Runflat Survey

wish i could have voted....

18" run flats...not looking forward to the treawear or ride...

installing Pirellis P-Zero Nero M&S as soon as i get back from Performance delivery

Originally Posted by Excitmnt94

wish i could have voted....

18" run flats...not looking forward to the treawear or ride...

installing Pirellis P-Zero Nero M&S as soon as i get back from Performance delivery

Treadwear might have to do with tire brands. The Bridgstones 19" runflat on the 5 and 6 series are getting about 30k miles. That is pretty darn good for performance tires. I think the old Dunlops had the treadwear issue.

Originally Posted by ase2dais

This statement already assume that folks like their RFTs

quote:

"How much do you like your runflat tires? Please post details as well - thanks! "

sorry, Im the biggest hater of RFT since even before I bought the car. Proponents suggest its problems are going away. Dont hold your breath guys, simple economics suggest it wont.

but I understand the Roundel article has to suggest all is HonkiDori!

Ive read your Roundel article, seems to me ity was very much pro-RFT

Hater, yes. That fits.

But the survey numbers suggest otherwise. I think that the article represented the survey data pretty well - and of course the article would be the opinion of that writer, who naturally is entitled to his opinion. You have yours, but no one is asking you to write your opinion.

Originally Posted by DavidNY

Hater, yes. That fits.

But the survey numbers suggest otherwise. I think that the article represented the survey data pretty well - and of course the article would be the opinion of that writer, who naturally is entitled to his opinion. You have yours, but no one is asking you to write your opinion.

I've read the piece and I think ASE has a point -it's an extremely biased article which seems to have a conclusion which isn't based on any kind of real journalism.

After all asking a bunch of folks on a message board how they like their run flat tires might seem sound at first, but how many of those people actually know or have had first-hand experience with the dark side of the run flat experience?

J Spira gives very short shrift to the costs of run-flats, but perhaps worse, where's the concern over the logic of the whole thing? If you get a flat far from home and far from a run flat dealer, you'll likely have to pay for a regular tire for the interim AND a new run flat when you get home.

Then there's the hard ride and increased weight penalty - if an E90 survey respondent says "I like the ride and handling", so what? How do we know he wouldn't prefer non run-flats if he had the opportunity to try them? He doesn't (unless he purchases the car and switches to nrf), so the question isn't relevant.

About the only real advantage, and Spira is correct here, to the run flat is safety - a blow-out at high speed can be a life-threatening experience and run flat tires can mitigate the danger (up to a point, a shredded tire is a shredded tire).

He's also probably correct in assuming the run flat is the future, but I would've hoped for a better balanced piece, especially in Roundel, which usually isn't afraid to publish articles critical of the accepted norm.

Ed

Originally Posted by EdCT

I've read the piece and I think ASE has a point -it's an extremely biased article which seems to have a conclusion which isn't based on any kind of real journalism.

After all asking a bunch of folks on a message board how they like their run flat tires might seem sound at first, but how many of those people actually know or have had first-hand experience with the dark side of the run flat experience?

J Spira gives very short shrift to the costs of run-flats, but perhaps worse, where's the concern over the logic of the whole thing? If you get a flat far from home and far from a run flat dealer, you'll likely have to pay for a regular tire for the interim AND a new run flat when you get home.

Then there's the hard ride and increased weight penalty - if an E90 survey respondent says "I like the ride and handling", so what? How do we know he wouldn't prefer non run-flats if he had the opportunity to try them? He doesn't (unless he purchases the car and switches to nrf), so the question isn't relevant.

About the only real advantage, and Spira is correct here, to the run flat is safety - a blow-out at high speed can be a life-threatening experience and run flat tires can mitigate the danger (up to a point, a shredded tire is a shredded tire).

He's also probably correct in assuming the run flat is the future, but I would've hoped for a better balanced piece, especially in Roundel, which usually isn't afraid to publish articles critical of the accepted norm.

Ed

Not sure I see any bias - I read the article also of course and it presented how the technology works, why it's important (i.e. what's different), a nice history of tires , and his own personal experience in driving with runflats. He also answers the questions re repair and taking them off wheels. (Oh, and including the Houston police chase was great )

Where is there bias in any of this? He drove, he liked, he wrote - so it appears to me.

