2010 Evo Tyre Test - now with added KU31.

Meh. They feel loads better on my old Kraut than the Toyos they replaced, and have coped with a couple of track sessions just fine. They are not premium tyres, they are mid-range tyres and are priced as such.

Out of interest, which tyres in the same price range performed better? (I haven't read the test)
 
The closest priced tyre to the £112 KU31 was the £143 Hankook Ventus S1 Evo which barely did any better. Next closest is the £168 Eagle F1. Those prices obviously won't be taking into account the fact that something like the F1 will wear faster though, so you'll be buying them more often too.
 
It was the first aritcle I read when I opened it this morning :cool:! ContiSport Contact5 & Eagle F1 Assymetric it is then.

Not sure why they called it Front Wheel Drive Tyre Test though? Surely it's gonna be awesome or **** no-matter whether the car is FWD or RWD? :confused:
 
So they've tested a single size of tyre on a single car at continentals tyre testing facilities? Can anyone else see a conflict of interests here?
 
burns said:
So they've tested a single size of tyre on a single car at continentals tyre testing facilities? Can anyone else see a conflict of interests here?
Click to expand...

This always comes up - they ALWAYS use the same site and Conti don't always win - infact last year Conti didn't win.
 
[TW]Fox;17552932 said:
This always comes up - they ALWAYS use the same site and Conti don't always win - infact last year Conti didn't win.
Click to expand...
Are you saying there isn't a conflict of interests then?
 
Am needing some new tyres on the Impreza soon.

It's got F1 GSD3s on at the moment, do I stick, or twist and go for some Asymetrics or Contisports (which are £20 more than the GSD3s)....

Camskill say they've got the 'old' F1s still in stock but thought they were a gonna now anyway.
 
[TW]Fox;17552919 said:
Right and?

If they did a tyre for £10 that was even worse would you buy that :p
Click to expand...

Not but the point is, the Kumho is a considerably cheaper tyre, whichever way you want to look at it and personally I don't think the result is all that bad when you consider that cost difference.

Sure it's not a great result but I think you'd be daft to expect it to be properly mixing it with tyres 150-200% of its price.
 
How can the result be not that bad? It's last. It's bottom. The truth is we dont know how bad it really is as there were no more tyres. Had there been 10 other tyres as well would it be 19th?
 
burns said:
Are you saying there isn't a conflict of interests then?
Click to expand...

I can see how people who think the moon landings are fake and trust nobody might see it that way but, not really, no. Conti don't say 'You can use our facility as long as you deliberately rig everything so we win'.

If they did they need a refund as they usually don't win!
 
[TW]Fox;17553043 said:
How can the result be not that bad? It's last. It's bottom. The truth is we dont know how bad it really is as there were no more tyres. Had there been 10 other tyres as well would it be 19th?
Click to expand...

Shock horror, a mid range tyre is last out of a test comprised of premium tyres and one other more expensive mid range tyre (unless you want to call the Hankook premium too).

I'm not sure quite what you were expecting of it? To beat tyres That will cost you over £200 more for a set? :confused:

You need to keep things in context - you can't just say 'LOL LAST THEREFORE IT IS TOTAL ****' when you're comparing a £112 tyre with a range of £170-£210 tyres.

Stick it amongst its contemporaries and see how it does. As ever with tyre tests, there isn't a complete enough picture to make a completely fair judgement on all the tyres present. Why they only put in one average price mid range tyre along with a load of expensive premium tyres is beyond me. Yes, if there had been another 10 tyres spanning down between £150 and £50 and it was still last, you'd have a point but we don't have that at all.

As you say in the OP, anyone who was arguing the KU31 was an equal of a true premium tyre was probably dreaming but it's hardly a horrific result really is it? It's pretty much exactly where you would expect it to be.
 
"KU31 comes in 9th out of a test of 10 tyres where it is the cheapest" test shocker!

How can the result be not that bad? It's last. It's bottom. The truth is we dont know how bad it really is as there were no more tyres. Had there been 10 other tyres as well would it be 19th?
Click to expand...

If they tested 10 cheaper tyres it would have probably stayed 9th. The KU31's simply perform as expected for their price, which is better than say the Pirelli P6000's which perform horrendously for their price.
 
i found the KU31 couldnt touch the falken 452 in the dry, but was much closer in the wet.

i feel this comparison is highly relevant to the price of the tyre.
 
[TW]Fox;17553148 said:
9th out of 9.

The point is that people seemed to think this tyre was amazing, so it was interesting to see results which show that really its... a cheap tyre.
Click to expand...

I think people moreso thought it was a good tyre....for the price.

No one expected it to be better than R888's.

I'm not surprised it came bottom of that bunch at all. It was made to a different budget - why are you surprised that it came last?

EDIT: I'm back by the way :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom