Cheap v expensive tyres
Discussion
Davey S2 said:
In my experience they offer 100% of the performance for 80% of the cost.
I'd wager the main reason they are cheaper [if they are] is because of where they are made i.e. in Hungary. Had they been badged as 'Audi' EU-made tyres then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I suppose the badge snobs who buy an Audi in the first place need a bit of time to adjust to these facts ..kambites said:
Surely "cut slick" refers to the manufacturing process not the compound? I always assumed it was a tyre which was moulded as a slick then had grooves cut into the surface, as opposed to being moulded as a treaded tyre in the first place.
I'm not sure that even wet-weather racing tyres are actually produced like that though?
Yes, indeed. When I ordered the 32s, they were designated as cut-clicks....and at the time at least, 32 was the number of cuts, which was the minimum to be road legal IIRC.I'm not sure that even wet-weather racing tyres are actually produced like that though?
Edited by kambites on Thursday 14th December 14:33
r11co said:
Except that it doesn't.
Repeating an incorrect statement doesn't eventually make it correct. See the point above about traction when accelarating. Braking and cornering grip are both unaffected by four wheel drive, and your or anyone else's perception of it doesn't change that.
Apart from whenever the car accelerates?Repeating an incorrect statement doesn't eventually make it correct. See the point above about traction when accelarating. Braking and cornering grip are both unaffected by four wheel drive, and your or anyone else's perception of it doesn't change that.
It’s very unlikely that many drivers of any cars ever test a tyre’s grip levels whilst braking or cornering and I’m sure the Hankook is reasonably good in both respects. As such, Audi’s compromise will probably remain unnoticed and those who do find the limits will likely switch to something more performance orientated.
MrBarry123 said:
As such, Audi’s compromise will probably remain unnoticed and those who do find the limits will likely switch to something more performance orientated.
You are sticking to that line, aren't you!Nothing to back it up, and now you are saying that no-one would notice thus implying your assertion is impossible to verify. Pure speculative bulls
t with some plausible deniability for good measure.Repeat a lie often enough though.
You said earlier we could agree to disagree. There's is nothing to agree or disagree about as you are just brainfarting. Present some genuine evidence that a manufacturer is knowingly compromising one of their flagship models or accept the far more likely explanation that they aren't and you are just having extreme difficulty acknowledging that a brand you don't rate meets their standards.
Edited by r11co on Thursday 14th December 17:47
RobM77 said:
Sorry for being picky Ares, but if you're referring to a Yoko 32R, 48R etc, they are most definitely not 'cut slicks'. A 48R will last at least three or four thousand miles on the road and quite a few hundred miles, perhaps a thousand, on track. A slick on the other hand, even in a medium to hard compound, gives its best after about 30-40 miles and is completely trashed after 150-200 miles. Slicks are just so much softer than a trackday tyre like the 48R that the two aren't really comparable. You can't even interchange the two without radically altering suspension geometry and components such as wheel bearings. The difference is so extreme that I can't push my racing car onto my gravel driveway with slicks on, because the tyres get completely covered in stones (and I mean covered - you can't see rubber; they're like double sided sticky tape), whereas I drove my 2-Eleven with 48Rs and racing Metro with 32R softs on the drive all the time and never picked up anything.
My 32s tastes 750-1000 miles, and that was on a 380kg Caterham. They also needed heat in them to work properly (but then so do my current Corsas!)Despite what you say, even Yoko at the time m most definitely refer to the 32s as cut slicks.
I seem to remember the 32R (and possibly the 48R, never used it) are available in various compounds. We used to run what I believe was the softest compound of them on an MG Midget racing car and they'd last about half a season as long as they didn't get overheated too badly, which was probably about 4-500miles of total track driving.
You could destroy them in a few miles if you overheated them, they'd spit worryingly large lumps of rubber off into the wheel arches when they got hot.
ETA: That was a heavy car thoguh, I can't remember if it was 600 or 650kg, but one or the other.
You could destroy them in a few miles if you overheated them, they'd spit worryingly large lumps of rubber off into the wheel arches when they got hot.
ETA: That was a heavy car thoguh, I can't remember if it was 600 or 650kg, but one or the other.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 14th December 17:54
r11co said:
You are sticking to that line, aren't you!
Nothing to back it up, and now you are saying that no-one would notice thus implying your assertion is impossible to verify. Pure speculative bullst with some plausible deniability for good measure.
Repeat a lie often enough though.
You said earlier we could agree to disagree. There's is nothing to agree or disagree about as you are just brainfarting. Present some genuine evidence that a manufacturer is knowingly compromising one of their flagship models or accept the far more likely explanation that they aren't and you are just having extreme difficulty acknowledging that a brand you don't rate meets their standards.
