jaa1992

I don't use CR, I do use TireRack and GrassRoots motorsports tests along with my personal real world experience.

I like the summitos because I've used them as a rain tire at the track. I do need a new set of rain tires so I'm looking. I don't use them very often so its usually a street tire. Can't afford the Hoosier raping for tires I'll use twice a year.

Somewhere either here or in the tech section I've got a write up on my $0.02 on tires based on my rustang, corvette and wife's corvette.

RedLS1GTO

This is true, but what are they comparing them to? When I first got my Z06 I was in heaven. It was the most amazing performance car I had ever driven. I would have given it all As. Then... I put a set of PS2s on it and it was an entirely new animal. If someone has never seen the other side, a set of $99 Sumis might feel like the greatest thing ever.

Never said otherwise.

What is your point here? Are you implying that the low priced Sumitomo and Kuhmos are better than the higher priced tires from Michelin, Pirelli, are Bridgestone?

So you base your decision on a very minimal amount of data from what may or may not be a biased review? Do you really think that a magazine can make a fair judgement of 8 different sets of tires in 1 day?


See my post above... I believe MYSELF.

While what you say is true in some cases, it is not in this one. When it comes to tires, almost every single time, the more expensive one is the better one.

By all means, feel free to put a set of Hankooks on yours and save some cash. I'll stick with Michelin.

RedLS1GTO

2 simple questions:

1.) How many people have you met who have had a set of Michelin PS2s on their car and then decided to go back to the cheap brands because they were better?

Personally, I know a lot of people who run PS2s on Corvettes, Porsches, Vipers, etc and I have yet to talk to a single one that has said "Man, I wish I had my Kuhmos back".

2.) Have YOU actually ever had a set of the "good" tires on your car? (PS2, Bridgestone RE050/RE070, etc...)

If not, how do you possibly feel informed enough to come to the conclusions that you have, which based on your last post is that the expensive brands are nothing more than marketing to the uninformed. That's no better than me sitting in an Accord and saying that I don't like the understeer of a Porsche GT2.... because Motor Trend told me so.

Jim Rogers

In fact, you did and do again later in this post (see below).

In your original post you said:

Aren't you saying that cheap brands are not as good? You didn't make any exceptions and seemed to be disregarding the test data, so you seemed to indicate that you feel there is no price elasticity of quality in tires.

My point was that there can be some models from low price producers (e.g., the $99 Sumitomo HTR A/S PO1) that are better than a model produced by a high price producer (e.g., the $200 Michelin Pilot Sport A/S plus). Furthermore, I contended that people are often suggestable as to quality based on price (as evidenced by the consumer survey results for those two tires).

Thus I contend that one cannot really be sure that a high-priced tire is better than low-priced one based on the price alone. The tires must be objectively tested.

So, no, I'm not saying *generally* that the low priced Sumitomo and Kuhmos are better than the higher priced tires from Michelin, Pirelli, and Bridgestones. I'm saying that, for certain models, a low priced Sumitomo and Kuhmos *could be* better than a higher priced tires from Michelin, Pirelli, and Bridgestones.

You appear to feel that because Sumitomo and Kuhmos are cheap, they *cannot be* better than the higher priced tires from Michelin, Pirelli, and Bridgestones. That would indicate that you feel the elasticity is zero-- which is simply not correct (but the marketers are counting on you to believe that).

Several questions for you:

On what basis do you call the CR data "minimal?" Do you know how much data they collected? Did you see the raw data? How do you define "minimal?" How do you know they tested in one day? How do you know one day is not sufficient? How many days are required to provide valid test results?


As I said above-- to each his own. It's fine with me how you evaluate tires and I'm not intending to change your mind or upset you (just having a friendly discussion of differences of opinion), but you should really be careful about your personal evaluations over instrumented testing. Very, very easy to be wrong.

Here is some published scientific evidence that shows that people who are most confident that they are able to make such judgments tend to be the *worst* at actually making them!

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dun...andunaware.pdf

.

There you go-- you are saying (and did say, as I indicated above) there is no price elasticity of quality. The marketers have you right where they want you!

That's fine with me, and Michelins are great tires. Not saying that all expensive tires are bad (they often are very good), and not saying all cheap tires are good (they are often very bad). Just arguing that some cheap tires can be as good or better than some expensive tires, and the only way to know that is through testing and not assuming the quality based on the price.

I don't know anyone with Michelin PS2's-- or at least they've never discussed it with me if they did. I don't hang out with racers, though. As far as the owners of Corvettes, Porsches, Vipers, etc goes, read that paper I linked to and see if you think they are a better resource then objective testing.

