Below are all the data points for the 2015 European Tyre Test 205/55 R16, 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.
Surprised the Goodyear EfficientGrip beat the Conti Premium contact.... I found the Conti to be a very good handling tyre in all conditions albeit a little noisy on less than perfect road surfaces. I replaced them with Goodyear EfficientGrip's as it was cheaper and being promoted with a free insurance and felt the adverse handling effect (It was more comfy and quiet though). if you driving a FWD with some grunt the Conti is the better option.
Never trust German tests. They are all biased and corrupted. These days all German tests are sponsorred. It's the same with rating agencies such as Moodys or S&P. Companies buy these ratings.
When the PC5 was released, your article on that release showed an official Continental "spider" chart comparing it to the PC2 & to the EC5. The PC5 & EC5 were superior to the PC2 in almost every respect & the only differences on the chart were that the PC5 was markedly better in wet braking & the EC5 in rolling resistance. That chart's claims contradict this test. Some of the detail of the tyre test show, from the wet tests, the following point scores (lower is better):
- wet braking: PC5 2.3 & EC5 3.2 (as expected);
- longitudinal aquaplaning: 2.3 & 3 (perhaps not a surprise although the correlation of such scores with wet braking is not always high); but then we get bewildering disparities as follows:
- cornering aquaplaning: 2.5 & 3.5;
- handling: 1.9 & 3.1;
- tranverse stability: 2.0 & 3.5.
On the basis of the chart, these results are bizarre. Perhaps it's due to the rumoured re-compounding of the PC5 to improve wet grip. Or, as such a spread is what one would expect, perhaps Continental are to be condemned for a false PC5 release chart.
There's no chance Conti would have released a false release chart, especially as at the launch we drove on previous variants of both the PC and EC as a comparison.
Tyres are incredibly complex, what's better in one size and on one vehicle might not be the same in a different tyre size on a different vehicle. When you combine this with the fact they're being constantly updated during their life cycle for improved performance, it's not overly suspicious that a spider diagram from 3 years ago is slightly out of date.
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
Thanks for the response; I'm aware of all of that but it's a pretty radical reshaping.'slightly' seems inapt!?!
Relatedly,I do wish that more tyre tests would include just superseded tyres (still sold & available in the relevant size & themselves presumably recompounded over time). In this context, the inclusion of a PC2 would have been interesting (a tyre I much like).
It would be interesting to hear if your impressions at the time on the test vehicles bore out the spider chart on wet grip.
The Primacy 3 has 9 in the dry. Like the CPC5 no?
We translate from adac, they have the full data.
I know, and the Primacy 3 has 9 in the dry "the best score" with the CPC5. ;)
And there is a test in a smaller size no?
Sorry, yes you're absolutely right. Updated :)
There is a 185/60 R14 test too, we will publish the results this week :)
The smaller size test can be seen here:
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...