[RogueAI]

Originally Posted by GTBrandon

I apologize I was not trying to go against your opinion. Just wanted OP to know that he would have ground to fight the company denying the claim if they tried. Didn't want him being worried about switching if insurance was the only thing holding him back.

No worries. I agree with you so not going against my opinion

I've had a tyre shop say the same thing to me in the past so I understand why the OP was curious as to others experience.

[Sherweeeny]

Originally Posted by feng

Each to their own.

I didn't mind runflats, but the road noise and the feel is much nicer on the non RFTs.

It was about 50-100 per tyre different per runflat for me.

I don't do heaps of km, but still 20-25k/year which is heaps.

It's also not really about replacability. It's more about when it shreds, you can't drive on it anyway.

Again, each to their own. I'm sure I'll have RFT again sometime down the line, but at the moment, the roadnoise, handling, feel and ultimately cost is enough for me to justify non-RFT... especially when I have some form of roadside assistance.

Just on a side note... exactly how many flats have you actually had in your driving time (on non-RFT), and how long have you been driving for?

I found a huge disparity between shops on the price. In the end I found a continental shop over near five dock that did each tyre for $220

My tyres were shredded and I would still drive on them - the sidewall is stiff so you can do whatever really.

Ive been driving 12 years, doing about 20000kms a year on average. Ive had all up 4 flats, 2 sidewall bubbles and one ripped sidewall, hence why I see the value in them. Hopefully they get better over time with ride for you, but in saying that, my M sport E46 with conventional tyres rides harsher than my M sport 340 on RFTs

[x328x]

First off thank you for everyone's advice and opinions. It was a very difficult decision and one that took hours of my life researching on the net.

So drum roll please....I stuck with the original RFT tyres.

Yes I know what was I thinking

well I will try sum it up as quickly as possible

1) I always thought the Potenzas were a good tyre as a daily. It lasted me 49,500km's and I felt very confident with them. Been through one track day and much spirited driving

2) the 2 things I disliked was the road noise and the stiffness. I read that moving to non RFT's would improve this greatly

3) after a few reviews I was surprised how well the Potenzas did against non RFT performance tyres. It bet the all mighty MPSS in some physical tests. In a nut shell they are really good tyres and I think if you are spending over 400 dollars a pop, no matter what brand you go, you cant go wrong

4) I am a man who likes to mitigate risk. Goo will not same me if the puncture is bigger than 3mm. The fact that RFT can take more damage and still be driveable was the tipping point. This is my wifes daily and we have a 5 month year old. It just seemed more safe and convenient.

I have had two punctures in the 15 years of driving. From memory goo would have saved me. But if its that long weekend and I am driving out of Melbourne and I happen to run over something big whereby goo will not save me. I know I would be losing my s!@#. I just cant handle that

5) that fact i was complaining about stiffness and comfort. What do I expect. I should stuck with the sport line and the normal softer springs than the M sport springs...or dont be a tight ass and get the adjustable dampers. Or I should have bought a Mercedes hahaha. I love my BMW, stiffness is a consequence of sportier drive.

6) Road noise. Well cant do much about that. Thats just the disadvantage of RFT's.

To conclude I paid 1395 fitted/balanced/alignment. there is a buy 3 get 4 free at the moment. If not the cheapest I was quoted was 1650

[Sherweeeny]

Good choice mate!

[Sherweeeny]

Good choice mate!

[BaxterF30]

Job done....you won't have to worry about that decision again for another 50k, personally I think you've made the right decision.

I've already experienced a pretty severe puncture with the RFT's, late at night, semi-rural area, no traffic lights and I was approx 15k from home. Was able to continue my journey home safely.

I'll also be sticking with RFTs when it's time for replacement.

[Dan.E46]

Not a bad choice in the end. Probably better value in the long term as well. If you went with non-RFT, you would have needed suspension adjustment (to do it properly). Now you have a good ride with the extra safety factor.

FYI, I had a puncture in one of my RFT and took it to BMW, they said the puncture was too close to the wall and they couldn't fix it, they wanted to charge me $700 for new tire (fitted). I went to Bridgestone directly (which was a 5 minute drive away) and they fixed the puncture for $20. Lesson learned, get a second opinion!

[GTBrandon]

Originally Posted by Dan.E46

Not a bad choice in the end. Probably better value in the long term as well. If you went with non-RFT, you would have needed suspension adjustment (to do it properly). Now you have a good ride with the extra safety factor.

FYI, I had a puncture in one of my RFT and took it to BMW, they said the puncture was too close to the wall and they couldn't fix it, they wanted to charge me $700 for new tire (fitted). I went to Bridgestone directly (which was a 5 minute drive away) and they fixed the puncture for $20. Lesson learned, get a second opinion!

Why would you need a suspension adjustment to put non-runflats on?? I've installed plenty of non run-flats without ever touching suspension and there has never been an issue..

[x328x]

Originally Posted by GTBrandon

Why would you need a suspension adjustment to put non-runflats on?? I've installed plenty of non run-flats without ever touching suspension and there has never been an issue..

Well from what i have read (mostly people's opinions) when BMW design the cars they factor in the RFT and its stiffer side walls. In theory they would tune the suspension to accomadate that. Now if you go to a non RFT you have tyres that are less stiff. Therefore in theory you should go stiffer suspension ( i.e stiffer shocks/springs) in order to have a similar ride and driving dynamics.

Again not sure how factual this is. Makes sense. But unless this has come from a actual bmw engineer who designs the cars i am not sure.

[GTBrandon]

Originally Posted by x328x

Well from what i have read (mostly people's opinions) when BMW design the cars they factor in the RFT and its stiffer side walls. In theory they would tune the suspension to accomadate that. Now if you go to a non RFT you have tyres that are less stiff. Therefore in theory you should go stiffer suspension ( i.e stiffer shocks/springs) in order to have a similar ride and driving dynamics.

Again not sure how factual this is. Makes sense. But unless this has come from a actual bmw engineer who designs the cars i am not sure.

I highly doubt they tune their suspension for run-flat tires given you can get different rim options/tire options from the factory. If you went to the dealership right now and bought non-runflat tires, they would not touch a thing on your suspension. The only thing you are going to loose with going non-runflat is weight of the tire(good unsprung mass reduction), and terrible driving feel/noise from runflats. To each their own, but that suspension idea is BS, only issue is not having a spare, but trade off is worth it IMHO