Tyre wear - Is 5k miles acceptable?
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are toyo T1's crap rubber or am I really driving too hard?
I have done about 3000 miles and my rears are boarderline legal, my car is a bit lower due to coilovers and I take it for a good sprint about once a week usually early sunday morning for about 2 hours.
Do I need to change brands or just my driving style? I couldnt believe my 4 month old tyres are almost bald?!?!
I have done about 3000 miles and my rears are boarderline legal, my car is a bit lower due to coilovers and I take it for a good sprint about once a week usually early sunday morning for about 2 hours.
Do I need to change brands or just my driving style? I couldnt believe my 4 month old tyres are almost bald?!?!
#53
Just replaced rears at 14,750 fronts still look like new
Correct alignment must help. My old rears were evenly worn across the full width.
Do later cars get more mileage from the rears due to the clutch damper thingy
Correct alignment must help. My old rears were evenly worn across the full width.
Do later cars get more mileage from the rears due to the clutch damper thingy
#55
Originally Posted by Guzzie,Jul 26 2008, 09:54 AM
Are toyo T1's crap rubber or am I really driving too hard?
I have done about 3000 miles and my rears are boarderline legal, my car is a bit lower due to coilovers and I take it for a good sprint about once a week usually early sunday morning for about 2 hours.
Do I need to change brands or just my driving style? I couldnt believe my 4 month old tyres are almost bald?!?!
I have done about 3000 miles and my rears are boarderline legal, my car is a bit lower due to coilovers and I take it for a good sprint about once a week usually early sunday morning for about 2 hours.
Do I need to change brands or just my driving style? I couldnt believe my 4 month old tyres are almost bald?!?!
The S2000 is very cruel to non-Brigestones; particularly at the rear.
#56
Originally Posted by Paper Lawyer,Jul 24 2008, 02:26 PM
Here we go:
"My tyres last 465 miles".
"My tyres lasted me 300 miles".
etc....
"My tyres last 465 miles".
"My tyres lasted me 300 miles".
etc....
my fronts last a while over 10k but it really depends how you drive and the tyres you use, when a daily driver my tyres did a lot of traffic miles, they do very little of that now
sticky/soft tyres will potentially wear very quickly on the rear
#57
Having read a few now, I think there's always a danger with tyre threads that things get v. confusing v. quickly due to the combination of 16" vs 17"; suspension tweaks between early cars and post - '02; etc etc, all of which I'm sure conspire to give people different experiences.
Maybe this accounts for some of the wild variations people are experiencing with tyre wear?
I was intially surprised by the wear rate on the set of rear RE050As I had recently: 6K miles, and I'm by no means a 'driving god'!!! In fact my petrol consumption (28mpg now, 31mpg over the winter when I first had them fitted) and lack of brake pad wear would suggest I'm not that heavy with my right foot. ..not all the time anyway
And the wear on the rears was uniform across the width, suggesting alignment is okay (although strangely slightly more worn on the nearside ).
So I reckon the last couple of posts have summed it up...these are soft compound tyres and we have a RWD car with a thirst for revs. Anyone who gets into five figures on a set of rears (especially on an early car) is darned lucky!!
Maybe this accounts for some of the wild variations people are experiencing with tyre wear?
I was intially surprised by the wear rate on the set of rear RE050As I had recently: 6K miles, and I'm by no means a 'driving god'!!! In fact my petrol consumption (28mpg now, 31mpg over the winter when I first had them fitted) and lack of brake pad wear would suggest I'm not that heavy with my right foot. ..not all the time anyway
And the wear on the rears was uniform across the width, suggesting alignment is okay (although strangely slightly more worn on the nearside ).
So I reckon the last couple of posts have summed it up...these are soft compound tyres and we have a RWD car with a thirst for revs. Anyone who gets into five figures on a set of rears (especially on an early car) is darned lucky!!
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick Graves,Jul 27 2008, 10:03 AM
They are very soft; about 10-15,000 from a set on the Prelude is what I anticipate and that does a lot less of the handly type roads and gets the lubrication advantages of wet-weather driving.
The S2000 is very cruel to non-Brigestones; particularly at the rear.
The S2000 is very cruel to non-Brigestones; particularly at the rear.
#59
Originally Posted by pop monkey,Jul 27 2008, 08:14 PM
Having read a few now, I think there's always a danger with tyre threads that things get v. confusing v. quickly due to the combination of 16" vs 17"; suspension tweaks between early cars and post - '02; etc etc, all of which I'm sure conspire to give people different experiences.
Maybe this accounts for some of the wild variations people are experiencing with tyre wear?
I was intially surprised by the wear rate on the set of rear RE050As I had recently: 6K miles, and I'm by no means a 'driving god'!!! In fact my petrol consumption (28mpg now, 31mpg over the winter when I first had them fitted) and lack of brake pad wear would suggest I'm not that heavy with my right foot. ..not all the time anyway
And the wear on the rears was uniform across the width, suggesting alignment is okay (although strangely slightly more worn on the nearside ).
So I reckon the last couple of posts have summed it up...these are soft compound tyres and we have a RWD car with a thirst for revs. Anyone who gets into five figures on a set of rears (especially on an early car) is darned lucky!!
Maybe this accounts for some of the wild variations people are experiencing with tyre wear?
I was intially surprised by the wear rate on the set of rear RE050As I had recently: 6K miles, and I'm by no means a 'driving god'!!! In fact my petrol consumption (28mpg now, 31mpg over the winter when I first had them fitted) and lack of brake pad wear would suggest I'm not that heavy with my right foot. ..not all the time anyway
And the wear on the rears was uniform across the width, suggesting alignment is okay (although strangely slightly more worn on the nearside ).
So I reckon the last couple of posts have summed it up...these are soft compound tyres and we have a RWD car with a thirst for revs. Anyone who gets into five figures on a set of rears (especially on an early car) is darned lucky!!
Also, sloppy posting randomises the RE050s and RE050As, so it's unclear sometimes if they're referring to a taking a dump or having a haircut.
Also, the S-02s would last a lot longer on the 'hard' compound underneath the sticky and still be road-legal. They would however become very dangerous in the cold and prone to aquaplaning, which is why I changed them early and avoided reversing into hedges and armco and stuff, despite my spirited style.
I'm pleased not to be wearing the 50As though; if the car feels like shit and their life is short, they have no redeeming features!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post