[AZT]

We all need basic clarity on the exact regulation that exists now. I agree that this was judicial over reach and the buyer was aware of this before he made the purchase but does the Motor Vehicles Act mandate that spare wheel should be the same size.

I'm still not sure about that and if so is the law then how are so many companies dodging it by providing smaller spares.

[Kosfactor]

I would imagine that as a customer it is within your choice to purchase a vehicle fit for the utility in mind. There is no point buying a sports car if you are a frequent intercity traveler, it does not make sense.

Similarly there is not much advantage in having a 30 profile spare, you`re going to damage that in the next pothole unless you drive carefully to begin with.

[aneesh2M]

Originally Posted by ScorpioYadav

Pardon my ignorance & for others uninitiated like me, what are these run flat tyres ?
I’ve come across this term for the first time in this thread.

@ScorpioYadav, Run flats are the tyres which are designed such that you can drive for certain no of Kms with limited speed in case of a puncture/flat tyre, usually for around for 80 to 100Kms with speed of 80kmph max. idea is to reach near tyre repair shop without having to stop or to change for a spare. these tyres usually have a thick side wall or a separate auxiliary rubber insert on the rim to take the weight of the vehicle in case of air loss.

[Sasanka_Sanga]

Thumb rule : Spare tire cannot be used as your normal tire. It just helps in pulling your vehicle to the nearest service station where you can get your tire replaced/get your puncture work done (depends on the damage).

I do understand, it poses safety risk in giving a tire smaller in diameter/size or XYZ conditions. We also need to accept the fact that cars are designed with a definite space which cannot accommodate the entire tire (same as the running tires). Just to mitigate the pain of driving a flat tire to the shop, they are providing a spare wheel which does the job at low speeds.

One needs to drive slow, till his/her car tire is fixed.

No offence. Purely my opinion though.

[laluks]

Originally Posted by AnandB

I am driving my Kodiaq to Ladakh in a month and it comes with a space-saver which is already giving me head-ache. Worse part is i don't think i can even put a full-size tyre in its space.

This was the main reason why I had to reject Kodiaq when I was looking out for a new one. The space is not sufficient if I want to get a full sized spare afterwards.

Had asked this to the sales advisor and he also confirmed no space to put full sized one. I only visually checked and felt the same.

For my kind of drives I prefer a full sized spare, and the guys who know me even wondered why I have two full sized spares in my boot

[JoshMachine]

Good to know that the court ruling gave the right judgement in this case, however not sure if it will open a Pandora's box!

Agreed that most of the manufacturers globally, do this for primary reasons of:-
* saving space in the boot
* reducing overall cost
* enabling better fuel efficiency, by being lighter in general

But in the Indian context, we want all of the above and a full-size spare wheel also

What Car? carried out a survey in the UK (2018) to find out which cars came with a spare wheel. Amazing & detailed insights!

Survey of 251 new car models from 31 brands:- found that just 8% come with a full-size spare wheel
A space-saver is standard on 30%, while 55% have a tyre repair kit rather than any type of spare wheel. The rest are fitted with run-flat tyres.
Source

[saisree]

Originally Posted by itsmejack

Honda City that I got few months ago has different spec for spare tyre (175/65R15 84T) and regular ones (185/60R15 84H). Is it safe to use spare tyre as both seem to be different?

Absolutely safe to use. Just maintain the speed limit. Return back to the original tire when you have it ready. I have done couple of long drives with my spare tire. Had a puncture once and a side wall cut in the other instance to the original.

[Ik.Singh]

I don't understand the court's verdict. It is the manufacturer and not the dealer who puts the spare wheel in the vehicle. So why penalise the dealer for no fault of his?

In addition to this, many car manufacturers have made giving a space saver tire as the usual norm. Does this go against the govt. guidelines? If no, then even the manufacturer can't be penalised.

On a side note, I hope the OEMs take this verdict seriously and start giving full sized spare tires in the vehicles.

[autoholic]

IMO, the manufacturer should not have been penalised in this case. Most models of the BIG-3 car manufacturers have no wheel well for spare tyres. It's a well-known fact. I don't think that the Q7 buyer didn't know about the space saver before buying the car. Scooters used to come with spare tyres, now they don't. The wheel and tyre are cheap in this case otherwise buyers would have lined up in courtrooms regarding the same.

Manufacturers giving space saver tyres may be construed as cost-cutting only if the car is equipped with a wheel well that can accommodate a full-size tyre. Many manufacturers after the advent of tubeless tyres, run-flat tyres and TPMS feel that it's best to do away with the spare tyre fully. Still, some provide space savers as standard or an option. Also, many high-end cars have staggered wheel setup, which tyre size do you suggest for the spare then? Most high-end cars are RWD, which makes it all the more difficult to have a wheel well in the boot as the space is occupied by the rear diff.

Space savers cannot be called cost-cutting, but a compromise between usable boot space and tyre emergency.

[landcruiser123]

I hate this obsession with no spare wheels or donuts in cars.

