# Hankook tyres fitted You must read this.



## DTPCHEMICALS

Are Hankooks safe?
A couple of weeks ago I contributed to the thread on tyre pressures.. The topic raised some safety issues in my mind so I contacted Hankook.
After several e mails to Hankook I am now told that a safe single axle loading is as below .
I have just done 1200 or so miles in a week with these tyres.
3000 miles in total since fitment.
The supplier e-tyres assured me that these tyres were safe before fitting last May.
Last week they also gave me an assurance that they were suitable for motorhomes.

Now this does get confusing as the original fit Michelin tyres were the same spec and loading capacities. 1030kg per tyre.

Latest reply from Hankook, whilest I was on holiday.
Hello David
In reply to your e mails that you have stated axle loading details and confirmed rear axle is single wheel fitment, *the rear axle of single wheel fitment with a tyre capacity of 2060 kgs and your motor home rear axle loading of1950 has not enough safety margin. The maximum of1855 kgs axle loading is strongly advised not to be exceeded to ensure safe operation* and that the tyre you have fitted is not suitable for motor home use.
Chris Baxter
Technical Service Manager
Hankook Tyre UK Ltd


----------



## TDG

That's not good news Dave  
Not suitable for* motorhome use *:?:
Are they really especially singling out motorhomes :?: 
If so it it because the load is constantly high as opposed to "white van" where the *average* loading is often relatively low :?:


----------



## jud

*tyres*

hi dtpchemicals. i do know that you are suppose to fit camping tyres only to m/h's as van tyres are different most if not all come with camping fitted  because m/h's e.t.c are just a van chassis but driven around fully loaded all the time that is what i was told and it makes sense . jud


----------



## wakk44

*Re: tyres*



jud said:


> hi dtpchemicals. i do know that you are suppose to fit camping tyres only to m/h's as van tyres are different most if not all come with camping fitted because m/h's e.t.c are just a van chassis but driven around fully loaded all the time that is what i was told and it makes sense . jud


If that is the case then there are thousands of motorhomes driving around with the wrong tyres.

I don't think that this is relevant to DTP's post,the problem is that there is an insufficient safety margin with his stated axle loadings.

If the supplier e-tyres stated that they were within safety margins before fitting and Hankook say there is not then it would be advisable to contact e-tyres for their comments.


----------



## BwB

Is this something the insurance companies might point to in the event of a claim? Just thinking out loud.


----------



## dodger148

We have Hankook Tyres fitted as original supply from Ford, presumably from the factory on the chassis/cab supplied to AS


----------



## jhelm

I'm not claiming to be a tire expert. But in my mind a MH is no different than a truck so the same loading parameters would apply. The only reason to use special MH tires is if you leave yours sitting around without moving it for months at a time. As for max load well that is max. Are you loading up to the max limit.

Finally it would seem that with the letter from Hankook you should be able to go back to the dealer and change tires or get a full refund.


----------



## erneboy

It might be helpful to ask Hankook why they are not suitable Dave. You could explain that you will have to go back to the supplier and would like to be able to tell them the reason, Alan.


----------



## JeanLuc

I think Hankook are referring to the tyre manufacturers' recommended 10% under-loading safety margin. The following is lifted from the leaflet "Motorhome Tyres" published by Tyresafe. (I thought this was in the downloads section, but cannot find it now).

"Tyre Loads and Inflation Pressures
In the interests of safety it is prudent to avoid continuous operation at the tyre's maximum load capacity. Surveys over the years show that the opportunity for unwittingly overloading a motorhome, or poorly distributing the weight are high. To safeguard against overloading the tyres, the UK tyre industry strongly recommend that when choosing tyres, the maximum technically permitted mass (MTPLM) of the vehicle should not exceed 90% of the tyre load capacity as indicated by the tyre's load index."

Since 2060 *.9 = 1854, I presume this is the source of the recommended 1855 kg limit advised by Hankook. Clearly, it is unwise to run at maximum axle loading for anything other than very occasional use. If the weight is unevenly distributed across the van, then the tyre on the "heavy side" will be running beyond its capacity.

