Evo Tyre Test 2010

mjt · 18 Jun 2010 at 17:18

bledd. said:
Huh?

Give him a chance, you've only asked once

I asked him about three times in another thread after he said he had bought some

Clarkey · 18 Jun 2010 at 17:19

Neova's are faaaaaaaaaaaaar from crap, and RE050 are not crap either. You got a scan of the results? I'm interested in how a Continental can beat a proper sticky tyre like a Neova, presumably down to wet grip and aquaplaning or something?

[TW]Fox · 18 Jun 2010 at 17:22

mjt said:
For someone who likes to stick his nose into other peoples finances, why is he being so coy on the cost of four bits of rubber?

Once they are fitted, balanced and sorted I will give you a complete and comprehensive breakdown inclusive of every cost to the nearest penny, I'll even do a special thread with pictures and first impressions

Coco · 18 Jun 2010 at 17:23

mjt said:
I asked him about three times in another thread after he said he had bought some

I've heard from a 'close-friend' that a 25% APR credit-card was obtained to purchase them...

mjt · 18 Jun 2010 at 17:32

Coco said:
I've heard from a 'close-friend' that a 25% APR credit-card was obtained to purchase them...

It would be funnier if people didn't actually do things like this

Joshy · 18 Jun 2010 at 17:52

MrLOL said:
but given the crap tyres it was put against its no surprise.

What on earth are you talking about? :confused:

Many of those tyres have great reputations. Just because they aren't "Name brand" tyres does not automatically make them crap.

From the sounds of it you're the type of person who'd buy P6000s just because they're Pirellis :rolleyes:

aproctor · 18 Jun 2010 at 18:28

mjt said:
It would be funnier if people didn't actually do things like this

I know it isn't your point but you only pay extra if you don't clear the balance.

DRZ · 18 Jun 2010 at 22:17

I have RE050As on my car, seem pretty good to me!

Amoeba · 18 Jun 2010 at 23:26

I have the Hankooks on my rears. Definitely not crap!

mjt · 18 Jun 2010 at 23:47

aproctor said:
I know it isn't your point but you only pay extra if you don't clear the balance.

Of course, but there are many people who use credit cards for long term borrowing.

Fr0dders · 19 Jun 2010 at 00:34

Clarkey said:
Neova's are faaaaaaaaaaaaar from crap, and RE050 are not crap either. You got a scan of the results? I'm interested in how a Continental can beat a proper sticky tyre like a Neova, presumably down to wet grip and aquaplaning or something?

Not got a scanner but:

Wet Braking

1. Continental
2. Bridgestone
3. Uniroyal
4. Michelin
5. Hankook.
6. Vredstein
7. Yokos
8. Kumho
9 Zeetex

Dry Breaking.

1. Continental
2. Bridgestone
3. Yokos
4. Hankook
5. Uniroyal
6. Michelin
7. Vredstein.
8. Kumho
9. Zeetex

Laptimes (dry)

1. Yoko
2. Bridgestone
3. Continental
4. Michelin
5. Kumho
6. Vredstein.
7. Hankook
8. Uniroyal
9. Zeetex

Subjective (dry)

1. Yokos
2. Uniroyal
3. Bridgestone
4. Vredstein
5. Continental
6. Michelin
7. Kumho
8. Zeetex
9. Hankook

Lap time (wet)

1. Continental
2. Vredstein.
3. Michelin
4. Bridgestone
5. Uniroyal
6. Hankook
7. Yokohama
8. Kumho
9. Zeetex

Lateral G (wet)

1. Continental
2. Michelin
3. Vredstein
3 = Bridgestone
5.Uniroyal
5= Yokohama
7. Hankook
8. Kumho
9. Zeetex

Subjective (wet)

1. Continental
2. Michelin
3. Vredstein
4. Uniroyal
5. Bridgestone
6. Hankook
7. Yokohama
8. Kumho
9. Zeetex

Aquaplanning Test (straight)

1=Uniroyal
1=Vredstein
3. Hankook
4. Continental
5. Michelin
6. Bridgestone
7. kumho
8. Yokohama
9. Zeetex

Aquaplanning Test (curved)

1. Uniroyal
2. Vredstein
3. Hankook
4. Kumho
5. Continental
6. Zeetex
7. Michelin
8. Bridgestone
9. Yokohamas

The yokos appear to perform quite poor, indeed they were the most likely to aquaplane of all the tyres bar the budget zeetex in a straight line, and once on a curve, the most likely of them all. They achieved 54 % of the speed of the Uniroyal Rain sports before braking traction. The next nearest tyre managed 75 % of the speed, so a massive 25 % off the pace.

Its that very poor wet weather performance that relegates them to 6th overall. Heres the verdict

"the lightly grooved tread pattern says this is a dry weather biased tyre and it was poor on the wet track and the curved aquaplane test. However it wasnt too bad in other wet tests and it starred on the dry track and road route, where it made the MX5 much more capable and composed. Not good in the rain, but transforms the MX-5s feel and behaviour in the dry. The trackday tyre choice."

mjt · 19 Jun 2010 at 00:37

Seems like a pretty comprehensive win.

Fr0dders · 19 Jun 2010 at 00:44

mjt said:
Seems like a pretty comprehensive win.

the two tyres that beat it last year werent included for some reason.

http://www.liam27.com/stuff/EVO_TyreTest_2007_GTI.pdf

The vredstein tyre submitted this year was the ultrac cento. They describe this tyre as being second in the heirarchy, as being a tyre for the premium sector and highlights include it being "Very comfortable and quiet to drive" whereas the ultrac sessanta is "The newest ace in the Ultra High Performance (UHP) segment"

so quite clearly not the best tyre they offer. Goodyear didnt submit one at all, for whatever reason.

Dangerous Dave · 19 Jun 2010 at 09:09

MrLOL said:
the two tyres that beat it last year werent included for some reason.

http://www.liam27.com/stuff/EVO_TyreTest_2007_GTI.pdf

The vredstein tyre submitted this year was the ultrac cento. They describe this tyre as being second in the heirarchy, as being a tyre for the premium sector and highlights include it being "Very comfortable and quiet to drive" whereas the ultrac sessanta is "The newest ace in the Ultra High Performance (UHP) segment"

so quite clearly not the best tyre they offer. Goodyear didnt submit one at all, for whatever reason.

It appears to be the same issue as the Pilot Sport 3s that Vredstein don't produce the Ultrac Sessanta and Goodyear don't do the F1s in the tyre size of the test car. Evo really should have picked a better test car !

Fr0dders · 19 Jun 2010 at 09:12

Dangerous Dave said:
It appears to be the same issue as the Pilot Sport 3s that Vredstein don't produce the Ultrac Sessanta and Goodyear don't do the F1s in the tyre size of the test car. Evo really should have picked a better test car !

thats a very good point actually

i wondered why they tested the michelin pilot exalto as opposed to the pilot sports (thats what i meant by crap tyres, crap as in not their performance top of the range tyre)

Would also explain the reason the Ultrac Cento was tested as well.

[TW]Fox · 19 Jun 2010 at 10:37

Very confusing choice of tyre size, they normally do a larger size.

What tyres do you have on the Volvo MrLOL?

Nick1881 · 19 Jun 2010 at 10:40

I had the conti CS3's on a car last year, I wasn't really that impressed, I changed the fronts to Bridgestone RE050 and was more happy with them.

[TW]Fox · 19 Jun 2010 at 10:41

What confuses me is how much they go on about the CS3 being a 'new' tyre when its been out for a few years now? :confused:

Fr0dders · 19 Jun 2010 at 12:21

[TW]Fox;16783520 said:
Very confusing choice of tyre size, they normally do a larger size.

What tyres do you have on the Volvo MrLOL?

Contisport 3s. Ive got a wad of receipts with it being an ex company car and its been through quite a lot of sets of them

Contisport 3 every time.

Never really driven the volvo hard enough to tell what its like when the car's being pushed, but so far they've been great in the wet. Certainly felt no worse than the vredsteins i had.

[TW]Fox;16783533 said:
What confuses me is how much they go on about the CS3 being a 'new' tyre when its been out for a few years now?

they were in the last test in 2007 lol

Howard · 19 Jun 2010 at 12:49

I'm pleased the CS3s are good, my new car has them all round :cool: