Tire experience
12-16-2003, 06:06 PM
#61
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todd: How dare you disagree with me!!! Just kidding, having a difference of opinion is how we learn things.
Anyway, I don't have the time right now to fully look at this report but I think I looked at this same thing about a month ago where the Porsche's rated very well. If it's the same report (it may not be), I was pretty startled by it until I realized something. This is the data they are reporting per the website:
(Injury losses indicate the relative frequencies of injury claims per insured vehicle year filed under Personal Injury Protection coverages in the 17 states and District of Columbia that offer such coverages.)
So the report has nothing to do with injuries/mile driven, simply injuries per year. The other thing that I realized was that most of the vehicles that looked extremely safe were ones that are normally owned by older, more mature and safer drivers. This at least partially explains why the Porsche's look so good. First, in general they are not daily drivers and therefore put on much fewer miles per year than a comparable SUV or family car. Second, you generally don't see teenagers and young adults driving late model 911's. I believe those two factors make the 911 look extremely good in these reports. Take a look at the data of all the cars and see if you see the same pattern. Cars generally owned by young people do not look good whereas the "old foggie" or high dollar machines look much better.
Anyway, I don't have the time right now to fully look at this report but I think I looked at this same thing about a month ago where the Porsche's rated very well. If it's the same report (it may not be), I was pretty startled by it until I realized something. This is the data they are reporting per the website:
(Injury losses indicate the relative frequencies of injury claims per insured vehicle year filed under Personal Injury Protection coverages in the 17 states and District of Columbia that offer such coverages.)
So the report has nothing to do with injuries/mile driven, simply injuries per year. The other thing that I realized was that most of the vehicles that looked extremely safe were ones that are normally owned by older, more mature and safer drivers. This at least partially explains why the Porsche's look so good. First, in general they are not daily drivers and therefore put on much fewer miles per year than a comparable SUV or family car. Second, you generally don't see teenagers and young adults driving late model 911's. I believe those two factors make the 911 look extremely good in these reports. Take a look at the data of all the cars and see if you see the same pattern. Cars generally owned by young people do not look good whereas the "old foggie" or high dollar machines look much better.
12-17-2003, 12:57 AM
#62
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I promise I'll get to my point, but first: I bought my car in Houston this June. Left the dealer in Houston about noon and started heading for Memphis (around 550 miles, I think). Car was just fitted with new continentals. It rained throughout the day, not too hard, until I got about 70 miles from home. I got into a dry area and went up to about 75. Just then rain hit hard. Although I'd had excellent wet tire performance all day, I hit this patch and I could feel the rear hydroplane and begin to slowly drift out. Thanks to owning a '73E previously, I knew to stay on the gas and drive out of it, avoiding any action like a swift throttle lift.
Now, believe it or not, my tires are showing significant signs of wear at 2,500 miles. After having this experience and thinking now of needing rear replacments soon (fronts are good), I'm going to replace with continentals on the rear. Same as front, except for size, of course. My point or concern would be wet weather performance of a mix brand. After June, I am going to replace with the same tire. This is obviously not a scientific analysis but I just feel more confident with using the same tire x 4.
It's obvious folks have had successes with an approach that mixes and matches tires for the 993's.
NEXT TIME when the fronts are down (I'll have to work on that), I have a list of potential tires I am going to buy for all four corners. Built this list of prospects from posts on this site. But I'll still be putting on the same tires on all four wheels.
Sorry for the long note that probably said nothing!
chuck
Now, believe it or not, my tires are showing significant signs of wear at 2,500 miles. After having this experience and thinking now of needing rear replacments soon (fronts are good), I'm going to replace with continentals on the rear. Same as front, except for size, of course. My point or concern would be wet weather performance of a mix brand. After June, I am going to replace with the same tire. This is obviously not a scientific analysis but I just feel more confident with using the same tire x 4.
It's obvious folks have had successes with an approach that mixes and matches tires for the 993's.
