I came across this NY times article:

http://tinyurl.com/2r3bmt

Just in case the link goes dead, here is the story which answers some questions many of us have asked:

New York Times

March 11, 2007
Motoring
Run-Flat Tires: Are They Solving a Problem or Creating Several?

By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN

RUN-FLAT tires, which have been offered on some new cars for the last few years, are a soothing security blanket. They can be driven for miles after losing their air, allowing drivers to delay fixing a flat until there is a safe place to stop and avoiding a harrowing tire change along a busy highway.
But consumers have begun to report problems with the tires. Jennifer Stockburger, a senior tire-test engineer for Consumer Reports magazine, said the tires offered a safety advantage, but the tire forum on its Web site (consumer.org (http://consumer.org/)) had many complaints from run-flat owners about higher-than-expected replacement costs, difficulty getting repairs and what some considered excessive wear.

Some owners have been unhappy enough to make a federal case of it, resulting in two class-action suits. The latest was filed on Monday in United States District Court in Los Angeles against Honda and Michelin.
Tire company officials say that run-flats, which typically have stronger sidewalls to support the tire when it loses air, should wear just as well as conventional tires and that problems often result from poor maintenance, including improper inflation.

Run-flat tires are offered on fewer than 3 percent of the vehicles in North America, said Tom L. Chubb, the vice president for original equipment marketing for Michelin North America, which makes several types of run-flat tires. He sees that growing to 4 percent by 2011.

Run-flat tires are most often found on luxury vehicles. BMW has been the most enthusiastic proponent among the leading automakers, and seems likely to make the tires standard on most models eventually. Run-flats are also showing up on less expensive cars like the Mini Cooper S. Run-flats have also reached upscale family vehicles including minivans like the all-wheel-drive Toyota Sienna (http://edmunds.nytimes.com/new/2005/toyota/sienna/100458136/review.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and the Touring edition of the Honda Odyssey (http://edmunds.nytimes.com/new/2005/honda/odyssey/100454393/review.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

Tire makers said that in the case of a blowout, a vehicle with run-flats was easier to control. Automakers like the tires because no spare is necessary. That means the space gained can be used to carry more cargo or make mechanical changes. For example, eliminating the spare tire in the 2004 Toyota Sienna allowed the company to turn a front-wheel-drive minivan into all-wheel drive by making room for a driveshaft.

The suit filed on Monday is over the Michelin Energy LX4 PAX run-flat used on the 2005-7 Honda Odyssey Touring and as an option on the 2006-7 Acura RL (http://edmunds.nytimes.com/new/2005/acura/rl/100444153/review.html?inline=nyt-classifier). The suit doesn’t dispute that the tires offer a safety advantage, but says buyers were deceived about replacement costs and repairs.

The PAX, instead of having stronger sidewalls, has a supportive ring inside made of polyurethane. Michelin said the ring allowed a more comfortable ride and better fuel economy because the sidewalls did not need to be so stiff, yet the vehicle was still safe and easy to drive when a tire went flat. But it is that design that makes the PAX more difficult to repair.

Michelin stores or car dealers must have special tire-changing equipment that can cost $3,000 to $15,000 depending on what the dealer already has, Chris Naughton, a Honda spokesman, said in an interview before the suit was filed. He said some dealers did not have the equipment yet, but that about 90 percent of Honda’s roughly 1,000 dealers would have it by the end of this month.

Mark F. Anderson of San Francisco, one of the lawyers who filed the suit, said it was “ridiculous” that repairing a PAX tire should be so complicated. Mr. Anderson also filed a class-action suit in 2005 against Toyota, Bridgestone and Dunlop over run-flats used on the 2004-6 Sienna with all-wheel drive. Lynn Mann, a Michelin spokeswoman, said the suit had “many misstatements and errors.”

