Laufenn Tires - Any Opinions?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: CKN
It's the same methodology used by those who posts Michelin are the greatest tires in the world-here on BITOG.

Right. So all fairly useless. Yet you posted it as if it had some great value.



Yep-isn't the Internet GREAT? Also-for proper context let's add my sentence you conveniently left out- In spite of widespread dry rotting and the pictures that are posted to prove it.


If the problem was truly widespread it would be documented by the NHTSA. Is it? Otherwise it is just anecdotes and pictures people post on the Internet. I've never had a Michelin dry rot, but then I live in Canada, not Iraq. We have winter. You seem to be indicating that dry climates are where this happens.

You can google pretty much any popular tire and find pics of them dry-rotted. Just like I can google *insert brand here* engine failure and find countless examples of that. Neither of which mean that the issue is truly widespread.

The poo-pooing of Michelin on here is just as bad as the cheerleading IMHO. They are the Mobil 1 of the tire world and are received as such on BITOG IMHO.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: CKN
It's the same methodology used by those who posts Michelin are the greatest tires in the world-here on BITOG.

Right. So all fairly useless. Yet you posted it as if it had some great value.



Yep-isn't the Internet GREAT? Also-for proper context let's add my sentence you conveniently left out- In spite of widespread dry rotting and the pictures that are posted to prove it.


If the problem was truly widespread it would be documented by the NHTSA. Is it? Otherwise it is just anecdotes and pictures people post on the Internet. I've never had a Michelin dry rot, but then I live in Canada, not Iraq. We have winter. You seem to be indicating that dry climates are where this happens.

You can google pretty much any popular tire and find pics of them dry-rotted. Just like I can google *insert brand here* engine failure and find countless examples of that. Neither of which mean that the issue is truly widespread.

The poo-pooing of Michelin on here is just as bad as the cheerleading IMHO. They are the Mobil 1 of the tire world and are received as such on BITOG IMHO.


The biased cheer leading is what started the anti-Michelin sentiment here on BITOG. IMHO. It got pretty bad when the posts on here started with-"I'm on a budget and looking at so and so budget tires-what do you think?" And were told to buy Michelin at 4 times the price.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

Michelins are a perfect fit for my '92 Crown Vic but I might be open to trying these Laufenn things. The way I figure it, the car has 284K on it and a questionable main bearing...but if I can spend 55% more for Michelins they'll last longer and keep me safer...because if there's one thing I've learned, spending considerably more on tires keeps me exponentially safer and I always get more than the rated tread wear mileage.

 

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
Michelins are a perfect fit for my '92 Crown Vic but I might be open to trying these Laufenn things. The way I figure it, the car has 284K on it and a questionable main bearing...but if I can spend 55% more for Michelins they'll last longer and keep me safer...because if there's one thing I've learned, spending considerably more on tires keeps me exponentially safer and I always get more than the rated tread wear mileage.
That's the Michelin Kool-aid you've been drinking.

Michelins aren't going to last any longer than anybody else. My General Altimax RT43's cost almost half what Michelins are. They have a 65k mile rating, while the top of the line Michelin is 60k miles. My Generals are as smooth as butter, don't break traction, are as quiet as a mouse, and I doubt will dry rot off the wheels like a Michelin.

So what can a Michelin do that my Generals can't?

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
Michelins are a perfect fit for my '92 Crown Vic but I might be open to trying these Laufenn things. The way I figure it, the car has 284K on it and a questionable main bearing...but if I can spend 55% more for Michelins they'll last longer and keep me safer...because if there's one thing I've learned, spending considerably more on tires keeps me exponentially safer and I always get more than the rated tread wear mileage.
That's the Michelin Kool-aid you've been drinking.

Michelins aren't going to last any longer than anybody else. My General Altimax RT43's cost almost half what Michelins are. They have a 65k mile rating, while the top of the line Michelin is 60k miles. My Generals are as smooth as butter, don't break traction, are as quiet as a mouse, and I doubt will dry rot off the wheels like a Michelin.

