Somebody here (Pam?) said that the person could not feel the difference on dry roads - Try running a +300 HP car, and you WILL notice the difference.
I've never felt the need for a +300HP car. Perhaps it's a man thing.
The idea of spotting the tyre treads on crashed cars gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "rubbernecking". Hope someone else is driving.....
Just bear in mind that at 7c (so not particularly cold) and 30mph on a dry road, winter tyres will stop you 2m sooner. That the width of a zebra crossing.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Can we not have this topic précised and as a sticky? Puhlease?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Raceplate wrote:
radar wrote:
I looked at my tyres.co.uk and they do "Nankang Cross Seasons" which are significantly cheaper anyone got any experience with them?
I've had cheap winter tyres that had good grip but wore very quickly.
I've also used Goodyear vectors all year round and been very happy with wear, Winter grip & aquaplaning resistance
I've had cheap winter tyres that had good grip but wore very quickly.
I've also used Goodyear vectors all year round and been very happy with wear, Winter grip & aquaplaning resistance
Bought Hankook Evo something winters last year, and they were 2/3 of the price of Continental, and had the best snowgrip I ever experienced... The were also rund down to 5 mm in just one season, which essentially would make them the most expensive tyre I have ever owned. The amazing grip was probably due to a very soft compound, but that would also have an impact on longevity.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
tangowaggon wrote:
I've also used Goodyear vectors all year round and been very happy with wear, Winter grip & aquaplaning resistance
Hi, I've been considering Vectors as my next set of all-seasons so would be interested in your additional feedback please.
Do you have Gen 2 or Gen 3 Vectors? How do you find them in the dry? Your comments back up the test reviews which suggest they are wet weather biased but at least one review says their dry braking distances are relatively poor. The aquaplaning resistance is important to me though for the long drives on autoroutes at high speed to the Alps so I'm contemplating the trade-offs. Also, once they wear in a bit, does the dry performance improve considerably? My current Vredestein all-seasons certainly did (but the wet weather and snow starts to drop off in proportion - it's all trade-offs )
My first choice for a new set would probably be Cross Climate 2s but they don't currently make them in my size. I think they will eventually but possibly not in time for this season and I must put a new set of something on before winter. The reviews suggest Vector Gen 3 is a better tyre than the Cross Climate Plus but maybe not better than the new Cross Climate 2.
Also, with reference to your wear comment, do you know if your Vectors have full depth sipes and tread blocks? (As opposed to 4mm sipes like full winter tyres.) I can't find this info anywhere for Vectors but if they do (the Michelins and the new Pirelli Cinturatos do) then they should still work on snow at 2mm which extends their useful life considerably.
I've also used Goodyear vectors all year round and been very happy with wear, Winter grip & aquaplaning resistance
Hi, I've been considering Vectors as my next set of all-seasons so would be interested in your additional feedback please.
Do you have Gen 2 or Gen 3 Vectors? How do you find them in the dry? Your comments back up the test reviews which suggest they are wet weather biased but at least one review says their dry braking distances are relatively poor. The aquaplaning resistance is important to me though for the long drives on autoroutes at high speed to the Alps so I'm contemplating the trade-offs. Also, once they wear in a bit, does the dry performance improve considerably? My current Vredestein all-seasons certainly did (but the wet weather and snow starts to drop off in proportion - it's all trade-offs )
My first choice for a new set would probably be Cross Climate 2s but they don't currently make them in my size. I think they will eventually but possibly not in time for this season and I must put a new set of something on before winter. The reviews suggest Vector Gen 3 is a better tyre than the Cross Climate Plus but maybe not better than the new Cross Climate 2.
Also, with reference to your wear comment, do you know if your Vectors have full depth sipes and tread blocks? (As opposed to 4mm sipes like full winter tyres.) I can't find this info anywhere for Vectors but if they do (the Michelins and the new Pirelli Cinturatos do) then they should still work on snow at 2mm which extends their useful life considerably.
