Declassified Tire Testing Trip. The New BFGoodrich g-Force Rival
Jan 24, 2013, 08:19 AM
#20
The event was a non-scientific comparison (except for maybe the skid pad). By feel, the BFG's will be a top ST/RT contender. We'll have to wait for some private testing to see real data.
Besides the RS3's, all other tires tested wont be a threat to BFG.
My prediction is a close battle between RS3's, Z2's, and the BFG Rivals.
Besides the RS3's, all other tires tested wont be a threat to BFG.
My prediction is a close battle between RS3's, Z2's, and the BFG Rivals.
Jan 24, 2013, 10:49 AM
#23
Evolved Member
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 1,240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm very interested in seeing more info. My GT-R has all-seasons and I'm on the hunt for a fun set of summer tires that match the RE-11s in terms of performance and comfort that I had on my Evo X... meaning less road noise, but equal to or better then OEM summer tire grip in the dry and excellent wet traction.
Jan 24, 2013, 07:10 PM
#24
I'm very interested in seeing more info. My GT-R has all-seasons and I'm on the hunt for a fun set of summer tires that match the RE-11s in terms of performance and comfort that I had on my Evo X... meaning less road noise, but equal to or better then OEM summer tire grip in the dry and excellent wet traction.
Jan 26, 2013, 04:39 PM
#25
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For comparison purposes between different manufacturers, tire wear ratings need to be thrown out and not focused on at all, otherwise it's just irrelevant data viewed in ignorance.
Last edited by DisgustipatedM3; Jan 26, 2013 at 04:44 PM.
Jan 26, 2013, 05:04 PM
#26
You know what's even funnier? When people try to compare tire wear numbers between different manufacturers... especially when they don't know that tire wear ratings can only be compared to that manufacturer's entire lineup, not across brands (i.e. Dunlop Star Spec tire wear rating can only be compared against other Dunlops.)
For comparison purposes between different manufacturers, tire wear ratings need to be thrown out and not focused on at all, otherwise it's just irrelevant data viewed in ignorance.
For comparison purposes between different manufacturers, tire wear ratings need to be thrown out and not focused on at all, otherwise it's just irrelevant data viewed in ignorance.
It is also why racing organizations use the rating to qualify tires for street tire classes.
Jan 26, 2013, 05:26 PM
#27
Aren't UTQG treadwear ratings totally arbitrary anyway?
No, not totally. But there is some fudge.
UTQG treadwear comes from a real-live scientific test using a real car and a "100" standard tire as a comparable (some old Cooper design they still have to make just for the test). Testing is done in South Texas and tire makers contract to have it done, not the Feds. And they don't have to test every size. Just enough to feel confident about the rating based on their engineering. That's the first piece of latitude.
The bigger issue comes from the fact that the test is only for 7200 miles. Back in the day, that was plenty to wear out a tire...today, not so much. And since a tire does not wear at the same rate during the second half of its life as the first, you have to extrapolate in a non-linear fashion. There is no scientific formula for this so each manufacturer does it differently. That's the "fudge" you hear about.
Marketing forces often will push the fudge a little one way or the other. For example, Bridgestone makes some OE fitments that are treadwear rated at 140-160. To performance-oriented people, that signifies "sticky" and can be used to market the car on a positive note for that audience. OTOH, for an economy tire, the numbers might be pushed as far the other direction as you feel comfortable, based on the test results.That signifies long life to a value-oriented consumer.
No, not totally. But there is some fudge.
UTQG treadwear comes from a real-live scientific test using a real car and a "100" standard tire as a comparable (some old Cooper design they still have to make just for the test). Testing is done in South Texas and tire makers contract to have it done, not the Feds. And they don't have to test every size. Just enough to feel confident about the rating based on their engineering. That's the first piece of latitude.
The bigger issue comes from the fact that the test is only for 7200 miles. Back in the day, that was plenty to wear out a tire...today, not so much. And since a tire does not wear at the same rate during the second half of its life as the first, you have to extrapolate in a non-linear fashion. There is no scientific formula for this so each manufacturer does it differently. That's the "fudge" you hear about.
Marketing forces often will push the fudge a little one way or the other. For example, Bridgestone makes some OE fitments that are treadwear rated at 140-160. To performance-oriented people, that signifies "sticky" and can be used to market the car on a positive note for that audience. OTOH, for an economy tire, the numbers might be pushed as far the other direction as you feel comfortable, based on the test results.That signifies long life to a value-oriented consumer.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=48
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mouseIX
Evo Tires / Wheels / Brakes / Suspension
41
Jan 17, 2017 09:06 PM
Neal@tirerack
Evo Tires / Wheels / Brakes / Suspension
13
Feb 23, 2015 05:00 PM
Gruppe-S
EvoX 'For Sale' Wheels / Tires
22
May 20, 2013 01:51 PM
fightex
Evo Tires / Wheels / Brakes / Suspension
17
May 2, 2013 07:21 AM