Evo said the Contisport Contact 3s that come on the M3 Edition suit the M3 to a tee ?
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/251284/bmw_m3_competition_review.html
2010 Evo Tyre Test - now with added KU31.
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
Evo said the Contisport Contact 3s that come on the M3 Edition suit the M3 to a tee ?
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/251284/bmw_m3_competition_review.html
I'm just going to post that I recently fitted a set of F1 Assym's to the rear of the 530 (to match the front, replacing FK452s) and have noticed a rough fuel economy drop from around 28 MPG to 25 MPG. That's around £350 in fuel over just 15,000 miles. It makes the F1s a very expensive tyre, from a TCO perspective.
I so want to try the PS3s.
I so want to try the PS3s.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Really? I guess thats perception for you. I see it as an argument between those who consider cost as a primary factor in tyre choice trying to justify this, and those who consider performance as a primary factor in tyre choice trying to justify that.
I really dont think the average Kumho defender in this thread has any more idea about vehicle dynamics than the rest of us, if they did I doubt they'd be doing things like buying one of the best handling FWD cars ever made (Teg Type R) and then hobbling it with cheap tyres and posting on the internet that they dont care about the extra grip anyway. Odd choice of car if thats your attitude, may as well have bought an FTO and benefited from the extra 'comfort' at the cost of that on the limit brilliance..
Unless you think that TomO, who probably knows more about vehicle dynamics than most given his car history (Come on, the guy's owned M3's, AMG Mercs, Nobles, massive power Skylines) and the circles he moves in, is simply digesting magazine opinion, as he shares the same opinion as me and others in this thread.
I don't think its only valid on a Megane. I think its useful at the very least for all cars with a similar drivetrain layout and weight, and is a useful general guide for other cars. The car does affect the way a tyre performs, but the results are still very useful. I think even you will agree that whatever tyre you fit that KU31 to, it isnt going to be providing class leading braking distances any time soon, is it? The results broadly mirror those of similar tests on completely different car - there are no real shocks in the results and they are very similar to the Autocar test which used a completely different Mercedes C280 RWD car. As a guide to buying tyres, it is considerably better than going on the opinion of random people on the internet like myself, or the many people saying Kumho's are, infact, totally proper wicked and that 9 seconds on a 1 mile track is nothing.
Buying tyres is an imperfect science, this sort of guide gives you the best chance at getting it right.
This entire thread is degenerating into a pretty big example of purchase justification syndrome. Those who cheap out and buy Kumho's and Linglongs are trying to justify this choice to themselves and others, whereas those who pay large amounts of money for tyres are trying to justify this choice to themselves and others as well. There are a worrying amount of people who don't seem to really understand the relevance of the data. The guy who went on about how the lap time is meaningless because he drives on a road not a track was particularly amusing. Of course its relevent, its about the most relevent figure there as it provides a direct indication of the level of overall grip - in both cornering and braking - that each tyre provides. Especially as it isnt a race track but a dedicated circuit for tyre testing purposes.
The reason I posted this thread in the way I did was because over the last few months there has been a definate trend for people to claim that decent tyres are a waste of money and that budget Kumho's are just as good. Oddly enough it seems this particular opinion is now missing from this thread.... which I guess means its served its purpose
Thinking about it more - and now having the hard copy in front of me. Im not sure how useful a 35 profile, 19inch tyre review is for other cars. Its such a unique size, with so many performance compromises for the sake of fashion, that I would be inclinded to almost ignore it.
There is no way you could read these results to a 205/55/16 tyre in my opinion.
In the dry on 1.1 seconds separated top from bottom, thats not a massive amount. However the ratings then go on to talk about tyres subjectively, this is purely down to the way the reviewer feels the tyre and what type he prefers most.
There is no way you could read these results to a 205/55/16 tyre in my opinion.
In the dry on 1.1 seconds separated top from bottom, thats not a massive amount. However the ratings then go on to talk about tyres subjectively, this is purely down to the way the reviewer feels the tyre and what type he prefers most.
[TW]Fox;17556762 said:The reason I posted this thread in the way I did was because over the last few months there has been a definate trend for people to claim that decent tyres are a waste of money
Yup.
It's a bit like people claiming winter tyres are a waste of money
Oh I agree on the Kumho comments, but I think just because in this review they have come out badly in the wet I don't think they need to be slated.
For a weekend car that you only take out on dry days its a bit of a mute point. Also track performance may be very different, the compound may suit high temperatures and the fact is poor in the wet could be heat related.
Like anything developed for a vehicle, it is a compromised for cost versus performance, and this performanc could be in different areas. I think it is hard to argue with someones experience though as certainly Drexel who has had a lot of fast cars may have a completely different experience on his Golf to what EVO is saying about a Megane. Sure we could have some techno nano particle tyres that offer a constant performance regardless of temperature, I doubt anyone would pay for them though.
The proof is in the pudding and its very much like TV debates I see online about which picture is best, often is purely a subjective thing.