NEXT TIME when the fronts are down (I'll have to work on that), I have a list of potential tires I am going to buy for all four corners. Built this list of prospects from posts on this site. But I'll still be putting on the same tires on all four wheels.
Sorry for the long note that probably said nothing!
chuck
12-17-2003, 03:41 AM
#63
Three Wheelin'
Waybrig,
First, let me state that I do not consider the HLDI report the final word on safety by any means. However, I do think that the 993's outstanding result is significant. It's not merely good, it's extraordinarily good -- I don't think that a car that is not at least fairly safe could generate an injury record as exceptional as the 993 did.
The site does say the figures are based on injuries per vehicle year. However, over the years I've read more about these results than seems to be available on the site currently. I have read that HLDI attempts to account for several factors that could skew the results, including the average age of the drivers, for example. The figures for the Camaro, Firebird and Mustang -- favorites of kids who are clearly not aware of the concept of mortality (based on how they're often driven) -- were used as an example when I read about these adjustments. BTW, it wasn't until the 993 that there was enough data for the 911 to appear in the results.
As far as the more expensive cars tending to have better records because they're owned by more mature people: there may be something to this, though again, I've read that this is supposedly "accounted for." There may be other reasons for this, however. I think it is often true that the more expensive cars are safer in a crash -- more thorough engineering, more safety "features," etc. It was only relatively recently that Japanese cars became "crashworthy." Ten to fifteen years ago, most Japanese cars performed terribly in a crash.
Several not-so-expensive cars do quite well. The Saabs do very well, better than the 3-Series BMWs, C-Class Benz, numerous larger sedans, several SUVs and minivans, etc. There is also tremendous variation in the results within price classes, not just outside them.
The 993 does better than the M-B SL, which if anything is (I would think) driven by more "mature" people than 911s, and also is not used as a daily driver to the degree that sedans are. I'd also think that far fewer SLs are driven in the "spirited" manner that many 911s are. Even though newer 911s are generally owned by people old enough to afford them, they are often driven hard and fast.
What this all means to me is that, IMO, the 993's HLDI record is so good that it didn't happen by "accident" (sorry
). Neither do I think one should simply conclude that it's close to the safest car on the planet -- there are far too many unknowns.
First, let me state that I do not consider the HLDI report the final word on safety by any means. However, I do think that the 993's outstanding result is significant. It's not merely good, it's extraordinarily good -- I don't think that a car that is not at least fairly safe could generate an injury record as exceptional as the 993 did.
The site does say the figures are based on injuries per vehicle year. However, over the years I've read more about these results than seems to be available on the site currently. I have read that HLDI attempts to account for several factors that could skew the results, including the average age of the drivers, for example. The figures for the Camaro, Firebird and Mustang -- favorites of kids who are clearly not aware of the concept of mortality (based on how they're often driven) -- were used as an example when I read about these adjustments. BTW, it wasn't until the 993 that there was enough data for the 911 to appear in the results.
As far as the more expensive cars tending to have better records because they're owned by more mature people: there may be something to this, though again, I've read that this is supposedly "accounted for." There may be other reasons for this, however. I think it is often true that the more expensive cars are safer in a crash -- more thorough engineering, more safety "features," etc. It was only relatively recently that Japanese cars became "crashworthy." Ten to fifteen years ago, most Japanese cars performed terribly in a crash.
Several not-so-expensive cars do quite well. The Saabs do very well, better than the 3-Series BMWs, C-Class Benz, numerous larger sedans, several SUVs and minivans, etc. There is also tremendous variation in the results within price classes, not just outside them.
The 993 does better than the M-B SL, which if anything is (I would think) driven by more "mature" people than 911s, and also is not used as a daily driver to the degree that sedans are. I'd also think that far fewer SLs are driven in the "spirited" manner that many 911s are. Even though newer 911s are generally owned by people old enough to afford them, they are often driven hard and fast.
What this all means to me is that, IMO, the 993's HLDI record is so good that it didn't happen by "accident" (sorry
). Neither do I think one should simply conclude that it's close to the safest car on the planet -- there are far too many unknowns.
