Tonys is great for service, you won't get better anywhere IMHO. Do shop around, they'll match prices. I think there's plenty of margin in the tyre business.
ankit816: new tyres - at the rear, whether the car is front or rear wheel drive. Fitting new tyres to the front can result in oversteer and loss of control."
What? No way. FWD car, new tyres up front. Understeer, and poor braking, presents a far greater hazard IMO than oversteer in a FWD car. If your rear tyres are that bad that you get oversteer then they need replacing too!
xpd:When putting new 2 tyres on a car, I prefer to put them on the front and move the others to the rear - my reasoning for this is that the front is what drives my car, and turns it. Others say to do it the other way round....but I prefer to be able to move and turn safely :)
This is an issue that provokes endless argument. The tyre manufacturers say that all tyres should be in safe condition but if there were two in better condition they should be on the back. Their reasoning is that if the better tyres were on the front you could drive yourself into a situation where the rear lose grip. Very few drivers can recover from sudden oversteer and usually spin off. A lot more can detect and recover from understeer.
pinkydot: I had my wof done early this month and failed both front tyres. They good enough to issue me two extra week of wof when I had time to get the tyres changed. Once I had the front tyres changed, I went back to the same place. they just reissue the new 6 months wof without extra charges.
And which dodgy shop was this ?
So they knowingly let you back on the road altho you were driving a potentially dangerous vehicle ? How would you have felt if you had hit someone because of one of the tyres ?
Not dodgy shop at all. All I can say they do advertise around newspaper, radio, tv. But they are good enough been with them for many years. I can say the car most of the time is in the garage within that two weeks.
Just drive other car I had until I have the time to change the tyres.
xpd:When putting new 2 tyres on a car, I prefer to put them on the front and move the others to the rear - my reasoning for this is that the front is what drives my car, and turns it. Others say to do it the other way round....but I prefer to be able to move and turn safely :)
This is an issue that provokes endless argument. The tyre manufacturers say that all tyres should be in safe condition but if there were two in better condition they should be on the back. Their reasoning is that if the better tyres were on the front you could drive yourself into a situation where the rear lose grip. Very few drivers can recover from sudden oversteer and usually spin off. A lot more can detect and recover from understeer.
In well over 10 years of driving I have once experienced oversteer in a FWD car (when I wasn't intending it). It is dead simple to recover and usually you don't need to do anything at all provided the back has enough space to slide out a bit. Snap oversteer is non-existant in FWD, front heavy cars, if you get oversteer at all, it is more likely to be a gentle drifting, not an "OMG I'm facing the wrong way".
Understeer on the other hand is extremely dangerous as the default reaction by most drivers is to steer harder into the corner, or brake, which only makes things worse - and when grip returns drives the car very suddenly in the wrong direction.
If you are replacing 2 tyres and have directional's then it is best to match with the same type. If that is not possible then replace all 4. If you have Asymmetrical tyres then you must match them or replace all of them.
If the tyres are non directional then it doesnt really matter.
For a FWD car i would personally put the better tyres on the front. however if the ones you aren't replacing are getting marginal then i would get all 4 and negotiate a better price....
Regular tyre rotation (front to back) and regular wheel alignments at 10k should see you having even tyre wear.
ratsun81: I used to work in tyre shops several years back.
My advice on tyres and management is
If you are replacing 2 tyres and have directional's then it is best to match with the same type. If that is not possible then replace all 4. If you have Asymmetrical tyres then you must match them or replace all of them.
If the tyres are non directional then it doesnt really matter.
For a FWD car i would personally put the better tyres on the front. however if the ones you aren't replacing are getting marginal then i would get all 4 and negotiate a better price....
Regular tyre rotation (front to back) and regular wheel alignments at 10k should see you having even tyre wear.
Thanks a lot for this. Good to hear the above details.
pinkydot: I had my wof done early this month and failed both front tyres. They good enough to issue me two extra week of wof when I had time to get the tyres changed. Once I had the front tyres changed, I went back to the same place. they just reissue the new 6 months wof without extra charges.
This from the VTNZ FAQ page:
What if my vehicle fails a WoF inspection?If your vehicle fails a WoF inspection and your old WoF has expired, you are not allowed to drive it on the road unless it is being operated solely for the purpose of obtaining a new WoF. This includes driving it to and from a garage in order to have the necessary repairs carried out. If you fix all the items that require attention within 28 days the vehicle will be re-inspected by the same WoF agent at no extra charge. If you exceed the 28 days from the initial inspection, a new fee and inspection is required. Note: This is a legal requirement.
