Page 1 of 4

Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:46 am
by Nuddy
I bought Dan's NC and it came with 17x8 wheels with 215/50R17 Hankooks.
I have done 1 day at SMSP North and 3 days at Wakefield. I have another day at Wakefield very soon, closely followed by a day at SMSP South.
The tyres are getting pretty worn and will need replacing soon.
I don't know whether to stick with Hankook or go to Yokohama. Also the best place to buy each in Newcastle or Sydney North to Newcastld.

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:05 am
by Okibi
Driving for fun so you need something bang for buck?

Or driving in competition so you need the best R-spec?

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:20 am
by Nuddy
Okibi wrote:Driving for fun so you need something bang for buck?

Or driving in competition so you need the best R-spec?


I'm driving for fun and heading for fun company etition in MX-5 cup.
Ok so let's throw slicks into the cost benefit (fun) equation.
I have the stock rims with Michelin Pilot Sport. I drove to the track and did a day on them last week.
Now i know the difference between those and the Hankooks. I need to know if the Yokohamas are faster and at what $cost.
And now wondering about the slicks.
Dan, over 5 years has built a great track car. There is no scope for improvement other than tyres and expensive internal engine mods.
I am investing in track time but the tyres will need replacing soon. Cheapest thing is to just use the Michelins. I won't do that.
Most expensive would be slicks.
So at this stage the question remains, are the Yokohamas faster (lap times) than the Hankooks and how much more do they cost?

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:21 am
by Nuddy
I have prices for Hankook R-spec and Hankook slicks. $1344 vs $1680 for 4.

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:35 am
by forcedfive
Hi Nuddy

Kumho are having a one day sale next week Wednesday in Sydney (copy and paste the link below). I have not used V70A but lots of people rate them highly. These are $295 a tyre next week. Not sure if the 255's would be too big but if you are running 215 50's the 225/45's would likely be a good option to consider.

V70A 225/45Z R17 K60 M $295
V70A 255/40Z R17 K60 M $295

Slick
V710 245/40Z R17 K60 M $299

http://www.kumho.com.au/promotions/even ... sport-Sale

The equivalent A050 would likely be $500 + and in Sydney these are through Gorgon Leven. Dan rated the Hankooks very highly on that car.

Good Luck

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:36 am
by forcedfive
Do you have a trailer Nuddy?

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:59 am
by Danny
If those ultimate 10ths aren't worth the extra $$$ what would you think of Federal RS series?

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:28 pm
by Luke
I really see only 2 options if you are not worried about ultimate lap times and want to have fun whilst saving some coin.

Hankook RS-3. I know they are not a proper R-Spec, but we are getting low 1'12's and hi 11's on them at Wakefield Park in standard NC's and ND's for less than $600 using 215/45/17.
Plus they have tread so work reasonably well in the wet and as a bonus take a lot longer to wear out than R-specs.

Nitto NT01 if you do want to stay with a full R-Spec.
Cheapest treaded R-Spec by a mile. No exclusive motorsport dealers to deal with either.
99% of the performance for 50% of the price. At least for me it has been.
You just can't use them in NSW Supersprints in Type 1 or 2 as they consider them a "race" tyre even though they have all the road marking codes under the sun on the sidewall.


The deal on the Kumho's are good if the size you want is available.
Many have had success with them and praise them in K60 Medium compound.
I got some in a sale that were 50% off $175 a tyre for K90 Hard 225/45/16 a few years back. However they were almost 3 years old.
That was a cheap mistake.
Mine started going out of round after 2 track days. No flat spots, I mean the tyre was going lumpy.
I contacted F-Sport after the 3rd of 4th round about it and basically got given the response of race products are not warranted for racing.
I persisted for a 5th round but the vibrations became unbearable. The tread pattern was patchy due to the lumps.
When they were removed from the rim little rubber balls were inside the tyres suggesting the bead was moving around on the rim or more likely the structure was collapsing due to the vibrations.
Also they are the worst tyre I have ever been on in the rain which was my 2nd round on them. I'm sure others would echo this.
So what I'm getting at is, check the age of the tyres at this warehouse sale. They may be flogging off old stock.

