Hankook RS-4
03-13-2017, 01:54 PM
#82
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
Given Emilio's anecdotal datapoint (225 Rival S 1.5 ~= 245 RS-4) at that particular track (SoW, low speed track, less aero penalty for 245s) and those conditions (245 RS4s matching 225 RivalS1.5 pace in windier conditions), here's what I would guess the raw-grip hierarchy is (braking/lateral/accel grip, no aero consideration). This assumes the Rival 1.5 is a hair faster than the 1.0. Also assume that all 205s are on 8s, 225s on 9s, 245s on 10s.
Slowest
225 Rival S 1.0
205 RE71R
225 Rival S 1.5
245 RS-4
245 Rival S 1.5
Fastest
The caveat to that is that because we are looking at three different tire sizes, the order of this list will be highly dependent on how much power your car makes and how fast the track is. For instance, low power cars (1.6s) may favor the 205 RE71R on mid and high-speed tracks, and mid-power cars (built N/A or low-boost turbo) on a high-speed track may favor the 225 Rival S over the 245 RS-4. Windy conditions might flip this around as well.
Since Hankook is doing an RS-4 in 225/45, given the (assumed) wear rate of that tire and the aero penalty of the 10s, that would be the tire I would pick for a stock body VVT-swapped NA knowing what I know right now.
Reply
0
0
03-13-2017, 03:20 PM
#83
I did some autocross this weekend with a sticker set of Hankook RS-4s, 225 on 15x9s, no A/B testing just notes on my direct experience with the tire. Weather conditions were Sunny with 80-85F* ambient and track temps were ~95F*.
Car Details:
Gen 2 Xidas - 800/500, Racing Beat Front 54104 Bar , disconnected rear sway , urethane bushings
6 Speed, 4.10 Diff with the car making ~240WHP on E85 on a junkyard BP5a using a C30-74 Rotrex
Super deep tread as discussed, the tires look a bit strange from the side profile and at a glance they look taller than a normal 45 sidewall. Knowing how deep the tread was I was expecting a fair bit of tread squirm but I did not notice much if any. The tire shop also noted the sidewalls were pretty darn stiff for a street tire.
The first two heat cycles (two sets of 10 autocross runs that were continuous) were a bit funky. In the morning I tried higher tire pressures (30-33psi hot) but I found the car did not want to take a set and there was an abrupt transition during mid corner of grip to no grip. I also noticed a fair bit of skipping and hopping over the very rough sections of the lot (some areas are borderline rallycross). During the afternoon the afternoon runs I ran much lower pressures (~27-28psi hot) and this eliminated the skipping over bumps. Mid-corner grip was also improved and the car was much more settled during the higher speed sections (~80mph).
Overall steering feel of these tires is very good, lots of feedback and very precise with no numbness. Both acceleration grip and braking grip were impressive, it is still hard to believe this is considered a "street" tire. Looking forward to running these at big track and doing more testing at autocross. There are likely more gains to be had on the clock with further set up changes for these tires. I think there was an easy second left on the table for this course we ran, just need more time to figure out what the tire wants and likes. Overall this feels like a SOLID improvement over the Hankook RS-3 V2.
One of the timed runs from the day, this lap was ~1.75 seconds off Brian in our ND on Hoosier A7s.
Car Details:
Gen 2 Xidas - 800/500, Racing Beat Front 54104 Bar , disconnected rear sway , urethane bushings
6 Speed, 4.10 Diff with the car making ~240WHP on E85 on a junkyard BP5a using a C30-74 Rotrex
Super deep tread as discussed, the tires look a bit strange from the side profile and at a glance they look taller than a normal 45 sidewall. Knowing how deep the tread was I was expecting a fair bit of tread squirm but I did not notice much if any. The tire shop also noted the sidewalls were pretty darn stiff for a street tire.
The first two heat cycles (two sets of 10 autocross runs that were continuous) were a bit funky. In the morning I tried higher tire pressures (30-33psi hot) but I found the car did not want to take a set and there was an abrupt transition during mid corner of grip to no grip. I also noticed a fair bit of skipping and hopping over the very rough sections of the lot (some areas are borderline rallycross). During the afternoon the afternoon runs I ran much lower pressures (~27-28psi hot) and this eliminated the skipping over bumps. Mid-corner grip was also improved and the car was much more settled during the higher speed sections (~80mph).