Mr. Naughton of Honda said the company had not seen the suit, but that the tire was a “great product that provides convenience, added safety and peace of mind for our customers.” Although not a plaintiff in the suit, Maria V. Ocampo, an Odyssey owner from La Mirada, Calif., has had what she describes as a love and “there is room for improvement” relationship with PAX tires. She has had two flat tires and loved being able to still get her children to school and reach work on time. “I didn’t have to panic,” Ms. Ocampo said. But she says she has had several disappointments. She had to call Michelin to find a Honda dealer that could repair the tire. Also, she says her tires wore out after 20,000 miles; a Honda dealer recently told her that a new set would cost $1,600, including installation. “That is a lot of money for us,” she said.

Acura is not requiring its 250 dealers to buy the special repair equipment because few RL’s are sold with the PAX, Mr. Naughton said. He said about 15 percent of Acura dealers had the equipment. For travelers who can’t find a shop to fix the tire, Michelin said it could get a PAX tire and wheel delivered to customers in less than 12 hours.

The support system doesn’t work, said Jean Carper of Key West, Fla., an RL owner and one of the plaintiffs. She said she was stranded on a Saturday in upstate New York with two flat tires last year. She said she could not find a shop to fix the run-flats, was told by a Michelin dealer that it would take five days to receive replacements and had to wait until Monday to order them through an Acura dealer. She had them on her car by Tuesday. “It was a nightmare,” she said. “They did not have any facilities anywhere I was.”
As for the cost, Honda dealers are typically charging about $180 for a PAX tire plus another $60 for labor, Mr. Naughton said.

Michelin said a PAX’s tread should last about 35,000 miles. One reason some consumers may have thought their tires needed to be replaced is that the design of the shoulder of the PAX can make it look as if that part of the tire is badly worn, Mr. Chubb said.

Assertions of poor tire wear were the core of the suit against Toyota. In November, an out-of-court settlement was approved in United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.
Toyota said there were no problems with the tires, but in the settlement it agreed to expand a tire-replacement program it was already offering.
Bridgestone and Dunlop, which made the run-flats for the Sienna, also said there were no problems with their tires. However, engineers for the tire companies said in statements filed with the court that they changed the tires’ design in 2005, a few months before the suit was filed, to improve wear. They said they made the changes after learning of complaints, which they attributed to improper inflation.

Still, there is apparently a big range in what Sienna owners can expect for tire wear. A pamphlet that comes with the 2007 Sienna says that the run-flats may get as little as 15,000 miles to 20,000 miles or as much as 40,000, depending on conditions and maintenance.

Clarence M. Ditlow, the executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, said the court statements from Dunlop and Bridgestone engineers showed “the first-generation run-flat tires for the Sienna were poorly designed and wore out prematurely.”

“Whether it is tires or cars, consumers are well advised to avoid new models because they are prone to bugs,” he said.

Advantages over stressed, consumer under or misinformed.

I embrace this new tech, but we need more competition for prices to go down and quality to improves. Who wants to get out of the car when they get a flat :D!

From what I've heard, if you get a good brand they are solid and people will swear by them. However, if you get a subpar brand (like Bridgestone I believe) you'll end up hating them.

In theory the concept is sound. As far as practicality goes I guess I'll be finding out.

In theory the concept is sound. As far as practicality goes I guess I'll be finding out.

So what kind of brand are yours? I heard that makes a pretty big difference...

From what I've heard, if you get a good brand they are solid and people will swear by them. However, if you get a subpar brand (like Bridgestone I believe) you'll end up hating them.

I run RF Blizzaks(Bridgetone) in the winter and for what they are, I have absolutely no complaints about them. For a dedicated winter tire, they handle extremely well and are relatively quiet.

Consumerreports (as the NYT article) is very often full of bullshit and make a habit of praying on the paranoia of suburban middle america.

So basically people are buying the latest in tire technology that offers better safety and convenience and are unhappy because a) it has drawbacks and b) costs more than regular tires. Wooopie dee doo!! Guess the fuck what? That is the price for being at the cutting edge.

And the class action suit.. gimme a break.

BMW has always been at the leading edge. If you want a regular car go buy a goddamn Ford Mustang horse carriage or a Toyota Camry appliance.