Yes-- I had the most expensive Goodyears on a new car I once bought. I could not tell any difference between those tires and any others I've had with two exceptions: 1) they were unbelievably noisy and 2.) those were the tires that I had the two blowouts at highway speeds that ruined the tires (that I mentioned in my first post). I was not impressed, but maybe I would have been if I did competitive stuff.

Note that in my first post I said that, if one is driving competitively, there may be more noticeable differences in different tires. However, even in that case I would not assume that "more expensive is always better." I'd have to see the data.

What kind of tires I've has in the past is irrelevant-- let me flip your statement: If rigorous testing on a skid pad and steel drum shows that a particular cheap tire has better grip and rolling resistance characteristics than a particular expensive one, would you ignore that.... because I or a Corvette, Porche, or Viper driver told you so?

I know how I would analyze it, but you apparently look at it differently. No problem-- that's what makes the world go 'round!

As always, to each his own...

beadist

So will I.

RedLS1GTO

As a blanket statement, absolutely not but in this case specifically... that is exactly what I am saying. I am not disregarding the test data, but I am looking at it realistically. Look at the 3 tires mentioned. The Kuhmo is scary in the rain. The Hankook felt "soft and imprecise", and the grand champion was not only slower than the Michelin... it was also louder and rode worse. This all according to the reviewers.

To top it off, they didn't even begin to get into other real world factors that are incredibly important such as wear and life cycle.

Is every more expensive tire better than one cheaper than it? No. Never speak in absolutes but this thread is titled "Best Ultra High-Performance Tires". The answer to that question is the Michelin PS2. Period. It doesn't say best for the price, or best value. It is the BEST, and none of these others are even close.

How did you conclude that the Sumi is better than the Michelin? What makes a consumer's opinion an educated one? Have these consumers compared them directly or are they just giving a 1 sided opinion? What is your basis? Are you driving the car to work? Is noise a factor? Ride quality? Skidpad numbers? There are infinite factors in the equation.

...and you think that a magazine article that consists of a few minutes of testing in a controlled environment by someone who may or may not be biased is objectionable? Reviews done by people who have most likely never done a side by side comparison are objective? The largest variable is the car itself which is in no way addressed in any article that I have ever seen. What may be the best on a M3 is not necessarily the best on a Corvette or a Porsche.

Could it be? Of course. Is it? Not even close in my experience.

You have it backwards. They are cheap because they are not as good. Like I said, go drive a car with PS2s, Pirelli Rossos, or RE070s and get back to me afterwards about how good the $99 Sumitomos are.

I thought my 87 L98 was fast... until I drove my Z06. I thought the Z06 was fast... until I drove my track car. It is all relative to what you know and what your experiences are.

It is minimal because as stated above... they left out about 99% of the real world equation. I could test my 96 with the Goodyear RSR wets on it and absolutely destroy any of them (including the PS2) in performance numbers, wet or dry. Does that mean they are a better tire? By their article it certainly would.

Of course the downside is that they last about 1,000 miles, are loud as hell, and get punctures if they get within about 10 feet of a nail. None of which would have been a factor in that review.

Show me data with actual data from the entire life of the tire and I might start to listen. Until then, it is nothing more than some info to use to perhaps pick out a starting point and in no way tells what is better in the real world.

If you want to get a baseline by reading magazines, great. Taking them as gospel is not wise.

My evaluations over instrumented testing? What testing are you talking about? Show me data over the life of a set of tires that shows me one that is better than the PS2 and I will gladly change my mind.
Are my odometer, my accelerometer, my lap times not instruments?

Like I said, I am not speaking out of my ***. I have had many of the tires in question on the same car, back to back. I have seen the performance numbers (yes I have an accelerometer in my car), and I have seen what they do over the course of their life. Notice I didn't discount the Dunlop from the test. Why? Because I have no personal experience with it.

Great. Go tell that to the set of Kuhmos sitting in my garage that are junk after 14,000 miles and lost a LOT of their grip after about 3 months. To top is off, they were as hard as rocks and damn near undrivable if the temperatures were below about 45 degrees. Where is that addressed in the articles testing them? It's not. It's addressed in the real world. Not in a lab or in a short test in a controlled environment.


Wrong. There is plenty of elasticity. In this case, the expensive PS2 wins.

On a side note, if you pay close attention, the PS2 that I have said from the beginning was the best is actually cheaper than the Goodyear F1SC, Pirelli Rosso, and about the same as the Bridgestone.