The tyre safety leaflet from which I have quoted above shows two tyre formats with a *maximum* loading of 2060 (printed in red). They are 215/65 R 16 C and 215/70R15 CP

I question whether there is any real difference between the loading on a tyre posed by a motorhome as opposed to a commercial van, other than a continuously loaded condition (but that is dealt with by the use of CP tyres if you wish to use them). I think the Hankook reference to unsuitable for motorhome use relates to the expectation that a motorhome will have a high probability of being loaded to its maximum, and that the load is likely to be poorly distributed.

However, I am not a tyre expert and stand to be corrected by any members who are.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Thanks Jeanluc, 
That answers the question .

How many of us will unwittingly fit a scooter carrier, a rear box etc and thereby overload the rear tyres.

I was completely unaware of the 90% margin.

A little redistribution of Lady p`s apparell will no doubt leave us within the 90% zone.


Dave p


----------



## Traveller_HA5_3DOM

I think there is certainly a case for inflating tyres to the maximum pressure recommended in the tyre guide if you intend to run at maximum load on them. I always have a walk round mine as soon as we stop for coffee breaks and just feel the temperature. If they are running hot to the touch you are either under inflated or overloaded.


----------



## Zebedee

Step back and think logically! (He says, as another non-tyre expert! :roll: )

This appears to be the crucial point at issue. _"In the interests of safety it is prudent to avoid continuous operation at the tyre's maximum load capacity"_

What's the difference between a maximum loaded motorhome and a maximum loaded panel van, both undertaking a 150 mile journey . . . especially if the latter is going like a bat out of hell to earn a bonus!!

Unless you (not personally DTP) are one of those who belt along at 80mph in the M/H :roll: , your tyres will be subject to less stress and heating than the panel van.

OK, the panel van will be fully loaded (say) only once a week, BUT most motorhomes don't do long journeys anywhere near as often as that, so the situation is actually the reverse of what is sometimes assumed. The panel van (used every day but fully loaded only once a week) will actually be stressing its tyres to the limit more often than almost any motorhome.

JeanLuc talks a lot of sense, and I agree entirely . . . the essential question is, "What exactly is meant by _'continuous'_?"

Dave
Repeat - non expert, but lateral thinker! :wink:


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Wish I could think latterally. :lol: 

It all makes sense now.

I read the e mail as I came off jolly`s.

Keep to safety margin of 90% and all is well.

If my suzuki tyres are not hot, I have not been going fast enough. :lol: 

Dave p


----------



## Techno100

http://www.blackcircles.com/general/load-rating

My Agilis camping 15" are 109Q which carry 1030kg per tyre.

EDIT this appears to be the same as your Hankook but my camping specific tyres are of course reinforced so I believe this "safety margin" does not apply


----------



## pippin

Only slightly relevent - but here is the reply I received from Michelin when I asked about tyre pressures for the Agilis Alpins that I fitted to the fronts.

_Thank you for your enquiry about tyre pressures for your motorhome.

Based on the laden weights you have provided me with our suggested pressures for the Agilis Alpin 215/75 R16 113/114R are:

Front Axle 1360kg - 51psi

Rear Axle 1640kg - 51psi

Our advice however is that the Agilis2 Camping tyre is a more suitable fitment for your vehicle as it is specifically designed for motorhomes.

This tyre is M+S marked (mud and snow) to give sufficient grip when occasionally travelling in difficult conditions such as unsurfaced roads, mud and snow.

Should you decide to opt for the Agilis2 Camping, based on your axle loads, the suggested pressures would be:

Front Axle 1360kg - 51psi

Rear Axle 1640kg - 80psi

Should you require any further assistance please contact us on 0845 366 1590 (UK & NI) or 0044 (0) 1782 401590 (ROI), quoting the reference number above._

Just look at the difference in pressure for the rears between Alpins @ 51psi & Agilis2 Campings @ 80psi!!


----------



## Techno100

Yes mine are 50 front 70 rear just from experimentation on how the front and rear look by deformation and the rear still look more laden so I'm heading the right way it seems. Thanks for that.


----------



## pippin

I think that I will put Agilis2 Campings on the rear when the time comes.


----------



## jhelm

Question isn't the required tyre size listed in the vehicle documents. For example our Italian registration says our Hymer 644 needs:

215/75 R16C 113N C stands for light commercial 113 is the load of 1150k or 2536 pounds R a speed rating of 170k/hr. If we go below that and have an accident we might be in trouble. It doesn't say anything about special camper tyres.

