Phantom Mark

I have Goodyear RFT's on my 135's, average roads im my area transmitted some harshness into the cabin which I did not experience with the replacement Falken 452's, like someone else already mentioned however the sidewalls on regular tyres feel like they are collapsiing when cornering hard in comparisson to the RFT's lol, I had 17inc Michelin MX3's on my car for the trackday and the sidewalls on those felt much nicer however.

Banstead

Note: There is one real big advantage to run flat tyres - you don't have to carry a spare wheel around with you.
As the spare only saps power and more fuel in the long run.

v_therussian

I don't know... I'm running Bridgestone RFTs on my 123s (18in) for the past year and I am still undecided. On the plus side for the RFTs is the safety and the stiffer sidewalls. On the minus side - stiffer sidewalls cause rims to crack in pothole-ridden NY and of course the ridiculous cost of the RFTs vs conventional. Factoring the costs of the tires and repairs of the cracked rims, I'd say that conventional tires are the way to go, but the only thing that's still holding me back is the stiffness of the sidewall - I just like that hard feeling to the wheels in the corner and no rolling under of the tire.

dusandimic

A bottle of fix a flat solves that problem.

rik zeppelin

My 04 came with a spare AND runflats, which were replaced by the dealer twice because they were defective. No way in hell was I going to pay $1600.00 the next time around for the same crap. Since then I've run Michelin, Goodyear Eagle F1 GS D3, and now I'm on to my set of Falken 452's for which I paid a grand total of $800.00, including mounting AND ROAD HAZARD, which INCLUDES 24 hour roadside assist. (Kick Ass tires btw)

I have never had a blowout, nor have I ever had all four tires fail as in the video. I HAVE had, on 2 separate occasions, a small roofing screw puncutre a tire, which both times I cured with a 15 cent tire plug, then a patch at the tire shop. On another occasion I had a non repairable sidewall puncture, which was replaced for free under the roadhazard, and I spent another 200 to match another new one on the other side.

Total spent for 3 tire failures- about 25 bucks. The cost if these were runflats? $1200.00 plus.
Also, the edge of adhesion is the edge of adhesion no matter what kind of tires you're on, so save some cash and have fun in your e60 without worrying about it. If you buy good tires you won't experience anything close to the ridiculous extremes they showed in the video.

jrbmwenthusiast

+1 for runflats. Thanks for the video. I think track rats and racers don't like runflats because runflats wear faster than normal tires. But in everyday use if you experience an emergency situation runflats may not only prevent or minimize damage to your car, they may save your life! Now that?s worth the slightly higher tire price and minor inconvenience of lower ride quality.

DD_545i

Exactly! I think of them now in the same category as seatbelts, airbags and traction control. All major safety developments that can keep me out of the morgue should the worst happen. I don't think the argument of never having a blowout holds up either. I've never had a head-on collision but I want my airbags and seatbelts in case I ever do. I've never died, but I want my life insurance. I've also never had my car stolen but I want that theft insurance. These are all things you have in place in case the worst happens, and I think RFTs have demonstrated that they can certainly keep you in control for a highspeed blowout, and not only that, they can keep you going all the way to the nearest tyre replacement joint, or to a safer place than the side of the highway for you to change your own.

It's not just in this video, but in many tests, otherwise why would they make them and why would the car manufacturers be convinced. The likes of BMW have thousands of the top engineers in the world working for them, and they're convinced enough to put them on either as an option, or as standard.

There will always be people who'll turn off the traction control all the time, despite it keeping you on the road, and people who won't wear seatbelts, despite them keeping you from going through the windshield, so it makes sense that there are some that will reject RFTs despite them keeping the car from spinning or flipping and rolling in a high speed blowout.

It wouldn't surprise me if Tiff and Vicks (from the video) reject them too, as they're both all about the performance usually. It's a shame they didn't extend the test to compare them against non-RFTs to see how they performed against the unpunctured tyres. I'm assuming (from the reports of people who've removed them here) that the non-RFTs would have been quieter, faster and smoother.

Phantom Mark

I agree, hard to "like" normal tyres no matter how good they are afterwards eh, despite this im pretty happy with these Falken 452's even if they feel like the sidewalls tuck when you press on

Thats the idea of the video, to show you the maximum extremes to highlight the benifits of the technology, unless your trapped by a police stinger nobody is ever likely to have that scenario eh......

Maybe a fair generalisation but I was happy with my RFT's on my 135 MV2's, the only reason im not running them now is because I changed rims with a Falken 452 package included, I like to track day and drive quickly, the RFT's never caused any real concern and if anything they felt more sporty on turn in especially because of the stiffer sidewalls, in the wet they were a little slippery compared to the falkens no doubt about that.

The biggest things for me are the slightly jittery ride on UK A and B roads, and the cost of purchase, they are seriously over priced and for that reason alone I probably wont purchase a new set in the future.

mhs525

What ever your car can do on run flats it can do better on non run flats

DD_545i

Does that include driving for 50 miles at up to 50mph with a puncture?