Please explain tyres in a language I understand!

[SamandRose]

I need to replace the tyres on my caravan.

The details on the existing tyres are "165R13C". This doesn't match anything offered by tyresonthedrive.com, but seems to translate using Google to "165/80R13C" (which does). Is this correct?

The existing tyres are also marked "94/93N". I understand that the numbers indicate load capacity and N is a speed rating, but what loads, and what speed? Where can I find this out?

Are tyres made specifically for caravans/trailers or will a "commercial" tyre suffice (provided that the load and speed ratings are suitable)?

And lastly, given that the mileage on the tyres will not be huge, is there any advantage to choosing a premium or mainstream, as opposed to a 'value' brand?

If it's of any use (or interest) my caravan is a single-axle Avondale Dart, MTPLM 1250kg.

Thanks in anticipation!

 

[Jaydug]

165/80Rx13-94/93 is exactly what you should have on your Avondale. It's the size it was wearing when it came from the factory. Any mid-budget tyres in that size will be suitable; in fact Avondale fitted Hankook tyres but Nexen, Barum, Khumo or Firestone are all good.

The 80 part of the tyre size denotes the aspect ratio of the tyre sidewall. It's expressed as a percentage of the tyre width (in your case 165mm) The 13 of course is the size in inches of the wheel rim. It's strange that the Europeans have been metric since Napoleon's time and yet they still use and make tyres in Imperial diameters. I remember in the 70's and 80's when the British Government took the decision to go metric, the British Motor Corporation made wheel sizes metric and they had Dunlop make a range of tyres to fit. The plan turned out to be a disaster and they quickly went back to imperial sizes

 

[Mogwyth]

94 - 670kg
93 - 650kg
N - 87mph

 

[JonnyG]

165/80Rx13-94/93 is exactly what you should have on your Avondale. It's the size it was wearing when it came from the factory. Any mid-budget tyres in that size will be suitable; in fact Avondale fitted Hankook tyres but Nexen, Barum, Khumo or Firestone are all good.

The 80 part of the tyre size denotes the aspect ratio of the tyre sidewall. It's expressed as a percentage of the tyre width (in your case 165mm) The 13 of course is the size in inches of the wheel rim. It's strange that the Europeans have been metric since Napoleon's time and yet they still use and make tyres in Imperial diameters. I remember in the 70's and 80's when the British Government took the decision to go metric, the British Motor Corporation made wheel sizes metric and they had Dunlop make a range of tyres to fit. The plan turned out to be a disaster and they quickly went back to imperial sizes

one could also say its strange how the width and aspect are measured in Millimeters,not inches..

 

[Hutch]

As I tend to travel a high touring mileage , maybe 6 k a year and this year Have to replace the vans tyres, I will be going back to a premium tyre as the caravan is worth maybe 20 k. I also have tyron bands fitted. Why fit cheaper tyres if you are touring a lot.

 

[SamandRose]

Thanks Jaydug and Mogwyth, that's exactly the info I needed
Hutch - my van's not as smart as yours, it cost us £3k 18 months ago and our touring mileage will be at most 2-3k per year until we're fortunate enough to be able to retire!

 

[Hutch]

Sam and Rose, remember your visit to Switzerland last year, 5 years x 3 k miles deserveses good tyres, no matter how much your your van costs, the towed unit can take you off the road. Cheap tyre £50 Expensive tyre £100mdifference . £ 10 ayear , x two. £ 20 a year a fish and chip,supper for the family. ?
Take care.
Hutch.

 

[Gafferbill]

.......all you need to know about caravan tyres is available in this help sheet.

Click here

The information contained in Appendix 10 about travelling overseas with tyres of a 13 inch rim size is important.
There is a known problem of lack of availability especially if you need them in a hurry.
I fit top quality tyres to my single axle caravan as the extra cost is well worth it.

 

[thosoneill]

Hifly Super 2000 budget tyres for me - internet reviews are mostly positive and your size can be found on oponeo for £33 each

 

[Jaydug]

Why fit cheaper tyres if you are touring a lot.