How do we know the load on a tyre, divide the max load of 3,500/4=875k per tyre. With a rating of 1,150 that's about a 35% safety factor. How do they calculate the actual requirement per tyre.

On ours we have Michelin agilis 81 snow ice which we are running all year just because I don't want to have to change them.


----------



## bktayken

*Tyres*

Just a follow up on jhelms comment regarding the vehicle documents ..not having had a UK log book for many year not sure what the latest ones have regarding vehicle spec. do they not have tyre sizes etc???. 
On my Spanish Knaus Vans documents the specification is quite specific regarding the tyres. 225/65R/16C 112Q

The 112 is load the index of 1120Kg
The Q is the speed rating of 160 Km/h

Currently running on Michelin CPs

Not sure if this helps much but I will certainly replace with the recommended tyre spec.

Brian


----------



## 747

Just to add more fuel to the flames.  

I have the Burstner 747 Tag with a 5 ton MAM. It came without a spare, so I sourced a 16" rim and went looking for a tyre. BTW, it has 6 new Michelin Agilis tyres fitted.

The local chap I went to knew a bit about motorhomes and said that the Agilis tyres were barely up to the job on the front wheels. He said that if I was not careful about my van weight then I could have a mishap. He suggested a Mohawk tyre as a spare and it was almost half the price of an Agilis but capable of carrying more weight.

Who am I to argue with that. :lol:


----------



## The-Cookies

The following is what i got from michelin when i asked what pressures i should have.





Dear Sir/Madam 

Thank you for your recent e-mail.

We suggest that individual axle weights from weigh scale readings are used, in order to calculate pressure recommendations for each quoted load condition. These would be preferred, due to readings being taken in the actual vehicle 'running' condition - that is to say, with all water/fuel/baggage & passengers etc. on board - and may result in better comfort if the vehicle is running way below maximum capacity.
Motorhome’s often run continuously heavily laden, and sometimes overloaded, and the rear axle normally takes the heaviest loads.

The overall tyre industry, therefore, tries to build-in a safety factor by fitting strong tyres, inflated to high pressure, in order to remove the potential for consequences of overloading &/or under-inflating the tyres. Much of the improved endurance performance of CP motorhome tyres (compared to van “C” type tyres), required for these continuous arduous conditions of use, is 

One 'overall' weight is of no use in calculating tyre inflation pressure levels, since the vehicle may appear to be within the maximum permitted, but in reality may have the rear axle severely over laden & the front axle very lightly laden. 

We believe that the front tyre pressures have a greater influence than the rear tyre pressures on comfort and noise. Therefore, in our opinion, running with 80 psi in the rear tyres, and pressures adapted to the loads, vehicle characteristics and operating conditions in the front tyres, will give 

As a guideline from the axle weights that you have supplied on the tyre size of 225/65 R16 C and being the XC Camping or the Agills camping the pressures for those weights are as follows:-

Front axle load of 1850kg the pressure should be – 62psi (pounds per square inch) per tyre
Rear axle load of 2060kg the pressure should be – 80psi (pounds per square inch) per tyre

When no axle loads are available, you would be advised to follow the manufacturers recommended pressures, indicated on the fuel cap / door-pillar / vehicle handbook in relation to the tyre size fitted – specifications can change without our knowledge.

We have allocated your message the reference number indicated above. If you need to contact us again regarding your message, we would be grateful if you could include the reference number.

Once again thank you for your interest in Michelin.

Yours sincerely
Michelin Tyre Public Limited Company


----------



## gaspode

747 said:


> He suggested a Mohawk tyre as a spare and it was almost half the price of an Agilis but capable of carrying more weight.
> 
> Who am I to argue with that. :lol:


Exactly the same advice that I was given by my tyre suppliers when renewing the Michelin XC Campers at 5 yrs due to sidewall cracks. I believe they're 10 ply rather than the Michelin 8 ply.


----------



## 747

That is correct gaspode. The Michelin are rated at 113 and the Mohawk is a higher rating (but as it is stored away in the m/home under lots of junk, you will just have to take my word for that  ).


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Hankooks are safe, as safe as any other tyre of the same rating.