So what can a Michelin do that my Generals can't?


You forgot to mention that Vuflanovsky said the Michelin tires WERE SAFER because they MORE EXPENSIVE. That's really drinking the KOOL-AID! Your Generals must be HALF AS SAFE!

 

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
Michelins are a perfect fit for my '92 Crown Vic but I might be open to trying these Laufenn things. The way I figure it, the car has 284K on it and a questionable main bearing...but if I can spend 55% more for Michelins they'll last longer and keep me safer...because if there's one thing I've learned, spending considerably more on tires keeps me exponentially safer and I always get more than the rated tread wear mileage.
That's the Michelin Kool-aid you've been drinking.

Michelins aren't going to last any longer than anybody else. My General Altimax RT43's cost almost half what Michelins are. They have a 65k mile rating, while the top of the line Michelin is 60k miles. My Generals are as smooth as butter, don't break traction, are as quiet as a mouse, and I doubt will dry rot off the wheels like a Michelin.

So what can a Michelin do that my Generals can't?


You forgot to mention that Vuflanovsky said the Michelin tires WERE SAFER because they MORE EXPENSIVE. That's really drinking the KOOL-AID! Your Generals must be HALF AS SAFE!

Yeah, half as safe. I felt really scared at 75 mph today on the freeway... Lol

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CKN

The biased cheer leading is what started the anti-Michelin sentiment here on BITOG. IMHO. It got pretty bad when the posts on here started with-"I'm on a budget and looking at so and so budget tires-what do you think?" And were told to buy Michelin at 4 times the price.


I assume 4x the price is intentional exaggeration for effect? Anyways, I see your point and don't disagree with it. However there are certainly situations where budget is less of an issue and a Michelin product is a very appropriate recommendation. I highly recommend the LTX's based on my rather extensive experience with them for somebody looking for a truck tire that will be expected to see lots of mileage in varying conditions and grips as good worn out as it does new. They deliver that. The Pilot Super Sport is an incredible tire for a high horsepower application. Recommending it for a low power car that isn't seeing track time would be silly. The A/S3 is a good compromise over the super sticky PSS in moderate power applications like a HEMI Charger, Mustang, Camaro....etc where somebody isn't looking for dedicated summer rubber but rather something at a reasonable price with as good as possible performance in the anticipated conditions (excepting snow of course) at that price point.

I generally don't try to blanket recommend Michelin. I did recommend them in 2015_PSD's thread, but I know him personally and he isn't hard up or on a tight budget.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CKN

The biased cheer leading is what started the anti-Michelin sentiment here on BITOG. IMHO. It got pretty bad when the posts on here started with-"I'm on a budget and looking at so and so budget tires-what do you think?" And were told to buy Michelin at 4 times the price.


I assume 4x the price is intentional exaggeration for effect? Anyways, I see your point and don't disagree with it. However there are certainly situations where budget is less of an issue and a Michelin product is a very appropriate recommendation. I highly recommend the LTX's based on my rather extensive experience with them for somebody looking for a truck tire that will be expected to see lots of mileage in varying conditions and grips as good worn out as it does new. They deliver that. The Pilot Super Sport is an incredible tire for a high horsepower application. Recommending it for a low power car that isn't seeing track time would be silly. The A/S3 is a good compromise over the super sticky PSS in moderate power applications like a HEMI Charger, Mustang, Camaro....etc where somebody isn't looking for dedicated summer rubber but rather something at a reasonable price with as good as possible performance in the anticipated conditions (excepting snow of course) at that price point.

I generally don't try to blanket recommend Michelin. I did recommend them in 2015_PSD's thread, but I know him personally and he isn't hard up or on a tight budget.


Your right 4 times WAS an exaggeration. And thanks for being objective!

 

[OVERKILL]

 

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CKN

The biased cheer leading is what started the anti-Michelin sentiment here on BITOG. IMHO. It got pretty bad when the posts on here started with-"I'm on a budget and looking at so and so budget tires-what do you think?" And were told to buy Michelin at 4 times the price.


