[dxb335d]

JUst had my rears off. This how they looked!?

Not bad considering the abuse they were given.

[zedman]

if you had hit something on the drive prior to taking the tyres off then would your insurance be void due to the tyres?

and if it was could you successfully argue that BMW's set up of aggressive negative camber on the rear wheels leaves an impression from where you can see them that the tyres are fine even when they are worn on the inside edge, and as consumers not engineers, we should not be expected to get our heads under the car and look that deep?

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by zedman

if you had hit something on the drive prior to taking the tyres off then would your insurance be void due to the tyres?

and if it was could you successfully argue that BMW's set up of aggressive negative camber on the rear wheels leaves an impression from where you can see them that the tyres are fine even when they are worn on the inside edge, and as consumers not engineers, we should not be expected to get our heads under the car and look that deep?

No,

When has insurance ever been invalid for that?!

Yes if I had accident and police arrived then they could cause a stir. Insurance hpwever would still be valid.

[sheps]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

No,

When has insurance ever been invalid for that?!

Yes if I had accident and police arrived then they could cause a stir. Insurance hpwever would still be valid.

Not if the tyres were illegal.
Check your policy. It'll be based on the car being legal and roadworthy, which it is not with tyres with less than 1.6mm across 75% of the tread pattern.
Unless of course you're saying your tyres aren't illegal? (difficult to tell in that pic) in which case the Police cannot say diddly. They're either good or they're not. Hot water with neither or both...

[zedman]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

No,

When has insurance ever been invalid for that?!

Yes if I had accident and police arrived then they could cause a stir. Insurance hpwever would still be valid.

dont think it would be buddy....

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by sheps

Not if the tyres were illegal.
Check your policy. It'll be based on the car being legal and roadworthy, which it is not with tyres with less than 1.6mm across 75% of the tread pattern.
Unless of course you're saying your tyres aren't illegal? (difficult to tell in that pic) in which case the Police cannot say diddly. They're either good or they're not. Hot water with neither or both...

Well, Id say they were bordering on illegal.

I think if they threw out an insurance claim due to those tyres there would be uproar.

Then could then start throwing out claims due to Tax being a day out of date, or a number plate cracked, Broken exhaust clamp, Tracking out of alignment etc.


Now an MOT out of date would invalidate it.

Its the central 3 quarters that has to be udner 1.6mm

[Dawsey]

I had to make a insurance claim once when I parked my ZX Volcane in someone's front garden!!! Long time ago now but MOT had expired, I had completly forgotton, it was only a couple of weeks granted but insurers paid in full.

However if the accident was caused by an MOT failing part they may have thought differently.

[creepy coupe]

Originally Posted by zedman

we should not be expected to get our heads under the car and look that deep?

Sorry but "we" are, as drivers it's up to us to make sure the cars road worthy, plod won't give a flying what camber setting BMW dial in.

[jjbirch]

I wouldnt pay out if i saw that tyre whole inside edge is gone,really they should be changed at 2mm for safety lol

[a1reader]

They must have had some abuse those tyres

[TMP]

How many miles did they manage mate ?

[dxb335d]

The most Ive ever got out of a set of rears. I will check exact mileage tonight and get back to you.

[RichJ]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

The most Ive ever got out of a set of rears. I will check exact mileage tonight and get back to you.

How do you rates the Contis in comparison to other tyres you've used? Will be interested to hear how many miles they have lasted.....

[zedman]

Originally Posted by creepy coupe

Sorry but "we" are, as drivers it's up to us to make sure the cars road worthy, plod won't give a flying what camber setting BMW dial in.

what you sorry for? I agree with you, I was just wondering if it was a reasonable argument...

[doughboy]

Originally Posted by zedman

and as consumers not engineers, we should not be expected to get our heads under the car and look that deep?

Engineer to check your tyres?? What about putting fuel in or topping up the washer bottle? Do you need NASA to help with that

It's basic minimum maintenance like pressures and fluids. 10 second job - front wheels on full lock, rear wheels just bend down and look from the rear of the car.

As the driver you are responsible for every single part of that vehicle and its contents, its condition and roadworthiness both in law and in what is common sense. If you choose to ignore your responsibilites (as millions do), that's up to you - I just hope everything's ok.