Audi’s compromise is not fitting the best tyre option available which both you and I know is true as Hankook tyres aren’t recognised as the best tyres for high-performance cars. I’m sure they might meet Audi’s standards as they’re good tyres but they’re a compromise compared with the other options available.Nothing to back it up, and now you are saying that no-one would notice thus implying your assertion is impossible to verify. Pure speculative bulls
t with some plausible deniability for good measure.Repeat a lie often enough though.
You said earlier we could agree to disagree. There's is nothing to agree or disagree about as you are just brainfarting. Present some genuine evidence that a manufacturer is knowingly compromising one of their flagship models or accept the far more likely explanation that they aren't and you are just having extreme difficulty acknowledging that a brand you don't rate meets their standards.
Edited by r11co on Thursday 14th December 17:47
Anyway, it’s disappointing that you’ve now resorted to swearing and childish posts such as the above. But then this is PH where you can rarely have a disagreement and discuss the merits of either view without it becoming childish.
It’s also revealing how you aren’t responding to my full posts and instead only picking fault with select parts of them.
That’s it from me though on this topic.
MrBarry123 said:
I’m not saying you’re going to fall off the road in your Hankook equipped Audi!
Specifying Hankook tyres on their cooking models, all of which are Quattro, allows them to safe cash without losing performance from areas where buyers would notice (because Quattro).
And just look at the tests. BMW and Mercedes are fitting their top-end cars with sets of Michelin Pilot Super Sport or 4 S tyres. In every test I’ve seen, these perform better than any Hankook tyre. Audi aren’t doing so because they’ve got a nice little deal with Hankook (fair enough) and because their Quattro setup mitigates some of the disadvantage.
Exactly !Specifying Hankook tyres on their cooking models, all of which are Quattro, allows them to safe cash without losing performance from areas where buyers would notice (because Quattro).
And just look at the tests. BMW and Mercedes are fitting their top-end cars with sets of Michelin Pilot Super Sport or 4 S tyres. In every test I’ve seen, these perform better than any Hankook tyre. Audi aren’t doing so because they’ve got a nice little deal with Hankook (fair enough) and because their Quattro setup mitigates some of the disadvantage.
Edited by MrBarry123 on Thursday 14th December 16:50
It looks like, from google searches, that Audi fit the Hankook Ventus in some flavour.
From a further search, it looks like it's a good tyre that scored well in 2016 and 2017 Auto Express tests I found. Ok, that's one test, and it seems that there were 4-5 other tyres that scored higher still, but it certainly didn't come across as being at all poor.
From a further search, it looks like it's a good tyre that scored well in 2016 and 2017 Auto Express tests I found. Ok, that's one test, and it seems that there were 4-5 other tyres that scored higher still, but it certainly didn't come across as being at all poor.
kambites said:
I think part of the problem is that people are so obsessed with the badge which isn't enough, on its own, to tell you a great deal about the tyre. For example the Nankang NS-2R is a very good tyre and the Pirelli P6000 is woeful.
Nankang is actually the budget brand of Yokohama. So pretty decent really.As I said earlier, I've just fitted a set of Nankang Winter Activa and they are really very good. I've been throwing it into cold, wet roundabouts trying to see if I can get it to slip and so far it has stuck like a limpet, even on the coldest mornings.
As for other good budget tyres, most people would run a mile from 'Federal' tyres, but their 595-RSR tyre is extremely well regarded as a road legal super-sticky track tyre.
I had a set on my track Clio 182 and they were as good as Toyo R888 etc. Extremely surprising.
MrBarry123 said:
I’m not sure you can read too much into Audi fitting Hankook tyres to their cars as the cars people keep referring to are Quattro models. This means whatever tyre is fitted to these cars immediately has an advantage in comparison with being fitted to FWD or RWD cars.
A clever idea from Hankook - and I’m sure Audi benefit handsomely - as it allows them to appear as premium as Michelin, Pirelli etc. and be associated with a similar level of performance.
The run of the mill FWD A4's come on Hankook.A clever idea from Hankook - and I’m sure Audi benefit handsomely - as it allows them to appear as premium as Michelin, Pirelli etc. and be associated with a similar level of performance.