Now that sounds as though your implying that "cheaper" is synonymous with "inferior" when it isn't. Just because a tyre is manufactured in the Far East, it's not necessarily of poor quality. Hankook and Khumo are Korean companies who in their 70 years of tyre making have learnt enough to have their tyres used in motor sport and civil and military aviation. And if Chinese tyres are to be frowned upon and regarded as rubbish, why has Michelin got two factories there.

 

[Hutch]

Jaydug, I drive my Sante Fe on Hankook tyres and Am about to replace them with Nokian as they give me a better grip, the cheaper tyre in some way will be a lesser tyre, maybe in wear, or in grip in the wet, dont like the idea of my caravan swinging out on a wet roundabout each to their own.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Jaydug, I drive my Sante Fe on Hankook tyres and Am about to replace them with Nokian as they give me a better grip, the cheaper tyre in some way will be a lesser tyre, maybe in wear, or in grip in the wet, dont like the idea of my caravan swinging out on a wet roundabout each to their own.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Jaydug re the cost vs quality argument. In many cases you will pay a premium price for some branded makes, essentially to furnish the manufacturer with a bigger profit margin. I accept this wont always be true, and on sime cases there may be technical benefits for using some branded makes, but its not clear cut.

 

[Jaydug]

Sorry to keep on but further - now that all tyres bought and sold in the EU have to have rating labels on them it's easy to compare one tyre against another. Take for example the pair of 165x13 van tyres I was looking at recently. A Continental tyre has a Fuel Efficiency rating of C, for Wet Grip the letter B and for Noise, 70db. For a pair £124. Then there's Falken - a Japanese maker. They produce the same sized tyre also with a C rating for fuel, an A rating for wet grip and a 69db noise level. So (on paper) a better tyre but only £90 for the pair.

 

[JonnyG]

Sorry to keep on but further - now that all tyres bought and sold in the EU have to have rating labels on them it's easy to compare one tyre against another. Take for example the pair of 165x13 van tyres I was looking at recently. A Continental tyre has a Fuel Efficiency rating of C, for Wet Grip the letter B and for Noise, 70db. For a pair £124. Then there's Falken - a Japanese maker. They produce the same sized tyre also with a C rating for fuel, an A rating for wet grip and a 69db noise level. So (on paper) a better tyre but only £90 for the pair.

err why? after all they do not tell you how good there wear rate is, nor how good there grip is in the dry, so you only have half a picture. having said that i rate falken tyres .

 

[JonnyG]

Why fit cheaper tyres if you are touring a lot.

Now that sounds as though your implying that "cheaper" is synonymous with "inferior" when it isn't. Just because a tyre is manufactured in the Far East, it's not necessarily of poor quality. Hankook and Khumo are Korean companies who in their 70 years of tyre making have learnt enough to have their tyres used in motor sport and civil and military aviation. And if Chinese tyres are to be frowned upon and regarded as rubbish, why has Michelin got two factories there.

that doesn't make sense to me, its like saying why would anyone build a car in Britain when the unions and poor manufacturing control killed its own car industry... Michelin obviously build tyres in china because A ,labour cost . B, a readily available work force in that industry .C. potential to tap a huge market place just by manufacturing there tyre there... D Chinese tyres are still in the main rubbish...

 

[Jaydug]

err why? after all they do not tell you how good there wear rate is, nor how good there grip is in the dry .

With caravan tyres what does it matter what the wear rate is? When it's time to change them, the treads will still look like new. And with grip - it's in the wet when you're likely to loose it.

 

[JonnyG]

err why? after all they do not tell you how good there wear rate is, nor how good there grip is in the dry .

With caravan tyres what does it matter what the wear rate is? When it's time to change them, the treads will still look like new. And with grip - it's in the wet when you're likely to loose it.

ummm .. personnel i'm not likely to loose grip due to wet or dry roads in normal circumstances, but on the other hand in an emergency situation i'd like the best grip i can have be it wet or dry...and wear rate! well as each 1mm of wear means 5 meters extra stooping distance, i'd say it matters! sorry i should have said it might matter to some..

 

[Jaydug]

as each 1mm of wear means 5 meters extra stooping distance, i'd say it matters! sorry i should have said it might matter to some..

