Different tyre weights = incompatible?

MarkDavis · 30 Sep 2011 at 20:10

Got some 225/45/17 Conti CS3s fitted today at Stratstone for what I thought was a bargain price of £120 per tyre.

I was going to get some F1 Assym 2s but they said that the weight of the tyre as stated in the specification isn't what was recommended. They said that they would fit them if I really wanted to but it wasn't strictly within spec because the Assym 2s were a lighter weight.

Have to admit I've never heard of tyre weights - I thought the 225/45/17 and speed rating was all you needed.

Anyone able to enlighten me on this?

thepeteh · 30 Sep 2011 at 20:15

You can get tyres with a different load index I know that much. I had a pair of Dunlop Sportmax on my old VWT4 235/35/18 iirc that would take a heavier load if needed.

Mickie · 30 Sep 2011 at 20:51

have you got a track car ? different weights, what a joke, did he also say one side of car is more rusty than the other, different weight..

also make sure you dont drive the car on your own either, one side of the car will have more weight..

i'd have laughed in his face

Clarkey · 30 Sep 2011 at 20:54

Mickie said:
have you got a track car ? different weights, what a joke, did he also say one side of car is more rusty than the other, different weight..

also make sure you dont drive the car on your own either, one side of the car will have more weight..

i'd have laughed in his face

Yeah totally, what a joke, those tyre manufacturers clearly don't know jack with their stupid load ratings. Who the heck cares about overloading tyres anyway!

dalin80 · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:15

Yeah, I know. I mean who really cares if a tyre hasn't got a adequate weight rating and degrades too quickly causing a crash which the insurance company rejects coverage of because of incorrect tyres. pfft.

In the flooding a few years back a renault laguna came in with a hydro locked engine, the insurance company refused to cover it as it was fitted with 3 extra load tyres and 1 standard.

233 · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:18

dalin80 said:
Yeah, I know. I mean who really cares if a tyre hasn't got a adequate weight rating and degrades too quickly causing a crash which the insurance company rejects coverage of because of incorrect tyres. pfft.

In the flooding a few years back a renault laguna came in with a hydro locked engine, the insurance company refused to cover it as it was fitted with 3 extra load tyres and 1 standard.

sorry but i call utter bs on that story

doesnt matter if the tyres were bald with bits of wire hanging out, they insurance company would have still paid out. as the tyres in this case have nothing to do with the claim.

would have been slightly different if the owner had slid into someone after loosing control, then fine the insurance co MAY have looked at the tyres but there is not a hope in hell an insurance co would do that. knocking back a flood claim due to imcompatible tyres?? take your made up stories and go sit in the corner

Fuzz · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:19

Sounds like a typical insurance company.

How in gods name does an incorrect tyre have any relevance to a driver ploughing into a flood and hydraulicing the engine. Bunch of chancers.

dalin80 · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:23

Scubascorpion said:
Sounds like a typical insurance company.

How in gods name does an incorrect tyre have any relevance to a driver ploughing into a flood and hydraulicing the engine. Bunch of chancers.

It doesnt, every single insurance job we have in always starts the same way regardless, a insurance assessor walks in and checks tyre tread depths, size and load ratings. A meteorite could fall from the heavens and they will still check the tyres.

Have had a warranty company do the same for a cracked suspension mount on a ibiza, car was running non-standard wheels sizes so the claim was rejected.

Mickie · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:38

i read it as the tyre being a different weight to his other tyres and not tyre loads..

now i look a bit daft

233 · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:41

dalin80 said:
It doesnt, every single insurance job we have in always starts the same way regardless, a insurance assessor walks in and checks tyre tread depths, size and load ratings. A meteorite could fall from the heavens and they will still check the tyres.

Have had a warranty company do the same for a cracked suspension mount on a ibiza, car was running non-standard wheels sizes so the claim was rejected.

the warranty company are well within their rights to reject, as non standard wheels could result in extra wear and tear on the suspension and mountings lower profile tyres etc

and yes they will check the tyres etc as it will be a standard form thats filled out for each case but the whole water damaged rejected due to tyres is nonesense

dalin80 · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:52

Foxtrot26 said:
but the whole water damaged rejected due to tyres is nonesense

agreed, but with insurance companies being utterly hammered by so many high claims its really not surprising. Its like being in a crash while over the limit, it doesn't matter what the circumstance were you have failed on one key area and are done for.

Fuzz · 30 Sep 2011 at 21:58

But it's nothing even remotely relevant, so it's nothing like a "key area of failure"

Kenai · 30 Sep 2011 at 23:21

Do insurance companies (or regulators) state that any 'discrepancies' have to be relevant for them to declare the policy void and not pay out on first party claims? I'd be surprised if that was the case.

I thought just as long as they could demonstrate that they wouldn't have insured the vehicle due to those discrepancies they were ok (no idea how policy values affect that though)

dalin80 · 1 Oct 2011 at 06:29

In short they see it as if your vehicle has got illegal or incorrect tyres it isnt road worthy and therefore shouldn't have been in use allowing them to class the insurance cover as invalid. We deal with a couple of insurance claims a month and in every single case the claim always starts off with one of these-

You can appeal through the insurance ombudsman but I havent known anyone do so as of yet.

If you ever meet or talk to a insurance assessor ask them, they are normally really nice blokes and are happy to chat.

MarkDavis · 1 Oct 2011 at 19:20

Well, I did some research.....

Blackcircles suggest insurance may be invalidated if you choose the wrong weight rating: http://www.blackcircles.com/general/load-rating

The CS3s Stratstone fitted are marked "225/45 R17 W (94) Extra Load" and therefore 670kg.

Assym 2s appear to come in 225/45 R17 Y (91) and 225/45 R17 Y (94) and therefore rated as sufficient to carry a max load of 615kg and 670kg respectively.

Sounds like Stratstone only carried the 91 rated tyres and not the 94 hence their advice, which although technically correct, was a bit misleading...

Dr Who · 1 Oct 2011 at 19:39

On the basis that insurance companies last year were charging upto 20% extra for people fitting winter tyres as a modification, nothing would surprise me, however, you should fit tyres which meet or exceed the manufacturers load index requirements.

Fitting tyres with insufficient load carrying ability can become unsafe when cornering and excessive weight is applied to one corner.

Fusion · 1 Oct 2011 at 19:42

I read it as the actual mass of the tyre, too. Would be very surprised if anyone, even the most ardent performance fanatic took that into account.

As has been said, the load distribution along different sides of the car will vary and affect this much more than one tyre weighing 100g more than another- not to mention the driver!

Dr Who · 1 Oct 2011 at 19:47

The load carrying index does refer to sustained load carrying, insufficient LI will result in more tyre flex making addtional heat and greater chance of a blow out, same as underinflated tyres at high speed/load.