Hankok vs Yokohama R-spec

[forcedfive]

Good work Noddy. Entry should have been $260. You cam always get A AASA vehicle passport. You will need a kill switch fitted. AASA lower requirements than CAMS if it helps dríven time is short.

[Nuddy]

Entry Fee: $260.00
Race Reciever: $150.00
Dorian Hire: $30.00

Total Due: $446.60

+ $60 series entry

Next round will be cheaper.

Maybe I should buy a Dorian

[Luke]

AD08r? They're very close to NT01 performance.

No they are not. They are an overhyped, over priced and over marketed street tyre.
Never tried AD08R's personally .......

Luke, that's a bit harsh, and undeserved, especially given you've never actually dríven on them

Yes, they are not an R spec so can't be directly compared to one, but they are Near the top of the S spec tree

I have used both NT01s and AD08s back to back on same day and there was about 1.5 secs diff between the two tyres, which is comparable to other S specs.

And my AD08s and NT01s were same price ($170ea) both in 205/50/15

You have have come up with much the same result as me except I extrapolated that based on other data without even using them.
1.5s is a lot for the same money is it not?
The same result as I was suggesting with my 1s at Wakefield and 2s at SMSP.
So slower for the same $ as the NT01.

The issue with AD08R's is when you step up in size the price goes up a fair bit.
I remember quoting them twice before for 215/45/17 and they were over $200 a tyre whilst Kumho and Hankooks S-Specs could be found for $150 fitted.
Nuddy's NC will be running 17's so this becomes a relevant factor. Hankook and Kumho are cheap in 17's. They are much the same price as their 15's and 16's.

As far as I'm concerned I'm not being harsh about the AD08R's as I have seen the net result of the more consistent guys here. They achieve no better on them over Kumho's or Hankooks which can be had for 2/3 to 3/4 of the price in his required 17 inch size. Hence why I have not tried them as I have seen enough evidence with my own eyes that I do not need to.

So AD08 and NT01 are same price but NT01 is 1.5 seconds/lap faster so why would one buy the AD08? Better road tyre? Longer tyre life?
I might end up with AD08 as road tyres when the Michelins need replacing but for track days, supersprints and racing I will use R-spec
I'm inclined to stick with the Hankooks that seem to be equal or very close to equal in performance to the Yokohamas at significantly less cost.
I didn't wear the Hankooks out on Thursday as I didn't get on the track (immobiliser trouble) so It's not as urgent.
On Dan's advice I will go to 225 or 235 on the 8" rims - probably Hankooks at this stage.

Nuddy.
The AD08R's are of course heaps better everyday road tyres than NT01's and will last a lot longer.
Also not every category allows you to use NT01's or any R-Spec for that matter. Some require "Road" tyres. This generally means no less than 180 to 200 Treadwear marked on the sidewall. Hence the wide variety of S-Spec tyres available.
NT01's are proper R-Specs so they do not really have very friendly road manners. Like all R-specs they are noisy, have stiff sidewalls and have limited wet weather capabilities.

If you also want a tyre for road only and have no intention of using them on track, I would also steer clear of all S-Specs as they are also noisier and stiffer than good dedicated road tyres.
Maybe look at Michelin PS4's or Bridgestone Potenza RE003 as you can quite often get good deals on them and they are both brilliant road tyres wet or dry. I've dríven on both and they are both great tyres. The RE003's work surprisingly well on track as well.

As for the R-Spec choice, I have never used Hankook TD's, but would love to if they made them in a useful size for my NB. I can't use them on the NC since I am bounded by the Road Tyre ruling for club track days.
Hankook TD's used to be the alternative choice for World Time Attack before it got rebranded into an exclusive Yokohama only event.
It is very easy for Yokohama to market A050's and AD08R's as the fastest tyres around SMSP since they only let the competitors use Yokohama tyres.

I now have A050's and have used them once so far. I am not that impressed with them so far as they were double the price of the NT01's.
I was 0.1s slower at Wakefield in very similar conditions where most people did PB's.
I'm thinking the increased rolling diameter has a lot do with it from what I can see in GPS data. Unfortunately they do not make the size I want.
Nitto NT01's in 225/45/15. 583mm rolling diameter. Width of tyre tread is 217mm confirmed using tape measure.
Yokohama A050's in 215/50/15. 595mm rolling diameter. Width of tyre tread is 230mm confirmed using tape measure.
Yokohama A050 15's are a lot wider in width than they should be.
In hindsight I may have been better off with the 205/50/15 A050's as they are the same width at 217mm and slightly taller at 587mm rolling diameter compared to the 225/45/15 NT01's.

[rascal]

So slower for the same $ as the NT01.

Hence why I made the point that one is a R spec and one isn't so not a fair comparison..

The issue with AD08R's is when you step up in size the price goes up a fair bit.

Fair enough, I haven't looked at 17s before, as only run little 15s...

