lifemoveon
10-08-2012, 01:32 PM
I’m not sure if you do this, but I curse under my breath every time I go to the pump. Fuel price is crazy isn’t it! When I first arrived on this fair shore in 2009, price of diesel was less than £1 a litre. It has since gone up to £1.40+ - a humongous, wallet busting 40+% increase!! In 3 years!!! :aargh4: This is a minute considering the history of mankind. I’ve not seen my wages increase similarly and the GBP has gone down against pretty much most Asian currencies since then. Ok… rant over!
I’m lucky to be invited by Michelin again to review their latest set of tyres – the Energy Saver +. To the petrol head, this could mean the end of fun and the start of penny pinching. In a way, yes, in a way, no! Let’s take a hard- nosed analytical approach to this.
Let’s start with background. Do you know that 70% of accidents in Europe occurred on dry roads? 60% of accidents occurred in urban and low speed? 75% occurred on straight roads instead of cornering? Sounds counter-intuitive doesn’t it given that we think accidents happen mostly in the wet and when you are going too fast. However, these statistics are based on 10 years of European accident data. That’s because it is proportionate to what ordinary folks like you and I do. We spend most of our time driving in the dry, because we avoid going out in the wet and we certainly don’t spend most of our time in the car doing neck-breaking cornering. Yes, fact is that most of us are ‘normal Joes’. We use our car to get from point A to point B. We love our family dearly and we spend within our means. We are budget conscious. So Michelin is targeting this new set of tyres, the Energy Saver +, squarely at us.
Let’s consider another set of numbers here. Do you know that 20% of total fuel consumption is spent on overcoming rolling resistance? Yes, that’s the tyres! -the other major fuel consumer being drag, which is a function of the car’s aerodynamics.
The name ‘Energy Saver +’ seem to me to project an image of joylessness and tree-hugging, however I’m definitely neither of these! Cost conscious, yes the hell I am! I had a very critical look at the tests that Michelin has done on the Energy Saver + as compared to competitors – Pirelli P1 Cinturalo, Goodyear Efficiency, Continental Premium Contact 2E and Bridgetone EP150 Ecopia. The cars, all Golf 1.6TDI, fitted with competitors’ tyres and Energy Saver +, then drove it across Europe for 30,000km. The cars are driven in a convoy with similar speed to ensure fair testing. They were also subjected to dry/wet braking tests during the journey. The results were astounding! The Michelin beat all the competitors, in terms of wet/dry braking, fuel efficiency and longevity. The test itself was conducted by Dekra, an independent testing body that sets the industry benchmark for such controlled analytical tests. So this is no fluff!
How did Michelin do this? Why can’t other tyre manufacturers replicate it? Let’s first understand the simple conflicts of tyre manufacturing. Dry vs wet handling. Manufacturers have to reconcile the conflict between designing a tyre with deep grooves for wet handling, but which can compromise dry handling. Next conflict is longevity vs fuel savings. This boils down to the thickness of the tyre thread. You can achieve a longer lasting tyre by adding more depth to the tyre tread. However this would compromise fuel efficiency and handling. I understand that Michelin have a massive army of 6,000 staff focusing on R&D. They tried to explain the polymerisation and tyre compound, but they lost me massively at the first material. I’m no chemist or scientist and my only knowledge of biology is limited to the human essentials! So how Michelin achieved the excellent economy, longevity and yet still provide good dry and wet braking/handling is down to pure investment into R&D, bringing knowledge from racing and tyre development into the materials used in this tyre, the tyre design and the increased contact patch. There are 200+ raw materials going into that tyre and a massive amount of analysis into tyre structure. Ok, I get that.