If you feel you have the qualifications to write a better piece, perhaps you should! Whether someone pays you to write for them is a different story of course.

Originally Posted by DavidNY

Not sure I see any bias - I read the article also of course and it presented how the technology works, why it's important (i.e. what's different), a nice history of tires , and his own personal experience in driving with runflats. He also answers the questions re repair and taking them off wheels. (Oh, and including the Houston police chase was great )

Where is there bias in any of this? He drove, he liked, he wrote - so it appears to me.

If you feel you have the qualifications to write a better piece, perhaps you should! Whether someone pays you to write for them is a different story of course.

My feeling was J had a premise and the survey was a little icing designed to put it over the top.

As for being paid to write, I am, at much, much, MUCH higher rates than Roundel could ever afford

Ed

Originally Posted by EdCT

My feeling was J had a premise and the survey was a little icing designed to put it over the top.

Premise? Well yes, of course - every piece starts out with a premise. It's articles that have no premise which are problematic. Whether you agree with the premise is something else of course...

My premise was I had (at the point I started the story) driven over 3500 km with my runflat tires and I was very happy with the experience (note the comparisons made in the article with my non-RF summer performance tires). I did the survey because I had seen a lot of posts here and elsewhere where owners expressed dissatisfaction so I wanted to see how the numbers played out. Unfortunately, the survey chart and explanatory data was left on the cutting room floor by the editor.

Originally Posted by Jspira

The Roundel.

Are you a contributing editor? I've yet to receive my first issue of The Roundel but I'm looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by bmwexecutive

Are you a contributing editor?

Yes, I am.

Originally Posted by Jspira

Yes, I am.

You get paid good?

$1/word is it?

Originally Posted by bmwexecutive

You get paid good?

I am not doing it for the money (and it's fairly de minimis) but I learn a LOT each time I do an article and I get exposed to a lot of technology and potential technology before it even gets close to the market. I think for me it's all about learning and, based on the letters to the editor which have been published on recent articles, readers are learning a lot also.

Originally Posted by DavidNY

Hater, yes. That fits.

But the survey numbers suggest otherwise. I think that the article represented the survey data pretty well - and of course the article would be the opinion of that writer, who naturally is entitled to his opinion. You have yours, but no one is asking you to write your opinion.

I believe its still a public forum, amazing how people can get easily swayed with big marketing hype
maybe if someone have had the real experience of the inconvenience repairing/replacing this things
they'd be in my camp too.

My point is, in writing a fair and balance article, start the premise of the poll (article) on a even playing field, otherwise advise readers that the poll is for RFT advocates only.

my .02 cents

the "problem" is that 98% of drivers don't have any clue about tire performance at all

for many the tires on their car is about as important as the brand of paint on their ceiling


If personally find roundel to be pretty fair in comparo's, I've seen BMW's be knocked and other makes praised. Although I do think that the tire articles by jspira and the other guys did seem to skim over any negative issues that come with the tires.

Originally Posted by ase2dais

I believe its still a public forum, amazing how people can get easily swayed with big marketing hype
maybe if someone have had the real experience of the inconvenience repairing/replacing this things

What is a public forum? The Roundel? No, it's a magazine and you get the opinions of the writers and editors.

Regarding repair and replace, the article had several interviews of people who had replaced their run flats after something happened. The topic of repair was also touched upon - pretty much, you don't repair them except in very limited circumstances. Didn't the article make that clear?

Originally Posted by DavidNY

What is a public forum? The Roundel? No, it´s a magazine and you get the opinions of the writers and editors.

Yes, those are called editorials and op-eds. The Spira piece wasn't presented as such, but rather as a journalistic "news" piece - it's not news to hear of a writer's satisfaction with his tires.

Regarding repair and replace, the article had several interviews of people who had replaced their run flats after something happened. The topic of repair was also touched upon - pretty much, you don't repair them except in very limited circumstances. Didn't the article make that clear?

The only thing made clear in the article was the writer enjoys his tires, after all, Mr Spira could've included interviews with people who hated run flats and had had bad and costly experiences, there was no journalistic attempt to show all sides of the run flat controversy - the survey was meaningless for reasons already mentioned by me and others.

In short, the piece J wrote, in the trades, is called a "puff piece".