I would be interested to see the report which quoted those figures. ROSPA did a series of tests to compare stopping distance versus tread wear. The test was carried out on wet, hot rolled asphalt. The resulting graph showed that on tread depths between 7mm and 4mm, there was very little difference in distance before coming to a stop. Travel was rather more between 4mm and 3mm. It wasn't until tread depth got down to 3mm and below that stopping distances greatly increased. A similar test carried out on concrete showed slightly longer stopping distances, even on those treads between 7mm and 4mm.

 

[JonnyG]

as each 1mm of wear means 5 meters extra stooping distance, i'd say it matters! sorry i should have said it might matter to some..

I would be interested to see the report which quoted those figures. ROSPA did a series of tests to compare stopping distance versus tread wear. The test was carried out on wet, hot rolled asphalt. The resulting graph showed that on tread depths between 7mm and 4mm, there was very little difference in distance before coming to a stop. Travel was rather more between 4mm and 3mm. It wasn't until tread depth got down to 3mm and below that stopping distances greatly increased. A similar test carried out on concrete showed slightly longer stopping distances, even on those treads between 7mm and 4mm.

firstly the test i believe you refer to actually shows degradation on concrete roads to be far worse than hot ash felt,and not slightly longer..secondly they used decent make of tyres to do the test ,which kinda backs up my statement as lesser tyres were not used it would suggest the testers wanted to use the best on hand and not just any old rubber!! the great thing about the internet is if one cares to search deeper and not just page one of a search you might just find plenty of tests of tyres concerning the effects of degradation and its effects on braking distances not just the google preference one! which is no doubt the one you quote and i've not read up on in a decade,
but no doubt you found when looking for a reply to my post!

 

[ProfJohnL]

....secondly they used decent make of tyres to do the test ,which kinda backs up my statement as lesser tyres were not used it would suggest the testers wanted to use the best on hand and not just any old rubber!! ...

Unless they made that statement in the report,that is an unsafe assumption

 

[JonnyG]

....secondly they used decent make of tyres to do the test ,which kinda backs up my statement as lesser tyres were not used it would suggest the testers wanted to use the best on hand and not just any old rubber!! ...

Unless they made that statement in the report,that is an unsafe assumption

umm. unsafe? not at all . A correct assumption? ok maybe not correct.. they used a tyre that they could trust? a known quantity? surely that makes my "assumption" more safe...than unsafe... but its all gone offish topic ,my argument is was, to use the relatively thin argument that tyres have a coding for wet performance noise and fuel efficiency and from that one could percure a tyre costing £90 is as good a performer as one costing £120 if they have the same coding for those 3 categories . is rubbish.. frankly there is plenty of info tests to counter such a thought, one just has to use the internet or buy a mag to read about it.. ok in some incidents the cheaper tyre might actually be the better tyre but assuming from just those 3 indications that the tyres are equal and therefore the cheaper option is as good isnt so.

 

[Jaydug]

firstly the test i believe you refer to actually shows degradation on concrete roads to be far worse than hot ash felt,and not slightly longer..secondly they used decent make of tyres to do the test ,which kinda backs up my statement as lesser tyres were not used it would suggest the testers wanted to use the best on hand and not just any old rubber!! the great thing about the internet is if one cares to search deeper and not just page one of a search you might just find plenty of tests of tyres concerning the effects of degradation and its effects on braking distances not just the google preference one! which is no doubt the one you quote and i've not read up on in a decade, but no doubt you found when looking for a reply to my post!

As I said before, I will be interested to see the link to the test results which show 1mm of tread wear adding 5 meters of extra stooping distance.

Yes – I said “slightly longer” - But we won’t bandy words. Instead here are the figures from the ROSPA graph. Speed wasn’t specified although it was the same throughout the tests. A new tyre on wet asphalt takes 24 feet to stop. On smooth wet concrete it takes 29 feet. So an extra 5 feet. An illegal tyre on minimum tread on the asphalt takes 33 feet and on concrete 42feet. An extra 9 feet.

