05-10-2020, 07:28 PM
After exactly 2 years service and 8,060 miles, I have had to replace the tyres on my Ruby. The fronts were badly worn and probably a fraction below the legal limit of 1.6mm of tread over 3/4 of the width. The rears were worn, but less so, the spare had suffered a "blow-out" after 15 months service and I kept this for emergency use only.
I guess if I had of rotated the tyres I would have got a few more miles service, but I was surprised at how quickly the tyres had worn.
I was also disappointed at the condition of the tyres, the sidewalls (both sides of each tyre) were cracked/perished - quite alarmingly so. Interestingly, the tyre that suffered a blow-out November 2019 (see another post of mine) was in much better condition, the deterioration had occurred markedly in the second year of service. The manufactured date code was during 2017, so the tyres were nearly a year old before fitting, but still within the recommended 5 years of age.
Other tyres on my cars that are older are in far better condition, with no cracking/perishing evident, so the Ruby tyres are of a poorer quality to have deteriorated in the way that they have.
I raised the issue of the wear and cracking/perishing with the supplier/manufacturer, and I was fobbed off (by the top man) - 8,000 is good, everyone likes our tyres, well, I don't! So, not everyone! Cracking is not a problem!
My tyres are always correctly inflated to the supplier's recommendations, but the supplier/manufacturer could not explain the deterioration. He did not inspect the tyres nor asked to do so, just pure fobbing off. Just get rid of me!
Their attitude was such that they will not be getting any more business from me, bearing in mind that I was in the market for new tyres for the Ruby, but everyone loves their tyres, so I must be wrong. A bit short-sighted as my experience with these tyres is on here and will be on FB too, owners can make an informed decision, but based my experience, see more below to qualify, my advice is DON'T BUY these tyres.
I looked out for a replacement tyre and found one that is in my opinion BETTER than the one that everyone loves!
These are my experiences as to why I will not be buying Longtone-branded tyres for my Ruby.
First off, the tyre that everyone loves is a dual marked tyre, 4.00/4.25 x 17 - a tyre is ONE size and ONE size only, it is not two, but ONE, it may fit, but it CANNOT be two sizes at the same time, the maths determine this. In fact, the tyre in question is the bigger size and we are being mis-led to think that the tyre is correct to use, I certainly was. The 4.00/4.25 x 17 tyre is infact a 4.25 x 17 tyre is NOT the correctly specified tyre size. The tyre should be marked for what it is and should not be dual marked as this is mis-leading the consumer.
Secondly, according to the supplier's literature the tyre tread is an interpretation based on a photo of a tread, it is not a reproduction of an actual original tyre.
This causes problems - the tyre that everyone loves is in my experience not fit for purpose, I would go so far as to say they are potentially dangerous. Over rough road surfaces (so many are these days) or over ironworks, the back-end can on occasion "hop", that is the rear end jumps to one side, dry or wet, over a fairly regular route I could predict the points where the hopping would occur, one was in town at speeds of aroung 20mph, so not good as the control of the car has been momentarily lost. It is unsettling and the rear tyres are not gripping the road surface as they should.
The new tyres I have fitted are the correct size of 4.00 x 17 - these are a reproduction of an original Michelin tyre that was provided to the manufacturer and the results seems to be a fairly faithful copy. These are sold under the "Armstrong" label - this was a project undertaken by Howard Annett the President of the Austin Seven (London) Owners Club and I understand that he has been supplying these for the past 20 years or so.
I have done about 1,000 miles now on these new tyres, in both wet & dry conditions. What a difference!
First off, I immediately noticed that the steering was lighter, that extra quarter inch off the 4.25 tyre makes a difference! Bearing in mind the steering components were designed around a 3.50 tyre, and Austin did not test or have verified that a wider tread will not be to the detriment of the car is not known. The steering is now much nicer and the components must be less stressed as a consequence.
Secondly, the car handles better and that dreadful "hop" is non-existent, I have driven the car over the same regular roads and it does not do it now. The car feels more certain and I have less anxiety when riding over potholes & ironworks wondering if the car is going to hop.
Thirdly, I have also noticed that the fuel consumption seems to have improved, a bit too early to say for definite, but according to my petrol consumption log I am getting an extra 3 mpg!
So, Longstone branded 4.25 x 17 tyres are not loved by me and I will not use them on my Ruby again. The reproduction Michelin tyres are quite a bit cheaper than the Longstone, so for the price of the three tyres I needed to replace I was able to fit a whole new set of tyres.
Unfortunately, whilst we are lucky to have a good availability of spare parts, much of these are un-tested and un-regulated & we, as consumers, do not have the protection that the Law provides for modern car owners and my experience is that we can on occasion be fobbed off with items that are poor quality and that is not acceptable. Sharing experiences is important at protecting us all from those that are offering a product, which can be in all good faith, but is not properly tested & proved for service but could ultimately be to our detriment or even demise - a tyre is a critical aspect to the safety of the car and problems reported to the manufacturer/supplier should be taken seriously by them, this is a case where it was not and hopefully by highlighting this other drivers that have had a similar experience that can be recorded here and then hopefully Longstone might take notice and do something about it.