I now have A050's and have used them once so far. I am not that impressed with them so far as they were double the price of the NT01's.
I was 0.1s slower at Wakefield in very similar conditions where most people did PB's.
I'm thinking the increased rolling diameter has a lot do with it from what I can see in GPS data. Unfortunately they do not make the size I want.
Nitto NT01's in 225/45/15. 583mm rolling diameter. Width of tyre tread is 217mm confirmed using tape measure.
Yokohama A050's in 215/50/15. 595mm rolling diameter. Width of tyre tread is 230mm confirmed using tape measure.
Yokohama A050 15's are a lot wider in width than they should be.
In hindsight I may have been better off with the 205/50/15 A050's as they are the same width at 217mm and slightly taller at 587mm rolling diameter compared to the 225/45/15 NT01's.

Unless you got unlucky with a dud set, its surprising that you didn't see good gains with the A050s.
I switched to A050s after 4 sets of NT01s and saw between 1-2 secs gains at all tracks. Grip levels and mid corner speeds have gone through the roof. I did go from 205/50 NT01s to 215/50 A050s (still on 8s) which may explain some of the gain, but its still night and day difference..

[StillIC]

I'm thinking the increased rolling diameter has a lot do with it from what I can see in GPS data.

I think this is why I am slower everywhere on 205/50 compared to 195/50 a050s (and the fact it takes longer to heat up the 205s). And why I am about to go to 185/55 14 A050, if I can find one more good hollow spoke wheel.

[Luke]

Unless you got unlucky with a dud set, its surprising that you didn't see good gains with the A050s.
I switched to A050s after 4 sets of NT01s and saw between 1-2 secs gains at all tracks. Grip levels and mid corner speeds have gone through the roof. I did go from 205/50 NT01s to 215/50 A050s (still on 8s) which may explain some of the gain, but its still night and day difference..

I'm surprised as well as everyone raves about them and told me I would go at least 1s a lap faster.
Then again some others said they just give confidence. I was not lacking in that anyway. SMSP Turn 1 slides were normal to me.

Yesterday at SMSP North Circuit while the A050s did feel really grippy on track the ultimate lap time was not much faster than I have done on Hankook RS-3 225/45/15's! Highly disappointing. And trust me I was trying.
A050: 1'14.038 RS-3: 1'14.344
Interesting my straight line top speed actually was within 1km/h of previous data down the main straight and turn 1-2 straight as well due to slightly higher exit speed of the last corner and first corner. So there is more grip but that also = more resistance to acceleration.

There are 2 differences to the car between the 2 runs that are highly relevant.
Addition of BD Roll bar = more weight up high.
Changed the bushings at the beginning of this year to Energy Suspension Poly bushings. I have had Delrin offset ones in the upper fronts for years already so left those alone. The car feels much better and no more clunking from the front under brakes.
I only ever managed a rainy day with NT01's at the North Circuit so cannot compare times.

Looking back all my times were less than 1s faster at every track I ran NT01 and RS-3 in good dry conditions. SMSP GP, SMSP South and Wakefield Park
Note that all my NT01 times had the roll bar installed but had original bushings.

For comparison sake at Wakefield Park I have run these 3 tyres with the car in similar spec.
RS-3: 1'10.122(No Roll Bar) NT01: 1'09.218 A050: 1'09.255(New Bushings)

Next up will be the SMSP GP circuit so we will see what the difference is there.
I would hope the A050's will be quicker at SMSP South circuit after that as you need lots of grip there.

So to try and keep this on topic for Nuddy, would I recommend A050's for someone starting out not pushing the time boundaries?
A big NO from me.
To me it would be a waste of money as the tyres are so damned expensive.
I will be lucky to get 5 sprints out of them looking at the wear. So they wear quick as well.

I'm still sticking with RS-3 being awesome bang for buck tyre if you don't care about that final 1s of lap time.
Half the purchase price of an A050 and will last more than twice as long. So 4 times the cost benefit.
I'm seriously thinking of going back to them once these A050's wear out unless I can get a set of R-Specs for under 1K.

I still like the NT01 as a cheap R-Spec if your category allows it.
Again it is now confirmed as of this weekend by the Supersprint panel that NT01's are banned for road registered Supersprint class's as they are considered to be a "race" tyre.
They are not on the CAM's approved production car tyre list as well. Pretty much every R-Spec is. Maybe that's why they are cheap, no FIA corruption money involved so they ban em.

[guss]

I now have A050's and have used them once so far. I am not that impressed with them so far as they were double the price of the NT01's.
I was 0.1s slower at Wakefield in very similar conditions where most people did PB's.
I'm thinking the increased rolling diameter has a lot do with it from what I can see in GPS data. Unfortunately they do not make the size I want.
Nitto NT01's in 225/45/15. 583mm rolling diameter. Width of tyre tread is 217mm confirmed using tape measure.
Yokohama A050's in 215/50/15. 595mm rolling diameter. Width of tyre tread is 230mm confirmed using tape measure.
Yokohama A050 15's are a lot wider in width than they should be.
In hindsight I may have been better off with the 205/50/15 A050's as they are the same width at 217mm and slightly taller at 587mm rolling diameter compared to the 225/45/15 NT01's.