I took mh down to weighbridge this afternoon and got weighed.
Reasonable clothing loaded, no water, half a tank of fuel. No food
No bikes on rack. Me 95kg on board
The weights were as follows:
front axle 1550kg sv tech plate max load 1750kg
rear axle1850kg sv tech plate max load 1950kg.

So I am inside the 90% safety margin. of 1854kg as the tyres are rated at 1030 kg each.

Now when I see motorhomes with scooters stuck on a rack at the rear I wonder how much over the safe load they are putting on the tyres even though they may not be exceeding the axle load.

May I thank Chris Baxter of Hankook for taking the time to explain the weights and safety margins to me.

Dave p


----------



## joedenise

You are only 100Kg off your rear axle weight so by the time you add and bikes, food etc you must be very close to max, same as most people.

Joe


----------



## Techno100

Most people always keep the fresh tank full especially in Europe and top up at every opportunity?


----------



## Techno100

So if I understand this you're travelling everywhere on half a tank of fuel no bikes no wife no food no water? :roll:


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Lady p`s modest weight will be over the front axle.
I can still juggle a few items from rear locker to the front ie tool box which hardly gets used,
But it would be the same situation with the Michelins that I replaced.

Dave p


----------



## Jean-Luc

A pair of bikes weighing 50kg would put about 65kg on the back axle, that leaves only 35kg before overweight


----------



## Mrplodd

So there is a world wide standard in use for rating tyres in respect of maximum weight and max speed!

As I understand it, for some reason Michelin produce 2 version of the same Agilis tyres, "C" & "CP"

Both have the SAME maximum weight rating (in the case of my size thats 112) yet one is 8 ply and one is 10 ply. 

The 10 ply (CP) can be run at a much higher pressure yet Michelin say it can still only carry the same weight as the 8 ply (C) tyre ??

Why buy the CP tyre?? It can still only support EXACTLY the same weight as the (considerably cheaper & easier to obtain) "C" rated tyre?? The same weight as ANY OTHER 112 rated tyre 

Are Michelin trying to say that the "C" rated tyre is "less safe" on a MH than the "CP" rated one?? If so why do they both have exactly the same load rating ?? 

I am not trying to be difficult or controversial, just keen to understand what, if any, is the advantage in buying "CP" tyres 

The main reason I have chipped into this discussion is because I bought 2 x 112 rated Agilis "C"s last week to replace a pair of ageing 112 load rated Vanco's that have done many thousands of "loaded up to their rated limit" miles all over the continent without issue!!


----------



## dandywarhol

Also think of the extra load put onto marginal tyres when you encounter one of the zillions of potholes and speedbumps............. :?


----------



## Mrplodd

If thats the case how come the forum is not full of tales of motorhome tyres failing on a regular basis under such circumstances???


----------



## dandywarhol

Mrplodd said:


> If thats the case how come the forum is not full of tales of motorhome tyres failing on a regular basis under such circumstances???
> 
> There must be a safety margin built in to the load ratings!! Just think about white van man kerbing his "loaded to the limit" van !!!


.....................and just how many failed tyre carcasses do you see littering the motorways from white van man and above? 8)

http://www.goodyear.eu/uk_en/tire-advice/tire-information/tire-load-index.jsp

as it reads..........._The load index is an industry standard which determines the maximum service load on a tyre of a vehicle._


----------



## teemyob

*Re: tyres*



jud said:


> hi dtpchemicals. i do know that you are suppose to fit camping tyres only to m/h's as van tyres are different most if not all come with camping fitted because m/h's e.t.c are just a van chassis but driven around fully loaded all the time that is what i was told and it makes sense . jud


Not True.

Many motorhomes have standard fit C rated commercial van tyres.

Camping tyres are not made in all motorhome/van tyre sizes.

See my many postings regarding this issue and other comments made stating that all motorhomes should have "camping" tyres fitted.

False statements like this lead to panicking and possibly people end up paying to replace tyres that do not need replacing, or paying over the odds for specific tyres.

I think Hankook may be covering their backs.

Many White Vans as they are deemed often do carry full loads all day every day. I don't know why people suggest that very few do.

If anyone needs any help with tyres. Please drop me a PM and I will see if I can help.

