LenT

Unlikely. Aftermarket sensors will almost certainly have to be programmed to the car and that requires specialist equipment. Are you also planning to fit the TPMS valves? And then presumably you will take the wheels to a tyre shop to have the tyres fitted. I suggest you will save yourself a lot of time and trouble by, first, locating a good tyre shop and choosing the tyres. Then ask them about fitting and registering OEM valves - you should be able to negotiate a good all-in price. It also makes them responsible for any problems!

Yes. It will invalidate any car insurance. It also renders the driver liable for a fine up to £1000 - but that’s the least of their problems! It sounds like you’ve had an encounter with a totally irresponsible driver and an equally feckless family. As others have observed, the other driver’s family will be very less eager to pay for repairs once they discover how much that’s going to cost. By then time will have passed and your own Insurers may be less than cooperative. Frankly I would report the driver to the Police and let them discover if he was even insured in the first place. And advise your own insurers and insist that the repairs are carried out by an Lexus-approved dealer. Individuals who are such casual law breakers can hardly be relied upon to act morally if caught out. This article explains the consequences of driving without an mot: https://www.protyre.co.uk/mot/what-is-the-penalty-for-driving-without-an-mot-certificate#

I’ve only occasionally stumbled across TV transmissions of E-Races, but I think these two comments neatly summarise the underwhelming nature of E-Racing. I don’t know if this is always the case, but the ones I’ve seen have all been street circuits. The problem there seems to be that the racing is mainly confined to nose-to-tail circulation, punctuated by the occasional collision or off-circuit excursion. All the time the degree of spectator involvement and emotive association appears to be akin to that of an electric lawnmower as they hum around the circuit. Mind you, I’m also losing interest in F1 for similar reasons. These days the place to see really competitive on-track racing is at a Touring Car event. Better still, a Classic Car meet with the heady aroma of Castrol R!

Good news indeed, Piers. 😊 Christmas has definitely come early for you! All the best…

I think they pretty much set the standard for all-season tyres. We have them on our other car - a small 4x4 - and I would have had them on my IS250. Except…it has 18” wheels and different size tyres back and front. At the time, Michelin only did one of the sizes, so it was a set of Goodyear Eagle F1 instead.

He can now turn his attention to the Michelin website where he will see this illustration showing the Primacy 4 as an example of a symmetrical tyre! Asymmetric, Symmetrical and Directional tread patterns

So the system foiled two CanBUS attacks, but the car suffered extensive damage because, presumably, the thieves didn’t know the system was installed and they not only could be wasting their time but also increasing the risk of discovery. Or if the car displayed warning labels, they either thought it could be defeated or the labels were a con. It’s also interesting to ponder if these were two different gangs or the first lot returning for a second attempt. Because if word gets around that this system successfully foils CanBUS attacks, then it becomes worthwhile to advertise its installation. Do you plan to have it installed in to your new, non-Lexus car on the basis that it’s an effective deterrent and the car is less attractive to the thieves?

Not withstanding the specific responsibilities of car makers, I think this is a valid point to make. It is of course arguable that many makers, such as Lexus, could improve their theft prevention systems - not least to compete with their rivals. But as far as I am aware - and I stand to be corrected here - there are no equivalent manufacturing standards for theft prevention as there are for passenger protection or car safety. For example, Thatcham assess vehicle security and accessories as a guide to Insurers but not as something mandatory for manufacturers. Take Household Insurance. My policy stipulates a specific standard of security on different floors. If they can prove non-compliance it will invalidate a claim. These days new builds have the Police-promoted ‘Secured by Design’, that establishes standards ranging from safety and the security measures of construction sites to internal and external security standards for domestic dwellings - which includes locks, lighting and alarms. Different standard levels qualify for different levels of Certification. Unfortunately there seems to be no such equivalent for the car industry. And it has to be appreciated that in many cases it’s the very people who design and install security systems who are best informed as to how to bypass them - generally for perfectly legitimate reasons. But eventually such knowledge inevitably gets out. The result is that there is no car that cannot be stolen - as there is no house that cannot be burgled and no bank vault that cannot be penetrated. So what we have is the usual arms race between owner and thief over possessions - but expecting the possession to do much of the work. No doubt Lexus could do more to keep pace with criminals - as could the entire motor industry. I suspect that the damage done to the brand image by the increasing publicity that Lexus thefts are attracting - and the increasing problem of insurance - that will ultimately be more effective at prompting investment and change than owners’ complaints!

