Interesting tire test comparison

I happened to be cleaning up the car mags laying all over the house and had the Dec 13 GRM and the Jan 14 Hot Rod in the same stack so I noticed they were both testing tires. Hmmm...

GRM did the typical FWD CRX test they always do with 205/50/15's on an 8" wheel, followed by 225/45's on the 8's and 9's. HR used a 500HP Mopar B-Body on Hotchkis suspension and Viper brakes running 275/35/18's.

GRM found the BFG Rival (225) on the 9" rim to be best, and no other tire could touch any combo of Rival (205/8", 225/8"). HR found the Dunlop ZII to be superior everywhere.

Interestingly, both have the 200TW Hankook Ventus R-S3 in 2nd.

GRM had the Bridgestone Potenza RE-11A 3rd, HR had the Rival 3rd, followed by a bunch of other (Falken RT-615K, Michelin Pilot Super Sport, Potenza RE-11). GRM only tested 4 and the last place guy was the Dunlop, intriguing.

So, thoughts? (And before you make it a car or driver thing, GRM's contributor Andy Hollis needs no intros around here, and HR used the Tire Rack facility GRM usually uses, including driver Woody Rogers (who co-drove the GRM STR Miata at Nationals), and the car is pretty infamous outside of the SCCA as the "Auto-X Taxi" and is a previous Goodguy's winner (Pro Touring equivalent of Nationals).

What I'm getting is that the Rival works better on smaller/lighter cars (and therefore sizes), whereas the Dunlop works better on larger/heavy cars (and therefore larger sizes). The R-S3 kinda just works for everything.

I have a dog in this race, as the Javelin requires some 200TW hoops for next season (see USCA thread). I was prepared to jump on the Rival bandwagon until I read HR, but I'm thinking I don't have the power needed for the Dunlop. Maybe just stick with the tried-and-true Ventus? (I did win a season championship with R-S3's in 225/45/15 on my old 944).

Anybody else have some thoughts? Much appreciated!

Thanks for the insight. Nice deductive reasoning. I have nothing real to offer as I buy the Falkens based on the price point for my 6" wide 15's. Reading with interest.

Nobody?

Not much help here. My tire are tires in the academic sense, in that they are round and had once been made of rubber.

I don't know what the HR test consisted of, but could this be as simple as the Rival producing more lateral grip and the ZII producing more longitudinal grip?

I would propose that a 500 hp Mopar with really good brakes can probably utilize longitudinal grip far more than lateral grip for improving times. The car is powerful and has good brakes and it's heavy so to reach it's potential it need to have good grip for acceleration and braking. Not to hate on old mopars, but it probably corners like crap compared to a highly modified CRX, so increasing the lateral grip would be less beneficial overall.

If it is the case that the Rival is better in corners and the ZII is better in a straight line, it might explain the difference in results.

In the subie world, it's the Dunlops have been king for some time. That's been common knowledge. The Dunlops just handle fat cars better. I'm not sure if anyone has been trying the Rivals on the fat cars yet or not.

On the lighter cars, the Toyo/Rival combo has been best. On moderately light (2500-2900lb) cars the Rival works extremely well and on the 3k and up the Dunlops have been great. From what I hear, the RS-3 is a good compromise tire..... as long as its not raining or cold.

I had to laugh when I read the Hot Rod article. The picture they show is of the test car fish tailing through a corner. They must get their test standards for handling from Top Gear...

For anyone who is not contending for a National's jacket, I think you can pretty much throw a blanket over the field and take your pick--you can tune and drive to taste. These are all excellent tires...and these tests are good guidelines to know where the strengths and "weaknesses" are for your choice.

FSP_ZX2 wrote: For anyone who is not contending for a National's jacket, I think you can pretty much throw a blanket over the field and take your pick--you can tune and drive to taste. These are all excellent tires...and these tests are good guidelines to know where the strengths and "weaknesses" are for your choice.

Exactly. And different tires are going to perform differently on different cars (three "differents" in one sentence - Is that a record?), so agonizing over small differences is probably not worth it.

If you like something.... stick with it.

Each driver is different... tires are different... what it sounds like to me... is what offers the driver the most confidence is the best tire for them... you did well in the past with the RS-3, and they are still competitive....

oldeskewltoy wrote: If you like something.... stick with it. Each driver is different... tires are different... what it sounds like to me... is what offers the driver the most confidence is the best tire for them... you did well in the past with the RS-3, and they are still competitive....

That is spot-on, IMO.

Similar story with our Hoosier vs. Goodyear autocross DOT slick. The test we did--with a low-horsepower car, can't remember which--showed the Hoosier the obvious winner. But at 2012 Solo Nats, I talked to some people running Goodyears who said they preferred them over Hoosiers because they can take more slip angle and like to be driven aggressively, where the Hoosiers are more finicky at the limit. These people were running high-horsepower cars.

Food for thought.

Based upon what I read, I have a hunch that the Dunlops are more of an autocross tire (like a Hoosier A6) and the BfGoodrich are more a road racing tire (like a Hoosier R6). I've been looking for evidence to support this but beyond the GRM test, I haven't found any other tests that took place on a road course.

Tires are pretty subjective. Some people like certain aspects of each one, and these tests do a good job of defining those aspects. All of the top tires are capable of winning with the right driving style and setup. I run RS3s because they're the cheapest lol. But I've driven most the others and I wouldn't be unhappy with any of them.

The HR test was 275s on 9.5" wheels. It was obvious the Dunlops would win.

Take one of the grippier, sloppy sidewall tires and put it on a wider rim and you will get different results.

Video of the HotRod test

More people are finding success with the 235/40R17 Toyos on 17x9s after this year STX results at nationals. Too many Lemmings and not enough science.

Lots of interesting points being raise, thanks!

On the longitudinal versus lateral grip - makes total sense. Also the "road course" versus "autocross" style of testing. Both are very valid points to consider. Since the USCA is an AX and a track lap, plus the whole psudeo-drag-race Launch Box, it will take a good combo tire to do well. The Dunlops might not have the longevity for the track work.

That said, I'm running either a 245 or a 255 on a 9" wheel, and a 275 or 285 on the 10.5" one, so maybe the Dunlop can give me an edge over an R-S3? Need more data...

For those that say it doesn't matter, it most certainly does. You don't have to be a Nationals-level driver to be able to tell the difference between a half second per lap on tires. More importantly though are the characteristics. Both test hailed the R-S3 as an "easier" tire. Basically it's performance peak was broader, versus the sharp point of the Dunlop or the Rival. You can eke more out of the other 2, but maybe not repeat it. Other valid points are how the tires perform in the cold and once they are hot. Anything that gets greasy in GRM testing can usually stay cool up here, for example (which is why you see a lot of Falkens still up here).

In reply to Javelin:

FWIW, the RS3s take heat very well. My best finishes are always with a codriver to keep the temps up. Never could quite get the best out of them when flying solo. Just the opposite from the old starspecs. Those were great right out of the gate but I had to spray them after the second run. They were toast with a codriver.