And remember, the stiffer the sidewall, the firmer the ride.

TM


----------



## teemyob

DTPCHEMICALS said:


> Are Hankooks safe?
> A couple of weeks ago I contributed to the thread on tyre pressures.. The topic raised some safety issues in my mind so I contacted Hankook.
> After several e mails to Hankook I am now told that a safe single axle loading is as below .
> I have just done 1200 or so miles in a week with these tyres.
> 3000 miles in total since fitment.
> The supplier e-tyres assured me that these tyres were safe before fitting last May.
> Last week they also gave me an assurance that they were suitable for motorhomes.
> 
> Now this does get confusing as the original fit Michelin tyres were the same spec and loading capacities. 1030kg per tyre.
> 
> Latest reply from Hankook, whilest I was on holiday.
> Hello David
> In reply to your e mails that you have stated axle loading details and confirmed rear axle is single wheel fitment, *the rear axle of single wheel fitment with a tyre capacity of 2060 kgs and your motor home rear axle loading of1950 has not enough safety margin. The maximum of1855 kgs axle loading is strongly advised not to be exceeded to ensure safe operation* and that the tyre you have fitted is not suitable for motor home use.
> Chris Baxter
> Technical Service Manager
> Hankook Tyre UK Ltd


What size are the tyres Dave?


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

tyre size and spec the same as the original michelins that were replaced at less than 5 years old due to cracking.

217/70R15C 109/107R Hankook RA08

Dave p


----------



## peribro

My understanding is that stronger sidewalls will be more resistant to punctures and cuts and will also "withstand better" the continuous high weights place on them compared to standard "C" tyres. I'm not completely clear about what "withstand better" means but I don't see that it can relate to everyday driving since the standard tyres are rated to the same load capacity. Instead I think it more likely to relate to the life of the tyre. A 4000kg van parked up for the equivalent of several years is going to put less stress on tyres with strengthened sidewalls than ones without. I imagine that this will ultimately result in a lower life for the non-stregthened tyres - possibly bulges and cracks appearing before they would do in tyres with strengthened sidewalls.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

i agree peribro.
A Mh also has different driving characteristics to a normal van, leaning more into corners , wallowing on roundabouts etc.
Its not a simple question to answer.

Michelin make two types of tyre for a simple reason.
Niche market makes more profit But no advantages on load limits.

Dave p


----------



## teemyob

*rims*



DTPCHEMICALS said:


> tyre size and spec the same as the original michelins that were replaced at less than 5 years old due to cracking.
> 
> 217/70R15C 109/107R Hankook RA08
> 
> Dave p


If you have 215/70/15C

If your rims and arches can accept 225/70/15C

This will allow you to fit a number of C tyres that will take you to 112/110 Load Rating. Mostly R speed rating which is 106 mph.

As far as I know, the Only 115 Rating is the Vanco 2 but this limits you to a lower speed rating of N (87mph).

The 225's are within tolerance of your Difference in circumference which is - 1.07. This mean when your are doing 70 on your speedo, you will only actually be doing 69.25 mph (negligible). Allowing for speedometer inaccuracy of course.

TM

TM


----------



## fdhadi

Anyone used this company?

http://www.tyretraders.com/Tyres_Home.aspx


----------



## Matchlock

Had fitted last month to the front and spare Hankook Ra08,s, so far so good although the wagon is only rated at 3 ton so should be well within their limits.
Have a pair of "Nankang Super Trippers"on the rear, 3 years old, they where on when I bought it, took the wagon in for it's service and MOT today.
Everything OK apart from one of the Nankang's this had a 175mm x 10mm split on the circumference, you could see the steel showing through.
Needless to say I have just ordered 2 Ra08's for fitting next week, the mechanic said that it looked like a faulty tyre and I was lucky it did not blow when driving back from bath.
I did feel a vibration that disappeared at 60mph but just put it down to the new front ones not being balanced properly.