Unless you got unlucky with a dud set, its surprising that you didn't see good gains with the A050s.
I switched to A050s after 4 sets of NT01s and saw between 1-2 secs gains at all tracks. Grip levels and mid corner speeds have gone through the roof. I did go from 205/50 NT01s to 215/50 A050s (still on 8s) which may explain some of the gain, but its still night and day difference..

My results are very similar to Luke's results above.

Like you, I've been running 205/50r15 NT01s and 215/50r15 AO50s, but I do use both sets on the same track on the same day, which makes my findings even more accurate. I swap to Nittos after the first or second run, once I've set a lap fast enough to win my class, and run the Nittos for the rest of the day to save the expensive Yokohamas for the next event.

I've done the swap twice so far, both at Wakefield Park, and in both occasions my best lap on the NT01s was only 0.15-0.20s slower than on the AO50s (i.e. 1:10.94 vs 1:11.11 and 1:10.90 vs 1:11.10). That's a very small margin for twice the money.

Checking my Laptimer data (racelogic pbox), I'm 4km/h faster on the straight on NT01, due to the smaller diameter giving better acceleration out of turn 10, but I'm slightly slower every corner. Based on this data, I believe AO50s in size 205/50r15 will be faster than the 215/50r15, but not by much.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nuddy]

I do and will continue to use the car on the road - just for fun. I have the stock 17x7 wheels with 215 /45 R17 Michelin Pilot Sport 3s for road use.
I recorded a 1:15.11 at Wakefield on those so they will also serve as a backup for racing in the rain.
R-specs will be used to drive from home to Eastern Creek occasionally, not from home to Wakefield. I will either use a trailer or get someone to carry the R-specs to the track for me while I drive down on Michelins.
So after much agonising, research and discussion here i have gone with 235/40R17 Federal 595 RS-RR (new model), $165 each fitted from St George Tyres.
They are fitted to the 17x8 lightweight wheels that Dan was usingbwhich are 1kg lighter than the stock 17x7s and 2kg lighter than the Enkei 17x8s tha i have been using with the Hankook TD z221 215/45R17s
The 235/40 is very slightly smaller in diameter than the 215/45,which is good IMO and they may be lighter.
Dan got his best lap times on 235s, /4 i think, on the lightweight 17x8 rims.
So i will be using the Federals at South Circuit on Saturday - my first drive there, then again at Wakefield on 1st July for the CSCA Supersprint and on 2nd July for MX-5 Cup rnd 4 if everything works out.
I have done everything for my CAMS licence, just waiting for it to come in the mail. Car is with Deckspeed getting bonnet pins, isolator switches, catch tank and logbook inspection

[Luke]

Well you just got yourself a very popular modified NC tyre size.
Not every manufacturer does that size and if they do they are often far more pricier than the more common 235/45/17 so I would say you got a decent deal.
They probably won't have as much grip as the Hankook TD's but should last a lot longer.
You wouldn't even have to worry so much about driving on the road with them either.
Being 200 tread wear they should be classed as an S-Spec. Oddly they come with more of an R-Spec tread pattern.

I would be interested to see how they do compare with Hankook RS-3's. Same 200 Tread Wear. They come in a size that is modified NC friendly as well, 245/40/17 but you would probably want 9 inch rims for that size.

[Danny]

Aren't they a 140 tread rating?

[Luke]

No.
The old rs-r was 140.
New rs-rr is 200. According to specs anyway. Cwn you confirm Nuddy?
Luke

[trickytrev]

No.
The old rs-r was 140.
New rs-rr is 200. According to specs anyway. Cwn you confirm Nuddy?
Luke[/quote]

Yep you are right i updated mr Federals and old one's 140 new 240 tread ware and they reckon there better go figure. Have a set of 17x 45x215 140 tread ware if any one interested New done may be 1000k

[Nuddy]

I will check the treadwear number in the morning.
I wonder about the grip of the 235/40 RS-RR vs the 215/45 Hankook Z221. Both are on 8" rims.
There's still a little bit left on the Hankooks so I will see what lap times I get down to at Wakefield after using the Feds for a while, then switch back to the Hankooks and compare.

[Magpie]

Just ran a day with 205/50/15's (AD08R's and AR-1's) on 8" and 6.5" rims respectively.

One of the biggest changes I felt was the difference in unsprung weight. The 8" were 3kg each less than the 6.5" per wheel hence made every single input (steering, brake, throttle) feel very light, almost scary! Whereas the 6.5" rims felt secure and safe like bottle of green ginger wine (green steam) and a six pack of beer on a cold winters night.

Whilst the AR-1's on 6.5" were faster than the AD08R's on 8" rims, I feel that a fresh set of AD08R's on the 8" rims and a little bit of time getting familiar with the setup will see then faster than the AR-1's on 6.5".

Planning on repeating the tests but adding the 7" 6UL's into the mix. These are about the same weight as the 8" but have newer AD08R's on them.

[jezman]

Just for the record ............... checked my new RSRR's, treadware is 200.