Forget India, I wouldn’t travel in remote regions in the US without a full-size spare. I’ve got burned due to a puncture - had to wait 3 hours (due to swollen capped lug nuts) and drive back at a slow 45 mph (72 kmph). To say it was annoying is an understatement.

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by autoholic

Space savers cannot be called cost-cutting, but a compromise between usable boot space and tyre emergency.

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

To say it was annoying is an understatement.

The discussion is getting polarized here between the 2 ends of the spectrum, i.e. between a full-size spare and the space saver 'donuts' being provided especially in the D+ segments.

For example, my BMW 330i is shod with 225/50/17 run-flat (RFT) tyres but comes with an imported Continental 135/80/17 space saver (SST). When I had a non-repairable puncture (luckily only 2 km from my residence), I could limp back, but could not effectively use the car for nearly 2 months because BMW could not provide the replacement tyre!

Startling difference:


So, even sitting in BLR I was severely hobbled. I was worried about blowing out the expensive (~₹20K!) SST especially as there were roadworks near my residence. I cannot even imagine what would have happened outstation with a full car load of passengers and luggage.

Now, if BMW had provided an option, say 195/65/16 (translating into a -.47% difference), I could have easily used (and reused it) for most routine driving with zero apprehensions. Even for staggered setups, it is not rocket science to select a narrower tyre with similar (if not identical) characteristics.

In summary, my take is that manufacturers should not blindly follow the Western philosophy of providing ridiculously thin (and expensive) donuts with highly restrictive limits on speed and loads. A better compromise is to provide a 'normal' tyre which can be safely used (and reused) without worrying. As long as the final characteristics are within +/- 3%, AND the tyre is safe enough multiple time usage, it will work admirably in developing countries like India.

What works superbly in the West (for most urban centres) does not necessarily work elsewhere.

[Mar21]

I believe that this is a step in the right direction. We need to see more of these decisions. Some may term it as judicial activism, but i think it is needed.

I don't buy the argument that the space saver is better from a rotation / tyre change perspective. Nor do i buy the argument that it saves space - the spare sits in the well, which is always lower than the rest of the dickly floor level.

If the car is well designed, there is no reason for a proper spare to eat into the storage space

We should have full size spares (if alloy, then the same alloy design as well, not a steel version).

A friend recently had a sidewall tear in the C200d at Mahabalipuram while on a road trip.

The car had to be sent to the chennai workshop for a replacement (was driven to chennai by the service center agent on the donut) and driven back with a new tyre.
They were planning to spend a couple of days at Mahabalipuram, so it worked out.

I had a flat in the middle of no where in Goa, driving through the state. And another in the hills of Uttrakhand. 15-20 mins is all it took for me to get driving again.

Yes, we stopped at the next puncture repair shop, got the tyre fixed and continued.
there was none of this send the car to the service center 100-150 km away to get a tyre changed charade.

The car is meant to get us from place A to B - and having a donut just makes it harder to do so in the 'moments of truth' (more time, more stress, more anxiety)

[tilt]

Originally Posted by sramanat

With increasing service interval, space savers make sense. But the space saver should be properly rated - something like suitable for 80 kph for 100 km.

*SNIP*

I believe they are indeed properly rated (and printed on the tyre itself) for max 80kph and max 250kms use.

However, I do not understand the logic behind your point that increasing service intervals justify space-savers rather than a full-size. Would you kindly elaborate?

Cheers

[Sanjivvohra]

The spare tyre is for peace of mind while driving long distances. Given the unscientific road conditions that exist in India, I would be very worried if the spare was not full size.

Just go off the main highways and within a few 100 meters, you would find roads that are more potholes than roads. If you have a tyre puncture at one of these roads, I doubt very much if the SST will be able to even take you to the nearest tyre shop for repair.

What about the off roads in Ladakh etc? There are no tyre repair shops for kms on end, the roads have sharp stones that can actually cut a tyre (not just puncture). I would hate to be stuck in such a situation with an SST manufactured for the highways.

My take is, the court was right in giving this judgement.

[sramanat]

Originally Posted by tilt

I believe they are indeed properly rated (and printed on the tyre itself) for max 80kph and max 250kms use.

However, I do not understand the logic behind your point that increasing service intervals justify space-savers rather than a full-size. Would you kindly elaborate?

Cheers

Given,

1. The idea of rotating tires seems to be to ensure uniform wear & tear.
2. You tend to rotate tires during service
3. Usage/driving patterns over time vary wildly.

If you can manage the same driving pattern between each service interval, the tires will be uniformly worn out. Longer service intervals actually ensure that short term variation in driving pattern is smoothed over.

But that's not the case in India at least. For 6 months the road is dug up, the next 6 months there is slush because a lake is being drained etc. Add COVID lockdowns, reduced highway travel to the mix and the variation in driving pattern could last longer.

I think I am not being clear. Think of it like this - if you drive 10km on a gravel road, theoretically it is better to split into 5 2km chunks and have the 5 tires occupy all the 5 slots in your car. Longer service interval sort of misses this variation.