Below are all the data points for the 2015 Australian Motor 235/35 R19 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.
One correction.
The Dunlop DZ102 tested was not the "track version". You're thinking the DZ102 *Star Spec* which had completely different compounds.
The DZ102 tested here is basically the touring version.
I see the sportcontact 5P has done very well in a few tests. How would they go lap time wise around a dry racetrack against a middle of the range semi - say a federal 595 RSR or a Hankook RS3 or Nitto NT-05 ? thanks
The 5P has been replaced by the 6.
Check out this test - http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
The road tyre was almost certainly the 6, so should answer your question quite nicely.
Thanks for the reply. I was in my local tyre shop here in Australia and read this article in a magazine in full. The Sport Cup 2 was a gap quicker than the conti 5P in the dry slalom run but the conti made up for the final score by doing better in the wet and other areas. According to this
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
I would assume the conti 5P would be about 2 km/hr slower than the Sport Cup 2 in the dry ? I'm excited about the conti 6 but my wallet thinks the 5P should be on sale now.
So you think the 5P would be equal to the Advan AD08r and the Toyo888r around a track and the new 6 would be even faster ? If so that's very impressive for a non semi slick...
my own query re tyre choice was why they didn't include the brand new Bridgestone Adrenalin RE003. It would have been no odder than other inclusions & would at least have been current.
It could be down to whether the tyre is available in the Australian market. The RE003 isn't available in the UK, nor do Bridgestone have plans to launch it here.
Yes it is. In Bridgestone's Bloggers' preview of the RE003 in Australia, it was put up against some rivals (in carefully selected pairs) in various disciplines. Three such rivals were Michelin's PS3, Pirelli's PZero Rosso (an oddly obsolescent choice of rival) & Continental's SC5. So it would seem to be viewed as either in the class of the MM test (SC5) or next one down (PS3).
Then this test is even more confusing! We know Bridgestone put the RE002 forward for the UK magazine EVO this year, the RE003 or S001 for this test would have made more sense.
Yep. I don't know if the magazine had any influence or the manufacturers did the choosing. As you observed, the astonishing thing was how well the Michelin did in the wet. It makes the point that wet grip, unless speeds are high enough to threaten aquaplaning, are more a matter of compound micro-interaction with the surface imperfections than water channelling.
A quick summary of the RE003 would be that it's as nicely crisp in response as the 002 but with much better wet grip. The only "pair" that seemed challenging for the RE003 in the preview was to put it up against the excellent SC5 in wet laps. It was at least equal to the Conti.
Drop us an email on [email protected] , would be interesting to hear more
I had a look & the S001 is not available in Australia in the relevant size (the RE003 is though). Relatedly, the seemingly odd choice of the Conti SC5P over the superior SC5 is also explained by size availability.
The 5P is the "Performance" version of the 5, and is available in the larger sizes. It was launched before the 5, but is still a very good tyre (as this test proves)
Indeed. Similar to a point I made in relation to another article where the test included a measure of the rubber durometer, some of the softer tyres were more durable and some of the harder ones had great wet grip, showing that the general assumption of softer = more grip, harder = better durability don't exactly bear out in practice. What matters is the make-up of the compound. Add into that that the durometers were all largely similar...