Overall steering feel of these tires is very good, lots of feedback and very precise with no numbness. Both acceleration grip and braking grip were impressive, it is still hard to believe this is considered a "street" tire. Looking forward to running these at big track and doing more testing at autocross. There are likely more gains to be had on the clock with further set up changes for these tires. I think there was an easy second left on the table for this course we ran, just need more time to figure out what the tire wants and likes. Overall this feels like a SOLID improvement over the Hankook RS-3 V2.
One of the timed runs from the day, this lap was ~1.75 seconds off Brian in our ND on Hoosier A7s.
Last edited by Lincoln Logs; 03-13-2017 at 05:07 PM.
Reply
4
4
03-13-2017, 05:35 PM
#85
Yes, only a few people hit sub 80, most of the student times were 80-90 seconds. I was well into 4th gear 3 times during the lap...I think this stretches the definition of autocross a bit. I cannot stress how lucky we are to have this space for autocross, it will be a very very sad day when it goes away.
Reply
1
1
03-19-2017, 05:52 AM
#87
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 290
Total Cats: 183
Hearing more good things about this tire. Looks like it will be in the ballpark of the Super 200's, but maybe more trackable. Review/comparo coming online in the next couple of days from someone who knows how to do such things...
Reply
1
1
03-20-2017, 11:48 AM
#88
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 161
Total Cats: 5
Anyone have any input as to how quickly the RS-4 wear compared to the previous RS-3? Are they as soft as the RE71R, or as durable as their ancestral RS3?
I know that only time will tell, but if anyone has any indication....
I know that only time will tell, but if anyone has any indication....
Reply
-2
-2
03-20-2017, 12:13 PM
#89
Reply
0
0
03-20-2017, 12:29 PM
#90
This more controlled test matches our brief eval last weekend. The RS4 appears to be a genuine Super200 that takes a bit longer to heat up and might, might, wear better than the Rival-S 1.5.
What was interesting in that test was their comments about the RS4 having less precise steering than the Rival-S. 1.5. We found the RS4 to be ultra sharp but I think that can be attributed to our sample being a 245/40 on 15x10 vs what appears to be 205/50 on 15x7.5. Our sample better supported by its wheel.
What was interesting in that test was their comments about the RS4 having less precise steering than the Rival-S. 1.5. We found the RS4 to be ultra sharp but I think that can be attributed to our sample being a 245/40 on 15x10 vs what appears to be 205/50 on 15x7.5. Our sample better supported by its wheel.
__________________
Reply
0
0
03-20-2017, 07:01 PM
#94
I'm just hopeful that the 245 Rival-S 1.5 on a 9" wide wheel will be faster than a 225 (at least for autocross applications).
Nice to see that the RS-4 seems hold it's own against the current 200TW champions, though. Competition from other tire manufacturers is a good thing, IMO.
Nice to see that the RS-4 seems hold it's own against the current 200TW champions, though. Competition from other tire manufacturers is a good thing, IMO.
Reply
0
0
03-23-2017, 01:38 PM
#98
Newb
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5
Total Cats: 3
Did some haphazard testing on an E Street prepped '01 MR2-S with fresh RS4 vs some RE71r with about 80ish autocross runs on them.
Things of note:
RE71 was 195/50/15 on 6" & 205/50/15 on 6.5"
RS4 was 195/50 & 225/45 on the same width wheels. 195/50 Hankook has about the same tread width as the 205/50 RE71. 225/45 was not as pinched as you'd think.
We did two days of testing at Crow's Landing in Patterson, CA. Both days were pretty similar in weather, about 70ish ambient and cloudy skies with some breaks. Two different drivers, one day of TNT and one day of competition runs. Day 1, my co-driver used both sets at the TNT. I drove each of them independently of him in a traditional 3 run format & on a different course. No recorded times for his TNT runs, only thoughts on each.
We both felt that overall, the RS4 sidewalls are squishy making the car hard to place, it also did not point well and did not take a set quickly. I noted that they did not take abrupt longitudinal loads as well, ABS would kick in much sooner than the RE if I piled on the brakes. If we were not limited on factory wheel widths, I think an 8" for the 195/50 and a 9" for the 225/45 would better support the tire and give a bit sharper feedback.
The RE71R was it's same old self, however I did note that when the tire was cold the car was far more prone to oversteer and much harder to control vs the RS4.
My day 1 runs in order:
RE71R: 27.9, 27.5, 27.1
RS4: 27.8, 27.7, 27.6
I didn't feel like much was left on the table by 3rd runs on such a small course. I felt that the RE had the most potential for speed once warm. I was really pushing the RS4 as hard as I could but extracting the most out of them was difficult.
