RedRover

In the latest edition of Wheels magazine (June 03) they have a test of High Performance tyres. My initial reading of this is that they have done their testing in a better way than that other magazine (Motor). My first impression is that Wheels have been a bit more scientific in the process.

I'd be interested to hear what other members here think about it.

Wheels rated the Michelin Preceda number one whereas Motor rated it as 7 out of 13. Motor rated the Dunlop FM901 as number 1 but Wheels rated it as 5 out of 7. The Goodyear GS D3 rated 4 with Motor and 6 out of 7 with Wheels.

Of more interest for S2000 owners is that the Bridgestone S03 was ranked 3rd by Motor and 2nd by Wheels. Pretty consistent eh?

DavidM

I have not seen 'this' test yet, but I do know it is a follow up from the 'crappy tyres' test then had 2 months ago. The test from 2 months ago seemed very scientific and looked like they put a lot of thought into it, but bottom line was that the data that they came up with was totaly useless. They even said it themselves. They'd do a lap with 'nasty' tyres and barely match that lap with the 'good' tyres. Then they'd say that the 'good' tyres were much better despite the data and that the data was not accurate because the different conditions had more of an infulence on the numbers than the actual tyres. By the different conditions' they meant brake heat/wear, time of the day, temperature as well as the amount of wetness.

So, I'm hoping that in this one is a bit more reliable. Also I'm actually hoping that they will actualy say something about the tyres as in the one 2 months ago they dedicated 5 pages to how brilliant and detailed their test is, but maybe 1 paragraph to all the tested tyres combined. Ironic, isn't it?

ps. One last thing that makes these tyre tests hard to apply to us is the car that they used for testing. They used XR6-T in this test so obviously anyone with a similar car caould take the test as applicable to them (ie. anyone with a high powered, heavy sedan with a hight center of gravity and reasonably soft suspension). Though, I doubt very much that the results would be the same if tghe results be the same if they used an MX-5 or a Civic as the test vehicle.

tafka TMB

I drove an old Commodore (courtesy car) that was on the tyres that won the economy test (Yokohama A359 at a guess??). I didn't think much of those tyres in the wet.

Then again I dont drive Commodores very much (could have been the car) or there may have been something wrong with the tyres (although they were pointing in the right direction, pressure was ok and they had heaps of tread left).

DavidM

I had a quick look at the test last night and noticed 3 things:

1) There are only 7 tyres in this test while Motor used good 15 different tyres. That mans that a tyre that finished 4th in Motor's test probably fared better that a tyre that finished 2nd in the Wheels test. Aftewr all, finishing 4th in the Wheels test means that there were only 3 tyres rankend lower.

2) They chose 'midrange' perfromance tyres instead of the 'elite' tyres. The Michelin, Pirelli and Falken tyres ware not their 'high end' option but more their 'midrange' tyre. Continental was not there at all as a few other Brands that could have fared well.

3) Pirelli P-Zero, Michelin Pilot Sport and Continental SportsContact2 tyres have 99% of the high perfromance sports/luxury OEM market sticked up so it's a shame that there were not put in to see as a benchmark. I think the Motor test had a couple 'higher end' tyres in there ... so the competition was tougher.

RedRover

DavidM, are you suggesting that Motor got it right and Wheels didn't ??

It's a bit unfortunate that they both didn't do a closer matched list.

In the Motor test of 2002, Continental won. In the Motor 2003 test (January 2003 edition) Continental didn't make an appearance.

DavidM

DavidM, are you suggesting that Motor got it right and Wheels didn't ??

No, not necesarily. Just poining out that the 'competition' was tougher in the Motor test as they had more tyres there and some of higher grade. One thing I did like about the Motor test is that they worte a caouple paragraphs about each tyre ... not sure if they did do so in the new Wheels test as they did not in the one 2 months ago.

Perhaps you're thinking back to the Motor test of 2002 when Continental won. In the Motor 2003 test (January 2003 edition) Continental didn't make an appearance.

You could well be right. To be honest I cannot remember how many tyres they had in the 2003 Motor tyre test. Though, I do remember that the higher end tyres were missing there as well. Also I remember that the scoring system in the 2003 Motor test was really messed up ... the scores they gave to the tyres were very much arbitary and had no meaning. In the 2002 test you caould see the exact differnce in the perfromance of the tyres (for each test) ... just like in the new Wheels test.

So yes, you're right that I'm holding the 2002 Motor test as a benchmark and I was ignoring the 2003 test.

ps. I still have not read the new Wheels test so I can't comment direclty on it ... just on the tyre selection.

DavidM

I've finally read the tyre-test in Wheels. It's dissapointing to see that all the text in the article in regards to the testing procedures. Reading the data-tables is really where the only tyre info is. Though, the very brief driver comments on each tyre at the end of the test is possibly the best reading there (whole 2 minutes of it).

Still, this time the data seemed pretty consitent and there did not seem any big annomalies like they had in the 'cheap' tyre test.

The main benefit of the article was not the comparision between these 7 'premium' tyres, but comparision between the 'premium' and the 'cheap' tyres from 2 months ago. This test demonstrated that the differences in between the 'cheap' tyres and the 'premium' tyres is significant. In average ther 'premium' tyres were worth 10m from stopping from 100kph and in the some instances more like 15m. Also the 'premium' tyres showed to have more grip in all cituations and consistantly returned signinficantly higher speeds throught the corners and slalom (and that is in the wet as well as dry).

What I would have loved to see is a buch of 'high performance' tyres (ie. the bets of the best) in there as well in order to see what the 'step' betweeen the 'premium' and 'elite' is. I'm guuessing that it will be smaller than what they demonstrated between the 'cheap' and 'premium' tyres.