i did a serach on the forum and google and cant find anything. grassroot motorsports did a review on a few tires in their august 2005 issue, does anyone have a link to this, or have the article scanned. please help! thank you

 

found it! and here it is for those who want to see it :D
http://www.grassrootsmotorspor...t.pdf

 

Just read up on that yesterday, helped me make a choice about the R-comps I just picked up Hooooraaay, beer! I mean, Hoooooraaaaay GRM!

 

Article found useful. Thanks!

 

nice! rt-615's are awsome.

 

I do like that magazine but I feel if you were to get two other pro drivers the results would have been different. Most of those tires are so close I don't think it's fair to actually rate them that way.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I do like that magazine but I feel if you were to get two other pro drivers the results would have been different. Most of those tires are so close I don't think it's fair to actually rate them that way.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why, for both? And what would've been a better way to test?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I do like that magazine but I feel if you were to get two other pro drivers the results would have been different. Most of those tires are so close I don't think it's fair to actually rate them that way.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I thought it was good. This is what we did, this is what we came up with, do with it what you will.

 

Yeah, tire testing is tough. A different car, chassis setup, preparation level, track surface, driver or phase of the moon can easily change results. Still, the readers (and tire companies) love the tire tests. Hope the info helps.

 

i had the rt 215 i was happy with the grip, i wasnt happy how they drove and the breakaway at the limit. it drives close to what a race tire would drive like but it doesnt have the same grip. you basicly trade grip for treadwear with this tire. i don not like it for the street. when they get hot they do seem to get a little greasy.
i dont like the feedback that these tires give to the driver. on a car that is very easy to drive these might be ok on, but on something alittle more challenging i would reccomend something else.

i drove the new rt615 and wasnt all that impressed with them either, i didnt have a chance to drive them in the rain. the do seem to be a bit improved then the old rt215. these tires now have gotten expensive and for the price i feel i can get something better.

i have driven many cars with many diffrent tires, the azenis have grip like no other for a street tire and some others come close but not quite as grippy. if you dont care how the car behaves but want the ultimate grip go for the azenis.

i must say my next street tire will be the kumho mx, unless something better comes out before the next season starts. i have yet to drive on the hankook rs2

 

Too bad that test didn't include the Goodyear F1 GS-D3 in the street tire category. The Goodyear just won the comparison test of eleven street tires in the new (December) issue of Car and Driver. (And it's too bad the Car and Driver test didn't include the Falken Azenis RT-615.)

It's also too bad that test didn't include the Toyo RA-1 in the track tire category.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kahren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i must say my next street tire will be the kumho mx, unless something better comes out before the next season starts. i have yet to drive on the hankook rs2</TD></TR></TABLE>

You'd better check out the Car and Driver test first. The Kumho MX came in last out of the eleven tires they tested, and the Hankook was in the middle. Consider the Goodyear F1 GS-D3. In addition to winning the Car and Driver test, it's also rated first in user survey results out of 24 tires in the Tire Rack's top performance category for street tires.

 

Yeah, the thing that bugs me with Car and Drivers tire test of the Highest performance tires is no Falken Azenis RT-615...what gives with that? The tire is available in the size they used on the BMW 325i. Also the stock "recommend" tire pressure settings kinda put the Kumho MX's at a dissadvantage from the start...they need more air than 29psi in the front!

Though, it's kinda funny looking at the Car and Driver BMW 325i test results when comparing with my '98 Tacoma. With 245/45-16 Hankook R-S2 Z212's I am pulling just above 0.95g max (using Racing Technology DL-1 data logger accurate to 0.001G) on sweepers in non-ideal autocross pavement environments...closer to 0.99G absolute max in a few cases actually.

 

Just out of curiousity, has anyone actually tried autocrossing or tracking the GS-D3? Just kinda curious if its worth giving it a shot or not...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Consider the Goodyear F1 GS-D3. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I poked around Tire Rack because of your comments in another thread.

It looks like they've gone after newer cars (e.g., 215-45-17 for $133) but not older cars (no 205-50-15, no 215-45-16, and no 225-45-15).

 

A buddy of mine (user Rainville here on HT) was using the Goodyears, and seemed to like them a lot and certainly did pretty well on them. He was using 195/50-15s I believe. Now he's using Hoosiers, so no comparison

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I poked around Tire Rack because of your comments in another thread.

It looks like they've gone after newer cars (e.g., 215-45-17 for $133) but not older cars (no 205-50-15, no 215-45-16, and no 225-45-15).

</TD></TR></TABLE>

There is a 215/40/16... what would be wrong with that vs. a 215/45?