Day 2 was more interesting. The RS4 was better with lateral loads, likely because of the two heat cycles in them. The course was fairly slalom and transition heavy so the increased lateral grip from either the tire itself, or available tread width, stood out to me. The RS4 also handled multiple inputs a bit better than the RE71R.
Day 2 competition, morning RE71, afternoon RS4:
RE71R
Ryan: 50.4, 50.2, 49.8, 49.6
Tony: 49.7, 48.9, 49.1, 49.0
RS4
Ryan: 51.3, 50.5, 50.6, 50.2
Tony: 48.7, 48.8, 48.7, 48.6
So, the RS4 actually were the better tire of the day (for me). I'm trying not to read too much into that for a few reasons, but I think the potential is there. The biggest take away from this is that my co-driver could not drive these things to save his life. He was complaining about them left and right. So, these might just not work for some people.
Pressures:
Since the car is about 2100lbs, we run the RE's really low. We're at 23 front and 25 rear, and with that we are using all of the tire and not rolling over past the tread.
We used the same school of thought for the RS4, and that worked out fine for the front settling at 24psi. On the rear, we had to pump these up to about 32psi to get them to not roll over as much, this is purely due to the pinch, imo.
Wear:
The RS4 starts out at a really generous 9/32nds depth (vs RE at 8/32 and Rival 1.5S at 7/32). With about 20+ runs on the RS4, we are now at 8/32nds. Crow's Landing is notorious for high grip & high wear, so expect more life out of these on an asphalt lot.
Anyway, not a super controlled test but I think it paints a pretty good picture of what you might expect. We have a set of Rival 1.5S that we will be testing in 205/50 & 225/45 this weekend.
Things of note:
RE71 was 195/50/15 on 6" & 205/50/15 on 6.5"
RS4 was 195/50 & 225/45 on the same width wheels. 195/50 Hankook has about the same tread width as the 205/50 RE71. 225/45 was not as pinched as you'd think.
We did two days of testing at Crow's Landing in Patterson, CA. Both days were pretty similar in weather, about 70ish ambient and cloudy skies with some breaks. Two different drivers, one day of TNT and one day of competition runs. Day 1, my co-driver used both sets at the TNT. I drove each of them independently of him in a traditional 3 run format & on a different course. No recorded times for his TNT runs, only thoughts on each.
We both felt that overall, the RS4 sidewalls are squishy making the car hard to place, it also did not point well and did not take a set quickly. I noted that they did not take abrupt longitudinal loads as well, ABS would kick in much sooner than the RE if I piled on the brakes. If we were not limited on factory wheel widths, I think an 8" for the 195/50 and a 9" for the 225/45 would better support the tire and give a bit sharper feedback.
The RE71R was it's same old self, however I did note that when the tire was cold the car was far more prone to oversteer and much harder to control vs the RS4.
My day 1 runs in order:
RE71R: 27.9, 27.5, 27.1
RS4: 27.8, 27.7, 27.6
I didn't feel like much was left on the table by 3rd runs on such a small course. I felt that the RE had the most potential for speed once warm. I was really pushing the RS4 as hard as I could but extracting the most out of them was difficult.
Day 2 was more interesting. The RS4 was better with lateral loads, likely because of the two heat cycles in them. The course was fairly slalom and transition heavy so the increased lateral grip from either the tire itself, or available tread width, stood out to me. The RS4 also handled multiple inputs a bit better than the RE71R.
Day 2 competition, morning RE71, afternoon RS4:
RE71R
Ryan: 50.4, 50.2, 49.8, 49.6
Tony: 49.7, 48.9, 49.1, 49.0
RS4
Ryan: 51.3, 50.5, 50.6, 50.2
Tony: 48.7, 48.8, 48.7, 48.6
So, the RS4 actually were the better tire of the day (for me). I'm trying not to read too much into that for a few reasons, but I think the potential is there. The biggest take away from this is that my co-driver could not drive these things to save his life. He was complaining about them left and right. So, these might just not work for some people.
Pressures:
Since the car is about 2100lbs, we run the RE's really low. We're at 23 front and 25 rear, and with that we are using all of the tire and not rolling over past the tread.
We used the same school of thought for the RS4, and that worked out fine for the front settling at 24psi. On the rear, we had to pump these up to about 32psi to get them to not roll over as much, this is purely due to the pinch, imo.