And I have also just emailed Michelin Support to see if they can clarify the contradictions we’ve just revealed. And they may also have to explain to other tyre professionals why the Primary 4 is NOT asymmetrical! This could run and run! 😆

Depending on usage, reformat the SD Card on a regular basis. Say, every 4 to 6 weeks. It’s what the manufacturers recommend to prevent rewriting errors corrupting the video files.

As that was my initial response too, I’m equally puzzled. Although the tread pattern of the tyres photographed is not as obviously asymmetrical as, for example, the Goodyear F1 Eagles, the sipe pattern could be ambiguous. But the impression is re-enforced by moulding ‘Outside’ - and apparently ‘Inside’ - on the tyre walls! Why do it if the tyre can be fitted either way round? But this page on the Michelin site definitely identifies a Primacy 4 as a symmetrical tread! And, as the inventors of the radial tyre, they do know a bit about them after all! https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/advice/tyre-care/tyre-rotation?utm_source=LexusOwnersClubUK&utm_medium=ForumLinks The alternative possibilities are that either All Tyre Tests has got it wrong - or it’s another example of French idiosyncrasies! Either way, I think you summed the matter up quite neatly earlier on. 😊

Probably the same era when a friend of mine took his Thames van in for an MOT. The test procedure consisted solely of the mechanic saying “ I need to go and pick something up. Give us a loan of your van for half an hour and I’ll write out the certificate when I get back.”

Essentially, yes…I think you’re right! But I think now that that’s an illusion caused by the staggered effect of the sipes. If Michelin states they are symmetrical that’s good enough for me. But in that case, why could I find an image of the Michelin Primary 4 with ‘Outside’ moulded on the tyre wall? If they’re symmetrical then they can be fitted either way on the wheel - unless there’s something within the tyre’s construction that they’re not revealing. What I now find confusing is that it is there at all! And even more so now that you’ve found the word ‘Inside’ on the other tyre wall! Why? If it’s symmetrical then it doesn’t matter which way it’s mounted on the wheel. And surely you’d only put ‘Inside’ on the inner wall - as well as ‘Outside’ on the outer wall - if it was really, really critical to get right. Unfortunately these are questions Michelin doesn’t actually address in their response. But the bottom line seems to be that as there appears to be no excessive wear across the tread on the tyres you’ve photographed, then they are unlikely to be the cause of any drifting. Our cars have Michelin CrossClimate and Goodyear Eagle F1 - respectively Directional and Asymmetric. You know where you are with them! 😊

No, only one side of the tyre has the word Outside moulded on it - and that’s the side that should be outside! So if you can see it on the outside of both front wheels, then the tyres are correctly fitted. In which case, I misinterpreted your photos. 🙁

Tyre pressure certainly drops with a decrease in temperature. It can be enough to activate the TPMS warning light - I’ve had it myself. But 5C is not that cold and 2.3 bar to 0.9 bar is surely a slow leak. If you know what wheel it is, I’d examine the tread for a small nail - or similar - and the valve for an air leak. Another possibility is wheel rim damage.

Couldn’t have put it better myself! 👍

I would suggest that it means you should be seeing the word “Outside” on the outside of both tyres! They appear to be asymmetric so it would seem that you’ve got one ‘Outside’ on the inside. The tyre has been incorrectly mounted on the wheel. Not the sort of mistake a professional tyre fitter should make! PS: Just found this image of a Michelin Primacy 4. The word Outside is clearly apparent on the sidewall. https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre/Michelin/Primacy-4.htm/view_media/Michelin-Primacy-4.png

I don’t understand his comment. The V-shaped tread pattern of the Michelins makes them directional tyres, not asymmetrical. The Michelins will have an arrow on the outer wall indicating the forward direction of rotation. The block pattern is symmetrical.and therefore neutral in its effect across the tread , so will not of itself cause drifting. If a tyre shows uneven wear across the tread pattern - perhaps due to tracking error - then that could cause drifting. An asymmetrical tyre has different block sizes across the width of the tread to optimise different tread characteristics in the one tyre. For example, the outer blocks will be larger and will provide better grip when cornering. The smaller inner blocks are designed to provide more effective performance in the wet. This means the tyre has a definite outer and inner wall, which will be so marked on the outer wall. I suppose it’s possible that mounting asymmetrical tyres incorrectly on the front wheels might cause drifting in some circumstances. But first one has to eliminate all the other possible factors - such as incorrect tyre pressures, tracking errors and wheel alignment. Or perhaps simply a significant degree of road camber?

