Close to the sidewall can still legally be repaired, but it requires hot vulcanisation, which most repair places can't offer.
If they are cheapish tyres, change both.
If they are both nearly new, not too expensive tyres, change the one.
If they are both well worn, change both.
If they are both fairly new and expensive, then it might be worth pursuing the vulcanisation option.
Don't even think of using an inner tube. Modern, tubeless tyres are not made smooth enough inside and can wear through. They can also go suddenly - a friend ended up going backwards into a motorway barrier. Luckily only the car and barrier were damaged and it was late at night, with little traffic.
None of them require cars visiting the country to have matching tyres, only that tyre places replace tyres in pairs.
There are some mountain passes where a requirement for winter tyres or even chains is signposted and failure to adhere to those can result in fines.
IIRC, Germany's requirement for winter tyres is not absolute. Germans are "required" to change their tyres for winter or summer, but if they fail to do so, they are simply assumed to be at fault in any accident.
Don't forget your spare, if you have one. Mine is a full-sized spare, on a matching wheel and about 1/3 worn. So ideal to replace a part worn damaged one and the new could become a spare.
Why is it that most tyres (in my experience) develop punctures close to the edge of the tread (where they can't be repaired) rather than in the middle of the tread (where they can be)?
It's not that I've conveniently forgotten about "the majority" of punctures which *can* be repaired. Of the various punctures that I've had over the years, I'd say that about 3/4 have been unrepairable at the edge of the tread.
That's leaving out punctures in the sidewall - like when an oncoming tractor pulled onto his wrong side of the road (after previously being stationary, which I interpreted as "he's seen me and is waiting for me as he should") and forced me to swerve onto the verge, ripping the sidewall of a tyre that had about 50 miles use on it: I was not best pleased at that, and I didn't get his number to claim off him.
If the other front is significantly worn, I'd replace both, and scrap whichever is the worst of your remaining 3/4 tyres. If the other front is less than say 25% worn, I'd probably leave it on.
I think the logic is that, on or near the limit, if the rears lose grip first, backing off the throttle will make things worse, but if the fronts lose grip first, backing off the throttle will help to regain grip.
But yes, under normal conditions, you would instinctively want the driven and steering wheels to have the most grip.
Far better to have the front begin to let go, where you can ease off and get it back under control, than to have the back end pass you and you have no control.
It's the same reason that the rear brakes of home-built cars are tested to ensure that they don't lock up before the front wheels on heavy braking - production cars are designed from the outset for that.
Legally you can fit different makes of tyres provided they are the same size and construction. If the "good" tyre isn't very worn I would just replace the punctured one with the closest in tread pattern I could find.
formatting link
I have had this done by reputable dealers recently.
I would not use a "part worn" as you don't know how they have been maltreated. Putting a tube in isn't legal as the problem is the structure of the tyre could been damaged. If you were to have an accident then your insurance company might be unhappy...
What is a shame here is how many 'perfectly good' tyres end up getting dumped when they needn't be.
1) You drive over something and it either goes straight in and stays there (but not causing a leak as it doesn't penetrate the inner skin) ... or stays there till you hear it and pull it out (still not causing a leak), or comes out (still not causing a leak).
You didn't realise you drove over something but may have damage to the structure of the tyre but because you haven't had a puncture, you carry on until:
a) The then tyre fails, potentially hiding the damage b) The damage is spotted and repaired or replaced c) The damage isn't spotted and the tyre replaced when worn out.
2) You drive over something and it either goes straight in and stays there, not causing a leak (even though it has penetrated the inner layer, see a, b and c above), stays there but causing a slow leak, meaning:
d) you carry on driving on it and assuming no TPS / warning, do so at speed without noticing, cause the tyre to heat up excessively and eventually blow out.
e) and / or you notice it's low / flat the next time you look at that tyre or notice it when driving, in which case you:
f) Pump it up and drive on it some more g) Replace it with the spare and get it repaired or replaced.
or stays there till you hear it and pull it out (causing a leak), then either f or g above.