I guess if I had of rotated the tyres I would have got a few more miles service, but I was surprised at how quickly the tyres had worn.
I was also disappointed at the condition of the tyres, the sidewalls (both sides of each tyre) were cracked/perished - quite alarmingly so. Interestingly, the tyre that suffered a blow-out November 2019 (see another post of mine) was in much better condition, the deterioration had occurred markedly in the second year of service. The manufactured date code was during 2017, so the tyres were nearly a year old before fitting, but still within the recommended 5 years of age.
Other tyres on my cars that are older are in far better condition, with no cracking/perishing evident, so the Ruby tyres are of a poorer quality to have deteriorated in the way that they have.
I raised the issue of the wear and cracking/perishing with the supplier/manufacturer, and I was fobbed off (by the top man) - 8,000 is good, everyone likes our tyres, well, I don't! So, not everyone! Cracking is not a problem!
My tyres are always correctly inflated to the supplier's recommendations, but the supplier/manufacturer could not explain the deterioration. He did not inspect the tyres nor asked to do so, just pure fobbing off. Just get rid of me!
Their attitude was such that they will not be getting any more business from me, bearing in mind that I was in the market for new tyres for the Ruby, but everyone loves their tyres, so I must be wrong. A bit short-sighted as my experience with these tyres is on here and will be on FB too, owners can make an informed decision, but based my experience, see more below to qualify, my advice is DON'T BUY these tyres.
I looked out for a replacement tyre and found one that is in my opinion BETTER than the one that everyone loves!
These are my experiences as to why I will not be buying Longtone-branded tyres for my Ruby.
First off, the tyre that everyone loves is a dual marked tyre, 4.00/4.25 x 17 - a tyre is ONE size and ONE size only, it is not two, but ONE, it may fit, but it CANNOT be two sizes at the same time, the maths determine this. In fact, the tyre in question is the bigger size and we are being mis-led to think that the tyre is correct to use, I certainly was. The 4.00/4.25 x 17 tyre is infact a 4.25 x 17 tyre is NOT the correctly specified tyre size. The tyre should be marked for what it is and should not be dual marked as this is mis-leading the consumer.
Secondly, according to the supplier's literature the tyre tread is an interpretation based on a photo of a tread, it is not a reproduction of an actual original tyre.
This causes problems - the tyre that everyone loves is in my experience not fit for purpose, I would go so far as to say they are potentially dangerous. Over rough road surfaces (so many are these days) or over ironworks, the back-end can on occasion "hop", that is the rear end jumps to one side, dry or wet, over a fairly regular route I could predict the points where the hopping would occur, one was in town at speeds of aroung 20mph, so not good as the control of the car has been momentarily lost. It is unsettling and the rear tyres are not gripping the road surface as they should.
The new tyres I have fitted are the correct size of 4.00 x 17 - these are a reproduction of an original Michelin tyre that was provided to the manufacturer and the results seems to be a fairly faithful copy. These are sold under the "Armstrong" label - this was a project undertaken by Howard Annett the President of the Austin Seven (London) Owners Club and I understand that he has been supplying these for the past 20 years or so.
I have done about 1,000 miles now on these new tyres, in both wet & dry conditions. What a difference!
First off, I immediately noticed that the steering was lighter, that extra quarter inch off the 4.25 tyre makes a difference! Bearing in mind the steering components were designed around a 3.50 tyre, and Austin did not test or have verified that a wider tread will not be to the detriment of the car is not known. The steering is now much nicer and the components must be less stressed as a consequence.
Secondly, the car handles better and that dreadful "hop" is non-existent, I have driven the car over the same regular roads and it does not do it now. The car feels more certain and I have less anxiety when riding over potholes & ironworks wondering if the car is going to hop.
Thirdly, I have also noticed that the fuel consumption seems to have improved, a bit too early to say for definite, but according to my petrol consumption log I am getting an extra 3 mpg!
So, Longstone branded 4.25 x 17 tyres are not loved by me and I will not use them on my Ruby again. The reproduction Michelin tyres are quite a bit cheaper than the Longstone, so for the price of the three tyres I needed to replace I was able to fit a whole new set of tyres.
Unfortunately, whilst we are lucky to have a good availability of spare parts, much of these are un-tested and un-regulated & we, as consumers, do not have the protection that the Law provides for modern car owners and my experience is that we can on occasion be fobbed off with items that are poor quality and that is not acceptable. Sharing experiences is important at protecting us all from those that are offering a product, which can be in all good faith, but is not properly tested & proved for service but could ultimately be to our detriment or even demise - a tyre is a critical aspect to the safety of the car and problems reported to the manufacturer/supplier should be taken seriously by them, this is a case where it was not and hopefully by highlighting this other drivers that have had a similar experience that can be recorded here and then hopefully Longstone might take notice and do something about it.