Wear:
The RS4 starts out at a really generous 9/32nds depth (vs RE at 8/32 and Rival 1.5S at 7/32). With about 20+ runs on the RS4, we are now at 8/32nds. Crow's Landing is notorious for high grip & high wear, so expect more life out of these on an asphalt lot.
Anyway, not a super controlled test but I think it paints a pretty good picture of what you might expect. We have a set of Rival 1.5S that we will be testing in 205/50 & 225/45 this weekend.
Last edited by T_Rod; 03-23-2017 at 07:37 PM.
Reply
3
3
03-24-2017, 10:22 AM
#99
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Statesville, NC
Posts: 2,738
Total Cats: 319
Did some haphazard testing on an E Street prepped '01 MR2-S with fresh RS4 vs some RE71r with about 80ish autocross runs on them.
Things of note:
RE71 was 195/50/15 on 6" & 205/50/15 on 6.5"
RS4 was 195/50 & 225/45 on the same width wheels. 195/50 Hankook has about the same tread width as the 205/50 RE71. 225/45 was not as pinched as you'd think.
We did two days of testing at Crow's Landing in Patterson, CA. Both days were pretty similar in weather, about 70ish ambient and cloudy skies with some breaks. Two different drivers, one day of TNT and one day of competition runs. Day 1, my co-driver used both sets at the TNT. I drove each of them independently of him in a traditional 3 run format & on a different course. No recorded times for his TNT runs, only thoughts on each.
We both felt that overall, the RS4 sidewalls are squishy making the car hard to place, it also did not point well and did not take a set quickly. I noted that they did not take abrupt longitudinal loads as well, ABS would kick in much sooner than the RE if I piled on the brakes. If we were not limited on factory wheel widths, I think an 8" for the 195/50 and a 9" for the 225/45 would better support the tire and give a bit sharper feedback.
The RE71R was it's same old self, however I did note that when the tire was cold the car was far more prone to oversteer and much harder to control vs the RS4.
My day 1 runs in order:
RE71R: 27.9, 27.5, 27.1
RS4: 27.8, 27.7, 27.6
I didn't feel like much was left on the table by 3rd runs on such a small course. I felt that the RE had the most potential for speed once warm. I was really pushing the RS4 as hard as I could but extracting the most out of them was difficult.
Day 2 was more interesting. The RS4 was better with lateral loads, likely because of the two heat cycles in them. The course was fairly slalom and transition heavy so the increased lateral grip from either the tire itself, or available tread width, stood out to me. The RS4 also handled multiple inputs a bit better than the RE71R.
Day 2 competition, morning RE71, afternoon RS4:
RE71R
Ryan: 50.4, 50.2, 49.8, 49.6
Tony: 49.7, 48.9, 49.1, 49.0
RS4
Ryan: 51.3, 50.5, 50.6, 50.2
Tony: 48.7, 48.8, 48.7, 48.6
So, the RS4 actually were the better tire of the day (for me). I'm trying not to read too much into that for a few reasons, but I think the potential is there. The biggest take away from this is that my co-driver could not drive these things to save his life. He was complaining about them left and right. So, these might just not work for some people.
Pressures:
Since the car is about 2100lbs, we run the RE's really low. We're at 23 front and 25 rear, and with that we are using all of the tire and not rolling over past the tread.
We used the same school of thought for the RS4, and that worked out fine for the front settling at 24psi. On the rear, we had to pump these up to about 32psi to get them to not roll over as much, this is purely due to the pinch, imo.
Wear:
The RS4 starts out at a really generous 9/32nds depth (vs RE at 8/32 and Rival 1.5S at 7/32). With about 20+ runs on the RS4, we are now at 8/32nds. Crow's Landing is notorious for high grip & high wear, so expect more life out of these on an asphalt lot.
Anyway, not a super controlled test but I think it paints a pretty good picture of what you might expect. We have a set of Rival 1.5S that we will be testing in 205/50 & 225/45 this weekend.
Things of note:
RE71 was 195/50/15 on 6" & 205/50/15 on 6.5"
RS4 was 195/50 & 225/45 on the same width wheels. 195/50 Hankook has about the same tread width as the 205/50 RE71. 225/45 was not as pinched as you'd think.
We did two days of testing at Crow's Landing in Patterson, CA. Both days were pretty similar in weather, about 70ish ambient and cloudy skies with some breaks. Two different drivers, one day of TNT and one day of competition runs. Day 1, my co-driver used both sets at the TNT. I drove each of them independently of him in a traditional 3 run format & on a different course. No recorded times for his TNT runs, only thoughts on each.