I am not talking about ALL tires. I am talking about these specifically. In this case the PS2s are better than the cheap ones.

Show me objective testing that actually captures all of the things that are important and I am all for it. Until then, I will stick with people who can actually give real world reviews and not a half-assed, narrow perspective magazine article.

Notice I didn't ever comment about how good I thought Goodyears were? With the exception of their race tires, I would never put them on my car. The F1SCs are the worst things I have ever seen.

There's one major flaw in your thinking. Those who are in competition acquire their own data. They see lap times, they see tire life, etc. They see the data from their competitors. There is data everywhere. The market for competition tires fixes itself for the most part due to that. Faster tires are more expensive 99.99% of the time. If the cheaper ones were faster, people would be using them instead. It isn't marketing. It is people who want to win and know what they are doing.

What does a skid pad tell me? Max grip on a perfect surface under ideal conditions? Step out of the lab and step into reality. How do you measure the feel of a tire? The first article quoted talked about the "soft and imprecise" nature of the Hankook yet said it beat the Michelin. What good is a tire that is .1 quicker if the tradeoff is that you have no idea what your car is going to do and you stuff it into a wall?

There is a LOT more to a tire than a skidpad number.

The Kuhmo V710 has better skidpad numbers than the Hoosier R6 according to most articles. It also has a lower rolling resistance. Better race tire, right? 100% WRONG. After a few laps the V710 gets greasy and falls off WAY more than the Hoosier. Every lab number shows the V710 as a better tire yet in reality, the guy with the Hoosiers will be faster 99.9999% of the time. In my experience, the R6 will also live through quite a few more heat cycles than the V710. These guys don't buy what is expensive. They buy what is the best... which also happens to be the most expensive, and rightfully so.

What matters is real world experience. The numbers are nothing more than a starting point.

I look at it as what I learn for myself. Why do you think that I have had Goodyear F1SCs, Toyo T1Rs, Kuhmos, Bridgestone RE050s, and Michelins on my Z06 over the years?

Why is it that I have had Hoosier R6, Kuhmo V710, Hoosier A6, BF Goodrich R1, and Goodyear RSRs on my 96?

The answer is simple. I don't give a crap what a magazine says or what some guy with a Miata writes on tirerack. My opinion and my results are the only ones that matter to me. Those results tell me that for a street car the Michelin PS2 is BY FAR the best ultra-high performance tire on the market.

...and pretty much every person that I know who has actually owned them tends to agree with that assessment.

Jim Rogers

All of this is in the Car and Driver article that someone else posted. I'm talking about the CR results.

CR does test that.

Well, in this thread you made and supported in number of statements that seemed to be pretty absolute (e.g., When it comes to tires, almost every single time, the more expensive one is the better one). But if you are not making absolute statements, then I guess we are not in disagreement.

Again, pretty close to an absolute statement. But you may be right-- proper testing could very well confirm your conclusion.

All of those conclusions are from the CR test. If you were to read the report, all of those questions are answered completely-- just as always in proper testing.



I answered your previous questions, but you did not answer mine. How do you know so much about CR testing? You know that they only spent a few minutes? Strange since they drove each one *12,000 miles*!

You really should understand the testing procedures and read the results before you are so critical about something. It's clear you have not read the report and do not know how the testing was done.

That's fine, but did you read the paper I linked to? Human perception is highly unreliable-- the paper explains it.

I think you're not understanding price elasticity of quality.

Unlikely to happen, and note that the $99 Sumitomo was being compared to a Pilot Sport A/S, not a PS2. I'm not arguing that a $99 Sumitomo HTR A/S PO1 (an all season performance tire) is better than a PS2 (a summer performance tire), and neither did CR (or anyone else)

And sometimes that experience actually can color one's judgment such that they reach the wrong conclusion. Read that paper-- it's a well know phenomenon.

Again, I think you're talking about the Car and Driver test. CR tests are very in depth.

CR does, but you said this was about the *best* performance tire. I don't blame Car and Driver for leaving all that stuff out as it really doesn't pertain to the best performance.

Read the CR article and you will have all that info.

I have said several times in this thread that I do not take any one test as gospel. I urge you not to take SOTP feeling (or those of your friend) as gospel either.

I said *personal* evaluations-- as in how you think it feels, sounds, etc.

The CR testing showed the Goodyear Eagle F1's (and one other that I can't remember now) as better. The considered all the aspects you said were important. Read that test and maybe you will change your mind.