Are you bucking for a position as Spira's PR guy? I'm pretty sure J can answer for himself.

Also, I'm pretty certain mr Spira understands that once you put your creativity out there for everyone to see, you're going to get responses - lots of 'em and some won't be positive- developing a thick skin is part of the business.

Ed

It´s not news (nor editorial), it´s a feature. And it expresses my own experiences (in this case) as well as several other BMW owners whom I interviewed. And my opinion.

Feedback is fine by the way, thanks. Better to have you talking about it than not.

Oh, and about the survey. As a survey, it was not statistically meaningful and it didn´t get much play in the article (if I recall, I think it was in a sidebar actually). It can be used as a barometer and that was its only value.

I think someone posted that few people even know what brand tire they have let alone whether they are run-flats, all seasons, or what have you.

By the way, the point of the article was to write about RF technology, which very few people really know about. Re the roadtest, if you read any automotive publication, you´ll see that the opinions and experiences are those of the writers and that they don´t even go to the extent I did in terms of interviewing others most of the time. I´m not saying that for a pat on the back (don´t want one) but just to clarify what the magazine asked for and got.

Originally Posted by EdCT

dark side of the run flat experience?

Which is???

Originally Posted by EdCT

J Spira gives very short shrift to the costs of run-flats, but perhaps worse, where's the concern over the logic of the whole thing? If you get a flat far from home and far from a run flat dealer, you'll likely have to pay for a regular tire for the interim AND a new run flat when you get home.

Costs can be measured in ways other than dollars and cents...

Originally Posted by EdCT

Then there's the hard ride and increased weight penalty

I thought the E90 suspension was tuned to eliminate the hard ride issue? And isn't the elimination of the spare tire actually a weight savings?

Originally Posted by EdCT

About the only real advantage, and Spira is correct here, to the run flat is safety - a blow-out at high speed can be a life-threatening experience and run flat tires can mitigate the danger (up to a point, a shredded tire is a shredded tire).

Isn't that the whole point of a run flat tire?

What about saving somebody from having to change the tire on the side of the interstate- an obviously dangerous and deadly task.

Originally Posted by EdCT

He's also probably correct in assuming the run flat is the future, but I would've hoped for a better balanced piece, especially in Roundel, which usually isn't afraid to publish articles critical of the accepted norm.

Ed

So what would be the opposing view? Run flats suck because even though they can save your life, they cost too much money and make the ride too stiff?

Front and side impact airbags add weight to a car thereby causing handling issues and fuel consumption issues not to mention extra up front and repair costs. Maybe we should look at those in the same light of the run flat tire?

Way to Me. Sorry Ed, but you seem to be finding it hard to accept that there are a number of us who like the runflats. I for one have no road noise issues, and no harsh ride problems. They provide fantastic grip in the turns and provide a margin of safety that seems well worth the price. The new Bridgestones appear to provide about 30,000 miles of tread life as well. Not bad for a sport tyre.

Originally Posted by mdsbuc

Way to Me. Sorry Ed, but you seem to be finding it hard to accept that there are a number of us who like the runflats. I for one have no road noise issues, and no harsh ride problems. They provide fantastic grip in the turns and provide a margin of safety that seems well worth the price. The new Bridgestones appear to provide about 30,000 miles of tread life as well. Not bad for a sport tyre.

If you don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger. JSpira has been a great contributor to the Roundel and I for one enjoy reading his articles.

As far as runflats go, ok they are not for everybody. There are some rather anal people who will hate rf's regardless. A few who have unfortunate experiences, etc. But I contend the same tire stories have been uttered year after year with non-run flat tires as well.

Tread life? = who has not has a bad set of non run flats in which the tread wore out too soon? Fact is all the run flat tread wear issues were related to tires produced years ago. Dunlops I believe had the issue. The 19" run flats on the 6 will yield a good 30k miles. That is more than any non run flat sport tire I have had on any of my bimmers.

Noise?= Who has had a set of non run flat noisy tires? If you read the 6 series interior sound numbers, the cabin is a quiet as a Lexus LS430. Go figure. I guess that is still not good enough.

Weight? = The Goodyear F1 non run flat tire weighs in at 28 lbs, heavier than any run flat tire. As a matter of fact, Bridgstone tires weigh about the same whether you get run flats or not.

