Falken Azenis vs. Yokohama Parada spec 2 (daily driver/auto x)

[JDM H22]

I have definitly searched and there is a lot of info to sort through. What I found was that the Paradas are better then the es 100, but everyone seems to say the Falkens are the best. I have had 4 sets of the paradas and they are a great tire no matter what anyone says. However, I am looking to trade a little life for more grip. The side walls on both tires are reinforced steel and both seem to be good in the rain (won 1st in rain with paradas at an auto x event). The paradas have a treadware of 300 and the Falkens 200, so they should have more grip. Any one running them for daily driver? My car is a daily driver and I dont have wheels to mount a track tire. So my question is should I go with the Falkens or stick with the Yokohamas?

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Honda-Tech!

[dvp]

I have also had both the Paradas and the ES100's. The Paradas were better. The Azenis are another step or two better than the Paradas. Yes they will wear out faster.
I don't compare the wear rating between different tires because they are way to general from tire to tire.

[EK4civichatch]

Azenis FTW!!!

[Stinkycheezmonky]

Azenis without question.

[ekim952522000]

RT-615's best street tire I've autocrossed with

[Yellow Dragon]

Originally Posted by sscguy

Azenis without question.

+6356478579657653636479458863683654585484867546546 54

[nsxtasy]

There's no doubt that the Falken Azenis RT-615 grips much, much, MUCH better than either Yokohama, or any other street tire.

But you guys who claim that the Parada Spec 2 is better than the ES100 are smoking crack. The ES100 is much better than the Parada. MUCH better. (Even though neither one is anywhere close to the Azenis.)

You'll get 2-3 times as many miles from a set of ES100 as you will from the Azenis, maybe even more. (On Integras, the Azenis often get ~12K miles; we're over 30K on our ES100 and still have around 5/32" of tread left.) You'll have to decide whether you want to go for the extra grip of the Azenis or the longer treadlife, lower price, and better wet traction of the ES100 (or the crappy performance of the Paradas).

Another tire worth considering, if you decide you're looking for longer treadlife, low price, okay dry traction and great wet traction, is the new Kumho Ecsta SPT. It's similar to the ES100 but is a bit better in rain, has a higher treadwear rating, and in many sizes is priced less.

Among these "budget performance tires", the hierarchy goes something like this:

Kumho SPT > Yoko ES100 > Kumho 712 > Dunlop FM901 > Yoko Parada

Check out test results in the side-by-side comparison tests on the Tire Rack website and you'll see the proof for each pair of tires. (Ignore the survey results, which are biased by which types of buyer buys which tire and the expectations they typically have.)

Again, though, these are not the best gripping tires around; they're really designed more for value, decent performance at a bargain price. When it comes to grip, the Azenis are just in a whole 'nuther category, and I wouldn't make the comparison to any of these. If you want grip, get the Azenis, end of story. But if you care about how long they last, get the SPT or the ES100.

Also - the treadwear rating tells absolutely nothing about how well a tire grips. (It's not even entirely reliable when it comes to treadwear, but we'll save that for another discussion.)

[Vracer111]

Don't forget the Hankook RS-2 Z212 as well. The Hankook RS-2 Z212 will be a great daily driver (great in the wet and a softer sidewall than Azenis RT-615.) With 245/45-16 Hankook RS-2 Z212's on 16x7.5 Kosei K-1's my Toyota Tacoma Extended cab has an ultimate roadholding capability of right at 1.00G (datalogged with a DL-1 on many autocross runs). Also have 205/50-15 RS-2 Z212's on the Integra RS and ..... weee that car is fun! 80mph in the wet with puddles is no big deal and turn in is immediate and forcefull in the dry.

[nsxtasy]

Originally Posted by Vracer111

The Hankook RS-2 Z212 will be a great daily driver

I disagree.

The Z212 is a very good tire in the dry, although not as sticky as the Azenis. However, when it comes to treadlife, the Z212 wears quite rapidly. Furthermore, its performance is worse than most other tires in the wet (not just my O, but also that of Car and Driver in their recent comparison test, where they said, "its wet-track results were below average. Like the other poor runners in water, the Hankook felt greasy and was slow to recover once it broke traction.").

If you're looking for ultimate dry grip, get the Azenis.

If you're looking for decent treadlife and/or good wet traction, don't get the Azenis or the Z212. Get a tire like the Kumho SPT or Yoko ES100, or if you want to spend more money for better performance in a long-lasting tire, get the Goodyear F1 GS-D3.