I was also introduced to another set of ‘futuristic’ tyres that Michelin has developed. The ‘EV tyre’. This set of tyres is designed to extend the range of electric cars, reduce interior noise, yet provide handling, safety and longevity which is synonymous with Michelin’s range of tyres. The tyre has a lighter carcass, high tech components and a tyre tread design to achieve this. It has achieved an ‘A’ rating for both fuel efficiency and wet braking. I asked an innocent, but potentially loaded question ‘If you have done all this R&D and come up with such a tyre, why is this not implemented across the entire range of Michelin tyre and can we not fit these tyres on all our cars?’ The answer is that this is still under further development before it can be implemented into mainstream tyres and EV cars are fundamentally different due to the difference in speed, torque and weight of these cars. Fair enough.
Whilst all these facts and numbers look fanciful, to be honest, I’m not totally sold on them yet. I have yet to physically test these tyres and don’t know how they handle in the real world or on track. Whilst I’m a penny pincher, I’ve still got petrol coursing through my veins. How much do I potentially lose if I buy these as compared to more sporty tyres? I’m greedy, I want it all – big bazookas, nice bumpers, the works! During the Q&A session, I asked another question ‘You have all these tests and comparison against similar competitors, have you got any analysis and comparison against your own range? How does the Energy Saver + fare against the PS3? How does it fare against the Primacy 3? Can we quantify the difference in performance? How much more efficiency do I get? How much dry/wet handling do I lose?’ Unfortunately I’m not too satisfied with the answer. I understand that compulsory tyre labelling will come into effect from November this year. However I also saw the weakness of the labelling – not all the key customer performance criteria are appraised the manufacturers carry out their own testing under the European Guidelines, and it’s not easy to convert the tyre ratings into actual performance figures to aid comparison and tyre choice. I can also see how tyre labelling could simply create an industry that aims to purely ‘score’ against the tyre ratings.
Whilst the tyre manufacturers lament the lack of product knowledge amongst consumers in the UK, I throw down this challenge to all tyre manufacturers. This is a massive opportunity to communicate product knowledge and differentiate your tyres versus others. Seek to establish further standardised tests for factors such as longevity. Everything should be controlled, car, size of wheels and tyre profile. It should also be done by an independent third party, not the manufacturer. Plaster this all over the internet and mass media so that everyone can make a truly informed decision of what they are buying. Why not add a warranty behind tyre performance e.g. longevity (within a certain range) so that people would know what to expect from the tyres?
Michelin has done much to ensure it’s a market leader today, but in respect of tyre labelling, the industry needs to move further along these lines if the customer is to be truly informed.
I’m lucky to be invited by Michelin again to review their latest set of tyres – the Energy Saver +. To the petrol head, this could mean the end of fun and the start of penny pinching. In a way, yes, in a way, no! Let’s take a hard- nosed analytical approach to this.
Let’s start with background. Do you know that 70% of accidents in Europe occurred on dry roads? 60% of accidents occurred in urban and low speed? 75% occurred on straight roads instead of cornering? Sounds counter-intuitive doesn’t it given that we think accidents happen mostly in the wet and when you are going too fast. However, these statistics are based on 10 years of European accident data. That’s because it is proportionate to what ordinary folks like you and I do. We spend most of our time driving in the dry, because we avoid going out in the wet and we certainly don’t spend most of our time in the car doing neck-breaking cornering. Yes, fact is that most of us are ‘normal Joes’. We use our car to get from point A to point B. We love our family dearly and we spend within our means. We are budget conscious. So Michelin is targeting this new set of tyres, the Energy Saver +, squarely at us.
Let’s consider another set of numbers here. Do you know that 20% of total fuel consumption is spent on overcoming rolling resistance? Yes, that’s the tyres! -the other major fuel consumer being drag, which is a function of the car’s aerodynamics.
The name ‘Energy Saver +’ seem to me to project an image of joylessness and tree-hugging, however I’m definitely neither of these! Cost conscious, yes the hell I am! I had a very critical look at the tests that Michelin has done on the Energy Saver + as compared to competitors – Pirelli P1 Cinturalo, Goodyear Efficiency, Continental Premium Contact 2E and Bridgetone EP150 Ecopia. The cars, all Golf 1.6TDI, fitted with competitors’ tyres and Energy Saver +, then drove it across Europe for 30,000km. The cars are driven in a convoy with similar speed to ensure fair testing. They were also subjected to dry/wet braking tests during the journey. The results were astounding! The Michelin beat all the competitors, in terms of wet/dry braking, fuel efficiency and longevity. The test itself was conducted by Dekra, an independent testing body that sets the industry benchmark for such controlled analytical tests. So this is no fluff!