No need to apologise for this, Stephen. You are restoring your Lexus to the standard it enjoyed when new. It will once again be able to park proudly amongst its contemporaries. That you are not personally doing this work is irrelevant. In fact, it is to your credit that you recognise that others are better suited to achieving the results you require. And who says it’s easy to sign a cheque? 😊

Correct! If the tyre has deflated to the point where the wheel rim is running on the tyre wall, then the tyre cannot be repaired. Despite the tyre wall being reinforced, there is no way for a repairer to determine how much damage has been done and the chance of the tyre failing completely in further use. The main point is that Run Flat is something of a misnomer. It is only designed to enable a short, slow journey either to a safe situation or a tyre retailer. This article by Kwik-Fit gives a good explanation. https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/can-a-run-flat-tyre-be-repaired#

Quite right, James. It simply reinforces the impression that they are inundated with the same complaints - compounded by the lack of an effective response in the first place! Of course it maybe the case that the individual(s) responding on behalf of Lexus simply don’t have any effective answers. It may even be that the sudden rise of new Lexus models up the stolen vehicle theft chart is not that they are more vulnerable than other makes, but that they are more desirable as cars! No consolation to the victims, of course. In such circumstances, buying a replacement Lexus seems to be a triumph of hope over experience - a description once applied to divorce!

The Manuals do seem to be a touch idiosyncratic when it comes to indexing. You also have to watch out for American spellings when using the Search facility!

Maybe watch out for a Post by the owner of a white LC complaining about being held up this morning by a slowly driven ES300 around the A1 this morning? 😊

Possibly not the ultimate solution, Brian, but maybe almost as good as it’s going to get? I did consider a Ghost 2 myself, but in the end decided that an eight year old IS250 was not high on any car thieves shopping list. But I expect your newer LC500H is a different proposition in terms of current value! As I said, I liked the principle: from being able to create a simple, interactive, personalised code to the production of a variety of perplexing effects. In your circumstances I might be inclined to approach Ghost / CAN Phantom directly with any concerns about vulnerabilities and ‘Guarantees’ and see what they say. For example, this YT installer has quite a lot to say…in defence of the Ghost! One interesting question is to sticker or not to sticker? Whether it’s better to announce the fitting of a Ghost and thus to deter thieves. Or let them try to drive the car off and find they’re wasting time on a problem car. I would combine this with a visible device, such as a Disklok or - as I have - a Milenco steering wheel lock. I hope this helps while we wait for someone with some real world experience to turn up!

Well, I have no experience of it but it looks like a copy of the Ghost system. In fact, were I marketing it, I might even be tempted to do a comparative analysis if it actually had any competitive benefits over the Ghost. And if it hasn’t, then what’s the point of it? I actually like the premise of the Ghost system, but its detractors claim it is vulnerable to CanBUS attack. The Can Phantom doesn’t appear to address this problem at all. I can find no mention of how it defeats this method of bypassing its security. The other point that occurs to me is the repeated claim that they will ‘Guarantee’ your car against theft. What form does this ‘Guarantee’ take? What conditions do they apply? Will they replace a customer’s stolen car with a like-for-like equivalent? Or compensate the loss with a cash payment? I also think some costing examples would be useful. PS: Since writing the above, I have discovered a comparison in the blog section: https://www.can-phantom.com/post/can-phantom-vs-ghost-immobiliser-which-is-the-best-aftermarket-immobiliser-for-your-car-2023-2024 But it still doesn’t clarify how it is superior to the Ghost, merely claiming that it is. As it happens, they don’t have an Installer anywhere near me - and don’t appear to offer mobile installation.