Below are all the data points for the 2014 Auto Bild Top 15 Summer Tyre Test, displaying how each tyre performed across all test categories. The spider chart below provides a complete overview of performance, where one hundred percent represents the best performance in each category. The larger the area covered by each tyre's plot, the better its overall performance.
How to read these charts:
For each test category, data is presented relative to the best performing tire. The direction indicates whether lower or higher values are better - pay close attention to this when interpreting results.
Spider chart cannot be displayed because there are no test categories common to all tires.
Can you expalin each category you give scores?
i wonder why in any of this test there is not Bridgestone Potenza RE002
Bridgestone will have chosen to submit the T001 instead of the RE002!
In 2013 European Summer Sports Tyre Test Dunlop SportMaxx RT was also at the top in wear and now only 2 of 10? Does that mean that they last 4 times less than Michelin?
I'm afraid we don't know if there is a direct correlation between the score and the number of miles the tyre will last, only that the lower the number the less miles they'll last.
And where is the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2..??
Very very good tires
Goodyear and Dunlop would have chosen what tyres to submit, and would have only been allowed 1 tyre per brand, so split it across the EfficientGrip Performance and Sport Maxx RT
Where is the Dunlop Blue Response
Michelin Primacy 3
14th: 2012 Autobild 50 Tyre Braking Test (225/45 R17)
1st: 2014 Auto Bild Top 15 Summer Tyre Test (225/50 R17)
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
How is that possible????
Tyres get updated through their life with improved compounds and technologies. It's extremely unlikely the tyre tested in 2014 is the same tyre they tested in 2012.
The new label scores has pushed through a lot of new updated to existing patterns in the past 2 years.
Thanks for reply.
Again, I can not believe that the tyre can hold up great in the rain and have a little wear. Rain tires are generally softer, and wear out relatively faster compared with stiffer tyres.
Anyhow, somebody will buy this tyres... and we will have some feedback.... soon....
Plenty of feedback here :)
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
Michelin are well known for having an excellent wear / wet performance. Their tyres often cost a little more than other premium brands, but the price/performance per mile works out well due to the increased mileage.
...wear / wet perfomace...
...price/performance per mile... Arguments are in place.
I'll see what will ADAC say...
Thanks.
If the tires have been updated at some point most of those user reviews are probably still based on the older version of the tire.
Not that it matters to me anyway, I already ordered the SportMaxx RTs before I saw this article - although considering how fast they are said to wear, I might be shopping for new tires again soon. Shame there aren't many performance-oriented tires available in my size (225/55 R16).
That sounds like a great excuse for some new, larger alloys ;)
It does, doesn't it? On the other hand I've avoided moving to larger wheels as the roads around here are not particularly smooth. I guess everything is a compromise in one way or another when it comes to finding the right wheels and tires :)
"Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
How is that possible????"
There are several ways that it is possible. The most obvious is that the two tests evaluate different things and in different ways.
Firstly, they seem to give strong emphasis on cost per mile. Most tests, when they consider costs, consider purchase price only and don't give it very much emphasis. You can decide for yourself whether costs are important to you, but, if you decdide that costs are important, it seems to me that this test has the approach correct (and, by implication, the ones that take the simple purchase price approach, don't).
The other very obvious thing is that one test is a braking test. In a braking test, you measure braking, and nothing else. this obviously does not give a balanced or complete view of a tyre's performance, but the reason that Auto Bild did that test was to act as a 'prefilter' on the proper testing, presumably on the grounds that anything that was really bad in braking wasn't worth subhecting to the full gamut of tests, because, in the light of its braking test results, it wasn't going to trouble the podium places.
Given the amount of work involved in doing tyre testing properly, you have to understand their approach, but that's not the same as saying that you should take the results of a braking test as being the final word on the subject.
(And, the braking test doesn't even seem to take cost into account, never mind whether it takes the 'correct' cost per mile approach, or not.)
Also, the Primacy 3s are scoring top for wear, yet in the customer reviews on this site they get absolutely slated for very low endurance - as low as 6k miles for some reviewers. I don't trust this test at all.
Remember the tests are testing them comparatively to other tyres, whereas the reviews are an isolated experience.
As a rule, Michelin and Bridgestone often last longer than competitors, so the claims in this test are believable to us.