Eco Tyres, do you trust them?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Eco Tyres, do you trust them?

pdath

253 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116

#181391 14-Oct-2015 07:38

Something about eco tyres make me nervous. The basic concept is that they have a reduced rolling resistance to save you fuel. If you are really lucky, they are meant to save you up to $100 per year on fuel.

Friction with tyres is usually a good thing. It's how you brake, accelerate, and generally stick to the road (otherwise you should do what a train does, and use steel wheels on a steel road for an even lower rolling resistance - mind you, trains have a terrible reputation for stopping quickly and very poor acceleration). Eco tyres have silica added so they simultaneously have both more and less friction. Amazing.

For me, I value tyre grip a lot. And something that messes with the tyres grip doesn't sit well. I value avoiding an accident or injury more than $100/year. I'm struggling to accept eco tyres, but perhaps I'm too old fashioned, and there is nothing wrong with them.

So do you trust eco tyres? Do you use them, or would you use them? Do you believe in the magic of silica?

Try my latest project, a Cisco type 5 enable secret password cracker written in javascript!

1 | 2 | 3

2780 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1184

#1405389 14-Oct-2015 08:28

It depends partly on the application. They're comparable to non-Eco budget tyres in performance/handling and braking - in fact some tests show the Bridgestone Ecopia range to be one of the best small tyres available in terms of braking performance, but it's still a far cry from their higher-end offerings like the RE003. So maybe if you have a kei-car that rarely if ever goes on the motorway/open road, it'd be worth considering. For me, they're still well short of a good performance tyre from a safety perspective, and not something I'd consider putting on my car.

Trying to find a link, but one of the comparison tests I've seen showed, for example, the Ecopia doing a 50kmh-0 stop in 10.7m (some other budget/Eco tyres were up to 2m longer), and the RE003's in 9.5m, and at 80kmh-0 they did 29.9m and 25.2m respectively.

1eStar

1604 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 375

#1405411 14-Oct-2015 08:46

Silica is sand. It's hard and resists wear. It's inclusion means a stickier (and inherently faster wearing) rubber compound can be used without it wearing out so fast. There's no magic involved. There is an inverse relationship between grip and durability. Choose which one you want and purchase the tyre with that characteristic.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 910

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405432 14-Oct-2015 09:10

I love how all the advertisements show that they have the same or better wet braking performance (well duh)
Why do they never compare dry braking performance? I'm pretty sure I can guess

Matthew

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405477 14-Oct-2015 09:39

mdooher: I love how all the advertisements show that they have the same or better wet braking performance (well duh)
Why do they never compare dry braking performance? I'm pretty sure I can guess

Because the result is exactly the same for dry braking performance???

I am a huge fan for Ecopia Bridgestone - it even have the SUV version of ecopia fitted for high end RAV4/Highlander etc. It is very pricey but I don't have any performance issue with them. Does it save fuel? No idea.

Any issue with braking? Over 20,000km, not encountered a single issue. Up/down Kaimais coast in winter etc. The wearing is great. It starts with 4.5 and last I checked it is still over 4.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 910

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405482 14-Oct-2015 09:45

nakedmolerat:
mdooher: I love how all the advertisements show that they have the same or better wet braking performance (well duh)
Why do they never compare dry braking performance? I'm pretty sure I can guess

Because the result is exactly the same for dry braking performance???

I am a huge fan for Ecopia Bridgestone - it even have the SUV version of ecopia fitted for high end RAV4/Highlander etc. It is very pricey but I don't have any performance issue with them. Does it save fuel? No idea.

Any issue with braking? Over 20,000km, not encountered a single issue. Up/down Kaimais coast in winter etc. The wearing is great. It starts with 4.5 and last I checked it is still over 4.

how can it be? If they have a lower rolling resistance and we assume that the abs system keeps the wheels rolling under heavy braking.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm very suspicious that in the marketing you never see the braking ability tested side by side on a dry track.

They always compare braking on a wet track and rolling on a dry track

Matthew

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405484 14-Oct-2015 09:47

mdooher:
nakedmolerat:
mdooher: I love how all the advertisements show that they have the same or better wet braking performance (well duh)
Why do they never compare dry braking performance? I'm pretty sure I can guess

Because the result is exactly the same for dry braking performance???

I am a huge fan for Ecopia Bridgestone - it even have the SUV version of ecopia fitted for high end RAV4/Highlander etc. It is very pricey but I don't have any performance issue with them. Does it save fuel? No idea.

Any issue with braking? Over 20,000km, not encountered a single issue. Up/down Kaimais coast in winter etc. The wearing is great. It starts with 4.5 and last I checked it is still over 4.

how can it be? If they have a lower rolling resistance and we assume that the abs system keeps the wheels rolling under heavy braking.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm very suspicious that in the marketing you never see the braking ability tested side by side on a dry track.