We both felt that overall, the RS4 sidewalls are squishy making the car hard to place, it also did not point well and did not take a set quickly. I noted that they did not take abrupt longitudinal loads as well, ABS would kick in much sooner than the RE if I piled on the brakes. If we were not limited on factory wheel widths, I think an 8" for the 195/50 and a 9" for the 225/45 would better support the tire and give a bit sharper feedback.
The RE71R was it's same old self, however I did note that when the tire was cold the car was far more prone to oversteer and much harder to control vs the RS4.
My day 1 runs in order:
RE71R: 27.9, 27.5, 27.1
RS4: 27.8, 27.7, 27.6
I didn't feel like much was left on the table by 3rd runs on such a small course. I felt that the RE had the most potential for speed once warm. I was really pushing the RS4 as hard as I could but extracting the most out of them was difficult.
Day 2 was more interesting. The RS4 was better with lateral loads, likely because of the two heat cycles in them. The course was fairly slalom and transition heavy so the increased lateral grip from either the tire itself, or available tread width, stood out to me. The RS4 also handled multiple inputs a bit better than the RE71R.
Day 2 competition, morning RE71, afternoon RS4:
RE71R
Ryan: 50.4, 50.2, 49.8, 49.6
Tony: 49.7, 48.9, 49.1, 49.0
RS4
Ryan: 51.3, 50.5, 50.6, 50.2
Tony: 48.7, 48.8, 48.7, 48.6
So, the RS4 actually were the better tire of the day (for me). I'm trying not to read too much into that for a few reasons, but I think the potential is there. The biggest take away from this is that my co-driver could not drive these things to save his life. He was complaining about them left and right. So, these might just not work for some people.
Pressures:
Since the car is about 2100lbs, we run the RE's really low. We're at 23 front and 25 rear, and with that we are using all of the tire and not rolling over past the tread.
We used the same school of thought for the RS4, and that worked out fine for the front settling at 24psi. On the rear, we had to pump these up to about 32psi to get them to not roll over as much, this is purely due to the pinch, imo.
Wear:
The RS4 starts out at a really generous 9/32nds depth (vs RE at 8/32 and Rival 1.5S at 7/32). With about 20+ runs on the RS4, we are now at 8/32nds. Crow's Landing is notorious for high grip & high wear, so expect more life out of these on an asphalt lot.
Anyway, not a super controlled test but I think it paints a pretty good picture of what you might expect. We have a set of Rival 1.5S that we will be testing in 205/50 & 225/45 this weekend.
Thanks for your testing and review! This is actually really encouraging to see the RS4 so close and somewhat faster in the heat vs the RE71R.
Here's to hoping the Lemons/Chump testing comes back with good wear life for them too!
Reply
0
0
03-27-2017, 06:35 PM
#100
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
once again tested last weekend on a 40F degree autocross course in the rain. course was wet temp was cold.
Hankook RS4 245/45 on 10" ~ 52 seconds
Hoosier H20 225/45 on 9" ~50 seconds.
Bridgstone Re71R 205/50/15 on 7.5" about half the tread already worn off. ~47 seconds.
didn't try them but I believe the new Continentals sport contact DW or whatever they call it would have been the fastest of all they seem to dominate cold wet conditions. Toyo RA1/R888 are pretty good too.
Freekin night and day difference in trying to drive these tires in the wet. traction limit on the Hankook and Hoosires is like an On/off switch in the cold wet. Not sure how warm it needs to be for the H20's to actually work in the wet but here in the northwest wet weather is rarely warm and in those conditions there are numerous street tires that are significantly faster than H20's and the RS4's are even worse.
Hankook RS4 245/45 on 10" ~ 52 seconds
Hoosier H20 225/45 on 9" ~50 seconds.
Bridgstone Re71R 205/50/15 on 7.5" about half the tread already worn off. ~47 seconds.
didn't try them but I believe the new Continentals sport contact DW or whatever they call it would have been the fastest of all they seem to dominate cold wet conditions. Toyo RA1/R888 are pretty good too.
Freekin night and day difference in trying to drive these tires in the wet. traction limit on the Hankook and Hoosires is like an On/off switch in the cold wet. Not sure how warm it needs to be for the H20's to actually work in the wet but here in the northwest wet weather is rarely warm and in those conditions there are numerous street tires that are significantly faster than H20's and the RS4's are even worse.
Reply
0
0