About whether they used “Decent tyres or just any old rubber.” Since 2012 all tyres sold in the EU and UK have had to show their ability for rolling resistance, their grip on wet roads and their noise levels. If they don’t reach the minimum standard they won’t be on sale. I was recently looking at tyres for my towcar. I saw Goodyear whose grading for rolling resistance was E, wet grip was C and the noise was 69db. They were £118 per tyre. On the other hand I found a brand I’d never heard of called Excelon and its rolling resistance was better with a C, wet grip was the same at C but it had slightly more noise with 72db but at half the price, £59. So was the Goodyear tyre twice as good as the cheapy. I don’t know but it transpires that Goodyear is the parent company for both tyres.

Now that Michelin have two new factories in China, will we ever see tyres with the Michelin logo being made along side another line bearing some new obscure name?

 

[otherclive]

I tend to use recognised brands such as Firestone (owned by Bridgestone) or Hankook (OEM now to Mercedes et al). The difference in price compared to budget brands is not very much and when I have such a high load on two wheels at 60mph I prefer the added confidence that the tyres will have been made in a factory which has a recognised quality control system. I don't have problem with tyres made in China (after all they make Airbus A320s and Rolls Royce components) but what buyers should be aware of is that some of the Chinese budget tyres aren't all made in the same factories despite being given the same brand name. The Selling brand purchases their tyres from several, if not may, different factories, and has minimal or zero control over the quality as all they do is sell by brand name. Whereas Hankook, Michelin etc have their tyres made to a consistent quality in factories if not owned by them have been checked and audited to ensure consistency with Michelin, or others design intent.

 

[JonnyG]

firstly the test i believe you refer to actually shows degradation on concrete roads to be far worse than hot ash felt,and not slightly longer..secondly they used decent make of tyres to do the test ,which kinda backs up my statement as lesser tyres were not used it would suggest the testers wanted to use the best on hand and not just any old rubber!! the great thing about the internet is if one cares to search deeper and not just page one of a search you might just find plenty of tests of tyres concerning the effects of degradation and its effects on braking distances not just the google preference one! which is no doubt the one you quote and i've not read up on in a decade, but no doubt you found when looking for a reply to my post!

As I said before, I will be interested to see the link to the test results which show 1mm of tread wear adding 5 meters of extra stooping distance.

Yes – I said “slightly longer” - But we won’t bandy words. Instead here are the figures from the ROSPA graph. Speed wasn’t specified although it was the same throughout the tests. A new tyre on wet asphalt takes 24 feet to stop. On smooth wet concrete it takes 29 feet. So an extra 5 feet. An illegal tyre on minimum tread on the asphalt takes 33 feet and on concrete 42feet. An extra 9 feet.

About whether they used “Decent tyres or just any old rubber.” Since 2012 all tyres sold in the EU and UK have had to show their ability for rolling resistance, their grip on wet roads and their noise levels. If they don’t reach the minimum standard they won’t be on sale. I was recently looking at tyres for my towcar. I saw Goodyear whose grading for rolling resistance was E, wet grip was C and the noise was 69db. They were £118 per tyre. On the other hand I found a brand I’d never heard of called Excelon and its rolling resistance was better with a C, wet grip was the same at C but it had slightly more noise with 72db but at half the price, £59. So was the Goodyear tyre twice as good as the cheapy. I don’t know but it transpires that Goodyear is the parent company for both tyres.

Now that Michelin have two new factories in China, will we ever see tyres with the Michelin logo being made along side another line bearing some new obscure name?

As i said before, you do the research. or is the 5 meters difference too unbelievable. if so do you know the difference in metres for stopping distance between a car fitted with A rated wet tyres performance and C rated wet tyre performance? its 7 metres at 50 mph!!!! again look it up! ps. just to clarify this is all specific to wet tyres and therefore wet conditions .. as tyres perform better in the dry as they wear ...
Michelin was mentioned in the posts and they are one tyre company who totally disagree with the wet weather tests rating as they are done in a straight line with no lateral G force testing ... making the test only comparable in a perfect straight line ,how a tyre breaks in a corner is something totally different maybe this is where the likes of branded tyres like Michelin perform Superior to the cheaper makes and the new testing codes do not show that.you get what you pay for..

 

[Jaydug]

you do the research. or is the 5 meters difference too unbelievable...

Why should I spend time looking for something I don't believe is there? It's your claim that for every mm of tread loss, the stopping distance increases by 5mtrs. Show us the link otherwise I'll bin it.