[super_mut]

You won with Spec 2's in the rain? WTF?

For me those tires never gripped in the rain. It's like playing slip and slide. I loved my ES100's those were the tire to have and still are!

Get the Azenis. I'm trying those next.

[Stinkycheezmonky]

Winning is a relative term. You could be either 1: the only person in your class, or 2: the best person in your class, even if you're pretty terrible.

[dvp]

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

I disagree.

The Z212 is a very good tire in the dry, although not as sticky as the Azenis. However, when it comes to treadlife, the Z212 wears quite rapidly. Furthermore, its performance is worse than most other tires in the wet (not just my O, but also that of Car and Driver in their recent comparison test, where they said, "its wet-track results were below average. Like the other poor runners in water, the Hankook felt greasy and was slow to recover once it broke traction.").

If you're looking for ultimate dry grip, get the Azenis.

Well that test is a joke for autocrossers. That was a "strap the tire on and go test, who gives a shit if the tire does better with 4 more psi of air". C&D has been pretty disapointing even though they cater to the "I'm blind, what should I buy crowd".
The Azenis and the Z212 are very comparable in the dry, and in the rain for that matter. Yes that is my opinion.

[Vracer111]

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

I disagree.

The Z212 is a very good tire in the dry, although not as sticky as the Azenis. However, when it comes to treadlife, the Z212 wears quite rapidly. Furthermore, its performance is worse than most other tires in the wet (not just my O, but also that of Car and Driver in their recent comparison test, where they said, "its wet-track results were below average. Like the other poor runners in water, the Hankook felt greasy and was slow to recover once it broke traction.").

If you're looking for ultimate dry grip, get the Azenis.

If you're looking for decent treadlife and/or good wet traction, don't get the Azenis or the Z212. Get a tire like the Kumho SPT or Yoko ES100, or if you want to spend more money for better performance in a long-lasting tire, get the Goodyear F1 GS-D3.

Original poster is willing to sacrific some tread life for a better handling tire.

Car and Driver's tire test is not a true indication of the Hankook RS-2 Z212 or Kumho Ecsta MX performance... an equal 29psi front/rear setup on a heavish BMW 3 series is not proper inflation for those tires (they need more air than 29psi for optimum performance because of their less stiff sidewalls). On a daily driven 2355lb wet weight Integra RS the Hankooks are at 35psi front and 36psi rear and they stick great in the wet, have excellent wet transitional response, and are hard to hydroplane at high speeds. I also run them on my ~2800lb Tacoma at 34-35psi front and 29 psi rear. Personally if its wet, I'd rather have the Hankook RS-2 Z212's than Yokohama ES-100's; the ES-100's break traction too easily and then spin until you are completely off the throttle. Never had any problems with the Hankooks not griping or lacking responsiveness in the wet.

The Kumho Ecsta SPT, the Hankook RS-2 Z212's, and Yokohama Neova all have the same basic tread pattern design features (though the Neova has two circumferential ribs instead of three). They are just individual variations on a theme... the theme being designed for dry handling along with good wet handling capability.

Yokohama Neova


Hankook RS-2 Z212


Kumho Ecsta SPT

[nsxtasy]

Originally Posted by dvp

Well that test is a joke for autocrossers.

BS. Almost every test I've seen uses amateurs who know what tire they're testing, which means it's a biased test to begin with. That one was one of the few that were conducted blind, using professional tire testers. It was also one of the few tests that tested wet lap times as well as dry times, and tested braking distances and g forces in addition to lap times.

Originally Posted by dvp

The Azenis and the Z212 are very comparable in the dry

No, they aren't. The Azenis turns faster lap times. Not just my opinion, but also that of Grassroots Motorsports. But I'm sure you think they're a "joke", too, because you know a lot more than people who test tires for a living.

Originally Posted by dvp

and in the rain for that matter.

Both are worse than most other tires in the rain - not bad per se, but worse than other tires - so both are poor choices for wet conditions.

Originally Posted by dvp

Yes that is my opinion.

And my opinion is that you don't know anything about tires. I bet you've never even driven on the new Azenis that you're slamming.

Originally Posted by Vracer111

Personally if its wet, I'd rather have the Hankook RS-2 Z212's than Yokohama ES-100's

Personally, I've tried 'em both, and based on my experience there's absolutely no comparison in rain. The ES100 is far, FAR superior to the Z212 on wet pavement. It's not hard to tell why, either; all you have to do is look at the tread pattern (below) and you can see how the ES100 (like most other good rain tires) has a pattern with diagonal tread grooves that channel water to the sides to reduce the risk of hydroplaning.