They cant issue you with extra time. If your old WOF hadnt yet expired (say it had 2 weeks to go), then I think they are obliged to add that time to the new expiry date. ie you can go in a couple of weeks before expiration and get the 'full' six months on the next WOF.
I would actually think that what you most need to be careful of is the insurance aspects. I would think that the small print of your policy may say that if you havent got a current WOF, or the car isnt of WOF standards then they wont cover you in the event of an accident. There used to be a similar smallprint item that said 'if you have consumed alcohol you may not be covered'. It didnt say anything about legal limits etc. Not sure if those words appear in policies these days - anyone read the smallprint lately?
Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler
pinkydot: I had my wof done early this month and failed both front tyres. They good enough to issue me two extra week of wof when I had time to get the tyres changed. Once I had the front tyres changed, I went back to the same place. they just reissue the new 6 months wof without extra charges.
This from the VTNZ FAQ page:
What if my vehicle fails a WoF inspection?If your vehicle fails a WoF inspection and your old WoF has expired, you are not allowed to drive it on the road unless it is being operated solely for the purpose of obtaining a new WoF. This includes driving it to and from a garage in order to have the necessary repairs carried out. If you fix all the items that require attention within 28 days the vehicle will be re-inspected by the same WoF agent at no extra charge. If you exceed the 28 days from the initial inspection, a new fee and inspection is required. Note: This is a legal requirement.
They cant issue you with extra time. If your old WOF hadnt yet expired (say it had 2 weeks to go), then I think they are obliged to add that time to the new expiry date. ie you can go in a couple of weeks before expiration and get the 'full' six months on the next WOF.
I would actually think that what you most need to be careful of is the insurance aspects. I would think that the small print of your policy may say that if you havent got a current WOF, or the car isnt of WOF standards then they wont cover you in the event of an accident. There used to be a similar smallprint item that said 'if you have consumed alcohol you may not be covered'. It didnt say anything about legal limits etc. Not sure if those words appear in policies these days - anyone read the smallprint lately?
Yes, you are right. My policy states the car must have valid WOF to stay under insurance cover. Not sure if it says anything about having alcohol under / above the legal limit
ankit816: Yes, you are right. My policy states the car must have valid WOF to stay under insurance cover. Not sure if it says anything about having alcohol under / above the legal limit
My Vero policy states no cover for "6. losses that arise from your vehicle being in an unsafe or damaged condition: unless you can prove that such condition did not cause or contribute to the loss or damage. Cover will still apply if you can prove that you and the driver were unaware of such condition and had taken all reasonable steps to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition."
Whether or not the vehicle has a WOF is not that relevant if the Insurance Co can show that there was something wrong with it. Similarly if the only thing wrong was the lack of the WOF the Insurance Co probably would be liable.
ankit816: Yes, you are right. My policy states the car must have valid WOF to stay under insurance cover. Not sure if it says anything about having alcohol under / above the legal limit
My Vero policy states no cover for "6. losses that arise from your vehicle being in an unsafe or damaged condition: unless you can prove that such condition did not cause or contribute to the loss or damage. Cover will still apply if you can prove that you and the driver were unaware of such condition and had taken all reasonable steps to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition."
Whether or not the vehicle has a WOF is not that relevant if the Insurance Co can show that there was something wrong with it. Similarly if the only thing wrong was the lack of the WOF the Insurance Co probably would be liable.
But if something was wrong, and contributes to an accident (tyres would be a very likely candidate) and you DIDN'T have a WOF, you could easily be accused of negligence, whereas if you had taken reasonable steps, such as having a valid WOF, you are likely to be covered regardless.
Bung:Whether or not the vehicle has a WOF is not that relevant if the Insurance Co can show that there was something wrong with it.
This has always been my understanding. You may have a valid WOF, but if you're in an accident and there are issues with your vehicle that means it wouldn't have passed a warrant the insurance company may not cover you.
Similarly if the only thing wrong was the lack of the WOF the Insurance Co probably would be liable.
Not so sure on this. You'd have to have a good reason to not have a warrant I'd think. It's a similar arguement to 'the cheque is in the mail', isn't it?
oxnsox: Not so sure on this. You'd have to have a good reason to not have a warrant I'd think. It's a similar arguement to 'the cheque is in the mail', isn't it?
It is not. The biggest problem would probably be proving your car was in OK condition. If you failed your WOF for bad headlights and you crashed during the day then you should have no problem, for example.
Has been tested in court. If you have no wof, but nothing to do with that caused the crash, insurance is still liable. Also a wof is only a test for the vehicle at that time it is up to you to maintain it. A month old wof does not mean your car is still legal
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
Vocus