For a weekend car that you only take out on dry days its a bit of a mute point. Also track performance may be very different, the compound may suit high temperatures and the fact is poor in the wet could be heat related.
Like anything developed for a vehicle, it is a compromised for cost versus performance, and this performanc could be in different areas. I think it is hard to argue with someones experience though as certainly Drexel who has had a lot of fast cars may have a completely different experience on his Golf to what EVO is saying about a Megane. Sure we could have some techno nano particle tyres that offer a constant performance regardless of temperature, I doubt anyone would pay for them though.
The proof is in the pudding and its very much like TV debates I see online about which picture is best, often is purely a subjective thing.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;17556824 said:
Get some 205/50/16 tyres if you want wet weather performance, those 255 must be like dinghys in standing water
Continuing from my previous point - Its all about compromise, you have gone for a tyre width for good dry traction and visual benefits over wet performance. This is fine but I'm sure you understand that this will compromise wet weather braking for example.
Yup.
It's a bit like people claiming winter tyres are a waste of money
That's because my personal opinion, which is just that - an opinion, is that in our country I would rather be on the tyres at the top of a test like this than a winter one on a wet motorway in December (and tests comparing average summer tyres are irrelevant) but please let's not do the winter thing in this thread, a bump the other one
[TW]Fox;17556842 said:That's because my personal opinion, which is just that - an opinion, is that in our country I would rather be on the tyres at the top of a test like this than a winter one on a wet motorway in December (and tests comparing average summer tyres are irrelevant) but please let's not do the winter thing in this thread, a bump the other one
Move up north you shandy drinker
Get some 205/50/16 tyres if you want wet weather performance, those 255 must be like dinghys in standing water
Continuing from my previous point - Its all about compromise, you have gone for a tyre width for good dry traction and visual benefits over wet performance. This is fine but I'm sure you understand that this will compromise wet weather braking for example.
I am aware of that but there is little we can do about manufacturers tyre size choices. There is no 205 for my car.
[TW]Fox;17556842 said:That's because my personal opinion, which is just that - an opinion, is that in our country I would rather be on the tyres at the top of a test like this than a winter one on a wet motorway in December (and tests comparing average summer tyres are irrelevant) but please let's not do the winter thing in this thread, a bump the other one
I'm due a little more information on this topic soon so will bump the thread as soon as I have some facts
Did you read the second part of his sentence?
whose, Evo's or Spoonz ?
Well, I've tried the KU31's, immediately following a set of F1A's, and I was expecting mediocrity to some extent, but was more then happy with them.
I think to get anal about specific numbers needs to be taken into context, I mean in the dry, the Michelin/Pirelli stop a whole 1 metre later, that's the difference between life and death given the right scenario, hell if you had the F1A's on, that's twice as bad again!!! If you play the numbers game in your head, your screwed, because not one tyre tops the dry and wet braking tables, just look at it, the Continental stops 1M later in the wet then the F1A, and there will be situations where that's life or death, so I get the Goodyear right?, after all I have to buy the safest tyre, but then if I crash in the dry, I'm relatively screwed with the Goodyears as they take 2.3 metres more? I honestly think that a car length difference isn't as bad as is being made out, some cars in the same class with the same tyres have differences larger then that, and we've heard all the 2-3 car length stopping difference stories of ditch finders...
The other thing is, ridiculing people for saying the KU31 has been an OK tyre for them is not backed up by the review, since subjectively, I see them place 6th and 7th in the track/road scores, which shows why they 'feel' pretty decent to people.
The other thing is, you can't even validly say it's a bad tyre unless you have it tested in more fitments, against a much much wider range of tyres, because when many premium tyres are 5% worse then the class leader in a particular test, it's still the difference between life and death in the wrong situation. If they found ditch finders where 40-50% worse in lots of tests, you'd then put the KU31's '10% worse' into much better context.
But, Ultimately I agree, if mitigating risk is your absolute priority over everything else, you wouldn't remotely entertain any mid-range tyre, and would be lead by the reviews (although I'd seriously want data on my particular tyre fitment before making an absolute decision), but if you are that bothered, you really should be in a 5 star NCAP car etc, otherwise you've already massively increased your chances of more serious injury then choosing even the 9th best tyres in that test..
I would now however like to see some more test data on the KU31, because in all seriousness, I would have expected them to perform slightly better then they did, and also, I'm shocked how an F1A is 7% less effective in the dry braking tests, that seems quite a difference..
I think to get anal about specific numbers needs to be taken into context, I mean in the dry, the Michelin/Pirelli stop a whole 1 metre later, that's the difference between life and death given the right scenario, hell if you had the F1A's on, that's twice as bad again!!! If you play the numbers game in your head, your screwed, because not one tyre tops the dry and wet braking tables, just look at it, the Continental stops 1M later in the wet then the F1A, and there will be situations where that's life or death, so I get the Goodyear right?, after all I have to buy the safest tyre, but then if I crash in the dry, I'm relatively screwed with the Goodyears as they take 2.3 metres more? I honestly think that a car length difference isn't as bad as is being made out, some cars in the same class with the same tyres have differences larger then that, and we've heard all the 2-3 car length stopping difference stories of ditch finders...