There are other tires out there that are also excellent on dry pavement, including the Goodyear F1 GS-D3. They are FAR superior on wet pavement to the Z212.

As another option for track use in rain, Fall-Line Motorsports, a well-known local race prep shop, takes Hoosiers and actually cuts a tread pattern into the tires, with large diagonal tread grooves to channel the water out from the tire.

Yokohama ES100:

[spock_rocker]

Originally Posted by Yellow Dragon

+6356478579657653636479458863683654585484867546546 54

+ 1 more

[JDM H22]

But did you (or anyone) use the Azenis for daily driving?

[Stinkycheezmonky]

I did. Two sets of them, no problems. They don't get great wear (15-20K miles at best, with a few exceptional cases of up to 30K miles), and they're very loud, but they're also very fun One of the biggest things to keep in mind is that (at least with the old Azenis) you might be at the 15K mile marker with plenty of tread left, but the tires have been heat-cycled so much that they're much harder and much less grippy.

[sdcivic549]

I personally have used all the Azenis's and Kuhmo MX's. The 615's are definately the faster tires in the dry, 215's and MX's are about comperable on average depending on the track.

For daily driving I'd go with the MX's with a slightly softer sidewall, competant in the wet and quieter ride, still, with autocrossing and DDing don't expect more than 10 - 15kmiles. MX's also tend to last a few more heat cycles than the Azenis's.

I don't completely trust anything that comes out of any magazines except GRM and Racecar engineering especially when it comes to things like tires or suspension.

[dvp]

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

BS. Almost every test I've seen uses amateurs who know what tire they're testing, which means it's a biased test to begin with. That one was one of the few that were conducted blind, using professional tire testers. It was also one of the few tests that tested wet lap times as well as dry times, and tested braking distances and g forces in addition to lap times.

Did you not read why that test is BS?? Or are you just another "the tire rack and "pro" drivers tested the tires so it must be true NO MATTER the method" blind follower?

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

No, they aren't. The Azenis turns faster lap times. Not just my opinion, but also that of Grassroots Motorsports. But I'm sure you think they're a "joke", too, because you know a lot more than people who test tires for a living.

Yes they are.
You don't have to be an engineer with 30 years experiance to see holes in the testing method do you.

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

Both are worse than most other tires in the rain - not bad per se, but worse than other tires - so both are poor choices for wet conditions.

Can you be any more general than that? Or are you going off of the "perfect" C&D test for this statement?

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

And my opinion is that you don't know anything about tires. I bet you've never even driven on the new Azenis that you're slamming.

Damn good thing I don't give a shit about your opinion huh! And where am I "slamming" the Azenis?? Put the added BS back where you got it please.

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

Personally, I've tried 'em both, and based on my experience there's absolutely no comparison in rain. The ES100 is far, FAR superior to the Z212 on wet pavement. It's not hard to tell why, either; all you have to do is look at the tread pattern (below) and you can see how the ES100 (like most other good rain tires) has a pattern with diagonal tread grooves that channel water to the sides to reduce the risk of hydroplaning.

There are other tires out there that are also excellent on dry pavement, including the Goodyear F1 GS-D3. They are FAR superior on wet pavement to the Z212.

As another option for track use in rain, Fall-Line Motorsports, a well-known local race prep shop, takes Hoosiers and actually cuts a tread pattern into the tires, with large diagonal tread grooves to channel the water out from the tire.

Yokohama ES100:

And thanks for YOUR opinion again. We all seem to have one don't we.
Even the magazines are based off of opinion and faulty testing at times.

[nsxtasy]

Originally Posted by dvp

Even the magazines are based off of opinion and faulty testing at times.

Actually, no they're not. The Car and Driver test, for example, ranked the tires based only on the numerical testing results, not off "opinion". Sure, they added subjective descriptions of what the tires were doing, but the performance rankings were based only on the numbers, and the numbers were achieved by professional drivers who did not know which tires they were driving at the time.