My wife have the Gen 3 on a Seat Arona, and I sometimes drive that ca. Being a small "SUV", it is hardly a sporty car. I don't find it bad on dry road at all, and I would hardly be able to tell the difference from the standard supplied tyre the car came with. One thing I do notice on the, is, that in very warm weather, it has reduced lateral traction. I was happily supprised by the wet and snow performance - Way better than expected.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@DanishRider, do you know the answer to this sipe depth question on Gen 3? Are they full depth?
After all it is free
After all it is free
Raceplate wrote:
@DanishRider, do you know the answer to this sipe depth question on Gen 3? Are they full depth?
I honestly don't know - But I can check!
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Raceplate wrote:
@DanishRider, do you know the answer to this sipe depth question on Gen 3? Are they full depth?
Just checked, and they do appear to be full depth:-)
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I've got G2 Vectors that have been on about 20 months/18k miles. The blocks are definitely full depth. Hard to tell exactly on the sipes as they are so fine and wiggly but there is no sign of them being worn through after almost exclusively non snowy road use. I bought predominantly on advantage in wet/standing water.
Not noticed any appreciable underperformance in dry grip but then I'm driving an ordinary estate not boy racing.
To be honest when picking between Vectors and Crossclimates and Continental/Bridgestone equivalent offerings it's probably splitting hairs - wou'll be better shod than 95%+ plus of cars out there.
(I have become a tyre snob since getting the Vectors, taking delight at looking at shiny SUVs in car parks and noting how crappy their tyres are, particularly the rubber bands on the biggest rims)
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
DanishRider wrote:
Raceplate wrote:
@DanishRider, do you know the answer to this sipe depth question on Gen 3? Are they full depth?
Just checked, and they do appear to be full depth:-)
Thanks! My gut feeling was that they are, and your comments about lateral stability in hot weather also suggest that they are as it would cause the tyre to roll more on the rim.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Very few people push dry grip to the maximum, to the point of losing grip, it's an entirely different story for wet & snow grip.
Summer tyre on front of an Smax = 22k miles, Vectors lasted 20k.
Summer tyres on same car on packed, wet snow & failed to pull up a <10% gradient, with the vectors, my ex would pull into the snow covered school car park, past all the floundering 4x4s, drop the girls & drive out without a second thought.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
To be honest when picking between Vectors and Crossclimates and Continental/Bridgestone equivalent offerings it's probably splitting hairs - wou'll be better shod than 95%+ plus of cars out there.
To some extent I agree with this. But I worked in the motor industry for 30 years and I can definitely tell the difference between different tyres, suspensions, drive systems etc. and how their performance degrades and differs over time so I can't help analysing it.
And I know how I drive, I'm not dangerous but I buy cars that allow me to get from A to B as efficiently as possible shall we say and I need a suitably efficient tyre to back up what the car can do. As you rightly point out, no point having a high(ish) performance car with crap rubber.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Bottom line is that all tyres are a compromise, the large number of grooves & sipes that make an all season/winter tyre actually work will cause the tread to be much more flexible & hence compromise the dry handling & grip.
Expensive tyres will use more of the expensive materials, cheaper tyres will have much more cheap "filler" in the rubber compound to reduce cost at the expense of wear / longevity.
I just paid £400 for a pair of Michelin road 6 tyres for my bike because they give good grip & last twice as long as £250 tyres
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
tangowaggon wrote:
Very few people push dry grip to the maximum, to the point of losing grip.
It's not so much about the limit, it's more about the wear rate. The mountains in spring/summer are fantastic fun in a performance car but if the tyre has relatively weak dry performance you can trash them very quickly which becomes expensive. The Vredesteins that I have now definitely stopped a full car length longer in warm dry conditions (when they were new) than the worn summer tyres they replaced. But tyre technology moves on and there are better tyres out there than the Vredesteins now. The question is, how much better?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Re the ‘Who needs 300 BHP?’ thing - This is more of a side-effect of the trend towards adding a turbo to [bigger] petrol engines to give them the torque needed to compete with diesels. My car is 330 BHP, but I didn't buy it because I needed that much power, I bought it because I wanted an engine that's smooth and capable of cruising down to the Alps and Alpine ascents without any bother, but in petrol form. To get that in petrol it needs a turbocharger for low-down revs, otherwise I'd be changing gear all the time going up/down hill. The turbo probably gives me another 100BHP, but I never use it to hit top speed of 160mph. And nowadays, even my car is out-accelerated by a mainstream electric vehicle, so if I wanted pure speed and acceleration, an EV would be better anyway.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 4-08-22 6:38; edited 2 times in total
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Raceplate wrote:
DanishRider wrote:
Raceplate wrote:
@DanishRider, do you know the answer to this sipe depth question on Gen 3? Are they full depth?
Just checked, and they do appear to be full depth:-)
Thanks! My gut feeling was that they are, and your comments about lateral stability in hot weather also suggest that they are as it would cause the tyre to roll more on the rim.
This is also my perception of the situation, since I only notice it laterally - When it comes to acceleration and braking, I don’t notice the same difference which suggests it is a combination of sipes and compound being softer.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
LaForet wrote:
Re the 300 BHP thing - This is more of a side-effect of the trend towards adding a turbo to petrol engines to give them the torque needed to compete with diesels. My car is 330 BHP, but I didn't buy it because I needed that much power, I bought it because I wanted an engine that's smooth and capable of cruising down to the Alps and Alpine ascents without any bother, but in petrol form. To get that in petrol it needs a turbocharger for low-down revs, otherwise I'd be changing gear all the time going up/down hill. The turbo probably gives me another 100BHP, but I never use it to hit top speed of 160mph. And nowadays, even my car is out-accelerated by a mainstream electric vehicle, so if I wanted pure speed and acceleration, an EV would be better anyway.
I've never understood why so many brands have spent 30-40 years trying to make petrol turbos effective instead of just fitting a supercharger in the first place. I think it's German engineering stubbornness (I'm looking at you, VAG group & BMW) - they simply won't admit that the entire concept of turbos is crap (too peaky and inconsistent power, turbo lag, crap boost in hot weather, too much wheelspin in cold weather, generally a PITA to drive) and are determined to prove that their engineering skills can overcome the inherent deficiencies of the design. Give me a consistent supercharged Jag (or Merc) any day.
Coincidentally a neighbour who is sailing round Britain and just came home for a spell, leaving the boat in Newcastle, told me last night about this beautiful ship - the Turbinia - the first time turbines were used in ships. The Navy, predictably, dismissed the whole notion but had to rethink when the Turbinia effortlessly overtook their finest. https://discoverymuseum.org.uk/whats-on/turbinia
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Raceplate wrote:
LaForet wrote:
Re the 300 BHP thing - This is more of a side-effect of the trend towards adding a turbo to petrol engines to give them the torque needed to compete with diesels. My car is 330 BHP, but I didn't buy it because I needed that much power, I bought it because I wanted an engine that's smooth and capable of cruising down to the Alps and Alpine ascents without any bother, but in petrol form. To get that in petrol it needs a turbocharger for low-down revs, otherwise I'd be changing gear all the time going up/down hill. The turbo probably gives me another 100BHP, but I never use it to hit top speed of 160mph. And nowadays, even my car is out-accelerated by a mainstream electric vehicle, so if I wanted pure speed and acceleration, an EV would be better anyway.
I've never understood why so many brands have spent 30-40 years trying to make petrol turbos effective instead of just fitting a supercharger in the first place. I think it's German engineering stubbornness (I'm looking at you, VAG group & BMW) - they simply won't admit that the entire concept of turbos is crap (too peaky and inconsistent power, turbo lag, crap boost in hot weather, too much wheelspin in cold weather, generally a PITA to drive) and are determined to prove that their engineering skills can overcome the inherent deficiencies of the design. Give me a consistent supercharged Jag (or Merc) any day.
Must admit that mine is a VAG - And heavily turbo influenced;-)
Why settle for turbo OR supercharger when you can have both ?
Re the 300 BHP thing - This is more of a side-effect of the trend towards adding a turbo to petrol engines to give them the torque needed to compete with diesels. My car is 330 BHP, but I didn't buy it because I needed that much power, I bought it because I wanted an engine that's smooth and capable of cruising down to the Alps and Alpine ascents without any bother, but in petrol form. To get that in petrol it needs a turbocharger for low-down revs, otherwise I'd be changing gear all the time going up/down hill. The turbo probably gives me another 100BHP, but I never use it to hit top speed of 160mph. And nowadays, even my car is out-accelerated by a mainstream electric vehicle, so if I wanted pure speed and acceleration, an EV would be better anyway.