Now, the repair in the case of say a panel pin making a clean hole though to the inside of the tyre (and it not compromising the structure of the tyre at all) simply requires some sort of means of stopping the air getting out. Tyres often suffer all sorts of cuts and holes in the treaded area that are no deeper or more dangerous than the tread itself.
The 'problem with them repairing a leak is the amount of flex and therefore delamination risk of any air-blocking patch that may be vulcanised / glued to the inside. If such a patch should come loose then the risk is no different / greater than when you got that puncture in the first place.
The flex in the tyre is greatest near the sidewall / tread area and hence why most places won't fix a leak there, not because doing so is in itself dangerous (as in compromising the structure of the tyre) but simply because it's unlikely to last. The issue isn't the goal, it's the (typical) process used.
Now what if there was a way of blocking the hole to stop the air leaking out that couldn't become delaminated because it wasn't stuck over the hole but was stuck in it, from the inside?
Now we know they do that with the 'mushroom' repairs but that often / generally involves drilling the hole out by quite an amount, potentially then doing structural damage (cutting one or more of the cords) in the process.
If a hole did expose one of the cords / belts and it happens to be steel, a patch on the inside can prevent air getting out but not water getting in and potentially rusting a steel cord / belt, causing it / them to fail later on. Again, an 'alternative' repair could fill the entire hole with a material that cures with heat and time and prevents both the air getting out and water getting in.
If a larger object penetrates the tyre it could do damage without causing any air loss (even if it goes right though). All could be well till the object is thrown out and then the tyre could suffer a rapid deflation and then (depending on the speed , load and distance traveled), cause a complete tyre failure.
It's my personal preference (and has been for 20+ years now) to treat all my tyres with a semi-liquid pre-puncture gloop (that is self balancing, non corrosive, water soluble in it's uncured state and not anything like most similar products or the 'emergency' get-you-home cans) that seal any puncture up to a reasonable size and not on the sidewall, in every case so far for the remaining life of the tyre and
*before* you will have done any damage by running the tyre when partially deflated / deflating.
Whilst it is designed to be used pre-puncture, I have used it many times as a post puncture repair and in no instance has the tyre leaked further or had any other issues, often saving a perfectly good tyre because the 'system' hasn't yet caught up to the fact that such things exist that do work and are safe.
And why would the tyre companies push such a solution versus selling you a new tyre?
Personally, I would much rather risk the instance when such a repair makes any situation worse, over the though of me, my family or anyone else being put at unnecessary risk from the more likely risks when dealing with the consequences of a puncture.
This type of solution (excuse the pun) is already available off-the-shelf via offering like the Continental 'Contiseal' range:
formatting link
... and we enjoy the same level of protection from a product called 'Punctureseal'.
formatting link
That's not 'and products like it with similar names', it's specifically that and only that product (although I'm sure others may exist).
This includes our trailers, motorcyles, cars, vans, mobility scooters and other peoples ride on mowers, wheelbarrows and the like.
I'm not advocating it's use over a spare wheel, I'm reflecting it's use to prevent (in most cases) having to use the spare wheel.
I had two 255/35R19 Y tyres on the old car that had punctures in the centre of the tread. Simple fixes. Then I a screw go in right on the edge of the sidewall of the latest car when I had had it for only 4 days. Ruined a 255/40R18Y RF that had only 2250 miles on it. Not a cheap replacement.
I had to buy a tyre to get through my MOT. All the others had been changed because of punctures. It was cheaper than the one I had to buy last year. Same tyre, same dealer. but still £145.
One car I had had 4 alloys where the spare was a steel.
I found myself in a similar situation so I bought a new rim, well 2 in fact from eBay.
I know you can't keep your spare on your car, but if you can store one then you can either change in pairs, or in your current case, swap with a good spare without discarding a part worn tyre.
In article <ruri3q$v6s$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)" snipped-for-privacy@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
I had a weird experience with my Jeep Cherokee when I put 2 new tyres on the front. It wouldn't drop out the diff lock. I had to drive slowly to the dealer who then explained that the way out of it was to put one new tyre on each axle - or buy 2 more new tyres.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.