Originally Posted by bbundy
(Post 1401682)
Not sure how warm it needs to be for the H20's to actually work in the wet but...
|
Originally Posted by doward
(Post 1401687)
DOT date and condition of H2Os? They die very fast after the first heat cycle. Once they start cooking, they go from medium rare to well done pretty quickly. It's HARD to "wear out" and H2O before it "cycles" out, but they're insane when fresh-ish. I have lots of time on them in the low 40*s and wet in Ohio.
|
Originally Posted by AndyHollis
(Post 1399985)
This is correct. David's test vehicle was an STS car, limited to 7.5" width.
Do you think you will be doing a side by side comparison with the RE71R and Rivals? Similar to when the RE71's first came out? |
https://forum.chumpcar.com/index.php...comment-328844
"Lasted the full 24 and probably has another 8 hours in them which is fantastic; our drivers were pushing the car pretty hard. This was in a miata, didn't do any preparation to the tires, did a practice session for an hour just before race start. Noticed in practice that they felt a bit greasy but it went away. It wasn't really possible to overdrive the tire, after a bit of sliding they still didn't grease up like the 615 is known for. Sidewalls felt much softer than the 615, there was a bit more side to side mushyness in the car; we went from 205 on 7 inch rim to 225 on 7inch rim, I think some of the soft floaty feel might be from the rim and tire size combo. My biggest complaint relative to the 615k is the lack of feedback audibly on the RS4. It also seemed like it was a bit less forgiving/had a steeper limit drop off curve. Still very controllable. For reference, our best time was a low 2:17 at buttonwillow cw1 ( starmazda ) in a 1.6 miata . Unsure what spec cars do around that config on their stickier tires." |
2:17 is not exactly slow given the car. PTE cars are in the 2:09 range on that config. At that pace, that life expectancy is pretty phenomenal.
|
Originally Posted by aaronwalker1974
(Post 1401827)
Do you think you will be doing a side by side comparison with the RE71R and Rivals? Similar to when the RE71's first came out?
The problem with side-by-side to the RE71R is sizing...Stones are 205/50-15 where the RS4 is 195, 225 and 245. And BFG is 205, 225 and eventually 245. |
Originally Posted by AndyHollis
(Post 1401926)
The problem with side-by-side to the RE71R is sizing...Stones are 205/50-15 where the RS4 is 195, 225 and 245. And BFG is 205, 225 and eventually 245.
|
Originally Posted by AndyHollis
(Post 1401926)
My hope is to do a 245 shootout, when the Rival S finally gets out on that size. But it keeps getting delayed.
The problem with side-by-side to the RE71R is sizing...Stones are 205/50-15 where the RS4 is 195, 225 and 245. And BFG is 205, 225 and eventually 245.
Originally Posted by T_Rod
(Post 1402364)
The 195/50 Hankook is the size of a 205 Stone/Rival. The numbers are just a formality.
|
Originally Posted by bbundy
(Post 1401682)
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.
|
Finally got these mounted this afternoon, no track data obviously but I do have a few observations from mounting them myself and the drive home.
These were difficult to mount compared to the Rivals, very stiff sidewall but it does seem like they are quite flexible where the sidewall meets the tread if that makes sense. We've seen already that these tires seem to reward a slightly stretched mounting on a 10" rim so that makes sense. They balanced well with less than 1oz. For 3 tires and one flyer at 3 oz. In hindsight I should have broke that one down and rotated it on the rim. Street driving shows an audible tread whine, and a rough ride due to the stiff sidewalls..... No surprise here. What is odd is the off center steering feel is soft, with the stiff sidewall I would have expected the opposite. Tread squirm? Soft connection of the sidewall to the tread? Or simply the fact I mounted these on 9" wheels? Can't really comment on grip other than I can say braking is improved and they felt predictable in the turns. Steering feel was good once they took a set. unmounted https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...447d1151ca.jpg mounted https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...191e501fad.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...177fefe96a.jpg |
Originally Posted by Bronson M
(Post 1402953)
Tread squirm? Or simply the fact I mounted these on 9" wheels?
I still don't understand why people insist on mounting anything wider than a 225 on a 9' rim...other than for appearance. Higher cost and no better performance (exception = Hoosier). |
Originally Posted by AndyHollis
(Post 1403052)
These two ^^
I still don't understand why people insist on mounting anything wider than a 225 on a 9' rim...other than for appearance. Higher cost and no better performance (exception = Hoosier). |
I can think of about 900 reasons why I mounted these on 9" wheels. If I can get the same performance as the 225 rival and double the wear resistance this was a win win for me.
Comparing worn out rivals to new RS4 I can say that I can now hook up first gear at 10psi of boost where it was a smoke show before. |
lol. We mounted 225s on 8s for years because that was the optimal combo at the time. Before that it was 205s on 7s. Nobody made comments like "I don't know why anyone puts anything wider than a 205 on an 8". Is it optimal today? No, but suggesting that it's useless is pretty stupid IMO.
|
And then there are those SM guys shoving a 205 Hoosier on a 15x7. Lol.
|
^Because class rules.
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 1403136)
l No, but suggesting that it's useless is pretty stupid IMO.
I did not say "useless". The former at worst implies ignorance, not stupidity. |
Originally Posted by aidandj
(Post 1403143)
^Because class rules.
|
Originally Posted by AndyHollis
(Post 1403148)
I said "I don't understand"
I did not say "useless". The former at worst implies ignorance, not stupidity. |
The "performance" stipulation is conditional. The 1:1 rule for max performance for a radial always works. The variable is if "performance" does not involve steering response, linearity, wear or peak lateral grip but is focused on straight line acceleration grip (drag racing). As this forum is populated by more drivers that like to go around turns fast than drag racers, the miscommunication due to conflicting nomenclature persists.
Rule #1 If you want to make a given tire go around turns faster, mount it on a wheel at least as wide as the the tread. If keeping the fenders unmodified is more important than getting the most lateral grip potential from your tire, then mounting it on a wheel narrower than the tread is also OK. Broken down, I see it this way. And this applies to any width tire on any car.. Max lateral (turning) and longitudinal (braking/accelerating) grip for a given tire size with modified fenders: Mount tire on a wheel that is just wider than the tread, even if it means adding flares Max longitudinal grip, giving up peak lateral performance for that tire while keeping stock fenders or, cheaping out by not buying new wheels: Mount the widest tire that fits your fenders even if it is on a wheel narrower than the tread Max lateral and longitudinal grip while maintaining stock fenders: Mount the widest tire that fits while mounted on a wheel that is wider than the tread What is important to note that mounting a 245/40/15 on a 15x9, 225/45 on a 15x8, or 205/50 on a 15x7 does not allow each tire to perform at its best, it will still sometimes provide greater lateral grip than the 225 on 15x9, 205 on 15x8, 195 on 15x7 but steer less precisely, be harder to drive at the limit and wear less evenly. So for the driver on a budget, mounting tires on wheels that are less that optimum width is a budget friendly half-way point. No need to hate on it but at the same time, those budget focused drivers need to realize its a budgetary decision, not a the optimum performance solution. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands