04-30-2012, 07:41 AM
Location: Not In Kansas Any More
Join Date: Dec 2005
Mein Auto: 535iX M Sport; X5 35D
Like Mark Twain's demise, the added security conferred by RFT's has been vastly overrated. According to your X5 Owner's Manual, a deflated RFT can be driven as speeds below 50 mph for no more than 30 miles (4 passengers, plus luggage) to 95 miles (4 passengers, no luggage). And once you drive on a deflated RFT, it is toast - it must be replaced (and the 20" rear Dunlops cost +/- $650 per tire).
Originally Posted by caden
conti dws would be a more practical option in this region...but, the idea of treading on non-rfts doesn't secure a sense of perceived assurance while transporting young ducklings.
If your RFT goes flat on the Beltway, you may be able to get home okay. But if you are on a family vacation to the Outer Banks you are SOL. And what do you think the odds are of finding a 20" RFT on a Sunday in OBX? In that scenario, you'd be far better served by the Conti's.
IMHO the ONLY reason a RFT might be better than a non-RFT would be in the event of a catastrophic blow out, where the RFT would give you marginally better maneuverability. (But having driven on a blown-out RFT, I can tell you it is anything but confidence inspiring. Consider that most blow outs happen because of underinflation, and that you have to be a world class knucklehead to ignore the TPMS, and I think the whole RFT deal is a load of hogwash, invented to allow manufactureres to bypass the expense and space considerations of providing a spare.
My 2 cents. YMMV.
2011 535xi M Sport
TiAg / Black, ZPP, ZP2, ZCV, ZCW, ZDA, 2TB, 6NR, 465, 5DL, and a Partridge in a Pear Tree
2011 X5 35D
Deep Sea Blue / Oyster, PP, SP, PSP, CWP, Tech, 20" 214's
2008 ///M3 Vert
2008 X5 3.0
2007 X5 3.0
2006 X5 3.0
2006 550iA SP
2003 540iA M-Sport