My fiancee drives the BMW and it is a peace of mind for me. Six months ago she had a blowout on her old Touareg at highway speed, was able to pull it off to the side of the road safely but was then stuck on the side of a very busy freeway in a small emergency lane with random people stopping here to ask if she needed help for the hour it took for AAA to show up. To make it worse, I was over an hour and fifteen minutes away due to traffic and could not help her, which was a crappy feeling.

As far as I am concerned.. so what if they cost more and wear out faster, I didn't buy this car because it was economical.

Consumerreports (as the NYT article) is very often full of bullshit and make a habit of praying on the paranoia of suburban middle america.



BMW has always been at the leading edge. If you want a regular car go buy a goddamn Ford Mustang horse carriage or a Toyota Camry appliance.

I shouldn't pay $40K for a car and be forced to take poor performing tires (based on feedback - more wear, worse ride, worse handling). BMW should give customers a choice of run flats or conventional tires.

I shouldn't pay $40K for a car and be forced to take poor performing tires (based on feedback - more wear, worse ride, worse handling). BMW should give customers a choice of run flats or conventional tires.

So you are willing to pay 40-50k on a car but complain about maybe having to replace the tires for $400? LOL.

It's all about getting what you pay for. Cheap run-flats, most likely problems. People that complain are ridiculous. I love my runflats and $400 is not an issue, if it was I wouldn't have bought a $50K car.

In the rain. It takes less than 4 min to change a flat. under 10 if the trunk is full. Make them go away!! If you can't change a flat, you have no business driving. I made my daughter and wife change tires, in real world situation, I5 rushour, before I let them get a license. the price of runflats is = to the outrageous price of gas. it is a f@!K job!!

In the rain. It takes less than 4 min to change a flat. under 10 if the trunk is full.

NO chance my fiancee is going to change a tire. In her words "that's what AAA is for."

For me, it's peace of mind... the cost is irrelevant. If it was, I'd get a civic.

Friend......I'm happy to have runflats on my car. The article is IMHO, another means for the media to incite fear in consumers, like they have been doing with the housing slump. As long as the media keeps telling people the housing market is awful and people are losing value in their homes and it's a buyer's market and your home will lose value, people will buy it hook line and sinker and the media hype turns to reality.

A class action lawsuit. Give me a break........

In the rain. It takes less than 4 min to change a flat. under 10 if the trunk is full. Make them go away!! If you can't change a flat, you have no business driving. I made my daughter and wife change tires, in real world situation, I5 rushour, before I let them get a license. the price of runflats is = to the outrageous price of gas. it is a f@!K job!!

I don't even change tires on the highway. People have gotten killed doing that.

In the rain. It takes less than 4 min to change a flat. under 10 if the trunk is full. Make them go away!! If you can't change a flat, you have no business driving. I made my daughter and wife change tires, in real world situation, I5 rushour, before I let them get a license. the price of runflats is = to the outrageous price of gas. it is a f@!K job!!

I feel sorry for your family. I'd rather pay more for RFT for their convenience/safety. I guess different people have different ways of expressing love!

My fiancee drives the BMW and it is a peace of mind for me. Six months ago she had a blowout on her old Touareg at highway speed, was able to pull it off to the side of the road safely but was then stuck on the side of a very busy freeway in a small emergency lane with random people stopping here to ask if she needed help for the hour it took for AAA to show up. To make it worse, I was over an hour and fifteen minutes away due to traffic and could not help her, which was a crappy feeling.

As far as I am concerned.. so what if they cost more and wear out faster, I didn't buy this car because it was economical.

Word!!!

I shouldn't pay $40K for a car and be forced to take poor performing tires (based on feedback - more wear, worse ride, worse handling). BMW should give customers a choice of run flats or conventional tires.

RFT will be the standard, much sooner than later.

In the rain. It takes less than 4 min to change a flat. under 10 if the trunk is full. Make them go away!! If you can't change a flat, you have no business driving. I made my daughter and wife change tires, in real world situation, I5 rushour, before I let them get a license. the price of runflats is = to the outrageous price of gas. it is a f@!K job!!

less than 4 minutes? Let's assume 3:59.9. I call Bull Sh*t on that estimate. Blue, you've been told a million times not to exaggerate.