I assume 4x the price is intentional exaggeration for effect? Anyways, I see your point and don't disagree with it. However there are certainly situations where budget is less of an issue and a Michelin product is a very appropriate recommendation. I highly recommend the LTX's based on my rather extensive experience with them for somebody looking for a truck tire that will be expected to see lots of mileage in varying conditions and grips as good worn out as it does new. They deliver that. The Pilot Super Sport is an incredible tire for a high horsepower application. Recommending it for a low power car that isn't seeing track time would be silly. The A/S3 is a good compromise over the super sticky PSS in moderate power applications like a HEMI Charger, Mustang, Camaro....etc where somebody isn't looking for dedicated summer rubber but rather something at a reasonable price with as good as possible performance in the anticipated conditions (excepting snow of course) at that price point.

I generally don't try to blanket recommend Michelin. I did recommend them in 2015_PSD's thread, but I know him personally and he isn't hard up or on a tight budget.
I wish I could use Michelins in some situations.

My grandmother's Trailblazer LTZ (different grandmother that has the Patriot) had 2 sets of Michelin Cross Terrains. They were an incredible tire, everything was perfect with handling and tread wear and being smooth and quiet.

The problem was, in my climate, they rot away. It isn't feasible to replace $1,000 of tires on the Trailblazer after 3 years that have 90-95% tread left. I've seen many sets do this here.

I really do wish they could handle the sun here, but the amount of cracks make me uncomfortable towing or driving at high speeds.

 

[OVERKILL]

Sounds like she doesn't drive much then eh? IIRC the tires, during use, are supposed to secrete a product that is inside the tire that helps protect the outside surface from UV damage. If they aren't used, that doesn't happen and the surface experiences what you've described. Certainly spending more on an expensive tire an illogical choice in that scenario.

 

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sounds like she doesn't drive much then eh? IIRC the tires, during use, are supposed to secrete a product that is inside the tire that helps protect the outside surface from UV damage. If they aren't used, that doesn't happen and the surface experiences what you've described. Certainly spending more on an expensive tire an illogical choice in that scenario.
It gets driven often, just not very far (maybe 5,000 miles a year) but it does have the occasional long trip. The Jeep sits out on the street with more sunshine and the BFG's don't crack at all. And it gets less miles on it.

 

[Rolla07]

I wouldnt go for anything less than a midrange brand/product on a daily driver. You can get tires that have decent reviews that when on sale, present a great value and are safe rather than tires that are still too new to have any reputation/reviews.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sounds like she doesn't drive much then eh? IIRC the tires, during use, are supposed to secrete a product that is inside the tire that helps protect the outside surface from UV damage. If they aren't used, that doesn't happen and the surface experiences what you've described. Certainly spending more on an expensive tire an illogical choice in that scenario.
It gets driven often, just not very far (maybe 5,000 miles a year) but it does have the occasional long trip. The Jeep sits out on the street with more sunshine and the BFG's don't crack at all. And it gets less miles on it.


That's funny, since BFG is a Michelin product

 

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sounds like she doesn't drive much then eh? IIRC the tires, during use, are supposed to secrete a product that is inside the tire that helps protect the outside surface from UV damage. If they aren't used, that doesn't happen and the surface experiences what you've described. Certainly spending more on an expensive tire an illogical choice in that scenario.
It gets driven often, just not very far (maybe 5,000 miles a year) but it does have the occasional long trip. The Jeep sits out on the street with more sunshine and the BFG's don't crack at all. And it gets less miles on it.

That's funny, since BFG is a Michelin product

I know, I found that interesting as well, but I thought they were just owned by Michelin? They must have a different manufacturing process for the BFG All Terrains. I'm sure they aren't built for a silky smooth ride like Michelin tires are.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sounds like she doesn't drive much then eh? IIRC the tires, during use, are supposed to secrete a product that is inside the tire that helps protect the outside surface from UV damage. If they aren't used, that doesn't happen and the surface experiences what you've described. Certainly spending more on an expensive tire an illogical choice in that scenario.
It gets driven often, just not very far (maybe 5,000 miles a year) but it does have the occasional long trip. The Jeep sits out on the street with more sunshine and the BFG's don't crack at all. And it gets less miles on it.