Sure they are, but you have to use them properly. For example, have you compared tires blind, not knowing which were on the car? Were all atmospheric conditions normalized? Same car? If so, then you probably have good data. I would consider that to be very useful in evaluating tires.

You may be right on everything you say. I'm just saying that I tend to trust the conclusion more if there is controlled, scientific testing to back it up. That testing may completely confirm your experience. Then again, you might be surprised to see that you were wrong.

Uh, ok. But either way, you should have a look at that article.

I do not understand this statement.

OK, but if you paid attention, you'll note I never said anything about PS2's.

Well, that's the only point I was originally making, so I guess we can end the debate.

If you say so!

Read the CR tests.

Well, I guess that says it all!


That is not as true as you might think. For example, in bicycle racing (an area in which I have a fair amount of expertise), rolling resistance of tires is a critical factor in performance. There are millions of dollars on the line in every major professional race.

So those guys are going to use what wins, right?

Not!

For decades it was thought that skinny tires had the lowest rolling resistance even though the testing data (and theoretical analysis) shows that fatter tires are faster. But no racers would use them because they claimed fat tires "felt slow."

In the last year or so, a few have tried the fat ones, and they are winning races. Slowly the racers are coming around to the truth. Someday they'll all say that skinny tires "feel slow."

Once again, human perceptions, even in the case of highly paid professionals, are highly susceptible to being fooled.

Thus I would not consider testing that only consisting of skidpad tests as particularly good.

Was falloff tested in these tires? That's an important parameter, and if that wasn't tested, then they weren't properly tested. So you can't say testing is not valid when it was not done right.

I don't really know.

OK-- I think you can now figure what my response to that is going to be, so I'll spare you the write-up.

Whew-- you think we've beat this dead horse enough? Cleary we disagree-- nothing wrong with that. We had better not hijack this thread any further, and I hope the OP has gotten something useful out of our exchange.

Peace.

--Jim

jdc

Your looking for a 255/50R16 Ultra High Performance tire ?

Me too .

RedLS1GTO

There is nothing hijacked about it. He asked what the best ultra high performance tires were. I gave my answer, which is one that pretty much any person who has ever owned them and had them on a Corvette seems to agree with.

The long story short is that you base your opinions on what magazines and lab tests say and I base mine on the real world. Yes, I would take the word of 20 Corvette Z06 owners as to what is the best tire for my Z06 over a CR article. Consumer reports, Car and Driver, none of them test to what I want and what is applicable to me. Did the magazines test all of these tires on a 19XX or a 20XX Corvette with XX horsepower and XX suspension, in the sizes that I use, on my wheels, with my driving habits, etc, etc, etc? No. They didn't. They did a generalized test. It is a great starting point, but to base your entire decision on a generic magazine review is ignorant. A tire that performs flawlessly with the weight distribution of a Porsche GT3 might be awful on a much more nose heavy Corvette. The 12" wide tire that is perfect for a 3000 lb Ferrari 458 will most likely not react the same when you put the variant that is half as wide on a 3,500 lb BMW M3. Do you really not see the infinite amount of variables that can't be accounted for with these tests?

Why do you own a C4? (I'm assuming that you do since you are here) There is absolutely no measurable or quantifiable reason for anybody to ever want one with the cars that are around today. They get absolutely destroyed by modern cars in every measurable area. Hell, even 4 door sedans have better numbers in a lot of cases. They are the best at nothing. Yet here we are... why? It is because numbers, figures, and stats don't tell the whole story. Not even close.

The same is true with tires.

93Rubie

I think what is funny here is you guys keep mentioning the C/R test. You mention Ultra High Performance ALL SEASON Michilens and Sumo's a couple times. Seriously, ALL SEASONS, take a gander lower down on the page and lets compare REAL TIRES dedicated SUMMER TIRES.

A/S might be fine for road driving and such, any kind of motorsports and if are not at least running a dedicated Summer tires of Ultra High Performance rating for better you are kidding your self.

I got my Kumho Escta's SPT's for 150 a pop and I am happy with them. No doubt the Michilens and perhaps others are better tires but for twice the money, it is not worth it to me. I need to learn how to drive first then worry about my tire selection. Tires and modifications don't mean S*** if you cannot drive the car.

Aurora40

Seems like you are misrepresenting what they said in order to make your point. The Dunlops were only slower in the wet. In the dry, the Star Spec and Ecsta XS's were better than the PS2's by a clear amount. In the dry autocross, they were about a second faster than the Michelins. And about the XS's in the dry, C&D said "we were spewing compliments: predictable, well balanced, forgiving, easy to drive fast."