Ares said:
RobM77 said:
Sorry for being picky Ares, but if you're referring to a Yoko 32R, 48R etc, they are most definitely not 'cut slicks'. A 48R will last at least three or four thousand miles on the road and quite a few hundred miles, perhaps a thousand, on track. A slick on the other hand, even in a medium to hard compound, gives its best after about 30-40 miles and is completely trashed after 150-200 miles. Slicks are just so much softer than a trackday tyre like the 48R that the two aren't really comparable. You can't even interchange the two without radically altering suspension geometry and components such as wheel bearings. The difference is so extreme that I can't push my racing car onto my gravel driveway with slicks on, because the tyres get completely covered in stones (and I mean covered - you can't see rubber; they're like double sided sticky tape), whereas I drove my 2-Eleven with 48Rs and racing Metro with 32R softs on the drive all the time and never picked up anything.
My 32s tastes 750-1000 miles, and that was on a 380kg Caterham. They also needed heat in them to work properly (but then so do my current Corsas!)Despite what you say, even Yoko at the time m most definitely refer to the 32s as cut slicks.
Heat will improve a 32R, but the difference in grip is nothing like a cold vs warm slick.
RobM77 said:
Ares said:
RobM77 said:
Sorry for being picky Ares, but if you're referring to a Yoko 32R, 48R etc, they are most definitely not 'cut slicks'. A 48R will last at least three or four thousand miles on the road and quite a few hundred miles, perhaps a thousand, on track. A slick on the other hand, even in a medium to hard compound, gives its best after about 30-40 miles and is completely trashed after 150-200 miles. Slicks are just so much softer than a trackday tyre like the 48R that the two aren't really comparable. You can't even interchange the two without radically altering suspension geometry and components such as wheel bearings. The difference is so extreme that I can't push my racing car onto my gravel driveway with slicks on, because the tyres get completely covered in stones (and I mean covered - you can't see rubber; they're like double sided sticky tape), whereas I drove my 2-Eleven with 48Rs and racing Metro with 32R softs on the drive all the time and never picked up anything.
My 32s tastes 750-1000 miles, and that was on a 380kg Caterham. They also needed heat in them to work properly (but then so do my current Corsas!)Despite what you say, even Yoko at the time m most definitely refer to the 32s as cut slicks.
Heat will improve a 32R, but the difference in grip is nothing like a cold vs warm slick.
MrBarry123 said:
Audi’s compromise is not fitting the best tyre option available which both you and I know is true as Hankook tyres aren’t recognised as the best tyres for high-performance cars. I’m sure they might meet Audi’s standards as they’re good tyres but they’re a compromise compared with the other options available.
These are weasel words, and your argument is full of so many logical fallacies it is literally unbelievable.You are starting from a premise that something is inferior because everyone should already know it is, then using an unfounded, unverifiable and technically incorrect claim that a manufacturer has a means to cover up that alleged inferiority as evidence that it must be true. Four wheel drive does not improve cornering and braking grip (as you have been told by several people already) and the traction improvement on power delivery would not cover up allegedly inferior tyres - it would instead amplify any difference.
When you can offer some proof of your assertions (and saying them again with the sarcastic tone that it must be true isn't proof) then we will take you seriously.
In the meantime, by maintaining your stance you are proving the point in my first post that some people will steadfastly refuse to accept that a product they are suspicious of (because it challenges the orthodoxy of their understanding of brands) is capable of improving to the point of being equal to or better than what they know, and we will go round in circles every time the discussion arises with a core group of people quoting untruths based on past prejudices refusing to accept that things change.
Your concocted conspiracy theory (ie. that Audi are using the Quattro system to cover up the fact that they are cheaping-out on tyres) is as laughable as it is ludicrous.
Edited by r11co on Friday 15th December 10:06
otolith said:
RobM77 said:
Ares said:
RobM77 said:
Sorry for being picky Ares, but if you're referring to a Yoko 32R, 48R etc, they are most definitely not 'cut slicks'. A 48R will last at least three or four thousand miles on the road and quite a few hundred miles, perhaps a thousand, on track. A slick on the other hand, even in a medium to hard compound, gives its best after about 30-40 miles and is completely trashed after 150-200 miles. Slicks are just so much softer than a trackday tyre like the 48R that the two aren't really comparable. You can't even interchange the two without radically altering suspension geometry and components such as wheel bearings. The difference is so extreme that I can't push my racing car onto my gravel driveway with slicks on, because the tyres get completely covered in stones (and I mean covered - you can't see rubber; they're like double sided sticky tape), whereas I drove my 2-Eleven with 48Rs and racing Metro with 32R softs on the drive all the time and never picked up anything.
My 32s tastes 750-1000 miles, and that was on a 380kg Caterham. They also needed heat in them to work properly (but then so do my current Corsas!)Despite what you say, even Yoko at the time m most definitely refer to the 32s as cut slicks.
Heat will improve a 32R, but the difference in grip is nothing like a cold vs warm slick.
Gassing Station | Suspension, Brakes & Tyres | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff