Comparing 200TW Tire Costs

So I got bored last night and decided to setup a spreadsheet to compare the top 3 200TW tires in each size they're available in 

I skipped the 335 18's big boy tires, so they're not on the list. and I threw A7's on here for kicks 

Here's the costs per set of 4

And here's the costs per single tire
 

I originally posted last night with a link to my spreadsheet, but decided I didn't want to do that so I pulled it in favor of some Photos. 

I set the RE71's as the benchmark because in all but a few sizes, they're the cheapest, and the RE71R offers the most sizes. 

Interesting information. 

Thanks. 

In reply to Toyman01 :

I've heard lots of complaints about the A052, including the meme comparing their cost in 1 size being equal to a hoosier A7 and so i decided to see what the actual numbers are. 

We're in a tire war, but for almost anyone at a regional level the answer is to just throw bridgestones on and call it good. CAM guys might end up with a BFG or Yoko being the best for the size they need. But there are lots of options. And I'm skipping the Hankook and the Nexens in this sheet. 

I've been running the stones. They are as fast as I am. When it comes time to pay the bill I wish I had gone with a smaller wheel. 

In reply to Toyman01 :

Small wheels offer lots of options. I skipped including 16's on this sheet because they're a dying size but they are cheaper than some of the 17 options for stuff like the conti ECS. 

In reply to spacecadet :

I'm running 18x9.5 wheels with 275/35R18s. Cheap they aren't. A 17" wheel would probably save me a couple of hundred per set. 

Now we need a spreadsheet comparing cost per square inch of contact patch. 

I think I would autocross a lot less if I wasn't using 15s. 

Toyman01 said:

In reply to spacecadet :

I'm running 18x9.5 wheels with 275/35R18s. Cheap they aren't. A 17" wheel would probably save me a couple of hundred per set. 

 

Yeah.. Only problem with 17" wheels is they cut off at 255's in all but the Falkens and the conti ECS. 

275 18's is what i'd like to get under hazmat once the suspension gets more sorted. 

Toyman01 said:

Now we need a spreadsheet comparing cost per square inch of contact patch. 

I can do per CM of width. I don't have a good way to calculate contact patch. 

spacecadet said:

Toyman01 said:

Now we need a spreadsheet comparing cost per square inch of contact patch. 

I can do per CM of width. I don't have a good way to calculate contact patch. 

That's because footprint area is a function of inflation pressure and load. Change between whatever two sizes you want, and if the inflation pressure and load are the same, the footprint area will not change. Shape will change, but actual area absolutely will not.

This is interesting, but disregards durability and how that contributes to cost.

I just bought new tires for my ES miata. The previous owner had Rivals on it, but for my substantially lower skill level and the substantially lower price ($70 manufacturer's rebate, plus the $70 scca member rebate) the bridgestone's are fine.

It's the first time I haven't competed on used tires. I knew it would make a huge difference, but I did a lot better than I would have expected. 

I'm still thinking about trying the Yokahamas next summer. The bridgestones really don't like heat.

In reply to Floating Doc :

Yokohamas like it even less. If you're dealing with heat, run the BFG's. 

Toebra said:

This is interesting, but disregards durability and how that contributes to cost.

Everyone's car setup and driving style will differ, as will the site/track and the type of event. Thats something every individual has to determine themselves. 

The purpose of this exercise was to look at the broad picture of what tires cost by the set in (almost) all sizes. It puts hard numbers to the costs of different sizes and brands without having to flip through 60 pages on Tire rack like I did. 

I actually at one point "broke" their website flipping pages so fast and I couldn't access the site until I dumped my cache and waited a few minutes. 

Compiling all this info into the chart and making it do the fun stuff with colors took me the better part of 3 hours of actual work spread across a 6 hour period. 

Thanks OP!

16" wheels make me sad. I went from 215/45/16 Rivals to 255/40/17 RE71s and decreased my tire cost.

Olemiss540 said:

Toebra said:

This is interesting, but disregards durability and how that contributes to cost.

I am guessing you missed the part where NO ONE SAID IT INTEGRATED THE DURABILITY OF EACH TIRE CHOICE INTO THE SPREADSHEET AND THUS OBVIOUSLY DISREGARDS DURABILITY AND HOW THAT CONTRIBUTES TO COST. Sheesh.

Next hot topic, how the TV guide disregards the entertainment value of shows when ranking them by channel. 

Thanks OP!

Glad you like the info.

I will say that you don't need to take that aggressive of a stance though. It doesn't jive well with the pace of the forum.

I don't expect everyone to be happy, it's the internet.. You will never please everyone and I know my data isn't the whole picture, it's just the foundation to build from. Sometimes people just narrow in on things. 

We run 245/50R16's on our LeMons car (The Plymford) and are looking at switching to 17's precisely because of the lack of good tire choices- and the price of them.  235/50/R17's seem pretty plentiful and (relatively) inexpensive.  The loss of 10mm of width will be in the noise considering our driving ability.  Hell, we may even be faster, since the car has no power steering.  

Based on that spreadsheet, the next car we do will wear 205/50R15's.  

spacecadet said:

Glad you like the info.

I will say that you don't need to take that aggressive of a stance though. It doesn't jive well with the pace of the forum.

I don't expect everyone to be happy, it's the internet.. You will never please everyone and I know my data isn't the whole picture, it's just the foundation to build from. Sometimes people just narrow in on things. 

 

Deleted my post. Half humor and half hostility, but your right that it doesnt contribute to the thread.

I just appreciate someone investing the time to post for others' benefit and it's sad folks have to take the opportunity to opine negatively with zero other contribution.

collinskl1 said:

spacecadet said:

Toyman01 said:

Now we need a spreadsheet comparing cost per square inch of contact patch. 

I can do per CM of width. I don't have a good way to calculate contact patch. 

That's because footprint area is a function of inflation pressure and load. Change between whatever two sizes you want, and if the inflation pressure and load are the same, the footprint area will not change. Shape will change, but actual area absolutely will not.

This would be fully true if tires were structureless balloons, but they are not...Taken to the extreme, see run-flat tires.

Driven5 said:

collinskl1 said:

spacecadet said:

Toyman01 said:

Now we need a spreadsheet comparing cost per square inch of contact patch. 

I can do per CM of width. I don't have a good way to calculate contact patch. 

That's because footprint area is a function of inflation pressure and load. Change between whatever two sizes you want, and if the inflation pressure and load are the same, the footprint area will not change. Shape will change, but actual area absolutely will not.

This would be fully true if tires were structureless balloons, but they are not...Taken to the extreme, see run-flat tires.

Yes, there are some assumptions - but in general, it holds true. I've spent a significant chunk of my career as a tire engineer and have seen enough data (that unfortunately I can't share) to prove the physics.

The same is true for the same size tire mounted on a wider wheel. The footprint width increases, but length decreases. The area is the same.

In reply to spacecadet :

Not all Heroes wear capes.

volvoclearinghouse said:

Based on that spreadsheet, the next car we do will wear 205/50R15's.  

Every time I look at tire prices I think to myself "why the berkeley did I buy a new car?".  I miss my 15" wheels