Winterreifen optimal ausnutzen? | Posts 32+

Hutfahrer wrote:

The person from Vienna mentioned the same arguments: For two to a maximum of three months per year, you have suboptimal tires. These are the peak summer months when even slightly faster turns cause winter tires to "wimper" softly. This is easily manageable and is announced early. Nevertheless, driving and braking are possible safely. . . .

Oh, I've read the following multiple times in recent days (in essence):
SR tires have larger water drainage channels and are therefore less susceptible to aquaplaning, while WR tires may fail in this regard during the summer.
It's strange that winter tires don't consistently receive poor aquaplaning ratings in winter tests.
-> Presumably because it doesn't work any better with WR tires when you want to create a large snow-gripping surface using tread blocks with sipes in the contact area with the road: suddenly (in winter), "poor" aquaplaning performance is sufficient, even though it forces the driver to slow down in wet conditions.

"Doesn't 'IMO' actually mean the opposite? In summer, tire experts want to drive faster on wet surfaces than they do in winter, and then they realize that all-season tires can't handle it."
For us, this means: When driving on wet surfaces, regardless of the season or tires, always drive as if you were using standard tires instead of specialized rain tires. This will help you stay safe from aquaplaning...

There are also winter tires with better wet and snow traction properties - but at the expense of the advantages of your large, multi-groove tread pattern for navigating through deep snow. The Finns, in particular, have developed the Nokian WR-G2 (Image) to address this. Its asymmetrical (inside/outside) profile has two very wide water drainage channels and is designed to offer advantages in wet and snowy conditions. I will be trying them out for the first time next winter. They weren't expensive, and they won't be that bad.

As always, the test reports are purchased, sponsored, or otherwise not independent. Based on what the manufacturer intends this tire profile to be used for, I find that the focus is on excellent straight-line stability, good handling in wet and snowy conditions, low wear, and consequently, low rolling resistance. Otherwise, the same mass-produced products have been repeatedly praised in test reports for years, and they are also advertised with yearly new top scores from current tests. If you know what you want, you can find good products at reasonable prices outside of the mainstream, rather than driving on completely unknown Chinese import tires with their equally unexplored properties.

...
Oh, I've read the following several times over the past few days (in essence):
SR tires have larger water drainage channels and are therefore less susceptible to aquaplaning, while WR tires may fail in this regard during the summer.
. . . ?

Where did you get this ridiculous generalization from?
I'm sorry, but someone who has such bizarre views almost doesn't deserve to have their questions answered.

Wenn die Aquaplanig Eigenschaften von WR so schlecht wären wie deiner Pauschalaussage nach, dann würdest du im Winter doch bei Extremaquaplaning (Schneematsch) mit Sommerreifen deutlich besser stehen? Ohe?
I don't believe that!

It is a fact that a studded tire can build up grip on significantly more slippery surfaces than a standard tire, where a 'normal' tire would no longer be able to do so. However, in conditions with better traction, studded tires are more prone to wear and tear and consume materials faster.
The reason for this is the fundamentally different construction of the tires. While most summer tires today are only equipped with a few sipes (due to fuel efficiency concerns), all-weather tires have retained these.
In older rain tires, the goal was to push water out of the tire laterally, which required grooves or sipes. Nowadays, this is achieved using wider longitudinal grooves that channel the water towards the rear. Some modern rain tires resemble slicks used in Formula 1 racing. This is indeed the case, but these types of rain tires have significantly reduced grip on slippery surfaces and transfer braking and driving force very poorly.
If the tire has sipes, it also transmits braking and driving energy very well. This applies to both all-season (AW) and summer (SR) tires!
The downside of these types of tires is that they often have a higher rolling resistance.
A siped tire effectively channels water sideways through the finer sipes, just as well as a 'semislick' tire does through its wide longitudinal grooves. This is why there are generally no significant differences in wet performance between semislick and all-weather tires (provided the tires are of good quality).

In the summer, it's important to get as much rubber on the road as possible because you typically have relatively consistent road conditions (whether wet or dry). The 'grip' of bare rubber on the relatively rough asphalt is sufficient for 'summer grip.'
In winter conditions, things can look quite different. The smoother the road surface, the more important it is for the tire to have good grip. However, only a lamellar tire can achieve this. Additionally, winter tires often use softer rubber compounds, as it's assumed that the average temperature will be lower.
For this purpose, the WR does not necessarily require a pronounced 'block profile.' There are now much more modern designs available.

You can't simply say that a convertible (cabriolet) isn't suitable for winter or is suitable; you need to consider the specific vehicle and its features.
All-weather tires are essentially nothing more than all-season tires with sipes and summer rubber compounds. They can't really do both things very well.