They always compare braking on a wet track and rolling on a dry track

Low rolling resistance. But when you brake - the tyres stop rolling.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405510 14-Oct-2015 10:07

Main question for me is extra cost of tyres vs fuel savings. That's assuming no accidental premature termination of tyre (in which case it won't go the distance anyway, and needs replacing early)

Every time i'm asked to pay more to save some, it rarely is worth the buck, usually due to external factors, eg buy more cheaper food = I eat them all anyway LOL

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1184

#1405544 14-Oct-2015 10:30

mdooher:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm very suspicious that in the marketing you never see the braking ability tested side by side on a dry track.

See the figures I posted in my response above, of the Ecopia vs the RE003s - that's dry braking test results. Similar figures were found in tests by both local (such as Consumer) and overseas (such as Tire Rack) testing. The Eco tyres are comparable to (and in some cases - like the Ecopia - better than) standard non-performance tyres.

pdath

253 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116

#1405555 14-Oct-2015 10:53

Low rolling resistance. But when you brake - the tyres stop rolling.

Well that is a huge problem. You don't want the tyres to stop rolling - because that means they have locked up, and you'll get a terrible result (loss of steering and a long braking stop). You want the tyres to apply maximum friction to the road to slow you up.

Try my latest project, a Cisco type 5 enable secret password cracker written in javascript!

pdath

253 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116

#1405558 14-Oct-2015 10:54

joker97: Main question for me is extra cost of tyres vs fuel savings. That's assuming no accidental premature termination of tyre (in which case it won't go the distance anyway, and needs replacing early)

Every time i'm asked to pay more to save some, it rarely is worth the buck, usually due to external factors, eg buy more cheaper food = I eat them all anyway LOL

Good point. These tyres tend to cost a bit more. What is there wear like compared to their non-eco comparable cousins? I'm guessing if they have less friction they would wear more slowly.

Try my latest project, a Cisco type 5 enable secret password cracker written in javascript!

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405578 14-Oct-2015 11:21

pdath: Something about eco tyres make me nervous. The basic concept is that they have a reduced rolling resistance to save you fuel. If you are really lucky, they are meant to save you up to $100 per year on fuel.

Friction with tyres is usually a good thing. It's how you brake, accelerate, and generally stick to the road (otherwise you should do what a train does, and use steel wheels on a steel road for an even lower rolling resistance - mind you, trains have a terrible reputation for stopping quickly and very poor acceleration). Eco tyres have silica added so they simultaneously have both more and less friction. Amazing.

For me, I value tyre grip a lot. And something that messes with the tyres grip doesn't sit well. I value avoiding an accident or injury more than $100/year. I'm struggling to accept eco tyres, but perhaps I'm too old fashioned, and there is nothing wrong with them.

So do you trust eco tyres? Do you use them, or would you use them? Do you believe in the magic of silica?

I have them on my hybrid Alphard.

The fuel savings are as much a part of the weight and design of the tyre as the compound I believe.

I have had no grip issues - they are as good as the non-eco ones that I had before. They are Goodyear Assurance with kevlar protection and are designed for use in Asian conditions, with monsoons, potholes and so on. They are good tyres IMV.

Of course, I do not drive like Schumacher. YMMV.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Jase2985

13731 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6202

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1405579 14-Oct-2015 11:22

i run the ecopias on my accord (were on there when we got it) and ive had no issues with them wet or dry. they would probably be better wet or dry than some of those budget Chinese tyres that are for sale here

as for what joker97 mentioned about cost vs economy, over 40,000km i estimate on my accord i would save about $400 in fuel with the ecopias, but at $257 a tyre, thats about $100 more per tyre than something with similar performance. so no real savings there. im just not sure how long those tyres will last, more than 40k then you might start to see a saving.

wear totally depends on how you drive, how the car is setup and the roads you drive on.

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

#1405581 14-Oct-2015 11:23

nakedmolerat: Low rolling resistance. But when you brake - the tyres stop rolling.

Look up how ABS works and what it does.

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1184

#1405584 14-Oct-2015 11:26

nakedmolerat:

Low rolling resistance. But when you brake - the tyres stop rolling.

Hopefully your tyres don't stop rolling when you brake under normal conditions. If they do, your brakes are probably faulty.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 910

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405589 14-Oct-2015 11:28

Inphinity:
nakedmolerat:

Low rolling resistance. But when you brake - the tyres stop rolling.

Hopefully your tyres don't stop rolling when you brake under normal conditions. If they do, your brakes are probably faulty.

I know my car ABS is designed to have 5% slip. Motorcycle ABS on the other hand allows no slip. So my car tyres certainly stop rolling under heavy braking... When my front wheel on my bike slides.... well that's a pucker moment

Matthew

1 | 2 | 3