Motor - 2008 tyre test

[d-mag]

They're very subjective these sorts of 'tests'.

They are? its all about figures, seconds, g forces, brake distances. Nothing subjective about those parts of the tests at all.

Your gagging aren't you mate? Couple of points then;

1. There's a Human behind the wheel who can (and will) makes mistakes.
2. Repetitively braking hard in a stock car all day doesn't change the braking performance at all, does it?
3. The ambient temprature rises and falls.

Motor do try to cover as many variables as possible, but not all.

[buttwrx]

now what i found was interesting was the fedral rsr's. i was thinking that these would be a goer since they are cheaper then the adrenalin, piss all over the road tyers yet still seem to do ok in the wet. the only downfall i suppose is unknow/shorter tread life.

[rjastra2]

They're very subjective these sorts of 'tests'.

They are? its all about figures, seconds, g forces, brake distances. Nothing subjective about those parts of the tests at all.

Your gagging aren't you mate? Couple of points then;

1. There's a Human behind the wheel who can (and will) makes mistakes.
2. Repetitively braking hard in a stock car all day doesn't change the braking performance at all, does it?
3. The ambient temprature rises and falls.

Motor do try to cover as many variables as possible, but not all.

And you are being pedantic (i thought that was my flaw!! )

For example:

And repeatability was the the key, as we had to eliminate brake degradation if we were to ensure the fairness of the test. However, cool-down runs and susequent retries left us satisfied with the Brembo's stamina

we set up a circle on Oran Park's skidpan that was 40m in diameter to measure exactly how much lateral load each tyre could bear before it loast grip.... Luffy gradually built up speed while holding the steering wheel at the same lock for every tyre.

[d-mag]

Your right, you've totally changed my mind. Thanks.

[rjastra2]

Your right, you've totally changed my mind. Thanks.

I suggest you go look up the term "subjective" and then determine whether it has anything to do with scientific repeatibility and method.
Personally, I can't see how recording a braking distance for a tyre of 39.6M is anything other than totally objective. You may have a point with the slalom, track times as the tyre choice may affect a car's balance (as was explained in the article text). But then again tyres are much more than the raw figures. This was finally born out in the final track challenge. The Adrenalins, which at that stage led the pack, fell down surprisingly when actually tested on a lap of the track. Whether that meant the tyres ruined the balance of the car or they went off due to heat is up for debate.

What I do know is that Wheels/Motor have done this type of test for a number of years and in early reports they did go into a bit of detail on how the tests were done. The did explain how they reduce any driver induced error.

[d-mag]

Jesus man, your like a dog with a bone.
I'm entitled to an opinion. Just like you are. I happen to think there is too much margin for error, you seem to think it's an exact science.

Feel free to keep trying to convince me though.

[prince of liteness]

Ok 39.6 m is a number belonging to reality as observed and measured rather than an opnion independent of mind thus by definition it is not subjective.

Can motor magazine get that number EVERY single time they do that test? If the driver applied the breaks just 1/10th of a seccond earlier or later (human reflexes) at high speed it might make a differnece like 39.4 m or 39.8 m. Sure its not a large difference, but its enough of a differnce to become 1st or 3rd tire in that particular test. So yes I can measure the distance to the last angstrom with anal accuracy, it will be a real number not my imagniation, however I still have a lot of other variables to consider.

If a split seccond makes the difference between 1st and 2nd best tire; I want to see anal methods like bleeding the brakes before each test, rotors cooled to ambient temp before each test (pads can bite better when hot but if too hot they fade), full tank of fuel before each test etc (40 L tank = ~40 kg weight savings at the end of the day, less weight = stop better).

The easy way to minimize human error and account for variables is to run the test several times and average the results and give figures with + standard error but this wasnt done. Now it becomes difficult to have confidnece in the results its the methods and how they arrived that those numbers that has become open to opnion and questionable.

Looking at some of the results, motor magazine should have gotten some pedantic individual with an anal fettish to carry out the tests rather than give the stop watch to some kid with an epileptic fit.

[Alex]

I might just consider the Maxxis next time, considering they are nearly $400 cheaper than the Adrenalins for a set.

I'm guessing that's not for 15's if it is then for $15 a corner it's value for money

Huh???

well my adrenalins cost me 115 per corner, so all up 460, so $400 less cheaper for a set would put the Maxxis at $15 a corner

[bensale]

Of course the test is not 100% accurate, nor could it ever be. But its a lot better guide than simply buying tyres blind based on anecdotal evidence. I think this test confirmed most peoples opinions that the RE001 is a bloody good tyre. Clearly the Maxxis cant be too bad a tyre if it came second, but clearly they aren't as good as the re001. Also you cant really use the data 100% as I'm sure the results would differ a bit if you substituted the fwd clio for a rwd mx5.

The braking test would be the easiest to get consistant results out of with the excepion of accounting for brake fade. Say you are testing 100-0. They would just accelerate to 120, slam on the brakes and have the fancy GPS things they use measure the distance the car took to stop once it slowed to 100. I'm pretty sure with these tests they use the OEM tyre as a benchmark and when doing the tests put it on twice to see if the results vary, usually they don't by too much thus trying to account for equipment and driver issues.

And damm, why is 15' rubber so much cheaper than 16'.....

[CJ5]

And damm, why is 15' rubber so much cheaper than 16'.....

yea their like twice the bloody price

[bensale]

I know, surely it cant be that much more expensive to make... If I buy a set of re001's its around $350 more a set If I didn't like the look of the 16's so much I would have a set of 15' by now...

[Hammer]

I might just consider the Maxxis next time, considering they are nearly $400 cheaper than the Adrenalins for a set.

I'm guessing that's not for 15's if it is then for $15 a corner it's value for money

Huh???

well my adrenalins cost me 115 per corner, so all up 460, so $400 less cheaper for a set would put the Maxxis at $15 a corner

You're obviously not referring to the same size as quoted. Either that or you're getting a super-super deal which is more than 50% off as quoted from the mag. If so, I want to know where you're getting them as I want some.

[CJ5]

You're obviously not referring to the same size as quoted. Either that or you're getting a super-super deal which is more than 50% off as quoted from the mag. If so, I want to know where you're getting them as I want some.

Clearly.

It was a joke

[rjastra2]

The easy way to minimize human error and account for variables is to run the test several times and average the results and give figures with + standard error but this wasnt done. Now it becomes difficult to have confidnece in the results its the methods and how they arrived that those numbers that has become open to opnion and questionable.

as stated before.

And repeatability was the the key, as we had to eliminate brake degradation if we were to ensure the fairness of the test. However, cool-down runs and susequent retries left us satisfied with the Brembo's stamina

What I find interesting here is though the Adrenalin did extremely well in most objective tests (braking, g-force etc) the one that actually was open to the driver's likes/dislikes and car balance (lap times) it came quite low on the list.

[Alex]

I was refering to the stock NB8A size of 195/50/15, which is what I'm using, hence the "I'm guessing that's not for 15's"