In the rain. It takes less than 4 min to change a flat. under 10 if the trunk is full. Make them go away!! If you can't change a flat, you have no business driving. I made my daughter and wife change tires, in real world situation, I5 rushour, before I let them get a license. the price of runflats is = to the outrageous price of gas. it is a f@!K job!!

ROFLMAO!!!

Yeah, if you keep an air compressor and air tools in your trunk with a hydraulic lift then MAYBE you could be that fast.

So you are willing to pay 40-50k on a car but complain about maybe having to replace the tires for $400? LOL.

Also worse ride and handling. IMO - run flats will either 1) improve or 2) slowly go away. I just wish I did not have to buy them. At least for now they could make it a choice.

When I bought my last A4, Audi forced me to get sport tires with the sports package. The next model year they wised up and made it a choice - all season or sport tires. This is a whole different debate - but I would hate the hassle of changing to winter tires and prefer good all season tires.

From what I've heard, if you get a good brand they are solid and people will swear by them. However, if you get a subpar brand (like Bridgestone I believe) you'll end up hating them.
What makes you say the bridgestone is subpar? The REO50A UHP (non run flat) is an excellent tire.I had the REO50A pole positions on my Evo IX and loved them. The BS RFT that came on my 07 335i coupe are the REO50A RFT. Except for slight road noise,they are an excellent tire.Great grip in tight turns with no squeal,excellent turn in and manuverabilty in spirited driving situations,etc. When these wear out i,m going with non fun flat UHP tires and carrying a patch kit in the trunk. I,m not defending RFT as a whole as i would rather have max performance summer tires like my last 3 cars,two of them being Evo,s.I,m just wondering why you called the Bridgestone REO50A RFT subpar, when in my opinion its an excellent tire except for the noise (road hum).

Also worse ride and handling. IMO - run flats will either 1) improve or 2) slowly go away. I just wish I did not have to buy them. At least for now they could make it a choice.

When I bought my last A4, Audi forced me to get sport tires with the sports package. The next model year they wised up and made it a choice - all season or sport tires. This is a whole different debate - but I would hate the hassle of changing to winter tires and prefer good all season tires.

So instead of complaining just pony up the $400 for the tires you want. After all that is 1% of the MSRP of the car AT MOST. Are you really going to complain about 1%?

1%?

are you dumb?

What makes you say the bridgestone is subpar? The REO50A UHP (non run flat) is an excellent tire.I had the REO50A pole positions on my Evo IX and loved them. The BS RFT that came on my 07 335i coupe are the REO50A RFT. Except for slight road noise,they are an excellent tire.Great grip in tight turns with no squeal,excellent turn in and manuverabilty in spirited driving situations,etc. When these wear out i,m going with non fun flat UHP tires and carrying a patch kit in the trunk. I,m not defending RFT as a whole as i would rather have max performance summer tires like my last 3 cars,two of them being Evo,s.I,m just wondering why you called the Bridgestone REO50A RFT subpar, when in my opinion its an excellent tire except for the noise (road hum).
no complaints so far with my RE050 RFT, but I am a bit concerned about their tread rating of 140. I guess that won't matter since I plan to replace them with 18" wheel/tire combo next spring.

So instead of complaining just pony up the $400 for the tires you want. After all that is 1% of the MSRP of the car AT MOST. Are you really going to complain about 1%?

1%?

are you dumb?
Judging by your posts and signature, you might have a very different idea of dumb.

run flats will improve that's a guarantee they're a relatrively new thing that will soon be on more and more vehicles and become better and better with time.

With all this talk about changing flat tires one would guess that some of you are flat tire prone? LOL

I haven't had a flat tire in almost 20 years now. After mentioning that I will probably wake up with a flat tire now. :)

I'd be more concerned with the lack of performance/ride associated with the RFT's rather than worrying about changing a tire. I personally am not impressed with them. Between my sport package and the RFT's, the ride can be jolting on rough pavement and especially going over bumps & potholes. I probably will change the tires and go with a conventional tire in the spring after my snow tires come off.

Granted, the RFT's are a good idea for people who are concerned about the possibilty of having to change a tire one day. But I am in my mid 40's and in decent shape and have no problem changing a tire should the need arise.

