the time.

Rain here, and I imagine even more so in the OP's New Mexico, happens in a restricted and generally predictable season. I don't drive to work so I can largely avoid it, and reduce my speed when I, rarely, can't. This means there is less pressure on me to replace tyres before they reach the legal minimum. A different climate, or a different usage pattern, would produce different pressures.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I've never really been concerned with dry performance. Wet performance, yes


So you don't mind having a dry accident as long as you don't have a wet accident?

Maybe a potty training thing?



I suppose you are of the thought process where one does not need snow tires, just to drive slower and put on the 4 ways?


Yes, I am of the thought process that one does not need snow tyres.

This is because of the very, very low probability that I will encounter snow.

That's the way my mind works. Weird, isn't it?

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I've never really been concerned with dry performance. Wet performance, yes


So you don't mind having a dry accident as long as you don't have a wet accident?

Maybe a potty training thing?


but dry accidents are from many things not tires

there is no chart for dry vs wet accidents caused solely by tires.

You prepare for the worst conditions not the best,


That's one approach, but statistically, you MIGHT be better off optimising your performance for the conditions you are most likely to encounter. To take an extreme case by way of illustration, it's JUST possible I could encounter snow here, in the mountains, and by your logic I should prepare for that unlikely event with snow tyres, which will perform worse the rest of the time.

Rain here, and I imagine even more so in the OP's New Mexico, happens in a restricted and generally predictable season. I don't drive to work so I can largely avoid it, and reduce my speed when I, rarely, can't. This means there is less pressure on me to replace tyres before they reach the legal minimum. A different climate, or a different usage pattern, would produce different pressures.


no It would be more like use all-season vs summer tires.

also 5 year old worn tires MIGHT not stop better than new tires even in dry...they harden as they age

In the tests they use shaved tires..totally different.

You keep making these really flimsy arguments.
Quote:

If I was driving 134mph and sharted bald tires would handle better when I accidentally hit the brake while squeezing one out.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Rand
No It would be more like use all-season vs summer tires.

also 5 year old worn tires MIGHT not stop better than new tires even in dry...they harden as they age

In the tests they use shaved tires..totally different.

You keep making these really flimsy arguments.

Agree. 5 year old worn tires do not stop better than new tires in any road condition.

But a worn but fairly new tire does stop better than new. The rear tires of S2000 don't lasted very long, about 8-17k miles. I had Falken FK452 down to less than 1/32" (virtually no tread left) but less than 2 year old in late summer, the performance in every category was better than new, braking distance included.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I've never really been concerned with dry performance. Wet performance, yes


So you don't mind having a dry accident as long as you don't have a wet accident?

Maybe a potty training thing?


I can't believe someone is actually trying to convince other that bald tires are preferable.

If I drive the speed limit - and I do - I will not exceed the performance of my at-least-half-tread tires. If it's raining, I could very well exceed the limitations of the tire in an emergency maneuver.



Uh-huh.

So you're advocating replacing tyres well before the legal limit due to an increase in safety in a restricted range of conditions, yet you insist that you drive at the legal limit, when a reduction in speed would increase safety in a much wider range of conditions.

(OK, there are situations where driving below the legal limit might compromise safety, but in general its safer)

So saving money on early tyre replacement is grossly irresponsible, but saving time is good and true, because its what you do. That's the way your mind works.

But I guess if you go for received opinion, you can save your mind some work.

And that's important, isn't it?

 

[supton]

I bought one of those tire depth gauges, they're cheap enough. But most tires have wear bars which can easily been seen--when they get level, it's time.

That said, the older I get, the earlier I change tires. Ducked may live in an optimal climate but we routinely get rain, standing water and even snow in my climate. We also get inattentive drivers, deer and the occasional moose.

Tires may be more expensive than oil, but both are cheaper than a car.

 

[SirTanon]

Penny test will tell you if you're legal, not if your tires are still safe to drive on in your climate.

A better rule to follow is the Quarter test.

Have a look at THIS ARTICLE about why.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Penny test will tell you if you're legal, not if your tires are still safe to drive on in your climate.

A better rule to follow is the Quarter test....

I think the quarter test has now generally speaking become more accepted. When you hit that there's a bit a of leeway, but it's time to be looking to replace.

Now Discount Tire stores have a tread depth wear chart poster display in each store. After they measure your tires with a depth gauge noted above, they're now supposed to show you where you're tires stand on the chart and advise from there.

As an aside, once on rotation/balance visit I mentioned to the DT employee checking the depth of my tires that I needed to get a depth guage, and wasn't fishing for one. Handed me his on the spot. No kidding.

 

[Astro14]

Ducked - you're confusing "legal minimum" with "good" and they're hardly ever the same.

 

[totegoat]

Les Schwab gave me a tire gauge when I asked for one.

 

[jimbrewer]

OK then, I have to get new snows next fall, anyway,(probably another set of those awesome Blizzaks) so absent a wearbar sighting, I'll replace them when I change out the snows next spring (two new sets of tires in five months. Ouch!)

So at the expense of topic drift, what do you recommend for my standard cab F-150? 235 75 17? I don't drive off-road, I believe in real snow tires rather than all-terrain or even all-season tires. In other words, my goals are price, wear and dry handling. I'm thinking General HTS. What do you guys think?