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:25 am
by Nuddy
forcedfive wrote:Hi Nuddy

Kumho are having a one day sale next week Wednesday in Sydney (copy and paste the link below). I have not used V70A but lots of people rate them highly. These are $295 a tyre next week. Not sure if the 255's would be too big but if you are running 215 50's the 225/45's would likely be a good option to consider.

V70A 225/45Z R17 K60 M $295
V70A 255/40Z R17 K60 M $295

Slick
V710 245/40Z R17 K60 M $299

http://www.kumho.com.au/promotions/even ... sport-Sale

The equivalent A050 would likely be $500 + and in Sydney these are through Gorgon Leven. Dan rated the Hankooks very highly on that car.

Good Luck



Those Kumho V70As look a lot more like a road tyre than the Hankooks and the Yokohamas.
They have 205/40ZR17 K60 M for $250 each. They would be ideal for my 7"rims but too small for my 8"rims. Maybe replace the Michelins.
I have a track day tomorrow at Wakefield which will finish off the current Hankooks I think. Then I have a Supersprint on Sunday where I would need new R-specs on the 8" rims or I could run the Michelin Pilot Sport 3s on the 7" rims. Do I want to do that at SMSP North?

If I do that I could get the 205s fitted to the 7" rims next Wednesday and maybe even get slicks fitted to the 8"rims.

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:33 am
by Nuddy
forcedfive wrote:Do you have a trailer Nuddy?

Lots of trailer options.
I have a boat trailer that i could modify to take the car but it is 30'long and would look silly.
I have a motorcycle trailer and could get a towbar for the NC.
I am hiring a trailer for this afternoon's run to Goulburn.
I borrowed a tilta trailer last month and may borrow or buy that one in the future.
I will probably drive to Eastern Creek on the Michelins.

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:44 am
by Nuddy
Luke wrote:I really see only 2 options if you are not worried about ultimate lap times and want to have fun whilst saving some coin.

Hankook RS-3. I know they are not a proper R-Spec, but we are getting low 1'12's and hi 11's on them at Wakefield Park in standard NC's and ND's for less than $600 using 215/45/17.
Plus they have tread so work reasonably well in the wet and as a bonus take a lot longer to wear out than R-specs.

Nitto NT01 if you do want to stay with a full R-Spec.
Cheapest treaded R-Spec by a mile. No exclusive motorsport dealers to deal with either.
99% of the performance for 50% of the price. At least for me it has been.
You just can't use them in NSW Supersprints in Type 1 or 2 as they consider them a "race" tyre even though they have all the road marking codes under the sun on the sidewall.


The deal on the Kumho's are good if the size you want is available.
Many have had success with them and praise them in K60 Medium compound.
I got some in a sale that were 50% off $175 a tyre for K90 Hard 225/45/16 a few years back. However they were almost 3 years old.
That was a cheap mistake.
Mine started going out of round after 2 track days. No flat spots, I mean the tyre was going lumpy.
I contacted F-Sport after the 3rd of 4th round about it and basically got given the response of race products are not warranted for racing.
I persisted for a 5th round but the vibrations became unbearable. The tread pattern was patchy due to the lumps.
When they were removed from the rim little rubber balls were inside the tyres suggesting the bead was moving around on the rim or more likely the structure was collapsing due to the vibrations.
Also they are the worst tyre I have ever been on in the rain which was my 2nd round on them. I'm sure others would echo this.
So what I'm getting at is, check the age of the tyres at this warehouse sale. They may be flogging off old stock.

$600 for 4 tyres?? Is that a typo?

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:45 am
by Nuddy
Nuddy wrote:I have prices for Hankook R-spec and Hankook slicks. $1344 vs $1680 for 4.

That's fitted. I wonder what the fitting cost is for the Kumhos.
Edit: $10/tyre discounted from $15

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:47 am
by Nuddy
Danny wrote:If those ultimate 10ths aren't worth the extra $$$ what would you think of Federal RS series?

How much are they?

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:32 am
by Danny

Re: Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:44 am
by hmd
Slicks are a different kettle of fish, you would need to change your whole geometry to get the slicks to work.

If money is not an issue why not try the Yokohama A050 and see how's that compared. I have never had Hankok but the A050 are very good R-spec tyres, very grippy but also very consistent throughout it's whole life (stay grippy until bald).