Bottom line.........personal preference.

in 20 yrs of driving, I've only had 1 flat. BMW should give you the option since you are comprimising in certain areas by having RFT's.
But I agree that they will get better, more popular, and less expensive after a few more years.

I just can't see the benefit of paying about $350 per tire for the run flats. The rears are about $110 more (each) than the exact same RE050's in non-runflats. I could save myself $400 on the same tires, or quite a bit more than that on different tires that may be just as good in handling, road noise, wear and so on, but then I'd have to get a tow truck or something if I couldn't use some sort of temporary tire repair kit to fix a flat on the side of the road. I'll see about it when the time comes... I should have about a year to think about it. What's your opinions? ...and are you going to spend over $1000 every 12 to 18 months for some wicked expensive ultra high performance run flats? I guess I could, but I just think that's rediculous.

I just can't see the benefit of paying about $350 per tire for the run flats. The rears are about $110 more (each) than the exact same RE050's in non-runflats. I could save myself $400 on the same tires, or quite a bit more than that on different tires that may be just as good in handling, road noise, wear and so on, but then I'd have to get a tow truck or something if I couldn't use some sort of temporary tire repair kit to fix a flat on the side of the road. I'll see about it when the time comes... I should have about a year to think about it. What's your opinions? ...and are you going to spend over $1000 every 12 to 18 months for some wicked expensive ultra high performance run flats? I guess I could, but I just think that's rediculous.
The problem currently is you have no choice other than the BS RE050 for high performance RFTs. I am hoping this will change by the time I shop for my 18"s next spring. I like the idea of RFT, don't, mind the noise, would pay a bit of a premium to get them but the current choice limitation and thus unrealistic premium is the only turnoff.
Totally different story for winter tires. I am more than willing to pay the extra 25$ or so per tire for a snow RFT. Not a fan of getting stranded in winter weather, had that happen with old cars I owned, not fun at all waiting for a tow truck in a blizzard or having to change a tire in -20F temps.

So with the TPMS and the RE050 RFT to be purchased, mounted, and balanced with a road hazard program... I'm looking at about $1800 USD? Holy cow!!! :eek:
How about just getting some $150 (each) tires that are non-RFT's and the TPMS stuff... so even that would end up being about $1000. Can I put 225/45 front and 245/40 rear on my stock 18" wheels? There are more options with those sizes.

This is ridiculous. One must only do a quick google search for

Killed while changing flat tire

Or something similar, to realize that it is quite common. Imagine this: Your wife and young child learn they have a flat while driving down interstate 15 in Las Vegas (where I live). They pull to the roadside and wait for AAA. A drunk cuts off a weary-eyed trucker (prevalent on this major shipping lane) who swerves and plows into your wife's car. The car is mangled and your wife and child are dead.

Well, at least you saved a few hundred on the cost of those runflats!!!

What about this:

You and your family are driving through (enter city here) on your way home from the movies. You get a flat and exit the vehicle to inspect the situation. You are on a relatively empty road traveling home at night. A car pulls over to "help" but the man pulls a gun. You and your family are robbed, your wife and teenage daughter are kidnapped and raped, possibly murdered, you are left for dead after being pistolwipped in the head.

At least you saved a few hundred on tires!!!!

Even the most basic situation:

You get a flat on the freeway and pull to the roadside to change it. A drunk hits you doing 75 mph. You are dead, your family is left husband/fatherless, but they have and extra $300 in the bank that you saved on runflats!!!

I can't believe people are so incredibly stupid to complain about such a thing.

My BS RE050 RFTs are great tires. I got 40k miles out of the first set and I drive like a maniac. The tires grip very well, handle wet weather fine, and don't squeal.

I happily handed over the $1200 for 3 new tires (one was new from warranty) last month and never looked back. I don't mind saving a few hundred bucks, but when I'm weighing the savings against something like the life of my wife or myself, or anyone else in my family, I'll pay the money.

Skimp elsewhere, don't eat at Burger King.

