nile13

I'm fairly well aware of who owns whom in tire world (although it's hard to keep track with all the incest ). And why the brands tend to stay independent after the acquisitions.

Further, I think that you equate manufacturing costs and advertisement costs with the price of the product. That is not the case. What is the case is that a manufacturer will charge what the market would bear. And Michelin does exactly that, just as do Kumho and Hankook. Neither one gauges customers, nor looses money. Advertising costs are simply part (large part) of creating the market position.

Michelin choses to be in "top tear" position. I am arguing that it is more marketing than quality of their products (across the board, but especially for "less than super-performance" tires). In other words, people are paying for a brand with Michelin. A brand, that for 100+ years, has relied very heavily on advertisements and other ancillary things (Michelin atlases, stars, etc) to position itself. For my own money I'd rather go with a better tire. Especially given the fact that I do notice the difference.

PS. A little personal story if I may. I came to deal with a small software company in 2004 that was selling its product for $18-27K at the time. As a sales guy I looked at the product, how it sells and what the market tells me (what objections it has). After about a year (maybe $2 Mil in sales) I came to a conclusion that it would be a good idea to move significantly upmarket.

So... $100K booth and $200K+ annual trade show budget, price increases every 18 month... 4 years down the road it was a $50-100K products with some $200K+ sales for good measure. Did the product get better? Somewhat. Did it merit 3x the price? Well, the market was willing to pay, who am I to deprive the market of this opportunity?

Were customers still happy at $100K? Honestly... they were happier paying $100K for the core software for their business than paying $30K. And that prediction, essentially, what made me move the product upmarket price-wise. I've stopped hearing two common refrains from 2004: "Who the hell are you as a company that I should entrust you my business" and "$30K sounds too good to be true". I strongly believe, hearing the sentiments here, that people simply prefer to have expensive tires on their Porsche. More precisely, people dismiss cheaper (and better) tires. Just an opinion, mind you, but a strong one.

177mph

Top Tier?

beentherebaby

Perception is reality for most consumers. I prefer objective test data.

Slow Guy

Mike (nile13), while I agree for the most part with what you're saying some of us buy Mich. in spite of their advertising budget. I really didn't want Mich's on my car but they had the best product that fit my needs. And believe me, my tire guy and I spent well over 30 min in his shop (not counting the research I had done prior to the appointment) weeding out the selection. The one left standing in the end was the Mich. P/S 2 Plus. (A/S)

Fortunately for my Cayenne (and the '97 M3) I had other/better/cheaper choices.

nile13

Bill, and that is exactly what I'm saying. If Michelin makes a product that fits your needs and your budget and is the right solution for you compared to other products on the market, than you absolutely _should_ buy it! The same way I've told my customers that they should buy my software. And they did

nile13

That too

timothymoffat

Anybody notice how many threads go way OT fairly quickly these days?

vaujot

I just would like to comment on this statement. I have ridden in a car with these tires. They are NOISY! And pretty worthless on anything but dry roads.

I once had an instructor who works as a test driver for tires (I think he works for Porsche but I am not positive). His advice for road cars: Go with the big name OEM brands. While some of their tire prices may be reflected in their advertising, they also do the most development.

Canyon56

I agree. That's why I still don't understand why a 'cheaper' tire is necessarily a better tire, and why a more expensive tire is somehow not necessarily a better tire. Or vice versa.

It makes no sense that just because the company is big and has lots of money, that somehow that equates to them overpricing their product or that their product is inferior to a less expensive product. I don't get the argument.

The ONLY way is to look at real test data and then decide if that data will be worthwhile to you in your own situation. Otherwise it's incredibly bias and totally subjective. Maybe the cat was run over by a Michelin tire and so they're a hated brand........

In the meantime it just becomes a "I like vanilla and you like chocolate" sort of dialogue.

nile13

OK. One last time. I have tried aforementioned tires. And formed an opinion. My opinion happens to align with opinions of a number of fast people running street tire classes in SCCA Solo 2, a type of racing that is very tire dependent and actually values similar tire qualities to those important on the street.

Interestingly, not a single person here says "I tried Direzzas and went back to PS2". Instead it's "I've never tried Direzzas, but PS2s are _the_ tire" type of dialog. It just mystifies me.

mongrelcat

Since this thread has meandered a bit I don't mind asking, how are the Direzzas in rain?

Canyon56

I understand what you're saying. But I think it's common. I use Kodak Vision 3 motion picture film because I think it's the cat's meow. I'll probably never change since it has never failed me and works in all situations. Fuji's Eterna film stock is probably just as good, maybe better in some situations. Who knows? But I tend to get on the bandwagon for Vision 3 only because I've never used Eterna.

Anyhoo, I long ago gave up deciding on things based on what others say. I have to experience it myself. But the reality is I don't want to be a test bunny nor have the time. So when I find something that works for me, I tend to stick with it and go on with life.

I don't care what tire people want to use, and I'm sure they're all pretty decent these days, expensive or not. I guess I just didn't understand why "big marketing" necessarily means good or bad quality.

nile13

Canyon, I don't think big marketing means bad quality. I think it just means big price. Not always, but often and certainly in Michelin's case. It's actually interesting when you compared tires to film. Tires can be swapped earlier for a newer set if they are cheaper. fresh tires are good Oh, and when I worked for Kodak I used to shoot with Fuji

Mongrel, I've autocrossed Direzza StarSpecs in the rain on an E36 M3 a couple of times. I was fairly well impressed. While not a rain tire per say (like S-03 was, for example), it held its own well. Better than Azenis RT-615 (no wonder) and better than many others I've experienced. We run on old crumbling asphalt runways of an airbase. Similar to street surface around here. So I think it'll be pretty good in the rain on the street. They will, most likely, be my next 993 street tire. They, or Hankook.

mongrelcat

Thanks for the info!

Slow Guy

......almost as far as threads in the OT forum go OT.....