That's funny, since BFG is a Michelin product

I know, I found that interesting as well, but I thought they were just owned by Michelin? They must have a different manufacturing process for the BFG All Terrains. I'm sure they aren't built for a silky smooth ride like Michelin tires are.


Perhaps, but the difference would be like that between Firestone and Bridgestone. Basically, not much. Pretty weird, might actually be a good question for CapriRacer come to think of it

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Perhaps, but the difference would be like that between Firestone and Bridgestone. Basically, not much. Pretty weird, might actually be a good question for CapriRacer come to think of it

If I understand the question correctly: Is the difference between a Michelin and a BFG, like the difference between a Bridgestone and a Firestone?

No, not at all.

Michelin has some unique tire design, manufacturing equipment, and manufacturing techniques. When they bought BFG and Uniroyal, they bought existing plants that were (are) not amenable to the type of changes to make Michelin brand tires. BFG's and Uniroyal are more like the rest of the tire industry in both design and manufacturing.

Does that mean Michelin brand tires are generally better? No, I don't think it means that. They are just different. When people think Michelin tires are better, it isn't those differences that they point to.

On a side note: I am of the opinion that Michelin USED to produce tires clearly superior to the rest of the tire industry - say 40 years ago. I do not think that is true nowadays. When I compare apples to apples, I think Michelins are only slightly better in some types of tires. In some types, they are not better. I also do not think that in the areas where the Michelin tires are better, that they are worth the difference in cost.

 

[OVERKILL]

Well, that clears that up, thank you!

Would you be able to chime-in on Nick's dry-rot concern? His BFG's apparently don't dry rot like the Michelin tires do in the same climate. I would assume (though I could be wrong, I was wrong earlier!) that the rubber compound, since both are Michelin family, would be similar, no?

 

[hattaresguy]

Most of those cheap tires are OK as long as your not driving it like a race car.

Besides a cheap new set of Laufenn tires or whatever they are called is better than a shot bald set of a better tire. Lots of people are on budgets...

Not every car is an M3 that needs every last ounce of grip, some cars just need to putter to work at 25mph, and cheap tires do just fine in that application.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Well, that clears that up, thank you!

Would you be able to chime-in on Nick's dry-rot concern? His BFG's apparently don't dry rot like the Michelin tires do in the same climate. I would assume (though I could be wrong, I was wrong earlier!) that the rubber compound, since both are Michelin family, would be similar, no?


First, I am not a rubber chemist. I've worked along side some very talented rubber chemists and have managed to pick up a few things, but chemistry is not my strong point. Nevertheless, I'll try to give you some insight.

One of the things that seems to be unique to the Michelin brand is their use of hard/stiff rubber compounds. These tend to crack more easily. Apparently the BFG and Uniroyal brands do not use these compounds - and that makes sense.

Aside from the fact that the Michelin brand has unique rubber compound recipes, they are also made in different plants, which have different process procedures. While I don't fully understand it, it seems that EVERY plant has unique processing equipment, and therefore procedures. No two are the same. So recipes and procedures are altered to get as close to the same properties as possible.

So given that Michelin bought existing plants, it should be no surprise that not only do those brand's rubber differ, but that it makes sense to keep the brand's design intent different. It would be extremely difficult to try to make them common - and not worth the effort.

But taking this a step further - it seems like the rubber chemists for the Michelin brand are completely separate from the rubber chemists for the Goodrich and Uniroyal brands. One of these days I am going to ask how they are organized.

Having said all that, I'm of the opinion that the cracking present in Michelin tires isn't as critical a thing as it is with other brands of tires - that a Michelin can tolerate more cracking before failure is imminent. Please be aware that this is just my opinion - a gut feel - and it is not based on any sort of factual data.