Especially someone like you, who is concerned about saving money, should consider using a lightweight tire with few sipes in the summer. However, this type of tire is completely unsuitable for use on potentially slippery roads in winter. In that case (assuming the winter isn't too harsh), you would be better off opting for an all-weather tire. That would be my 'solution for relatively mild climates.'

Here, it's also very clear that a general requirement for winter tires is a double-edged sword. However, I think attributing this to an action by the tire industry is somewhat exaggerated. The safety benefits of using winter tires on snowy and icy roads are simply too significant.

Just for your information:

According to the current regulations, winter tires would already be required if a hailstorm in June caused ice to form on the road.
So, what are summer tires for? ......


EDIT:

Regarding Ulf's questions: 1. That's perfectly fine. And regarding 2, I wouldn't hesitate to drive a car with winter tires in the summer (I actually did that once with my wife's old Lupo).

People spend a lot of time and money tuning and optimizing their cars to get the best performance and every last horsepower. However, when it comes to the intermediary between the car and the road – namely, the tires – they become extremely price-conscious.

Honestly, I can't even begin to understand these questions; they seem completely unrelated to the €200 mentioned.

Does the Saarland actually belong to Swabia? *dodging and running away*

No, honestly, I can only agree with the beginning of Martin's answer; I definitely don't think it's a good idea to save money on tires.
My gut feeling is enough to tell me that a sentence needs to be changed.

Suddenly, a brief moment of aquaplaning where it was least expected, and then the car veered off course.

Hutfahrer wrote:

Ulf, what's the problem with simply leaving the winter tires and rims on in the spring and potentially using them up? The plan originally mentioned a tire tread depth of 4 mm and (!) a maximum tire age of no more than 5 years... I would just wait this out. Experiences with previous legislative changes or resolutions show that these often brought massive surprises for those affected. I wouldn't buy anything new until I clearly know whether my plans might conflict with any decisions that could later cost me a lot of money. ...

That is probably true.
If you observe something for long enough, it becomes 99% predictable when something happens in politics.
As long as the topic is trending, immediate reactions are announced – and this continues until public interest shifts to other things.

http://www.rp-online.de/auto/news/Winterreifenpflicht-doch-erst-naechstes-Jahr_aid_922378.html

The draft resolution is still scheduled to be presented for discussion on November 5th. However, this does not mean that a decision will be made immediately.

There seem to be concerns about three specific details: First, the question of how a winter tire must be labeled in order to legally qualify as a winter tire. The planned certification process, marked by a Prüfzeichen label, would only be valid nationally if other EU countries show interest and potentially adopt this certification. If they do not, it constitutes an unacceptable market barrier from an EU perspective, and the law would quickly be declared incompatible with EU law. Second, there is no firm commitment regarding a specific timeframe, but instead, a vague formulation that the tires must be "suitable for the road conditions." As long as accidents do not occur on snowy roads or vehicles obstruct traffic, summer tires should not constitute a basis for fines. Third, there was an intention to establish usage limits based on (likely) 4 mm of remaining tread depth and a tire age of (likely) no more than 6 years.


I'm still using my summer tires (!). We've had a few mornings with frost, but on dry roads, I haven't felt unsafe driving. I'll continue to use them as long as the weather allows.

Normally, I'm not the type of person who pushes tires to their absolute limit, but this time the weather just made it possible. So, I still have my summer tires on; the front ones have 2mm of tread left, and the rear ones currently have 1.65mm, which is right at the wear indicator mark.

On Thursday, I'm putting on the brand new winter tires that I've been wanting to break in properly for a while now.

I did it! I installed 185/65 R14 tires instead of 175/65 R14 on the car.

[img]/download.php?id=4938[/img]

While I find driving with the pressure set at 2.7 bar in the front and 2.5 bar in the rear to be unpleasant, the entire vehicle tracks perfectly straight. This is something the 175 tires couldn't achieve. Driving felt like walking on eggshells.

Wish me luck for the upcoming winter! I have approximately 20,000 kilometers ahead of me in snow, frost, and icy roads...

Hutfahrer wrote:

185/65 R14 instead of 175/65 R14 on the "Bummsmurmel".

Are both sizes approved?
I'm more familiar with this calculation: "1 cm wider -> 5% less sidewall height with the same rim diameter," which, based on your information, would result in a 185/60 (instead of 65) R14 tire... ?


P.S.: Simple steel rims actually have a very unique charm .

Ulf,

It depends on the scope.

The permitted tire sizes for the Förster vehicle are 215/65R16 or 205/65R16, as well as 195/65R16. Winter tires with a size of 215/70R15 are also allowed.