Stupid, just stupid.:mad

The tires are just fine

I have read many complaints on several boards about the RFTs, so much so that I purchased the warranty for them. I normally say no to the warranty offers, but this one I took just for piece of mind.

Based on the earlier posts, I'm starting to wonder am I the only one ever to purchase the tire warranty?!?

I like mine. And I have the tire/wheel insurance. They seem to handle very well--hook up nicely under hard acceleration, corner with high G's, etc.

My only issue is: do I go with winter runflats?

Sigh, another ~1k+ just so I can drive in the winter up here.

I have read many complaints on several boards about the RFTs, so much so that I purchased the warranty for them. I normally say no to the warranty offers, but this one I took just for piece of mind.

Based on the earlier posts, I'm starting to wonder am I the only one ever to purchase the tire warranty?!?
No you are not alone. If it weren't for the RFTs I wouldn't have purchsed it. The thing is when I get a nail in one of them I don't want to cheapen out and say I'll wait for a tow truck so I don't ruin the tire. I'll just keep on driving and get the warranty to cover the replacement. Silly I know, but the mind works in mysterious ways.

I like mine. And I have the tire/wheel insurance. They seem to handle very well--hook up nicely under hard acceleration, corner with high G's, etc.

My only issue is: do I go with winter runflats?

Sigh, another ~1k+ just so I can drive in the winter up here.
YES, I find RFT more important in winter weather when you don't want to be caught flat (pun intended).
Why 1K though, for winter driving (esp. snow) you are better going -1 on size and narrower which should only put you 500-600$ in the hole (not counting the wheels).

I'm counting the wheels--I'll be storing the original tires+wheels in my garage, away from all that winter nastiness.

I'm debating on whether or not to get the TPM sensors with the wheels as well.

Ah heck, in for a penny, in for a pound. I might as well go all the way and get 4 wheels, 4 tires (possibly runflat), 4 TPM sensors.

I hope they have Dunlop Winter Sport 3D's in run-flat (to keep my options open). I really like the 3Ds.

No you are not alone. If it weren't for the RFTs I wouldn't have purchsed it. The thing is when I get a nail in one of them I don't want to cheapen out and say I'll wait for a tow truck so I don't ruin the tire. I'll just keep on driving and get the warranty to cover the replacement. Silly I know, but the mind works in mysterious ways.

Doesn't sound silly to me...it's make perfectly good sense!

Should I still be rotating my tires between every 5000 and 7500 miles?

Can you? With my 335 (staggered setup) and directional tires, the tires can't really be rotated.

Hmm...I have no idea if I CAN rotate them. I guess I just assumed that I should...am I mistaken here?

Look at the tires on your car.

See if the fronts and backs are different size. If so, then you can't rotate front-to-rear and vice versa.

See if the tires say something like "directional" on them--or look the tire brand/model up on Tirerack--and see if they're listed as unidirectional. You might also see a set of arrows on the tires (looking something like ">>>>>>>" on the sidewall) indicating "tire to roll forward in this direction."

If the tires are directional, then basically* you can't rotate them left-to-right and vice versa.

*I've heard it suggested to remount these kinds of tires backwards--never tried it.

*I've heard it suggested to remount these kinds of tires backwards--never tried it.
That would probably defeat the purpose of rotating since any minimal savings in lifetime of the tire (and thus cost of replacement) would be erased by the cost of remounting the tire which as I recently learned is significantly higher for RFTs (and of course higher than just balancing and rotating).

In fact I am starting to wonder if rotating tires is cost effective at all. Cheapest I can get them rotated (and necessarily balanced if you are going back to front) is 40-50$. Say you do that every 5000 miles, and the tires last 30k miles, then it cost you 50*25k/5k = 250$ to rotate (25k = 20k minus last 5k). Say rotation buys you an extra 5k miles of driveability on those tires and your tires cost 1200$, then that is an advantage of 1200*5K/30k = 200$ still less than the 250 you paid to get them rotated?

Anything wrong with my logic? Please indicate.

I don't believe that you necessarily need them rebalanced when rotating front-to-back.

If the tire/wheel is already balanced, a re-balancing job is wasted money.