 

Little too short, maybe too short for proper gearing? It might also look stupid, and clearly that's the most important issue here.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Boilermaker1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just out of curiousity, has anyone actually tried autocrossing or tracking the GS-D3? Just kinda curious if its worth giving it a shot or not... </TD></TR></TABLE>

I did one event on GS-D3s when I was on vacation last summer (didn't lug Hoosiers all over the place) and I can tell you they did not like autocross. Even as a street tyre, they have dreadfully soft sidewalls, so you can imagine how autocrossing them was(even with tons of air in them). I didn't overdrive the car at all and I didn't share it with anyone but by the 4th heat they were already starting to chunk a little in the middle of the tread (it was hot out, 90* on asphalt) and they looked terrible by the end of the day. Good street tire for the money, but a waste to autocross on. I would have rather been on Azenis or MXs, they sure would have held up better and gave a much more confidence-inspiring turn in. FWIW, these wer 195/50/15s on 15x6.5 wheels on a 2400lb Integra on GCs/Konis 450f/550R with ~195 whp.

 

Autocross was one of the tests conducted in the Car and Driver article...

It was also interesting to see that the Kumho MX, which some people praise, came in dead last, and the Toyo T1-R didn't do all that great, either. My personal opinion is that this is because all of these tires are actually pretty good, so that owners might be happy using any one of them in most situations, but when you test them side by side, you find out differences rather than similarities.

 

I read that C&D article too.

I don't know if it was really applicable to auto-x though. Although they ran the car on the course, they didn't do any of the little things that alot of tires require to bring out their best, i.e. tire pressure, cooling, shaving, etc.

 

I too would tend to trust GRM a little more than C&D when it came to the autox portion of testing.

But it must be said - I wish someone would do a track tire test. Hint hint GRM, take all those rims, get a Spec Miata and head up to Roebling Road, Road Atlanta, wherever. Realistically I know the chances of this happening are slim since it would probably cost more and be a little more dangerous to do so.

I'm just not sure the 40 second autox/mini-road course really reflects what would go on in an actual track environment....and it would be interersting to see the Hoosiers, Kumho's, Hankooks, Toyos and Azenis go head to head in that environment.

- Mark

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BA5 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know if it was really applicable to auto-x though. Although they ran the car on the course, they didn't do any of the little things that alot of tires require to bring out their best, i.e. tire pressure, cooling, shaving, etc. </TD></TR></TABLE>

The problem with doing what you are suggesting - prepping each tire in a different manner for pressure, cooling, shaving, etc - is that it introduces a whole bunch of different variables into the process, each of which may be responsible for differences in performance. By treating all the tires the same, they take those variables out of the equation, so that differences in performance can fairly be attributed to characteristics of the tires themselves.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Markus &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I too would tend to trust GRM a little more than C&D when it came to the autox portion of testing.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sounds like you haven't read the article, and you don't know the people involved. The test was run by C&D staff and Tire Rack staff and Full-Lock Industries staff.

The Tire Rack was FOUNDED by a couple of autocrossers, who couldn't find the tires they wanted so they started the business. Every one of their salespeople drives that autocross course so they know what various tires can do. Many of their staff, from their top executives on down, are experienced track drivers and racers. Here in the Midwest, we are accustomed to seeing them at many of our track events (and getting their expert advice on tires for free!).

The reps from Full-Lock Industries both spent over ten years testing tires for Michelin.

Nothing against GRM, but they're not the only ones capable of running a good tire test. The folks who ran this test are not amateurs who don't know what they're doing.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Markus &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I wish someone would do a track tire test.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Me too! (Something more than just a test of track tires on an autocross course like the one in GRM last year.) However, the track tests I've seen, where they are using an entire road course and using lap times (to compare different cars, different drivers, etc) usually have far more variables involved and rarely come up with definitive, repeatable results. It's hard to come to conclusions when it's not clear whether differences in numbers are caused by the variable you're looking at, vs. just random "noise" like slight lap-to-lap differences in driving that always occur.

EDIT: Made wording more explicit for those who have trouble reading at their grade level.



Modified by nsxtasy at 12:51 PM 11/7/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nothing against GRM, but the folks who ran this test are not amateurs who don't know what they're doing.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Are you implying that GRM is?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Are you implying that GRM is? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Of course not!

But I went ahead and made that sentence more explicit, for those whose reading comprehension skills may not be at their grade level.




Modified by nsxtasy at 12:53 PM 11/7/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Sounds like you haven't read the article, and you don't know the people involved.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Just like you didn't mean to imply anything bad about GRM I don't mean to imply anything bad about C&D. Of the mainstream auto mags, C&D is my favorite and of course I have bought tires from Tirerack, used their reviews, etc.

Perhaps I should have been a little more specific. I would prefer to see a track test yes. But even in an autox test all I'm really concerned about is autox performance, price, and maybe some guesstimate on life expectancy. I don't care how loud the tire is around town, how it is in daily driving, or how it handles anything other than a light drizzle.

For me personally, it seemed like the GRM article hit much closer to this target. C&D serves a much wider audience that just by its nature will spend a much lower percentage time actually autox'ing or open tracking so they put less time into that.

I kind of want to rip on C&D for leaving out the Azeni, but then again GRM left out the RA1. So that's a wash.

If I were buying tires for my daily driver Subaru Legacy, I would probably go to C&D first. If I were buying tires for my time trial/autox Miata, I would go to GRM first. If I were buying tires for my mom's Taurus I would go to Consumer Reports (and maybe not even then).

- Markus