The Jetta takes things to a wilder level:
Series 155R13 or 175/70R13 (on 5 or 5.5*13). Also permitted are 175/50R13 (on 7*13) or 185/60R13 (on 6 or 7*13), 185/70R13, and 205/60R13 (on 6"). However, for the 175/50R13, I would have needed a different speedometer calibration. I've unfortunately lost that information now...
But for everything, there were approvals.

2.7 bar is already quite a lot of pressure, especially for such a lightweight car.
I also had 2.7 bar in my A3 with 195/65 15 Bridgestone LM25 tires. It drove well, but after two winters, the tire still had 5mm of tread on the shoulders, while the center of the tread was completely worn out. This must have been due to the air pressure, as the summer tires showed absolutely no signs of uneven wear. Despite the high air pressure, the tires still looked like balloons.

For the 14-inch wheels on the "smaller" engine versions (1.1, 1.4 8/16V, 1.4 HDI), the approved tire sizes are 175/65 R14 and 185/65 R14. From the factory, the 175s are mostly found on the sedan models (3-door or 5-door), while the 185s are usually listed as the smallest tire size for the SW station wagon or the CC convertible. For each engine version, the same gearboxes are also used.

I used the 175/65 R14 as a starting point and then selected my summer tires in size 195/50 R15. They have a similar rolling circumference. With both previous tire sizes, I noticed a relatively constant speedometer deviation of 3 to 4 km/h at 100 km/h - it's not significant below that speed. With the 185/65 R14 tires, I measured no discernible deviation using GPS. My conclusion: The 185/65 R14 tires are probably what the manufacturer originally intended for the 206.

Larger tire sizes are fitted to the more powerful engines (1.6L and 2.0L gasoline, 1.6 HDI), using 15-inch wheels. However, even the tires intended for these models, namely 195/55 R15, are theoretically closer in size to the 185/65 R14 tires.

"@ Turbinchen (by the way, a nice nickname!): The 206 1.4 HDI isn't that light after all. The relatively heavy cast iron engine is positioned almost directly over the front axle – in contrast, the rear axle feels very light. So, the car has quite a lot of weight on the front. My car was once weighed on a truck scale at a nearby shipping company, and it registered between 1040 kg and 1060 kg. The scale is calibrated, but its accuracy is only to within 20 kg."

The driving, steering, and suspension characteristics on the front axle seem manageable with the current pressure of 2.7 bar. I will carefully examine the resulting wear pattern in the coming days. At a rate of approximately 1,000 km per week, this phase shouldn't be very long. I will likely experiment further with the tire pressure on the rear axle. Currently, it seems like there is some involvement from the rear tires in the driving dynamics, and cornering isn't quite optimal yet with the newly mounted (and already slightly worn) tires.


I'm still unsure how I can prove that the 185/65 R14 tires are legally roadworthy if our local police officers have any questions. They are specified as the manufacturer's tire size, but they are not registered in the vehicle documents.

UPDATE: The draft resolution originally scheduled for November 5th has been revised. Here's a summary in bullet points...

- The requirement to use winter tires does not have a fixed timeframe and is also not mandated by an official body, unlike in other countries. Therefore, during the winter months, it is permissible to drive with summer tires without facing penalties, even on dry roads and in sunny weather.

- All-season tires are generally considered suitable winter tires if they are marked as such. However, this is only true as long as it does not become apparent during actual winter driving that they are not actually suitable for the prevailing road conditions. -> In my opinion, this means that insurance companies may be liable in the event of an accident if it can be traced back to these tires. If there is any doubt, the courts will have to clarify this matter.

- Winter tires can be a maximum of 6 years old during their entire period of use (i.e., throughout the winter) and must have a minimum tread depth of 4 mm. However, a fine is only issued if the road conditions actually require the use of winter tires. Driving with older tires or less than 4 mm of tread depth in sunny, dry weather does not justify a fine. Conversely, this also means that in the event of an accident, a vehicle with all-season tires may be considered just as unsuitable as one with summer tires.

All-season tires are therefore only suitable for driving in mild winter conditions; for example, if you live in a city and leave your car parked during heavy snowfall.

Hutfahrer wrote:

Winter tires are allowed to be a maximum of 6 years old during their entire period of use (i.e., throughout the entire winter) and must have at least 4 mm of tread depth. . .

Hmm, that's not the case here.
http://www.bundesrat.de/cln_161/nn_8694/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2010/0601-700/699-10,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/699-10.pdf
explicitly nothing (more) to read.

Does Annex II of Directive 92/23/EEC perhaps contain precisely these requirements?