And as for "faulty testing", the only thing "faulty" that anyone accuses them of is setting the inflation pressures the same for all tires. And, when you think about it - this step may be a stretch for you, but try it - what they do makes sense for testing street tires, which are the subject of this discussion. There's a difference between how street tires are used, and how track tires are used. When you are using tires on the track, chances are you play around with the pressures to find just what is best for those tires, that track, the temperatures that day, etc. You might spend all day finding the best pressure for one particular tire. You also do other things to find the maximum grip - such as seeing how many laps you need before the tire reaches its maximum grip, how many laps before the grip starts to go away, etc. (And there are lots of other variables you are also dealing with on the track - speeds increasing as you learn the track, lap times that vary because of passing situations or off-track excursions that occur, changes in environmental conditions during the day, etc).

But that's not what you do with street tires. Typically, most of us set the inflation pressure at what's recommended for the car - at least, as a starting point, and then maybe we adjust it a bit as needed for better handling, for more even tire wear, and other factors. But in most cases, at least for performance-oriented cars, the pressure recommended by the manufacturer (or something very close to it) works pretty well for most tires. And that's exactly the way Car and Driver tested these street tires - the way most street tires are used.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the Car and Driver test was far more thorough than other tire tests I've seen. For example, the Grassroots Motorsports test ONLY tested using dry autocross lap times. And that's certainly useful information for all of us in this forum, who care about lap times. But isn't it better to get more information? Dry lap times are not the only measure of a tire's capabilities. Braking distances vary by tire, and they are important. So are skidpad forces, as a measure of the tire's cornering capability. And, for street tires, it's useful to know what the tires' capabilities are in wet conditions, too. If you live in a dry climate, you might not care, and you're free to ignore those measures and concentrate on the dry ones. But others are likely to find that information useful. More information is better, more usable information!

If I were to come up with the ultimate tire test for street tires, it would probably be very similar to the methodology used by Car and Driver, factoring out as many variables as possible, factoring out bias by blind testing, testing the tires the way they are used, and testing various measures of the tires' capabilities for everyday driving. With those variables factored out, you get to see what the real differences are among tires. And that information is a whole lot more useful than hearing a single driver (who thinks he is Mario Andretti but almost certainly is not) say "I use 'em, I like 'em" about a tire he's used, which doesn't tell anything at all about how numerous tires compare with each other. I've heard lots of people make complimentary comments like that about almost every tire on the road. The problem with such comments is not that any tires are bad tires, only that some tires are not as good a choice as others. If you can buy one tire that performs better and costs less than another tire, it's a better choice to buy, even though that other tire may offer performance that some owners will be satisfied with. And that's the information most of us want to know - not which tires are okay, but which tires are better than which other tires, so that we can get the best performance for the money we spend on tires.

Now, if I were to come up with the ultimate tire test for track tires, that would use an entirely different methodology. Grassroots Motorsports tested R compound tires in the same article as their street tire test, but I find their information quite skimpy (lap times for five autocross runs on dry pavement by two drivers, NO braking distances or skidpad results, NO wet testing, NO indication of what was done regarding pressures, some laps had cones knocked over and others didn't, etc). Three of the four tires were within about a tenth of a second of each other on a 40+ second course. The tire that came in fourth was the first one tested and they re-tested it last, to see the difference that occurs from learning the autocross track, and it was about 0.7 second, way more than the differences between the other three tires. So about the only conclusion you can come to from that test is that differences from learning a course are greater than differences between tires - not very useful when it comes to whether to choose one tire over another (unless you want to conclude that it really doesn't matter).

I would LOVE to see a truly thorough test of R compound tires, used on a track the way R compound tires are normally used. Sure, I would still want to see tests of lap times and braking distances and skidpad forces. But I would also like to see measurements of how the tire capabilities change over time as they accumulate heat cycles on the track. I'm not sure how one would go about that - maybe include measured g-forces all the way around the track? I don't know, but I'd like to see some way of measuring which tire is fastest - Hoosier R3S05/R3S06, Toyo RA-1, Hankook Z211 and Z214, Kumho V710 and Victoracer, Yoko A048R, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup, Pirelli PZero Cup, etc. Again, more information is nearly always better, particularly information that factors out the variables that affect results in nearly all the cases in which most of us drive our cars, even on the track. And again, it sure beats what we have without any rigorous testing to factor out those variables, which is pretty much only hearing someone saying "I use 'em, I like 'em". If anyone has seen any side-by-side comparison tests of R compound track tires that they think are insightful, please post a link to them here. (Again, the only track tire test I'm aware of is the one from Grassroots Motorsports.)