They were also a lot cheaper, though the Star Specs seem to have gotten pricier than when they first came out.

It shouldn't surprise you that different people have different tire needs. There are a lot of people that have fast cars as a toy, and thus have zero need or desire to drive them in rain or other bad weather.

Similarly there are plenty of people who's "fast" car is loud as hell, to where tire noise is inconsequential.

And there are plenty of people for whom a tire will get too old long before it gets too worn.

As it happens there is a lot of overlap between those groups of people, to where tires like the XS and Star Spec make a lot of sense.

It's curious that you misrepresent the article that we can all read, but then later make a comment about how "people feel the need to justify their purchases on the internet"... Did you just buy a set of PS2's or something?


To the OP's point, though, the new Super Sport does, from all reviews, seem to be quite impressive. It also seems to be quite a bit cheaper than the PS2 in the sizes I've looked at.

I find it weird the OP mentions that all the tires perform relatively the same, so why spend more money. I'd just point out that if you are buying "Ultra High Performance", the relative difference in performance is possibly quite relevant to you. I'd certainly pay a bit more to have tires that hook up when I drop the hammer vs cheaper ones that don't.

That said, the most expensive tires aren't always the ones that do that.

RedLS1GTO

How exactly did I do that? I quoted it verbatim.

OK, great. I never knocked the Dunlops and also very specifically said that I wouldn't knock them because I had no personal experience with them.

Not sure how quoting is misrepresenting, but aside from that, yes... I did just buy go back to a new set of PS2s to replace the POS Kuhmos (that the article says are so great). I made the mistake of putting faith in the magazine bullsh*t and tried to save a few bucks. I regretted it from the first mile.

I would rather have the ones the hook up as well. The ones that have the same response, every time, from 0 miles to 20,000 miles plus. I have yet to find a tire other than the PS2 that does that on a Corvette... your experience might vary.

Jim Rogers

And if his experience did vary from yours, what would be your conclusion as to what is the best tire?

Careful with your answer here!

RedLS1GTO

When somebody has actually had a set of PS2s or RE070s on their car and has the opinion that one of the cheaper brands is better for one reason or another, then I will respect their opinion. I might disagree, but at least I would respect their preference.

When they have zero first hand experience with them and say that the cheap ones are better based on what they read in a magazine article like is being done in this thread... well... not so much.

Aurora40

You summarize C&D on the tire as "slower, louder and rides worse". C&D chose it as the winner. In what way are you not misrepresenting it?

RedLS1GTO

Does the direct quote from the article above not say that they were slower in the wet (which I kept completely in context) as well as being "peaky", whatever that means, and that they were also loud and sacrificed ride?

Exactly what part of that did I misrepresent?

Jim Rogers

I did not ask if you would respect an opinion or preference. I asked what you would conclude as to what is the best tire.

RedLS1GTO

WTF are you even talking about? What part of I DON'T BASE MY OPINIONS ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY have you missed? I've only said it about a dozen times.

If it was a model of tire that I haven't tried I wouldn't judge it until driving it for myself... until then, I will stick to the answer that for these cars, the PS2 is the best and I will continue to quantify that with my own experiences in comparing it first hand with the others just like I did in this thread. The fact that I haven't driven them for myself is exactly why I have not given my opinion of the Michelin vs. the Dunlop.

I'm still really not sure what part of this is too complicated for you to understand.

RedLS1GTO

This is stupid.

If the day ever comes where instead of reading magazines, you can actually compare the cheap brands to a set of PS2s first hand, I hope you come back and give your opinion. Until then, there is no point in arguing.

Best of luck with your Kuhmos.

I'm out.

Jim Rogers

Calm down. You are the one who is not understanding. Let me recap:

You swaggered in here saying that you and the Z06 boys had enough experience with tires to know that the PS2 was the best tire, period, and you disdained all the losers trying to justify their purchases on the internet. Then you just acknowledged that Aurora40 might have a *different* experience.

You say you make your determinations based on experience, not "numbers," so I'm wondering what you would conclude if someone else had a different experience from yours (and remember, you just acknowledged that could happen).

Would you still say the PS2 still the best tire, period? That Aurorar40 is wrong? That you were wrong? That there is no such thing as an objectively best tire-- just opinions? There are different best tires based whatever each individual thinks based on their own experience? You misspoke when you said Aurora40's experience might vary and only your experience is valid? Or something else?

Your answer here will be very telling.