The other thing is, ridiculing people for saying the KU31 has been an OK tyre for them is not backed up by the review, since subjectively, I see them place 6th and 7th in the track/road scores, which shows why they 'feel' pretty decent to people.
The other thing is, you can't even validly say it's a bad tyre unless you have it tested in more fitments, against a much much wider range of tyres, because when many premium tyres are 5% worse then the class leader in a particular test, it's still the difference between life and death in the wrong situation. If they found ditch finders where 40-50% worse in lots of tests, you'd then put the KU31's '10% worse' into much better context.
But, Ultimately I agree, if mitigating risk is your absolute priority over everything else, you wouldn't remotely entertain any mid-range tyre, and would be lead by the reviews (although I'd seriously want data on my particular tyre fitment before making an absolute decision), but if you are that bothered, you really should be in a 5 star NCAP car etc, otherwise you've already massively increased your chances of more serious injury then choosing even the 9th best tyres in that test..
I would now however like to see some more test data on the KU31, because in all seriousness, I would have expected them to perform slightly better then they did, and also, I'm shocked how an F1A is 7% less effective in the dry braking tests, that seems quite a difference..
Last edited:
What a stupid comment. I never said that we could not talk about performance cars or anything like it. Fox brought it to the forum, a non performance car specific forum, bringing it to the masses. There was no 'this is about performance cars only' post by anyone.
Typical hyperbole filled magazine review tbh.
"You'd be leaning a lot on the traction and stability control on a wet road on these"
Well, yes if you drove like a complete ham fisted **** and ignored any kind of feedback from the car then your complete lack of ability might be assisted by electronics on a car that has them. OTOH a driver with a modicum of skill should never need to rely on electronics under normal driving conditions i.e. driving on a wet road. Under emergency conditions the chances are you will be relying on those aids irrespective of tyre choice.
I simply don't see the issue with these tyres, the review shows they perform pretty well for their cost, but unsurprisingly aren't as good as tyres that cost significantly more. It's hardly rocket science is it?
And the argument about 1 car length being the difference between a collision or a fright - yes this could certainly be the case under a very specific set of conditions. Under other equally likely conditions you might just stop a little closer, or you might hit the car at a few mph higher speed. Get a grip people.
"You'd be leaning a lot on the traction and stability control on a wet road on these"
Well, yes if you drove like a complete ham fisted **** and ignored any kind of feedback from the car then your complete lack of ability might be assisted by electronics on a car that has them. OTOH a driver with a modicum of skill should never need to rely on electronics under normal driving conditions i.e. driving on a wet road. Under emergency conditions the chances are you will be relying on those aids irrespective of tyre choice.
I simply don't see the issue with these tyres, the review shows they perform pretty well for their cost, but unsurprisingly aren't as good as tyres that cost significantly more. It's hardly rocket science is it?
And the argument about 1 car length being the difference between a collision or a fright - yes this could certainly be the case under a very specific set of conditions. Under other equally likely conditions you might just stop a little closer, or you might hit the car at a few mph higher speed. Get a grip people.
Indeed. You might just drive slower and leave larger gaps because you are taking the road conditions into account. If we're all going to get the best tyres money can buy to avoid killing nuns, kittens etc then surely stopping distance should be our primary consideration in choosing a car? But of course it's not.
Just worth pointing out, for some context..
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/total_tyre_guide/213186/tyre_guide.html
more specifically
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/total_tyre_guide/212643/braking.html
Now, obviously, this is putting the KU31 against a wide range of midrange tyres, which is what the KU31 is, even when some of those midrange tyres are from the best brands out there, and it performs really well.
So what is the real argument? That coming last in a premium tyre review of 9 tyres on a single car fitment is 'bad'? Well, I guess you can take it that way.. but ultimately, compared to a wide range of tyres, it seems to live up to it's hype, being a very good midrange tyre.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/total_tyre_guide/213186/tyre_guide.html
more specifically
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/total_tyre_guide/212643/braking.html
Now, obviously, this is putting the KU31 against a wide range of midrange tyres, which is what the KU31 is, even when some of those midrange tyres are from the best brands out there, and it performs really well.
So what is the real argument? That coming last in a premium tyre review of 9 tyres on a single car fitment is 'bad'? Well, I guess you can take it that way.. but ultimately, compared to a wide range of tyres, it seems to live up to it's hype, being a very good midrange tyre.
Last edited:
I've got Vreds on my BM. Am I wrong to not have bought the best performing tyre that cost a lot more money than what I have?
you chose a car that has worse braking (due to limited tyre size) than cars with smaller tyres. Is that not hypocritical? You are accepting that you do not have the best there is because you get a better car over all?
[TW]Fox;17556855 said:
you chose a car that has worse braking (due to limited tyre size) than cars with smaller tyres. Is that not hypocritical? You are accepting that you do not have the best there is because you get a better car over all?