How about the ride ?? is RFT smoother or the standards ?

Hmm...I have no idea if I CAN rotate them. I guess I just assumed that I should...am I mistaken here?

I am guessing that the 335 has staggered tires, that is different sizes? The tires on my '07 328xi are the same at all four corners and I just did a four tire rotation to increase the tire life by evening out the wear.

Good thing I have two floor jacks and air tools since I don't have a car jack.

Gary

I am guessing that the 335 has staggered tires, that is different sizes? The tires on my '07 328xi are the same at all four corners and I just did a four tire rotation to increase the tire life by evening out the wear.

Good thing I have two floor jacks and air tools since I don't have a car jack.

Gary

Yes, they are staggered, and yes, they are directional. So no rotation possible. But that's not really that big a deal unless you want to change the type of tire you're using, in which case you'll have to throw away a couple of front tires that still have tread on them because the rears are more likely to wear fastser. But even then, that's not a huge issue; I did it on my old M3 all the time.

The snows, however, are not directional and are often (like I did) purchased in non-staggered format. Thus they are rotate-able.

Here is my take:

1. Please give me a choice of NON-rft.
2. BMW goes from full size spare to no spare. I always admired BMW for
giving me a fifth OEM wheel/tire.
3. You gain less and lose more with RFT. They are heavier so weight reduction is offset. They are noisier. Convenience of not changing a tire NOW is lost by having to go to the dealer or specialty shop very soon after you get the flat. You're often told "We cannot fix it so give us the $300-400 for a new one." What if you're driving on a long trip. Are you going to wait for BMW roadside or look for a place that can fix them or stocks RFT when you're in the middle of nowhere.
4. If your significant other is afraid or unable to change the damn tire, have them call roadside assistance. It's free! Remember you can die walking your doggy so don't do that anymore.
5. I think BMW got their RFT idea from Formula 1. They always screw up Robert Kubica's race in the pitstop so they figure we don't know how to change a tire. Or maybe too many of those women who don't know crap about cars call Roadside Assist and have BMW pay $100 for some tow trucker come and change your tire.

Bottom line, IMO RFT do not add convenience, cost more and should be an option for those who want them.

Here is my take:

1. Please give me a choice of NON-rft.
2. BMW goes from full size spare to no spare. I always admired BMW for
giving me a fifth OEM wheel/tire.

They have redesigned their cars to take advantage of RFTs so they eliminated the storage space for the spare and can't offer it anymore. So although they can offer the option of non-RFT, they have to do what they did on the M coupe and others where you get no spare but a mobility kit that is not a very optimal solutions. I believe BMW is pioneering the switch to RFT and will be taking lots of crap for it, but in time when RFT becomes standard we'll look back and say they were vanguards.

3. You gain less and lose more with RFT. They are heavier so weight reduction is offset. They are noisier. Convenience of not changing a tire NOW is lost by having to go to the dealer or specialty shop very soon after you get the flat. You're often told "We cannot fix it so give us the $300-400 for a new one." What if you're driving on a long trip. Are you going to wait for BMW roadside or look for a place that can fix them or stocks RFT when you're in the middle of nowhere.

Agreed, but that is not a fault of BMW or deficiency of the RFT concept. It is just a side-effect of the relative infancy of RFTs and I am sure once more manufacturers offers RFTs and RFT become more ubiquitous, these problems will become a thing of the past. But I agree till then, this is the biggest shortcoming of RFTs.

4. If your significant other is afraid or unable to change the damn tire, have them call roadside assistance. It's free! Remember you can die walking your doggy so don't do that anymore.

I respectfully disagree. Do you want your significant other (or even yourself) stranded in a bad part of town at night waiting for a tow. Yes you can die of a million reasons, but common sense says you take precautions.


5. I think BMW got their RFT idea from Formula 1. They always screw up Robert Kubica's race in the pitstop so they figure we don't know how to change a tire. Or maybe too many of those women who don't know crap about cars call Roadside Assist and have BMW pay $100 for some tow trucker come and change your tire.

lol, no comments.


Bottom line, IMO RFT do not add convenience, cost more and should be an option for those who want them.
Maybe they should be an option, and in a way they are, you can always swap them out (at some cost) once you receive your car or when they wear out. However I wholeheartedly believe that even with their current shortcomings, they offer a lot in the way of safety, convenience and peace of mind. This will be debated for a long time, but I am willing to bet that a year or 2 from now, most high end car manufacturers will follow BMW and start using RFTs as standard offering. Time will tell.

They have redesigned their cars to take advantage of RFTs so they eliminated the storage space for the spare and can't offer it anymore. So although they can offer the option of non-RFT, they have to do what they did on the M coupe and others where you get no spare but a mobility kit that is not a very optimal solutions. I believe BMW is pioneering the switch to RFT and will be taking lots of crap for it, but in time when RFT becomes standard we'll look back and say they were vanguards.

Agreed, but that is not a fault of BMW or deficiency of the RFT concept. It is just a side-effect of the relative infancy of RFTs and I am sure once more manufacturers offers RFTs and RFT become more ubiquitous, these problems will become a thing of the past. But I agree till then, this is the biggest shortcoming of RFTs.

I respectfully disagree. Do you want your significant other (or even yourself) stranded in a bad part of town at night waiting for a tow. Yes you can die of a million reasons, but common sense says you take precautions.


lol, no comments.


Maybe they should be an option, and in a way they are, you can always swap them out (at some cost) once you receive your car or when they wear out. However I wholeheartedly believe that even with their current shortcomings, they offer a lot in the way of safety, convenience and peace of mind. This will be debated for a long time, but I am willing to bet that a year or 2 from now, most high end car manufacturers will follow BMW and start using RFTs as standard offering. Time will tell.

Hello "mryakan":

Yea verily.

As I have posted before, this concerns me greatly. My opinion might change but right now I am leaning toward paying the money and taking the chances. At my advanced age and given the physical condition of the wife, the advantages of not stopping and worrying about the flat later is worth the few hundred $.

Then again, if the wife were to buy the farm in the middle of nowhere.... Hello Veyron. Or perhaps the new SLR.

Well, perhaps the RFTs are not the best choice. Let Darwin sort things out.

I just want to reiterate that it is less an issue of improved convenience than one of improved safety and lower risk. After all, who walks there dog six feet INTO the road or on a busy freeway?

Any opinions on the run flat tires in the snow? I ordered a 335XI, and it comes this Dec. I don't know much about them other than they come on the 18" sport rims as stock. I am replacing a Subaru WRX that has Bridgestone Potenza's on it. They run like a champ here in the Tahoe Basin wet, dry, snow or whatever. They are even V rated. Thanks for opinions in advance. I don't want to bash the new car before the holidays end while on the way to the ski hill, ha ha!

Any opinions on the run flat tires in the snow? I ordered a 335XI, and it comes this Dec. I don't know much about them other than they come on the 18" sport rims as stock. I am replacing a Subaru WRX that has Bridgestone Potenza's on it. They run like a champ here in the Tahoe Basin wet, dry, snow or whatever. They are even V rated. Thanks for opinions in advance. I don't want to bash the new car before the holidays end while on the way to the ski hill, ha ha!

Are you asking about the OEM 18 inch runflats? The consensus here is that they will act like hockey pucks somewhere under 40 degrees F. Regardless of snow.

Any opinions on the run flat tires in the snow? I ordered a 335XI, and it comes this Dec. I don't know much about them other than they come on the 18" sport rims as stock. I am replacing a Subaru WRX that has Bridgestone Potenza's on it. They run like a champ here in the Tahoe Basin wet, dry, snow or whatever. They are even V rated. Thanks for opinions in advance. I don't want to bash the new car before the holidays end while on the way to the ski hill, ha ha!
You'd need dedicated snow tires, preferably narrow 17s to cut through the snow easily. I personally would go RFT with winter tires just so I don't have to get out of the cold when I get a flat in a winter storm, alogn with the other benefits of RFT. Check out other recent threads on this and RFTs in general.

P.S. I got the Continental ContiWinterContact TS810 S SSR from tirerack. Those are RFTs.