DXB - that's one dangerous tyre, not illegal maybe, but you should know better than that..

[willhollin]

Originally Posted by TMP

How many miles did they manage mate ?

I would estimate 5K

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by Rich Jones

How do you rates the Contis in comparison to other tyres you've used? Will be interested to hear how many miles they have lasted.....

Fantastic tyres, (Sport Contact 3's) Much better than any bridgestone or Dunlops ive tried.

I would say the Conti 3's are only 2nd to the Mich PS2's

[TMP]

Originally Posted by willhollin

I would estimate 5K

oh jeez, that has gotta hurt the ol' wallet!

[crazyniz]

5k, christ...where do you source the tyres from ?

[MattOz]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

Fantastic tyres, (Sport Contact 3's) Much better than any bridgestone or Dunlops ive tried.

I would say the Conti 3's are only 2nd to the Mich PS2's

Carlos,

I'm using SC3's and they're a very good tyre. I rate them as highly as the PS2's on my other rims.

[zedman]

Originally Posted by doughboy

Engineer to check your tyres?? What about putting fuel in or topping up the washer bottle? Do you need NASA to help with that

It's basic minimum maintenance like pressures and fluids. 10 second job - front wheels on full lock, rear wheels just bend down and look from the rear of the car.

As the driver you are responsible for every single part of that vehicle and its contents, its condition and roadworthiness both in law and in what is common sense. If you choose to ignore your responsibilites (as millions do), that's up to you - I just hope everything's ok.

I'm quite ok at looking after my car thanks, don't require NASA just yet. In my post i'm simply wondering what would happen if someone pointed out (like if they were in an accident and the inside edges were illegally worn) that most drivers would not know about the whole negative camber thing and so wouldn't know to have a look at the inside edge. To be fair theres been a few on this forum that have had tyres changed and seem surprised at the crazy inner tyre wear once the old tyres off. It's not as if when you buy the car the dealer points out that when you check the tyres dont rely on the bit you can easily see, as these cars have inner edge wear issues. Ive had a few cars and none of them, not even my last BM (E46 on MV sport rims) had this negative camber wear thing.

I bet theres been a fair few people who look after their E9x's who've been v surprised at the wear of the tyres once they're off.

Originally Posted by doughboy

Engineer to check your tyres?? What about putting fuel in or topping up the washer bottle? Do you need NASA to help with that

quite ok with that thanks

Originally Posted by doughboy

If you choose to ignore your responsibilites (as millions do), that's up to you - I just hope everything's ok.

eh? i'm only playing devils advocate here - i dont see how that makes me 'ignoring my responsibilities'....

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by zedman

I'm quite ok at looking after my car thanks, don't require NASA just yet. In my post i'm simply wondering what would happen if someone pointed out (like if they were in an accident and the inside edges were illegally worn) that most drivers would not know about the whole negative camber thing and so wouldn't know to have a look at the inside edge. To be fair theres been a few on this forum that have had tyres changed and seem surprised at the crazy inner tyre wear once the old tyres off. It's not as if when you buy the car the dealer points out that when you check the tyres dont rely on the bit you can easily see, as these cars have inner edge wear issues. Ive had a few cars and none of them, not even my last BM (E46 on MV sport rims) had this negative camber wear thing.

I bet theres been a fair few people who look after their E9x's who've been v surprised at the wear of the tyres once they're off. ...

I also think BMW and Bridgestone (and the other tyre makers) have been surprised as well.

I've been in run-flat tyre debates for over 3-yers now, both on forums and with BMW and Bridgestone Engineers. What is emerging from research and discussion, run-flats are working to much tighter working parameters than normal tyres. Particularly as you go lower profile. Tyre pressures are much more critical, and by that I don't mean placard recommendations taken as read, but trial and error to conditions of use. For example, many are totally unaware that short trips do not get the run-flat tyres up to working temperature and working pressure, so adjustment has to be made, if you want correct working pressures and a balance of wear.

IMO, technolgy is ahead of experience, we are all on a sharp learning curve.

HighlandPete