Adjust Result Weighting
The overall scores below are calculated using our weighting system. Since the original publication may use a different scoring methodology that wasn't shared, these results may differ from their published rankings. You can adjust the weightings below to explore how different priorities affect the results.
Test Results Data
BEST
Good
Average
Below Average
Cells are colour-coded from green (best) to red (worst). The Total Score reflects the weighted sum of all categories. A ★ marks the best tyre in each test.
| # | Tyre | Total Score |
|---|---|---|
Scroll for more
Not every driver has the same priorities. Adjust the category weightings above to re-rank the tyres based on what matters most to your driving style.
Scores are colour-coded from red (weakest) through yellow to green (strongest) to help you quickly spot each tyre's strengths and weaknesses.
The original test ranking is shown in the # column. Arrows indicate how each tyre moves when your custom weighting is applied.
2 questions. First, is there a comparison test that includes the Uniroyal Rain Sport 3? And, secondly, why did you mix and match load rating? a 91 against a 94 is not comparing like for like. Side wall strength has a direct impact on several of the factors, especially slalom performance and comfort.
Question 1 - http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
Question 2 - This test was performed by GTU, not TyreReviews. We're unsure of the load rating of the tyres tested, usually you try and match them but sometimes due to availability you are forced to either test an alternative load rating or drop the tyre from the test.
There is a problem with this test results or TUV's test that u've shared before. because in TUV's test rolling resistance of conti was 101 and asymmetric was 100. So TUV's test says that conti has slightly better performance on rolling resistance. But this test says opposit of that. In Both test tyre size were exactly the same. So what is the reason of that differance?
Als u may have made a mistake about results. Because i found sumamary of results and it shows that conti has 133 and goodyear has 134 point in dry surfaces. Michelin also has a big 143 point as the best tyre in dry surfaces.
Also in wet road conti has 146 and goodyear has 134 points and these values also not seems like yours.
here is the link of results; http://www.tyrepress.com/20...
The Conti Sport Contact 5 might win the test here, but users say it wears out too fast. I suppose it depends on what you want from a tyre, but I think I would settle with the Goodyear or Dunlop and have much longer tyre life. Tyres are too expensive to be changing every few thousand miles.
Yeah, Conti is known for test-optimized tyres, most are amazed if they mount a new Conti. But many ppl say after 2-3 years the Conti lose the grip very fast.
I was also disappointed by my last Conti, the Premium Contact. After one summer with less than 14000km it was at it´s end.
Actually I use P Zero which is also not the long life tyre, but it´s grip in the wet is insane. My next tyres maybe F1 Asym.3, Dunlop RT2 or Michelin PS4. I hope someone test the Michelin soon.
We rate the PS4, though haven't objectively tested it yet.
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
I know, but I would like more info and a compare with tyres like the new Dunlop and Goodyear ;)
"The Conti Sport Contact 5 might win the test here, but users say it wears out too fast."
I've also seen users complain that the the Assy 2s and the Dunlop RTs wear out too fast; that's one of the problems with user reviews they are a bit variable depending on lots of unknown factors. In this case, one of the things is that they may have asked 'for the best tyre' expecting a good wearing tyre, and have got a tyre with good grip instead.
The difference 84 Primacy 3 and around 130 points in wet is big?
What noticeable differences are?
Txs
Hi Joe,
The full datasheet can be found here:
http://www.gtue.de/sixcms/m...
Sadly it doesn't share the full data, but it looked like the Primacy 3 struggled particularly under wet braking, scoring less than half the score of the winning Continental.
Hmm ,onestly you belive that the Primacy is such a poor in the wet?:)in 2015 adac is the best in wet breaking
It's certainly a surprising result!
I wonder how Michelin could get those results in the ADAC-test. The Primacy-tyres were in the past not the best in wet because it was optimized for a long tyre life.
And it´s like a physical law, a tyre which have soft rubber is often good in wet but don´t last very long
I have now nokian line this is also a harder rubber than conti,Gy or other:)
Dunno the summer-tyres from Nokian, but the WR D3 was a bit soft and lost some rubber after not that much driving
Here some results in wet-braking 100-0 (the most other test-magazines only make the dry-braking 100-0, the wet-braking 80-0)
Conti: 49,1m
Goodyear: 52m (2nd)
Michelin:57,7m
Westlake: 66,9m (last)
I think you show wrong picture of the Yokohama, the V105 looks different
http://www.yokohama.de/adva...
You are of course correct :) It's late and we're rushing, there will be a fresh edit in the morning but we've updated the article with the correct tyre, not the Advan Sport!
Thanks again!
No prob ;)
It´s a shame that Yokohama new design looks like million other tyres (like Michelin PS4, Nexen N8000, Toyo Proxes T1 sport). In the past I really liked Yokohama designs like A008P, A008, Parada, A510, A539, AVS 102 etc.
But most tyres were really bad in the wet, especially braking and aquaplaning