I've never understood why so many brands have spent 30-40 years trying to make petrol turbos effective instead of just fitting a supercharger in the first place. I think it's German engineering stubbornness (I'm looking at you, VAG group & BMW) - they simply won't admit that the entire concept of turbos is crap (too peaky and inconsistent power, turbo lag, crap boost in hot weather, too much wheelspin in cold weather, generally a PITA to drive) and are determined to prove that their engineering skills can overcome the inherent deficiencies of the design. Give me a consistent supercharged Jag (or Merc) any day.
Recently tried turbo + hybrid - Also a very interesting combination by the way.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Hmmm not sure I'd agree with the supercharger and turbo comments.
The closest comparison I've had is owning both a Mini GP (supercharged) and the next generation JCW which was turbo. The supercharged engine was by no means bad, but the turbo was light years ahead, plus an easy 10-15mpg better off.
Turbocharging technology has moved on leaps and bounds in the last decade. My current cars are a 2.9L twin turbo and 3L twin turbo, wouldn't have it any other way!
After all it is free
After all it is free
I think that illustrates the point. Twin turbos have become the norm in performance cars because the basic concept of a turbo doesn't work.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
What turbo cars have you driven that you find so disappointing?
Twin turbos really aren't the norm, at all.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
damanpunk wrote:
What turbo cars have you driven that you find so disappointing?
Twin turbos really aren't the norm, at all.
Actually for diesels it is not uncommon Opel (Vauxhall?) 1.9 CDTi was made as twin turbo. A small fast spinning turbo for low rev, and a bigger and slower for HP’s.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
damanpunk wrote:
What turbo cars have you driven that you find so disappointing?
Twin turbos really aren't the norm, at all.
They are in Porsche. 20 years ago I was GM of a Jaguar dealer and a 4-500hp supercharged V8 is a far far more pleasant car to drive than a (single) turbo 911. Same as the original Audi S5 with a 4.2 V8 was a far better car than the 3.0 V6 turbo that replaced it. It's consistent power and torque. In recent times, I've worked mostly with Nissan and Infiniti. Nissan use turbos, (some) Infinitis use superchargers. I understand why companies fit turbos these days to try to keep the cc's down but Merc don't, their Kompressor engines are superchargers.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Turbos have moved on, as mentioned. As I said, they're now primarily there for torque, not BHP*. My 3.0L, straight-six BMW engine is fine in acceleration terms un-turbo'd but the turbo means it cruises at road legal speeds at 1500 rpm in 8th gear and can match the torque of a diesel at any point. I really dont feel any turbo lag - any hesitation is down to the auto, not the engine output. I think a lot of people put auto box change delays down as turbo lag. And if I can be bothered, I can go into manual mode and use the paddles and gearchange better than I could in the equivalent manual.
*Addendum: … on bigger engines. Yes they are also used to boost very small petrol engines to give then a BHP that’s viable for day-to-day use. The above was in answer to the question “Who wants 300 BHP?” which you’d get from a bigger engine. My 3.0 litre six- cylinder engine has enough power already but would compare unfavourably with a equivalent diesel, at lower revs, so adding the turbo gives it the torque at low revs that it otherwise lacks. It also ups the total BHP, but that’s secondary.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 3-08-22 6:42; edited 4 times in total
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
damanpunk wrote:
What turbo cars have you driven that you find so disappointing?
Twin turbos really aren't the norm, at all.
Had twin turbos on my old Maserati 3200 GT, brilliant car . But you would not want to drive it in the Alps during winter without winter tyres. The handbook says that turning off traction control is really for the track, I tried it, and the handbook is right. Ahh the last of the 'propper' analogue cars
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Bob wrote:
damanpunk wrote:
What turbo cars have you driven that you find so disappointing?
Twin turbos really aren't the norm, at all.