How did Michelin do this? Why can’t other tyre manufacturers replicate it? Let’s first understand the simple conflicts of tyre manufacturing. Dry vs wet handling. Manufacturers have to reconcile the conflict between designing a tyre with deep grooves for wet handling, but which can compromise dry handling. Next conflict is longevity vs fuel savings. This boils down to the thickness of the tyre thread. You can achieve a longer lasting tyre by adding more depth to the tyre tread. However this would compromise fuel efficiency and handling. I understand that Michelin have a massive army of 6,000 staff focusing on R&D. They tried to explain the polymerisation and tyre compound, but they lost me massively at the first material. I’m no chemist or scientist and my only knowledge of biology is limited to the human essentials! So how Michelin achieved the excellent economy, longevity and yet still provide good dry and wet braking/handling is down to pure investment into R&D, bringing knowledge from racing and tyre development into the materials used in this tyre, the tyre design and the increased contact patch. There are 200+ raw materials going into that tyre and a massive amount of analysis into tyre structure. Ok, I get that.
I was also introduced to another set of ‘futuristic’ tyres that Michelin has developed. The ‘EV tyre’. This set of tyres is designed to extend the range of electric cars, reduce interior noise, yet provide handling, safety and longevity which is synonymous with Michelin’s range of tyres. The tyre has a lighter carcass, high tech components and a tyre tread design to achieve this. It has achieved an ‘A’ rating for both fuel efficiency and wet braking. I asked an innocent, but potentially loaded question ‘If you have done all this R&D and come up with such a tyre, why is this not implemented across the entire range of Michelin tyre and can we not fit these tyres on all our cars?’ The answer is that this is still under further development before it can be implemented into mainstream tyres and EV cars are fundamentally different due to the difference in speed, torque and weight of these cars. Fair enough.
Whilst all these facts and numbers look fanciful, to be honest, I’m not totally sold on them yet. I have yet to physically test these tyres and don’t know how they handle in the real world or on track. Whilst I’m a penny pincher, I’ve still got petrol coursing through my veins. How much do I potentially lose if I buy these as compared to more sporty tyres? I’m greedy, I want it all – big bazookas, nice bumpers, the works! During the Q&A session, I asked another question ‘You have all these tests and comparison against similar competitors, have you got any analysis and comparison against your own range? How does the Energy Saver + fare against the PS3? How does it fare against the Primacy 3? Can we quantify the difference in performance? How much more efficiency do I get? How much dry/wet handling do I lose?’ Unfortunately I’m not too satisfied with the answer. I understand that compulsory tyre labelling will come into effect from November this year. However I also saw the weakness of the labelling – not all the key customer performance criteria are appraised the manufacturers carry out their own testing under the European Guidelines, and it’s not easy to convert the tyre ratings into actual performance figures to aid comparison and tyre choice. I can also see how tyre labelling could simply create an industry that aims to purely ‘score’ against the tyre ratings.
Whilst the tyre manufacturers lament the lack of product knowledge amongst consumers in the UK, I throw down this challenge to all tyre manufacturers. This is a massive opportunity to communicate product knowledge and differentiate your tyres versus others. Seek to establish further standardised tests for factors such as longevity. Everything should be controlled, car, size of wheels and tyre profile. It should also be done by an independent third party, not the manufacturer. Plaster this all over the internet and mass media so that everyone can make a truly informed decision of what they are buying. Why not add a warranty behind tyre performance e.g. longevity (within a certain range) so that people would know what to expect from the tyres?
Michelin has done much to ensure it’s a market leader today, but in respect of tyre labelling, the industry needs to move further along these lines if the customer is to be truly informed.