Going back to the original question, I don't think it makes sense to complain that street tires weren't tested using a methodology that is suitable to track tires. Most of us use street tires on the street, and track tires on the track. I want to hear how street tires compare using measurements that are appropriate for street conditions, and how track tires compare using measurements that are appropriate for track conditions. Those measurements, and the methodology for obtaining them, are just not the same at all.



Modified by nsxtasy at 10:04 AM 4/24/2006

[dvp]

I just can't agree with you there.
How many of us have been out to a track or autocross with street tires? At least 1/2 of the drivers here at our local autocross use a street tire.
So not adjusting the pressures totally nulifies the testing they did because "it would have taken forever"...
So anyone that wants to put their faith behind that test is a sucker asking for someone with MX's to pass them in the wet when they have F1's. Pressures are a huge factor with any tire and to not test with different pressures leaves the C&D test lacking any credibility with any serious autocrosser or track junky.
Like I said before, that test is for people that do not want all from their tires.

[nsxtasy]

Originally Posted by dvp

So not adjusting the pressures totally nulifies the testing they did because "it would have taken forever"...

So what you are advocating, then, is NO comparison information about tires, and sticking people with "I use 'em, I like 'em" as the only thing people should listen to, because performance might change just a bit based on pressures? Advocating less information is just plain dumb.

Originally Posted by dvp

that test is for people that do not want all from their tires.

Using street tires in track events is for people who do not want all the performance they can get. People who DO want all the performance they can get, use R compound tires.

[dvp]

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

So what you are advocating, then, is NO comparison information about tires, and sticking people with "I use 'em, I like 'em" as the only thing people should listen to, because performance might change just a bit based on pressures? Advocating less information is just plain dumb.

Where am I advocating "less" information?? It would be more would it not??
What I'm "advocating" is why do a half ass comparison if you're going just get some info and leave out one of the most important aspects of a tire....it's pressure. "Just a bit"...do you actually drive your car on track or do autocrosses at all? Tire pressures make a very big difference. Now you just sound like your side stepping the issue because "pros" did the test. So it must be accurate right.

Originally Posted by nsxtasy

Using street tires in track events is for people who do not want all the performance they can get. People who DO want all the performance they can get, use R compound tires.

Huh?? No, a lot of people use street tires at HPDE's because they perform well for a much cheaper price than R-compounds and they last 10 times as long. But the pressures are still going to change the cars dynamics on track.
Do those that use R-compounds check their pressures....does it make the tire act differently. Yes, same goes for street tires.

[azian21485]

what's the big problem here?

magazines offer the MOST CONCLUSIVE TEST THEY CAN GET. You will NEVER find a more conclusive test.

If you want a more conclusive test, you have to take different tire pressures. Sure ok. Spend hours trying that out.

But then, tires are designed differently and react differently to different suspension changes. Sure ok. Change that too. For every tire, find the optimal suspension changes to make use of those tire's characteristics. Come back to us when we you're done in a few years.

Not every tire is the best for every car and their individual setup and driving preference. Limiting the variables (car, driver, tire pressure, suspension) is the only way to see a general result of which tire performs best.


edit: in general, these magazines tests point out potential candidates for good tires. You won't be finding miracalus seconds being shaved off your time by adjusting tire pressures that are close to the optimum range, we all know that. Looking at the times, we see what tires are fast and slow. Then it's up to you to decide which one you want. Yes, the tests help alot. No they aren't absolutely conclusive, but as conclusive as you'll get


Modified by azian21485 at 11:27 PM 4/24/2006

[gpteitz]

Originally Posted by dvp

Yes they are.

No, they're not. The Hankook was tested by many national-caliber autocrossers last year; some even raced on them for awhile. But if you check out this year's NT results, you'll see that NO ONE (okay, one or two people) is running them. Why not? Because they're NOT FASTER. The Azenis is a better tire, and now for less money.

Could it be that the Hankook is close enough to the 615? Most likely not. Why not? Because they offer contingency money and Falken doesn't. So if they really were close, then people would use the 'kooks for the contingency. Like I said, check out this year's NT results.


PS The C&D test wasn't perfect -- I agree that they would have found better performance in some tires had they played with pressures a bit. But I do think that the test was one of the best I've read in a magazine, and appreciate the level to which they went to keep the variables limited and the perceptions unbiased.

PPS I love GRM, but I think it's naive to assume that they aren't operating under the exact same advertising/marketing forces that drive more mainstream rags like C&D, R&T, etc.