Had twin turbos on my old Maserati 3200 GT, brilliant car . But you would not want to drive it in the Alps during winter without winter tyres. The handbook says that turning off traction control is really for the track, I tried it, and the handbook is right. Ahh the last of the 'propper' analogue cars
One comment from me: Nice choice of wheels
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@LaForet, haha my olf Fiat Coupe Turbo had the most amazing turbo lag, quite hilarious
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Using winter tires in winter will decrease your stopping distance by about 10% to 15% I recall. The rubber compound performs better in cold temperatures... this is almost just as important as the traction in snow from the treads.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
skithesteelstealtheski wrote:
Using winter tires in winter will decrease your stopping distance by about 10% to 15% I recall. The rubber compound performs better in cold temperatures... this is almost just as important as the traction in snow from the treads.
Totally agree its stopping distance in cold wet weather that is the real bonus, but as I often say to my wife stopping distance is less of an issue if you dont actually drive five feet behind the car in front . I leave my all seasons on all year and havent noticed a lot of wear in summer, the first time I fitted a pair on my Hilux I was amazed at the difference in grip, my current Dmax came with all seasons as standard and have still loads of tread left after 20,000 miles.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Reading this I couldn't help wondering what happened to the tradditional skiers' cars - Fiat Pandas, Citeron saxos and the like
Reading this I couldn't help wondering what happened to the tradditional skiers' cars - Fiat Pandas, Citeron saxos and the like
There used to be a panda with tracks parked up by a restaurant on a run towards the altiport in megeve
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
johnE wrote:
Reading this I couldn't help wondering what happened to the tradditional skiers' cars - Fiat Pandas, Citeron saxos and the like
I still see a lot of old Panda 4x4 in Italy - They appear to be able to go through just about anything. I always wanted to rent one, but there have never been one available. Are they still being produced? It is such a cool little car.
Reading this I couldn't help wondering what happened to the tradditional skiers' cars - Fiat Pandas, Citeron saxos and the like
I've got a Jimmy with snow tyres and set up for off road use. 101bhp.1.5 engine. It's great for NZ access - which is usually a rough goat track covered in deep snow up the side of a mountain. Its crap to drive and pretty slow but will go further than most big 4wd's.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
DanishRider wrote:
johnE wrote:
Reading this I couldn't help wondering what happened to the tradditional skiers' cars - Fiat Pandas, Citeron saxos and the like
I still see a lot of old Panda 4x4 in Italy - They appear to be able to go through just about anything. I always wanted to rent one, but there have never been one available. Are they still being produced? It is such a cool little car.
Narrow tyres, half decent ground clearance and a bulletproof 4wd system. Ideal winter car!
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
adithorp wrote:
DanishRider wrote:
johnE wrote:
Reading this I couldn't help wondering what happened to the tradditional skiers' cars - Fiat Pandas, Citeron saxos and the like
I still see a lot of old Panda 4x4 in Italy - They appear to be able to go through just about anything. I always wanted to rent one, but there have never been one available. Are they still being produced? It is such a cool little car.
Goes where no tank have ever been before just looked it up, and it appears that the last one was the 2013 version - What a shame, because a 4x4 at that price with those capabilities, is really amazing to be honest.
I have a Formentor at 4 times the price, and it would not be able to do half of what the Panda I capable of!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
damanpunk wrote:
Narrow tyres, half decent ground clearance and a bulletproof 4wd system. Ideal winter car!
Er no. Had one as a work runablut in Meribel. Yes better than a regular panda in the snow. Otherwise a nasty, unreliable, underpowered, death trap. Suspension and the very basic nature of the 4wd system means you are regularily beeten in slipery conditions by a wel thought out fwd with good tyres and traction control/LSD.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
I've never felt the need for a +300HP car. Perhaps it's a man thing.
. But you would not want to drive it in the Alps during winter without winter tyres. The handbook says that turning off traction control is really for the track, I tried it, and the handbook is right. Ahh the last of the 'propper' analogue cars 
just looked it up, and it appears that the last one was the 2013 version - What a shame, because a 4x4 at that price with those capabilities, is really amazing to be honest.