Barry


----------



## teemyob

*Tyres*



Matchlock said:


> Had fitted last month to the front and spare Hankook Ra08,s, so far so good although the wagon is only rated at 3 ton so should be well within their limits.
> Have a pair of "Nankang Super Trippers"on the rear, 3 years old, they where on when I bought it, took the wagon in for it's service and MOT today.
> Everything OK apart from one of the Nankang's this had a 175mm x 10mm split on the circumference, you could see the steel showing through.
> Needless to say I have just ordered 2 Ra08's for fitting next week, the mechanic said that it looked like a faulty tyre and I was lucky it did not blow when driving back from bath.
> I did feel a vibration that disappeared at 60mph but just put it down to the new front ones not being balanced properly.
> 
> Barry


I would not recommend Nankang tyres for motorhomes.

Would only use Nankang for budget use on vehicles making mainly low speed local trips.

TM


----------



## Matchlock

As I said in my previous message these where already fitted when I bought the Motorhome.
From my experience I would not recommend them for anything

Barry


----------



## Matchlock

Following on from my post about fitting 2 new Hankook's I have just had a mail to say that none are available either from Mytyres (who I ordered them from) or Hankook themselves.
Shame really as I have Hankooks on the front and as a spare (now on the rear due to the Nankang problem).
In a quandary now as to which tyres to buy, the Hankooks where priced at £83 each, don't see the need to go to the expense of camping tyre for a 3 ton vehicle.
Need to find something before the trip to Newbury (don't like travelling without a spare).
Anybody with any suggestions for a decent good priced tyre?

Barry


----------



## richardjames

Try Toyo H08 or H09


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Try these, they fit tyres at your home or place of work

www.tyrefitdirect.co.uk

www.etyres.co.uk

www.blackcircles.com

A few to look at and compare prices

Dave p


----------



## Matchlock

Thanks to Richard for suggesting Toyo, have used them in the past and have been very satisfied with them.
Also thanks to Dave p for the links, www.tyrefitdirect.co.uk seems to have the H09's so will order from them.

Barry.

ps. SWMBO said to bite the bullet and pay the extra, she has plenty of work at the moment and I very little, who am I to argue!


----------



## dandywarhol

Matchlock said:


> Following on from my post about fitting 2 new Hankook's I have just had a mail to say that none are available either from Mytyres (who I ordered them from) or Hankook themselves.
> Shame really as I have Hankooks on the front and as a spare (now on the rear due to the Nankang problem).
> In a quandary now as to which tyres to buy, the Hankooks where priced at £83 each, don't see the need to go to the expense of camping tyre for a 3 ton vehicle.
> Need to find something before the trip to Newbury (don't like travelling without a spare).
> Anybody with any suggestions for a decent good priced tyre?
> 
> Barry


A 3 tonne front wheel drive vehicle needs every bit of grip it can get IMO - the slightest incline and weight transference means "summer" type tyres will spin at the slightest provocation.

I attempted the same camping spot on a dry, grassy hillock on Lewis with the VW this Easter and JUST made it - a breeze for the RWD Hiace last year :?


----------



## pcspike

Hi, 
I noticed a readers letter in the October MMM magazine relating to this subject of Camping tyres 'Tyre traumas' P220; interesting.


----------



## Jean-Luc

Matchlock said:


> ...................In a quandary now as to which tyres to buy, the Hankooks where priced at £83 each, don't see the need to go to the expense of camping tyre for a 3 ton vehicle.
> Need to find something before the trip to Newbury (don't like travelling without a spare).
> Anybody with any suggestions for a decent good priced tyre?
> 
> Barry


Consider this.

Last year, while driving up a steep hill on a wet night, I felt (through the steering wheel and the seat of my pants) the front wheels coming to the edge of their grip  . It was only by treating the accelerator pedal like it was an egg under my right foot that I avoided total loss of grip and catastrophe, a change of underpants was narrowly avoided 

The tyres were new (bought about two months previously) Michelin Agilis Camping which are reputed to be good wet grip tyres.

IMHO only the best wet grip tyres should be selected, within the weight bearing requirements of the axle of course. You do not know the day nor the hour when the maximum performance will be required from your tyres.


----------



## dandywarhol

I fitted a pair of Gislaved Nordfrosts to the front in November and despite no snow (yet) the difference on wet grass/mud is huge! I can now use the Clubman on wet grass with confidence AND after an over 100 mile run down the Aberdeen to Edinburgh the tyres were running cooler than the rears. Now pumped the rears up to 55 psi as the centres were cooler than the sides!

Reckon I'll use them all year in the UK.


----------