Cost?= Who has had a flat with a non run flat sport tire and the sidewall was ruined and had to wait a few days for the tire to be ordered? Most likely you won't find 18" or 19" tires (run flat or not) stocked locally except for maybe the dealer.

Ride Comfort? = No passenger even questions the run flats while riding in the car. I think this is an issue where none exists. For gosh sakes, any low profile sport tire is a little rough.

Safety? = Ah yes this is what it boils too. If you don't care about you and your passenger's safety , take the cheap route for the sake of a slightly smoother ride over a bump. Why you are at it, get rid of those pesky airbags and ABS systems, they are just unecessary added weight.

Interesting feeling about the run flats here.

As a prospective E90 owner, I have to admit that the idea of run-flat tires does not appeal to me at all.

While I need some additional "stick time" before I pass judgment on the handling/ride issue, it is the maintenance and upkeep that worries me. I often do road trips through some pretty lonely areas with only small towns. No performance tire shops...no BMW dealerships...for HUNDREDS of miles. I've also live in places where there were only two BMW dealships in the ENTIRE state and they were both more than a hundred miles appart. Heck where I live now, not a SINGLE tire store carries my 16" tires, let alone a set of 18" Bridgestone RE50 Runflats! Its the rarity and the cost that make me nervous to drive on run flats...far more than if I had a spare in the trunk.

Now there is also the matter of no dip-stick...but that is a matter for a different thread.

Originally Posted by Me530

Which is???

You answered it with my comments re cost and difficulty in getting replacements.

I thought the E90 suspension was tuned to eliminate the hard ride issue? And isn't the elimination of the spare tire actually a weight savings?

There are two types of weight issues with cars, sprung and unsprung. Yes, it's true the runflat eliminates the spare and thus "sprung weight", but rf tires are heavy and therefore increase "unsprung" weight - this means you've got more weight hanging off the four corners of your car, this makes the ride and handling worse - something you won't know about until you slap four "normal" tires on your car.

Run flats also have less grip than regular tires of the same type, making them poor performers at the local autox and track events.

What about saving somebody from having to change the tire on the side of the interstate- an obviously dangerous and deadly task.

Yes, and I made that point, no need to repeat it.

Front and side impact airbags add weight to a car thereby causing handling issues and fuel consumption issues not to mention extra up front and repair costs. Maybe we should look at those in the same light of the run flat tire?

There is a lot of debate among guys who like to track and autocross their cars about this very issue, it's weight creep and it sucks, but that's a different subject.

I autocross, do you? I also run runflats in the summer and a high performance nrf in the winter on the same car, do you?

I therefore, feel somewhat qualified to express my experience pro and con - fwiw, I've got a set of Bridgestone run flat performance tires on my Z4 right now, where they'll remain till they wear out. I will likely replace them with another set of rf's because, as I had mentioned earlier (but you seem to have missed) I like the safety advantage.

My only hope is the manufacturers address the other issues.

Btw, my criticism in this thread wasn't pro/con rft, but rather, J's "feature" in the current Roundel.

Ed

Originally Posted by EdCT

I autocross, do you?

Fortunately, thanks to Mike Miller's suggestion in a previous Roundel, I only track/autocross my Honda.

Originally Posted by EdCT

Btw, my criticism in this thread wasn't pro/con rft, but rather, J's "feature" in the current Roundel.

So what exactly is your problem with Spira's article? It seemed more like you had problems with the pros of rft ownership.

Originally Posted by EdCT

There is a lot of debate among guys who like to track and autocross their cars about this very issue, it's weight creep and it sucks, but that's a different subject.Ed

This could be the issue then, Jspira's article was directed at the tyre's usage for daily driving (probably 99% of the usage) while you're looking at it from a racing perspective. Those are two different scenarios, and I would see removing the run flats as a "mod" for your racing set up.

Originally Posted by mdsbuc

This could be the issue then, Jspira's article was directed at the tyre's usage for daily driving (probably 99% of the usage) while you're looking at it from a racing perspective. Those are two different scenarios, and I would see removing the run flats as a "mod" for your racing set up.

When talking about racing, a lot of things could/should be removed...

1. CDV
2. run flats
3. sun roof
4. iDrive
5. leather interior
etc.